Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Wikihounding report

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

---

I'm probably too involved, hence I won't take administrative action but will leave it to others to decide. The users Panamitsu and Alexeyevitch don't get on with one another, which is a shame as they both live in New Zealand and their Wiki interests are similar. In December 2023, I told Alexeyevitch off for following Panamitsu around. My observation is that the warning was heeded, and Alexeyevitch stopped following Panamitsu's contributions. That hasn't stopped the bickering between those two editors. I do have the impression that Panamitsu is following Alexeyevitch's contributions in turn. To put a stop to that, I asked both users to stay away from one another earlier this month. Panamitsu is not listening, and openly admits that he goes through Alexeyevitch's contributions. That's WP:WIKIHOUNDING.

Panamitsu is a productive editor, but this hounding has to stop and he's not listening to me. I invite other admins to weigh in. Schwede66 00:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

That is correct, I have been following his contributions in the past day. This is because I noticed that he was intentionally replacing New Zealand spellings with American ones, for example here, here, here and here. To undo any further damage, I had to look through his contributions to find any more spelling errors he had introduced. Because I was following the user's contributions for a reason, I personally did not consider that wikihounding, but I could be wrong.

I realise that in the past I had taken it a bit too far, such as my comment on Talk:Christchurch yesterday. I later realised that this was an inappropriate place to talk to the user and which is why I left a message on the user's talk page this morning instead. Because I had spent dozens of hours fixing spelling errors on New Zealand articles, and Australian ones, I became frustrated that my work was being undone. This, and offwiki events have made me increasingly frustrated recently and I have become agitated. This has been a problem with me in the past and I decided that I would take a wikibreak, but this has proved impossible for me and I am starting to believe my Wikipedia use is entering the territory of an addiction.

In the conversation that Schwede mentioned from December 2023, I showed that Alexeyevitch added the location of an image I took. It was of a nondescript petrol station in Paraparaumu, a smallish town in the country, and I had not written anywhere where it was located. Each time I would copyedit his contributions to Christchurch suburbs, I would notice that he would edit articles relating to the area, notably Paraparaumu College, presumably with the belief that I live there and a way to scare me off. At first I thought this was a coincidence, but I made several tests and he continued to do it. ―Panamitsu (talk) 01:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Schwede66 - I said last month that I do not want to get invovled in disucusions with this user and genreally not to engage with him - but I feel like this is important.

A copule weeks ago I mentioned to Mr. Roger that "we later shifted to Papanui", a few hours later Panamitsu editied the Papanui High School article (I don't think this is a coincidence). This is no longer true that I live in Papanui - a part of my family lives there.

Panamitsu gets too invloved in the pages I edit (this started since the start) - this is not making editing enjoyable and I think he needs to realize that the main goal is to build an online encyclopedia not NCEA teachers feedback or criticism.

I regereted my actions prior to December 2023 - In fact I didn't even know about hounding, I do now and I think he needs to realize that this is hapening to me now.

Ultimately, I think this user should relax about following me on the Christchurch-related pages and I would do likewise and avoid editing pages the he edits.

I think the best resolution to this conflict is to stop all contact between us immediately and entirely. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 02:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

That is not a correct interpretation of events regarding Papanui High School. Look on its edit history. 26 minutes before I made my edit, an IP had edited a paragraph and I then removed it. It was on my watchlist, added through AutoWikiBrowser, as proven by my edit on 14 April. ―Panamitsu (talk) 02:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Uhh so you're suggesting an interaction ban? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 02:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I just read Wikipedia:Banning policy#Interaction ban and I support putting one in place. Do other individuals also support this? Alexeyevitch^(talk) 02:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

The diffs bear out Panamitsu's explanation:

• April 14, 2024: Panamitsu edits the Papanui High School article, which presumably watchlists it.
• June 6, 2024: An IP edits the Papanui High School article.
• June 6, 2024: Panamitsu removes the paragraph the IP had been editing.

As this means Panamitsu has been watching Papanui High School since well before Alexeyevitch's comment to Mr. Roger, while the claimed alarm is something I can understand and would've felt were I in those shoes, I think it's reasonable to think what happened here was not actually untoward and was just coincidental.

What's harder to square as simply coincidence is Alexeyevitch's behavior regarding Paraparaumu topics, brought up by Panamitsu. Here's a timeline of a handful of events:

• September 18, 2023: Panamitsu edits the article Paraparaumu, which Panamitsu had also done before that.
• September 19, 2023: Alexeyevitch for the first time edits the article Paraparaumu to revert Panamitsu's edit. A few minutes later, Alexeyevitch reverts his own revert. Alexeyevitch's most recent edit to the article was June 9, 2024.
• October 19, 2023: Panamitsu adds an image of a Pak'nSave fuel station to the article Pak'nSave. Panamitsu uploaded that image, self-attributing it as the photographer, to Wikimedia Commons. Neither the Commons page nor Panamitsu's caption of the image mention any location.
• November 9, 2023: Alexeyevitch for the first time edits the article Pak'nSave.
• November 14, 2023: Alexeyevitch adds to the caption of the aforementioned fuel station image, added by Panamitsu, that the station pictured is in Paraparaumu. The Wikimedia Commons page for the image at that time still did not (and currently does not) provide any location information.
• December 9, 2023: Alexeyevitch for the first time edits the article Paraparaumu Railway Station. Alexeyevitch's most recent edit to the article was June 16, 2024.
• January 13, 2024: Alexeyevitch for the first time edits the article Paraparaumu College. Alexeyevitch's most recent edit to the article was June 7, 2024.

Looking at these diffs, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that Alexeyevitch's apparent interest in articles related to Paraparaumu emerged upon discovering Panamitsu's interest in Paraparaumu and then—more unsettlingly—possibly leaping to a conclusion that Panamitsu is tied to Paraparaumu. It's hard for me to escape thinking of the possibility Panamitsu raised: that Each time [Panamitsu] would copyedit his [Alexeyevitch's] contributions to Christchurch suburbs [...] he would edit articles relating to the area, notably Paraparaumu College, presumably with the belief that [Panamitsu] live[d] there and [as] a way to scare [Panamitsu]. If this is what's happening, I can't help but find such behavior disturbing.

Banning Alexeyevitch from interacting with Panamitsu seems like a minimal sanction for such harassment. I would ask administrators reading this thread to remember that "following another user around", if done to cause distress, or if accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I regret those actions and apologized twice - I had to removed my second apology because he started to rapidly edit Christchurch suburb articles at the time and felt like every NZ article I edited it would be fixed in a matter of minutes, I suggest him doing this stops since this is obviously making editing unenjoyable - Schwede66 gave somewhat of a 'stop' message to him because I raised concern about this.

I recognized the Pak'N Save was in Paraparaumu because I was there in 2022. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 04:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Aranui, Southshore and Opawa are examples - I feel like there still might be a negative motive to their edits here. I suggest they slow down on this topic because it is upseting me. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 04:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think Panamitsu's recent activity is wikihounding. Panamitsu's central complaint that got this brought to ANI is correct: Alexeyevitch changing the spelling in articles about New Zealand to American English en-masse is disruptive, and they should stop. MOS:TIES/MOS:ENGVAR is well established. (I note on their talk page they say they do not like New Zealand English, but that is not an excuse to make en-masse disruptive edits). Panamitsu reverting that wide-scale disruption from Alexeyevitch is not problematic; the wikihounding policy states Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles, which is what happened here. Endwise (talk) 03:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I (or schwede66) inteded intended to fix them a day or two later -- we wanted to see if there was some-form of monitoring which there kind of. And most (but not all) articles were stubs or starts which he didn't edit prior. Otago Central Railway was fixed by him - not edited by him prior to my edit. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 03:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I (or schwede66) [...] intended to fix them a day or two later -- we wanted to see if there was some-form of monitoring: What do these statements mean? Do you mean you (or even you and Schwede66?) privately collaborated to contribute edits contrary to MOS:TIES and MOS:ENGVAR as—what? Some deliberate 'experiment' to 'entrap' Panamitsu? Wikipedia is not a laboratory, and experiments that negatively affect articles—even temporarily—are not allowed. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 04:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I emailed Shwede66, I think 2-3 times this week and all emails were addressing my concern for his behavior towards my editing, Schwede66 said that they had a large watchlist after AWB edits, so there was a suggestion to do that - Schwede66 selected a few pages and after editing 44 Parachute Regiment (South Africa), we confirmed I was stalked. I edited a few (4 NZ pages also). I don't want to pressurize Shwede66, but the point was somewhat proven. My edits prior to these emails were using NZ english when appropriate. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 04:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I noticed the other day that you also emailed Marshelec. I have his userpage (and Schwede66's) on my watchlist because we have collaborated a small bit in the past, such as on Kapiti Island. Given that Schwede66 was contacted about my editing behaviour, Marshelec, could please indicate whether or not Alexeyevitch contacted you for a similar reason? I hope I'm not forum shopping here, and if I am, I apologise. ―Panamitsu (talk) 04:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this is forum shopping on your part, Panamitsu; it seems more as if Alexeveyitch may have been 'admin shopping'. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

My email correspondence with Alexeyevitch is solely associated with content suggestions and possible sources related to the Southshore, New Zealand article. The context is that I have some knowledge of the area from the time of my youth in Christchurch. Nothing about other users or other articles is included in those email exchanges._ Marshelec (talk) 05:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

confirmed I was stalked: Alexeyevitch, to be frank, all that seems confirmed to me is that you have been stalking Panamitsu and that along with that you've been deliberately introducing MOS:TIES/MOS:VAR-contrary content into articles. As Endwise explained above, cases where using an editor's history is not considering hounding includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In the 44 Parachute Regiment (South Africa), you changed "minimise" (British English spelling) to "minimize" (American English spelling) for an article about a South African military unit and in your edit summary you called it fix[ing] a spelling error. Some twelve hours later, Panamitsu restored the spelling of the word per MOS:TIES. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Fair point. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 05:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I do recall finding the Otago Central Railway spelling mistake by looking through your contributions. This is because I noticed another spelling change and had a look to see if you had made more of those types of changes. ―Panamitsu (talk) 04:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Not an admin, but jumping in to comment that from my observations working with them on NZ articles, that both editors contribute productively to Wikipedia. However they are maybe too productive. It strikes me that both take their role here as editors very seriously, to the point that it has stopped being fun for them. A major part of the conflict is that they are both heavily active in similar areas of Wikipedia, so there is naturally some treading on toes.

Some things I have learned lately that might be of benefit to both editors:

1. You do not need to watchlist every article you edit.
2. You certainly do not need to review every edit to every article on your watchlist.
3. You do not “own” any article or area on Wikipedia.
4. None of us are as important as we might think in the grand scheme of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is huge, and it will never be finished. You are not a legendary knight defending Wikipedia from barbarous hordes. You are an unpaid internet janitor.
5. We are all volunteers, and we are all doing our best. Always assume good faith.
6. Do not attribute to malice what you can attribute to misunderstanding.
7. If you can’t assume good faith, and you think someone else is the problem, then you are the problem.
8. You can - at any time - walk away from Wikipedia for 24 hours if you are finding the experience less than fun.
9. You do not need to reply immediately to every message or edit you see.
10. Think carefully about what you say to others and how they might interpret your words.
11. Be humble. Always blow on the pie.

Please do whatever it takes to resolve this conflict. I would prefer to see both of you continue to contribute productively to Wikipedia, rather than either of you fall victim to a block. I look forward to continuing to collaborate with both of you. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 11:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there isn't much to say from me from now on since I have already made my point here (and an apologization) along with a few other places. Both of us commit to stop following each others edits entirely. "This way would avoid any bans and stop any further reasons for conflict." And also stop contact (which I have already commited to). I understood what Shwede66 said aswell. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 12:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Alexeyevitch, if you're not prepared to use NZ English per [1] then perhaps your time would be better spent not editing NZ articles.
Panamitsu This edit [2] is not a good look. It takes two to edit war. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I will keep this in mind Daveosaurus, and I regret some of the odd choices I made earlier. In the Opawa article I prioritized using NZ English (e.g "The suburb's main retail area is centred on Opawa Road" not "The suburb's main retail area is centered on Opawa Road") I spelled "traveling" once in this article but this was not deliberate. Although I did this: "further development in Woolston, which soon began to [[urbanization|urbanise]] the suburb" it is rendered as "urbanise" for NZ readers I just did this to avoid a redirect. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 06:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Do I read this right? Has an admin (Schwede66) deliberately tried to bait an editor by conspiring with another editor to deliberately make disruptive edits, and then brought the baited editor here for sanctions when they actually improved the articles by reverting the disruptive edits? If this is a correct summary, then please block and desysop Schwede66, as that is truly terrible behaviour. Fram (talk) 08:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I mainly hold responsibility for the actions -- Schwede66's suggestion was for me to edit 44 Parachute Regiment (South Africa) and see if Panamitsu edits this page after me. All my edits prior to Panamitsu added a message to my talk page were using NZ English and now I use NZ English in the sutible articles (e.g Opawa). I think they've all been reverted since it's appropriate. I also suggest putting an interaction ban between me and Panamitsu to prevent this from happening. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 08:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I've had the impression for a while that Panamitsu is following Alexeyevitch around. That's impossible to prove with New Zealand articles, as they may both have them on their watchlists. Hence, after the latest complaint to me via email, I gave Alexeyevitch some random (four, to be precise) articles to edit, asking to introduce little mistakes. Alexeyevitch edited two of those and Panamitsu tidied up one of those mistakes soon after (the South African article). But that did not have to be used as proof because Panamitsu then complained on Alexeyevitch's talk page, stating that they are following their contributions. For the record, I've had the impression that their contributions have been followed for quite some time; not just "in the past day". Hence me filing this report. Also for the record, the situation was the other way around last December, but after issuing a warning to Alexeyevitch, that behaviour appeared to have stopped.

Alexeyevitch, you absolutely cannot introduce American English to New Zealand articles. I had not seen that happening before, but Panamitsu's four examples in his first post above are clear. That cannot continue as it's disruptive. Schwede66 09:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying and confirming, but that's really a terrible approach to take. You know that editor X is correcting the spelling errors / MOS issues introduced by editor Y, so you agree with editor Y that they should introduce spelling errors in other articles, helpfully labeling them "spelling correction", so that if X corrects these as well, you can ask for X to be sanctioned? That's really way, way below the conduct which I would consider acceptable for an admin (or any editor for that matter). Fram (talk) 10:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Understood, your message and the MOS:TIES policy. I have a prefernce to use American English in talk pages/discussions and I understood that NZ articles use NZ English. This is behavior that I have exhibited these past two days is ridiculous and I should of known better. I am shameful and sorry for these actions and I assure you all that I won't do this again. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 10:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I note they did edit 44 Parachute Regiment (South Africa) after you, again they reverted your incorrect spelling. Checking an editors edits for mistakes they repeatedly make us not harassment. Banning them from correcting you mistakes wouldn't be helpful. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Fair point ActivelyDisinterested, I understand what your saying here. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 10:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Maybe a solution would be for Alexeyevitch to commit to stop making spelling corrections in articles until they have a better understanding of English spelling variations, and both editors commit to stop following each others edits. This way would avoid any bans and stop any further reasons for conflict. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I amicably agree to these terms. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 10:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe it is as simple as that. Schwede66 warned Alexeyvitch in December 2023 and while he has stopped following me on non-New Zealand articles, he has continued with this Paraparaumu thing. After telling him about a month ago that I may report him to this noticeboard due to his thing with Paraparaumu, Schwede66 suggested that we avoid contacting each other. Following this, I did make some copy edits, such as on Foveaux Strait (I had edited/watchlisted this article last year) and it did not go too well after I made copyedits and added a maintenance templates and Alexeyevitch told me to "fix it myself" when I didn't know how, the conversation diff is here. I now wish that I had left it as that and not gone to the talk page. I also copyedited some of his edits on Southshore (I found this from the good article nominees on the article alerts). After "Mr. Roger" (Roger 8 Roger) had made complaints about his edits needing copyeding on suburbs, I added the suburbs to my watchlist so I could copyedit them, and followed with copyedits; this is something I now regret. Due to this Paraparaumu thing, I continued making copyedit tests to check if they were coincidences or not -- they were not coincidences.

I don't believe it is just an incompetence with spellings, but rather some dislike of New Zealand spellings, illustrated the message on his talk page, his previous use of New Zealand spellings rather than American ones on articles, him creating a word salad of American spellings and then indirectly writing that he may ignore comments that are in New Zealand English after I informed him about comma splices. ―Panamitsu (talk) 11:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Alexeyevitch themself doesn't use New Zealand English, please consider using American English or the Oxford Spelling on their talk page. They might not to respond to comments deliberately avoiding this suggestion. (from the last diff in Panamitsu's comment: Good heavens, literally expressing an intention to ignore comments written in a variation of English not Alexeyevitch's own? Is there such a thing as linguistic chauvinism? This seems contrary to the Universal Code of Conduct's injunction to be collegial and empathetic with Wikimedians of different backgrounds. And the word salad seems like an attempt by Alexeyevitch at mockery, sarcasm, or aggression against Panamitsu, mocking Panamitsu's use of New Zealand English spelling. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 13:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Alexeyevitch's behavior has clearly been inexcusably childish, and they cannot be allowed to continue acting like this. Remsense诉 14:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I was frustrated at the time. Mr. Wilke told me to step of Wikipedia for a bit if I was frustrated. I regret this. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 21:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I just want to clarify this previous reply of mine as I was replying to multiple comments at once. In the first paragraph I was attempting at explaining where I believe Schwede66's belief of I've had the impression that their [Alexeyevitch's] contributions have been followed for quite some time; not just "in the past day" came from. As no diffs or examples had been provided, I'm not exactly sure where Schwede66 got this idea from so I don't know if I've addressed everything.

As conversation appears to have dried up, is there anything else I have to do? I'm not familiar with this noticeboard so I'm not sure if it just gets archived after 72 hours or an admin will close the discussion. ―Panamitsu (talk) 22:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

both editors commit to stop following each others edits. This way would avoid any bans and stop any further reasons for conflict.: This is premised on a false balance. What Schwede66 and Alexeyevitch call "following" and hounding has been Panamitsu noticing a widespread pattern of violating—in a few cases apparently deliberately, according to Alexeyevitch and Schwede66—MOS:TIES and MOS:ENGVAR and making fixes in accordance with an overtly permitted use of contribution histories: Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles.

Meanwhile, Alexeyevitch has mocked non-U. S. spelling, has expressed intent to ignore talk page comments not written in American English, and has harassed Panamitsu (more precise diff not possible because of an unrelated thread getting oversighted, but see the timeline of events I created) by following them to Paraparaumu topics seemingly after potentially coming to the belief that Panamitsu had an off-wiki connection to Paraparaumu.

With this level of hostility toward non-U. S. English and this depth of attempted harassment against Panamitsu in play, I'm not convinced that asking for a mutual commitment will prevent future guideline and policy violations by Alexeyevitch. Getting Panamitsu off their back seems to be precisely what Alexeyevitch has wanted, so as to be able to eliminate New Zealand spellings from articles without scrutiny from an editor like Panamitsu. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 14:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

has been Panamitsu noticing a widespread pattern of violating ... MOS:TIES and MOS:ENGVAR this is exactly the content of my original response, I'm not disagreeing. I was just hoping to find an informal way to settle the dispute. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

be able to eliminate New Zealand spellings – to be honest, I've never seen that myself. And if I were to see that, I'd put a stop to that straight away. There are plenty enough editors in New Zealand who would have zero tolerance to such antics. Schwede66 05:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I totally agree with you, Hydrangeans. There is nothing abusive about an editor systematically going through another’s consistently non-constructive edits in order to clean up the mess they’ve been making. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 09:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Alexeyevitch, I'd just like to add that there are plenty of US articles you can edit with your preferred spelling. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 23:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Using American English in talk pages and discussions is OK... not in the NZ-related articles. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 23:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 23:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I am not part of this extensive ongoing spat and I don't want to be. I will say though that I am trying not to be affected by Alexeyevitch's numerous changes to Christchurch suburbs and other articles. See today at Opawa and Heathcote Valley. I raised to topic on the Christchurch talk page, to no avail, and I'll raise it here again. His edits are of such a poor quality, in numerous different ways, that they all require a lot of work to put right. He's been an editor long enough to understand the basics of what to do, such as no original research. Look at his Opawa church section and see what the source says (I added a link). I think he should slow down and concentrate on some basic skills, if that is even possible. Unless something changes IMO his editing could be seen as disruptive. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this is the sutiable place to post this... what would you like see changed? I hope there is no negative motive behind this - this is causing me distress. I am trying my best on these pages and I want a resolution to this conflict - I regret my actions, apologized and stated my commitments. Please let's focus on building an encyclopedia - I will add more sources/improve content to that area of interest.

See this diff compared to most recent - I think this is an improvment IMO. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 10:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Plz. I have learned my lesson and this behavior cannot continue... a block is totally appropriate if I fail and continue to make irresponsible edits.

I will do better, I promise. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 11:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't know anything about you except that are presumably American. I think you should have a mentor to show you what to do and why. And it isn't just the mechanics of how to operate the WP site. As before, a good place to start is to slow down and focus on one task at a time, such as why some references are good and others are bad or unsuitable. You have an idea in your mind about what should be/you want to written and then go out looking for sources to use. Turn that around - read the sources first and use what they say about a topic. However, it does look as though that won't change anything because you keep repeating the same patterns of behaviour even when others point them out or make corrections. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I understood. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 21:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

This has been an interesting thread to read through. The conclusion I'm drawing at this point is:

• Panamitsu hasn't done much wrong at all, certainly nothing requiring any further admin action
• Alexeyevitch has done quite a bit wrong but seems apologetic, willing to learn, and has promised (multiple times) to try harder
• Schwede66 did the right thing in bringing this here. He is an administrator and has been trying to resolve the problems between the above two editors. In doing so, at one point he encouraged Alexeyevitch to deliberately vandalise multiple articles (" I gave Alexeyevitch some random (four, to be precise) articles to edit, asking to introduce little mistakes."). I have to agree with Fram, that's actually the most concerning thing in this whole affair. WaggersTALK 15:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I just want to point out that this report has been discussed on a forum. ―Panamitsu (talk) 07:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Let them discuss, the only discussion that matters is on-wiki. FWIW I don't think this is worthy of desysopping, an admonishment would suffice. Would be good to see some !votes from the community on that. WaggersTALK 13:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I think that there is a bit of bad faith assumption here regarding Schwede66. Reading through this carefully, Schwede66 was (initially) with the suspicion that Panamitsu was 'stalking' Alexeyevitch's edits, and so suggested Alex to make several more of the kind of edits that would grab Panamitsu's attention to see if the counter-edits continue. Well as it turns out, even I could see this from the beginning, but Alex was in the wrong here by "correcting" spelling on NZ-related articles to US spelling. Those "Use New Zealand English" and "Use dmy dates" templates are there for a good reason! They are on the very top of the articles, so easy to spot straight away when editing too.

Anyways, this didn't escalate into anything major, Schwede66 definitely did the right thing bringing this to AN/I for opinions from outsider admins and users (one probable reason being maybe he thought he was wrong here, which in the end, ended up being the case), so I don't see an "abuse of power" or anything dramatic like that here. Looks like later on, Schwede definitely did get what actually was going on here, dropping the 'stalking' concerns. — AP 499D25 (talk) 14:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes. See Cloventt's statement above. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 23:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

@Schwede66 regarding you saying after the latest complaint to me via email, I gave Alexeyevitch some random (four, to be precise) articles to edit, asking to introduce little mistakes, can I ask if you would have given this advice on-wiki, such as on a talk page? Or would this advice not have occurred if it was in a public environment? BugGhost🪲👻 11:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

If you can work out for me a talk page where you can be sure that the editor who is not supposed to see the message would not see it, the answer is yes. Schwede66 18:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

@Schwede66 Do you agree that it was wrong to encourage an editor to deliberately "introduce little mistakes" (i.e. vandalise) articles? Or would you do the same thing again in the same situation? WaggersTALK 07:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

This is the response that I gave to Alexeyevitch:

“

Well, we all have watchlists. If you find that Christchurch-related articles are the ones that get amended quickly, that might merely mean:

• Panamitsu has them on their watchlist, and
• They are online a lot

Even if they are truly monitoring your edits, they can only do that when they are online. So, if you wanted to do something about it, you’d have to show that it would be unlikely that they are on Panamitsu’s watchlist. I suggest the following:

• Wait until Panamitsu is online / is editing
• Then edit some random pages and introduce minor spelling mistakes without also adding wikilinks (as wikilinks themselves can trigger a notification); I suggest the following:

• Lyttelton, Gauteng
• 44 Parachute Regiment (South Africa)
• Axel (name)
• Mariakerke, East Flanders

I’ve temporarily (for 1 week) watchlisted these pages and if Panamitsu tidies up after you, we’ll both have confirmation that you are being stalked.

”

Hence, we have two situations:

• an editor worried that he is being stalked and a way of finding out whether that's true, and
• a spelling mistake in one article, and an unbalanced bracket in another article, for a rather limited period of time

The former, I would suggest, is a problem. The latter is not. However, some editors above make out that the latter is the real problem. I fail to see that. I really do. If we want to build an encyclopaedia, shouldn't we be more worried about editors getting on with one another, and if they really can't, keep them apart from one another, as opposed to fretting about a couple of minor mistakes being introduced temporarily? What am I not getting? Where is the perspective in all of this?

And to answer your question directly, unless I can be persuaded that I've got this completely the wrong way around, I would do the exact same thing the next time a situation like this arose. And if Bugghost comes up with the method of communicating such a strategy via a talk page, I'd be most happy of doing just that. Schwede66 10:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:HOUND says (my bolding):

Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done with care, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam. The contribution logs can be used in the dispute resolution process to gather evidence to be presented in incidents and arbitration cases. Using dispute resolution can itself constitute hounding if it involves persistently making frivolous or meritless complaints about another editor.

In other words, there are sometimes valid reasons for "stalking" another user's contributions, and that does not constitute hounding. We know from @Panamitsu's response above that that's exactly what was happening in this case.

My view is there are never valid reasons for deliberately making detrimental edits to Wikipedia, no matter how small or temporary those edits are. However, WP:V says (original bolding):

Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism.

Yes Wikihounding is a serious accusation, but there was a straightforward, innocent explanation and all we needed to do to obtain that explanation was ask Panamitsu. I suggest that instead of laying traps for each other that can lower the quality of readers' experience, we just talk to each other in future. And perhaps this matter should have been brought here earlier. WaggersTALK 10:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Seconding Waggers here (and here rather than at ARC or on Schwede66's user talk). Waggers has done the policy quoting regarding what is and isn't hounding for me. I had considered asking Schwede66 about this on their talk page but saw them and Panamitsu amicably discussing article improvement there, so thought there must have been a private discussion in which Schwede66 apologised. While counselling other editors is part of the admin job, we are here to collaborate on building an encyclopaedia, and part of that collaboration is checking and improving others' work. Avoiding all conflict between editors is not only impossible, trying to do so is way down on the list of objectives, while protecting what everyone has collectively built is at the top. WP:IAR does not say "If you can make someone feel better by ignoring any of these rules, do so." Also, laying a trap for someone is a betrayal of their trust that they will be treated as a colleague; it violates WP:CIV in the name of upholding it. The other way to resolve a conflict is to not assume someone is in the wrong but see whether there's a misunderstanding or lack of knowledge (as there apparently was here with regards to ENGVAR). Schwede66, you jumped to a hostile conclusion and thus not only promoted vandalism, you tried to resolve the conflict by having someone restricted in where they could work, which would have diminished the editing community. Yes, I think that was exactly the wrong way around. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I am shocked and saddened at Schwede66's tone deaf response above and have felt it necessary to escalate this to WP:ARC as an admin conduct case. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I just have to say, as someone who has seen, and probably interacted with all three characters, I see no reason for great concern here. For Panamitsu and Alexeyevitch, I agree almost word-for-word with Cloventt’s advice, and with Waggers’s summary. For Schwede’s part, I have to say there is a strong probability I would have done much the same thing in his position.

The mistake here though was the advice to introduce errors, for two reasons. First, the introduction of errors is bad. Frankly, I see this case as approximate to stealing cans from someone’s garbage bins to recycle them for cash, but it is still a wrong in the strict sense. But second, the correction of these errors by Panamitsu just doesn’t constitute bad behaviour. I really don’t think Schwede has done much wrong—or much harm—as an editor here, but if people want to hold admins to higher standards, those are admin problems. — HTGS (talk) 01:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Avoiding all conflict between editors is not only impossible, trying to do so is way down on the list of objectives, while protecting what everyone has collectively built is at the top: I'd be rather hesitant to say that avoiding clashes is "way down" among the community's priorities. The Universal Code of Conduct includes striving for collegiality, the friendly support that people engaged in a common effort extend to each other, and Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility is one of the five pillars, which I'm inclined to think are each equally important. As much as I think he's gone about things in rather the wrong way (I'd say I'm more concerned about how laying a trap for someone is a betrayal of their trust that they will be treated as a colleague), I am sympathetic to Schwede66's belief that we be more worried about editors getting on with one another. Without respect and collegiality, retaining editors is an uphill grind; and without editors, we have much less collectively built encyclopedia to protect in the first place. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 04:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• Can someone close this thread now, mentioning the WP:A/R/C case in the closure note? Jeez, this thread has been open and sitting here for two weeks now. Longest I had probably seen a thread open for is maybe 10 days. There is basically no action to take against User:Panamitsu nor User:Alexeyevitch at this point in time, while the admin User:Schwede66 has been proceeded over to A/R/C for an evaluation of admin behaviour. — AP 499D25 (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

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

• @Schwede66: It doesn't look like anyone has yet explained an aspect of why your plan was a bad idea. Entirely aside from the introduction of errors (which, don't get me wrong, is a bad idea even if they are minor and temporary, because whomever reads the article while they are extant risks being misinformed, which is the opposite of why we're all here), such a baiting plan is directly counterproductive to the problem of "following". Imagine someone says to you, "there's a detective that keeps following me," and you say, "what you should do is commit small crimes outside of the detective's patrol area, and then if he catches you, we'll know he's following you." While that may be true, the commission of the small crimes (or insertion of minor mistakes) will also encourage the follower to continue following. It's not a perfect system, but the reason we have public contribs is so everyone can see what everyone else is up to: it's accountability through excellent public record keeping and mutual snooping. If an editor sees a problem with another editor's edits, it's normal to look through contribs to see if the problems are spread to other articles, and if so, to fix them (and sometime escalate). By encouraging the followed editor to make more mistakes, you also encouraged the following editor to keep following -- after all, the more they follow, the more mistakes they keep finding! The better suggestion would be to advise the followed editor to make good edits to other topic areas, and then see if they're still being followed (because if so, the follower would have no basis for following). [insert "the more you know" meme here] Levivich (talk) 14:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:HOUNDING and WP:TENDENTIOUS by User:ThoughtIdRetired on Austronesian-related topics

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

---

• Talk:Square rig#Austronesian content June 2022 (our first interaction)
• Talk:Crab claw sail#Date of first crab claw sail July 2022
• Talk:Austronesian peoples/Archive 1#Ships and sailing section July 2022
• Talk:Austronesian peoples/Archive 1#Questionable statement July 2022
• Talk:Austronesian peoples/Archive 1#Nature of Austronesian farming July 2022
• Talk:Austronesian peoples/Archive 1#Origin of first settlement of Marianas August 2022
• Talk:Austronesian peoples/Archive 1#Arab lateen December 2022
• Talk:Austronesian peoples/Archive 1#lakana January 2023
• Talk:Austronesian peoples/Archive 1#Pottery section January 2023
• Talk:Austronesian peoples/Archive 1#The "long pause" with a possible maritime technology explanation January 2023
• Talk:Austronesian peoples/Archive 1#Substitute paragraph January 2023
• Talk:Austronesian peoples#Misrepresentation of references January 2023
• Talk:Austronesian peoples#Dates for domestic pigs, dogs and chickens as part of the "Austronesian package" February 2023
• Talk:Rig (sailing)#Junk rigs May 2024
• Talk:Austronesian peoples#Over-confident assertions June 2024

Examples of his edits (more numerous than talk page discussions). I don't have the time to hunt for all of them. I have never looked at his contribs before, so I'm probably missing a lot. Basically every edit he does on Austronesian-related topics since our first interaction.

• Sail
• Polynesian navigation
• Sailing ship
• Crab claw sail
• Trade route
• Lashed lug boat
• Junk (ship)
• Austronesian vessels
• Lug sail
• Maritime history
• Peopling of Southeast Asia
• Shipbuilding
• Maritime timeline
• Maritime Southeast Asia
• All of his edits on Austronesian peoples

We first interacted in Square rig, where we fought over his insistence that the scope only applied to European ships during the Age of Sail (because apparently other sails don't have English names). I let that go since I was in the minority. Afterwards, he started specifically going after Austronesian articles and my contributions. The most egregious of which are multiple topics he opened in Talk:Austronesian peoples, which is still ongoing. Apparently something about the fact that Austronesians crossed oceans thousands of years before Europeans (which I mentioned in our first dispute) ticked him off, and he's been attacking that fact ever since. He has been challenging literally everything he can challenge, by any means. Examples of his behavior:

• Changing the wording (prefering to keep it vague and noncommittal if possible, like claiming something was "over-long" as an excuse to remove things)
• Removing references he doesn't like (certain peer-reviewed papers/books he claims subjectively is "poor" or "old"). He recently attempted to enshrine this practice in our guidelines unilaterally while hiding his conflict of interest in using the method for content disputes.
• Attacking authors he doesn't like (he thinks if an author's hypothesis gets disproven from new data, that it means that everything the author has written, even unrelated, is now unreliable, this applies most notably to George Hourani)
• Attributing Austronesian technologies to everyone else but Austronesians (Europeans, Negritos, Papuans, Chinese), depending on what paper he happens to misread. He particularly likes one source, which he has repeatedly pushed, that claims Polynesians copied European ships (doesn't matter if it's fringe)
• Removing images and maps, pointedly changing captions like here, and here
• Tagging (necessitating me to reread sources I've forgotten for years, only to find out he just doesn't like the paraphrasing)
• Moving goalposts, he challenges a claim, when that doesn't work, he challenges the wording, challenges the references, challenges the author, and the most frustrating: just claims it's not really known because there's no direct evidence and the experts are just imagining things, etc.

Some misleadingly follow a procedure. Tagging something, then removing the entire thing after no one notices it. Or removing a reference for unrelated reasons, then removing the then unreferenced sentence. Or opening a topic in the talk, then removing it when no one replies. Impossible to prevent and challenge in time, given the number of articles he does this on. Unless I dedicate my entire time here just following him around. Which is probably the point.

I initially replied to his challenges, which often involved rereading lengthy sources, only to find out he's just misinterpreting, synthesizing, or making up nonsense. This discussion on his changes in the pottery section is typical of his challanges and his tendency to move the goalposts. He first inserted a sentence that misrepresented a source by omitting certain details from the authors' conclusions. When I corrected it and gave another source for rebuttal, he then claims it's now "too long."

This isn't a mere content dispute, given the scale of what he's disputing. He's disputing everything that I've written or is relevant to what I've written. He's throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks. Once one does, or if he doesn't get replies, he then changes it everywhere else. It's not like he's validly tracking down the same errors on multiple articles. It ranges from sails, to boatbuilding techniques, the settlement of Guam, the Polynesian migrations, the settlement of Madagascar, pottery, dogs, pigs, and most recently, the domestication and dispersal of the banana. Some are valid that could have been fixed with a simple sourced edit, most are nonsense based on misreading sources or a general ignorance of the scholarship on the topic, some are outright based on nothing (often hyperfocusing on interpreting a single phrase from a single source). All are, comparatively, minor challenges that chip away one thing at a time (the caption dispute on the lakana for example), often with implied insulting assertions at my editing.

But they're all WP:TENDENTIOUS, with a very clear unifying theme: downplay Austronesian seafaring as much as possible. He has never contributed a single positive thing to the topic. Prior to our first interaction, he had no interest in articles on Austronesian seafaring, his main area of interest was and still is, unsurprisingly, European ships. I'm here to write articles. I have never once interfered with his editing. Until I checked his contribs prior to this report, I did not even know what he does usually on Wikipedia. I still don't.

I've read hundreds if not thousands of papers on this topic, writing much of our coverage on it over the years. Including the vast majority of articles like Austronesian peoples, Lashed-lug boat, Austronesian vessels, Outrigger boat, ‎Domesticated plants and animals of Austronesia, and recently, the Maritime Silk Road. With extensive contributions to others like individual ship, plant, animal, and ancient seafaring articles. And that's only for these related topics (in case you get the mistaken impression that that's all I write about). I've done my best with keeping with the policies on RS on all of them, as I've done with all my contributions over the last nearly 15 years.

All of that to be challenged repeatedly by the same person on every single thing, every month, who has at most read 10 papers touching on this topic.

I hate all of this. I don't even know what's the solution for situations like this is. Leave me alone. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 04:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Serious TL:DR. Most of this is stale grievance collecting and Sea lioning. 182.228.179.154 (talk) 05:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Speak English. I don't hang out in ANI wallowing in drama. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 07:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

No, you seek attention. 182.228.179.154 (talk) 10:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

ANI is so far living up to its reputation. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 10:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Can an admin consider reblocking the above IP for WP:PA? This seems a continuation of the WP:NOTHERE behavior that got them blocked a week ago, and antagonizing Obsidian Soul is not helping to build the encyclopedia. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for two weeks. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Without pronouncing on the content disputes (I don't have a week to spare to read all that material), what I see on Talk:Austronesian peoples is mostly ThoughtIdRetired making informed and constructive criticisms, and you proceeding to flip out on them in relatively short order. Now it is of course entirely possible that they are playing a pernicious long game of misrepresentation and agendas - that is impossible to tell for anyone not conversant with the topic, such as me - but that would have to be shown in detail. "I don't like being contradicted by someone who I believe has read fewer sources than I", which is the overwhelming vibe I am getting here, is not a good look, as the kids say. How about getting more of your subject matter peers involved rather than trying to flatten the other on behavioral grounds? I see lots of the two of you slugging it out on that talk page, and preciously few others weighing in. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

You think I have a week too? There are no subject matter peers. Do you see anyone else contributing significantly to those articles? You yourself have said there are "precious few" weighing in. I've endured this for three years. I've tried multiple times acquiescing to his bullshit. With the Paleolithic crossings, and the pottery section, only for him to move the goalposts further.

"I don't like being contradicted by someone who I believe has read fewer sources than I": LOL, no. The simple fact is that he has NEVER touched a single article about Austronesians prior to our interaction. It isn't his lack of expertise that's the problem. It's the POV he's pushing with the handful of papers he's read.

"that is impossible to tell for anyone not conversant with the topic, such as me - but that would have to be shown in detail". This "TL;DR" isn't detailed enough for you?! -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 07:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

He opened TWELVE topics, one after another. In one page. All with a theme. And you still somehow believe it's "constructive criticism". Which should I reply to first and spend at least a month discussing with him? Should I just stop writing articles and focus on that? What about his edits? Do I follow his every contribution?-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 08:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Opening twelve well-reasoned (at least it looks like this to me) discussions primarily seems to show commendable dedication to getting the article improved, and willingness to talk about it. Look, I'm pretty sure that the way to get rid of the perception that this is single combat between you two is to get other people involved in the content discussions. I can't believe there's only the two of you who care about this topic. Ask for input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthropology, or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups, or one of the specific geographic wikiprojects? Start an RfC if there is a sufficiently specific contentious issue? You have clearly lost your cool and/or patience, based on the tone of the last few discussions on the talk page. You need to hand off some of that. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute. How many times must I say that? Ignore my anger. That's what WP:HOUNDING aims to do in the first place. And it obviously worked.

ALL of his edits have a specific POV that attempts to completely discredit Austronesian voyaging. Pick an edit. Any from above. See what he's doing. Then pick another. Even someone who's not familiar with the subject will clearly see what he's trying to do. That's the reason I included the diffs and topics in the first place. Which you all refuse to read.

Some of the issues he raises are valid. Like the Talk:Austronesian_peoples#Lateen section. Others are complete absolutely vague nonsense that I don't even know how to respond to. It's frustrating how I can't explain that here, because you also don't know anything about the topic, and will absolutely complain when I attempt to. But let me try, at least just to demonstrate how laughable your assessment of "commendable dedication" is. They seem reasonable at first glance, if you don't know anything about the subject.

Take for instance Talk:Austronesian_peoples#Origin of first settlement of Marianas. This dispute is about a simple difference in different authors on WHERE the voyage that settled Guam might have originated. The paper he cites actually states that it may be the Southern Philippines or Eastern Indonesia, instead of the Northern Philippines as was originally in the article. Instead of simply adding those additional two possible origins as a normal editor would have done. He completely removes the mention of the voyage. While adding his own commentary that isn't part of the original paper he uses.

Talk:Austronesian_peoples#Nature of Austronesian farming, here's another. He uses ONE source that vaguely questions the relative importance of rice cultivation in the Austronesian migrations. Again, something that could have been added to the article with a single sentence and proper attribution. I would have happily done that. He instead uses that paper to question everything about Austronesian agriculture. I have no idea what he actually means to say, that Austronesians had no crops? And he thinks this is enough to overturn the established scholarship and all the other sources used in the article. He includes other topics that were not in the scope of the original paper based on his personal misunderstanding of other sources. Dogs, pigs, chickens, etc. How do you think should I engage with that? Humor him and list the dozens of Austronesian domesticates with the hundreds of sources (which the article already does) one by one? The articles already explain their individual histories. Drop all of those sources in favor of the particular one he likes? I and another editor have already tried explaining WP:DUE to him, with no obvious results. What do you think I should do?

He repeats this tactic when challenging the banana (Talk:Austronesian_peoples#Over-confident assertions), by misquoting a single phrase from the paper to make it seem like all Austronesian crops are suspect. Even after I provided a paper that clarifies the fact that Austronesians carried bananas as a crop in their migrations from Southeast Asia far more clearly, he refuses to accept that, and instead proposes that Africans may have cultivated bananas and transferred it to Southeast Asia. Something NOT in the paper, nor proposed by anyone I know in all the papers I've read. Again, what do I do with that?

Or how about Talk:Austronesian_peoples#Substitute paragraph this section, where you can clearly see that I actually tried to humor him by expanding the section and clarifying how Papuans and Indigenous Australians must have crossed the Wallace Line. Does he accept it? No. He instead tries to argue that it was the Papuans all along who were the expert seafarers and invented all the ship technologies that Austronesians later use. Which is again, NOT in the paper he used to start the argument.

Should I go on? Or have your eyes glazed over. Make the effort to understand what he's doing. I've gone through this circus before that got me my first block for trying to call out a racist editor. And it's the exact same situation apparently. You all just don't want to read long explanations and assume angry guy is bad guy.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 10:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, well, it can admittedly be really frustrating if other people are just Not Getting what the problem is, because it's too embedded in pages and pages of history. There's a certain species article that I shall never open again because of the perfect storm of bad actors and clueless enablers that happened there - I'd probably blow my top if I had to re-read that. So if that is the case here, sorry. But that makes it even more essential to go find other people who understand the material and the issues, and who have the wherewithal to judge the quality of the arguments. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a balcony in Rome. Haranguing the readers won't help you. Your attitude alone is enough to engender sympathy for the person you're reporting and we haven't even heard from them yet. 182.228.179.154 (talk) 11:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't have time to peruse this entire wall of text, but Atholl Anderson is absolutely not "fringe" and I doubt that whatever he has written behind that paywall says what you are claiming it says. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes. Of course. What did I expect from Wikipedia. Actually read?

And since you all insist on focusing on the content dispute aspect: Anderson's HYPOTHESIS that Polynesians borrowed the European lateen sail is not widely accepted. HE is a respected author, whom I've used multiple times. Different things. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 07:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

"I've tried multiple times acquiescing to his bullshit.", "Ah yes. Of course. What did I expect from Wikipedia. Actually read?", "I hate all of this. I don't even know what's the solution for situations like this is. Leave me alone."

It looks like we've entered WP:NotHere territory. OS's reaction is way out of line and not justified by the matter at hand. He's basically claimed ownership and attacks anyone who doesn't conform to his line of thinking. 182.228.179.154 (talk) 10:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

This is a high volume noticeboard where readers lack relevant context. It's your responsibility to be mindful of that and to make your comments concise. Also, generally speaking, if a complaint requires an essay to establish there's probably no legitimate complaint. Local Variable (talk) 10:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the opinion. Anyone else who hasn't read a single thing I wrote?-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 11:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

No valid complaint can be made angrily and long-windedly? What is the point of responding to something without engaging with its substance? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

No. If someone has a valid complaint, they can make it succinctly. There's a reason ArbCom requires complaints & responses to be limited in length, to avoid people dragging things out needlessly. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Just as a general rule of life the more agrily and long-windedly a complaint is presented the less seriously it should be taken. Hyperbole destorys credibility. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree in terms of ArbCom and ANI disputes, somewhat, but definitely disagree in regards to content discussions. Wikipedia is probably the most influential source of information in human history, and that means that editing Wikipedia is serious business. It's not a place to goof around and flit from thing to thing in a dilettantish way. I take the opposite view of Horse Eye's Black, respectfully - the more terse, snide, and devoid of complex thought a comment is, the less seriously it should be taken. Careful thought takes more than 160 characters, and volunteering to help craft the most influential source of information in human history requires more than a TikTok attention span. That is my view, @Zanahary. Philomathes2357 (talk) 07:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree. And besides, is not as if a short complaint would make this a short problem to handle—admins would have to look through sources and content discussions to understand the nature of the dispute, anyways. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 07:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 12:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Disagree. Needless loquaciousness is not a positive trait. Further, throwing insults that people who disagree are "goof[ing] around", "devoid of complex thought," and possess "a TikTok attention span" do more damage to your argument than good. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I have actually read most of what was posted and looked at the diffs provided to boot; I am completely uninvolved and I do not know anything beyond basics about the subject. Set the sentiments boiling over aside, and this feels like a rather slow edit war, essentially an extended content dispute. My guess is the topic eludes most people, and I do not think ANI is the place to find people who are actually able to judge about content. So I would want to get more eyes on this, my first port of call being WP:3O. If there is an adequate project who covers this, ask there. Disputants should keep in mind to AGF, and even to AAGF. Lectonar (talk) 11:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for at least reading it. I think I've emphasized enough how numerous and how vague his challenges are, and how it involves dozens of articles. This is not a content dispute. There's no single point of contention I can ask a third opinion on. Nor even a single article. Which is why it's so hard to explain it in the first place without writing that wall of text.

If that's the only solution, I might as well just stop. Close this discussion. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 12:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I only said that's how it looks for one uninvolved and uninformed (me); my guess is that it might look like that for other uninvolved and uninformed people too (whereas for you it obviously looks clear as rain). As for showing a possible way forward: you listed some articles with disruptions above, let's take Polynesian navigation. An adequate WikiProject to ask might be WP:SAIL: make your point over there, but article by article, and concentrate on content, not on the behaviour of (one) other user. When consensus is on your side, it's much more difficult to refute your edits. Lectonar (talk) 12:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Going over his every challenge, point by point, defeats the purpose of trying to avoid his WP:HOUNDING and focus my attention on constructive things. There's so much more than the diffs I included. I wasn't joking when I said it's his every edit on Austronesian-related articles. It's not an edit war either, at least that would have been easier to explain.

Engaging with him doesn't lead anywhere, he just moves the goalposts so far we end up debating the credentials of authors. If there really were enough people who could recognize what he's doing, there should have been someone else already responding to his edits.

It's clearly pretty much just me. Since a lot of the articles affected are those I've worked on, and we clearly don't have a lot of representation of editors interested in it. (As an aside, Polynesian navigation is not one of them, I've never touched that article aside from adding a template 6 years ago. But his caption change and his reason is a typical example of how he undermines the topic with seemingly innocuous changes.)

So it's done the job. I can not think of a way to ignore his minor but constant chipping away at the core of Austronesian seafaring, from someone who clearly wants to bury it. And I can't reasonably spend the rest of my time here on Wikipedia responding to him. I'm taking a break. Bet all my barnstars there'll be a dozen new topics if I come back, and the articles will all be saying we all swam to our islands. I appreciate you trying to understand the issue.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 13:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Obsidian Soul, you've written an enormous amount of text about this incident. If you want action on this, it's incumbent on you to try succinctly summarize every bit as much a possible to turn this into a digestible form. Nobody is being paid to read what you're writing. We're all volunteers here. You're asking us to set aside time from our lives to read what is now north of 3500 words of text in this section, 2400+ of which was added by you (nearly 70%)...nine printed pages...at averaging reading speed nearly 15 minutes of time...just to catch up enough to respond to the thread. When people take you to task about this enormous amount of text, you respond with "Ah yes. Of course. What did I expect from Wikipedia. Actually read?", criticizing the very people who actually made some attempt to respond to this. Wow. Just wow.

You are best qualified to summarize what is going on. Remove unnecessary passages, drop sentences that don't elaborate, remove old diffs that do little to qualify what is happening, and keep cutting and cutting and cutting. Paraphrasing Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, a good writer at WP:AN/I knows they have achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. Take that to heart, and retry this and make it clear what you think should happen. Otherwise, you will not get what you want out of this. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't get what's so bad about having to take fifteen minutes to read a complaint fully. After all, isn't fifteen minutes a relatively short period of time? _WADroughtOfVowels^P 16:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm a fast reader and it took me about fifteen minutes to skim it, you must be an exceptionally fast reader if you read the diffs fully rather than skimmed them in fifteen minutes. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I didn't include the content of the diffs in my 15 minutes estimation. That, of course, would make it even worse. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Clearly I need to make some comment. This is a content issue. See the changes that I have tried to make to Austronesian peoples where sources do not support the article content – either a complete absence of support or a different level of emphasis.

Not all the complete "failed verifications" were the result of edits by OS. Nevertheless, they seem ideologically opposed to any criticism of any reference that they support, whilst labelling any that oppose their views as "fringe" (an example is identified by a commenter above i.r.o. Atholl Anderson).

Perhaps the most concise (but still lengthy) example of OS's support for a poor quality source is that following this edit[3] (and others similar edits made to a number of articles). The relevant edit summaries have a link to a review that is totally scathing. I received thanks from at least one other editor for drawing this to their attention. OS's reaction includes this[4] with Shaffer being reinstated as a source with the edit summary ...one review doesn't invalidate an RS.... If you read the review at [5] you will see that this is not some bad write-up on trip advisor.

The edit that reinstated the Shaffer reference also reinstated Hourani's Arab Seafaring. In another testing interaction with OS[6], we discover that they ...do not have access to that book. Reading further on that talk page post, you will see that I finally realised that not only was Hourani a dated source, but the book makes no mention whatsoever of junk rig. This suggests to me that OS has never even read Hourani.

I don't know if I need to give more examples to make the point (you can find some on the talk page of Austronesian peoples), but it seems one has to check every reference they use (which, given the volume of their output, is well nigh impossible).

This is all coupled with an unhelpfully argumentative style, as can be found on any of the talk pages linked above. One in particular I find memorable:[7]. OS wanted an example of the sailing rig labelled "A" in [8]. The photo found on Commons is actually of the one labelled "B". To be fair, we were all at the mercy of Commons taking any picture that you can upload without breaching copyright, with any unverified caption you wish to use. But I think Commons's failing on verification allows us to do some WP:OR on the matter. There are ample videos(e.g.[9] which I have not watched to the end, but shows rig "B" being rigged) and pictures from Madagascar (a holiday destination for many at various times) that tell us exactly how the "old photo" rig works. There was never a word of thanks for finding the appropriate picture that is now in the article[10], which is very different from its predecessor[11]. Without the abrasive attitude, this would have been an engaging exercise in working out the correct content to put in Wikipedia. (OK, I appreciate that for those who do not have an interest in sailing rigs, this is a bit like reading the telephone directory!)

Clearly OS puts in many hours in editing Wikipedia. If only this would be done with a little more emphasis on both quality and co-operation. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 19:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I didn't have to read much of the initial presentation to gather this, but this is definitely a series of content disputes, where you have one who thought they had articles settled being challenged by someone with other sources and interpretations of sources. Frustrating this more is a lack of editors overall and especially ones who understand these subjects to be able to weigh in. I think you both should slow down, pick one article, try to iron it out - and if you can't, use Wikipedia approaches like Third Opinion, Request for Comment, or involving associated WikiProjects, until your issues are resolved. Then move on to the next article. See also WP:DEADLINE. I don't think this matter is actionable by an admin at this point. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 23:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• Creating ten talk-page sections at Austronesian peoples is slightly unusual, but it is neither WP:HOUNDING (which refers to following an editor to multiple unrelated pages) nor inappropriate behavior. Using the talk page during disputes is a good thing. As far as the "I'm the expert and he is POV-pushing" complaints; those are (still) a content issue. I am more concerned with the OP's hostility towards having any other editors contribute to the same articles they are working on. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'm trying to start from the beginning but the topic (and criticisms) seem pretty deeply entrenched. Looking over some of the (extremely lengthy) correspondence between the two shows the OP being pretty defensive about criticism, including making statements that should have no place in wikipedia like this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Austronesian_peoples&diff=prev&oldid=1133124491

  I think both should step back from the topic until more editors can look over the article. Lostsandwich (talk) 21:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

To comment on some of the above remarks and to add to those already made by this editor:

• It is exactly the point that there is a severe shortage of editors with interest/expertise in the early pre-history of seafaring. As an academic subject, it is full of uncertainty over what happened in ISEA which seems to cause some of the difficulties with OS.
• There is only a small body of editors who cover the translocation of plants and animals by humans (and almost invariably as a by-product of an interest of the biology of that species). I have directly contacted such an editor (a highly experienced one) regarding the arrival of the banana in Africa (the apparent trigger subject to all this) who encouraged me to make edits with the more guarded language that I feel is needed (based on a review paper on the subject), as well as saying that they had "noticed some likely Austronesian POV'pushing". I am reluctant to drag others into the sort of dispute that you get when involved with OS – so picking the right course of action is not easy. The Austronesian POV pushing is something that I would agree with (though it had not occurred to me to use that term). I note that OS has never used the paper titled Pre-Austronesian dispersal of banana cultivars West from New Guinea: linguistic relics from Eastern Indonesia[12]. It is a mainstream paper by leading researchers in the field. It is relevant not only to Banana but also to early seafaring as it demonstrates maritime mobility in ISEA before the Austronesians – a concept that is likely to be a trigger for an OS rant.
• OS's behaviour is another matter. I think it is clearly demonstrable that they are careless with whether or not a citation actually supports article text (a small number of examples already given above). They take the view that a research paper (so, a primary source) is perfectly permissible to use as a source – not understanding that a review paper is better, nor understanding that their interpretation (WP:OR) of a research paper might differ from that of a review paper in a peer reviewed journal or a book by an academic publisher. (See one of their later points on Talk:Austronesian peoples, the paragraph starting "No. You're still not a peer reviewer...." This short para goes through many edits to reach the final version, so giving a diff would be meaningless.)
• Removal of a maintenance tag without addressing the issue[13]. (More detail on this issue is at [14]) This demonstrates OS's obstinacy over problem references that they like. The reference is all about the sequencing of chicken DNA. The historical content of the articlepaper is already shown to have a problem (recycling a Wikipedia error) so OS uses the paper to support a slightly different fact (trade links to India) in this edit. So what is arguably a reference-in-passing takes a different fact from the same sentence as the one with the recycled Wikipedia error. There are plenty of other potential sources for the trade links to India, but the obstinacy of RS has apparently led them to stick with a problem reference.
• A look at [15] gives some insight to the problem (search for the word "despise"). That is why we have a rather intractable problem here. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 23:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Pre-Austronesian dispersal of banana cultivars West from New Guinea: linguistic relics from Eastern Indonesia[16] <- This paper talks about the possible early Holocene pre-Austronesian (i.e.~pre-2500 BCE) spread of domesticated bananas from New Guinea to Eastern Indonesia based on linguistics, a distance of only a few short island hops. I HAVE read that paper before. The fact that you think that paper proves your point that Papuans were expert seafarers who sailed all the way to Africa and Austronesians didn't carry bananas in their migrations is infuriating beyond words for me. They also wrote this paper which you clearly haven't read. Providing more context on banana movements from BOTH pre- and post-Austronesian contact. In both cases, they make it clear they only have possible (linguistic) evidence for the movement of bananas from New Guinea to eastern Indonesia. The rest are just their own hypothesis. It doesn't contradict anything we have in our articles or anything that I have written. There is no claim anywhere in the Austronesian or the Banana articles that Austronesians domesticated the banana. Papuans did. But Austronesians carried it further onwards, both eastwards to Polynesia, and westward to mainland Asia and Africa, proven to various levels by linguistic, chronological, genetic, and archaeological evidence of all the other papers you didn't read.

Like each and every instance of this happening, I have to EXPLAIN EVERYTHING TO YOU. And somehow the other editors here think that's just me bragging that "I'm the expert." It's not. It's me saying you're a lazy biased reader who will only read what you want to read from the handful of papers that don't even really support your views, while knowing barely anything else about the topic. Because you're not doing it to actually improve the coverage on Austronesian-related articles. You're doing all of these to try and prove your earlier disbelief that Austronesians could actually sail across oceans thousands of years before Europeans.You're not interested in the topic. You're interested in tearing it down. And since I'm the only one here who recognizes that, that means tearing me down too by literally accusing me of misusing references, even when they weren't even my references in the first place.

Like the date of the Austronesian colonization of Madagascar, the old reference literally verifies what it was attached to. And now you're claiming it's my fault the AUTHORS of the paper made a mistake. Even more than that, you're claiming the authors made that mistake by referencing that sentence. That I somehow did all that for nefarious reasons. Except I didn't write that sentence. Nor did I reference it. The sentence "the Austronesian peoples reached Madagascar by 0-500 AD" existed since 2012 BEFORE I even made my first edit on the article. Hourani and Schaffer, were AFAIK also not mine. I just objected to your misunderstanding of what constitutes a reliable source to the point that you've become obsessive over Schaffer from a single book review.

Because you can't seem to understand that peer-reviewed papers are WP:RS. It literally says so in our actual policy page in WP:SOURCE. For most purposes they're literally the best sources you can use, with considerations to WP:DUE and a proscription against predatory journals. There's no single hard fast rule that dismisses them all as "primary sources" like you're doing. But you've never read any of that, because you've written a grand total of 3 articles. While twisting that limited knowledge you have on article writing and referencing to make the hilarious conclusions that reviews (as in literal book/paper reviews) are the only things that are reliable.

Oh and that argument about the lakana picture? You're trying to make it sound like it would have been such a great time if we worked together? LOL. Your motivation for questioning that picture comes from our original argument on the V-shaped square sail, and you trying to find some way to attack me. Don't fucking pretend like you were doing it because it was an "engaging exercise". You were accusing me of WP:OR. You found a clearer picture, disproving your claim that it was a European spritsail. Exactly like I said since my first response. Did you admit you were wrong? No. You just started a new topic to attack me from another angle.

But enough of that. If you actually listened to reason, we wouldn't be here. It would have been a mere content dispute. Meanwhile, everyone else here thinks I'm the awful one. While knowing even less than you about the topic. So they hilariously think that what you're saying and doing is actually reasonable. They refuse to understand even if I've actually tried to explain it, for the mindnumbingly stupid reason that "it's too long". And they actually act shocked that I'm angry at them too for responding without bothering to actually read anything.

If you didn't read it, can't read it, or don't want to deal with it, why do you then assume that I'm the one at fault based solely on the length of the complaint? To the point that you actually comment about it? Several of you did exactly that. You didn't read it. If I had known that putting more detail into the report would be a bad thing, I wouldn't have bothered posting this here and just quit. Since it's too complicated to explain briefly anyway. I respect the opinions of people who chimed in who actually read it. Or tried to read it. Even if they disagree with me. Why should I do the same for people who didn't?

ThoughtIdRetired has actually fully admitted now that he's pushing a certain viewpoint and NOT acting in good faith. Exactly like how I described it. And still you all think that's perfectly normal behavior. And my getting angry at his behavior is me being the problem.

This is the SECOND TIME my concerns have been treated as if I was some idiot newbie editor. As if my experience is still not enough to at least take me seriously. By people who insist on AGF-ing even the most egregious behaviors (oh, he opened twelve unrelated talk page sections one after another on a topic he never touched before he met me? Perfectly normal!), while fainting at the slightest sign of a fucking curse word. I'm not even asking you to agree with me, just asking if there's anything you can do to fix it. That's the same response I got a year ago when y'all permabanned me for calling out a racist editor. Yes. I've grown to despise Wikipedia because of this.

I've had enough of this.

You're completely correct, Hammersoft. None of us are paid to do this. You can dismiss this as WP:RAGE. A good chunk of my life went into Wikipedia, but I'm not delusional enough to think I'm irreplaceable. I just don't see the point in continuing. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 00:15, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

P.S. Don't think this is the only reason though. So it's not really WP:RAGE, I guess. :P I've been wanting to leave for a while now. This just gives me a little more emotional push for ensuring I stay away and dedicate that time to something more meaningful than the joke that this project has become. Imagine I actually once believed in Wikipedia's vision. I'm surprisingly feeling much better now that I've decided. So much fucking stress. Just because one Brit thinks my ancestors were too primitive to sail. Who really fucking cares, right? It's just Wikipedia. It's always been just Wikipedia. The thing only Google and lazy students really benefit from, and we all dedicate so much of what we are to this collective delusion that what we do matter. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 00:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

@Obsidian Soul as a Malagasy editor who edits on Malagasy topics, I just want to say I hope you’ll someday return and continue focusing on bringing this incredible, sadly understudied part of the world to international light. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Zanahary, I hope I don't. If there's one thing I learned in my years here, it's that Wikipedia:Systemic bias is unfixable. Our topics are too niche. No one will listen because no one understands what we are talking about. We're too few to support each other. They only care about what matters to the English-speaking world, which is why almost all our high-level maritime articles are all unashamedly focused only on European shipping. That's how I got saddled with a parasite like ThoughtIdRetired in the first place. Trying to globalize the higher level article on square sail (prominently the one that survives in the Malagasy lakana out of all things). It only takes one guy like him with a mission to shit on all of it. I'm actually surprised he's kept his hands off Madagascar all this time, considering how much he's tried to discredit it in the Austronesian peoples article. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I would advise ObsidianSoul to refrain from personal attacks like those in his last comment. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Or what? Ban me? LOL You always go for the easy bans. Easiest way to "solve" a dispute. But a long-winded explanation of a pointed series of attacks at me and the topics I edit? Nah, TL;DR. EDIT: Good lord, you're less than a month old. I take back what I said. But yes, it obviously doesn't matter anymore, does it? -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I've been reading this, trying to figure out what content disputes there are here. And if there is any conclusion to be had other than "Obsidian Soul is temperamentally unable to participate in a collaborative project", you have to stop the personal attacks. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

It really is the Age of WP:Knights.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 02:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I’m going to work on an Austronesian Expansion article, and I hope you can, at some point, contribute to it. For now, unsolicitedly, I say breathe and turn the laptop off! If this feels like some kangaroo bullshit that has no respect for your time, then you may as well just stop arguing with people. At best you’re being needlessly unpleasant to at least some editors. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Logging off.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 02:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Briefly, OS has a habit of misinterpreting what I have said and then getting angry about that misinterpretation. The Lakana incident (above) demonstrates that they are not able to interpret pictures of different sailing rigs – something which I think is a required competence for using a picture from Commons that is not verifiably captioned. (I find it amazing that they still do not get it on that point.) My username on any article that is of interest to OS seems to be a problem for them. I am not going to argue this all word by word as no-one wants more verbiage here. (Given time, I can, but not today or tomorrow.) ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 08:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, I haven't read anywhere near the whole thread, but it looks as if this may have run its course?. If not, isn't the best path forward for both editors to mutually agree to step away from the articles themselves for a while? It might be useful to spend time at WP:RSN to get some wider input on the reliability of the sources in use. For example, the Shaffer book mentioned above is the subject of not one but two scathing reviews (1, 2) and Lynda Norene Shaffer has an h-index of 3. In any case, the personal attacks need to stop now; any more, by any party, is likely to result in a block. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

The thread has run its course, as Obsidian quite literally retired because of it. The WP:RSN idea does sound like a good idea, though. _WADroughtOfVowels^P 10:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Murmayo and Gravedancing

Murmayo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diff 1
Diff 2

I hate adding sections to closed AN/I threads but I would also feel silly starting a new one that seems very much intertwined with the above before it's been archived. I felt this rose above typical vandalism as an account made in 2021 sitting unused until today when it GAMEd 10 edits in 3 minutes all to make a foul custom message box on OS's userpage (which they restored when removed) absolutely screams 'bad-hand sock' to me. I wasn't involved in this thread but OS seems to know what's going on with this, so I presume someone more involved with this thread knows whats going on here? GabberFlasted (talk) 13:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Unrelated to the gravedancing behavior described above, Murmayo's recent activity on GENSEX articles—inserting various POV phrases like "violent" and "genocidal", misgendering and deadnaming a BLP and creating a redirect to her deadname—are tough to parse as anything other than trolling and WP:NOTHERE. This is to say nothing of xir userpage proudly advertising their love of McDonalds products, or xir definitely-real-and-not-facetious use of neopronouns. Hoping an administrator with the necessary permissions can handle these diffs with the necessary discretion. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 04:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I assume you mean "a redirect from her deadname? Queen of Hearts ^talk 05:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Correct, I misspoke. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 14:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@GabberFlasted @RoxySaunders

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Architect 134. I came across a very similar thing earlier today by User:Mitrex05, where an account also created in late 2021 gamed the autoconfirmed account (placing "Filet-o-fish" and other McDonald's product names on their user page) to place a highly inflammatory "User has been desysopped by Arbcom" on User:Nihonjoe's user page (diff).

Unfortunately, the blocking admin of that previous account—User:Zzuuzz—isn't around at this current point in time, so an SPI report will have to suffice for now. Otherwise, I would have informed User:Zzuuzz on their talk page about this. Maybe an admin here at AN/I will notice this and place a block earlier than whatever amount of time it usually takes for an SPI to be completed? — AP 499D25 (talk) 04:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

See also [17]. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Blocked, making such edits while this ANI complaint is ongoing is clearly NOTHERE material. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Note this users (diff here) I think they are obviously trolling here. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 13:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah. I realized User:AndyTheGrump stated the same thing a few minutes earlier than me... whoops. 😅 Alexeyevitch^(talk) 13:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Riposte97: time sink

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

---

Riposte97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please see Riposte97 at Talk:Kamloops Indian Residential School. Both sections are relevant but are relatively short. They should be read in order.

Also relevant:

Current RSN sections

1. Dorchester Review, again,
2. Western Standard as a source for Canadian residential schools
3. Online publication in India as source for archaeological findings in British Columbia

Recent archived RSN post

• Archive 437: Using Spiked Online regarding genocide of First Nations [18]

Editor recently insisted on rewriting Canadian Indian residential school gravesites and Canadian Indian residential school gravesites based on the very flawed notions of verifiability, notability, and DUE demonstrated above. I estimate that if he stops now about two weeks of full-time work will be required to clean up after this episode.

I am unsure whether I am supposed to notify RSN particpants but I will notify Riposte97 now. Elinruby (talk) 05:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

You've pointed us to discussions (instead of providing specific diffs) but you haven't outlined what your exact complaints are about edits that you believe are not in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Be direct, you can't assume that editors will read entire discussions and come to the same conclusions that brought you to ANI. Present an argument, don't lay out breadcrumbs. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I had tried not to bring @Elinruby's behaviour to ANI, but I guess we're doing this.

Unfortunately, this post seems to merely be a continuation of the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality for which the editor has found themselves at ANI numerous times, most recently being blocked in April May.

On 18 June UTC, they popped up on this thread about me at ANE, where they made a long post in an apparent attempt to have me sanctioned with more than a warning. Despite being informed that their edits were not relevant to the noticeboard, they doubled down, and continued to argue for a sanction. This included apparently attempting to canvas other users here.

In support of their characterisation of my alleged ‘modus operandi’, they also provided in their ANE post a list of eleven diffs at Talk:Canadian Indian residential school gravesites. Amusingly, this ‘proof’ consisted of dishonestly cherrypicking a selection of comments disagreeing with my position in a talk page discussion. Other editors agreed with me. I am not going to go into those diffs one by one, as it’s a waste of time, however I will point out that I invested a considerable amount of effort patiently building a compromise consensus here and here for my edits on that page. The suggestion that I was just blazing away is deliberately misleading.

The actions at ANE are depressingly consistent with a pattern of misrepresenting others’ edits. For example, they falsely accused me of misrepresenting their edits, and also of demanding they restore unencyclopaedic content. When I pointed out that I had not demanded the content be reinstated, and asked them to strike, they instead doubled-down and accused me of ‘bullying’, again without any evidence.

In this edit, they inappropriately insinuated I had been casting aspersions against them. They then accused me (again without evidence) of making a “heinous accusation” against them. Now, to give the editor the benefit of the doubt, this accusation may be explained by the fact that they may not know that several consecutive sentences may be attributed to the same citation. Still, their response is unnecessarily hostile.

They here claimed that I do not believe that the Walrus is a proper source. I don’t believe I’ve said that, certainly not recently enough to remember.

Here, they popped up, admitted they knew nothing about the subject under discussion, but nevertheless took the opportunity to make a personal attack on me.

There are more diffs I could provide, and I am not the only editor they have had it in for, but I will let others speak for themselves if they wish. Again, I did not want to bring this here, hoping Elinruby would just calm down on their own. That evidently has not occurred. They has taken nothing from their most recent block, heavily implying here (“I have my own thoughts on that block”) that they view it as somehow illegitimate.

I have not yet read their latest comment above, which was added as I was writing this, but will add to this comment as appropriate. Riposte97 (talk) 11:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

If my post was added as you were writing yours, as far as I know it should go below mine. Especially if you plan to add to it. That is not how these things are usually done at ANI, and otherwise you will keep pushing the requested rewrite of the OP down the page. I am going to give you a chance to fix that before I attempt to address your assorted misrepresentations. I'll note in passing though that you need to check the date on that block and also acquaint yourself with the {{they}} template. Meanwhile I am going to implement TarnishedPath's suggestion down the page in the correct chronological order. Elinruby (talk) 12:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Ta, I have corrected the block to May, and moved my next comment below yours. Riposte97 (talk) 12:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Not your next comment. The one above. Unless an admin says I am wrong about this. Also what about that they template, hmm? Elinruby (talk) 12:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Regarding comment placement, I think it’s best to leave as is, as the comment substantially deals with your first comment, and this is going to get very confusing if I move it. If I have misgendered you, I apologise. Please tell me if I have, so I can fix my comments. Is Lucy a reference to me, or another editor? Riposte97 (talk) 12:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

"Lucy" confusion comes from the comment removed in this edit. - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=next&oldid=1230388896 Riposte97 (talk) 13:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I am going to let admins explain noticeboard etiquette to you. I just hope they do so soon though. Meanwhile, although I said I would not respond further to you, I will explain the cultural reference to "Lucy you have some splaining to do': it's a joke. I realized after I wrote it that you probably wouldn't recognize it, and removed it. It was intended to take the sting out of repeatedly asking you to look up the "they" template and oh by the way correct your misgenderings of me. Is there some reason you aren't doing that? It's Template: They if you need a link Elinruby (talk) 13:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Even though it's the least of the issues here, I would like to point out that the misgendering has still not been corrected Elinruby (talk) 09:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested rewrite of narrative starts here

@Liz: Ok. It is all very complicated and rather inexplicable though, but here is my best attempt to summarize. Please bear in mind that I got instablocked the first time I tried to explain this, which may explain a certain reticence and tendency to be oblique. Please ask me a question if I am not explaining this well. I am nervous because I am being brave and stupid and trying to explain this again even though this editor is trying to intimidate me. (talk page of the Kamploops article)[19][20][21][22][23][24]typo fix included for completeness

Someone quoted Canadian Indian residential school gravesites to me.[25] It had not said that when I was working on it at the time the gravesites were found.[26] On investigation I discovered, among other things, that this editor was reverting to support the insertion into the lead of a statement sourced to spiked.com [27][28][29](similiar previous edit) that insinuates[30] that this recent national tragedy in Canada is a hoax, a la Sandy Hook, ie that those are not really graves, or they are empty.[31] Or something. [32][33][34] This is wrong on so many levels[35] that it is hard to know where to begin,[36] but another editor started the now-archived thread at RSN, where multiple editors participated, which started with parsing whether or not the source was better than the Daily Mail.[37]

I need to say that literally hundreds of RS are available,([38][39]]) and at least 30 pages of results at Google Scholar.[40] I reviewed the first three pages and posted the urls in the current RSN thread titled #Tne Pope and the Canadian House of Commons with a convenient subheader for easy finding. There appears to be a profound unfamiliarity with these events outside of Canada,(waves hand) and that post was an attempt to begin a discussion to change the apparently hard-wired resistance to using the word "genocide" on Wikipedia.(waves hand) So there are many more sources than that to support the history of residential schools; [41][42] those are just the ones that call it a genocide. Anyway multiple editors tried to talk to the editor and Ivanvector in particular began to edit the article.[43] or perhaps already was.

I realized that despite the changes to the lede nobody had been updating the article and I began doing that for the various schools where underground radar was being used, or had been used, or where its use is being discussed. I also found some egregious misrepresentations of fact, which are mentioned toward the end of the archived RSN thread.[44][45]. I do not know who was responsible for that; I just now found this tho of Riposte97 removing material with gold star sources while claiming it was unsourced. I have not yet run Wikiblame. Riposte97 objected to something I had done in the article and Pbritti pinged me at 20:16. By 22:37 I was abusing relevance tags and separately refusing to engage in a talk page discussion Another user appeared on my page to demand that I explain myself. I was busy researching one of the schools where much was being made of a first excavation not finding bodies.[46] I want to avoid relitigating what followed because I think that it may be better suited to another venue, but I went to bed a few minutes little later after doing some other routine updates and woke up blocked. There was an ANI thread. I was blocked and could not speak.

That is not the point however; the point is that while [47] I was blocked for a week that article was completely re-written[48][49] to heavily insinuate wrongdoing by the Tkʼemlúps te Secwépemc, on whose land the graves are. Much cited material removed here.A huge table disappears here. @David Eppstein: called a source used at the Kamloops article a dishonest hit piece, attempting to cast the fact that a project of this size typically takes some time to get going as if it were a scam merely because they were allocated money, haven't produced immediate results, and won't talk to the hit-piece-writers. (see Western Standard thread)

Other editors protested the rewrite.[50][51][52][53][This thread removes material cited to the TRC with an edit summary of "added citation" Diffs in the AE thread about this editor document three different editors protesting [54],[55] (note date), [56], [57], [58], [59] (see p.39 for example), [60], [61], [62], [63][64][65],[66], [67], [68][69], [70], [71], [72] {{refn|[73],[74] (note date), [75], [76], [77], [78] (see p.39 for example), [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84],[85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91] as the editor claimed to have policy and consensus on his side. If anyone is wondering, I posted them there in an effort to support a complaint by another editor about this editor's behaviour at Hunter Biden laptop controversy, but apparently Things Do Not Work That Way. But since we are discussing that AE thread, it also documents Ivanvector giving this editor a warning,[after being reverted by Ivanvector informal of course since Ivanvector had been editing the article and was therefore involved.

That is a roadmap, maybe? The three current RSN threads are each for a source used at the Kamloops article, which was recently edit-protected, so that may help. @Fluorescent Jellyfish:, one of the recently-involved editors, says that they are a subject matter expert and and posted an explanation to the talk page of the Kamloops article why they think these sources are disinformation.[92]and was argued with and politely reminded Riposte97 of WP:ONUS] and was argued with some more. Having removed these sources from associated articles way too many times, I believe they are correct. And that is why I am trying to bring eyes to this even though, let's face it, this post is not recommended behaviour for an editor who was recently blocked for stating what is conventional wisdom in Canadian discourse and in the academic field, and warned not to do that again lest they be indeffed. But that there is not what this post is about.[93]]

This post is about some dubious something or other being perpetuated[94] using Wikipedia despite the best efforts of bog standard editors to prevent that.

I do not know why this has been happening for two years. I do not know why this user was one of the people making it happening. He is strangely stubborn about the reliability of really bad sources; from a quick skim there is a lot of POV now in the gravesites article that I have not addressed at all either here or there. This editor is very overbearing with other editors. The editors who were protesting his changes were told that they were being disruptive, this while I was blocked for "disruption", as removing the misleading material was described. At one point I would have evaporated also, so I don't blame them. But I beg you to keep in mind that the topic matter than is being manipulated here is the death of thousands of indigenous children. Please ask me or somebody a question if anything at all that I have said here is confusing. Elinruby (talk) 10:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

PS: It seems important to point out [95] that the allied denialist Fraser Institute is currently the number one hit for the string "kamloops Indian residential school graves"

References

• checking for messages Elinruby (talk) 02:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Request for admin help here: someone please refactor this section

I'd be willing but I am obviously highly involved as the OP. But here is why I think it should happen:

1. Out of sheer exhaustion, I posted here with links to talk-page sections. Liz said the narrative was insufficient, which it was. I wrote about eight paragraphs around the links. Riposte97 complained that my post came in as he was typing his, as he put his above mine because reasons.
2. I objected, and various side arguments were had about my gender and what month I got blocked for "disrupting" the activity that is the topic of this post. I have said and will say again here that we can scrutinize that block here if people want, btw, but the thread is already complicated, and I promise you that whoever reviews these things is going to review that block. Are we distracted now? of course we are!
3. After a discussion about noticeboard etiquette we are even more so
4. THEN comes the narrative
5. Everything from Riposte's post to the top of of the actual complaint, which is all related to it, should be under the actual complaint. But Riposte97 wants it above because reasons. It is less confusing that way, he says.
6. TarnishedPath said you really need diffs if you are going to write all that. I considered that they were probably right and this was higher priority than explaining something to Riposte97 for the third time.
7. Now people are complaining in the Discussion section about walls of text. I realize that I am part of the problem there and apologize for that, but the story has at least two articles in it, their associated talk pages, six noticeboard postings (besides this one) and an RfC. So far. But maybe if we at least get the walls of text in the right order it will be a little easier to understand.
8. I am going to go ahead and differentiate out the long but badly needed post by the subject matter expert. I find them credible as such and not just because they agree with me. Nobody has disputed the expertise and Riposte97 has stipulated it. Whether their remarks go above or below his should be by date stamp according to me but I leave that to whoever, if anyone, does this.

That is my request. Elinruby (talk) 04:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion reprise

@Elinruby, you need to provide specific diffs for each claim that you make. Otherwise there is no point you writing a novel. TarnishedPath^talk 11:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

SME COMMENT

Hi,

I'll re-post this in a new topic, if it would be more appropriate, however I didn't want to clutter up the page with multiple topics relating to Riposte97.

I would ask that Riposte97 be prevented from doing further editing on at least the Kamloops Indian Residential School wikipedia article, and preferably the article Canadian Indian Residential School Gravesites, as well.

In real life I'm a researcher, and I've done extensive academic research on topics around disinformation, far-right conspiracies, the international and Canadian far-right, and the vast realm of Canadian far-right disinformation publications that spread conspiracy theories, etc.. I'd rather not directly doxx myself, and I understand if you don't take my word for it, but yeah - I'm very, very familiar with the topics at hand. Specifically for our discussion, I'm very, very familiar with anti-Indigenous racism and Residential School denialism as a far-right conspiracy theory, and how those conspiracy theories are featured and spread in far-right disinformation publications. And I'm very, very familiar with far-right disinformation publications in Canada, because I've spent years researching them (which is not fun, let me tell you!).

The integrity and accuracy of articles about Residential Schools, especially the Kamloops Residential School, is very important, because Canadian residential schools are the subject of a major far-right conspiracy theory which involves anti-Indigenous racism along with what is often considered to be genocide denial. I don't want to write a whole thesis here, so I'll desperately attempt to be brief, but basically this conspiracy theory focuses around the idea of residential schools being 'not that bad' and hinting (or outright stating) that the possible graves discovered on the grounds of many residential schools are a hoax. Any sources used in these articles should be of extremely high quality, high reliability, and shown to not be written in a biased manner, because it is deeply dangerous to promulgate or lend credence to this racist, far-right conspiracy theory, or to lend credence (by citing them) to sources that are known sources of conspiracy, hatred, and disinformation.

This brief excerpt discusses residential school denialism as a far-right conspiracy, and far-right publications that promote it. As well, it reflects narratives that appear in the content Riposte97 keeps trying to insert. From the article Saying what we mean, meaning what we say: Managing miscommunication in archaeological prospection, by Wadsworth, Halmhofer, & Supernant (2023):

"...those who used the misconceptions to support and spread denialist misinformation and disinformation about the IRS system. Heath Justice and Carleton (2021, n.p.) define residential school denialism as ‘not the outright denial of the Indian Residential School (IRS) system's existence, but rather the rejection or misrepresentation of basic facts about residential schooling to undermine truth and reconciliation efforts’. Quoting French anthropologist Didier Fassin, Jones (2021, p. 104) also noted that denialism is ‘an ideological position whereby one systematically reacts by refusing reality and truth’....

Responding to the GPR results from Kamloops, denialist narratives used various rhetorical strategies designed to distort facts, cast doubt and present alternative narratives. Denialist narratives focused on the terms used by the media such as mass versus individual graves, despite the quick correction of that language in most news outlets (Table 1). Targeting the GPR results, rhetorical strategies also repeatedly emphasized that ‘not one body has been found’, to try to undermine the thousands of archival documents that record the deaths of children. Demands for excavations and exhumations were also used to convince denialist audiences that without physical bodies, the GPR results should be considered a hoax. Additional rhetorical strategies focused on emphasizing that unmarked graves located in school cemeteries should not be surprising, as one would expect to find graves within a cemetery. These comments, however, served to distract their audience from the fact that no school should have a cemetery." (Wadsworth, Halmhofer & Suprnant, 2023).

So. Now to Riposte97. Riposte97 has shown a continued pattern of removing well-sourced statements without adequate justification, inserting inaccurate and inflammatorily-phrased claims, and using unreliable, highly-biased, far-right sources to 'support' these deeply questionable changes. Upon discussion, Riposte97 refuses to acknowledge these issues, refuses to ameliorate their actions, and misrepresents Wikipedia guidelines. They appear to be inserting claims that are congruent with far-right conspiratorial narratives/claims into the wiki article for Kamloops Indian Residential School, and reverting - without adequate justification - non-conspiratorial edits, to preserve their chosen statements. This behaviour is highly questionable, and risks tarnishing Wikipedia's reputation.

I'm at an event at the moment, so I can't dedicate a bunch of time to this, but when I added well-sourced info and removed information which comes from a known far-right publication, the Western Standard, he reverted my edit and insisted I prove that the Western Standard was unreliable, and when I did so, with many, many sources, he refused to replace my edit.

For instance, he reverted my edit, saying:

--> @Fluorescent Jellyfish: I have reverted some (not all) of your removal of content sourced to the Western Standard. What is your basis for claiming it is not a reliable source? Riposte97 (talk) 03:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I replied:

--> as it states in the page you linked about Wikipedia's guidelines for determining reliable sources, sources such as newspapers (which Western Standard would be counted as) have certain caveats relating to reliability. The page states that news reporting from "well established outlets" can often be considered reliable for statements of fact - Western Standard is not well-established; it was 're-established' in 2019 (see it's own About page: [96]) by disgraced right-wing politician Derek Hildebrandt, having originally been established in 2004 by extreme-far-right figure Ezra Levant.[97]

But far, far more than not being well-established - it is a far-right[98] misinformation outlet.[99] It frequently publishes racist, transphobic, and homophobic stories (and has repeatedly had to retract stories, along with failing various fact checks by media-observers). It has also been a key player in spreading Covid-denial and anti-vaxx disinformation.[100] It is a promulgator of far-right conspiracy theories.

From the (peer-reviewed) article The public, the pandemic, and the public service: The case of Alberta (Wesley and Ribeiro, 2024):

"Organizations that exhibited high levels of bias, frequently skewed or misrepresented facts, did not use reputable sources, and engaged in promoting conspiracies or misinformation were categorized as fringe. Here we included Fox News, Western Standard, Rebel News, Sun News, and talk radio as fringe news outlets."[101]

Additionally, just for a quick example:

"The Western Standard, a conservative publication based in Calgary, amplified in early July a conspiracy theory that claimed fires were being deliberately set at farms around the world to make populations more dependent on governments."[102]

"[E]xtremists from the far-right of the political spectrum, including the Canadian Yellow Vest movement and the Canadian chapter of the Islamophobic and anti-immigrant Soldiers of Odin. Their narratives are laundered and amplified by a well-established alternative media ecosystem, including outlets such as Rebel News, Western Standard, True North, and the Postmillennial."[103]

In fact, in its previous iteration, the Western Standard was charged with two counts of hate speech![104]

And, lol, just two days ago, "[Derek] Fildebrandt, 38, who is now the publisher of the Western Standard news website, faces four charges of uttering threats to cause death or bodily harm, according to court documents."[105]

It has a long history of anti-Indigenous racism. It promulgates a current far-right, anti-Indigenous conspiracy theory revolving around Residential Schools, elements of which were featured in this article until I had removed them. It is unfortunately not a reliable source, and I would appreciate my changes being accepted.

Hope you have a good rest of your day! Fluorescent Jellyfish (talk) 05:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion continued, but he refused to accept my changes.

Riposte97 inserted statements from unreliable source the Dorchester Review, another known far-right Canadian conspiratorial publication, which I then reverted. As I discussed on my talk page:

So, one of the authors of the article he used as a source (the one from C2C) is Tom Flanagan. Tom Flanagan is a well-known Residential School apologist.

For instance this article describes him as:

"Tom Flanagan, a former adviser to Stephen Harper and a long-time critic of Indigenous rights who has described residential schools as a “visionary program.”"

Here's another article discussing Tom Flanagan as part of the general far-right conspiracy to deny Residential School atrocities.

And here is an article from the CBC discussing Tom Flanagan's book (which is a massive piece of residential school denialism and allegedly *genocide denialism*). The article focused on the reasons and circumstances around the book being denounced by Quesnel city council. (that's also a good article for or info re: the situation, particularly the UN's funding recommendations)

I have to go, but yeah, I'd like to see him banned from editing this article as I believe he repeatedly inserts far-right conspiracy narratives - and sources - into the article, and is not editing in good faith with reliable sources. Fluorescent Jellyfish (talk) 23:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

More discussion

@Fluorescent Jellyfish I take you at your word that you are a subject matter expert in the areas claimed. However, that does not excuse you from providing policy justifications for the kinds of accusations you have made above. Requesting another editor be banned is not something I'd recommend doing without diffs of a policy violation, for example. General and unsupported accusations of 'inserting far-right conspiracy narratives', without diffs, is just casting aspersions. Riposte97 (talk) 06:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I take huge exception to the fact that in @Elinruby's comment below above thy accuse me of trying to intimidate them, again without any basis in reality.

Insofar as we have content disagreements in this topic area, this is really really far from the appropriate way to ventilate them. I get that they feel strongly about this. I really do. However, trying to somehow insinuate (again with no diffs) that I've somehow acted inappropriately is unbecoming of an editor of their experience. (NB: This comment originally made at 11:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC), reposted now after it was accidentally removed by another editor).

Riposte97 (talk) 12:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

You are again putting your comments above mine, indented to make it look like I am replying to you. Admins, please talk to this editor. Riposte97 this is not a content dispute. I don't understand why you are doing what you are doing or why you are doing it, but this is definitely a behaviour issue. Not sure which one, but there is definitely a behaviour issue here.Elinruby (talk) 12:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• {edited to add noping given the above attempt at obfuscation) @TarnishedPath:Thanks. I was hoping to avoid that but I guess you are right. Elinruby (talk) 12:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

My feelings are beside the point, Riposte. Your behaviour is. And mine too if they want to go there. It is not ok to distort the facts on Wikipedia, especially after multiple editors have already spent days explaining things to you. I an going back to diffs now and will not respond any further to you until done. Admins can ask me questions if they like and I will answer them as soon as I see that. Elinruby (talk) 13:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

You replied to my comments above, and so I replied to you there to prevent this thread becoming confusing. I will reply to you here going forward. I note you are adding diffs by editing your above comment. Could I suggest, since that comment has already been responded to, that it might cut down on confusion for you to post the diffs in a new comment? Riposte97 (talk) 13:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Elinruby's pointed to "current RSN" threads. I looked at the first: Dorchester Review, Again. It was started by ElinRuby, Riposte97 did not participate. It's about the sentence in the Kamloops Indian Residential School article: "A tooth and rib were found in the area in the 1990s and early 2000s, both of which were of animal origin." In that article, the first addition of "tooth" that I can find was on 30 January 2022, the editor who added was not Riposte97. The addition of "both of which were of animal origin" was on on 14 June 2024, the editor who added was not Riposte97. Nor did Riposte97 mention the tooth and rib on the talk page. By the way ElinRuby didn't mention that the animal-origin sourcing was of a reader comment not a Dorchester Review author, but whether Elinruby was thus wasting WP:RSN time is not relevant. What's important is that Elinrhby is pointing to something that doesn't involve Riposte97. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I am saying there is a problem with Canadian residential school articles and Riposte97 is part of it. I explicitly identify several things I myself do not understand in this story and one reason the section is so long is that I have tried to be very careful about what I do and do not know. And it's Elinruby or El is ok if you don't want to type All That. I think the diffs speak for themselves. One way or the other it needs to be discussed. The two articles I mention are extremely important recent events in Canadian culture and for whatever reason wingnuts are digging up burial sites because some fringe yackadoodle told them stuff. As for wasting RSN time, when has that ever been a consideration, and isn't that the place where I am supposed to bring source problems, mmm? Elinruby (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I think looking at the Western Review thread would be more informative. Someone with a far-right agenda is trying to push the narrative that the sad history of mistreatment of and deaths of First Nations children at Canadian residential schools was a hoax, and it isn't Elinruby. It might be Riposte97. But regardless of their motives, the sources Riposte97 is pushing hard to include border on genocide denial. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd say they go beyond "bordering" and straight into genocide denial. The Western Review article is absolutely written to insinuate that the First Nation council misappropriated the funds, and the repeated scare quotes are intended to downplay the deaths from those schools. They're very careful to not say it outright, but the framing is very clear. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I need a break. Please let me know if anything else needs a diff and I will do it when my back has stopped screaming. There are other issues with the article that were not included because Riposte 97 was not in them and they were not needed for context. I will be back to check for questions and diff requests if any. Elinruby (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Sticking my head in the door.

If nobody needs to talk to me I think I should go back to sleep then recheck the diffs if there are still no questions. I do not have a proposed remedy here because I am uncertain what flavor of behavior problem this might be exactly, but I would ask that the vastness of the grief that is being messed with here be taken into account and that the behavior be stopped somehow. I don't want to do a fisking answer to Riposte97 here but can rebut it in detail if that is necessary.

I am also very willing to be scrutinized of course. TL;DR: if nobody needs me I plan to finish the GA prep for Regency of Algiers and History of the Regency of Algiers. I have been preoccupied with this for months but apparently I don't edit constructively. I find that confusing. I am a primary author of Operation Car Wash (for which I got Editor of the Week), Liberation of France, Black market in wartime France, Jublains archeological site and a plethora of more minor articles about corruption in Brazil, the Ukraine war, and and the French Foreign Legion. These are all since I first encountered admin sanctions for feloniously thinking that I was allowed to point out on a talk page that RSN says that that's not a good source. From the same admin. I will spare everyone further sarcasm, mention Panama Papers and Impeachment of Dilma Rousseff and just mention I also plan to ask for a review of the block. All of this can be documented if needed.

I have no idea what behavior I will be blocked for if I repeat it, and the admin has refused to elaborate. I think that at a minimum I should be privy to that information. That is not a matter for this board though as far as I know however, but we can talk about it if people want to. There already a glut of in-scope information however. I will check back shortly then go away for a longer period if my presence here is still not needed. Elinruby (talk) 02:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC) to

@Elinruby I would be grateful if you would provide a little more depth. So far, you have written a wall of text, throwing out vague insinuations of wrongdoing, but never actually getting to the nub of any policy. Despite the numerous revisions you have made to your comments, it is still not clear what you are actually accusing me of. That's unfair. Riposte97 (talk) 06:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

@David Eppstein@HandThatFeeds, insofar as this is a content or source issue, I'd say that the Elinruby ought to have brought it to the article talk page first. Nevertheless, I feel it's necessary to explain why I have defended citing the impugned sources for the bare factual claim that exhumations have not taken place. Both the Tk̓emlúps te Secwépemc (Kamloops Indian Band) and the anthropologist who conducted the first GPR surveys of the Kamloops Indian Residential School, Sarah Beaulieu, have been at pains to point out that the graves cannot be confirmed without conducting forensic exhumations. It is therefore pretty important that it be pointed out that these exhumations have not taken place.

There are dozens of sources online which repeat this fact, and so when one has been challenged, I haven't died on the hill, and instead sought to insert another in its place. Rather than discuss the content on the talk page, Elinruby has taken four or so separate, relatively obscure, sources to RSN. No one seemingly contests the factuality of the claim (and indeed, the reliability of none of these sources for factual claims has been properly contested per the RS policy). The Kamloops Indian Residential School article now seems relatively stable, with the fact no exhumations have taken place in the lead. However, the situation at Canadian Indian residential school gravesites is more confused. As far as I can tell, the accusations of 'far-right narratives' and 'denialism' are coming from the tone of the articles to which this fact is attributed. I've never said (and irrelevantly, don't believe) that there are no graves, or that the issue is a 'hoax'. That's, as far as I understand, the core reason I've been dragged here, not because I'm trying to somehow turn Wikipedia into Der Stürmer. Riposte97 (talk) 06:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

The statement that the narrative you are pushing is genocide denial can be found in reliable sources. Here is one. You may disavow a belief that this narrative implies no graves, but it is that belief that the sources you are pushing are trying to instill in their readers. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

@David Eppstein Respectfully, I need you to explain to me where I have pushed a 'narrative'. For what it's worth, I think most of the issues in this topic area come from the perception that there are duelling grand narratives that need to be vindicated. It may well be true that many sources are implying no graves. I do not believe that to be determinative in assessing their reliability for factual claims. In any case, our energies here are probably directed to RSN. I note there is currently an RfC on topic. Riposte97 (talk) 07:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I am now getting the point of the discussion title. I have explained on RSN but you have been politely insisting and politely insisting until somebody blows their top and loses that argument despite your polite genocide denial pushing. You are insisting on including a dishonest news source, the Western Review. That source is, as THTFY states about, careful not to make an outright error of fact. Instead, they cherry-pick which facts they include, and which ones they put in unnecessary scare quotes, and the order in which they state these facts, in order to twist a straightforward story (evidence suggests there are bodies, an investigation has been commissioned, but because this is a sensitive issue involving children's dead bodies they have been taking their time, so they have not yet gotten to the stage of exhuming bodies) into a genocide denial story (no bodies have been found strongly implying but not outright saying that there are no bodies to be found and millions of dollars have been allocated with no bodies found strongly implying but not outright saying that the money has already been fraudulently taken). It is not the facts that they state but the order and the framing of those facts that makes the source dishonest. This has been explained to you. But you're just asking questions. And just asking questions. Until people take a false step themselves, or get tired of wasting time on a time sink and let you get your way. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

That is a total mischaracterisation of what I asked you. Let me be absolutely explicit, then: how on earth is citing the Western Standard (or the Dorchester Review, or SPIKED, or C2C) for the bare factual claim that exhumations have not taken place 'pushing a narrative'? That fact needs to be attributed to something - no one else is offering up an alternative! Have you bothered to read my contributions? I have not imported any of the 'implications' you object to in the Western Standard article. I have NOT pushed genocide denial, and I demand that you strike that. Or is your contention that the point exhumations have not yet been conducted should simply be ignored entirely, though the provenance and number of graves has not yet been ascertained? If that's the case, I don't think it's me pushing a narrative. Riposte97 (talk) 08:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

how on earth is citing the Western Standard (or the Dorchester Review, or SPIKED, or C2C) for the bare factual claim that exhumations have not taken place 'pushing a narrative'? Literally this exact question could be answered by rereading the post you're responding to. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 16:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

You haven't JUST edited the article to include that exhumations had not taken place, you've reverted to re-include your preferred material at Special:Diff/1227501210 which included the denialist phrasing "As of May 2024, investigations into the reported mass graves at the site have ended with no conclusive evidence of such graves". Notably when that information was removed, prior to your revert to re-insert it, by @Fluorescent Jellyfish at Special:Diff/1227472046 they left the edit summary "Removed questionable claims from a far-right, non-reputable 'source' (the Western Standard is not a reputable source - it is a Canadian far-right publication which is known for publishing disinformation". After your revert to re-include the denialist material supported by the unreliable source, you then proceeded to push the source at Talk:Kamloops_Indian_Residential_School#Western_Standard. TarnishedPath^talk 02:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

And, to add to what many (including @TarnishedPath above) have mentioned:

It is noteworthy, as well, that when I edited the article - prior to my changes being reverted by Riposte97 - the article still made it clear that no exhumations have occurred. Because that's a fact, which no reasonable person has an issue including! It remained in the article, supported by reputable, well-established sources.

Which suggests that including "the bare factual claim that exhumations have not taken place" is not what Riposte97 actually cares about. Fluorescent Jellyfish (talk) 03:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Topic Ban proposal

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

---

This thread is already quite lengthy and in the interests of coming to some sort of conclusion I'm going to propose a topic ban for Riposte97 from the indigenous peoples of North America, broadly construed. TarnishedPath^talk 07:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

support (involved) for the obvious reasons. I personally think the editor is NOTTHERE, but I understand that the idea is usually escalating blocks and giving people a chance to improve, but the fact that the editor wants us to believe that he truly can't see the difference between spiked.com and a history journal says it all and if actually true this would suggest CIR issues or perhaps SEO. I really don't know what the cause is of this behaviour by Riposte97 and others, but I really really think Wikipedia needs to stop giving a platform to people who think it's cool to dig up a burial site in an effort to further a conspiracy theory. And a topic ban would at least help with that. Elinruby (talk) 08:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I think a mutual I-ban between us may actually be more productive for the project. I refrained from suggesting any kind of sanction in outlining your repeated attacks on me above, because I really don't think wikidrama helps the project at all. You have not specified any policy breaches that would warrant a T-ban. Riposte97 (talk) 08:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Just noting that the policy breaches are pretty clear but that I have listed off several a little further down the section where you said pretty much the samething all over again. Out of an abundance of caution given your proclivity for claiming that silence equals agreement Elinruby (talk) 00:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

And I think the above response pretty much proves my point. But just so you know, an i-ban would not allow you to again run amok again in these articles. Since my involvement with them predates yours you would have to stop editing them anyway. I have no personal animus against you, and am capable of putting it aside if I did. But what you have been doing in these articles for some reason is profoundly wrong.Elinruby (talk) 09:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

@Riposte97, pushing weak sources which engage in denialism can be considered WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. That's all the reason that's required to support a TBAN from the area in which the disruption is occurring. TarnishedPath^talk 09:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Support. The sources are all trying to insert doubt by weaseling around the issue (a common type of denialism regardless of the subject), but in good faith I'm unsure if that's being understood. Either way a than from the area seems an appropriate solution. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support (involved) as proposer. There is obvious disruption that is occurring in this topic area as a result of Riposte97's pushing of weak sources which display a particularly strong bias. A TBAN would put a stop to that disruption. TarnishedPath^talk 09:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  There is no disruption. I have added one (1) factual claim from various sources. This claim, if you disagree with it, should be discussed on the talk page, not in an ANI thread without proper diffs. I note that you started an RSN RfC about one of the sources, the reliability of which is being legitimately debated. To suggest I've been disruptive for adding the source is unfair. Riposte97 (talk) 10:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Riposte for illustrating how your statements cannot be relied upon. At the time you made this statement the ANI complaint had dozens of diffs. The claim you keep trying to insert over and over again is contradicted by other material in the article, which you have been removing. Somewhere above you claim that there have been no policy breaches that would justify a t-ban; misrepresentation in edit summaries is a policy breach. Bullying other editors off the talk page is a policy breach. Ignoring consensus is a policy breach. PoV pushing is a policy breach. Misgendering is a rather minor policy breach but refusing to correct it escalates the breach. Removing cited material over the objections of others is a policy breach. And that is without getting into that one editor who keeps showing up to agree with you. And your surprising familiarity with PAG given that this account started editing in December, as pointed out in the earlier ANI thread about you. Elinruby (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• It's not just that source. Multiple editors have told you in article talk that the sources you are adding are questionable and you have refused to listen. TarnishedPath^talk 10:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Hi, uninvolved editor here, it seems pretty clear that this is a classic case of WP:CPUSH and should be treated as such. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I am uninvolved here, but I do support the topic ban. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 16:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Support, for the reasons outlined in my comment above, as well as in the talk page of the article. Fluorescent Jellyfish (talk) 20:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppposed I see no reason why the TBAN should be so broad. If it were specific to this topic (and/or those immediately related) I would support it. Lostsandwich (talk) 09:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

support for Elinruby oppose for Piposte97. P97 was just warned and it doesn't appear that they have done anything wrong since that warning. Conversely, Elinruby was recently blocked for BATTLEGROUND behavior and it seems they are continuing. Time sink? Look at how much of this that is Elinruby's own comments/commentary! Clearly they feel strongly about this topic but that isn't an excuse to attack editors who are acting in good faith. Additionally, when an editor brings a source that makes what on the surface it's a compelling argument it's more helpful to civilly explain why they are wrong (and saying they are borderline genocide denialist isn't the way to do it). If P97 continues the actions that resulted in a warning so be it. However no evidence has been presented that they haven't heard the warning. So no block is needed at this time. Springee (talk • contribs) 10:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

@Springee, Riposte97 was warned for something entirely different. The admin at WP:AE did not consider any material in regards to their editing of the articles related to the school graves precisely because it did not fall within the WP:AP2 area. TarnishedPath^talk 10:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

If the issue continues after the ANI closing then I can see a leg to stand on. Conversely, Elinruby not only showed no they didn't understand why they were blocked (see the failed requests to lift the block early) but was even warned the block may be extended if the behavior didn't change. Disagreeing with other editors in a civil fashion is not something that deserves a tban. That is what is going on here. Springee (talk) 11:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Civilly pushing dodgy source that have very strong biases after multiple editors have told you that they are dodgy is still WP:TENDITIOUS. TarnishedPath^talk 11:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• And if they continue after the warning from what 2 days back then maybe you have a leg to stand on. Also, so long as they don't push in sources, ie edit the article itself, then proposals on the talk page are just that, proposals. Edits are free to say no and then do nothing further. At this point P97 should understand that such changes, dinner unilaterally, are going to be an issue. This whole, extremely long thread looks like nothing more than an attempt to get a sanitation than ARE didn't provide. The most damning diffs provided were the ones showing bad behavior by the editor who just came off a block. Springee (talk) 11:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Springee, per Special:PermanentLink/1230327997#Riposte97 the specific warning given at WP:AE was that "Riposte97 is warned to abide by the general bold-revert-discuss restriction that is present on Hunter Biden, per the consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE". I'm unsure why you are trying to conflate an entirely different issue to what is being discussed here. TarnishedPath^talk 12:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  No reason to ping me. R97 was warned for behavior similar to this. Elinruby replied to that ARE with basically the same complaint as here. The result was a warning and an acknowledgement by R97. If the behavior continues then you may have a point. Until then (if then occurs) all I see is more battleground behavior from ER and no new evidence against R97. Hence, no action should be taken at this time. Springee (talk) 12:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  You're correct that Elinruby presented the same complaint at WP:AE and was specifically told by El_C that it wasn't actionable at WP:AE because it didn't fall under the WP:AP2 topic area. El_C additionally told them that the complaint would need to be brought up at WP:AN (I think they meant WP:AN/I) if they wanted to pursue it. Again, I'm not sure why you're trying to conflate these two entirely different issues. TarnishedPath^talk 12:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  If you can show the bad behavior extended after the warning, fine. Since the complaint was already brought and R97 acknowledge the complaint we can wait and see. Conversely, ER bad behavior has continued after their block expired. Since I'm in an area where I have limited phone signal and no computer don't take a lack of reply as anything other than limited connectivity. Springee (talk) 13:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  The warning had entirely nothing to do with what is being discussed here. It is entirely irrelevant. Why do you persist in pushing the entirely incorrect idea that the warning is of any relevance? TarnishedPath^talk 13:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'd like to point out that "it's just on the talk page" does not remove the possibility of disruption. It drains editor time and forces them to respond for fear a "silent consensus" will be claimed for a bad edit. No comment on the proposal itself. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  It wasn't just on talk pages in any case so the argument is entirely incorrect. The poor quality sources, pushing denialism with strong biases were added to articles prior to the goings on in talk pages. TarnishedPath^talk 13:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  Perhaps; I couldn't make the time to wade through the walls of text. I'm just saying that, even granting Springee's assertion of so long as they don't push in sources, ie edit the article itself, then proposals on the talk page are just that, proposals, the problem can persist. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  TP were any of those done after the recent warning? If the warning for basically the same behavior doesn't show a change in behavior on this topic then you have a stronger argument. If the issue stopped after the warning but ER felt they didn't get the punishment they felt R97 needed, well that becomes punitive, not preventative. Springee (talk) 13:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  The warning isn't even for the same behaviour. The warning was for not adhering to compulsory BRD on Hunter Biden in violation of active arbitration remedies. I spelt out exactly what the warning was. I continue to not understand why you are pushing that the warning is of any relevance. TarnishedPath^talk 13:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  So long as they don't restore the material against consensus editors are welcome to say they don't support the addition and leave it at that. They aren't obligated to reply nor should any editor take the lack of a second reply to mean someone was persuaded to change their mind. Springee (talk) 13:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

But they did restore the material against consensus many times then argue with the editors and the administrator who removed it, making the same arguments every time. I know the complaint is long --I tried to be succinct but there are at least two articles in this story and six noticeboard postings -- but the restoring against consensus is in the diffs after the spiked.com is mentioned. He also removed 11k bytes and 10k bytes of cited material that contradicted his source and statement, and flat-out misrepresented what he was doing in a number of edit summaries, for which you will also find diffs above. Elinruby (talk) 21:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Did they do it after the warning? Springee (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

As was explained to you already above, the warning was specific to the article on Hunter Biden's laptop. I submitted evidence in that case, but apparently AE does not take into consideration what happens outside of contentious topics, and this is not a contentious topic, although imho it should be. Elinruby (talk) 22:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)s

And look, if it helps you understand this, the answer to your question is yes. This was after they received the warning. So even though the warning is irrelevant, if it matters, after they received it they removed a cited sentence saying it was unsupported by the source. Which by the way it is, of course, but the sentence is about the government policy of forced assimilation that Riposte does not want discussed. Elinruby (talk) 23:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

It didn't take much adjustment of the wording of the sentence from myself to make it accurately reflect the source. That Riposte97 removed it in the first place was disruptive. TarnishedPath^talk 23:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

yeah there is a (imho rather specious) claim that could be argued that it wasn't the school's policy it was the government's policy, but the government ran the school, so... and thank you for dealing with that btw. My hands have been kinda full. Elinruby (talk) 00:07, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support Read the exchange with David Eppstein, what more is there to say? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 16:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support (uninvolved). Clear case of "civil" POV pushing in a fraught area (Indigenous peoples of Canada, especially the known horrors of Residential Schools). Newimpartial (talk) 03:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support (involved). It's pretty obvious this is civil POV pushing in an area where there very much is only one correct POV. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 03:31, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  I’ll save the poor closer some time and voluntarily commit to indefinitely refrain from editing Canadian Indian residential school gravesites and any residential school’s article (including Kamloops Indian Residential School).

  
  

  Obviously, I didn’t think at the time there was anything wrong with my behaviour at those pages, but the weight of experienced editors who have opined that it amounted to WP:CRUSH means I obviously need to reconsider and take responsibility.

  
  

  Sincere thanks to @Springee who stood up for me here, and @5225C who stood up for me at CIRSG. Riposte97 (talk) 04:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe this. I don't think anyone should believe this. Elinruby (talk) 04:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

My child, when people on this board preemptively agree to indefinitely refrain from editing in a given area or page or what not it’s not interpreted by the community as “I messed up, I get that, and I will now own my mistake”, it’s interpreted as “As came here to get the other guy(s)/girl(s) blocked from editing and the community unexpectedly turned on me, so to avoid being shot down and the accompanying crash landing I need to offer some sort of bargaining chip to get them off by back long enough for me out some distance between this so I can resume adding or subtracting information in my article(s) against the wishes of the community”. Accordingly, do not look to be let off so easily simply because you’re offering to refrain from editing; unto our experience, if there are no teeth in the deal you won’t abide by it. 2600:1011:B188:718D:88A3:E526:F857:7E70 (talk) 05:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

My child

Cool it. You have no right to talk down.

came here to get the other guy(s)/girl(s) blocked from editing and the community unexpectedly turned on me

R97 did not start this discussion. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Not this one, no. It does however look like they did because they insisted that their response go above the complaint that it was responding to, saying that the the thread was less confusing that way. Because reasons. See subsection on request to refactor. Elinruby (talk) 04:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:06, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Springee, but this is the Canadian equivalent of denying the Holocaust happened, so understand my (perhaps NPA skirting) comment. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 20:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

He has already been told that and made a complaint to an administrator that he was told that. Elinruby (talk) 04:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Link? Springee (talk) 11:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Are you seriously saying you don't remember that? I am right in the middle of some rl stuff but fine, diffs it is. Jordan Peterson talk page and SFR's user page, does that ring any bells now?

Do you remember saying a few days ago at RSN that genocide was just a matter of perspective? I'll get you a diff for that too, just in case. Elinruby (talk) 01:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

[106][107]

Elinruby, what are you doing? Is “Do you remember [totally unrelated unflattering thing]” supposed to be a whack? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

@Zanahary: He was just told that this topic is the Canadian equivalent of the Holocaust, I said he had already been told that and made a report to an administrator that he was told that. Note: this topic. He later posted at RSN saying that genocide at residential schools, ie this topic, was "just a matter of perspective". Note, this topic. And now, after defending someone who is denying the presence of bodies in the graves in Kamloops, he is demanding diffs that show he said what he said. He has them now. Over and out. Elinruby (talk) 02:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

@Riposte97, please take note of what the actual TBAN proposal is. It is a proposal to topic ban you from indigenous peoples of North America, broadly construed. TarnishedPath^talk 06:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support - David Eppstein clearly laid out the issues with this user above, and I agree. This is a polite POV-pusher, who is quite happy to support sources that promote genocide denial. This topic ban is the least we can do to deter them, while I would personally support a WP:NOTHERE block. I don't like people who push this nonsense, and believe they have a chilling effect on other editors. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban for Riposte97. I believe the crux here is Riposte97 being topic-banned for using a poor source, Western Standard, at Kamloops Indian Residential School and this is the particular article in question. While Western Standard may be considered a poor source generally, but I don't see it at WP:RSP and I can't find anything in that particular article that seems obviously false. Moreover the main claim, that no human remains have been found at Kamloops site, is clearly true. Compare that to reliable sources like the NY Times [108] and CNN [109] that reported or suggested back in 2021 that the remains of 215 bodies had been found, when that was clearly not the case. All we know for sure is that a radar survey has detected anomalies in the ground that could be burials or could be a lot of other things. This whole thing really has been something of a scandal. The National Post and Spiked have reported on this: [110], [111],[112]. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Content discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please see my post on the Kamloops Indian Residential School talk page, where I discuss in depth the evidence that Western Standard is unreliable. Additionally, I would disagree that 'the main claim' is 'that no human remains have been found at Kamloops site': when I edited the article - prior to my edit being reverted by Riposte97 - the article still stated that no exhumations have taken place (and provided reliable sources to support that fact). This suggests that the main issue is not the simple fact that no exhumations have occurred. Also, 'the main claim, that no human remains have been found at Kamloops site, is clearly true' is not entirely accurate. There have been reports of small pieces of human remains - specifically juvenile human remains - being found on the surface at the Kamloops site.[1] Thus we can't claim that statement is 'clearly true'. Fluorescent Jellyfish (talk) 00:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC) Okay, but no one no knows if there are human remains buried in the ground that was surveyed with radar, i.e. no one know what the 215 anomalies actually contain. I see the passage "During a presentation that outlined how ground-penetrating radar (GPR) science works, she noted that a juvenile tooth and rib bone were found in the area." Do we know exactly what "area" Beaulieu was talking about? Who found the juvenile tooth and rib bone and when did they find it? What happened to those specimens? Jweiss11 (talk) 00:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC) I believe at least one of those items was found by a tourist and turned over to the band. I have not researched this specific claim, but as of the last time I edited the article a few days ago this statement was in the article. There is indeed some vagueness about what is mean by the "the area", as you say. I remember struggling with that. I read it as the grounds of the school, which apparently are extensive, vs the apple orchard where survivors report seeing children buried. I edited the article to add that Beaulieu ran underground radar in the apple orchard -- thus the comments about tree roots. I would say that the thing about the tooth and the rib should probably be further discussed. I didn't add that and am an agnostic about it. There were just much bigger problems on my last pass through. I probably should double-check the "and noted" though. That was me and was intended to remove the subtext the article previously had that the Wikipedia article is arguing with her by using "but". That is my best honest answer about what appears to be an honest question.Elinruby (talk) 02:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC) Yeah, does "in the area" mean within 50 feet from where an anomaly was detected by radar or 2 miles down the road? Whatever the case, it's clearly true that no human remains have been found at the Kamloops site since Beaulieu began her investigation in 2021. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC) Don't really know what whoever wrote was thinking, as to area. Research the matter and report back with your findings ;) It is also true that no zambonis or leprechauns have been found, though, so I am not understanding why so many people are fixated on what they didn't find in Kamloops. At the moment the tooth and rib are not in the article, but I am not against it coming back if properly sourced and discussed in a DUE-compliant manner. noting here that I did double-check the "noted" point and the source does support that all, day long. The source is probably unfamiliar, btw, but it is reliable for local news in Kamloops for sure. Maybe even authoritative. Elinruby (talk) 05:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC) Neither CNN nor the NY Times nor Justin Trudeau nor the Pope have ever claimed that dead zambonis or dead leprechauns were found at Kamloops. Only dead kids from the residential school. That's why people are "fixated" on that because that is the subject of the unsubstantiated claims. This should be obvious. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC) what I am hearing here is that you dismiss the professional findings of an archaeologist for unexplained reasons, since you are saying they are unsubstantiated, and you are mad that CNN and the NYT are not. I am unsure whether Trudeau and the Pope specifically address Kamloops btw. I think their remarks followed a whole lot of other findings and encompassed them as a group. But I'm not positive and that's a quibble anyway. In any event, that is enough for me.I apologize to other readers of the thread for thinking that was an honest question up there. No objection to hatting if anyone is so moved. Elinruby (talk) 06:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC) ? Really odd for you to say the statement was in the article last time you edited it, when you removed it. Riposte97 (talk) 03:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC) That's right, I did go back and do that. RSN was saying it didn't matter if the source was reliable, because the actual statement came from a reader comment. I hesitated because I had not had a change to check that, then noticed that the tooth and the rib were not discussed in the article body anyway and might be undue for the lead anyway since nobody seems to know if any forensics were ever done, and removed in on that basis. I need to go right now but when I come back I will double check whether the indirect quote after "noted" is in fact something Beaulieu said. I think I did that already, but right this second I can't swear to it. Elinruby (talk) 03:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC) noting here that I did double-check this point and the source does support that all day long. The source is probably unfamiliar, btw, but it is reliable for local news in Kamloops for sure. Maybe even authoritative. Elinruby (talk) 05:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC) Ok, but can you acknowledge that many of the things you are strongly attacking others for in this thread are errors that can be made just as easily as the one you made here? Riposte97 (talk) 03:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC) Acknowledge? there you go again with the assumed close, like you've had sales training or something. I' have not been reverting people to keep that tooth in the article. I didn't put it there, I took it out based on consensus, and brought it up here myself. If I took it out, I think that was the right thing to do. I don't have an opinion whether the statement itself is true. I initially hesitated to remove it, but did after the discussion at RSN. Unsure if true, but definitely unsourced, is my current position. None of that looks much like what you have been doing with spiked.com, imho, but whatever. I have put this in the hands of the community and am content for it to scrutinize and research and look into the matter. I urge them to do so. Something really really needs to be done no matter what. Let's let them decide what. When it comes to you, my thought is that it is one thing to be informed and another to refuse information. And that the issue extends well beyond you, but that you personally have definitely refused the attempts of quite a few editors to inform you. I said way back on the Kamloops talk page that maybe possibly with some AGF on top you were mistaken,but you weren't interested in that at the time because you were sure, immovably sure, that you were right.Elinruby (talk) 04:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC) The surface findings have been contentious. I note that only to give context that the claim did appear in the page, but was subsequently removed. Riposte97 (talk) 01:19, 26 June 2024 PS all this is documented in the Dorchester Review RfC Elinruby (talk) 05:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support. I didn't have much of an opinion at first, because I don't recall having much experience with the editor in question, and while I recognized the name from an WP:RSN discussion, it was not entirely obvious from that relatively limited discussion what was going on ... but the longer this discussion here has gone on, the clearer it's become (notably through Riposte's own contributions to this discussion!) that this is Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing at best, if not something more tendentious, as The Hand remarked. -sche (talk) 02:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support. I believe I interacted with them briefly on Canadian Indian residential school gravesites. Their framing here - where they take a list of sources that are at best all clearly WP:BIASED in the same direction and mostly low-quality opinion pieces from people with no relevant expertise, and presents them as a revelation that the article needs to basically be rewritten around in a way that would weigh them equal to or higher than the much higher-quality sources they're supposedly debunking - smacks of WP:CPUSHing that perspective, at least in the context of their constant efforts to essentially argue the same point from the same direction without ever actually turning up any good sources for it. CPUSH / TEND is often a difficult thing to argue, but the perspective they're arguing for is WP:EXCEPTIONAL - they're saying, essentially, that huge swaths of reliable sources got something extremely important wrong and then never retracted it, based on a handful of opinion-pieces and articles from low-quality partisan press, of a quality lower than the sources they're supposedly debunking. Trying to push that through by arguing every possible policy point and pressing it at so much length across multiple articles instead of just... finding better sources or conceding that they don't exist seems like the textbook definition of tendentious editing. --Aquillion (talk) 05:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

അദ്വൈതൻ now edit warring to insert sources which multiple editors have previously advised is unreliable

Please refer to Special:Diff/1231095889 for the editor editing to insert material which multiple editors have advised is unreliable. Refer to Special:Diff/1231097054 for the editor reverting to re-insert it after being reverted. This behaviour is egregious and requires action. TarnishedPath^talk 13:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

what multiple editors have advised is issue on the reliability of Western Standard as a whole.See RSN Western Standard as a source. The recent edit I done on the article doesn't use WS as a source for citation, instead constructed it as a reported speech style as the WS's claim made headlines in other reliable sources around the Globe.

Also the later part of the edit I made, the response of the Spokesperson of Indigenous department and first nation community's statement isn't sourced from WS but from another source I got from RSN discussion where its reliability isn't a question at the moment. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 13:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

There's nothing in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Online_publication_in_India_as_source_for_archaeological_findings_in_British_Columbia which gives an indication of the source being reliable. In fact its reliability is questioned. Please explain why you have re-inserted material for which the source is questioned? TarnishedPath^talk 13:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

it is unclear specifically what source they are talking about? If you comprehend it, please provide the link to the source which is in question in their discussion അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 14:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

• That discussion at RSN appears to have general consensus that the Western Standard is not reliable. Given that, I do not know why അദ്വൈതൻ is restoring a reference to it, regardless of whether other sources referring to WS are reliable or not. Black Kite (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  at this point even if we ditch the Western Standard and got information from other news media sites unrelated to WS(not even as secondary source quoting Western Standard.) anther discussion will start on the reliability about that new citation.

  See my latest contribution citing Catholic Register whose reliability hasn't been in question currently. This new citation I got from one of the user's reply at the RSN about the Western Standard reliability as a whole. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 14:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  See the issue that brought me here is this,

  the reliability of Western Standard as a whole is ongoing at RSN. The question here, what about using the reports by other news medias that made headlines on the WS's claims in a reported speech style.

  As In May 2024, Western Standard, a Canadian conservative social commentary media claimed that investigations into the reported mass graves at the Kamloops Indian Residential School in British Columbia have end with no conclusive evidence of such graves, despite significant resources invested in various investigative efforts, including fieldwork, archival searches, and securing the school site, no human remains have been found.

  See here the citation isn't WS but another news agency that reported on WS's claim.

  Also the latter part of my edit

  Carolane Gratton, spokesperson for the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations confirmed the allocation of $7.9 million for these endeavors. In a statement, the Tk'emlups te Secwepemc First Nation reiterated their focus on the scientific work required but declined to discuss the $7.9 million allocation.

  Isn't sourced from WS and not even as a secondary source.

  The citation to this(The Catholics Register) I got from RSN discussions on WS reliability. The Reliability of The Catholic Register at the moment isn't at discussion. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 13:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC) അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 14:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  No, it would be entirely undue to report the fringe opinions of WS, especially given that a) they are unreliable and b) they are not subject matter experts. I don't understand why you are seeking to push deniali9sm. TarnishedPath^talk 04:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

  If it's that Times Now source it's sketchy or at least, I can't vouch for it. Elinruby (talk) 14:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  I think TarnishedPath is on the right track. I am having trouble following the talk page discussion. The editor is hard to understand. Elinruby (talk) 14:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  Times Now and other medias have reported on the WS claim. My doubt(out of which an edit from my side came that brought me here) is that adding WS's claim which other news outlets reported, in a reported speech style has anything to do with WS's reliability as a whole.

  Like this

  In May 2024, Western Standard, a Canadian conservative social commentary media claimed that investigations into the reported mass graves at the Kamloops Indian Residential School in British Columbia have end with no conclusive evidence of such graves, despite significant resources invested in various investigative efforts, including fieldwork, archival searches, and securing the school site, no human remains have been found with Time Now news as source for the citation. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 15:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  See as I said earlier, the new source having information related to issue is also been reverted citing unreliability. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 15:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeas, exactly, because your new source cites the old source. (Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.) With vast respect, I would like to say to you that disputes about reliability need to be worked out on the reliable sources board not here. I am against CIR sanctions on principle but you are in danger of one, because you have already been told that removing material over sourcing issues is not improper. I am telling you this in an effort to help you remain in good standing. It would be a very good idea to re-ask this question at RSN if there is something you still do not understand, and stop arguing here. hth Elinruby (talk) 23:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby as I stated earlier in this discussion "the reliability of Western Standard as a whole is ongoing at RSN. The question here, what about using the reports by other news medias that made headlines on the WS's claims in a reported speech style" which I believe isn't solely a reliability issue that needs to be worked in RSN, I believe article's talk page is the place to discuss.

And for your reply to my comment "See as I said earlier, the new source having information related to issue is also been reverted citing unreliability."

My new source wasn't citing the old source, ie., Western Standard as you said. My new source was citing The Catholic Register which is quoting the Blacklock's Reporter.

The edit I did with my new source after which I commented this "See as I said earlier, the new source having information related to issue is also been reverted citing unreliability.15:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)" is this

Which you in turn undid see this saying "take it to RSN. Reliability of that source is unclear in this context" at 14:50, 26 June 2024 അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 10:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

that was friendly advice. You are free to ignore it but I do not recommend that course of action. That said, I find you very hard to understand, but I suggest you should tell me about it at RSN. Elinruby (talk) 10:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Reversion/undoing others contributions by frequently citing unreliability

Frequently reverting and undoing the contributions saying any citation is unreliable. By @Elinruby @TarnishedPath . Even a contributor has been banned on the topic.

Already reliability of Western Standard is going at RSN under the section Western Standard as a source for Canadian residential schools when Western Standard was quoted as citation [113]

When the WS' claim is added as a reported speech style, they reverted saying the secondary sources is unreliable too under the sub section Online publication in India as source for archaeological findings in British Columbia

Recently I contributed with another new source(The Catholic Register, which I got from RSN discussion under the sub section Western Standard as a source for Canadian residential schools) , now that too is reverted saying this new citation is also unreliable without talking at the the article's talk page.

See the Diffs to reverting [114] [115]

The recently reverted contributions with citations. According to a May 9 report by Blacklock's Reporter, the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations has not publicly disclosed how millions of dollars were spent on field work, records searches and securing the Residential School grounds for the Kamloops First Nation. The $7.9 million provided to the Tk'emlups te Secwepemc First Nation for their field work at the suspected site, represents a small portion of the $110 million allocated to Indigenous communities for searching and documenting burial grounds at former residential schools. The department has not released an audit of the contribution under the Access to Information Act. Carolane Gratton, spokesperson for the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations confirmed the allocation of $7.9 million for these endeavors. In a statement, the Tk'emlups te Secwepemc First Nation reiterated their focus on the scientific work required but declined to discuss the $7.9 million allocation.

At this point even if we ditch all the above sources citing unreliability and got information from other new sources unrelated to WS or any another aforementioned news sites(not even as secondary source quoting Western Standard.) about the issue another discussion will start on the reliability about that new citation.

See my latest contribution citing Catholic Register whose reliability hasn't been in question until now, has been reverted citing unreliability.

അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 15:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

• Except, yet again the Catholic Register story is quoting another source, which has not been verified as reliable. I am wondering if there is a WP:CIR issue here. Black Kite (talk) 18:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  This also seems tendentious, the pushing of this material. TarnishedPath^talk 04:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• Someone reverting you because they don't think your sources are good enough isn't unusual and isn't improper. Remember that sourcing is complicated (and can overlap with WP:DUE issues, since lots of high-quality sourcing indicates that something is due a lot of weight, while low-quality sources can indicate that it's not due much weight, if any.) If there's a disagreement over whether a source is reliable or due for something, there's lots of ways to resolve that. You can discuss it on talk; you can hold an RFC on talk; you can take it to WP:RSN, and so on. The answer isn't to keep using the same sources in an WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT sort of way - you know there's an objection to using them for this, so the next step is to try and resolve that objection, either by convincing enough people to have a consensus there or establishing a larger consensus somewhere like RSN. --Aquillion (talk) 18:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  So you were saying, each time I edit with a source and someone undoes it saying the source is unreliable, I have to prove that source is reliable in RSN only after then proceed with the editing. It is now the third source probably it would go for the fourth source discussing a source is reliable or not at RSN on the same issue. First the Western Standard, second for Times Now when Western Stanford's claim is given as reported speech, third The Catholic Register, fourth will be the blacklocks reporter. And it will continue for a fifth if I get a new source for the same/related information. Clever way to keep sentences out of wikipedia permanently if one doesn't like it, isn't it? while the real world/ground reality, every views gets space.

  Also a handful of people at RSN permanently deciding for the entire Wikipedia which generates billions of articles by hundred-thousands of users, what sources are reliable and what sources are not reliable as a whole is outrageous. Does each reliability discussion at RSN gets enough attention as that of a Wikipedia article? Also see the list of recognised reliable sources in Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Almost every news networks who have articles that seemed to be right wing or conservative are silenced by handful of people at RSN deciding it for the whole Wikipedia.

  So the eventual result, Wikipedia is equal to one sided narrative. Like the recent Porsche ad that cropped the Jesus statue of Lisbon from their advertisement.(I've personally seen big news companies like BBC silencing the Word Jesus/Bible/God from survival stories all the while the local news agencies report on it, and it goes as you said since lots of high-quality sourcing indicates that something is due a lot of weight, while low-quality sources can indicate that it's not due will not get to Wikipedia as it is from a low quality source)

  Not even as a reported speech style isn't permitted and need RSN decision, is as I mentioned earlier a clever way to silence. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  I don't understand why you're trying to push material that is UNDUE given that it is fringe views. You arguing about some sort of perceived bias at WP:RSN and WP:RSP really doesn't speak well of your ability to edit in a collegial manner and abide by consensus. TarnishedPath^talk 04:11, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

TarnishedPath, undue and fringe according to who? What you arguing here is that disagreeing with you is some sort of behavioral violation. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

POV pushing, to reinsert material, against WP:ONUS when an editor has been advised that a source is questionable is certainly what I would classify as behavioural. It smacks heavily of TENDITIOUS and IDHT. TarnishedPath^talk 06:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Let me make my stand clear to everyone reading this.

When the reliability of Western Standard was going on at RSN I did edit at Kamloops Indian Residential School by quoting their work as a ‘’’reported speech style’’’ with citation that reported on Western Standard’s work. Also in my edit's latter part, following the discussions at RSN and this article's talk page(as of the then current status) another source(The Catholic Register) is given as citation for the Spokesperson Carolane Gratton and Tk'emlups te Secwepemc First Nation's statement which I got from discussions at RSN, whose reliability wasn't a question back then.

Link to its diff [116]

The sentence I structured as reported speech style:- In May 2024, Western Standard, a Canadian conservative social commentary media claimed that investigations into the reported mass graves at the Kamloops Indian Residential School in British Columbia have end with no conclusive evidence of such graves, despite significant resources invested in various investigative efforts, including fieldwork, archival searches, and securing the school site, no human remains have been found. Carolane Gratton, spokesperson for the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations confirmed the allocation of $7.9 million for these endeavors. In a statement, the Tk'emlups te Secwepemc First Nation reiterated their focus on the scientific work required but declined to discuss the $7.9 million allocation.

Which user TarnishedPath entirely(both the former and latter part) undid my revision accusing me by saying "Unreliable source which pushes misinformation and denialism". Link to it [117]

Which I in turn undid saying "Denialism or not, if it reported and made headlines, it is included here. How come latter part a Denialism. The spokesperson s and community s statement?" Link to it [118] See the citation (The Catholic Register) I gave to the latter part wasn't in question at RSN or at the article's talk page even at that period of time.

Again user TarnishedPath undid my contribution entirely(including the former and latter parts) saying “Consensus has not been obtained for this edit. Obtain consensus in talk.” at the time 13:38, 26 June 2024. Link to its diff [119]

Before user TarnishedPath going with this undoing of my contribution entirely at 13:38, 26 June 2024, he brought the issue here in Administrative Notice Board at 13:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC) under the section heading- അദ്വൈതൻ now edit warring to insert sources which multiple editors have previously advised is unreliable. You all can go through it for my response. Here my response was that I see the reliability of Western Standard as one issue and using the Western Standard’s claim as a reported speech style using another citation(not Western Standard and even if reliability of Times Now as a whole is in question there are other news agencies who made headlines on the Western Standard’s claim) as a separate issue that is to be discussed.

As user TarnishedPath said above in his revert of my edit, I have gone through the discussions at the article's Talk Page

And went on to my next edit removing all the lines related to Western Standard, ie., the former part and edited in the latter part adding some more details from its citation as its reliability wasn't in question in the article's talk page back then. Link to my edit. [120]

The latter part was like this in my edit

According to a May 9 report by Blacklock's Reporter, the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations has not publicly disclosed how millions of dollars were spent on field work, records searches and securing the Residential School grounds for the Kamloops First Nation. The $7.9 million provided to the Tk'emlups te Secwepemc First Nation for their field work at the suspected site, represents a small portion of the $110 million allocated to Indigenous communities for searching and documenting burial grounds at former residential schools. The department has not released an audit of the contribution under the Access to Information Act. Carolane Gratton, spokesperson for the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations confirmed the allocation of $7.9 million for these endeavors. In a statement, the Tk'emlups te Secwepemc First Nation reiterated their focus on the scientific work required but declined to discuss the $7.9 million allocation.

This edit of mine was at the time Revision as of 14:21, 26 June 2024

Version of article's talk page before that time. Link [121]

See, issue of quoting Western Standard as reported speech style(the former part of my edit) is made a separate section by me in the article's talk page and I ceased editing it into the article. And also give attention that the latter part of my edit citing The Catholic Register or Blacklock's Reporter which the The Catholic Register is quoting isn't an issue at the article's talk page or at RSN back then.

This contribution of mine was also reverted this time by user Elinruby saying “take it to RSN. Reliability of that source is unclear in this context”. The time stamp:- Revision as of 14:50, 26 June 2024 . Its link [122]

At RSN user Elinruby started a new section to discuss the reliability of The Catholic Register in the section Catholic Register RS for Canadian budget? Its time 15:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC).

In short, any sources that discusses about no human remains have been found since three years of the outbreak of GPR findings(the former part) and the response from the spokesperson for the Crown–Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada on allocation of $7.9 million, and statement of the Tk'emlups te Secwepemc First Nation(the latter part) are flagged as unreliable thereby keeping these informations/sentences out of the article. First Western Standard, second Times Now, third The Catholic Register, Fourth Blacklock's reporter, I have a fifth source completely unrelated to the aforementioned sources that too would be flagged as unreliable if I brought it in the article, to keep those informations/sentences out of the article. Aren't all these reverting of my contributions and flagging its sources as unreliable, tendentious?

അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 14:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

As you've already been advised in article talk in my edit at Special:Diff/1231031616 and Special:Diff/1231094044 it was already covered in the article that no bodies have been excavated as yet. Why are you seeking to introduce sources which POV push using weasel words? Even now you're talking about sources which seek to frame material from a particular point of view. TarnishedPath^talk 22:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath No bodies have been excavated as yet which is already covered in the article with the word unresolved is entirely different from the claim Western Standard made In May 2024, Western Standard, a Canadian conservative social commentary media claimed that investigations into the reported mass graves at the Kamloops Indian Residential School in British Columbia have end with no conclusive evidence

Don't you see the difference?

WS claims the investigation ended

The rest you said are allegations against me as if I am a denialist(which I understands as someone who is denying the fact that probable unmarked graves were found using GPR and someone who is denying there are Children missing from Residential School whose graves were unaccounted for), which I don't need to refute as my actions speaks for me by refuting your allegations. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 11:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Is Engish your native language? --JBL (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

@JayBeeEll: it clearly isn't, but that is not dispositive, as plenty of ESL editors are valued contributors. @അദ്വൈതൻ: I am going to try one more time here. Yes, those are different statements, and that is the point. The reliable source contradicts the denialist source, yet you keep trying to insert the denialist source for some reason. Your definition of the word is not exactly right. A denialist in this context says there are no bodies and/or graves. I don't believe that anyone has applied the word to you, just the narrative you are repeated trying to add, out of confusion, I believe. Nobody is saying anything about the Catholic Church that the Pope didn't already say, ok? I am absolutely positive that this thread is annoying some people and again, if you want to argue about this please, for your own sake, take it to RSN. I am not willing to continue annoying people to try to explain this to you. You are nicely illustrating how insidious the problem is, but I am certain this is not your intent. It is possible that I have misunderstood some of your edits as you seem to be saying, but it is not in your interest to belabor that point here, as I constantly work with ESL editors and if I can't understand I may not be alone in this. The point you need to process is that bodies have been found at several schools but not in excavations, and there has not been and may not be an excavation in Kamloops, because the community is divided about whether to dig up its aunties who never grew up. Elinruby (talk) 00:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby it's not only denialist insofar as it pushes the idea that there are no bodies and no graves, it also straight out pushes misinformation in that it explicitly states that investigations have ended (i.e. concluded or finalised) with no conclusive evidence. TarnishedPath^talk 03:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

True, and afaict, the point of all that is that it has all just been a huge waste of money over nothing, supposedly. Why exactly this point is being made so persistently I fail to understand, but that's a different question.Elinruby (talk) 04:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby

1. Your definition of the word is not exactly right. A denialist in this context says there are no bodies and/or graves

How can you say there are definitely bodies or graves with just GPR findings and oral records? The CBC which you have already deemed reliable puts it this way Ground penetrating radar does not find human remains — rather, it detects soil disturbances that are inconsistent with the surrounding area, which, combined with community knowledge, can help identify where there may potentially be unmarked graves source.

See "potential, probable" unmarked graves.

Unless and until the excavation is done and human remains are found, we can't say for sure they are not "potential, probable" unmarked graves.

1. The point you need to process is that bodies have been found at several schools but not in excavations

It's also important to remember that even after GPR surveys indicate possible graves, excavations sometimes don't uncover any human remains like in Pine Creek, Manitoba last year.

because the community is divided about whether to dig up its aunties who never grew up So your point here is futile. And if first nation communities decides so, they are also at wrong here. As they are only probable unmarked graves and not definite and confirmed unmarked graves. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 10:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I withdraw my attempt to prevent a CIR. Look, your username doesn't display properly over here so I can't ping you, Indic script editor. This is my problem and the problem of my browser, not yours, mind you. I realize that. I just want to make sure you see this and realize this post is to you. I would no more write And if first nation communities decides so, they are also at wrong here. about their cultural practices than I would about yours.

1. An archaeologist gave her best professional report. I am fairly certain that the entire university department she is affiliated with would have helped, reviewed and double-checked all of her work, in fact I suspect she would have asked for that, knowing what it was. Here is an interview with her[123] The archaeologist said what she said. I am just trying to write it down.
2. The band made an announcement. They said what they said. It was notable. Therefore there is an article. I am just trying to make sure we have written down what they said. I am still doing reconstructive surgery on the lede at Canadian Indian residential school gravesites so I doubt we have. I have found more source misrepresentation and PoV pushing, if anyone cares, but that has nothing to do with this editor.[124][125]
3. I do not know why the editor is defending these articles or why the editor thinks they should, in fact I don't know much except that there are a lot of sourcing and PoV problems in the gravesites article...Can I please be excused? I would like to get through the lede of the gravesites article today, and somebody is talking to me about the constitutional legalities.[126]

Please ping me if there are questions about reliability of local sources in British Columbia or anything else. I am not well-versed in Catholic sources, but some of the ones in this article seem seem very boutique. See RSN. Elinruby (talk) 13:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

For clarity, most of the material being contested here was previously contested at Canadian Indian residential school gravesites. This editor was not part of that until, I guess, they saw the ANI just above, but this whole theme of churches under attack is part of what I meant when I said the topic had other problems, of which Riposte97 was not part. To clear, there are good police-blotter sources that individual fires took place, but the framing of this in Catholic sources as some sort of attack on the faithful is IMHO highly questionable. Elinruby (talk) 07:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Also to be clear to other readers of this, that no bodies have been found as yet is already in the article prior to pushing of sources which seek to frame it in a particular manner which implies that the bodies have actually been searched for and not found. The article already states As of March 2024, the Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc said that a decision to excavate the unmarked graves is "unresolved". TarnishedPath^talk 08:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Drbogdan, persistent low-quality editing, and WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK issues

User:Drbogdan is a prolific and good faith editor who on the whole seems to be sincerely attempting to be a positive force here. That aside, he seems to have an issue with low quality edits that have gotten to the point of becoming a problem (or they have been for a long time) and there's a general issue of WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK and WP:NOTBLOG as well. I spoke to him somewhat recently about editing in disruptive quantities of new New York Times articles on astronomy/space content and his primary response was to edit my comment on his talk page to get rid of the word “disruptive” citing WP:IAR for editing my own comment. I’m going to repeat some of the content here from that post, since the pattern of editing has continued past that discussion:

Extended content

I understand you've been trying to engage with these topics in good faith, but it's gotten to a point where you're editing in New York Times articles on related articles which is creating a workload for editors who need to undo those changes. Recent edits to: Samuel Alito Clarence Thomas Galaxy formation and evolution Galaxy Dog COVID-19 pandemic Organgutan 2024 in science Dark energy matter Expansion of the universe Universe Which were all reverted near identical edits made within a small window of time, and all reverted. Again, a similar situation played out at: Graviton Gravity 2024 in science Quantum gravity And again at Ultra diffuse galaxy Low surface brightness galaxy Dark galaxy

These are all massive strings of edits of identical content (editing in of very recent New York Times stories), all of which were reverted by me or other users. Recently this has continued with edits to Fast Radio Burst and Timeline of Mars 2020, where he's been adding in every observation by date as they arise and the latter article in particular, where he’s the primary editor, is a complete mess as a result of the daily additions. There's also, more troublingly, undoing reverts to add back in puffery to CDK Company and linking apparently WP:COPYVIO youtube links to Twyla Tharp. There’s also an updated database of every comment he has made on the New York Times, hosting his entire dissertation on wikipedia, and hosting literally dozens of personal photos and videos on commons, with an overwhelming majority of his recent contributions being exclusively to his userspace, and creating redirects to terms that don't actually appear to exist.

I don’t know what the right recourse is here, this is clearly someone active and engaged with Wikipedia in good faith, but at the same time it’s also someone editing in a way that’s creating a huge mess of edits to undo due to the frequent addition of New York Times/pop-science articles (sometimes with WP:PROFRINGE issues when it comes to dark matter in particular) to space-related topics. This all seems to be from a position of good faith and for certain he has created a lot of good content, but it’s creating a workload for those of us who edit in astronomy/planetary science topics, which is made more challenging by a larger percentage of his edits just being labelled “add/adj” as edit summaries.

An IP editor, user:35.139.154.158, seems to be involved here as well, mass-undoing Drbogdan's edits. I’ve since gone out of my way to avoid touching Drbogdan’s edits (minus removing the copyvio) after our interaction because I want to avoid coming across as harassing or hounding. That said, the low quality edits have persisted to a point that I think warrants bringing up here, especially after the puffery and copyvio issues in short succession. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 07:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - Thank You *very much* for the discussion - yes - and Thanks for all the complements over the years (see => User:Drbogdan#My Awards) (since 2006 - or earlier?) - yes - my intention is to present all my edits in *good faith* - always - and abide by all WP rules as best as possible - at the moment, my total edits over all wikis (including Wikitionary and WikiSpecies) is 98,193 (see => Special:CentralAuth/Drbogdan) - in addition, I've created 306 articles (perhaps noteworthy is Earliest known life forms), 70 templates (perhaps noteworthy are my efforts at {{Human timeline}} and {{Life timeline}}), 34 userboxes and uploaded 2,488 images (see => User:Drbogdan#My Contributions) - to date - my professional background (and related) is presented to help others better evaluate my editing efforts - some of my edits, particularly at User:Drbogdan, the related Talk Page, including 13 Talk archives (see => User talk:Drbogdan), the sandbox (see => User:Drbogdan/sandbox and related subpages) have been experimental efforts, learning opportunities to improve my use of WP:WikiCode, and test areas to explore new ways of presenting Wiki-related projects and articles (and more) - regarding some of my WP:Redirects - please see => my explanation for their creation as follows: *Comment - As OA of several of the WP:Redirects noted above, it's *entirely* ok wth me to do whatever is decided in the final WP:CONSENSUS discussion - these WP:RDRs were made as a way of linking to Wikipedia from External Websites (like FaceBook), which drops the ending ")", this problem has been fully described and discussed [by me] on the WP:Village pump (technical) at VP-Archive204 (a Must-Read); VP-Archive180; VP-Archive162 - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC) - yes - some of my edits could be better - and which I hope to improve even more over time and further practice - I greatly appreciate others helping to correct my unintentionally-made issues - as I have helped them correct their own editing issues over the years - in any case - hope my comments above helps in some ways - please let me know if otherwise of course - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  That seems a polite rejection of everything that's been said about you. There's a lot of concerns left unanswered by your reply. Just to get the ball rolling, when are you going to take your dissertation text and NYT clippings off Wikipedia as is required of you by WP:NOTWEBHOST? DeCausa (talk) 12:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  Thank You for your comments - and concerns - my intention for including my professional background (and related) is to help others better evaluate my editing efforts on Wikipedia - I would prefer other editors on Wikipedia to do the same if possible - seems that knowing such background materials of editors may help other editors better evaluate editing efforts on Wikipedia - seems there may be others (maybe many others) who agree with this as well - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  This isn't "professional background", it's the entirety of your dissertation. All 166kb of it. You're using Wikipedia as a web host in clear breach of WP:NOTWEBHOST. Are you refusing to take it down? DeCausa (talk) 13:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yes - my professional dissertation (and related) is professional background of course - it is not in main space - it is in user space instead, and available for those wishing to evaluate my professional background for any of my edits on Wikipedia - as before, such presentations seem to be a worthy way of sharing relevant professional background of editors to other editors - seems if other editors did the same with their professional background, might help a lot imo - nonetheless - if there is WP:CONSENSUS about this - no problem whatsoever of course - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  I've nominated it for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Drbogdan/BogdanDennis-PhD-Dissertation-1973-TEXT. DeCausa (talk) 22:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  I've also nominated your NYT clippings for deletion: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Drbogdan/NytComments-Search. DeCausa (talk) 22:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  I really appreciate that you're open to feedback and reverts of your edits, and I know you're quick to thank people who revert your edits. My concern here is that you keep making edits that need to be reverted in the first place, for identical reasons as previously reverted edits, in a pattern that appears to be going back for years. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yes - *entirely* agree - seems some editors may make better quality edits than others - at least in the view of some editors about a particular edit; others may think a bit differently about the same edit I would think - as noted in WP:OWN => All Wikipedia pages and articles are edited collaboratively by the Wikipedian community of volunteer contributors. No one, no matter what, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular article (or any part of it). Even a subject of an article, be that a person or organization, does not own the article, nor has any right to dictate what the article may or may not say. - I think that is worthy - and relevant - at least to me at the moment - as Director of Hospital Laboaratories in the real-world back in the day, one of my biggest concerns was determining the issues of the laboratories - a matter of communication - I welcomed feedback from others - working collaboratively with others helps solve a lot of problems - and helps make a better quality outcome generally imo - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  Drbogdan, don't thank me, don't make a verbose reply that ignores the question posed, but simply answer DeCausa's question in one short sentence: when are you going to take your dissertation text and NYT clippings off Wikipedia as is required of you by WP:NOTWEBHOST? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  Please see my related reply above - Thanks - Drbogdan (talk) 14:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  No, you have not made a "related reply". Please make a reply; it only takes a couple of words. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  I am not trying to be a jerk with this, but I genuinely can't fully figure out how this relates to the comment you're replying to, especially with your professional bio information in the reply.

  I welcomed feedback from others

  If you're expecting the feedback after making low quality edits then there's a problem where editors will either need to keep track of your edits, which creates a WP:HOUNDING situation, or we need to cross our fingers and hope that someone following one of those pages sees the edit and deals with it. There's a degree to which making quality edits is on you, this isn't just a case of less-than-perfect editing but actually going on editing sprees which need to be fully reverted, not just modified or cleaned up. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Warrenmck - This all seems to be your opinion - I don't share your opinion - others may not as well - all my edits over the years were intended to be *good qualiy edits* - some editors may agree that my edits were *good quality edits* over the years - and some otherwise - my edits seem to be better than most in my own editing experiences compared with most other edits by Wikipedia editors afaik - hope this helps in some way - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 15:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  It looks like this recent fracas was instigated by several edits you made which added reliable sources about the questionable viability of the human spaceflight program. Coincidentally, the IP editor who is calling for your "indef" is trying to prevent this information from being added to Wikipedia. This is a content dispute, and the IP editor who is removing your edits is doing so in an attempt to whitewash the literature that shows the health impact and hazards of human spaceflight. We may in fact be dealing with COI from the IP, but we don't have enough information to determine that. You're basically being attacked by the NASA version of the Swifties. Hope everyone sees what's really happening here. Viriditas (talk) 23:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - Both parties in this case are vastly more courteous than the usual affair, so that's good. The core issue to me seems to be that Drbogdan tends to communicate their own experiences of the world more so than simply the facts as they will remain relevant. A firm statement acknowledging their error that cannot be confused with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT would go a long way in laying that matter to rest. JackTheSecond (talk) 15:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  Is there a reason my comment was removed without a comment? Because I feel that the comment you removed made it clear that my reason for the ANI wasn’t a communication style difference, Drbogdan’s reply aside. If it was out of line, sure, remove it, but I’m a bit confused by this one.Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  It looks like JackTheSecond inadvertently overwrote your comment with their edit. I think you can restore it. (I was going to but I can't figure out where in the thread it properly belongs now.) Schazjmd (talk) 15:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  Uhm. I may have taken too much time in the editor formulating my comment and accidentally overwritten your thing. I want back one page out of the editor and into it again so that might have screwed with the technical protections for that? JackTheSecond (talk) 15:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  No problem, I restored it. Sorry about that. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - Clarify please. Is Drbogdan being asked to comply with something, but is refusing to do so? GoodDay (talk) 15:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
• I'm just not seeing a big problem here. Many of the "problematic" edits linked at the top weren't actually challenged and are still in the respective articles. Reading something and adding it to more than one article where it seems relevant is not in itself a problem. You need to show a pattern of these edits being bad and not just repetitive/lazy. As for the webhost stuff, we afford wide latitude to add random stuff to their user pages once they've established they're WP:HERE. Drbogdan has more of this stuff than most people, yes, but who cares, really? I see a mention of the amount of space it takes up. Fun fact: deleting things makes them take up more server space, not less. It looks like a lot of the extraneous stuff is sorta-kinda-maybe related to the fields Drbogdan edits, and I believe a dissertation released with a free license would be in-scope on Commons or, if PD, on WikiSource. I cannot fathom why anyone would participate in news website comment sections, let alone why they would collect and present them for all to see, but it gets a big "meh" from me. Not worth ANI. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  I just want to quickly point out that every edit in the included collapsed section was rapidly reverted, most not by me. They’re all brand new NYT content, many from opinion pages. I didn’t go back too far, but if you pick any random date going back years it does seem like you see the same pattern of mass-editing in content which was rapidly reverted. I wouldn’t have raised an ANI if it wasn’t at the point of being disruptive, as far as I see it, but of course I could be wrong here. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  I just picked the second group randomly: Gravitation - no longer in the article; Gravity - still in the article; 2024 in science - still in the article; Quantum gravity - still in the article. The argument that these were all removed as bad is simply false. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  Were they edited back in later? Wasn’t at all my intent to misrepresent things. I definitely have seen good edits by Drbogdan reverted and later reinstated by other editors. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 17:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  "Such-and-such-year in science" lists are all wastelands that nobody bothers to keep concise. The additions to Gravity and to Quantum gravity should have been removed, just as the same vaguely uninformative text was snipped from Graviton. I've done that now. XOR'easter (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Rhododendrites: - Thank You for your comments - and suggestions - and support - they're *greatly* appreciated - nonetheless - Re: multi-article edits - one concern to clarify: addng relevant materials to more than one relevant article seems to have been *entirely* ok in my experiences over the years - usually I try to note, in the edit summary (although not always for one reason or another), WP:ATTRIBUTION of material(s) (ie, Attribution code - WP:ATT and/or WP:CWW => "copied content from page name; see that page's history for attribution" - or - "based, in part, on my own original text/ref in page name.") - may try to improve on this going forward - Re: my published News Comments - nearly all of my published comments (particularly more recent ones) include a link to a relevant Wikipedia article(s) - which seems to have been *greatly* appreciated by some readers who are not at all aware of some of the relevant articles on Wikipedia (ie, NYT archive examples: Comments-1 and Comments-2) - in any case - Thanks again for your own comments and all - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Indef. As noted above, indeed I've been following Drbogdan for a while (and I check pretty on and off...check up once in a while, then ignore for a long while, etc), and I believe he's a net negative to the encyclopedia and doesn't seem to be able to improve. It's like he'll just read an article in the NYT, and then ask himself "Where can I add this to Wikipedia?" And it winds up being either some mundane, WP:UNDUE, WP:PROSELINE additions (On Smarch 35th, Scientists reported that ...; etc), or it'll be a ref shoehorned in to something that's already better cited. Not to mention the high volume of useless redirect creation, or the social-network-like approach as also noted above -- Drbogdan has over TEN THOUSAND edits to his user page alone.
  There are also issues of bad article creation, cf. the recent CDK Company (original version here before some of the really promotional stuff got removed). Side note, would someone please complete an AFD nomination for this? My rationale is at WT:AFD#CDK_Company, still waiting, thanks!
  And in another direction, the overly effusive politeness is downright infuriating, making communication difficult...thanking everyone for their comments, telling everyone to stay safe. The walls of idiosyncratically formatted text are also mind numbing and make communication difficult (see Drbogdan's very first response to this very report, for example). I know people that haven't been dealing with this for a while will probably just kind of shrug their shoulders at this one, but Drbogdan has done a lot of damage over the years and is a big drain on editor time. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  Drbogdan hasn't done any damage at all. You've been following him around reverting perfectly good edits. Viriditas (talk) 23:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  This removal looks good to me; we don't write whole paragraphs about the fact that a researcher published an opinion piece. This removal of another link to the same opinion piece also looks fine; there's no need for a footnote there at all, and an opinion piece would be a poor choice if we did want one. This removal is a bit confrontational in the edit summary, but the rationale is sound. The various removals of human spaceflight-related material invoke WP:MEDRS, among other reasons (for example), which is a not-unreasonable application of a definitely-pertinent guideline. XOR'easter (talk) 00:07, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• Other physics editors and I have been cleaning up after Drbogdan's "today, scientists reported"-style edits for years. Here's an example from 2019, where (frankly nonsensical) text was added to Bell test based on press-release-level coverage [127]. It took a while for that to get removed [128], because little blue clicky numbers make text look respectable. Here's an example from December of that year at Casimir effect [129]. We had to waste time going through a whole AfD for a page that should never have been made in the first place. Is it the worst thing we have to deal with while maintaining science articles? No, but it is exasperating. XOR'easter (talk) 18:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  To elaborate: science articles are supposed to reflect the established, mainstream scientific consensus. They are not supposed to be news tickers. Disjointed blurbs that either echo or have the same content-free sensationalism as press releases do not help. At best, they make complex topics harder to understand. Worse than that, they peddle a misleading substitute for understanding. An encyclopedia should not do that. XOR'easter (talk) 18:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  You're completely exaggerating by focusing on a few edits that you found problematic rather than his entire contribution history which has been extremely helpful in expanding and updating niche topics. Viriditas (talk) 23:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not "focusing on a few edits" that I found problematic. I just went through the times when we happened to edit the same page, and I found more problematic examples than not. Over the years, Drbogdan has made quite a lot of unnecessary work for other editors of niche topics! No matter how many good contributions he's made, this kind of blurb-driven editing has to stop. XOR'easter (talk) 23:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  Sounds like selection bias, combined with a plethora of other issues. Drbogdan did some good work on 2013 YP139, which he received co-credit on at Template:Did you know nominations/2013 YP139. Same thing with Tabby's Star, where he worked harmoniously with multiple editors on the nomination for Template:Did you know nominations/KIC 8462852, which he also received co-credit. Same thing again for EGS-zs8-1, which he received co-credit for on Template:Did you know nominations/EGS-zs8-1. Drbogdan created and expanded our article on Voices of Music, a wonderful topic, which did run into some issues and was rejected on Template:Did you know nominations/Voices of Music, but not due to his editing style, but rather because of the dearth of sources on the subject. This was partly my fault, as I encouraged him to submit it to DYK. This is a common problem that all editors face when nominating at DYK and cannot be blamed on Drbogdan. I can find hundreds, perhaps thousands of articles Drbogdan has helped create and expand. What is the primary complaint here? It sounds like a content dispute about the known health impact and health hazards of human spaceflight, which certain space-focused editors are upset about, not a pattern of problematic editing. It seems, therefore, that people are going after Drbogdan for criticizing the human spaceflight program just like the Swifties go after anyone who criticizes Taylor Swift. Viriditas (talk) 00:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  None of the examples that I cited in my original comment were about human spaceflight. Two were about quantum mechanics and the third was about astrophysics. The problem has also affected other articles in physics (e.g., graviton as mentioned above) and biology (e.g., History of RNA biology). This isn't about the human spaceflight program.

  Incidentally, I don't see much merit in the human spaceflight program myself... but let's not get too far afield here.

  Nor is it "selection bias" to point to a pattern of bad edits. It might be "selection bias" to say that only the bad edits matter, and I've tried not to imply that. My concern is that Drbogdan has been burdening Wikipedia's science articles with distractions, PR, vague fluff, and sensationalism. I'm not saying that that is all he has done. But it's definitely a thing that he keeps doing.

  I would be less exasperated if these edits had been confined to "Year X in science" timeline-type articles and if the standards for inclusion had been significantly higher. If Drbogdan restricted his news sources to national papers of record and the news sections of Science and Nature, rather than churned press releases from researchers hyping themselves up, we'd be better off. XOR'easter (talk) 01:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yes - *entirely* agree with citing only the responsible scientific literature like Science (had a subscription for years - at least - until I ran out of storage space for unread copies) and Nature - seems my WikiEditing may have been influenced by trying to close the gap between non-expert and expert thinking re science issues with worthy responsible presentations acceptible to all if possible - hopefully, this may have made science topics and issues more accessible and useful to the average reader - after all => "Readability of Wikipedia Articles" (BEST? => Score of 60/"9th grade/14yo" level) - but perhps citing the higher quality of science reliable sources is now preferred - which I personally prefer as well (although I'm somewat flexible with this since I've headed local hs science fairs and directed hospital labs back in the day) - iac - hope this helps - Drbogdan (talk) 02:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

References

You mentioned my very short personal video (only one) on Wikipedia for testing purposes - yes - my video on Wikipedia (at User talk:Drbogdan#"Test - My Webm Video") is convenient and, by being my own video and on Wikipedia, WP:PD - an appropriate use afaik atm - and, mostly, less likely to be a copyvio of somebody - hope this helps - Drbogdan (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Drbogdan (talk) 02:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• OK, we seem to be making progress here. (Believe me, I'd be very happy to put this all behind us and go do more enjoyable things around here.) But I need to emphasize something that may have been left unclear. Relying upon unreliable sources doesn't make Wikipedia "more accessible and useful to the average reader". It makes it less useful to everyone. No one benefits from recycling PR hype. Just because a slogan about dark energy or quantum entanglement doesn't have any equations in it, that doesn't mean it has any meaningful content either. Garbage isn't good just because it sounds simple! And we're not talking about a recent fashion in standards, either. This edit was just as unacceptable half a decade ago as it would be now. XOR'easter (talk) 04:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

(Response to OP/Warren) Again, this is exaggerated. You complained about his Commons uploads, yet you can’t identify a single problem. If anyone asks me, this is what harassment looks like. Viriditas (talk) 02:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but you seem very invested in this, and in one of the MfDs you mention editing with and defending Drbogdan for years:

I have worked well with Drbogdan for years, and I have repeatedly defended him in the face of multiple attacks by many other editors making baseless accusations about his motivations.

You’re accusing me, the IP editor, and XOR’Easter and blamed a NASA COI conspiracy while insisting this ANI was about a series of edits that weren’t even mentioned here. You need to stop casting aspersions, and if you want more information ask for it. I can point to Drbogdan’s recent upload of a movie of him playing a song, or multiple angles of photos from the same hike, or an abundance of self portraits. I assumed these were self-evident webhosting issues if someone clicked through the link. Please lay off the accusations and straw-manning. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 07:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Are you finished? I don’t see a single thing wrong with Drbogdan’s Commons upload like you just claimed for a second time. He took photos of a hike? Are you serious? But I see you did try to do the same thing again in your reply and turn this around to make it seem like I’m the problem. Good grief! And what is Drbogdan’s greatest "crime" shown so far up above? Citing a press release from the American Association for the Advancement of Science. String him up! Who needs justice when we’ve got the Keystone Kops of physics. Viriditas (talk) 14:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment: this feels somewhat relevant to the personal content uploaded to his user page: in one of the linked MfDs above it was pointed out by @DeCausa the Drbogdan has made sure his user page is indexed in search engines. In the MfD Drbogdan says this was accidental from a copy/paste and I see no reason not to believe him. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment: While Drbogdan can be told what not to do in the future and receive a formal warning, this isn't reason for blocking/indeffing. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

While obviously I'm not an admin and biased as the submitter of this, I do want to say I agree. It's very clear he's capable of making constructive edits and being a positive contributor to Wikipedia and an indef feels like it'd be heavy-handed in context. I'd frankly like to see a restriction on directly editing science articles rather than posting new information to the talk page as a COI editor would for a while, since that appears to be where things are most disruptive, and here he's seemed very unwilling to acknowledge that his edits are routinely removed for being poor quality, including just straight-up not addressing the addition of clear copyvio material.

The physics, astronomy, and geology content (I do really want to clean up the Timeline of Mars 2020 and List of rocks on Mars articles, since I have a background there, but don't want to come across as just going after his work) being added is rough to say the least, and typically seems to be removed. But I also understand if even that feels heavy handed. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 11:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes - seems I've made about 35.6% of the edits on the Timeline of Mars 2020 WikiPage (20240624 version) - and nearly 90% of the edits on the List of rocks on Mars WikiPage (20240624 version) - Greatly Welcome any contributions from others to improve these Pages of course - especially from someone more knowledgeable about some of this material than I am at the moment - re: the possible copyvio you noted at the Twyla Tharp article - unclear at the time of posting if the brief video clip (1976) was PD or not - clip was made 48 years ago - and may now be PD? - but I am still not entirely clear about this - Drbogdan (talk) 11:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

The answer to your question is found at public domain film: In the United States, motion pictures published before 1978 are copyrighted for 95 years. You're not the first nor the last person to be confused about this, because the laws around copyright make no sense. Viriditas (talk) 21:08, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Where Are We?

I would like to ask whether someone can summarize what if any administrative action is being requested. As we know, in Wikipedia there are content disputes and conduct disputes. This is a conduct forum. The content issues of whether to keep the dissertation and the New York Times comments are being dealt with at MFD. So is any other action being requested? One IP editor called for an indef, but I think that we can ignore it. Other than that, it seems that there are complaints that his writing about physics is problematic. He may, in good faith, think that he knows more about physics than the average reader, because -- a biochemist really knows more about physics than the average reader. However, he doesn't know as much about physics as the average physicist, and he may be trying too hard to explain dumbed-down physics to average readers in a way that real physicists know is wrong. Is that the problem? If so, is he willing to listen to the opinions of physicists? Is it necessary to topic-ban him from scientific areas outside biochemistry? If not, was this just a complaint session? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

The one thing the IP had right here was it does feel like Drbogdan reads a news story and thinks “where does this go in Wikipedia”, which per XOR’easter’s link is a disruptive pattern going back since at least 2019. I feel it’s hasty to think of this primarily as a content dispute. XOR’easter has pointed out that this exact pattern of editing in news bylines to Wikipedia has been exasperating for those of us who actively edit in those fields. My request, as the submitter here, is a TBAN from astronomy and physics related topics, or a restriction on editing them directly without requesting edits at the talk page. I especially feel this way with how WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT Drbogdan has come across at both this ANI and in previous interactions when asked to tone these edits down, and I'm surprised that the admins are less concerned about blatant copyvios from a long-term editor, because I think we're looking at someone incredibly prolific on Wikipedia who simply doesn't understand it well (see: asking for WP:CONSENSUS on Wikipedia policies). I'd probably like to ask the admins to take a look at Viriditas here, as well, since that got pretty uncivil pretty quickly (really, a NASA conspiracy? The Keystone Kops of physics?), but I digress.

a biochemist really knows more about physics than the average reader... he may be trying too hard to explain dumbed-down physics to average readers in a way that real physicists know is wrong.

I don't think this is true. My background is geoscience and astrophysics, and I definitely don't know more about biochemistry than an average reader with an interest in the topic who has kept on top of it. I think it cannot be overstated how different those fields can be, even if they're both sciences. Our domain knowledge isn't all-expansive. Most editors who engage with these articles probably don't have the strongest background in them, but they take care with their edits to improve the article. Drbogdan's edits almost universally are a single type: news updates posted to articles about which they're tangentially related. There's no "dumbed down physics" here, it's simply cut and dry WP:PROSELINE, to the point of conforming perfectly to the example of what a proseline is ("On Date X, Event Y happened"). If it were a case of trying to simplify complex content for a lay audience than editors would be able to help him work to improve the language in these, but instead the only option what appears to be a vast majority of the time is simply to remove the content. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 07:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Warrenmck - I didn't mean that a scientist in any given field knows more about other sciences than non-scientists. I meant that a biochemist knows more about physics than the average person who hasn't taken the required college course in physics, including electromagnetics and introductory quantum mechanics. That college-level knowledge of physics is needed to understand chemical bonding, including an approximation of understanding the highly delocalized electrons of the benzo(a)pyrene that his thesis was about. However, that detail is not important to the concern that the physicists here have raised that his edits in the area of physics are problematic. But I did mean that a biochemist has studied introductory college-level physics, which is more than most non-scientists have studied. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

To be clear - Yes - I've had a great deal of physics coursework and experience over the years - particularly at GWU/DC (where well-known physicist George Gamow was on the faculty - an early inspiration) - including engineer/calculus-level Relativity theory and much more - as well as Physical chemistry of course - I also worked at ATF/DC in the Forensic Laboratory doing Neutron activation analysis (if interested, my picture at ATF is at => "File:NeutronActivationAnalysis-ATF-WashingtonDC-1966-DrDennisBogdan.jpg") - so yes - had my share of physics work (academic and employment) over the years - hope this helps - Drbogdan (talk) 00:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Interesting re WP:PROSELINE - yes - seems that merging the edit more into the article prose may be better in a few of my edits - however - this hasn't always been possible for me for one reason or another (mostly real-world concerns) - seems that those more knowledgeable than I at the time could do a better job with merging the material (as noted in the edit summary of some of such edits => "*entirely* ok with me to rv/rm/del/ce the edit") - seems better to do this at the time than not to do anything at all - but perhaps not doing anything at all - being less bold - would be better after all - thanks for making me aware of this - Drbogdan (talk) 10:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

But the problem is the content that you’re editing in frequently fundamentally doesn’t belong, it’s not just a case of making it fit better. I appreciate you’re open to users reverting your edits, but the problem is those edits being made in the first place. You’re incredibly prolific, it’s unreasonable to expect editors to keep tabs on your edits to remove them when necessary, rather the focus should be on not making low quality edits in the first place, which is why I feel a TBAN would be appropriate here, because a lot of what you’re saying here is that you know that you’re making low quality edits but doing it anyways due to real life time constraint, unless I’m misreading it. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 11:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

As noted above, "all my edits over the years were intended to be *good qualiy edits* - some editors may agree that my edits were *good quality edits* over the years - and some otherwise - my edits seem to be better than most in my own editing experiences compared with most other edits by Wikipedia editors afaik" - hope this helps in some way - Drbogdan (talk) 12:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I think the ban should be tweaked: Drbogdan should be banned from citing NYT and other popular press in science articles. At least six months. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: Please note that The New York Times (NYT) is popular press of course - but perhaps much more than that in quality - and as a possible reliable bridge so-to-speak between the responsible scientific literature - and the reader of popular literature in the public square - after all - the NYT has won numerous awards for journalism ( see => List of awards won by The New York Times ) - more than any other news source in the world afaik - other worthy news sources include The Washington Post (WaPo), Associated Press (AP), Los Angeles Times (LAT) and The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) - ( please see awards and related => https://www.statista.com/statistics/945236/most-awarded-media-usa/ ) - nonetheless - the responsible scientific literature in the form of Science, Nature and the like are preferred for science articles of course - I personally prefer those WP:RS as well - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

The journal Science is almost entirely primary research, science articles shouldn't be based on that, either. Geogene (talk) 15:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

@Huntster and Viriditas: (and others) - QUESTION: Best WP:RS (at least in general) for Science Articles on Wikipedia in your opinion at the moment - knowing the current WikiThinking about this might be helpful in some way to many I would think - not clear about this at the moment - Drbogdan (talk) 15:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

@Drbogdan this isn't an issue of the sources used, it's an issue of your editing. You're self-evaluating as someone whose edits seem to be better than most while sort of outright refusing to recognize that multiple editors in science topics have chimed in here calling your edits disruptive and low quality to the point of warranting an ANI, regardless of the outcome of this ANI. There's a disconnect in what some of us here are saying and what you seem to understand the concern as. The NYT is a perfect fine and generally reliable source, that's not the issue. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

As noted earlier above - "This all seems to be your opinion - I don't share your opinion - others may not as well - is there room for improvement - yes - in the sense that there is room for improvement for everybody of course - some more than others I would think - hope this helps - Drbogdan (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon This closing argument is what defines this as a conduct dispute. The non-argument of: "You're wrong, I disagree," that Drbogdan fields here and on their talk-page prior. There is a refusal to argue the central point here, which reads as WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Since this all seems to have been going on a while, I suppose they could have had the argument in detail sometime in the past and refuse to reiterate all of it; that could be linked to however. JackTheSecond (talk) 16:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: (and others) - Unclear about a specific problem here - I'm aware of a complaint of course - my usual edit approach over the years has been to contribute an edit - with the idea that it's *entirely* ok with me to rv/rm/del/ce the edit - a notion that has been presented many times in my edit summaries - this approach would apply to *any* of my numrous edits over the years - if the edit is acceptable by other editors, then it's *completely* ok with me - if not acceptable for whatever reason, then that's *completely* ok with me as well - I do not usually pursue unacceptable edits further - this approach seemed to have been acceptable by others over the years - nonetheless - I expect to be *less bold* about my future edits as noted above - perhaps that would help? - please let me know if there's something else that I may be missing that could be better - I would welcome the feedback - Thanks - Drbogdan (talk) 20:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the flat-out refusal to acknowledge four editors pointing out specific conduct issues and a blanket denial of any possible issue, coupled with statements that he sometimes actively makes what he knows to be low quality edits and hopes other editors catch it

yes - seems that merging the edit more into the article prose may be better in a few of my edits - however - this hasn't always been possible for me for one reason or another (mostly real-world concerns)

changes my thinking from a temporary TBAN to viewing this as a more serious WP:CIR issue. This is at least a half-decade long pattern of disruptive editing in science articles resulting in AfDs and mass-reverts needed. There's no indicator that it's going to improve or that he intends to step back from this editing behaviour, rather he views it as better than the average editor's content. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 21:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I had thought we were making progress, but now I suspect I was overly optimistic. XOR'easter (talk) 22:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Please explain what you mean by "progress"? How does one make "progress" when the filing editor, Warrenmck, a user with 994 edits stretching back to their first edit a year ago, on 8 March 2023, has made a series of bizarre claims against Drbogdan, a user with 90,324 edits stretching back to 2008 (although he didn't start editing until 2010?) and who has maintained a good record for 14 years?[130] Perhaps Warren's inexperience explains why he thinks Drbogdan isn't allowed to post photos of his hikes on Commons, or why Warren strangely keeps citing the WP:PROSELINE essay, which has zero rationale for any kind of proposed sanctions here. Notice, I am not calling for WP:CIR against Warren here, unlike his calls against DrBogdan for "violating" proseline; no such violation exists, my dude. Drbogdan has spent 14 years building Wikipedia. Your newest false claims about "AfDs" above (you keep making these absurd allegations, without end) is belied by 81.4% of Drbogdan’s main space articles, currently live. Of his 90k lifetime edits, 67.4% are to mainspace. He has contributed content to more than two dozen articles which either became featured articles after his edits or were already featured. If his edits were as problematic as you say, we would know. It is safe to say, his edits are sound based on the total lack of complaints. Furthermore, I continue to find it odd and unprecedented that Warren, a user with little experience and few edits, made his way to ANI, happens to cite the IP in his complaint, who just so happens to be calling for an "indef" for Drbogdan based on almost no actual demonstrable problem. This has all the hallmarks of a content dispute, not a conduct dispute. As I've shown above, Drbogdan has edited harmoniously for 14 years. Yes, Drbogdan made a controversial decision to use Wikipedia as a webhost for his dissertation and to link to comments he made on the NYT, but that is being rectified by the community at the MfD. Other than that, there is nothing else that needs to be done. Therefore, I move to close this discussion. Viriditas (talk) 01:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

If you believe I'm socking file a report. I'm not, so that doesn't bother me at all, but this is wildly beyond WP:CIVIL and deep into WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:NPA territory, especially seeing as you're trying to strangely psychoanalyze me in a parallel conversation here rather than entertain the possibility I may just actually have an issue with the quality of editing being discussed with no ulterior motive. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 06:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

One again, you have tried to change the subject to me instead of focusing on the topic. And once again, you have misinterpreted what was said, as nothing I discussed implied "socking". I do want to point out, that in addition to the multiple misinterpretations of yours I've highlighted in this discussion (and I'm still not calling for WP:CIR), you also made similar misinterpretations on Drbogdan's talk page. This is a pattern. For example, in this edit, you accused Drbogdan of changing your words on his talk page and you threatened him with this very ANI. You wrote, "stop editing my words, that's inappropriate and I've been trying to engage with you on this productively. If you insist on changing my own words to suit you I'm going to WP:ANI this situation." So it appears you started this very ANI based on your own misinterpretation of WP:RTP, which Drbogdan has famously been doing to his talk page from the very beginning. Your misinterpretation extended to your edit summary, where you wrote "Inappropriate editing of a talk page comment per both WP:SUPERHAT and WP:TPO"[131], which I will remind you yet again, is 100% false. This is a pattern from you. Viriditas (talk) 22:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:TPO says, Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Drbogdan edited the section heading that Warrenmck used on Drbogdan's User talk page. That sure looks like a WP:TPO violation to me. That said, the content of Warrenmck's comment was to raise the same concerns that this ANI thread has been about: low-quality edits in science articles. XOR'easter (talk) 22:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Drbogdan didn't change any comments, he changed the heading, as he always does on his talk page. Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages explains how and when to do this and it is best practice. Viriditas (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

The heading is part of the comment. Refactoring always preserves the original editor's meaning and intent. Changing the heading is the opposite of preserving meaning. Under "Concerns", that guideline writes, Be aware that not every editor will agree with your refactoring or even of the refactoring concept in general. Provide links to the original, uncut version, so others can check your changes, and if necessary go back to the original to clarify what an author actually said. This combination of refactoring and archiving will often prevent complaints that information was lost. Make it explicit that you have refactored something so no one is misled into thinking this was the original talk page. Changing another editor's words and collapsing the meat of their comment [132] does none of that. XOR'easter (talk) 22:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, we strongly disagree on this point. Drbogdan is allowed to change the heading on his own talk page (he has been doing it for 14 years, and many, many other editors refactor as they see fit), and he is allowed to collapse whatever he wants. I admit that you and Warrenmck are confused by WP:TPO, but the fact remains, Drbogdan did not change any comments, and never has at any time. Viriditas (talk) 23:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

My mention of "making progress" was in reference to my earlier comment [133], which I think is clear enough. I do not believe that any of the claims made against Drbogdan are "bizarre". Nor does pointing to Drbogdan's long history of editing make much of a point when the persistence of bad editing habits over multiple years affecting many articles is exactly the problem under discussion. XOR'easter (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I went back to your earlier comment, and I still can't make heads or tails of what you mean by "progress". What is the intended outcome you wish to see here? In reply to your other point, in fact, pointing to Drbogdan's long history of editing shows that the vast majority of his edits and article creations are fine. Viriditas (talk) 22:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

A majority, even a vast majority, of edits can be fine. That doesn't make the bad edits good. XOR'easter (talk) 22:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

What percentage of his edits are bad? Viriditas (talk) 22:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Drbogdan combines a commendable enthusiasm with what I can only call a persistent carelessness. Take Peekaboo Galaxy, for example. Arguably, he shouldn't have created it in the first place: one paper plus a smattering of flash-in-the-pan pop-science websites that all copy the press release don't add up to an article. But, that aside, he made a mess that others have to clean up. This edit added a duplicate of the reference just above it. This edit mangled a quotation, blending the original paper and a "news" story about it. XOR'easter (talk) 22:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm confused by your comments. If Drbogdan shouldn't have created Peekaboo Galaxy, what is stopping you from taking it to AfD? And speaking of AfD, the stats tool shows Drbogdan agreeing with the community 92% of the time, even when it comes to articles he created, the most notable being Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Bogdan. Let's put all the cards on the table. Drbogdan is one of the most harmonious, non-combative, peaceful editors on Wikipedia. He has made 90,000 edits, and has never actually been involved in any major dispute. If I wasn't a card-carrying atheist of the Christopher Hitchens variety, I would think he was a Bodhisattva or the second coming. I cannot think of any other editor on Wikipedia who has led this much of a conflict-free history on Wikipedia in its entire history. Does Drbogdan have issues? Of course, just like every other editor. I think you and others have shown a problem with his use of press releases, and I think he needs to understand that he can no longer use them. I am agreed with everyone on that point. Viriditas (talk) 22:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

If Drbogdan shouldn't have created Peekaboo Galaxy, what is stopping you from taking it to AfD? The fact that AfD is a time sink, and AfD's of pages with a superficial veneer of notability because they happen to be full of little blue clickly linky numbers are exceptionally tiresome. XOR'easter (talk) 22:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I will take the article to AfD right now if you can give me a good reason to delete it. I'll wait. Viriditas (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Have you considered that you acting like a massive asshole is not actually helpful to Drbogdan, about whom at a minimum one can say is consistently polite? Like, you don't have to agree with the criticisms of him, but you're making him the locus of a larger set of behavior problems (your nonstop abrasiveness and apparently willful inability to understand straightforward comments), and that can't really be helpful. --JBL (talk) 00:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Nobody’s perfect. Viriditas (talk) 03:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

This has gone beyond "not perfect" and straight into WP:TEND. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:49, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I will make a comment that if a story appears in newspapers or popular press then readers are going to come to Wikipedia to find out more about it. So I think ti is fair enough if our articles mention the latest thing from the NYT. But we may need a deeper reference to where that info comes from. I am not opposing Drbogdan in the additions to articles. But in the long term, some of this content should be summarised and given a historic perspective. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

There’s a difference between breaking news in science, like the imaging of a black hole for the first time, and the kind of edit that results in a press release from a single source on scientific minutiae being added at lightning speed. This is why I raised List of rocks on Mars and Timeline of Mars 2020; two articles heavily edited by Drbogdan in his news-byline style that functionally need complete rewrites because of it. It’s possible that many of the stories Drbogdan adds could find a place here with a little more time and wider press, but the way he’s editing them in is disruptive and poorly handled, and very consistently so. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 07:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

And the news-ticker style actually introduces factual errors, like confusing the date a galaxy was originally discovered with the date that a later observation about it was published [134]. This kind of carelessness is easy to overlook and laborious to correct. XOR'easter (talk) 15:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Or the WP:PROFRINGE-adjacent lack of understanding of WP:ECREE on topics like panspermia and Dark Matter (which, with credit to Drbogdan, I asked him to bring up with a wikiproject and he did). I was actually trying to find the recent dark matter discussion Drbogdan had and found that this has been going on since 2015

So apparently Drbogdan is the great image-adder. He added yet another image in Pluto. Drbogdan, would you mind... taking it slow?

That's nine years of people addressing quality issues in his edits and is an exact parallel to some of the issues with List of rocks on Mars and Timeline of Mars 2020. I think Drbogdan is open to feedback in the sense that he'll politely ignore it. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 07:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Warren, may I offer a bit of friendly advice, in the spirit of getting back to my civil self and sharing some wisdom? If you go to Preferences > Gadgets > Strike out usernames that have been blocked, you can control the look of the name of users on your screen, such that when they are indefinitely blocked, a line appears through their name. I assume you have this preference off, because it shows you are citing a sock puppet who complained about Drbogdan. I’m making this comment in good faith in the hope of saving you some trouble. Viriditas (talk) 09:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Sockpuppet or not, they appear to be correct in this case. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:59, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment: It appears some formatting in the ANI above this one is causing the closed template to extend below to this ANI. I'm not 100% sure what's catching it but don't want to mess around with the ANI closing tags directly, either. Thanks to whoever got it. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 10:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Since a lot of discussion has taken place, which has resulted in me (and I think some others) changing their stances on this, I'm actually asking for a WP:CIR indef at this point. There's evidence of Drbogdan being asked to be more careful with disruptive edits going back an entire decade, and his entire response here and at his talk page has been pure WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The articles he's been the primary editor of are complete messes that need rewrites, and articles he's taken an acute interest in for a short period require mass-reverts to undo everything he added to get the quality back up to where it should be, while only occasionally resulting in content that can be reworked to be appropriate in the article as a whole. He's openly admitting to making low quality edits with the expectation that others will revert it if they aren't of sufficient quality and while it's commendable how open he is to having his edits reverted, it doesn't change the fact that he's making consistent low quality additions to articles which require a lot of time and effort to undo.

With four editors here and more going back that time period providing a detailed explanation of exactly the behaviours that are an issue here his only real addressing of them has been a nebulous "*thank you*", statements that he's okay with reverts (but not a single indication that he understand why the reverts are happening), and Unclear about a specific problem here despite diffs aplenty. While minor things in isolation, the puffery reverts in CDK Company and copyvio edits in Twyla Tharp are egregious:

re: the possible copyvio you noted at the Twyla Tharp article - unclear at the time of posting if the brief video clip (1976) was PD or not - clip was made 48 years ago - and may now be PD?

After 17 years of editing and 90,000 edits we should expect more of an editor than this. I respect the effort and the amount of good faith that Drbogdan has been engaging with, but I don't think that he's adding much other than a workload for other editors. It feels like we have a choice of basically hoping others monitor the topics he's editing enough to prevent him from persistently adding in content that doesn't belong, or simply engaging in WP:WIKIHOUNDING, which I don't think any of us want to do (and I'm certainly trying to avoid). Even in the MfD for his dissertation, regardless of the outcome, there's users expressing shock that someone who has been here as long as he has is so fundamentally unfamiliar with basic policies. The sheer volume of low quality edits coupled with the fundamental inability to understand why multiple editors going back a decade have taken issue with this kind of editing just strikes me as a much larger problem than just the quality of any individual set of edits. Even Drbogdan's most ardent defender just went back and removed a dozen citations to Drbogdan's New York Times comments which were edited into articles. While they were willing to presume it was wholly unintentional, I can't easily look past cite news |last=Bogdan |first=Dennis |authorlink=User:Drbogdan when linking to one of his own comments in that cite. You don't get that authorlink by accident from the autofill options linking NYT comments unless I'm mistaken. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Plugging that link to Drbogdan's comment into the Visual Editor's automatic citation generator gives a reference to the opinion column itself: <ref>{{Cite news |last=Foer |first=Jonathan Safran |date=2020-05-21 |title=Opinion {{!}} The End of Meat Is Here |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/21/opinion/coronavirus-meat-vegetarianism.html |access-date=2024-06-30 |work=The New York Times |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331}}</ref>. I don't think there's any way to get |authorlink=User:Drbogdan and all that without deliberately typing it. XOR'easter (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

So Drbogdan is calling his NYT comments publications, listing them all on Wikipedia, pointing people in NYT comments to his Wikipedia profile, which hosts his biography and dissertation, and editing in his own comments as sources into articles as sources. This is all on top of a decade-long pattern of low quality edits and simply disregarding feedback on that. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 17:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. All I see is an, admittedly wilful, misinterpretation of the rules that has not been dealt with previous (and got a little further than is usual.) I'm not even sure if a ban would be warranted as such. Warning; delete what is due for deletion; and deal with things further the next time someone feels obliged to raise issues to this level. The lack of admin attention here so far also speaks for itself. JackTheSecond (talk) 18:32, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't like to recommend indeffing. But I'm doubtful that this is a workable course of action. Instead, it seems like a suggestion to put up with nonsense and waste more time dealing with carelessness, obtuseness, and what looks more and more like self-aggrandizement, until such time as somebody is finally irritated enough to bring the problem to ANI again.

I am also doubtful that the lack of admin attention here so far also speaks for itself. The message I'm getting from it is that this thread is less time-critical and involves subtler problems than most everything else on the board currently. XOR'easter (talk) 19:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I want to apologize to XOR'easter and Warren for aggressively attacking them like a hungry pitbull on a forced intermittent fast. There are many reasons why I'm overprotective of Drbogdan, and I spent some thinking about them over the last several days, but none of that excuses my behavior. It feels like I temporarily lost my mind in some kind of blind rage, and that is very unfortunate, and I feel bad about it now. Viriditas (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Apology accepted. XOR'easter (talk) 03:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the apology. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 07:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it's just too much to plough through, for me anyway. Secretlondon (talk) 17:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Indef for User:Drbogdan?

Hi, uninvolved editor here. Creating a new section so that we can more concisely discuss whether a WP:CIR and WP:PROMO indef ban for this user would be appropriate. The accusation of self promotional insertion of sources into Wikipedia is a serious one, if true and deserves a discussion and probably a 6 month indef with the home the user can take some time WP:HEAR the concerns raised. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

No cooperation, no good faith

User:Michalis1994 refuses to cooperate to improve the article. He does not discuss with me, but reverts without explanation. The sources he cites do not correspond to what he writes, and his additions make the article look more like a libellus than a calm record of the facts. Here are some diffs https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Afroditi_Latinopoulou&diff=prev&oldid=1230703015

also remove my appeal for discussion

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Afroditi_Latinopoulou&diff=prev&oldid=1230638536 D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Improve the article? You're removing fully cited material. You want to dispute it? Add to talk page - this isn't Greek Wiki. Michalis1994 (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

You have not replied to the talk page. D.S. Lioness (talk) 18:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

He is a user of bad faith. You can see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/D.S._Lioness is fraudulently trying to delegitimize my contribution. D.S. Lioness (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

This is a bit of a mess, but it does look at first glance as if D.S. Lioness is attempting to whitewash the article to remove cited criticisms of specific politicians and political parties. For the record, Lioness, do not accuse other editors of "libel", as that can be construed as a legal threat resulting in you being blocked. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite— Preceding undated comment added 19:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I am the creator of the article in question. The best solution is that both editors just refrain from contacting each other. This is a disagreement that started over at Greek Wikipedia apparently.BabbaQ (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

no, dear! it didn't start on the Greek Wikipedia, at least not with me. The user on the Greek Wikipedia via i.p. tried to pass the same text to the article of the party, where an administrator blocked him by locking the page. So, it was moved here. And he even put the exact same text in both the article about the party and the article about the person. I don't know if this is acceptable but does no do a good impression to the reader.

I also don't see not talking to each other as a solution, as it is imperative that differences are discussed. If you want to help perhaps you can take participate on the discussion page of the article. D.S. Lioness (talk) 01:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Although the only relevant quote I found regarding your comment on the word libelous is this A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat" let me explain that by libelous I mean putting content that does not match to what the sources say. It's hard for someone who doesn't know Greek to be able to judge if the sources are being misused, I understand that, but if you're interested you can use a translation app to understand. Also, it is a bit hasty to conclude that i want to whitewash somewhat insulting I think to my person. I'm just trying to make the text NPOV, something the user is completely indifferent to. D.S. Lioness (talk) 02:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Insults / Bullying

request for blocking to User:Michalis1994 per Wikipedia:NOTHERE and Wikipedia:Civilty see here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Afroditi_Latinopoulou&diff=prev&oldid=1230879788 D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

You are in a politically motivated edit war with them? Secretlondon (talk) 18:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Did you read what he wrote ? what does politics have to do with it? D.S. Lioness (talk) 19:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Well I can see that you are blocked on Greek wikipedia for socking. Secretlondon (talk) 23:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

And this is clearly discussed above. Stick to there, please. Secretlondon (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

What does the fact that I am blocked in the Greek wp have to do with my problem? What do you mean by sticking there? What i have to do? D.S. Lioness (talk) 00:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

You posted this further down the noticeboard. Someone has clearly moved it to here, with the other thread. Secretlondon (talk) 21:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Is this a WP:boomerang issue maybe? Insanityclown1 (talk) 19:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, this absolutely seems to be a boomerang case. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Third opinion#Active disagreementsD.S. Lioness (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I recently replied to a request for third opinion on this case, but I failed to realize it was (in multiple subthreads!) at ANI already. The dispute is much worse than I recognized in my 3O response and it does seem like administrative action is warranted. At a minimum the article should be protected and the participants referred to WP:DRN, in my opinion. VQuakr (talk) 21:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Topic bans for both would be appropriate at least. For how long is up to consensus.BabbaQ (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Whitewashing and continuous removal of sources

Quick report on D.S. Lioness: she's been relentlessly axing articles and deleting cited content to push her own POV. Entire sections in Afroditi Latinopoulou, including academic articles, have been wiped out and replaced with dubious, unreliable sources. The same pattern is evident here (no reason given), here (no reason given, despite the MEP's history), and here (removed information about the town, without giving any reason at all). Michalis1994 (talk) 08:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

heads up: per the big red warnings that show up when you start a new thread, you need to notify users of this. i did it this time cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 11:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• The above was filed as a new thread; I've copied it here.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Personal attack (whitewashing), again. D.S. Lioness (talk) 18:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Explain how this is a personal attack and not simply you being thin skinned? Insanityclown1 (talk) 05:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to temp block D.S. Lioness

This seems strongly like a boomerang issue. User here seems only interested in censoring opinions that disagree with her.--Insanityclown1 (talk) 05:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Not sure a block is necesssary, but topic bans for either or both users may be necessary. I'm not sure that either editor has shown that they can edit in the area of Greek politics effectively. From what I've seen, DS Lioness has edited other users' talk comments to remove personal attacks (against themselves, making them not the best person to remove them), and from what I can see, Michalis1994 is trying to ensure the article is "NPOV" - which to them means that any negative information they think is relevant is included. Neither editor seems to be discussing based on policies/guidelines, but based on their own opinion of the other editor and their own opinion of what's relevant. Pinging User:VQuakr (and will notify on their talkpage) as they responded to the WP:3O request, but to quote VQuakr During a content dispute, it is more important than ever to focus on content, not editors - neither user here seems to be able to focus on the content rather than taking digs at the other. I don't think an interaction ban would be fair here unless it is accompanied by them both being unable to edit topics related to Afroditi Latinopoulou (including any politics related to that person) - so I think either a time limited topic ban or an indefinite topic ban (with ability to appeal after contributions elsewhere, as standard) would be better. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 06:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I will not remove the term 'whitewashing' as the deletion of cited content in the article raises significant questions about the author's intentions. Additionally, this concern now extends to the political party founded by Afroditi Latinopoulou, Voice of Reason. It is evident that D.S. Lioness has prepared a similar version in her sandbox, aiming to completely replace and distort the cited content regarding the party. Hope you can all see the pattern here. If this isn't whitewashing, then how should it be described? Moreover, there is nothing inherently negative about accurately describing the political party as a far-right organisation - something that has been confirmed by the third opinion, to which D.S. Lioness responded with further personal attacks. The so-called 'negative' tone identified by the other author is, in fact, the result of ideological analysis from reputable sources, which they seem eager to conceal. The replacement of reliable sources with questionable material, coupled with the aforementioned actions, raises concerns about whether D.S. Lioness is going to stop those actions and seek consensus. I have expressed my willingness to discuss this further, but it currently seems impossible to find common ground. Additionally, I must point out once again that they have been previously banned from Greek Wikipedia for exhibiting the same behavioural pattern. Michalis1994 (talk) 07:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Temporary topic bans for both seems appropriate.BabbaQ (talk) 15:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Why for both? That seems a little weird. Michalis1994 (talk) 16:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I demand a single piece of evidence of alleged whitewashing: which cited content I removed?

Your edits deceive readers and vandalizing w.p by adding lies such this June 2024, she called for Pride Parade to be dissolved, saying, "It is a celebration of vulgarity, emphasising the sexuality of sadomasochists and other various abnormalities in public view." Where the source mention something like that? Here the source in Greek and tranlated by google translate in english

See for yourselves. Enough is enough with your lies. D.S. Lioness (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Support indefinite topic ban for D. S. Lioness, as their clear POV pushing is not beneficial to the encyclopedia.

As for Michaelis, I'd suggest a voluntary topic ban for 3 months to just take a break and come back when they're feeling less hot-under-the-collar from this mess. The article can wait, and there's already more eyes on it from this ANI. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

where is my pov pushing? You accuse me and you want to ban but without a single evidence!!! You just believed the other user lies. Did you read my edition? Did you read my sources? In what ground you accusing of POV pushing?? D.S. Lioness (talk) 01:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Now he's looking for my sandbox and he wants me to be blocked for what I WILL WRITE D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Αs far as I am concerned I will abstain from the Latinopoulou article until the user check is completed. Τhen everything will become clear D.S. Lioness For a comprehensive update I leave this one here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/D.S._Lioness D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support As proposer of an indef ban for D.S. lioness. They seem unable to stop digging as it were. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insanityclown1 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

  6 months ban for what? what policy have i violate? What evidence do you have? D.S. Lioness (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support - 6 months definite ban for D.S. Lioness. And 3 months voluntary topic ban for Michalis1994, would be appropiate.BabbaQ (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

  6 months ban for what? what policy have i violate? D.S. Lioness (talk) 01:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Side note - semi-protection of Afroditi Latinopoulou might be warranted. No issues if that's premature at this point. VQuakr (talk) 19:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: The assumption that D.S. Lioness will cease her vandalism is fundamentally flawed. Her disruptive editing and vandalism have now extended to other pages, such as the Alexis Papahelas article, where she removed cited content just a few hours after discussions began to address concerns about her contributions. This mirrors her previous behaviour on the Afroditi Latinopoulou page and is unlikely to stop there. This serves as a warning to anyone who believes the situation might improve or that her actions are confined to the Afroditi Latinopoulou page. Michalis1994 (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

what are you saying; what exactly are you trying to achieve? what is the vandalism in Papachelas' article? I even explained in the editing summary the minor changes I made. I remove only unverified material according to WP:BLP.

Υou are trying to take advantage of users who don't know Greek, who don't know Greek political parties, who can't confirm what is written in order to achieve my complete exclusion. This is totally immoral!!!

you accused me of whitewashing the far right without providing a single piece of evidence for your claim. Not a single one!!! You manipulate users who are perhaps sensitive to political issues and especially the far right to achieve your devious ends!!! D.S. Lioness (talk) 00:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

You are now the one being uncivil. I’d be more careful with what I said at this juncture. Insanityclown1 (talk) 06:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Proposal for a temp block for Wikipedia:Civility violations. Don’t call a user “devious.” Insanityclown1 (talk) 07:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

And what should I call a user who is trying to mislead the community into kicking me out of the project? Have you checked to see if what he claims is correct? D.S. Lioness (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

You should answer in a way that doesn’t resort to making personal attacks against another editor. Insanityclown1 (talk) 20:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Continuous whitewashing and removal of labels/information related to other neo-Nazi parties: [135] [136] - there is a clear pattern here. Michalis1994 (talk) 06:23, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I think an interaction ban between the two would also possibly be appropriate. This sequence of threads is indicating to me that neither of the parties in conflict can simply leave well enough alone.--Insanityclown1 (talk) 09:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Ηis contribution has now become a pure stalking at me. You can check this here D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

proposal

Because we are waiting check user results, i think the calmest solution is to "freeze" the issue )unless it is possible to accelerate the procedure) because it may turn out that this conversation is meaningless, just like the one below. D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Last time I looked you'd both reported each other for check user. Is this another one? Secretlondon (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

No, my check user has completed, Michalis1994 not yet. D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Concerns about Monopoly in contentious topics page(Caste page)

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

---

Hi admins/Experienced Editors. I don’t have complaints against anyone as I believe in collaborative work.Recent developments are pushing few questions in my mind.The user LukeEmily and Ekdalian are reverting my edits back to back inspite the information is well referenced.Please refer the page Karhade,Mohyal,saraswat etc.When I opposed this action, they launched Sock puppetry against me.May or May not be caste warriors but I request admins to instruct them not to interfere in well cited articles.I have carefully referred articles published in JSTOR for caste articles but was reverted please refer the edit history of all the above articles.I am not even involving in edit war instead giving page number explanation but sadly they are reverting like I am not a member in Wikipedia.I request admins to interfere in this issue and instruct them not to interfere in well cited articles. Thanks and Regards, RobertJudeson (talk) 07:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Caste promotion and POV-pushing are not accepted here in Wikipedia! The edit summaries (revision history) of the articles edited by you clearly mention the reasons for the reverts. You have also engaged in edit warring (Karhade Brahmin) in spite of all possible warnings. Even, an experienced admin has advised you to use the article talk pages instead, which I have been mentioning repeatedly (achieving consensus in the article talk page)! SPI has nothing to do with these issues. If your edit patterns match those of User:Joshi punekar's sockfarm, someone or the other will file an SPI! You may defend yourself as well, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joshi punekar! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 08:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I may be new to Wikipedia but consistently you have mentioned POV Edit and caste promotion.In karhade page I have given the truth of how Deshastha treated them and Chitpavan with valid reference.Varna difference is a part of caste.I wonder it was considered as promotion of caste.I didn’t even edited single page of deshastha and Chitpavan.Is it me or someone who is promoting caste.In mohyal I had rearranged the existing info which was reverted.Atlast Sock puppetry by a Member of 8 edit(18 days account) was supported by you,which seems highly unusual.Atleast in future,I hope you will talk if any discrepancies exists before reverting.

Regards, RobertJudeson (talk) 10:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

@RobertJudeson You have failed to notify either LukeEmily (talk · contribs) or Ekdalian (talk · contribs) of this ANI report, as the notice at the top of the page clearly requires. Notifying Ekdalian is unnecessary at this point (but doesn't change the fact you should've done so) as he has already commented here, but I have notified LukeEmily on your behalf. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 13:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

• @RobertJudeson: I don' understand this complaint when you have so far refused to actually discuss the issues on article talk pages, as multiple editors have asked you to (eg here). I don't know whether you didn't understand the advice, are ignoring it or just trolling but in either case you are skating close to a block. Please reconsider. Abecedare (talk) 18:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  Hi @Abecedare.

  I believe in collaborative work,so as I mentioned even those two editors have started reverting multiple edits at once even without initiating talk.They would have told reason to me in the talk page.This anonymous decisions as per their wish eats up a lot of time.

  I am just expecting admin to drop a message to both of them not to revert my edits having valid references,Incase if they find them not suitable let them message me in talk page(My or page) .I assure them I will definitely reply If I fail to justify I myself revert the edit which proved to be not suitable for the page.

  I am posting this to ensure my hardwork of reading research papers/books to update the page should not be reverted without reason as they did within fraction of seconds.I drop this issue here as of now. RobertJudeson (talk) 15:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  RobertJudeson, read WP:BURDEN! I believe you have been informed already about the same! Not sure whether you are intentionally trying to ignore our basic policies! Ekdalian (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  Ekdalian,Kindly refer Wikipedia:BRD!.This cannot be untrue in that case.”Revert only when it’s necessary “ as mentioned in the link!.Moreover I messaged you when you reverted my multiple edits at once,the message sent by me was deleted by you two times even without replying.I gave very good citation and explained with the page number in the summary while adding back.Not sure why you are ignoring this as both of us are bound by Wikipedia policy!. RobertJudeson (talk) 06:44, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Single-edit IPs vandalizing Ashley Gjøvik page

Either someone must have put out the bat signal on one of the Apple fanboy sites, or someone is using a ton of proxies to edit, because this page is getting an enormous amount of attention from people trying to cast this person in the worst possible light and Apple in the best, mostly by selectively removing information and revert-warring any attempts to clarify the situation.

All of these IP addresses make 1 or 2 edits, then move on, and it isn't just CGNAT or some such because they are all over different carriers. In most cases there are very few/none at all recent edits from a considerable IP block around that IP (I'm using /20 for IPv4 and /48 for IPv6):

208.114.45.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) This edit in which they claim what "the sources say" without actually having read them, as later edits elucidate. No edits in 3 months from the entire /20 either.

2600:8801:2994:4900:2152:83C8:74DE:959D (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) This blanking edit, just pure vandalism with a false edit summary (the sources aren't in the lede, and none of the sources relevant to that particular edit were from AppleInsider, which suggests maybe I hit the nail on the head on the talk page in indicating some of the spam traffic is coming from a fanboy site like that). No edits in 2 YEARS from the parent /48.

2600:8801:1201:7200:F591:D785:87AF:8613 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) This "warning" added to my talk page by an IP that has never, ever made an edit before. Only 5 edits from the entire /48 in the past 2 YEARS.

66.146.183.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) This reply on the article's talk page as if they were already involved in this article, yet the entire /20 shows no edits at all in the past 6 MONTHS.

I could go on but I think what's going on is obvious: either a mob being told to edit (and not by friends of Ms. Gjøvik, either), or someone very aggressively editing using proxies and throwaway IP addresses to evade WP:3RR. 76.6.213.65 (talk) 09:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

(Yes, I know the obvious solution here is to semi-protect the page, and I'm okay with that. I'll create an account... eventually, lol. Just please revert any further of these low-effort edits from single-edit IPs before you do this, as the page is actually in a pretty good state right now after some back-and-forth.) 76.6.213.65 (talk) 09:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I'm now more convinced this is intentional abuse (or else in the very unlikely event it's not, it has to be someone with some kind of mental illness; dissociative identity?). They posted on another editor's talk page, here acting like that editor was "casting aspersions" for making claims of this IP-hopper "to be one person or not".

They seem to specifically be claiming the beyond-implausible possibility that each of these new IPs could be a different person making an all-new edit to this one specific article, despite none of the IPs involved in this hopping pattern having ever made a single edit to WP before. This is obviously either one person intentionally hopping proxies, or a mob of editors coordinating offsite, but now I can discount the possibility that they somehow do not know that their connection is being routed to multiple IPs across different ISPs. 76.6.213.65 (talk) 10:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I was kind of between the devil and the deep blue sea here, as you valiantly undid all the edits...but in the end I have semi-protected after all. The page sees spurts of dsiruption, and had been proteted for a year already. Time to create an account, 76.6. :) Lectonar (talk) 10:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. 76.6.213.65 (talk) 11:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

As one of the editors involved yesterday with editing this article, there was no vandalism occurring. And while I did come from a link to the article in a particular forum, no one was encouraged to edit it at all or in any particular way. I disagree with the characterization of the edits as none of them look like vandalism, but minor content disputes.

They reported the person who requested page protections and reported them for "vandalism with a false edit summary"—but the sources about "Aria" and her RICO lawsuit are primary sources and the two AppleInsider articles (https://appleinsider.com/articles/24/06/24/whistleblower-claims-to-have-nearly-died-because-of-illegal-chemical-exposure-from-apple)(https://appleinsider.com/articles/23/09/09/ex-apple-employee-files-rico-lawsuit-over-whistleblower-retaliation). BasketOfDucklings (talk) 13:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm quite curious @BasketOfDucklings: were you or do you think other editors of Ashley's article were aware of our policies on neutral point of view and edit warring and how your edits might have violated them, and if yes, do you think you or the other editors intentionally made those edits anyway? Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 22:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I did not override any edits so I don't think I was edit warring. Someone else said my edits made the article overly congratulatory using her resume, but it was already in the article. I don't even know which rules I violated or how adding biography information made it not neutral. BasketOfDucklings (talk) 04:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

How cute, this Basket Of Ducklings account appears to be brand new. Hmmmm. 76.6.210.82 (talk) 06:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

And the IP-hopper is back, this time editing pages where disputes relating to the Gjøvik article are being mediated, here. Again no edits in over 6 months from the entire /20.

I would suggest this might be a previous abuser evading a ban, maybe this one? 76.6.210.82 (talk) 07:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

In that case, {{Checkuser needed}} on BasketOfDucklings. Might be a different person, but better to be safe. MiasmaEternal☎ 07:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

 Check declined by a checkuser per WP:NOTFISHING, and because no evidence whatsoever has been presented to demonstrate a connection to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SquareInARoundHole, as 76.6.x.x suggested. BasketOfDucklings is by their own admission one of the IP editors, and checkusers will not connect accounts to IP addresses. IP users are permitted (and encouraged; see above) to create accounts to edit, as long as they don't do so to evade a block of their IP address, and as none of these addresses are blocked, there is no violation here. However I'll also note here that if many accounts are exhibiting the same disruptive behaviour and there's uncertainty as to whether it is one user with sockpuppets or many users working together, we treat them as one user for administrative purposes.

@76.6.210.82: please strike your personal attack speculating on another user's mental condition. Further comments of this sort will result in you being blocked from editing.

@BasketOfDucklings: I think you've been editing Wikipedia for a while despite your account's age, so you should already be familiar with our policy on biographies of living persons and the more stringent standards applicable to editing information about living persons. Policy directs us to present all relevant information about a subject, both positive and negative, balanced according to the weight that reliable sources give to any particular information. This is what we mean by neutral point of view or "neutrality" on Wikipedia: we aim to present the point of view of published sources, rather than presenting our own point of view. A common pitfall for new editors is to interpret "neutral point of view" as meaning that we assign equal weight to all information, or don't publish relevant information if it casts the subject in a negative light, but that creates what we call false balance. We achieve neutrality through discussion and consensus, and if discussions on the article's talk page don't reach consensus you can post at the NPOV noticeboard to attract more participation. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Potential legal threat and TPA revoking required on Martinnewbold

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

---

User User:Martinnewbold was indeffed for promotion, being a single-use account to promote his book. Since then the user has written several incomprehensible AI-generated unblock appeals and deletion review requests.

The latest message to their user talk page states that they have sent a letter to Wikipedia UK offices, it includes vague legalise (AI generated) which I interpret as a legal threat against Wikipedia.

In any case, TPA needs revoking. Qcne (talk) 09:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

TPA removed, rubbish blanked and replaced with {{uw-blockindefnotalk}}. Daniel (talk) 09:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Vulcan

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

---

• Vulcan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mywholenamee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

To avoid me edit warring (I'm already at 2 reverts), can others please look at Vulcan, which is being hijacked by this new editor even after two ignored warnings? The hijacked version, which is completely unsourced, voices opinion and may be AI/LLM generated, is currently the "live" version of this disambiguation page. 92.6.27.15 (talk) 20:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

SFR has reverted and blocked. All resolved. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

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

How to request a rollback of JojoeditsWiki

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

---

The edits by JojoeditsWiki are just a flood of do-nothing edits. I'm not sure how to request a mass revert of their edits. _signed, Willondon (talk) 21:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done by Ponyo and Drmies. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I guess that answers my question. Thank you all. _signed, Willondon (talk) 21:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if this is a (transparent) attempt at extendedconfirmed busting? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Turkish IP address

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

---

Resolved

 – 78.163.128.0/18 blocked by Daniel Case for two years

A Turkish IP editor has been making significant edits to the TDI (engine) page, Toyota WW engine page as well as many others, without leaving edit summaries or citations. I have been trying to revert them, but it’s usually ended in an edit war, so the IP saw a 24-hour ban. However, after their ban, they went straight back to vandalising, so the TDI (engine) got protected for three days. They haven’t edited that page since, but have vandalised other pages, leading me to bring this here. I’d appreciate all their edits reverted, and them seeing an extended ban. 750h+ 23:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

There needs to be an explanation on article talk and an attempt to engage the IP. See my comments at Talk:TDI (engine)#Mass changes on 19-20 June 2024. Johnuniq (talk) 01:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Johnuniq I can't find the previous discussions now, but this is a long running issue (presumably a single editor) using multiple Turkish IPs to add large amounts of unsourced information to car-related articles. They currently seem to be running off 78.163.128.0/17 (contribs). We might need a rangeblock. Black Kite (talk) 07:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked 78.163.128.0/18 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for two years due to their history of ever-longer blocks in the last two years. Daniel Case (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Kaalakaa on Islam-related topics

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

---

Kaalakaa recently asserted that Muslims can't be reliable sources on Islam because they all supposedly have a conflict of interest. And this is not the first time they've categorically rejected Muslims as RS.[137][138] Such a position has been roundly rejected by other contributors in that discussion. Even worse is that they seem to attack the perceived religious beliefs of wikipedia editors. For example, when Hemiauchenia says: "I think Kaalakaa has been established to be in the minority in pretty much every discussion of this issue." Kaalakaa responds with "This article is about the Islamic prophet, so it is only natural that the talk page is crowded with Muslims." They have also been accused of POV-pushing on the Muhammad article.[139][140]

Kaalakaa's userpage states "I live in a country where "blasphemy" against a certain religion is a crime. If I suddenly revert many or all of my edits or request that my account be deleted, then there is a high chance that by then I have already been arrested or that my account has been confiscated." I feel bad for them, but unfortunately it seems they are on a mission to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. There was a previous report about Kaalakaa on this board as well. It may be time to consider a WP:TBAN on Islam-related topics.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 05:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• I agree that the community, as well as any admin noticing, should strongly consider a topic ban for Kaalakaa from Islam, broadly construed, and I support applying one. For clarity, when Kaalakaa claimed at WP:NPOVN that Muslims can't be reliable sources on Islam, Kaalakaa was not talking about, say, publications from devotional presses or proselytizing websites, i. e. sources that are editorially devotional in a manner contrary to Wikipedia's interest in neutrality. Rather, Kaalakaa has been disfavoring works published by university presses, and written by authors who are academically trained and tenured at universities, solely on the grounds of those authors being Muslims. This prejudicial assessment of sources based on the religious affiliation of the author is disruptive and has been rejected in discussions, but Kaalakaa continues insisting. In the most recent incidence of this, at WP:NPOVN, editors tried to give feedback to Kaalakaa about this matter, but in response Kaalakaa doubled down on the position. I'm even more troubled by Kaalakaa's apparent expression that discussion contributions from editors who are Muslim can (even should?) be disregarded (the This article is about the Islamic prophet, so it is only natural that the talk page is crowded with Muslims comment, expressed apparently to aver that once Muslim editors are ignored, Kaalakaa would cease to be in the minority in that discussion). This isn't the first time Kaalakaa has rejected feedback and pushed ahead against consensus, and because of behavior like this a topic ban is necessary as a preventative measure to prevent further disruption to the topic area. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support saying stuff like Muslims can’t be a reliable source clearly goes against Wikipedia’s mission.
• Not sure how long the topic ban should be, maybe an 1 year or a 6 month topic ban might do. CycoMa1 (talk) 15:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support (uninvolved) I agree that this is a ridiculous position. I am preoccupied with other matters but have been following the discussion because of Regency of Algiers, which does use Islamic sources and in several places touches on religious matters such as mosques, sharifian dynasties, and holy war. I am not an authority on the history of Muhammed by any means -- most of the writing at that article was produced by an Arabic speaker -- but the article would be much poorer without the rather venerable Islamic authors it cites. Elinruby (talk) 06:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
• "Jonathan AC Brown and Tariq Ramadan are Muslims, and therefore they have a conflict of interest in writing their books" is a remarkable statement and position to take, from the perspective of an outsider looking in. I'd imagine most uninvolved editors would also find it remarkable, and some (like me) even verging on objectionable. Daniel (talk) 06:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
  • To clarify my position, support (uninvolved) an indefinite topic ban on Islam-related articles, broadly construed. Daniel (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
• Here I quote my statement that VR appears to be referring to above [141] [142]:

Jonathan AC Brown and Tariq Ramadan are Muslims, and therefore they have a conflict of interest in writing their books, so I am not sure they meet our WP:SOURCE policy that tells us to "Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."

Regarding my comment that I am not sure if sources with a conflict of interest meet our WP:SOURCE policy, this is because the WP:SOURCE text itself states, "Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," and the word "independent" there is linked to WP:IS, which says:
An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective. Independent sources have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (there is no potential for personal, financial, or political gain to be made from the existence of the publication)."

If my understanding of WP:SOURCE and WP:IS above is indeed too extreme and incorrect, I deeply apologize and I will retract it. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 06:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Let's say your interpretation, that Muslim authors might not have the requisite independence to be considered fully reliable sources on Islam, is correct. Would that extend to Christian authors writing about Christianity, Hindu authors writing about Hinduism, Jewish authors writing about Judaism, etc.? City of Silver 06:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I had always believed that to be the case, whether it was for articles about Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, or other religions. I thought it was best if we used sources from secular authors published by university presses and other reputable academic publishers like Brill and De Gruyter, because I believed them to have no stake in the topics and be more likely to cover them from a disinterested perspective. I'm really sorry if this understanding was too extreme and wrong. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 06:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

@Kaalakaa: Thanks for your responses so far. To clarify the diff at the very start of this thread: JAC Brown's work "Muhammad, A very short introduction" is an academic history of Mohammed published by Oxford University Press (an academic publisher). Would it be correct to say that your objection to this work is based not so much on its contents as on the religion of its author? -- Euryalus (talk) 07:08, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

The issue, if I am not mistaken, began when the new editor, @QctheCat, wanted to state as a fact in wikivoice that "Banu Qurayza violated the treaty with Muhammad" using those sources. However, several other secondary sources doubt that Banu Qurayza violated the treaty or even participated in a treaty with Muhammad. A primary source also reports that Banu Qurayza denied having a treaty with Muhammad (Tabari, vol.8 pg.15). That was why, I believed that because the authors of the books are Muslims, it had led them to present the claim from Muhammad and Islamic sources that "Banu Qurayza violated the treaty" as a fact. Nevertheless, I did not outright reject the inclusion of the statement, but said that it needed to be attributed to Muhammad or Islamic sources if included [143]. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 07:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

So in your view the other sources were inherently more reliable because their authors were not Muslim? -- Euryalus (talk) 07:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Were more independent, to be exact, because I thought they likely had less stake in the topics. But again, sorry if that was wrong. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 07:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again for the replies. Tbh that is indeed both extreme (and objectionable) as a point of view. You've been here long enough to know that that personal opinions about other people's religions are not a valid input to the reliability of sources. At the least, support a topic ban from topics related to Islam unless/until there's a better understanding of how WP:RS is applied. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• Strong support (uninvolved in the initial dispute) The editor in question's understanding of policies and their extremely hostility against the Islam religion is insane. Pretty sure this person is heading for a TBAN with these aggressions. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 06:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support (uninvolved): The phrase "conflict of interest" is just about the most misunderstood on Wikipedia. As anyone who's actually read the guideline understands, a conflict doesn't come from being an alleged partisan of one side or another. (For instance, I'm a lifelong fan of the Boston Bruins ice hockey team, and I've had over twice as many edits to the article as any other editor, but I don't run afoul of COI there.) It comes from "contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships." An employee of a mosque should avoid editing the mosque's article. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem should avoid editing his own article. A lack of ability to understand the distinction -- as well as not bothering to look up the damn rule in advance of filing an ANI complaint -- is a poor look. Ravenswing 08:13, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• Addendum, regarding the proposal to topic-ban me: Some of my contributions include the Battle of Badr article, which previously appeared to have gained Good Article status [144] with @VR (the filer above) as the sole reviewer [145]. When I first checked the article, it was heavily based on Mubārakfūrī's work, which seems to have been written from a religious perspective. Additionally, no page numbers were provided for any citation to this author in the article. Several statements were also unsourced, and some were cited merely to primary sources and dubious websites like Witness-pioneer.org. So, I overhauled it using secular sources published by university presses, Brill, De Gruyter, etc. I also contributed to the articles on Bahira, Muhammad, Rima Ariadaeus, and others. I put a lot of effort into researching various books for each of my contributions, but if all of them are actually wrong or violate our policies and guidelines, feel free to revert them all. And if, because of these reasons, I deserve a topic ban or even a complete block from Wikipedia, what can I do but accept it? Thanks. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 08:23, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'm just going through that article now and the POV-pushing you've done there is incredible. I've started several discussions on the talk page with your violations of WP:NPOV.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 12:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment FAQ Q4 at Talk:Jesus may have something of relevance for this discussion. Or maybe not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks, yes that's very helpful. Perhaps we need a version of this FAQ on similar articles. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support I am not involved with this issue. From the linked discussions, I think it's necessary. If there should come a time when we don't consider certain publishers as reliable sources for articles involving Islam, then that's a discussion we have to have and a consensus we have to form, not something that can simply be asserted by an editor. Accepting consensus of reliable sources, even when one may not agree with the consensus, is a crucial part of maintaining the encyclopedia as a collaborative project. We certainly have a few perennial sources that I think should be labeled as unreliable or even deprecated, but my recourse would be to convince the community to see it my way and establish a new consensus, not to edit war those sources out of articles. A fundamental concept of Wikipedia, whether you're making your first edit or you're Jimmy Wales, is that you have no inherent right for your opinion to be the victorious one. The community has given this editor good faith opportunities to accept this and adjust their editing behavior accordingly. As this does not appear to have been successful, then the only option is to see if taking them out of the specific problematic topic would improve matters. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

  but my recourse would be to convince the community to see it my way and establish a new consensus, not to edit war those sources out of articles.

  I don't recall ever edit-warring to force those sources out of articles. I only said "I am not sure they meet our WP:SOURCE policy" in the WP:NPOVN discussion. But if I might have mistakenly done so, I apologize. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 10:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Support even though I am uninvolved. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 12:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Support the ban. It is needed for various reasons. Their other account also should be banned. Neutralhappy (talk) 12:49, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

This is my only account. If you believe I have another account and you have evidence, feel free to file a report at WP:SPI. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 12:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

@Neutralhappy: what account are you referring to (and what evidence do you have)? -- Euryalus (talk) 13:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

@Euryalus, Well, Kaalakaa has raised eyebrows in suspiciously demonstrating advanced knowledge of Wikipedia, notably in detecting sock puppetry soon after joining. See their talk. StarkReport (talk) 11:45, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

You yourself have admitted to have another account: user:kaalaka, on User:kaalakaa's user page. You gave the reason for the creation of the new one that you forgot the password of the earlier one. Neutralhappy (talk) 14:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Here you admit that. Neutralhappy (talk) 14:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support. The remarkable position that Jonathan AC Brown and Tariq Ramadan are Muslims, and therefore they have a conflict of interest in writing their books is harmful to the project of building an encyclopedia. On that principle, we would have to exclude many of our sources for articles such as Woman, Gender and Sexism because the authors are female and most of the rest for being written by men. The topic-ban is also required both for their disgustingly slanted rewriting of Battle of Badr[146] and for doubling down on that demonstration of utter disregard for our NPOV principles by presenting it in this very thread as a fine example of their work. NebY (talk) 13:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

  I have struck out that part of my comment [147] and apologized. For my contributions to the Battle of Badr article (and other articles), I always base every statement on reliable sources. If there are other sources disputing these statements, please feel free to add them, and describe the disputes. But if there are none, I don't see where the issue is. WP:YESBIAS states, "NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. It means 'neutrally reflecting what the sources say. It does not mean that the article has to be 'neutral'." And that's probably why Robert B. Spencer is described as anti-Muslim in his Wikipedia article because there are no sources that dispute that description. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 13:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

  The material you've presented on POWs at Battle of Badr is in contradiction to other scholarly RS who have portrayed the event either positively or neutrally (explained here). And you seem to have used gory and inflammatory language to present an anti-Islam POV. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

  Regarding the POWs, as you mentioned in your comment [148], "The original citation was to William Muir, a 19th-century source." I had seen several editors taking issue with Muir because he was considered too dated [149] [150], and I more or less agreed with them, so I removed it. But if you have more recent sources, as you mentioned afterwards, "but newer sources also affirm this," please feel free to add it back using those newer sources. And if there are conflicts between reliable sources, describe the disputes in accordance to WP:IMPARTIAL. Concerning the gory and inflammatory language, everything is based on the secondary sources cited, and I am sure it is also present in the primary sources because these secondary sources base their contents and analyses on those primary sources. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 14:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

  Concerning the gory and inflammatory language, everything is based on the secondary sources cited: This goes to show why a topic ban is necessary. Upon receiving feedback about behavioral issues like POV pushing, Kaalakaa doubles down. A topic ban will be a preventative measure. Consider what Kaalakaa is saying next to some of the language Kaalakaa introduced to the article:

  • The Muslims slashed them as they fled
  • When Uqba pleaded, "But who will take care of my children, Muhammad?" Muhammad replied, "Hell."
  • licking their lips like snakes (this referring to Muslims)

  Even in a vacuum these are an issue. Wikipedia isn't censored, but it also isn't a slasher movie, and it's not a blow-by-blow narrative history either; there's no guideline for favoring gory content.

  I also notice that the content I excerpted is cited to books that Kaalakaa has been pushing and defending (permanent link) for citation on the topic of Islam:

  • Russ Rodgers's Generalship of Muhammad (2021), a book that though published by Florida University Press has had limited influence. I've only ever found one review of it, which criticized the book for being a biography of a religious leader that failed to pay any attention to his religious life. I was inclined to give the benefit of the doubt based on the university press imprint, but if this is the kind of content Kaalakaa is using it to cite, there is a serious issue.
  • Maxime Rodinson's Muhammad (1960), a book sixty-four-years old (despite Kaalakaa elsewhere expressing WP:AGEMATTERS concern about a cited work being too dated). According to The New York Review of Books, The trouble is that Rodinson's portrait of Muhammad as a rather insignificant little man caught up in a whirlpool of his own passions and of political and social upheavals simply does not square with the historical facts.

  Whatever Kaalakaa's intent, the result is disfavoring academically published favor solely for being written by Muslims, favoring citing niche and outdated sources, and contributing POV content in articles. That Kaalakaa has repeatedly doubled down—and only at this eleventh hour is responding to some feedback (and not all) of it—demonstrates the preventative necessity of a topic ban. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 15:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

  I just found out about that guideline, thank you for linking it. Regarding "The Muslims slashed them as they fled," this seems somewhat similar to "Many Palestinian civilians were killed as they fled" in Gaza-Israel conflict. Does "slash" need to be reworded to "kill" so it doesn't sound gory or offensive?

  Regarding "licking their lips like snakes," here I quote a larger passage from the article that includes that excerpt for context [151]:

  According to an Islamic tradition, Utba, in an attempt to dissuade the Quraysh from fighting their kinsmen, said, "Do you not see them," referring to the Muslims, "squatting on their mounts, holding on tightly, licking their lips like snakes?" Abu Jahl reportedly reacted angrily, stating that if anyone else had said it, he would have bitten them.

  As can be seen, those words were Utba's attempt to dissuade his tribesmen (the Quraysh) from fighting their kinsmen on the Muslim side, apparently by scaring them, which made Abu Jahl angry because it might lower his troops' morale.

  Regarding: When Uqba pleaded, "But who will take care of my children, Muhammad?" Muhammad replied, "Hell."

  I'm not sure what is gory about this. I think it is informative, showing Muhammad's attitude towards one of his enemies. If this is considered offensive, should we also remove the part from the lead of Robert B. Spencer's article that states he is anti-Muslim because it is offensive? Doesn't the guideline itself say, "Wikipedia editors should not remove material solely because it may be offensive, unpleasant, or unsuitable for some readers. ... Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available."

  As for your statement "I also notice that the content I excerpted is cited to books that Kaalakaa has been pushing and defending (permanent link) for citation on the topic of Islam"

  The content you excerpted above originally comes from early Islamic sources, so it will not only appear in those academic sources. Analyses, on the other hand, are different, though I have included them only sparingly from those sources.

  Regarding your statement about Rodgers' work, "I've only ever found one review of it."

  Fyi, I have listed several reliable sources here that cite and evaluate Rodgers' work. As for the review you mentioned that criticized Rodgers "for being a biography of a religious leader that failed to pay any attention to his religious life," here is what the review actually said:

  The biggest gap in the book is that religion plays little role, apart from discussions of the sources of Muslim morale and cohesion, but this is really not the point of the book.
  The book closes with an overall military analysis of Muḥammad’s record as a general, evaluating the various aspects of his career as a political-military leader, the gist of which was that he was continually able to outmaneuver opponents who had not yet adapted to the implications of Muḥammad’s religious warfare.
  This is a much better book than I expected—not just an attempt to apply currently fashionable military theory to Muḥammad’s career but a well-researched and very professional military analysis. Apart from its contribution to the literature of military history and counterinsurgency, it reinforces the credibility of the very detailed early accounts of Muḥammad’s life and career. This last is a finding of considerable importance.

  Regarding "a book sixty-four years old (despite Kaalakaa elsewhere expressing WP:AGEMATTERS concern about a cited work being 'too dated'),"

  What I meant by "too dated" refers to William Muir's book written in 1861 and Washington Irving's book from 1850. Those books are about a century older than Rodinson's (1961). — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 20:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

licking their lips like snakes is incredibly offensive even if Utba said it and is merely being quoted. It also isn't really a quote, since the event was so long ago and obviously grew in its telling to partisan audiences. The Song of Roland has numerous concordances and I don't doubt the tale of this battle does also. The point is, we don't know if any of that anecdote actually happened and it serves no purpose except, as you say, showing Muhammad's attitude towards one of his enemies. Because why exactly? Especially since there is ample reason to doubt the literal historicity of this rendering? If you want to show generalship, show generalship. This is not that. Elinruby (talk) 02:14, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

• @Kaalakaa: Messages like this aren't convincing anybody and you know that because an absolutely enormous consensus (fifteen sixteen editors versus only one) has formed in support of a topic ban for you. Do you know that if an administrator closes this, you'll be banned from editing anything about Islam? Do you know that could happen literally any second? What are you doing still trying to argue content stuff? City of Silver 20:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for your concern, City of Silver. But I just felt that I needed to clarify some of Hydrangeans' statements above. :) — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 20:59, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

  Kaalakaa, you compare writing about the Islamic prophet Muhammad to writing about Robert B. Spencer or Adolf Hitler[152]. There is academic consensus that Hitler committed aggression and genocide. There is consensus that Spencer's views are "anti-Muslim". There is no academic consensus on the POVs you're trying to push about Muhammad; actually the POVs you're pushing are only held by a small minority of Western scholars.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose as premature. Kaalakaa has explicitly stated, more than once, that they know they were wrong to think Muslim scholars have an inherent COI regarding Islam. We don't yet know how their editing habits will change in light of this and if a topic ban is enacted, we'll never know. User:Vice regent is righteously dismayed at the anti-Muslim POV edits Kaalakaa made to Battle of Badr. Per WP:AGF, we ought to assume Kaalakaa now knows why those edits were inappropriate so it's simple: I'd like to see them correct what they did wrong there. If they just wholesale revert it back to its state before they started editing it, that won't be worth much of anything and I'd support the topic ban. But what if they actually do the hard work, work that should be heavily couched in addressing the problems VR just raised at the article's talk? (@Kaalakaa: if this sounds good to you, hurry because this discussion could end at any time and if it gets closed in its current state, you'll obviously get the ban.)

If I end up not convincing anybody, that's fine. Kaalakaa's extremely negative stance towards Islam would have been obvious even without their incredibly weird belief that scholars who adhere to a given faith aren't reliable sources regarding that faith. City of Silver 16:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

In my entire Wikipedia life, I have not seen the worst editor as Kaalaka. Kalaakaa has disregard for truth. Not only has Kalaaka made bad faith in one article but in another article—Muhammad also and obviously more, which resulted in losing the good article status for the article—Muhammad. So this disregard towards truth is inherent in Kaalakaa. Reverting the bads edits would not be successful unless there are several editors because of Kaalakaa's aggressive reverting behavior. So tell me what is the solution. First option will be to go after him a group of editors to revert that bad faith edit. Second option will be to ban Kaalakaa. The third option will be to block Kaalakaa from Wikipedia. Forth option will be anything else. Which one of them do you choose?

Kaalakaa is of the opion that any book written by Muslims about Islam are to rejected. No one has misunderstood Kaalakaa's this statement.

While COI can be suspected because of one's affiliation, here history on Muhammad are just quoting of the history. There is nothing to be suspected about because it can be verified with the primary source regardless of one's affiliation. So the Kaalakaa's stand is unwanted and inappropriate. And Kaalakaa's is not what you are trying to say—one meaning of his stand.

If Muslims have COI, non-Muslims also have COI for the same reason. Again he is not looking for evidence instead he look for affiliation or the other.

Not premature. There have been instances of disagreements with Kaalakaa by numerous editors, including on ANI before. Neutralhappy (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

@Neutralhappy: As I said, Kaalakaa has explicitly stated, more than once, that they know they were wrong to think Muslim scholars have an inherent COI regarding Islam. Pretty much every editor here simply does not believe this, which is fine. The thing is, I don't know if they'll change, you don't know, nobody knows because there's no way for them to prove it other than fixing what they've broken. Battle of Badr is an obvious opportunity for them. It would be a very difficult task because, well, it'll be a lot of hard work but also because they'll have to demonstrate a clear lack of anti-Muslim bias. Look: if Kaalakaa tries to fix that article, I think they'll fail. I'm just wondering, what if I'm wrong? City of Silver 19:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Kaalakaa's trend is to reject Islamic scholars even if it is said to Kaalakaa that they are more knowledgeable and having the proof or more proofs.

When presented an Islamic : source by a user, Kaalakaa replied  : this . This shows Kaalakaa does not consider what knowledge or proof is based on. Instead Kaalakaa only consider bias against Islam as the criteria to be based on. Moreover it is normal for followers to really convey the leader's message without changing them. Here is the : link to source that user pointed to. Neutralhappy (talk) 05:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

@Neutralhappy: You've messaged me twice. Both messages indicate you haven't read any of what I said. Instead of repeating grievances that have nothing to do with what I'm saying, read my words and respond directly to them. If you can't be bothered to do that, please stop replying to me. City of Silver 01:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. I'm tempted by City of Silver's point, but also made wary by Hydrangeans' evidence that they have already rejected feedback from the community. This does not seem like something they will unlearn overnight, ban or no ban. And it seems to have taken up a lot of the community's time already. They can still be a constructive editor by working on other topics where their POV isn't at issue and, assuming that goes well, they can potentially request the ban be removed in the future or await its expiration, if temporary. (PS: I was uninvolved but came here after the editor's POV was brought up at Talk:Battle of Badr.) R Prazeres (talk) 17:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support I have been on-and-off following the discussions at Talk:Muhammad and related pages, and it is clear to me that Kaalakaa invariably takes a my-way-or-the-highway approach to Islamic-related topics. From their userpage, it looks like they have a personal reason to get so invested, but unfortunately that sort of POV is unhelpful for encyclopedic writing, and they have (before this zero-hour discussion) been very reluctant to see the views of others. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support - Contrasting what City of Silver says due to the disruption and tribalism we're seeing here, it's best for Kaalakaa that they disengage from the topic area. I don't buy their contrition here, as it smacks of a "I'm sorry I was caught" oh-shucks argument in an effort to dodge sanctions. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on Islam-related topics, appealable on WP:AN in 12 months.
  In this February 2024 ANI report, I said that Kaalakaa's focus on difficult and controversial Islam-related issues which they are not equipped to handle was wasting far too much community time, and that "if this doesn't stop, topic bans on Islam-related subjects should be considered". Since then, it has only become worse, with this Arb case request against User:Anachronist as a sad culmination.
  A good example of Kaalakaa's tendency to protract issues is their insistence on a very specific source (Rodgers 2012), which they first asked me about in October 2023, which apparently was consistently rejected or downplayed by other editors on various talk pages [153][154][155], but which Kaalakaa still felt deserved an RfC in June 2024. Anachronist's citing of this source in their WP:UPRESS essay (which as a result of the Arb case request was moved to user space, but in my opinion very much deserves to remain in project space) was also an important part of Kaalakaa's opening of the Arb case request.
  I honestly don't know if Rodgers 2012 is in fact reliable as a source, but it is very clear that it's very minor and insignificant in the field as a whole, and that Wikipedia articles would be just as well off without it. It seems that there is some POV in Rodgers 2012 which Kaalakaa absolutely feels should be represented on Wikipedia, but that is a very unhelpful attitude to begin with, and a downright unacceptable one if insisted on in this way.
  It's important to mention that Kaalakaa's edits thus far have shown them to be a very capable editor in general, one who is moreover willing to learn and to collaborate with other editors in a collegial way, but who for some reason is not able at this time to approach controversial Islam-related issues in an appropriately disinterested way. This does not seem likely to change very quickly, which is why I suggest waiting at least 12 months before appealing. I do hope however that they will keep editing here, because I believe that they have the potential to become a great editor. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support - largely per my comment at NPOVN and per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander#Bias and prejudice along with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander#Noleander's editing which I think fit this pretty squarely to a tee, albeit for another religion and people. And noting that we now have an excellent editor who edits a wide range of topics that are not related to the topic that caused people's eyebrows to raise, largely as a result of that arbitration decision imo. Im hopeful that repeats itself here. nableezy - 20:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support indefinite TBAN. Some of the evidence presented so far is beyond the pale. M.Bitton (talk) 01:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support The logical conclusion of this editor's flawed thinking is that no book written by an American historian can be used as a reference in articles about the history of the United States, and that no book written by an astronomer can be used as a reference in articles about moons, planets, stars and galaxies, and that no book written by an entomologist can be used as a reference in articles about insects. The assertions about Muslim scholars in general are nonsense, although the reliability of scholarship needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis. Cullen328 (talk) 02:06, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Support (involved): Editors have been having ongoing discussions with this user about problematic patterns of editing and sourcing for months now. Despite dozens of editors weighing in with guidance, explanation of sourcing policy, best practice, etc., the user has continued to make statements that suggest they have absorbed little. Given everything mentioned above, the user would almost certainly benefit from some time away from the topic space in order to better acquaint themselves with policy and sourcing guidelines and to practice collegiate editing in a space where their strong opinions don't simply lead them down the path of bad habits. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Strong Support (involved): A full NOTHERE block; otherwise, a indefinite TBAN. From cherry-picking of sources and disruptive editing to misusing Wikipedia's policies and exhibiting battleground behavior, it's clear that if only an indefinite TBAN is applied, the editor will continue making these problematic edits on other articles solely for WP:POINTY purposes, given their history of intransigent actions and behavior. Note: Kaalakaa's current faux politness is unconvincing, considering previous sardonic personal attacks made by Kaalakaa on much senior editors such as @Louis P. Boog: "It is very concerning that someone who has done over 42,000 edits since 23 December 2006 still doesn't quite grasp basic Wikipedia guidelines." See talk. StarkReport (talk) 11:26, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support (uninvolved): Indefinite TBan. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support Accusing people with religious beliefs of inherent bias is an unacceptable way of thinking for this project. I'm glad to see the community doing the right thing here. Scorpions1325 (talk) 17:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
• Comment I think the best move for Kaalakaa, if it is true what they claim, would be to travel to a Western country and demand political asylum through showing they own their Wikipedia account. Otherwise, I cannot reject out of hand the hypothesis that is just a claim made in order to gain sympathy rather than a reality. See the Essjay controversy for details. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:55, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support per the above supporting comments. I was involved in some of the discussions with Kaalakaa at Talk:Muhammad and have seen their approach first hand. One other thing. Kaalakaa re-wrote the Muhammad article within weeks of the creation of their account. I don't know who they were before they were Kaalakaa but they were already very familiar with editing Wikipedia, and were familiar with doing so in this topic area, before they created this account. I challenged them on this here and their response was evasive. As I mentioned in that exchange, they successfully identified the socks of a sockmaster that operated in this topic area just 3 weeks and 50 edits after the creation of the Kaalakaa account. If there is an indef CBAN option I would support that too. DeCausa (talk) 10:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Daiji Igarashi

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

---

It's very clear they are not here to build an encyclopedia. I just deleted their upload and indeffed them on Commons for crosswiki vandalism. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I've already reported them to the WP:AIV. Waiting on any admin to come resolve this now. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 05:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that this IP address below has been constantly arguing with this user on their talk page. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 05:32, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Im User:Kamen rider saber 💀 Daiji Igarashi (talk) 05:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Get banned for sockpuppetry 24.115.255.37 (talk) 05:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Proposed community ban of User:Debresser

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

---

Debresser (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly blocked for violating various topic bans, some involving the WP:GAME approach. As someone who is uninvolved with this user, I look at their block record and suspect the blocks are doing nothing to deter their behavior. To save the commuinity additional trouble with this user, I recommend them banned from Wikipedia by the community. --w^{L<speak·check>} 05:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

1 month into a 3 month block, so previous discussion already decided on this. Not sure how you found the user. JackTheSecond (talk) 05:45, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

If you're uninvolved ... are you really just randomly trolling the pages of blocked editors to see if there's something that can be escalated into more ANI drama? Ravenswing 14:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Debresser is actually into the third month of his three month block. Proposing a community ban at this point seems vindictive. Debresser has deep knowledge about Orthodox Judaism, Chabad-Lubavitch in particular. He needs to do better at complying with his editing restrictions, but this proposal is strange and out of line. Cullen328 (talk) 18:13, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

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

One user is targeting me and provoking everyone to think that I am sock.

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

---

Hi Admins. The user Ekdalian is spreading wrong information of my account being sock which is not fair.He is using the sentence “I am quite sure that he is a sock!”.I am sharing his chat history which is still available in his talk page in the title “A kitten for you!”.

Proof of chat by the user for your kind reference,

Isn't that guy a sock? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah Fylindfotberserk, I am quite sure that he is a sock! Please check Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joshi punekar! Ekdalian (talk) 18:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Most likely. Though I've a hunch that he might be this guy if not the other. Anyway, CU'll get them. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

End of their chat.

Further information is that the User Ekdalian in retaliation for our disagreement in editing/reverting has supported the person who raised the sock puppetry investigation.The Person who raised investigation himself has proved as sock of User:Antimtripathi.I request admins to warn the user:Ekdalian to stop this speculation work as Wikipedia grows with collaborations and not by groupism or rivalry. RobertJudeson (talk) 08:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

you need to notify them. I have already done this for you. Insanityclown1 (talk) 08:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Last time they took Ekdalian to ANI, they also failed to notify as required and I had to do it. Now they've once again failed to follow simple and highly visible instructions. @RobertJudeson, is there any reason why you have now twice failed to notify Ekdalian in your two ANI reports at all? Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 13:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

• Surprising no one, the OP has now been blocked as a sock. Canterbury Tail talk 14:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Persistent addition of unsourced content by 106.70.52.165

106.70.52.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Keeps adding unsourced content to articles/making unsourced date changes, continued after final warning and after a 31 hour block on the 22nd. Examples of unsourced edits: 1, 2, 3. Waxworker (talk) 14:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

This could be handled by WP:AIV. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:38, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: - I would, but while disruptive I wouldn't describe their edits as vandalism and I've been asked to not report non-vandalism disruptive editing at AIV and to report to ANI instead. Waxworker (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Administrator adding copyright-violating text

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

---

An administrator who adds copyright violating text to an article, when they are absolutely fully aware that it is a copyright violation, should not be an administrator. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nevada_Gaming_Commission&diff=prev&oldid=1228849678. It is far, far from the first time that I've seen this administrator behaving in this way. 193.117.188.78 (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

also note that the administrator concerned has protected their talk page and thus cannot be notified. 193.117.188.78 (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I can't find where this text is being lifted from. Can you supply the source of this copyrighted text so we can confirm it's a copyvio? Or are you just assuming because an author has some copyvios? Canterbury Tail talk 20:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail: OP is currently blocked for 1 week. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Note:This IP editor has just continued on this article with different IP accounts so this disruption on this article hasn't stopped. They also never informed "an administrator" of this complaint. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:07, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I know, should probably let this section be archived, but I'd just like to say as I'm one half of the two IP accounts who edited the article since the LTA, i.e. the IPv6, I am indeed a different IP user than the LTA editor who created this section. Seeing the other IP editor's talk page, they seem like a different person too. Personally I went there from here, to try to find if there was copyvio - and while I found identical text, the source turned out to be created after it was added to the article and, unlike I initially thought, from a different section than the one the LTA was editing.

I won't notify the other IP, as there really isn't any discussion happening anymore, though I imagine it would have worked (unlike with my dynamic one). – 2804:F1...7A:B4D (talk) 20:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

User:DTParker1000's tendentious editing of Rio Grande 223

ArbCom may be the only dispute resolution forum in Wikipedia in which the boomerang principle does not apply, in which the editor who files a bad complaint will not have their own conduct scrutinized. This is about an editor who is disruptively filing Requests for Arbitration concerning a historic train.

• DTParker1000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rio Grande 223 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The problem seems to have started on 27 February 2024 when DTParker1000 expanded the article on Rio Grande 223, and included material about the historical importance of railroads in the American West in the nineteenth century. Other editors, including User:Xboxtravis7992, removed much of this material as being off-topic. In my opinion, it was information that should be in the encyclopedia, and probably is in the encyclopedia (but I did not research whether it was), but was off-topic for the article. Xboxtravis7992 then filed a DRN request on 11 March 2024: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_242#Rio_Grande_223. . I declined it, but said that another request could be filed in 48 hours. Then there was edit-warring, and DTParker1000 was partially blocked from the article in question, indefinitely. They requested unblock, which was declined. JTParker1000 then filed a Request for Arbitration on 19 March 2024, [[156]], and the request was declined by ArbCom on 20 March 2024. JTParker1000 then filed a DRN request on 7 April 2024: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_244#Rio_Grande_223. I closed that request as vexatious litigation. JTParker1000 has now filed a second Request for Arbitration, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Rio_Grande_223, with no mention of the first request, and an otherwise fragmentary record of previous dispute resolution.

ArbCom traditionally does not sanction editors for filing stupid, frivolous, or vexatious cases, so I am asking the community to take action against a disruptive editor and vexatious litigant. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

This guy is an absolute menace. He can't be reasoned with - I would know, because I'm among the many who tried. He continues to labor under the mindset that if he appeals high enough, surely someone will intervene in his favor, which is nonsense since the matter is a content dispute, and every other editor who has weighed in disagrees with him. That he continues to waste everyone's time in this manner rather than doing literally anything else shows he is not compatible with Wikipedia, because he cannot work with other people. Take a look at the giant wall of WP:IDHT he wrote at Talk:Rio Grande 223/Archive 1. He needs an indef. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Other than in regards to this incident, DTParker1000 has never been blocked. Their one block is a partial block for the article in question. While their edit count is low, they've been on the project for 14 years. Longevity does not confer special treatment, but I think it's a bit of a leap to go from a partial block to a sitewide block without a final warning. I've given them the final warning, but they've not edited since. I think it's sufficient to leave it at that. If they persist in their behavior, myself or another administrator will likely indef them until they agree to drop the stick and move on. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

We can wait and see for the moment, but I'm very skeptical we will see any change in behavior. If this continues any further, I think an indef will become the only option. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that an indef is the only option. It might or might not be the best option, but a topic ban from discussing Rio Grande 223 anywhere on Wikipedia (excluding replies to explicit questions about it in discussions about their conduct) with enforcement by the usual method of escalating blocks is at the very least an option and one I think worthy of consideration. Thryduulf (talk) 20:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I've asked them on their talk page if they would agree to voluntary tban, but upon looking further it seems clear that they often make a few edits and then go inactive for a few months. That being the case, I think an involuntary topic ban is the appropriate sanction. If they break it, blocks will follow. It looks like their edits outside of this one area are fine, they just need to drop the stick on this issue. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

The RfAr is on its way to being declined, but I agree with JSS that stopping editing for a few weeks isn't enough to assume the editor has moved on, given they frequently come back to the topic. I support a topic ban on this basis. Daniel (talk) 22:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for DTParker1000

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

---

Based on the discussion above, at the arbcom case request and previous times this has been brought up, I think a formal topic ban is in order:

DTParker1000 is indefinitely topic banned from Rio Grande 223. This applies everywhere on Wikipedia and explicitly includes all dispute resolution venues but excludes minimal mentions when required for context in discussions of their (DTParker1000's) conduct and appeals of this topic ban.

This ban may be enforced by escalating blocks. It may be appealed after six months of active editing since enactment or the most recent unsuccessful appeal.

The intent of "six months of active editing" is so that extended absences don't count towards the six months, it is not a requirement for six consecutive months of active editing. Thryduulf (talk) 14:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support - I would probably support a broader topic ban, but that is not the proposal here. Two almost identical ArbCom cases in three months is too much, and is evidence of not here to be constructive. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - As I understand the six-month rule, an appeal is permitted after six months of non-consecutive active editing, but lurking for six months and then appealing is not permitted (and not permitting it is the purpose of the restriction). Robert McClenon (talk) 17:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  Almost exactly - not permitting lurking then appealing is the purpose of the specific restriction rather than the standard appeal after 6 months, as their contribution history shows long periods of inactivity are not uncommon (and it should be stressed that this is perfectly acceptable). The purpose of a restriction on when appeals are allowed is the same as usual - preventing knee-jerk appeals and increasing the likelihood of well-considered appeals. Thryduulf (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support This user clearly needs to stop obsessing over this topic. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 17:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from Rio Grande 223. We cannot turn every article about an individual locomotive into a treatise about the history of railroading. Cullen328 (talk) 23:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support They need to find something else to edit. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support as the bare minimum and their last chance to do something productive on this website. Their previous behavior simply cannot continue. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support as per my comment in the above sub-section on 22 June. Daniel (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Note that this got archived before it was actioned. Unarchiving. Daniel (talk) 21:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support as a clearly-needed remedy. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose based on the six months of active editing condition. Wikipedia is a volunteer community project and we shouldn't mandate that you actively edit in order to appeal a sanction. God forbid they should have a heart attack and be laid up for an extended period of time like I was, and not really giving a fuck about editing Wikipedia, instead focusing on recovery - walking and talking again. And then after a semi-successful recovery, wanting to volunteer again, only to be told, sorry for your bad luck, we are still going to mandate that you actively edit for six months in a volunteer community project in order to appeal your sanction. Nope, too draconian for my tastes. Isaidnoway (talk) 03:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
  • They are free to volunteer from today or any other day regarding any other topic except just this one. The 6-month restriction is no different to telling someone with a standard topic ban that their six months of total inactivity isn't going to get the topic ban repealed because we want evidence of collaborative editing not evidence of time served - we are just being upfront about it. Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 11:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

    No, we are mandating that they be actively participating in a volunteer project, you can't do that. And no, "evidence of collaborative editing", is not required for a successful repeal of a topic ban. What is required is they convince the community that they are capable of editing constructively on these topics. Similar to a request for an unblock, they must acknowledge why they were topic banned, and what their plans are to prevent this disruptive behavior from happening in the future. Requiring someone to actively participate in a volunteer project should never be a condition imposed on an editor. Isaidnoway (talk) 01:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support without the six month restriction. I don't endorse Isaidnoway's hypothetical, but I don't see the need for the six-month restriction on appealing. If they immediately appeal with a wall of text the community will know how to handle that. Mackensen (talk) 02:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

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

824 Montmarte

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

---

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

824 Montmarte, a clear sock of User:Raymarcbadz is on a revert rampage right now. Assistance is requested as I cannot continue to rever them. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

You are responsible for banning me and reverting my edits, Sportsfan 1234. What will happen to the articles? Will anyone else update the qualification articles? Why can't you discuss your problem on Wikiproject:Olympics talk page? You have reached your complaint to the adminstrators. How dare you? 824 Montmarte (talk) 04:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

And now they're moving pages too, which cannot be undone through rollback... Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 05:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Do you know who created the Olympic qualification articles? None other than the sockmaster. 824 Montmarte (talk) 05:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Why flaunt breaking of the rules? IDGI Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 05:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Flaunt breaking? IDGI either. 824 Montmarte (talk) 05:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Because you can't stop reverting the accurate and research-based content. 824 Montmarte (talk) 05:37, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Blocked as sock. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Someone should probably revert their moves and revert their edits again. – 2804:F1...99:532B (talk) 06:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted moves. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Annh07

I would like to report Annh07 for constantly reverting/rollbacking my edits despite my explanations as to the rationale of my edits. In one instance Annh07 reverted my edits in the article "Religion in Belarus" when I have explained that it was necessary to use a pipe link to direct the "Roman Catholic" link to the page of the Latin Church. The reason is that using the link "Roman Catholic" alone would redirect to the main article of the Catholic Church. The "Roman Catholic" link in the pie chart refers to the Latin Church and not the Catholic Church as a whole considering that "Belarusian Greek Catholic" is mentioned in the same breath. In another incident in the article "Mission Society of the Philippines" I made a correction in the lede of the article that states that "The Mission Society of the Philippines (MSP) is a Society of Apostolic Life of the Latin Church of the Roman Catholic Church." and changed it to "The Mission Society of the Philippines (MSP) is a Society of Apostolic Life of the Latin Church of the Catholic Church." considering that the Latin Church was already mentioned in the sentence which would make the term "Roman" redundant here. In another instance, Annh07 reverted my corrective edits to the article "Religion in Honduras" in which he reinstated the "Roman" terminology without being aware that Honduras many Arab Christians,of which there were Eastern (not Roman) Catholics, migrated to Honduras. The mention of things related to the Catholic Church should remain in that a simple and clear form unless that the topic explicitly pertains to any one of the particular churches of the Catholic Church. Thus, "Catholic" is preferred unless being specific is needed.

His/her actions exhibit a clear disregard for following conventions which has been settled a long time ago and is reflected in the talk pages regarding the name of the main article of the Catholic Church as well as the talk pages concerning moving of pages with the name "Roman Catholicism in Country X" to "Catholic Church in Country X." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.189.116.70 (talk) 05:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

203.189.116.70, have you notified the editor of this discussion as required? It's mandatory. There is information on this at the top of this page and on the edit page. It would also help if you supplied diffs of the edits that you think were out-of-order so that editors could actually look at them. It's more valuable than your narrative statement. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:07, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I did, at the bottom of his/her talk page 203.189.116.70 (talk) 06:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

The following are the diffs of the reverts that Annh07 has made.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mission_Society_of_the_Philippines&diff=prev&oldid=1231770048

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Religion_in_Honduras&diff=prev&oldid=1231769887

Other edits made by Annh07 that clearly disregard precedent regarding the terminology regarding the Catholic Church in Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oecusse&diff=prev&oldid=1231770047

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vestibule_(architecture)&diff=prev&oldid=1231770244

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frances_Manners,_Duchess_of_Rutland&diff=prev&oldid=1231769958

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sudeten_Germans&diff=prev&oldid=1231769952

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red_Mass&diff=prev&oldid=1231769942 203.189.116.70 (talk) 06:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

As notice I left on your talk page: I reverted your edits because they did not have an edit summary. Articles are independent and unrelated, so you cannot provide a reason for editing in one article and ignore it when editing other articles.

Also I did not revert any of your edits in the article Religion in Belarus, another editor did it and they also informed you on your talk page, I think you need to discuss this issue with that editor. Annh07 (talk) 06:37, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I reverted your edit in the Mission Society of the Philippines article because I agree with AgisdeSparte that it is just your own opinion. When there is no consensus, you should discuss instead of continuing to edit based on your point of view. See WP:CON. Annh07 (talk) 06:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, which is why I placed a strikethrough on the text concerned. I did not want to erase that text as I wanted to be transparent with my mistakes. 203.189.116.70 (talk) 203.189.116.70 (talk) 07:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

The consensus is that the Catholic Church should be referred to as the "Catholic Church" in here and not the "Roman Catholic Church" that which was agreed upon ever since the main page was moved to "Catholic Church". This is not a matter of personal opinion but a matter of prior consensus and precedent throughout Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Catholic_Church_in_Armenia#Requested_move_2_October_2016

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Catholic%E2%80%93Lutheran_dialogue#Requested_move_22_October_2017

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Catholic_Church

203.189.116.70 (talk) 07:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Here, the consensus concerns your edits and not the Catholic Church, that is, when someone else disagrees with your edits, you need to discuss (on your talk page or the article's talk page) to resolve that issue. You can provide sources that support your argument (as you did above), which will help you gain consensus and avoid misunderstandings from other editors. Annh07 (talk) 08:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Altenmann

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

This user has, over the course of many years, repeatedly added an image of a Jewish person to "illustrate" an antisemitic Russian "joke". See the history of Russian jokes. Please take action. 89.207.175.7 (talk) 08:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Have you talked to the editor themselves about this? Have they given any reason in their edit summaries for re-adding the image? Also, do please refrain from personal attacks. Professor Penguino (talk) 08:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I already explained to that person that there jokes are neither russian nor antisemitic. These are jokes of jews- Soviet dissidents themselves. The person refuses to discuss. - Altenmann >talk 08:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Where have you explained why you are adding an image of a real Jew to illustrate a racist Russian stereotype? 89.207.175.7 (talk) 08:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll wait for an administrator to come and review this case, but is the image really necessary? Professor Penguino (talk) 08:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you are not understanding how racist it is to illustrate a racist "joke" with an image of a person of the ethnicity being targeted. If someone was repeatedly adding a racist slur to an article, would you ask if the text was "really necessary"? 89.207.175.7 (talk) 08:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm trying to hear out their reasoning. They said, "These are jokes of jews- Soviet dissidents themselves." I'm hoping they can elaborate. Professor Penguino (talk) 08:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I explained several times, these jokes are neither racist nor russian.

There is nothing wrong with the image; Sholem Aleichem is indeed the best known Rabinovich also well known of Jewish humor. Here is his epitaph:

Do ligt a yid a posheter
Geshriben yidish-daitsh far vayber
Un faren prosten folk hot er geven a humorist a shrayber

Here lies a Jew a simple one,
Wrote Yiddish-German (translations) for women
and for the regular folk, was a writer of humor

- Altenmann >talk 08:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Please don't comment on other users. And where is the source in Russian jokes to support your claim in that article (in the image caption) that "Sholem Aleichem [is] a famous Rabinovich"? Like Professor Penguino, I 'm wondering why we need an image of a real person here. Meters (talk) 08:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes I will comment on other users, because this page is recisely for this. - Altenmann >talk 08:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you cannot read is a personal attack. Meters (talk) 08:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Since @Altenmann has reverted my reversion of their violation of WP:TALK#REPLIED, I will leave it noted here: Special:Diff/1231795204.

I guess that counts as retracting the personal attack, but it is also not how things should be done (at least acknowledge it). – 2804:F1...9:532B (talk) 09:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Because these jokes are not just random comedy based, they are reflectging real life. - Altenmann >talk 08:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully, I don't think that's a good reason. The bit about so-called "Rabinoviches" being "crafty" and "cynical" comes off as a bit strange, especially next to an image of a real life person. Professor Penguino (talk) 08:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

"Crafty and cynical" - this was not my text. (heck, I even dont know such words :-) When thinking about this, - this sentence is an orifinal research and must be deleted. Doint it right now. - Altenmann >talk 09:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

If they aren't Russian, why are they in the "Russian jokes" article? Professor Penguino (talk) 08:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Because there was plenty of Jews in the Soviet Union, and there was plenty of Jewish humor aboutr their life under communism. Did you happen to read this section of Russian jokes while you were editing a minute ago? - Altenmann >talk 08:37, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I did read the section. Professor Penguino (talk) 08:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

What you are missing is that Sholem Aleichem is a pseudonym and his actual name is Rabinovich (per his article). It's not essential that his photo is in the article and given that antisemitism is a hot topic at the moment it's perhaps best to leave it out, but what's going on here is irony. NOT antisemitism. Daveosaurus (talk) 08:45, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

It is not that it is hot topic, it is aggressive behavior of a suspicious user. I know who is this, from long history of behavior, but I cannot give you the proof. - Altenmann >talk 08:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

But Rabinovich is an archetype, putting a photo of him in the article is unnecessary, is it not? Professor Penguino (talk) 08:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

{ec} I'm not saying this is antisemitism either, but I understand the IP's objection to using a picture of a real person here. I also understand that Sholem Aleichem is actually a pseudonym for a famous person named "Rabinovich", but the claim in the image caption appears to be that Sholem Aleichem is a famous example of the type of person joked about. Irony does not translate well to Wikipedia pages. Meters (talk) 08:53, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure you could find an image of a real black person called Sambo to illustrate Sambo, Daveosaurus. You think that would be "irony"? 89.207.175.7 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Are you saysing that "Rabinovich" is a racial slur?- Altenmann >talk 09:01, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Rabinovich is a Jewish archetype/stereotype, which currently has the descriptors are "crafty", "cynical", and "too smart" in the article. I don't think it needs a real person's image next to it. Professor Penguino (talk) 09:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

In the context of the Soviet Union these epithets are praise. Rabinovich sees a pompous burial of a Politburo member "Oy vey, with all this money spent I could have buried the whole Politburo!" Sholem Aleichem would be glad to undersign this.- Altenmann >talk 09:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

"I explained several tiome" - where? when? You would be able to post links if you had ever "explained" your racist actions. 89.207.175.7 (talk) 08:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I have to say I'm agreeing with you more and more. I don't think there's any need for an image to illustrate that part of the article. It's kind of odd and unsourced. Professor Penguino (talk) 08:37, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Do you really need a source that Sholem Aleichem is famous or he is Rabinovich? I will give them you you, tonnes. - Altenmann >talk 08:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I find it insulting to continue this discussion started by an abuser, see section below, without addressing serious behavioral complaints file by me in the section below. Good bye.- Altenmann >talk 08:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I notice neither of of you have bothered to raise this on the article talkpage, which last meaningfully discussed this issue in 2007. That would have been a better place to resolve this issue.

• Altenmann, you have not provided any evidence that the specific "Rabinovich" jokes listed in the article have any association with the person whose image you want to add. If you have evidence of a specific association between Aleichem and these "jokes" (ie not just that he is Jewish or has a related surname), post it on the article talkpage so it can be reviewed. If you don't in fact have evidence of a specific association between the "jokes" and the person (and tbh I suspect you don't), please stop re-adding this image as it implies either original research or a personal opinion on your part. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Please do not derail the discussion, This section is an accusation that I am an "long term antisemite", not about Aleichem. As I see, you know pretty well where the latter issue must be discussed. - Altenmann >talk 09:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Not sure that it derails the conversation? What evidence do you have that the "Rabinovich" jokes in that article are directly linked to Aleichem, sufficient that a picture of him is of any particular value in understanding the context of the jokes? If you do have this evidence, please post it at the article talkpage where it can be reviewed. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Repeating: This section is an accusation that I am an "long term antisemite", not about Aleichem. If you have issues with Aleichem, then you post it in the corresponding "article talkpage, where it can be reviewed". - Altenmann >talk 09:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• OP, please don't throw around personal accusations like "vile antisemite." Comment on content, not contributors. Fair warning that further personal attacks like this may lead to sanctions. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Add: Just to complicate things, a further review of the IP's edits indicates they are evading a block. Reblocked at this new address. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:32, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

BKFIP detected. The IP address 89.207.175.7 is showing a lot of behavioural similarities to previous WP:LTA/BKFIP socks, including engaging in edit-warring even when informed about it, throwing insults and attacks towards other editors, and removing warnings from their talk page using the 'undo' function, also throwing attacks in the edit summaries there as well. Just to be clear, removing messages and warnings from one's talk page is allowed, but the way this person removes those warnings reminds me strongly of several previous interactions I've had and seen with this 'BKFIP' person.

Additionally, the IP addresses geolocates to the UK (they are usually based in the UK).

[Edit] Just to be clear: if anyone agrees with this IP editor's edits, then that's fine. Their comments in consensus-based discussions should however be disregarded. — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Yep, have reblocked them at this new address. Agree with you on the likely identity. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

So the upshot is that the image was removed. I think it's worth noting that for more than a decade this has been Altenmann's personal playground for unverified jokes. Drmies (talk) 12:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

And I think it is worth retorting that my play was removing jokes from this jokebook, not adding, e.g., like here or here or here or here.... And it looks like that only me who was adding refecences to it like today. I also added a huge Russian jokes#Further reading section with scholarly sources about Russian jokes. And you somehow missed my playground in Russian political jokes. And of course, being a pronounced anti-Semite I could not help but to do the same to Jewish jokes and I simply love German humour. So please keep your personal bias against me at bay. - Altenmann >talk 16:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Hmm that is not what your "play" was back a decade ago. At the time there were 14 sources for 77k of material; ten years later there are 29 sources for 81k of material, with an astonishing amount of unverified material still. 63.5% of the material is yours, by way of 694 edits, so the suggestion that it already was a big fat but bad article that you are improving steadily is a bit weak. Drmies (talk) 20:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• several ethnic stereotypes have developed, often in common with those views by other ethnicities
• are depicted as primitive, uncivilized, and simple-minded, but clever in their own way
• are depicted as rustic, stingy
• usually depicted as stupid, greedy, hot-blooded, or addicted to sex
• depicted as humorless, stubborn, taciturn, and slow
• are depicted as humorless, stubborn, taciturn, and slow

It seems Altenmann's been copying down unverified ethnic stereotypes and claiming these stereotypes are commonly held. And for the subsection on Jewish stereotypes, the article even claims the stereotypes are a highly developed subset of Russian humor, largely based on the self-image of Russian Jews and are not the same as anti-Semitic jokes? Is it too much of a stretch to say that this years-long introduction of uncited contentious material pertains to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed and violates the general Arbitration sanction requiring reliable sourcing and the avoidance of undue weight?

Even without applying that sanction, indiscriminately collecting unverified and probably undue examples of ethnic stereotypes, with minimal sourcing to verify the relevance and minimal effort to summarize academic analysis and contextualization that might make this educational instead of just insulting is still not what Wikipedia's purpose is. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

"rustic, stingy, taciturn ....", First, I dont even know such words. clearly this was written by a native English speaker. Second, there cannot be political correctness in jokes. Jokes were and are offensive, and you cannot "prettify" their descriptions. Good luck smearing me further. Since the discussion is thoroughly derailed from the initial accusation, good bye. - Altenmann >talk 23:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

OK. As a native English speaker, I can assure you that adding a photograph of someone actually named Rabinovich to a paragraph describing a Jewish stereotype named Rabinovich would be considered an attempt at humour. It is in rather poor taste, but I wouldn't call it antisemitic. (If someone else hadn't deleted that word from this section header I'd have been inclined to do it myself.) I suggest you just accept that the photograph does not belong in that article and go back to improving Wikipedia. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

The ridiculosity of this discussion grows. why don't y'all haste to the Russian jokes page, if you dislike its state so. For example, recently user:Hippo43 deleted 75% of German humour and I didnt say a word, although they deleted some referenced pieces.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Altenmann (talk • contribs)

User:89.207.175.7

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

---

89.207.175.7 (talk · contribs) removes referenced information engaging in revert war [157] without discussion and makes insulting edit summaries [ [158] [159]. [160] - Altenmann >talk 08:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Judging from this edit, and this one this is the same person as 167.98.155.178 (talk · contribs) and must be blocked for block evasion. - Altenmann >talk 08:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

The retaliatory intent of your post is obvious. 89.207.175.7 (talk) 08:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Nonsense. You just beat me to the second. Meaning you are a sockpuppet well-versed in Wikipedia rules. - Altenmann >talk 08:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it's pretty obvious our IP friend here is a sockpuppet, but I don't want to make that kind of determination by myself. Professor Penguino (talk) 08:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Tgis is not the same dispute as above. This person is a long-tem revert warrior. - Altenmann >talk 09:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

@Altenmann: yes you're correct, apologies for not spotting this sooner. Reblocked the IP for block evasion. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Users attacking me on my talk page and getting my account blocked indefinitely and globally locked

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

---

User:Magnolia677 attacking me because I made "is part of the region" edits to Florida counties that she didnt like. User:NoobThreePointOh reporting me for attacking Magnolia after SHE attacked ME as if SHE'S the victim. User:Aoidh and User:Donald Albury reverting all of my edits on the Florida counties a month later with no probable cause and saying my edits are "disruptive". User:Drmies attacking me and reverting all of the other edits I made on other unrelated pages that dont amount to obvious vandalism and calling them "useless" and then blocking me because he has a personal problem with my edits AND THEN getting my account globally locked. User:Theinstantmatrix Reporting me on Meta and getting all of my accounts locked for threatening Drmies on his Commons talk page. User:Oshwah and User:Acroterion CONTINUING to block all of my accounts and joining in attacking me over me reporting a false positive on the abuse filter.

"I'm not sure if you're using a source that has a different definition for these regions and not including that source" Because I DON'T have to include a source? The fuck? That's like saying I need to include a source that the sky is blue or that the earth revolves around the sun. I DON'T have to include a fucking source for every single edit I make. YbabCitnaltaDim II (talk) 10:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Definite sock of User:MidAtlanticBaby. User:Drmies, I heavily recommend you block this account. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 10:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, if you are creating new accounts to bypass the block and global lock on your previous account(s), then that's not a good start. Blocks / global locks actually apply to you as a person, not just to the account itself. You will need to appeal the block on your first account if you wish to get back to editing legitimately again. If you choose to evade blocks instead of doing that, you'll find every new account you make and every new IP address eventually but inevitably becoming blocked from editing too. — AP 499D25 (talk) 10:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I mean, this is textbook the stuff that we should be ignoring - this is not an attempt at appealing, it's an attempt at showing off, seeing all this account and user has done.

– 2804:F14:809B:301:5C8F:B2FC:8099:532B (talk) 10:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Got to give them maybe half a point for chutzpah. Registering a very obvious sockpuppet, marching into ANI and screaming a list of demands is more than a bit rich from somebody who was blocked, in part, for making death threats. Anyway, it might make sense to run a Checkuser as we don't need any more of this nonsense. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you were thinking when you made this filing that includes the amazing phrase User:Theinstantmatrix Reporting me on Meta and getting all of my accounts locked for threatening Drmies on his Commons talk page. (bolding mine.) _WADroughtOfVowels^P 11:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked the OP independently of this report because of their personal attacks visible in the filter log and obvious block evasion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Great fun to see first thing in the morning. Now, back to our regular programing. Donald Albury 12:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Primefac, this one. To all the onlookers, you may be surprised at the filth that this sock posts (on other projects as well), and the audacity to think that they can be part of the game when they make attacks like that. I can't explain it, but it likely goes back six years, to User talk:DarwinandBrianEdits. Amazing. Drmies (talk) 12:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to lie, I am genuinely grateful to all of the administrators that are there to protect us from these types of socks that use personal attacks and death threats to try and trigger us. I thank all of the administrators that form these types of teams. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 12:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Problematic RFC at Talk:Shakshouka

• LEvalyn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Shakshouka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There is an RFC at Talk:Shakshouka#RFC on etymology that is problematic in at least three ways. First, the RFC concerns the reliability of sources, but has not been first discussed at the Reliable Source Noticeboard, which is the proper forum. By the way, the Oxford English Dictionary is almost always the most reliable source on the etymology of English words, including English words of non-Englis origin.

Second, the originator has started this RFC because they have a misguided mission for which there is no consensus, and have misinterpreted my non-encouraging advice. The originator is User:LEvalyn, who says that they want to rewrite Shakshouka in order to bring it to Good Article, but all of their edits were reverted by other editors including User:M.Bitton] with negative comments on the talk page. User:LEvalyn then filed a DRN request. User:M.Bitton deleted the notice of the DRN filing. This action is a de facto declining to participate in moderated discussion, and moderated discussion is voluntary. I closed the DRN request, saying that it appeared that there was a lack of consensus for the full rewrite that the originator wanted, but that if they still wanted to do a full rewrite, one or more RFCs would be in order. I did not recommend the use of an RFC to bypass the Reliable Source Noticeboard, and this RFC is not about article content anyway.

Third, there has then been edit-warring over the RFC between User:M.Bitton and User:Pathawi:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AShakshouka&diff=1231760807&oldid=1231760575
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AShakshouka&diff=1231760972&oldid=1231760807
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AShakshouka&diff=1231761045&oldid=1231760972
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AShakshouka&diff=1231761137&oldid=1231761045
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AShakshouka&diff=1231761322&oldid=1231761137
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AShakshouka&diff=1231761347&oldid=1231761322
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AShakshouka&diff=1231761347&oldid=1231761322
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AShakshouka&diff=1231761573&oldid=1231761480
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AShakshouka&diff=1231761704&oldid=1231761573
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AShakshouka&diff=1231762166&oldid=1231761815
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AShakshouka&diff=1231762252&oldid=1231762166

I haven't tried to analyze the details of what they are edit-warring about, but this is clearly a 6RR by both of them.

This RFC never should have been started in this form, and these editors were clearly edit-warring.

Robert McClenon (talk) 14:52, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm one of the two editors involved in the edit war. Robert McClenon (talk · contribs) is right that we were both in clear violation of 3RR. I'll add that we both have enough editing experience to have known better, and probably got under one another's skin. It appears that the cycle of reversions is resolved, but I think it was symptomatic of more serious problems in this specific process. Pathawi (talk) 15:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• While there is no excuse for what happened, the background information is important nonetheless: the edit warring on the talk page was due to the fact that Pathawi kept moving my comments. I asked them to stop, but they categorically refused (they literally broke 3R on my talk page with their templating) while acknowledging that what they were doing is silly. At the end, I've given up and moved my comments to where they wanted them to be, just so that they are not deprived of their context. As for the RfC, I already stated what I think of it (which is in line with what Robert McClenon is saying). M.Bitton (talk) 15:44, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'll try to avoid a back & forth here, but I disagree with this characterisation: I held (& hold) that M.Bitton was engaged in disruptive editing in the RfC, & attempted to follow the process at WP:DDE prior to opening an ANI report. This entails a sequence of four disruptive editing templates, which I posted in order on M.Bitton's Talk page as edit warring continued—& with explanation of what the templates were in the third and fourth instances. I do not & did not care what stays on M.Bitton's Talk page, but I believe that it was correct process to give notice following WP:DISRUPTIVE—I don't think that's a 3R violation or otherwise edit-warring. Pathawi (talk) 16:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  When someone tells you that you're not welcome on their talk page (see my talk page history) and you keep templating them just for the fun of it, it's not just edit warring, it's harassment. M.Bitton (talk) 16:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed. Grandpallama (talk) 16:37, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  The templating does not seem like it was done "just for the fun of it", but instead a misunderstanding of how to follow DDE. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Super Goku V: I would believe that if I didn't have a brush with them in the past. I do recall a dispute, not dissimilar to this one, in which I was arguing that not every claim by Ethnologue is correct. They turned up with all guns blazing to try to make it about me rather than the content. Luckily, the other editors didn't pay attention to them and various discussions (without the toxic atmosphere) ensued until we even managed to get Ethnologue to revise its estimates. M.Bitton (talk) 11:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  Currently, the only things I see with major interactions between you two is a discussion about a map on the Arabic article, a discussion on RSN that seems to have been a collaboration, and a dispute about a third user where you threated to take Pathawi to ANI over Pathawi telling someone else to ignore your warning to them. Granted, I didn't get past 2022 as I need to get some sleep. If you find it, feel free to cite it. --Super Goku V (talk) 14:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  I don't know what incident M.Bitton is referring to above, & I wonder if they've confused me with another user: I think very poorly of Ethnologue, and I think it's unfortunate that it is so entrenched as a reliable source for Wikipedia (tho I acknowledge that it's an established reliable source—maybe this was the substance of some prior interaction?). I don't think we had any interactions prior to 2022, but maybe my memory will be shown to be faulty. Pathawi (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  Hmm, maybe. A bit more looking and I can see you both participated at Featured picture candidates in the same discussion in late 2022 where you said that "(...) Ethnologue should really be a source of last resort, rather than a preferred source. Ethnologue is not subject to academic review. In fact, I suspect that if we were to be strict about these things that it would not qualify as a reliable source. I disagree with the characterisation of Ethnologue as the "standard reference" in linguistics—it is certainly cited in scholarly work in linguistics, but it's also frequently criticised by scholarly work in linguistics. (...)" None of that sounds like to the arguing that not every claim by Ethnologue is correct portion of their comment to me. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  In that instance, M.Bitton and I voted the same way for roughly the same reasons and I made no mention of M.Bitton at all. It doesn't sound like what they're describing. The only time I can remember mentioning M.Bitton in the third person was telling an editor they'd accused of edit-warring for a single revert to ignore the hostility. We had one very tense interaction around the map of Arabic dialects, in which they were interested in introducing misinformation to Wikipedia (we both acknowledged this as misinformation) to see how the community would deal with a tricky policy issue, but our interaction was an exhausting, extended back-&-forth—not something that involved other editors—& it was not about Ethnologue. I can't recall anything similar to what they're describing above, & it doesn't sound like me: I don't have great confidence in my memory, but I've been fairly critical of Ethnologue for quite a long time. Pathawi (talk) 01:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  Since it doesn't seem like the guidelines have been pointed to, most of this falls under TPO and USERTALKSTOP: Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection & If an editor asks you not to edit their user pages, such requests should, within reason, be respected. While DDE does have a step that says, If tendentious editor continues reverting: Use templates [uw-disruptive1], [uw-disruptive2], [uw-disruptive3], and [uw-disruptive4], it also mentions at the top of the section that the steps do not have to be done in that order. Additionally, you don't have to use the templates in order and can use a stronger one first. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  I think the point is moot, here, as this cycle is done, but note that part of WP:USERTALKSTOP is 'Also, a user cannot avoid administrator attention or notices and communications that policies or guidelines require to be posted merely by demanding their talk page not be posted to.' It also seems a little curious for User A to cry 'harassment!' because User B is posting process notices to User A's Talk page when User A is at the very same time posting to User B's Talk page. You're right that one doesn't have to post templates in order: I had missed that. I'm having difficulty gauging whether or not it would have been a better choice, Edit: primarily because it was preceded by my own bad decisions & involved another user's pretty wild behaviour. At any rate: This is all irrelevant drama that I really regret having participated in. There's been a constant flurry of process drama that is getting in the way of efforts to improve a fairly bad article section. Pathawi (talk) 16:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, this does seem to be resolved and moot. I will acknowledge that USERTALKSTOP does mention that, but will leave it at that. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• This is still going on? I have no strong opinions on the edit warring between M.Bitton and Pathawi, which they seem to have resolved on their own, but I'm concerned that the time has arrived for a page block from shakshouka for LEvalyn, who has been involved in battleground edit warring there to push a questionable POV ever since they were first canvassed to the page. It started out innocently as a question for a WP mentor (see here) but quickly devolved into Raturous (a SPA who never made any edits except POV-pushing to the shakshouka article) asking LEvalyn to proxy for them at the talkpage, to which LEvalyn agreed. After LEvalyn's edits trying to remove "Maghreb" from the article were repeatedly reverted, they attempted to weaponize ANI in order to get sanctions against M.Bitton. Now, LEvalyn, whose ignorance on the topic extends to gems such as Buccini never uses the word Maghrebi at all, and gives the location for shakshuka as "North Africa (Tunisia, Algeria, also Morocco?)", p. 133. To go from that to "Maghrebi" is not appropriate, and who only ended up at the page in an inappropriate manner, claims to want to turn it into a GA? Frankly, given the incessant sealioning on the talkpage by LEvalyn, I sympathize with M.Bitton's frustrations, and think an enforced break for LEvalyn from this topic is in order. Grandpallama (talk) 16:37, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I've been watching this whole slow-motion car crash for some time. (Disclosure: LEvalyn has at times come to me with questions like "Is it normal for someone to do [whatever thing is going on at Shakshouka at this moment]?" and I have typically responded in astonished horror.) The whole thing is ridiculous, but this ANI is genuinely the most ridiculous and surprising part. Robert McClenon said If the filing editor still wants to rewrite the article, the least disruptive way to try to do this would be one or more RFCs. LEvalyn then started an RFC. LEvalyn commented on the RFC saying, Oh -- this is my first RfC, so please let me know if I have made any mistakes! I plan to send an RfC notice to the reliable source noticeboard and all of the wikiprojects to which this article belongs. Robert McClenon did not let LEvalyn that anything was done wrong. He started this ANI instead.

Furthermore, this ANI lists LEvalyn as the sole named party, but also brings up a dispute between M.Bitton and Pathawi. That seems unfair to both of those editors, but also I must note here that the editor in common between these two disputes is M.Bitton, who is the main editor responsible for stonewalling essentially all changes on the article for months. Anyone who is unsure of this is welcome to look at the article's Talk page, which really does speak for itself. The current RFC is the result of M.Bitton insisting that the OED and Collins dictionary are making "baseless" claims about etymology. Other editors have now been involved in the RFC, and have observed these problems. For example, Super Goku V: In fact, this article seems to have an issue since at least 2021 with each year since having over 100 mentions of "revert" or longer. It is clear that there is currently a problem here over something.. LEvalyn's first involvement in this article is this year. Not 2021. -- asilvering (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I could say much more, but I should add first that I think a misguided mission for which there is no consensus is a truly astonishing way to categorize the work of an editor who is doing their best to improve the abysmal sourcing on a wikipedia article. If ensuring that articles meet WP:V according to WP:RS is a misguided mission, what mission do we even have at wikipedia? -- asilvering (talk) 17:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, to start here, Robert McClenon, I know of absolutely no firm requirement, codified anywhere in policy or community consensus, which requires that issues with the reliability of sources be resolved at RSN. And indeed, in my experience, the vast, vast majority of such issues are resolved on the talk page of the article for which the reliability of particular sources is being considered. RSN is merely one resource of which parties can avail themselves, but let's be honest: RSN is plagued by many of the same problems that are common to our larger fora and there are any number of scenarios where RfC would resolve issues as (or more) reliably, quicker, less acrimoniously, and with as much third party, previously un-involved community input. Unless I've missed some significant new piece of community consensus in the last few years, there's nothing remotely inappropriate in using an RfC in this context, and even if there were, there's certainly there's no reason to assume bad faith in a newer user's decision to seek outside perspectives in this manner. Especially considering you advised them to approach the issues you declined to mediate in this fashion? If you thought that RSN was the superior vehicle for addressing these problems, then you definitely should have urged as such.

I have to say, this is a very strange report to me. DRN already has a low hit-rate for resolving the issues of editors who attempt to try to avail themselves of its volunteers' assistance, in my experience. Which is unsurprising and not necessarily a knock on your efforts given the nature of the issues that land there. But people are going to start thinking twice about even trying to use the space if users, including new users, get hauled to ANI by the mediators on this kind of very weak tea. I don't know, maybe the overall issues on the talk page and reversions history for this article are more pronounced than this filing is letting on, but they don't seem to be from a quick overview--and in any event, you had the option to formulate this complaint with the most relevant information on behavioural issues, and I must tell you, what I am seeing here is a big nothing burger for the most part. The biggest issue by far is the edit warring to move comments, in violation of TPG, but that issue both a) did not involve the main party you listed as the main issue at the head of this thread, and b) that issue is now apparently resolved.

I'm going to be honest Rob: I greatly admire your commitment to ADR on this project, but the main thing that seems called for here is a boomerang trout on you for a hasty and poorly justified escalation to ANI. And I seem to recall it's not the first time I've had that feeling about an issue you brought here in recent time. I honestly don't think that hauling parties before ANI is something a person who got involved in an issue nominally through mediation should be doing, outside concerns about very, very serious violations of our behavioural norms. And this is not that. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Let me hasten to add that the way the RfC is structured definitely is an issue. Asking "which of these sources are the best quality for the article" is too non-specific to generate any truly useful feedback, let alone consensus, and largely misses the point of the normal process for determining both reliability of individual sources and the weight that their individual or combined usage creates for support of non-attributed claims. But all of this could have easily been explained to the OP, rather than opening a complaint here. Again, I'm just not seeing any compelling evidence of tenentiousness or disruption in what is being presented here. It may very well be there, but if so, it hasn't been well presented (either in summaries or diffs) here. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Since I was pinged, I figured I should follow-up on this regarding the revert issue. Having gone over the last 200 edits, two names popped up more than the others by a good margin: M.Bitton and Skitash. Out of the last 200 edits, they have combined to have removed at least 63 of them in 41 edits for a combined 52% of the edit history. Given that Skitash's first edit to the article was May 22nd of last year and they have only made 17 total edits to the article, this isn't going to focus on them.

Regarding M.Bitton, they have made over 78 reverts to at least 118 edits in their 92 edits to the article since their first edit on October 5th of 2020. Adding the times they restored a revision would bring the number to between 82 and 84, depending on how an edit that changed the infobox and lede and an edit that changed the entire article are counted. Based just off the times they clearly reverted by using "Reverted X edit" in the edit summary, it is still 84% of the edits they have made to the article and an average of one revert every 17.5 days. This isn't to say that all or most of the reverts are problematic. As far as I have seen it is the opposite in fact, with reverts for a user trying to prioritize Tunisia over Libya, another user adding Palestine and removing Israel, and a third user trying to change The Times of Israel to The Times of Palestine as simple examples of what seems to be reoccurring vandalism. Honestly, the article feels like it should be in one of the Contentious topics given how many troublesome edits it attracts. (M.Bitton claimed that there is an Extended confirmed restriction on the article, but I don't see any proof of that.)

Where the reverts becomes a problem to me lies with the reverts to edits that are made in good faith. Just take LEvalyn's edits for example. LEvalyn made over a half-dozen changes only to get reverted by M.Bitton with the following explaination: You removed the word Maghrebi without a valid reason. M.Bitton specifically objected to just one of the changes, but reverted all of them. In the following 26 hours from the first revert, M.Bitton makes two additional reverts to LEvalyn's edits with the following edit summaries: restored and added two RS to prevent further disruption & Please refrain from deleting the wording maghrebi and imposing your POV. There is even this line from the talk page discussion justifying the full reverts: "2) You are fully aware that the removal of the word Maghrebi will entail a revert." This specific situation feels like Stonewalling. And now we currently have a poorly formatted RfC attempting to determine if two dictionaries are a better source for the etymology of shakshouka as an attempt to discuss it failed. For at least some relief, I would prefer it if M.Bitton set a personal goal to only revert the article once a month and to seek out another user to revert further or to only use reverts on bad faith edits. It isn't the only issue, but it seems to be one of them. --Super Goku V (talk) 13:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

They misrepresented the sources (see the article's talk page and the diffs provided that show what they did). First LEvalyn challenged a word as unsourced, when the sources were added, they misrepresented thems and made factually incorrect claims about them not supporting the word Maghrebi, and when faced with the diffs and the relevant quotes on the TP, they removed the sources and the wikilink from the very word that they first challenged (this was done after the BS ANI report). That's without mentioning the fact that they started casting aspersions and forum shopping. If that's not tendentious editing, I don't know what is. M.Bitton (talk) 13:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I would prefer links to the aspersions and forum shopping you are referencing, but you are somewhat proving my point. As far as I can tell, your reply to me here only addresses the removal of the word Maghrebi. Was there some reason you couldn't partly revert LEvalyn and restore Maghrebi to the article without undoing all of his other changes? If you can do a partial revert to resolve an issue, then do so. --Super Goku V (talk) 14:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Everything I said is in the article's talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

M.Bitton claimed that there is an Extended confirmed restriction on the article, but I don't see any proof of that I have never claimed such a thing. M.Bitton (talk) 14:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I can scratch that, but the reason I said that was because you referenced WP:ARBECR in this edit summary of a revert. ARBECR is the Extended confirmed restriction motion that was adopted. Did you mean something else by that link? --Super Goku V (talk) 14:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I referenced WP:ARBECR as one of the reasons because it also applied in that case. It doesn't mean that there is an "Extended confirmed restriction on the article" (as you seem to think). M.Bitton (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Partial Explanation by Original Poster

I probably should have also listed User:M.Bitton and User:Pathawi at the beginning of this thread. I will clarify my reference to a misguided mission. What is misguided is a mission to bring an article to Good Article status by rewriting it against local consensus. Improving the sourcing of an article is never misguided, but a major effort to rewrite an article when there isn't yet local consensus to improve it is not likely to work.

My real reason for bringing this report to WP:ANI was the edit-warring, which is a conduct issue, and I now see that I should have listed the edit-warriors as subjects of the report.

What is the preferred option for dealing with a poorly formed RFC?

Now that the edit-warring has stopped, I am willing to have this report closed, and to let other people worry somewhere else about what to do with the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:53, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, let me walk back my comments above a little, Rob: I actually don't think that the report here was necessarily a bad thing in the final analysis, insofar as it brings attention to a dispute that might well have been getting out of hand at the point you decided to report. Having looked at the revision history for the TP, I can see where the impetus for action may have come from here. I just think the framing might have been more neutral. For my money, and without intending to get into the weeds of the content issue, I think M. Bitton's take on the issue leans heavily into OR territory, attempting to supplement the content issues with their personal knowledge and their idiosyncratic take on the value of dictionaries as sources, which has no support in WP:RS/WP:V policy that I am aware of. The vast majority of the modern English lexicon is constituted by loan words, and the suggestion that dictionaries are verboten for this purpose for such words is clearly at odds with policy and common practice across the project.

That said, there may be some more nuanced arguments to be made with regard to their applicability here, but M. Bitton is not presently making any that I think are likely to gain support in the terms they are proposing. Indeed, consensus seems to be solidly against them on this issue at present, and their terse, borderline battleground attitude on the matter is not helping their case. Under the circumstances, I think it was reasonable for LEvalyn to have opened the RfC. It just could have been structured a bit better. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: what' so unusual about discussing a dubious claim that is allegedly made by a source? Of course there are more arguments to be made (per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS), but for them to be presented one has to read something other than "you're not a reliable source" (you'll notice that I stopped replying once I realized that it was a lost cause). As for the RfC, there really was no need for it as nobody has edit warred over the claim (the usual BRD process was followed) and, as was said previously, the presented source about the etymology is unrelated to those about the definition (I did mention in the discussion that the section could be renamed "definition and etymology"). M.Bitton (talk) 01:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Regarding your first sentence, the problem is that the OED is a reliable source, not a dubious one, and you've supplied no basis for doubting it on this point besides your personal disagreement with it and an artificial distinction you've made regarding when it is and isn't reliable. Your response here reinforces everything SnowRise said, which largely echoes what I had said to you at the talk page, before the RFC, about OR and about the dictionary's areas of competence. Largoplazo (talk) 07:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I said the claim (not the source) is dubious and I explained why I think it is. Your response here reinforces everything I said in my previous comment. M.Bitton (talk) 11:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

The claim is dubious—to you. Because you say so. You aren't even saying it's false, you're saying it's dubious, which amounts to, "Well, I never heard that, so nobody is allowed to rely on it." And you have gone deep into WP:IDHT mode when I point out repeatedly that the dubiousness of this claim to you is irrelevant as to whether other editors can include it in an article in reliance on that source.

That the OED is a reliable source is what's relevant. Your WP:OR, your personal opinion, your lack of sufficient personal knowledge to validate the claim, etc. are irrelevant to whether you have any justification for holding up other editors' contributions to an article that are supported by a reliable source. You don't. Largoplazo (talk) 21:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment from LEvalyn

First, I apologise for the flaws in my RfC. As I said, I have never made one before, and I guess I didn't do a good job of framing the question at hand. Should I withdraw the RfC? Can they be amended? I would be particularly grateful if someone else felt they could start an RfC (or an RSN discussion?) about this topic, or suggest a more appropriate wording for me to use. For the record, I wouldn't say I am a "newer editor," just new to RfC/ANI/DR/RSN/etc, since in the seven years I have been editing I have never experienced stonewalling like this.

To respond to the comments about my behaviour, I am honestly a little perplexed to be accused of POV-pushing. Is the POV supposed to be edits trying to remove "Maghreb" from the article? I don't think that's a fair characterization of edits like this and this, especially since I explicitly suggested that M.Bitton should add the word Maghreb back in if it's important to them. Indeed, in my later edits, I have included the word. I also think it's unfair to say that my edits are reverted by other editors including User:M.Bitton; no "other editors" have reverted me, only M.Bitton. The negative comments on the talk page are also 99% M.Bitton, and just this one from Skitash. I have been really mystified by the uniquely uncollaborative and unconstructive atmosphere at this article, which is why I have sought outside perspectives at ANI, DR, and now RfC. If the broader consensus is that this article should remain unchanged, I would be disappointed, since I don't think it's in very good shape and I have now spent more time trying to achieve consensus here than it took me to write my most recent GA, but I can respect it. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

There is what you think about me and then there are the facts: a) you started casting aspersions (see my comment on the TP beginning with "I ignored the aspersion casting once, this is the second.."), b) you misrepresented the sources that I looked for and shared with others (the explanation and diffs proving this are on the TP) and c) you initiated an ANI report in which you accused me of all kind of nonsense. Anyway, I'm only bringing up this because you mentioned me in order to divert the attention from yourself, I have no interest in joining you on a trip down memory lane. M.Bitton (talk) 11:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

At this point it seems better to leave it unaltered than to change it midway through after some participation. See what happens and go from there. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Country area edit wars

I will face the music (talk · contribs) has spent the past few months since making their first edit making various changes to infoboxes regarding the area of country/other polity articles. Many have been reverted ([161][162],[163][164],PR:[165][166]). Their responses to this have been aggressive ([167][168]), and they were blocked for personal attacks following this edit. Upon the block expiring, they immediately went back to edit warring in one of the already mentioned article (see PR edits above). Blocking admin Bbb23 suggested this should come to AN/I if disruption continues, and it has. The edit warring and WP:CIVIL issues here compound each other. CMD (talk) 15:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh this reminds me of someone who was doing this about a year ago before being indeffed. Let me see if I can figure out what account it was. Canterbury Tail talk 17:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

This has got to be another sock of RussianFanboy2010 (talk · contribs) Canterbury Tail talk 17:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RussianFanboy2010/Archive jlwoodwa (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

And since the account in question decided to delete this section in order to try and hide their edits, I've taken it as confirmation and blocked them as a suspected sockpuppet of RussianFanboy2010. So I guess their username was completely on point. Canterbury Tail talk 22:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Edits at "Isla Bryson case"

I'm not sure if this is the right place to write this, but an IP user has been making some edits at the article "Isla Bryson case" that are less than productive. That person is disrupting the article, seemingly to illustrate a point and spread their opinion on trans people. Under the manual of style on gender identity, we should refer to people by their gender identity, not sex assigned at birth, but the IP user is removing and changing wording to portray a trans woman as being male.

As you can see in the MOS, this matter has been litigated ad nauseam, and consensus is that we should not misgender people, which also has been extensively discussed at the article's talk page. When I discovered two edits the IP user had made a few days prior, I reverted them and said in the edit summaries that I was doing so per the talk page. Then I went to bed. A few hours later, while I was sleeping, the IP user reverted without explanation, reinstating the edits portraying Isla Bryson as the wrong gender. When I came back and saw those edits, I reverted again, linking to the MOS in the edit summaries, and as I was writing this they have once again reverted without explanation. Please send help. 188.176.174.30 (talk) 16:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I have again reverted the IP user's edits to the article. This places me at, but not above, the three-revert rule. 188.176.174.30 (talk) 16:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I've partially blocked the IP from editing that article. 6 months. I know it seems long but they're never going to edit it productively and the odds of another person getting that IP and trying to edit that article is massively low. Canterbury Tail talk 17:01, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. That is probably the best course of action. By the way, was this the right venue for my complaint? If they show up again on a new IP, should I just take it here again? 188.176.174.30 (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I've added the article to my watchlist. Looking at the history it's possible the article should be semi-protected, however the disruption isn't consistent and is very spread out. Canterbury Tail talk 18:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay. I've been goaltending the article for a while now, and there has definitely been some disruption. It hasn't been too much of a time sink for me, but your help would be appreciated. This article is right in the grey area of whether bad edits are frequent enough that semi-protecting is necessary. After today I'm leaning a little more towards it being necessary, but there still isn't an obvious answer. Again, thank you for your help. 188.176.174.30 (talk) 18:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Well I'll keep an eye on it as well and if I think it needs protecting I'll do so. Right now I don't think so, but you don't know what the future brings. Canterbury Tail talk 19:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

The article really should be semi-protected under WP:CT/GG. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Good day all. I am the IP user in question. I see that I have been blocked without being given any opportunity to defend myself or give my side of the story. I would like to that now if I may. With respect, 188.176.174.30 has completely misrepresented the situation.

The page in question concerns a transwoman who raped women while identifying as a man. Notwithstanding that history, I completely agree that she should be referenced by her chosen gender - ie as a woman with female pronouns, etc. No argument at all between myself and 188.176.174.30 about that. And I completely agree if that if I had sought to portray this individual 'as the wrong gender' then that would be wrong. However, I have done no such thing.

Following extensive discussion on the talk page in August 2023, consensus was reached that this individual's former (male) name and her male sex should be referenced in the article, given what she did while presenting as a man. Accordingly, in line with that consensus the page (before I started editing) it already referenced this individual's sex: ie, her male sex. I did not do that. It was already in the page as a result of the August 2023 consensus.

At this point, I pause to note that 188.176.174.30's assertion that "consensus is that we should not misgender people" is completely misleading and ignores what was agreed in August 2023: which was that in this particular case, this individual's sex should be referenced in the article.

Returning to me, all I did was to make clarifying improvements to the page to make clear the distinction in this case between sex and gender. For example, I changed the phrase 'sex at birth' to simply 'sex' (reflecting the biological reality that sex itself does not change (although gender of course can). I made clear in the edit summary exactly what I was doing and why.

Accordingly, I did not in any way portray this individual in the wrong gender, as 188.176.174.30 alleges. Her gender is female. The page reflects that. The page should reflect that. It also purports to clarify that her sex is male, and I simply wanted it to do so more clearly. The fundamental mistake 188.176.174.30 is making here is to fail to understand the distinction between sex and gender.

I therefore suggest that my ban is completely unjustified, and I would request that it be lifted.151.124.107.115 (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about the wall of text. I have tried to be as concise as possible, but it is not my strong suit. This took forever to formulate, and I don't know what to cut out without cutting out what I am trying to say.

While I stand by much what I have said above, it appears that we have talked past each other. If I understand your position correctly, then we still have a disagreement, but your position is more nuanced and in my opinion much less objectionable than I had initially understood it to be. I am glad that we are in agreement about recognizing Bryson's current gender identity, name, and pronouns. There is a difference between sex and gender, and when you changed "assigned male at birth" to "born male", I was wrong in saying that this was "misgendering", though I still believe those changes were wrong, for reasons I am getting to later.

I have no objection to the article including Bryson's former name(s), and the fact that she committed her crimes before transitioning. As you say, that has been discussed on the talk page, and I recognize and agree with the August 2023 local consensus that we, in this specific case, should deviate from the general rule against using pre-transition names. Deadnames should only be included when a person was well-known under their previous name (for example, Elliot Page or Caitlyn Jenner), but the site-wide consensus doesn't account for the fact that criminals or criminal suspects, and facets of their lives before the day of the crime, are dragged through the media circus and so might become notable. Bryson's pre-transition name has been widely publicized, and it is reasonable to include it despite the fact that she (at least AFAIK) stopped using that name before becoming notable.

However, your edits are in my view still less than ideal, because the wording is ambiguous or more prone to confuse readers than the previous wording. Your wording might, unintentionally, play into the hands of bigots who want to push trans people back into the closet, though I should be clear that I do not believe you are such a person and I don't mean this as some insincere personal attack. Although I believe your edits are suboptimal, I am not saying that you are acting in bad faith or deliberately causing harm. We have a disagreement, but you have remained civil, if a little unwilling to discuss things earlier when you reverted without explanation.

While sex and gender are different things, there is significant interplay between the two, to the point that some people are unable or unwilling to differentiate the two. Some of these people are bigots, but many (probably most) are not. Though sex-gender distinction deniers are generally considered to be wrong, and their arguments are overwhelmingly seen as unconvincing in academia, people with these views form a large part of the population, and of Wikipedia's readership. This does not mean we should go along with what they say, but it means that when they see a term like "sex", there is a chance that they will assume we are using it interchangeably with "gender" like they do, and so will be needlessly confused.

This problem is solved, or at least mitigated, when we use a stock phrase like "sex at birth" or "assigned [male/female] at birth" to clarify that we are talking about their sex and not their gender. A person who is ignorant of the differences between them, or worse yet, one why is openly bigoted and is denying the difference to justify their beliefs, might read the article and see wording like "sex" without "at birth", and take it as confirmation of sex and gender being the same. They might see people calling sex "immutable", and think that gender is too, because to them it's the same thing. In other words, while the wording might be redundant or unclear to some people, not being redundant risks misleading a portion of our readers and, in the worst-case scenario, setting them on a course towards bigotry. My issue here is not the wording per se, but how some people might misread the wording.

When choosing which terminology to use, our intentions matter (and I believe your intentions are good), but so do the real-world outcomes, regardless of whether we intended them. Human sexuality, including sex and gender, is a complicated subject where even well-intentioned people are more prone than usual to assume that they are always right, and that the way they see things is the way everyone else sees it. I believe this is both a cause of me having misunderstood you, and the root of our disagreement (even assuming I now understand your position).

When I was talking about the talk page, I was not clear enough in saying what I meant. Earlier, before I understood what you were trying to do, I thought the heart of our disagreement was over retroactivity, i.e. whether Bryson should be treated as if she were of the male gender (not sex) before her transition, rather than retroactively applying her current gender identity throughout. This November and December 2023 discussion on the talk page touched on similar issues, which is a large part of the reason I spoke of avoiding "misgendering [as] extensively discussed at the article's talk page". This was a mistake on my part, stemming from my misunderstanding of your intentions.

Setting aside this argument about the article "Isla Bryson case", I still believe that, although I am not without sin, you have acted in an unproductive manner in the handling of the argument. When I first reverted your edits, citing the talk page (again, my mistake, I'm sorry), you made no effort to move to the talk page and resolve this disagreement, and you didn't even leave an edit summary when you reverted. When I reverted again, citing the talk page and MOS:GIDINFO, you once again reverted without explanation. While I certainly played a large part in the misunderstanding, you did little to clear it up, and continued to reinstate your edits, even when I voiced my reasons why I believed they were bad. This was a failure of communication on both our parts, but I believe you were less cooperative and more disruptive than what the situation called for. While your block from editing the article for the next 6 months might be disproportionate, I still think some kind of sanctions for you, and possibly for me as well, would be in order.

At this point, I should say that I don't feel nearly as strongly about the disagreement we actually have, as I felt about the disagreement I thought we had when I misunderstood your position. I would like if people agree with me, but I realize my argument might be pedantic. This is a minor disagreement (despite all the ink I have just spilt on it), and I would not object if you suggested we agreed to disagree. Everyone is free to keep arguing, but at least for a little while I won't be responding. I am invoking my right to remain silent, as my head is starting to hurt a little. 188.176.174.30 (talk) 01:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you 188.176.174.30. I think the executive summary here is that this is simply a content dispute enflamed by poor communication. Nothing more. You're clearly acting in good faith, and so am I.

I'm not going to comment directly on the substantive disagreement between us as to the content of the article. That we can debate respectfully on the talk page.

I certainly don't think you merit any sanctions here. However, I would gently say that, having clearly explained what I was doing in the edit summary and why, it was not helpful for you to simply blanket reverse me, referring nebulously to the talk page and other policy pages - without engaging in the specific detail of what I had said. Such behaviour gave me the unfortunate impression - which I now know to be false - that you were simply a bad faith IP pushing a point of view without actually looking to engage in constructive discussion. I also don't consider it fair for you to criticise me for reversing you without an edit summary when you had already ignored the clear and detailed edit summaries that I had already provided.

All that said, I repeat that I don't consider that you merit any sanctions. I suggest that I don't either. Now that the position is clear (and now it is understood that I was not seeking to misgender anyoone here) I suggest that the clear and obvious way forward here is for my ban to be lifted and for us to discuss and seek to reach consensus on the talk page. 151.124.107.114 (talk) 15:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

151 you were only blocked from the article. If you have a legitimate content issue to discuss, you remain free to use the article talk page Talk:Isla Bryson case to discuss it provided you don't use any open proxy IPs to do so. Note however trying to push through these changes [169] does not seem to be a legitimate content issue so is unlikely to be something worth discussing on the article talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 04:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

From POV-pushing to outright vandalism by Coddlebean

Coddlebean (talk · contribs) has engaged in POV-pushing (a few examples: Taiwan, Nazi Germany, Hitler, Tiananmen Square) that has been quickly reverted, but it's now escalating into blatant and juvenile vandalism here. Looking very much like WP:NOTHERE. - Amigao (talk) 17:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

It's quite perplexing, given how little they've attempted to explain their edits upon being questioned so far. I almost worry that this is the result of a compromised account, given that their edits were least plausibly good faith until now. Remsense诉 17:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

This discussion may be helpful here. QwertyForest (talk) 06:43, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Is it helpful? I couldn't tell whether or not it's a compromised account from that. "sowwy" doesn't leap out at me as an account that shouldn't be blocked for whatever reason. DeCausa (talk) 07:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

It at least made clearer to me that the two scenarios are likely  Technically indistinguishable. Remsense诉 13:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

@Jpatokal vs Michael Ezra

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

---

@Jpatokal has been edit warrioring for the last 11 years, pushing blogs and tabloids as sources, which breaks the rules of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons. See diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Ezra&diff=next&oldid=563931413

Attempts to reason with him[/her/them] on the article's talk page have proven futile: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Ezra

A complaint raised on the BLP noticeboard was shutdown (in 20 minutes) by @Zaereth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard

I have been tossed to this notice board but am frankly disappointed by this community's protectionism/shielding of a rogue admin/contributor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.230.201.134 (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Regardless the complaint, I see IP sockpuppetry], which must be addressed by admin. - Altenmann >talk 18:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

You are required to notify editors you create an ANI discussion about. I have do so for you this time, but please keep this is mind for the future. GrayStorm^{(Complaints Dept.|My Contribs.)} 18:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• I've blocked two IPs, one as a webhost, and the OP for disruption for one week. I've also semi-protected the article for 3 months. Who's an administrator?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  and I blocked five accounts on that .134 IP. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 19:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

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

More IP Shenanigans/Possible Legal Threat From Jacobchoi20/AirbusA350500 at 220.255.188.227

It's hard to read because, frankly, it's quite incoherent, but it appears that User talk:220.255.188.227 is making a legal threat or a regular threat of some type "I see you were all talking about a project, but I do not know what you are referring to. No wonder, User:Picard's Facepalm threatened me on their talk page, which made me extremely upset. I wonder if they would not like Wikipedia to have a list of administrators caught abusing, with their photo on the list." [170]

This is an acknowledged IP of Jacobchoi20/AirbusA350500 that consists of the editor and their sockpuppets or the editor and their co-workers which were also tasked to edit-warring on airplane pages. That part is hard to guess as their story changes every time they interact with an administrator. In any case, their accounts have already had talk page access revoked. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:04, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I will gladly second this report. There were other accounts and numerous AnonIPs that this user has been using to circumvent blocks with, and now he/she is at it again. All I have done is provide information and advice - albeit at an increasingly more direct level with each passing interaction - on how to improve their edits so they don't keep getting reverted, getting their acocunt(s) unblocked, links to the policies and guidelines surrounding the reversions, and reminding them of COI issues. Numerous other users including CoffeeCrumbs have gone through exhaustive lengths across so many of their IPs and accounts spanning many months to try and point the user in the right direction - but they flatly refuse to even try to make an effort and instead just repeatedly lash out with threatening language, catastrophizing the consequences of not having their edits published due to reversion, and otherwise absolutely incoherent and inane ramblings that really lead me to believe they are taking WP as a far more serious point in their life than it should be. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 14:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not even sure why the editor got angry at you again for something from more than a month ago. I suspect we're going to get long-term sniping from this source from a variety of similar IP addresses. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. The pattern is quite clear at this point. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 21:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Now that @220.255.188.227's one-month suspension for block evasion instituted by @Jpgordon is over, this chronic, admitted block evader is once again editing. This sockmaster has been a massive time sink for several administrators over the last three months, is blocked on like three accounts, and continually makes acknowledged IP edits. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Let's see if three months suffices on this IP. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Certainly hope so. The editor hasn't been personally abusive to me, but the accusations against Picard's Facepalm have been really over the line. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive IP editing

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

---

For the last couple of months, an editor based in Fort Collins, Colorado has been editing as an IP. The IP addresses keep changing, but it is clearly the same person. This editor claims to be a 16-year-old whose parents will not allow him/her to set up an account, see here: [171]. This editor does not actually contribute anything, and their edits consist entirely of placing tags on articles or seeking to get other editors to improve articles. This is very much a negative editing style, which consist entirely of complaining about and disparaging the work of others. Here are some examples: [172], [173], [174], [175], and [176], and [177]. Putting a notability tag on an article classed as good, see here [178], is a case of disruptive editing, and this is just one example out of many. This editor was already blocked once in March for disruptive editing, see here: [179]. Other editors have tried to reason with this editor to no avail, see here: [180], [181], [182], [183], [184], [185] and [186].

Most recently, this same editor twice placed a highly insulting message on my talk page, disparaging all of my hard work in a very smug, judgmental tone, which is quite rich from an editor who has never done any of the hard work needed to create and improve an article, see here: [187] and [188]. This editor does have a point that some of the articles that he is complaining about do need more sources, but there is no need to be so obnoxious and rude about it. I have been trying in my modest way to address that issue (and this issue will be addressed as I dig deeper), but this IP has been going around deleting all of my work, apparently just because he wants to keep the notability tags he has placed on the articles. See here: [189], [190], [191], and [192]. First, this editor comes to me complaining that there he wants more sources to the articles, but then the same editor deletes properly sourced material when added, just so he can put back on the notability tags! This is clearly a textbook case of WP:NOTHERE. There are couple of IP accounts based in Fort Collins, which are clearly the same person: 2605:B40:13E7:F600:B183:EBCE:3B35:B6B7 (talk · contribs), 2605:B40:13E7:F600:A532:2DFB:1C7B:74E7 (talk · contribs), 2605:B40:13E7:F600:81AF:FB54:24F5:260E (talk · contribs), 50.113.53.158 (talk · contribs), 2605:B40:13E7:F600:5C3E:C3DA:FDE9:A738 (talk · contribs) and 2605:B40:13E7:F600:40FE:7B6D:17E8:D289 (talk · contribs). The last account was blocked in March of this year for disruptive editing, and as far I can tell, the block was not lifted. In that case, is this editor not also a sock puppet as well? --A.S. Brown (talk) 06:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Looks like the IP range 2605:B40:13E7:F600:0:0:0:0/64 needs another block here. — AP 499D25 (talk) 10:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Reverting your work was my fault; I hit undo by accident instead of manually. Also, I'm trying to edit less, but that's harder than you might think (it's like I keep getting sucked back). 2605:B40:13E7:F600:B183:EBCE:3B35:B6B7 (talk) 13:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to try to take a break. How successful this will be remains to be seen. 2605:B40:13E7:F600:B183:EBCE:3B35:B6B7 (talk) 13:43, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I've been dealing with this editor for months; they edit in an area where I'm active. A.S. Brown's analysis is absolutely correct: all this editor wants to do is try to get pages deleted or over-tagged. They never contribute anything to articles, and have refused to do so. In addition to the aforementioned problems, the editor has tried multiple times to bring articles to AfD that have recently closed as Keep, because "I want to give it another shot": [193]. They also try to redirect articles that have closed as Merge: on the article Demona, they've done this seven times despite the protests of several editors: [194].

Their response above is typical for this user: when they're challenged, they deflect with lines like: "Okay, I'm going to try to take a break." Then they come back and put the same tags on the same articles. Toughpigs (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Seriously though, I talked about this with my mom again, and I really am taking a break. 2605:B40:13E7:F600:B183:EBCE:3B35:B6B7 (talk) 15:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

(I understand if you don't believe me, but I really am) 2605:B40:13E7:F600:B183:EBCE:3B35:B6B7 (talk) 15:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Whether you're taking a break is not the issue. Do you have anything to say about your disruptive behavior? Toughpigs (talk) 15:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Indeed I do. I am actually on the spectrum, and I can get fixated on things (like people reverting my edits). I am sincerely sorry; it's just the way I am. 2605:B40:13E7:F600:B183:EBCE:3B35:B6B7 (talk) 15:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

While we're sensitive to the different things that people wrestle with, it's also not an excuse for this kind of behavior. Whether or not it's "just the way you are," that doesn't eliminate the need to respect others, many of whom will disagree with you, and to collaborate productively. These types of actions must not be repeated; when it comes down to a situation in which we have to choose, we will protect the right of others to be treated respectfully over your ability to participate in this project. Please keep this in mind during your break and I wish you the best. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect, this editor is clearly unable and unwilling to change their behavior. When confronted about their bad behavior, this IP always makes the same excuse that they planning to leave and will take a break, so that there is no need to take any action because they are leaving Wikipedia anyhow. This editor has made variations of this statement numerous times over the last couple of months, and this IP always comes back to engage in the precise same behavior. Given their prior history, this IP will no doubt return and will start the same disruptive editing again. I would like to assume good faith, but given their prior behavior, I am having a lot of trouble doing so. Finally, this editor has made no promises to change their behavior. Indeed, this editor seeks to justify their bad conduct because "I can get fixated on things" and "it's just the way I am". This editor keeps engaging in the same behavior. I really don't think this editor understands Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about winning. This IP has not done one single, constructive edit and instead keeps wasting the time of other editors. If this editor can't get an article deleted, they just nominate it again for deletion. If another editor addresses a problem on an article, this editor simply deletes properly sourced material so he can put back on a notability tag. It goes on and on, and nothing ever changes. If this editor was willing to admit that they were wrong and gave a firm promise to reform, I would say give this IP another chance. But instead all we getting are the same standard excuse that their behavior was justified because "it's just the way I am" and that he is leaving Wikipedia anyhow, so no action is needed. Given that this editor was already blocked back in March and as far I can see the block was never lifted, surely this editor should be blocked for socking alone? --A.S. Brown (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that I was wrong, but what my autism led to was thinking I could somehow come out on top even when everyone kept saying I should stop. I think this goes to show not everyone's cut out for editing. 2605:B40:13E7:F600:6843:18AB:A9B:AAF9 (talk) 00:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

However, I still do not believe that the Ren & Stimpy episode articles that User:A.S. Brown created (which is what this all started from) are completely flawless. Could they be notable? Absolutely, but the articles all rely mostly on one guy's book, which is why I tagged them. 2605:B40:13E7:F600:6843:18AB:A9B:AAF9 (talk) 00:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey – I'm on the spectrum too!

I think what you need to realise though, is that if you make a certain type of edit to an article or a number of them, and your changes get reverted shortly after, you'll need to engage in discussion with the other editor (typically on the article's talk page) asking why exactly they reverted your changes, even if you think you are right. If you instead keep on repeating the kind of edits that other editors have disagreed on, and you don't respect consensus on talk pages, it can lead to a block from editing, like what you received earlier in March.

I highly suggest that you read through the Wikipedia:Deletion policy, Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing pages before you nominate another article for deletion or place another 'notability' tag on an article.

Regards, — AP 499D25 (talk) 00:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I have done this in the past, though not all the time. But even then, my hyper-fixated brain kept saying, "No, I am right and you are wrong. Just accept it." 2605:B40:13E7:F600:6843:18AB:A9B:AAF9 (talk) 01:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• I've blocked the range for 3 months (last time was one).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I think this IP meant well, and I don't hold autism against them, but what I am seeing here are statements that show this editor is unable and/or unwilling to change their editing style. Thank you for your time and help. --A.S. Brown (talk) 04:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Persistent addition of unsourced content by 67.83.125.225

67.83.125.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, continued after final warning and hasn't responded to warnings. Examples of unsourced edits: 1, 2, 3, 4. Waxworker (talk) 09:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

have blocked for 31 hours. – robertsky (talk) 11:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

New to wikpedia but trying to remove false information but page editors rolling back changes without giving evidence or reason

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

---

I'm trying to edit this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanni_(singer) and removing a false misleading piece about this person being a dual national/citzenship when the previous authors didn't provide correct reference/evidence stating that she is. She has not lived in Vietnam, and she was born in Australia. Like other vietnamese australians as myself, we do not have dual nationalities are stated by these authors who do not know.

But they undo and just report me for not knowing the rules? When I know that the truth is that she is not dual national and they authors do not have sufficient evidence proving she is. I have also contacted the opinion entertainment article author that was used and asked them to correct that article. But at least i know wikipedia is a place where the truth can be corrected.

What can the administrators do? Since I'm new to this platform and I just want to make sure that the information is accurate. I have started a talk topic for that page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hanni_(singer)

But I don't think they care. Lightningwhitefox (talk) 12:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Content disputes should be discussed on the article's TALK. You can leave a neutrally worded notice at WP:BLPN encouraging editors to leave feedback at the discussion. Nemov (talk) 12:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

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

SPI/Vamlos TPA

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

---

User:HabichuelasBeans‎ has been INDEF'd as a sock, but it seems they probably need their talk page access revoked. Remsense诉 13:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it's okay for now. DanCherek (talk) 18:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Kaane99

User has been making nonsensical undiscussed article moves that violate naming conventions. Talk page messages have gone unanswered. See Special:Contributions/Kaane99. 162 etc. (talk) 15:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked Kaane99; the pattern of repeated disruptive page moves that require cleanup, with zero engagement on their user talk page, is unsustainable. DanCherek (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Clement Hills

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

---

User:Clement Hills continuously makes reverts of good-faith edits or warning users/IPs without an actual revert.

Examples:

• User talk:103.25.171.66
• Special:Diff/1232042923
• Special:Diff/1232045002

I have requested block at AIV but then admin noted that I should come here. Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 17:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Something else, they also reverted a constructive edit adding a citation to a draft, which can be found here. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 17:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Seems like every single template they leave is uw-vandalism4im no matter what. This is far from acceptable. @Clement Hills do you care to explain yourself? GabberFlasted (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I've been trying to reply to all of the template messages with a "ignore above" as to avoid discouraging newcomers, but every 3-7 seconds he sends another message. Maybe a bot? Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 17:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

@GabberFlasted They've never responded to anything I've asked on their talk page. Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 17:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

@Sir MemeGod That is a nice thing to do . Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 17:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I should have gotten everyone (which was at least 20 IP users). This is very serious, but luckily he stopped as of last time I checked. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 17:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

This is familiar behavior; I've opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hamish Ross. Schazjmd (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Schazjmd for the SPI. Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 17:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

And thank you, @Sir MemeGod, for countering those warnings on the editors' talk pages. Schazjmd (talk) 17:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Ditto. I removed a few outright but I got needlessly caught up in vetting each warn-ee to make sure it wasn't warranted. Appreciate your counter-bite efforts, SMG. GabberFlasted (talk) 17:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

No problem, I've got nothing better to do with my time. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 17:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I would call this whole thing an LTA. Seen this many, many times before. Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 17:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Adityagoyal6363

Adityagoyal6363 (talk · contribs) predominately edits in Indian reality television articles. On Bigg Boss OTT (Hindi Digital series) season 3 I've been having an small issue with their edits as some of their are contrary to MOS:CAPS with this being the most recent edit on their part changing the section headings back to mixed-case. I'm not thrilled about that, but the larger issue I have is the lack of communication or response from them about the issues after leaving https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Adityagoyal6363&diff=prev&oldid=1231958415 warning] messages on their tak page. They have responded to earlier messages on their talk page, so I know they are aware of the messages, but ignoring the WP:MOS from an editor with 2000+ edits of a year is not a minor thing. Given the lack of response around this, perhaps a page block from this page until they acknowledge they will follow the MOS is needed here. Thank you. Ravensfire (talk) 17:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

And this continues for today - [195]. Ravensfire (talk) 13:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not optimitic given the lack of engagement from Adityagoyal6363, but I have started a talk page discussion here to maybe see if something will happen. Still, some admin attention here would be helpful to avoid a slow-motion edit-war over capital letters. Ravensfire (talk) 15:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Yakub (Nation of Islam)

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

---

A message for @Daniel Case: with apologies – your talk page is protected.

You kindly protected Yakub (Nation of Islam) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) at my request at RfPP, but seconds before you did, an IP editor slipped in with this terrible edit. Please can that also be reverted? 81.187.192.168 (talk) 18:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Daniel – much appreciated! 81.187.192.168 (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Mushy Yank

So, this guy named Mushy Yank is trying to spoil the plot of Despicable Me 4 a month before it releases. His justification is that the film released in his country but the film is an AMERICAN movie. Despite warnings from both me and another user, he has persisted in trying to spoil the movie. Please ban him. HiGuys69420 (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC) Here is a link to his user page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mushy_Yank

No. See WP:SPOILER. --Yamla (talk) 19:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, I just wanted to report HiGuys69420 for this edit summary: "Shut the f*ck up. Do you think it is fun to spoil the plot FOR MILLIONS OF UNSUSPECTING VIEWERS. Wait until 1-2 weeks before the release you jerk." But I confess that user was faster than me :D. I believe there are quite a few guidelines and core policies that this user deliberately ignored and would like them to stop harassing me on my TP and edit warring with no reason on the page they themselves mentioned. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

(Prior to this message) I have warned HiGuys69420 to knock off the (blatant, inappropriate) personal attacks. --Yamla (talk) 19:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

OK. If you think it's enough for asking me to "shut the fuck up" and calling me a "jerk", sure, thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

And I hadn't seen that edit (again a call for a ban of the "jerk" that I am), which you kindly reverted. I must admit that I am surprised at this tolerance towards incivility and personal attacks, especially when they are repeated. But maybe that's the standard now. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:04, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

not that i'm experienced enough in this ani thing to whip out the wp:boomerang card, but this doesn't seem to be the first time higuys has gone on a streak of uncivil reverts and edit summaries over one or two reverted edits, or called someone a jerk over it, for that matter. while i do think the initial attempt to stop spoilers was in good faith (if a little misguided), i can't say the same for the subsequent actions. i won't make any decisive votes myself here, besides supporting yamla's warning cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, seems higuys have blanked the talk page as well. Not like it's not allowed, but there's an discussion happening here and hiding out warning prevents people from examining the user's past conducts. Anyways, higuys seems to have shot themselves in the foot with the ANI, but I feel like giving them time to change would be a better response, personally. I wouldn't object to a block if they keep making personal attacks, though. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 23:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry HiGuys69420 (talk) 02:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Why is anyone who doesn't want to know what happens reading the section titled "Plot" in an encyclopedia article about the film? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

you could make an argument about the grammar or the questionable conciseness, but spoilers are not an issue here. additionally, you failed to notify mushy per the big red warnings provided at the top of the page and when starting a new topic, so i've done that this time cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 19:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry for the use of harsh language but just to clarify I did not say the actual f word i censored it HiGuys69420 (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Are you trying to say that shut the f*ck up is less hostile than shut the fuck up? Really? I’m gobsmacked. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

it's still kinda hostile so im sorry. Btw mushy i did not revert your edit again BUT i did add a sign stating that it needs to be improved heavily HiGuys69420 (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not the word itself that's banned, it's the underlying hostility that the use implies, which is the same however you spell it out. As for your adding in the template, given that you clearly don't want the spoiler plot at all, nor have you actually suggested anything wrong with the spoiler plot itself, combined with an edit summary that looks a lot like it's a retaliatory edit for not getting your way, suggests to me a real problem with WP:POINT. Your conduct in this dispute has left a lot to be desired. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

to clarify, the use of swear words isn't the problem. what is is what they're used for. a sentence like "holy shit that's a lot of fucking sources for a single claim", while not exactly necessary, isn't inherently bad, as it's only an observation accentuated by profanity. hell, i do it a lot

meanwhile, a sentence like "f*ck you, dumbf*ck", while censored, is still considered a personal attack, as it's targeted towards someone (as opposed to what they do or don't do) with the specific intent of hostility, and effectively means nothing in the context of making articles slightly better. with that in mind, telling someone to "shut the fuck up" is unambiguously considered a personal attack as detailed in wp:npa, regardless of censoring cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 14:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I understand that. I am sorry that I said that, I was angry and was blinded by rage at the time HiGuys69420 (talk) 15:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Musical hoaxing from Florida IPs

• 2600:1700:F360:1A20:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Someone in Florida has been adding hoax albums to various musical biographies.[196][197] This disruption has been going on since last year.[198] Can we put a stop to this nonsense? Binksternet (talk) 19:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for 6 months. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Much obliged. Binksternet (talk) 22:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Single purpose user nominated Joshua N. Haldeman

A single purpose user nominated Joshua N. Haldeman. Not one person supports delete (one admin did start arguing there with keep-sayers) and everyone is looking for sources. Not a beginning of a case for delete and a huge waste of time. The single purpose user must have a ball. It could be a sock but I would not know of whom. Can we please speedy or snow close this AfD before more community time gets wasted? gidonb (talk) 21:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I closed the discussion as a snow keep. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for snow keeping, User:LilianaUwU! If someone happens to have a clue of who this could be a sock, I would submit. Just do not want to make wild guesses. gidonb (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if it's a sock, but considering most people won't immediately know how the AFD process works, it sure seems like a sock. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Obsessing over ethnicity and ancestry: blocked ranges, proxies, long-term disruption

• 2600:6C50:7EF0:C3F0:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 35.149.48.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 103.38.254.254 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Someone apparently based in Southern California has been blocked many times for disruption in articles related to ethnicity, ancestry, diasporas and other demographic movements. They were blocked twice each as Special:Contributions/2600:6C50:7EF0:71E0:0:0:0:0/64 and Special:Contributions/76.174.235.156, and they are still blocked for two or more years as Special:Contributions/2600:6C50:7EF0:4A70:0:0:0:0/64, Special:Contributions/2603:8001:400:0:0:0:0:0/40, Special:Contributions/23.184.48.0/24, Special:Contributions/58.122.219.85, Special:Contributions/1.239.160.125 and Special:Contributions/45.8.146.0/24. They have used proxies, webhosts and compromised IPs from other places.

Characteristic edits from this person include:

• Listing the ancestry statistics of a place[199]
• Requesting a redirect at Wikipedia:Articles for creation[200][201]
• Changing a redirect to a mainspace article[202]
• Creating a draft article[203]
• Topics related to Romani people[204]
• Topics related to African-American people[205][206]

Can we get some lengthy blocks on the recently active IPs? Binksternet (talk) 05:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Persistent addition of poorly sourced/unsourced content

User AngelicDevil29 had been previously indeffed by Yamaguchi先生​ on 5 July 2023, due to Persistent disruption and addition of poorly sourced content. They were unblocked by Deepfriedokra​ on 22 January 2024 after an AN discussion, while noting that the blocking admin was inactive at that time. However, it appears that AngelicDevil29 still has a long way to properly understand what WP:RS and WP:NOR are. Just in past few days:

• At Zuṭṭ, they added unsourced content. After being roll backed, instead of providing reference or discussing at talk page, they continued to revert while claiming I didn't add anything, just tried to clear things out and then which talk page? Per WP:ONUS, I expected AngelicDevil29 to atleast provide citation or use talk page, but ultimately had to initiate talk page discussion myself.
• At Bizenjo on 27 June, adding unreliable WP:RAJ source in spite of being told by several editors to not do so [207]
• Same at Zehri, adding a early 20th century Raj source in support of their claim.
• At Sardarzahi, they changed ethnicity to Sindhi on 27 June, as usual without any reference. Then they reverted multiple editors, twice, and another editor needed to tell them to not revert maintenance work.
• At Langah (clan), they changed ethnicity to Sindhi with edit summary Revision, again providing zero source for the change. And yet again, while adding poor quality sources failing WP:VER and WP:RS, followed by making WP:OR statements and misrepresentating sources at their talk page.
• Same OR/ poor quality additions at Daudpotra[208][209], most of which fail WP:VER as well.

The list goes on, and I'm afraid, goes back to January. AngelicDevil29 has been made aware of these WP policies by a number of editors, and if they are not, I fail to understand why they were unblocked at first place. I feel a topic-ban, if not indef, on them regarding South Asian castes is necessary given the persistent original research, WP:SYNTH and borderline POV pushing to somehow "prove" that a certain tribe/caste is Sindhi (another example can be seen here) in spite of being amply warned; all without any regard to the reliability of the sources or whether the source even supports their claim.

Sutyarashi (talk) 10:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Yamla:, @UtherSRG:, @Ivanvector:, and @Deepfriedokra: for added visibility on this thread. While I am typically in favor of allowing second chance, it does seem that the issues of original research and synthesis remain to be resolved. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I find it hard to imagine there's any likelihood of improvement. I'm inclined to indef block. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Ongoing removal of sourced content at List of video games with LGBT characters

Zanza05 has been continually removing Xenoblade-related entries on List of video games with LGBT characters, despite being sourced to sites that are listed as acceptable per WP:VG/RS. This has been ongoing for over a year, having previously done so under multiple IPs including [210] [211] [212] [213] (the latter of which is still topic blocked from those pages, technically making this block evasion). I attempted to explain policy to them and suggest more constructive ways to edit if they disagreed with the inclusion, but they have ignored this and continued disruptively editing. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 16:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Yep, the day they created that account on May 30, 2024, they headed straight to List of video games with LGBT characters. Judging from their lengthy edit summaries, and IP 198 with the same lengthy edit summaries, they probably are the same person. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Pretty much. I've had the page semi-protected a few times to try and curtail their editing, which is why they created an account to get around that. After a solid year of this, even if the page is permanently semi-protected, I'm not convinced they're not just going to create an account and get right back to it instead of taking the hint. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 18:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I've indeffed them for block evasion and LTA. Canterbury Tail talk 18:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Why is Xenoblade such an issue? Trade (talk) 19:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Your guess is as good as mine. I can only assume based on the name Zanza that they're a Xenoblade fan who doesn't want to acknowledge the existence of LGBT characters in the series. It's a non-issue now, though, unless they decide to come back under a new name. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Just typical behavior of a transphobe/homophobe.CycoMa1 (talk) 20:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Editor persistently adding poorly-quality material while refusing to engage

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

This user has persistently created extremely poor-quality articles on Circassian history, refused to engage in discussion on any of them, and repeatedly moved them back to mainspace after draftification with no attempt to fix the issues ([214], [215], [216]). They have previously been warned by administrators and are the subject of an SPI case. Earlier today I left a final warning on their talk page; they since created this very poor article which shows no signs of understanding the issue.

Even if there is no SPI issues, there are clear WP:CIR problems with this editor. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

It looks machine translated to me. Secretlondon (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk: Yasuke has on-going issues

I recently closed an RfC on Yasuke and feel like the situation at Talk: Yasuke is deteoriating once again as more WP:SPA's are arriving to argue about the subject. There is a not insignificant amount of WP:SOAPBOXING occurring as well as some vaguely nationalist rhetoric where editors are proclaiming that Wikipedia is being governed by black supremacy and DEI as well as considerable activity taking place offsite on a Wikitionary Talk Page where aspersions are being cast on other editors involved in the dispute such as outright accusing others editors of lying and conspiring at fabricating historical truth as well as what appears to be attempts to Status Quo Stonewall as noted here where they begin discussing how to circumvent the RfC consensus before the RfC was even closed when they saw that the votes weren't going in their favor as well as WP:Tagteaming seen here. Because of all of these many preceived issues, I think some admin attention is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrhns (talk • contribs) 18:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

From skimming the talk page - this is popular as he appears in a video game? Secretlondon (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Last edit 30 June? Secretlondon (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Correct. He was semi-recently announced to be in the upcoming Assassin's Creed game. Chrhns (talk) 19:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I am on mobile device so forgive the poor formatting and lack of tagging. If I recall correctly the main person who's behavior crosses into WP:SOAPBOX and WP:OR is Shinjitsunotsuikyu who declares that what's going on is Western imperialistic revisions on Japanese culture/history, due to the questionable nature (in Shinjitsunotsuikyu's opinion) of the sources used. I would like to point out that the the majority of the editors involved in the discussion are posting on good faith, and now that the RfC is closed the article currently matches what was determined in the RfC (i.e., The article refers to Yasuke as a samurai.) For anyone reading this, please do not conflate this behavior with the behavior, content, and opinions of the other editors including but not limited to Eirikr and Hexentante. If there is further discussion or disagreements about the RfC I believe there is a proper appeal process as Chrhrns outlined on that Talk page. I will say that the Eirikr and Hexentante, when explaining their positions, have needed to put up with several editors accusing their behavior as wrongful, staunch, original research with little engagement besides these accusations, despite the many attempts by Eirikr and Hexentante to explain otherwise. However the Rfc summary by Chrhrns is fair and I do not take offense to it, as it explains both sides pretty neutrally. This is a very terse summary of my perspective of the Talk page. Lastly, regarding the discussion of whether sources are unreliable (not other topics such as Yasuke's height and sword), I believe most of the discussion conforms to WP:RSCONTEXT and WP:CONTEXTFACTS, not WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS, which is why the discussions were ongoing and did not halt. Green Caffeine (talk) 19:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

By the way, I generally dislike accusing others of wrongful behavior withoit backup and I'm typing this all very fast and perhaps brazenly. If you are not referring to Shinjitsunotsuikyu then please read my comment with that in mind. Green Caffeine (talk) 19:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Re: Soapboxing, I was mostly referring to that particular editor doing it repetitiously after having been warned about it, but also instances which seem to have occurred sporadically on both sides of the debate. Chrhns (talk) 19:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh my god this nonsense again. How about we just block many of these accounts as WP:NOTHERE. CycoMa1 (talk) 19:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

For example, look at Shinjitsunotsuikyu's edit history. They have been here since June and have only contributed on the talk page for Yasuke.CycoMa1 (talk) 19:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Not sure about Wikitionary's policies.CycoMa1 (talk) 19:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

This is the same case for EgiptiajHieroglifoj, 80.106.161.157, 81.223.103.71, Theozilla, and so many other users.CycoMa1 (talk) 19:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Just noting that looking at Theozilla's contribution page, while his recent activity is nothing but Yasuke, he has engaged in content outside of it in the past. Chrhns (talk) 21:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Since the Wiktionary talk page is mine, I feel compelled to comment.

• Re: "accusing others editors of lying and conspiring at fabricating historical truth":

I never outright accuse. I state what it looks like. This is in the context of the other editor refusing to engage in my attempts at conversing with them on Talk:Yasuke about the quality of the tertiary and quaternary sources they reference, and the inappropriateness of using "wikivoice" to state certain details as objective fact, rather than giving those details properly cited as the opinions of the secondary-source authors.

When that editor then edits the Yasuke article to add a detail ("as a samurai") with citations, and those citations do not say anything about that detail, I can only see two logical ways of viewing such a change: incompetence (the editor not noticing that the cited references do not corroborate their point, or not understanding why this is a problem), or intent (the editor noticing that the cited references disagree, and not caring).

• Re: "what appears to be attempts to Status Quo Stonewall as noted here where they begin discussing how to circumvent the RfC consensus before the RfC was even closed when they saw that the votes weren't going in their favor":

You ascribe a lot of bad faith to my actions. The RFC itself was carried out in a very poor manner. The putative point of an RFC is discussion to arrive at consensus: instead, what we had was many people posting a vote, minimal commentary as to why, and in apparent ignorance of past discussions about many of the sources. This was more of a mobbing than a discussion. I was very concerned that this was producing a consensus born of ignorance.

Note too my wording there (emphasis added): "If you have any clear idea on who of the admins to involve in this, to prevent a popularity vote from dictating the article content in contravention of any sane survey of the actual sources, by all means please reach out." My concern is that most of the voters were ignoring past discussions about sources, and often even ignoring attempts to discuss the sources directly with them. I had no intention of "circumventing the RFC consensus": I was hoping to get an admin involved to bring the RFC back on track, to actually get people to discuss.

@Chrhns, through all of this, you have not done anything to talk with me directly.

To then cast aspersions, as you have amply above, is inappropriate. Even more so for an admin.

Please do better. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

As I have said to the other editor when I saw your Wikitionary talk page. I am not, nor have I ever purported or represented myself to be, an admin.. The issues on your Wikitionary talk page are numerous and involving far more users than simply yourself. While there are some links which have not formatted properly, the "lying" was supposed to direct to a post by an IP Address that outright accuses others of lying. As for the source the user cited, the link to the edit you provided directs to the Encyclopedia Britannica article which states "He was the first known foreigner to achieve samurai status". The Smithsonian also calls Yasuke a samurai, as does the time magazine that is sources. You are still accusing the editor of fabrication (and now incompetence) for reasons that elude me. As for the rest of the discussion, I am not here to argue with you, or anyone. I am merely notifying the admins of what appears to be many issues occurring surrounding this article's talk page. When you are discussing finding an admin because you do not like the way an RfC is going, and you are doing it surreptitiously on your Wikitionary talk page, it looks bad. Chrhns (talk) 19:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying your status as non-admin, and I apologize for my mistake. Thank you too for clarifying the "lying" comment, that seemed odd and I noticed the link didn't work.

Re: Britannica, I already laid out why that is a problematic reference in the thread at Talk:Yasuke#Problematic_sources_in_recent_edit_re-introducing_the_troublesome_"samurai"_title, which points have not been refuted to my knowledge.

Re: Smithsonian, TIME, CNN, BBC, etc, these are all tertiary or even quaternary references, which all depend on Lockley's book for any description of Yasuke as a samurai. I'd be happy to post a through analysis of these sources, which I'd already begun drafting a few days ago.

Re: my own view of the other editor's actions as incompetence or intent, I posted my reasoning above. If an editor writes "this is a fact^{ref 1, ref 2}", then I (and I suspect most readers) will take that to mean that "fact" is supported by "ref 1" and "ref 2". If I go and read "ref 1" and "ref 2" and neither say "fact", what else am I supposed to think but that the editor who wrote that is either writing incompetently in not noticing that the references do not support their point, or writing intentionally and misrepresenting the sources? Serious question: if you have a third option for what is going on, please present your thoughts. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 20:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Forgot a point.

Re: "When you are discussing finding an admin because you do not like the way an RfC is going, and you are doing it surreptitiously on your Wikitionary talk page, it looks bad."

I see your point about appearing bad. However, I have had (and have) no ill intent. The thread itself is not hidden, and indeed anyone seeking to converse with me directly at w:User_talk:Eirikr will see my comment there directing anyone to wikt:User_talk:Eirikr.

Specifically about "because you do not like the way an RfC is going", my concern was not that I "didn't like the way it was going", but much more seriously, because it appeared to be an abuse of process. RFCs are supposed to be about discussion and reaching consensus. What happened instead was a popularity vote, with most participants apparently ignorant of, and some even seemingly hostile to, any serious discussion of the sources. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 20:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

To your point about RfC, it has been explained multiple times that an RfC specifically calls in outside, uninvolved people to render a comment (hence "Request for Comment"), there is no obligation to engage in protracted debate of the subject matter at hand. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Responding to an RfC. Specifically, the RfC format used was "Separate votes from discussion" which does carry the notation ((emphasis mine)):

This format encourages respondents to "vote" without engaging in a discussion, sharing alternatives, or developing compromises

While I understand in hindsight that this format seems inadequate, it should he been brought up in the 30+ days the RfC was extant. In short, your complaint about what happened on the RfC is less an "abuse of the process" and more "it did exactly what it was formatted to do". Chrhns (talk) 20:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• I think the "vote" format was inappropriate for the issues with the Yasuke article, but even then, it was not carried out correctly. Even more so if we read more of that same sectionfrom Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Example_formatting#Separate_votes_from_discussion:

Separate votes from discussion If you expect a lot of responses, consider creating a subsection, after your signature, called (for example) "Survey," where people can support or oppose, and a second sub-section called (for example) "Threaded discussion," where people can discuss the issues in depth. You can ask people not to add threaded replies to the survey section, but you can't require people to follow your advice. Editors are permitted to freely refuse your request.

This format encourages respondents to "vote" without engaging in a discussion, sharing alternatives, or developing compromises. It is most suitable for questions with clear yes/no or support/oppose answers, such as "Shall we adopt this policy?". Avoid this style for questions with multiple possible answers, such as "What kinds of images would be suitable for this article?" or "What should the first sentence say?" This style is used for RfCs that attract a lot of responses, but is probably overkill for most RfCs.

The RFC section itself should have explicitly included room for discussion, and the survey should have been in addition to that — if at all, since, as the guideline says, "Avoid this style for questions with multiple possible answers".

An RFC that consists only of a "Survey" section is improperly implemented, per the guidelines. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Adding onto this really quickly, Eirikr and I have given many of the other editors who oppose our arguments multiple chances as a way of giving a fair chance to present their cases as to why these sources are reliable or to at least acknowledge the many apparent issues these sources have, and multiple times, with the exception of a few editors - who then agreed with our concerns even after initially opposing - have they refused to do either. We have implored them multiple times and every time they get ignored (WP:CANTHEARYOU) or brushed off as "editors aren't allowed to analyze sources and their citations" (contrary to WP:REPUTABLE, WP:SOURCEDEF, and WP:CONTEXTFACTS which allows editors to consider the content itself as a factor of reliability and individually pick certain claims as reliable while dismissing others as unreliable in determination of, most easily, whether it is properly cited and if those citations state the facts they claimed).

We do not intend to circumvent anything, however I did not believe that RfC that was just closed was the right method to handle this complex issue. The Japanese language is highly contextual and its written form relies on the context of the conversation, as this can affect the meanings of those words, especially more so when you factor that kanji symbols can often have multiple different pronunciations that are not anywhere close to each other (for example, 米 can mean rice, meter, or USA (kome/yone (archaic), maitre, or bei respectively)). Simply put, editors who make it to out to be black and white without considering the complexity of the language nor the issues of the secondary sources provided, it makes for a very muddy battle. With the way the RfC was going, majority of the Yes votes did not acknowledge these issues, and some outright did not explain their reasoning at all. We cannot have a productive discussion if half of the discussion consists of ignoring each side's point and bad faith accusations. The number of times I have been accused of OR (which initially I did do, I apologized for it due to the fact I am new to Wikipedia as an editor and was not aware, which I have corrected this) even after explaining and providing multiple secondary sources is innumerable. It was an extremely hostile environment for both Eirikr and I, which felt like we were talking to a brick wall.

The main reason for my collaboration with Eirikr is because I recognized his proficiency in Japanese etymology - which he has a long history of on Wikipedia just by looking at his Wiktionary talk page - and believed he was the right person to discuss with in terms of the issue at hand relating to a specified quote in the Shincho Koki that was missing, supposedly from the public eye. Eirikr and I have both made sure to be as thorough as possible, considering all possible avenues before making any decisions on what to do with the quote. The user talk page is public for everyone to see, we have nothing to hide, and we have encouraged participation from other users who have joined in. It would have been preferable to acknowledge the discussion with us directly before making these claims, however this has been resolved as Chrhns understands we mean no ill intent, and I hope other editors who are reading this realizes that as well.

I have made it clear multiple times throughout the talk page, I have been wrong on certain points and apologized for making them. I also made the mistake of assuming Chrhns was an admin, I have apologized this to him and made sure to remove any mention of it. I am very willing to accept the responsibility of my actions, because I am not here to push any view or any agenda. I simply want to present what is verifiable in accordance with the privilege of editors being able to do basic verification on these secondary sources. I have advocated for a positive claim of making Yasuke be referred to as someone who was retained as an attendant, as this was properly cited by some of the secondary sources in the talk page, and it is much easier to prove someone is an attendant by way of noted role and if they are in a lord's service, than it is to claim someone is a samurai, which is an extremely privileged class that was not the default of the Japanese people nor those under a lord's service as the noted existence of the ashigaru that were levied under a lord were named as specifically non-samurai, and Toyotomi Hideyoshi was a prime example of this as was explained in the talk page.

I do not care whether Yasuke was actually a samurai or not, that is not the reason for my involvement in the talk page. I am not looking to reduce Yasuke to less than what he actually was, as some people such as Shinjitsunotsuikyu wanted him to be referred to as a slave, this requires cited reliable sources just as much as the samurai claim does. I am not against Yasuke being stated as a samurai if there were proper citations of him being one. If there was actual proper citation of the samurai claim in these secondary sources, we would not be having this conversation, however that issue still remains and it cannot be ignored.

I will be back to add more to this discussion as I am very busy in my life and I wrote this up really quickly to add to the current claims that Eirikr and I were trying to circumvent the RfC process, accusing others, and tagteaming (which was later cleared up with Chrhns in my user talk page, he was extremely courteous and understanding which I highly appreciate even after my initial mistake). Hexenakte (talk) 20:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I am fluent in Japanese and it is not a complex issue. Reliable sources refer to him as a samurai. Editors attempting to engage in WP:OR because they don't like the conclusions of reliable sources, strikes me as agenda pushing that goes against the spirit of an encyclopedia. Symphony Regalia (talk) 21:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• I see the usual suspects from the talk page are bringing their walls of text over here as well. I will keep things short and to the point (as best as one can with this subject matter). Per the RfC that was closed, there are numerous sources, including a number of academic ones I've previously presented over there, that discuss the subject's history and how he was given the title of samurai. There are no reliable sources that argue otherwise.

Meanwhile, you've got editors like Hexenakte and Eirikr that have made massive threads all across the talk page trying to put in their own WP:OR interpretation of said sources, claiming that the sources aren't reliable because they translated the Japanese wrong or didn't show the primary sources they were using, ect. I've tried to explain to them time and again that editors aren't allowed to be sources and claim their interpretation is the factual one, especially if they don't even have a single reliable source backing their claims. My statements in that regard have fallen on deaf ears time and time again with both of said editors (and they are likely to reply to my comment here with yet another wall of text arguing the same points again). Silverseren^C 21:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

"I see the usual suspects from the talk page are bringing their walls of text over here as well."

Continuing your disparaging ad hominems, I see. Please keep your comments to a discussion of the issues, not the people. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

"Per the RfC that was closed, there are numerous sources, including a number of academic ones I've previously presented over there, that discuss the subject's history and how he was given the title of samurai."

One source in particular contains fabrications: Manatsha's "Historicising Japan-Africa Relations" (available here via Research Gate).

Multiple editors, myself included, described at Talk:Yasuke#Samurai status (among other places) that this reference has serious problems, and is not reliable.

You continued to claim it as a "reliable source", more than once, without addressing any of our concerns.

I put it to you that our descriptions of the issues with this paper, valid and easily confirmable issues, are met with your own stonewalling. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Could this be a WP:CIR issue?CycoMa1 (talk) 21:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• While I haven't read the RFC or brushed up on this issue, I find it odd that this brand new user was the one to close what was evidently a contentious RFC. Aside from a few edits setting up a Wiki Ed course that doesn't seem to have actually happened and updating their userpage, the closer's first substantive edits were to find WP:RFCLOSE, mark it as {{Doing}}, and then close the RFC 6 minutes later. There was roughly an hour between their first edit and the RFC close, the account has never edited mainspace or anything outside of this RFC, and appears to know a lot about the more intricate parts of Wikipedia for someone who has never been a Wikipedia editor. It might be worth taking a second look at this RFC. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

User talk:2600:1006:B038:21B4:7EAA:5EBE:208D:5979

User talk:2600:1006:B038:21B4:7EAA:5EBE:208D:5979 Harassment towards many editrs. Pinging: @PhilKnight can you please revoke talk page access? Thanks. Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 19:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done. PhilKnight (talk) 19:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Admin corruption

This is probably pointless, but I'm still going to try this anyway. I have no clue how to format this so please bear with it: I am trying to add two games to the horror games category, namely System Shock 1 and its remake. Two users then decided that I was wrong, so they reverted my edits that I then reverted back. Afterwards, they each asked me for sources and citations for why they would classify as horror games. I provided both sources and even provided my own arguments for why I think they're horror games. Neither of them wanted to accept those sources and they kept reverting my edits regardless all while refusing to elaborate on why they didn't think they were horror games (except the admin who just tried to move the goalpost after I provided him with a source from the studio and publisher behind the remake that officially classifies it as a horror game). One of them also happens to be an admin so that means my edits are now "disruptive" and that I'm always wrong.

Here is the link to the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Salt12352 the thread isn't that long and it's basically just me and the other two arguing back and forth and it's obvious from reading through who the admin is of the two. The other page I'm referring to that doesn't have a talk page is for the remake of said game. I'll admit that my tone might've seemd a little harsh in the beginning so I apologize for coming off as overtly hostile even though it wasn't my intention, but I guess tone can be hard to convey through the written word. Salt12352 (talk) 19:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@Salt12352 You need to notify the editors, see the top of the page. Doug Weller talk 19:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Not sure how this is related to bribery or corruption Trade (talk) 19:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

What is the incident here? They added incorrect categories and they seem disagree with WP:CATDEF. Masem left one message. This seems like an overblown reaction. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 19:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The incident is the reporter's refusal to properly use talk pages. If anything, this should be a WP:3RR block. IceWelder [✉] 19:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:OWB#37. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@Salt12352, what you were told is that the article must contain verifiable content that supports it being added to a specific category, and that there is no mention of "horror" in System Shock. It's that simple. Work on the article's talk page to get consensus to incorporate the reliable sources' description of the game as horror, and then it will qualify for that category. There is no "corruption". Schazjmd (talk) 19:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: I've shortened the header because it was way too long. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: And I've posted a 3RR warning. I hope everybody will keep in mind that Salt12352 is a very new user. Bishonen | tålk 20:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC).

In the video game area,broadly genre applies to gameplay aspects and not the narrative genre as it would for films or books. While System Shock and other games can be sourced to be in the narrative genre of "Sci Fi horror", which Salt provided, that doesn't automatically make the game a horror game in terms of gameplay, and I'm not aware of any sources that call it a horror game in terms of its gameplay. It's a nuance of terminology and I tried to explain that to Salt. — Masem (t) 20:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Emilia Clarke

It is ridiculous, I started an SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DemisLittleWarrior, but the talk page at Emilia Clarke is gotten a bit extreme now with multiple socks, ducks! etc. And the revert back to the horrible image I don't like against one person's crusade with socks... :/ Maybe an admin can shut down this case and restore the older image? Govvy (talk) 20:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

This looks like a very inept attempt at sock-/meatpuppetry. And of course the image they're pushing is horrible. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I think you need to notify people, admittedly I'm not sure if it's every account, but I don't think notifying no one is enough in this case. 2804:F1...7A:B4D (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

User:WestTNConfederate

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

Username implies support for the American confederacy, coupled with a confederate-supporting quote by southern general Patrick Cleburne on the user page, with few contributions I would support a block per WP:HID. Bestagon ⬡ 20:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)