Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at 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

Venkat TL mass page moves

Since the last topic ban from DYK on 5 May, [1], Venkat TL has been doing mass page moves despite a couple of warnings to stop it. The first warning was mild and another warning was final. However, none of these warnings helped Venkat TL to stop.

In just 1 month, Venkat TL has made over 16,000 such page moves that are nothing but WP:DE because his page moves have no basis other than a "proposed" convention over which multiple editors have disagreed with Venkat TL.[2]

The participants of the last ANI thread assumed that this user's disruption won't stop with just a topic ban from DYK.[3] I agree they were correct. Srijanx22 (talk) 16:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

• Context thread: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indian_politics#Constituency_titles
• This was debated for 7 months at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/India-related articles.
• Another 4 months of debate occurred at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indian_politics#Constituency_titles
• This proposal came out after above debates and discussions at WikiProject India and WikiProject Indian politics. Please refer to the Proposal thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian politics#Proposal_:_Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_Indian_constituencies
• The proposal was advertised as advised by the the debate participants of that time at WP:Noticeboard for India#Assembly_constituencies_article_title, |WP:Noticeboard for India# Proposal : Wikipedia:Naming conventions Indian constituencies. Along with Wikiproject talk pages of all Indian states and major cities, like WikiProject Delhi#Proposal : Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_Indian_constituencies [4] [5] and so on.
• A previous discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/India-related articles where this discussion had occurred in past was also notified duly. At that time 'all places where I could think of, and others could think of, were notified.
• After 2 months of voting on the proposal there was a Consensus with 7 supports and one oppose. After the discussion had petered out with clear consensus, The proposal was implemented accordingly. --Venkat TL (talk) 17:15, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

But still none of this fulfilled the actual requirement you were told about some 11 days ago[6] which you recognized[7] but you are still continuing your page moves without fulfilling the requirement. Srijanx22 (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

• On different occasions, by different editors, Venkat TL was reminded that propsal is not formally closed, and it is not a policy yet. They were also asked to stop moving pages. They should have stopped. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
• Further context: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Proposal for new article title naming convention - RfC or local consensus, Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 189#Wikipedia:Naming Conventions, and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Indian constituencies) — especially the two RMs. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:30, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
  • After your !Vote I, put the implementation on hold, stopped moving new pages and focused on fixing the disambiguation pages. There was no votes in those threads for another 10 days, so I re-started the moves yesterday.
  • I also noticed that you were admin shopping 12 days ago and have older axes to grind. Venkat TL (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

    @Venkat TL no votes doesn't mean it is ok to just go ahead and do whatever you think it is ok. let someone close the discussions and move on from there. You were jumping the gun. – robertsky (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

    Look, the proposal had been open for 2 months and had clear consensus, which is why I proceeded. In my opinion 2 months is a good long time for an open discussion to judge the consensus. that said, I have no problem to wait for another 2 months. I will not make any more moves. Venkat TL (talk) 17:53, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Venkat TL: you still havent answered why you started moving pages again. You were very well aware that the proposal was contested. There is difference between not badgering, and going unresponsive/avoiding scrutiny. It is looking like you are doing the latter. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:52, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  My openening comment in that thread was "Hi. If there is an RfC regarding a policy change, and it is tainted, what will be the appropriate venue to ask for a procedural close? Given the editor who started it is retired. AN, or ANRFC? —usernamekiran (talk) 19:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC) I was asking for next appropriate step. That is not admin shopping at all. I didn't even mention you, or the RfC. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

• Venkat TL Can you explain the moves from, for example, Chittorgarh (Lok Sabha constituency) to Chittorgarh Lok Sabha constituency. Because the former looks natural to me. If you can supply reliable sources that show that the latter is the well known form, then everything is OK. If you can't, then we have a major problem. Black Kite (talk) 18:30, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

• Black Kite, you are asking to discuss content dispute here. It would be off topic, but since you have asked, here you go. Please look at the quotes below from reliable sources. Please refer to the explanation of WP:NATURAL that I have made on the proposal page (link). These quotes below show how the constituency is commonly referred to in mainstream reliable sources.

• If a Rajput candidate is fielded in the adjoining Chittorgarh Lok Sabha constituency, chances are a Brahmin would be fielded here and vice-versa. Mar 17, Geetha Sunil Pillai / TNN /. "Rajsamand seat too complicated for caste equations | Jaipur News - Times of India". The Times of India. Retrieved 23 May 2022.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

• Chittorgarh Lok Sabha constituency comprises of following Vidhan Sabha (legislative assembly) segments. "Chittorgarh Lok Sabha Constituency, Rajasthan: Current MP, Candidates, Polling Date and Election Results". Newsd.in. Retrieved 23 May 2022.

• Ladpura and Ramganj Mandi Assembly seats were added from Chittorgarh Lok Sabha seat in 2008. "Lok Sabha Election 2019, Rajasthan profile: With BJP having all seats, Congress faces tough fight ahead; Bikaner, Dausa key seats-Politics News , Firstpost". Firstpost. 4 April 2019. Retrieved 23 May 2022.

• Vallabhnagar and Mavli Assembly seats were moved to Chittorgarh Lok Sabha constituencyin 2008. "Lok Sabha Election 2019, Phase 4 today: State-wise guide to constituencies going to polls and election schedule-Politics News , Firstpost". Firstpost. 29 April 2019. Retrieved 23 May 2022.

Venkat TL (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

• Black Kite I may have not pinged correctly in my reply. Venkat TL (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
• Chittorgarh is the name of a geographical entity (a settlement). "Chittorgarh Lok Sabha constituency" is the name of the entity related to elections. The border of the geographical entity is never the same as the Lok Sabha constituency, though they may have some overlap. The bit "Lok Sabha constituency" is not just an attribute, it is an essential part of the name. When you just say "Place" for example Chittorgarh, it will be understood as the geographical entity (city), Never as constituency unless you mention it clearly. One has to mandatorily state the full name Chittorgarh Lok Sabha constituency if they are talking about the constituency. The examples from the reliable sources above show this. Wikipedia disambiguation guideline WP:NATURAL says According to the above-mentioned precision criterion, when a more detailed title is necessary to distinguish an article topic from another, use only as much additional detail as necessary... Natural disambiguation: Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title...Comma-separated disambiguation. With place names, if the disambiguating term is a higher-level administrative division, it is often separated using a comma instead of parentheses. The suffix "Lok Sabha constituency" or "Assembly constituency" serve as WP:NATURAL disambiguation from the city name, so they do not need to be inside brackets. The parenthesis also add an overhead of extra work to add the piped links whenever using the constituency name in prose. The piping issue due to disambiguation bracket is huge. there are close to 4120 Indian assembly constituencies and 545 Lok Sabha constituencies. Each of them gets linked on an average 100 times on Wikipedia. That is 5,00,000 unnecessary piped links. This is exponential damage and waste of efforts which can be saved by dropping the unnecessary bracket. I face this issue everyday while working on constituency and biography articles. Venkat TL (talk) 07:21, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

erm... So you decided to move thousands of pages while multiple editors had asked you to stop it — because you found the current naming system a little out of your comfort zone during article editing, while knowing it (the moves) will mean editing around 500,000 links? Actually, it is your page moves that are "exponential damage and waste of efforts". This is nothing but WT:DYK incident all over again: proposing changes to policy because you dont like it, not listening to other editors, casting aspersions, battleground behaviour, and now moving thousands of pages even when told to stop. Thats nothing but disruptive behaviour. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

That's my take too. This is simple disruption and unless I see a genuine reason for editing 500,000 links here apart from WP:ILIKEIT, I don't see any other option here but to prevent Venkat TL from causing any more damage. Black Kite (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I think they have already moved almost all the pages of that field. —usernamekiran (talk) 02:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Other than wikipedia and its mirrors, very few sources use brackets (I chose a constituency that has received more coverage). I haven't gone through every category in Category:Constituencies_by_country, but even on Wikipedia, a lot of constituency articles do not use brackets (see for eg, US, Mexico, France, Australia, Srilanka, Philippines) Hemantha (talk) 04:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@Hemantha: Hello. "appropriate title" is not the main point here. The proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian politics#Proposal : Wikipedia:Naming conventions Indian constituencies was disputed at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Indian constituencies)#Proposal state, Venkat TL was aware of that (they participated in the latter discussion), later DaxServer expressed their concerns about the process of the proposal at Proposal for new article title naming convention - RfC or local consensus|village pump - policy. In that discussion there were only four participants including Venkat TL, and three of them were in favour of a fresh RfC. Venkat TL was reminded a few times that the "proposal" was not formally closed yet, a fresh RfC was required, and the proposal wa not accepted/converted as policy yet. Still, Venkat TL performed mass moves, which were being discussed/disputed, that is simply put - not listening to fellow editors (WP:IDHT?), and disruptive. For someone who quotes/brings up policies, guidelines, and essays so often, saying "I did it because there was no participation in a long time" is not acceptable. —usernamekiran (talk) 08:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes I think enforcing edits without consensus, ignoring warnings, doing mass moves while ignoring complaints on talk page and denying any wrongdoing even after the complaint here is disruptive and does not guarantee any assurance since enough damage has been already done. Srijanx22 (talk) 04:22, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I see Venkat TL was provided with page mover user right on 15 April 2022 by Swarm. I think this user right should be removed because of the abuse documented in this report. Srijanx22 (talk) 15:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

accountability/communication is a very important thing on wikipedia. Not responding here even after a ping shows lack of it. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:10, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

• Hm, as best as I can tell, per WP:RFCEND Venkat should have formally closed the discussion, but involved users are explicitly allowed to implement a clear consensus themselves in an RfC. I do think that this was the case here. So I don't see the discussion not being closed to be an issue. That leaves the matter of whether the proposal was sufficiently exposed to the community, per WP:AT and WP:PROPOSAL. While the proposal was not advertised at village pump, it was extensively advertised to the community, and that's a pretty strong consideration as well. Mass changes are almost always contentious to some extent, and it's good to have community oversight in these situations. But I do find Venkat's defense here reasonable. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with you on the first part. But when the proposal was disputed, and there were suggestions for starting a fresh RfC, at that time Venkat TL should have listned to fellow editors, and should have stopped moving pages. —usernamekiran (talk) 05:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

  It all boils down to whether the objections were legitimate in the first place, i.e. whether the fact that this wasn't posted to village pump is enough to consider the discussion illegitimate, in spite of extensive community notification efforts. I would say the letter of the law was violated, but the spirit of the law was satisfied. Is that enough? According to WP:NOTBUREAU, WP:5P5, and WP:IAR...yes, actually. This is a complicated situation, Venkat failed to follow the proper procedure of advertising the RfC, he failed to close the RfC and initiated an involved mass move (which, again, is allowed, but a bad look altogether), then didn't stop when objections were raised. On my first reading, I was on the same page as the other outraged admins. I considered immediately revoking PM, even procedurally prior to looking into it, and then I strongly considered blocking. However, after actually vetting Venkat's argument against policy requirements as objectively as possible, everything seems to check out. Venkat TL should implement the formal close since he's already de facto formalized it, but his doing so, in my reading, was allowed.

  I'm not saying the dispute should be considered resolved. Let me be clear, there is never anything preventing you from immediately starting your own RfC with whatever proposal you want, you can do it right now. If a new RfC is needed, then hold a new RfC, and make sure the proper procedures are followed to avoid future drama. The naming dispute clearly is just as alive as ever and I doubt we're going to solve that here. But this is just my response to a ping with a request that Vinkat's PM user rights be revoked. In response to that request, I conclude there is no violation. But this is a community noticeboard, anyone is free to disagree with me. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 23:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with you on the first part. What I am saying is they should have stopped when multiple editors had asked them to, no matter the reason. As they said above themselves, they stopped for a while, and then resumed it. And then there is their overall attitude. —usernamekiran (talk) 04:35, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

  a closure is requested. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

• @Venkat TL: there was nothing sneaky with my edit, stop accusing other editors. You were asked a few questions here, and you were also pinged, yet you didn't respond. But you saw my "sneaky" edit. Would you kindly respond to the questions posed here? —usernamekiran (talk) 08:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

• Venkat TL is now engaging in the same obfuscation at 2022 BJP Muhammad remarks controversy where he is being a lone edit warrior, retaining his POV but opposing the content he does not like.[8] He happens to be throwing a bad argument and then throwing it over and over even after getting rebuked. This has happened multiple times on this particular subject. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 08:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

  These things bear no relation to one another. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

• Bump. Levivich 15:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
• I can't comment on the procedural element to this, and not following procedure is not great, but (thinking WP:NOTBURO) isn't Venkat 100% right on the actual naming - the use of the brackets just doesn't seem to have any grounding in actual practical usage, and the available sources, short of circular linking back to Wikipedia, appear to entirely validate these page moves. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Iskandar323: Hi. Like I have mentioned in my previous comments in this thread, it is not about the accuracy of article titles. It is about going against consensus. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

  I don't see Venkat clearly going against consensus, only the requests to stop/wait. The RFC, though unclosed, was firmly in support of the changes. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

  yes. But there were at least at least five editors who objected to the moves/RfC. Under such circumstances Venkat TL should have stopped. When the proposal itself was disputed, the firm support to that proposal becomes disputed/immaterial as well. Venkat TL should have stopped. —usernamekiran (talk) 16:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

  There is no point saying he should have stopped more than 20 days after the fact. Swarm, a veteran perm admin did not find any sanction worthy violation in Venkat TL's actions. Venkat TL is a highly productive editor who has done a lot of good improving Wikipedia's content related to India. I recommend closing this thread as no action necessary. 2409:4071:D0A:78D1:0:0:43C8:108 (talk) 15:15, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

  Every ANI thread is created after the incident. This one was created soon after the incident. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

  bump —usernamekiran (talk) 22:26, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

  bump —usernamekiran (talk) 17:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

An urgent report about a user:折毛's hoaxes

Hello English Wikipedia sysops, I am sorry to write this report in such a hasty way. During the inspection on Chinese wiki, we found that a user 折毛 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has written a lot of false information, and most of his references are fictitious. The local discussion is on [here]. After a cross-wiki check, we found similar problems with her contributions to the English wiki, with the following specific articles --PAVLOV (talk) 15:04, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

with the following specific articles. What articles?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Siege_of_Borovsk, False Dmitry I#Death and Vasili IV of Russia#Life PAVLOV (talk) 15:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Siege_of_Borovsk, couldn't be found on any search engine.

Due to the absence of the corresponding text and the user's previous contribution was a mixture of genuine and fake content, such as hoaxes and original research. We have to request the community to help with the verification process and ask for help from Russian-speaking users and who are familiar with Russian History. Thanks again! PAVLOV (talk) 15:07, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy @葉又嘉, Antigng, Outlookxp, 如沐西风, and Ericliu1912: those who found 折毛's hoaxes on Chinese Wikipedia. PAVLOV (talk) 15:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Siege of Borovsk is a pretty blatant hoax. Someone who was supposed to be killed during that siege wasn't even born, and there were no people of that name being princes during that time. It isn't even a well-crafted hoax and I am astonished that it passed draft review.Lurking shadow (talk) 16:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

There is ru:Волконский, Михаил Константинович Хромой, who according to the article died in the year and place mentioned. 82.132.185.134 (talk) 16:52, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

That was the name in the article, but a link to Mikhail Volkonsky was added by the reviewer in a "cleanup" edit and the Russian name was removed by another editor. 82.132.185.134 (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I have presumptively removed the content added by 折毛 to the other two articles, since they were specifically named by PAVLOV and could not access the book sources directly. WikiProject Russia has been notified of this discussion because most of 折毛's edits are about Russian history. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:56, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Another affected article: Chinese Wikipedia article zh:远东华人强制流配 is created by 折毛, it also passed the FAC on Chinese Wikipedia in 2021. The article was translated into English as Deportation of Chinese in the Soviet Union. Now our community found this articles contains many fictitious information, many informain in this article was not mentioned by the sources it cites (see discussion on Chinese Wikipedia). Since the English article is translated from the Chinese article, the English article may also have this problem, I wish the English community to help with the verification, Thanks a lot! (I am not good at English, I feel sorry if my words are difficult to understand) BlackShadowG (talk) 02:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@BlackShadowG Hi, sorry for the interruption. Have you found any other articles be translated from Chinese Wikipedia with hoaxes into here? PAVLOV (talk) 09:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I haven't found it yet, and it takes time to check because there are so many affected Chinese articles. BlackShadowG (talk) 06:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

A summary of the project to remove hoaxes has been created at Wikipedia:Fabricated Articles and Hoaxes of Ancient Russia in 2022 by Beta Lohman (talk · contribs), but the grammar is poor and requires copyediting. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:40, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessary to create such a summary page in this wiki, as this incident has much less influence here. --№.N (talk) 03:58, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I see the merit of this page. It allows quick sharing of findings without opening a case each time there's a positive hit. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

DietCokeFeast long-term disruption on Pescetarianism

• DietCokeFeast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Pescetarianism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

DietCokeFeast has been disrupting the pescetarianism article for over a year and other related articles to semi-vegetarianism/vegetarianism and other diets such as the pollotarianism for well over a year. This user refuses to use talk-pages and has ignored many warnings on their user-page and on talk-pages. DietCokeFeast ignores WP:MEDRS and frequently adds original research, personal commentary, primary sources, unreliable blogs and other dubious material as references. The most annoying thing is that when these are removed by other editors this user just re-adds similar sources and never apologizes or engages on the talk-page. The same user also messes up a lot of their edits with poor MOS and templates and bad grammar. It is taking a lot of work to clean up after them. I want to point out this issue has been going on for a year and a half, not a few weeks. Myself and two other users have pinged DietCokeFeast and left them messages but they never respond.

DietCokeFeast has been editing the pescetarianism article since February 2021. In that time practically every edit they have made to the article has been reverted. Occasionally they add a reliable source but the majority of what they add is unreliable. Their over-all productivity is having a bad net influence because their edits leave the article in a worse state than before, they are not improving the article. DietCokeFeast and on another account MemaidenModus tried to re-write large sections of the article twice from a bad POV with many dodgy sources. If you check the editing history of pescetarianism I have not seen any other article quite like it. Usually disruptive editors actually engage talk-page warnings but this user deliberately never responds.

I strongly suspect that DietCokeFeast is the blocked user Zalgo who used many sock-puppets to push the carnivore diet on Wikipedia but has now switched gears and is promoting fish diets. The SPI [9] was stale so could not use CU data but DietCokeFeast at a minimum has been using an IP and another account in the past to edit the pescetarianism article from a POV.

If you check their own talk-page you will see warnings that users have left [10] (I left one in March 2021). The response has been silence from DietCokeFeast, ignoring any advice. The same has happened on multiple talk-pages going back a year. If you check the history of the pescetarianism article you will see a long-history of the bad editing they have done [11]. The same bad editing has spilled out on other diet articles (many others need to be checked), for example they made a mess on the Fried potatoes article adding unreliable material. It is the same thing every time.

If you go back 500 edits on the pescetarianism article [12] you can see how disruptive DietCokeFeast's edits have been. If this issue had been reported sooner I suspect they would have been blocked by now but they have received advice and warnings but do not respond. I believe that this user should been topic-banned from editing anything related to dieting. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

We do block people for failure to communicate. I suggest that the option of a block be considered here. The fact that nearly all of DietCokeFeast's edits at Pescetarianism are being reverted (per the above) indicates that their participation on that article is not helpful. I'm leaving them a notice of this ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 03:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Comment - If an editor is adding referenced content that is getting reverted, and then adds similar content with a different source, we are in "content dispute territory". There is also the possibility that ownership of an article is being claimed here. I would suggest that either this is thrashed out at talk page or WikiProject level, and I would encourage DietCokeFeast to engage in such a process, or that a thorough examination of all editors' editing needs to be made before the validity of this complaint can be established. Mjroots (talk) 12:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

It has not been possible to discuss it on the talk-page with DietCokeFeast because they deliberately do not reply. If you check the talk-page of the pescetarianism article including the archive, there have been various attempts to contact and ping DietCokeFeast about their bad editing going back more than a year but they never reply. They just turn up again on the article weeks later adding similar unreliable material. There was a recent SPI against DietCokeFeast and they logged in and and were editing whilst that was going on but never replied even whilst being notified [13] which is odd to say the least. The only message I have seen them type on a talk-page was a bizarre rant here [14] Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

EdJohnston, would you consider blocking DietCokeFeast? The user logs in but continues to ignore any message on their talk page, pings or article talk-page comments (even about this discussion). DietCokeFeast obviously saw the recent pings and talk-page comments on their own page but yet again ignores and does not respond. It's the same pattern that has been going on for a year and a half. I would point out that DietCokeFeast has yet again added an unreliable primary source to an article [15] this morning, linking to an unavailable YouTube Video and adding personal commentary that Apu Nahasapeemapetilon is a vegan (he isn't) with poor spelling mistakes "In the same episode learn we learn he is apparently good friends with Linda McCartney and Paul McCartney". It is the same thing over and over - an unreliable source or primary source, original research and personal commentary with spelling mistakes put onto article. The user has been called out about this type of editing many times and has been reverted but just does the same thing again and again on the article or a different one days or weeks later. I believe this issue needs to be resolved. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I have found this user to be persistent with opinion editing, use of dubious sources, and careless style and grammar WP:MOS on various articles about diets. Every edit needs to be checked and re-edited or reverted, with no engagement on the user's talk page or article talk page. I recommend a WP:TBAN on diet-related articles and edits. There is sufficient history to indicate that DietCokeFeast is both a sock master of other usernames and IP addresses, and a soapbox advocate for vegetarian diets, WP:SOAP. Zefr (talk) 20:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Psychologist Guy, consider explaining your edit of Pescetarianism on the article talk page. It is possible that Youtube might be acceptable for that usage. (Apu is a fictional character, and we allow people to use the show itself as a source if the plot has to be described). But let me know if you notice User:DietCokeFeast getting into revert wars on diet-related articles. EdJohnston (talk) 17:59, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Our Lady of Medjugorje

• Our Lady of Medjugorje (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Red Rose 13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Governor Sheng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Red Rose 13 started editing Our Lady of Medjugorje back in 2019. The reason for they starting editing here is my effort to rearrange the article, apparently without prior discussion. So I agreed to discuss the whole issue with them and thought there's a possibility for us to make this article a GA [16]. I was wrong.

At first, they doubted me misusing sources when I would translate them from Croatian (Talk:Our Lady of Medjugorje/Archive 2#Google Translating to English?), but when it turned out my translations were authentic, they continued doing that for which they accused me - Using google translator to translate from Croatian In regards to your concern about translating. I have been using Google Translate or Bing Translate to be able to read this pdf. If you want feel free to double-check me."; they using google or bing is way older than that, but this is one of the comments they mention that). So we went through that charade where I spent hours re-translating, inviting other Croatian-speaking editors to check me, only to see that Red Rose 13 has been using google as a translator (nota bene I'm not using google translate, I'm a native speaker and well versed in English).

The initial issue was - as I said - me rearranging the article, ie doing major changes, without prior discussion. Nota bene, when I first started editing the article, most editors were quite disinterested in that subject, so I felt there was not much to discuss (boy I was wrong). Because, then, this hell broke loose. Red Rose 13 rearranged the whole article without any discussion, especially when they noticed I'm not around.

So, I was inactive from 9 October 2021 to 9 January 2022 [17]. Let's look at the history of Our Lady of Medjugorje in that period [18]. Article totally rearranged without any discussion.

Maybe the best description of their editing here is this.

Not only that but Red Rose 13 edits the articles exclusively I'm involved with. These are limited to: Our Lady of Medjugorje, Jozo Zovko, Pavol Hnilica, Frane Franić, Tomislav Vlašić, Pavao Žanić.

That in itself might not be problematic if it didn't involve malicious editing.

Namely, both of us were recently blocked for 24hrs for edit warring. After the block ended Red Rose started bullying and malicious editing.

This, this, this and this are the examples in only last two days.

Ever since the block ended I noticed this passive-aggressive stance from them with comments "let's work as a team", and then they went on to rampage to call me out to fix some shit at Romanis Pontificibus, an article I made 1 edit in total back in 2020, and to fix some refs I haven't even added on other articles Talk:Catholic Church response to the Medjugorje apparitions#Reference Issues; reverted my edit because she thought it was "my mistake"; changed the meaning of the sentence I added, misusing the source (visible at the Our Lady of Medjugorje talk page), and what not.

Now, parce mihi Domine quia Dalmata sum, I did this.

My opinion is that Red Rose somehow tried to "press" me with these ref fixes because they saw this discussion on the talk page. And then they joined in with comments like: "Governor Sheng. You have had enough time to see these comments. Please correct your errors."; "Governor Sheng. You just did massive edits on Our Lady of Medjugorje with some source called Gontermann 2021 and you used the short form reference and did not add any cites for this link. It needs to be fixed immediately."; "Do you plan on fixing it within 24 hours?". These aren't "friendly" questions, but imposing ultimatums.

We've been quarreling over Our Lady of Medjugorje for three, and it exploded on other pages I edit as well. Red Rose 13's talk page is filled with complaints from other editors [19], so I know I'm not crazy here. User:Manannan67 has also been editing Our Lady of Medjugorje and has encountered similar issues with this editor. --Governor Sheng (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I was in the middle of preparing a post for ANI about this situation, but Governor Sheng has beaten me to it. So here is my take/history.

I would like to ask for the eyes and opinions of more administrators on the editing at Our Lady of Medjugorje and related articles, and in particular the tendentious behaviour of User:Red Rose 13 and User:Governor Sheng. There has been a very long, 3 year history of conflict between these two editors including in December 2020 a declined request for arbitration. [20]]; in Dec 2020 Third opinion request, which I answered.[21]; in April 2021 DRN: [22][23]; February 2022 I fully protected for edit warring [24] and warned them ; two days ago, I blocked both of them for days of edit warring. Now they are immediately back at it again the tendentious editing, including reverting, insulting and accusations against each other.

A quick look at the main article will show a bloated, virtually incomprehensible article which is the result of the editing of these two editors. Other editors (including myself) are quickly exhausted and give up. Dispute resolution has gone nowhere, multiple times.

In case it helps, here is my understanding of the topic. In the 1980s some teenagers claimed that they received and in some cases are still receiving messages from the Virgin Mary. The Catholic Church is divided in its response. Some are convinced, but some local bishops/clerics, were cautious/unconvinced, particularly when "Mary" came out against them in an ongoing internal local church dispute (the bishops vs local Franciscans). The place has become an massive pilgrimage site, and lots of money and power/prestige are at play.

As noted above, I first became involved via a third opinion request in December 2020. My experience is that many disputes can be resolved by using the best possible sources, so I spent several months attempting to coach them about how identify good quality, independent secondary sources and to make an outline.[25] I even attempted to model how to source and write one of the sections of the article, but I soon realized that there was little hope that either of them would take up the mantle and actually write a neutral well-sourced article.

From my observation:

• User:Red Rose 13 would like to include as much positive information and endless detail about the alleged apparitions and the 'seers'. They have had problems with plagiarism, use of poor sources, synthesis.[26][27] they edit war [28][29]and posts walls of text to talk page [30] They are pointy, following Governor Sheng to articles to post complaints [31][32]. In my view, Governor Sheng's concerns about possible harassment are legitimate.
• In contrast, User:Governor Sheng would like to reduce the fancruft bloat (understandable) but replace it with inappropriate negative/skeptical detail from the bishops’ perspective. They are frequently rude/dismissive/uncollegial. [33][34][35] They edit war.[36][37][38] However, to my mind, what is most impeding progress on the article is that the sources used for this are primary, involved sources written and published by the clerics/dioceses directly involved in the dispute e.g. Ratko Perić;Pavao Žanić;Dražen Kutleša) and Nicolas Bulat. When evaluating the sources, I recommended that these primary, non-independent sources only be used with extreme caution, particularly as living persons are involved. Governor Sheng has repeatedly tried get other answers at RSN [39][40][41], and despite never getting a clear green light, to this day continues to pronounce that the sources are fine to use.[42] [43] A quick look at the reference list of the Our Lady of Medjugorje shows just how frequently they are used. In contrast, he has tried to get other secondary sources dismissed because they are "biased" (in the opposite direction, of course).[44]. I should mention that there are many independent high quality secondary sources that could be used to write the article in the level of detail needed for an encyclopedia article.

On a positive note, on my talkpage yesterday, Governor Sheng accepted fault in editwarring, and wondered if they should both be blocked for a month.[45] I won't go that far, but I do think perhaps if they were both topic banned for 3-6 months of so, it would give a chance to other editors to clean up the article in relative peace. Your thoughts on this or any other solutions? Slp1 (talk) 15:43, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I was preparing a response explaining the problems I see with Governor Shengs references when you posted Slp1. I think your idea to topic ban us would be a relief. (Would that include the OLM and its related pages? If you go to bottom of page and click on OLM, it shows all the related pages) And if you were to oversee the page as editors clean it up, would allow me to let go. Also btw I am not "following" GSheng to post about the references on the OLM related pages. I have been watching all the OLM pages for a very long time and do edit on most of them as well. They are all interconnected and not owned by GSheng. Also a reference problem was being discussed on his talk page which gave me concern and I thought it was important to look at all the OLM pages to see if there were problems there to. I thought I was being helpful to list the problems that needed fixing and leave it on the talk page rather than take it to his personal talk page. I was not being malicious. I am just so burned out that I am beyond frustration. It has affected my personal life with the stress. Also I find positive posts from secondary sources to counteract/balance out the large amount of negativity using primary sources that is on the page. Perhaps I over did it. Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

It is important to point out that the article by Mato Zovkic is also a primary source because he was appointed to Zanics commission as noted in his article. Translated from page 77 in the last part of the first paragraph. "Furthermore, I was not very interested in Medugorje until the Bishop of Mostar, Pavao Žanic, appointed me a member of the Episcopal Commission for Research of Events in the Parish of Medugorje." [[46]]Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:18, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Lots of discussion on the article's talk page but unproductive. It's kind of like a pendulum: one perceives the other going in one direction so goes a bit further in the other to counterbalance, which results in the first going further yet in the first direction to counterbalance etc etc etc. I think Slp1's idea to pban both from the article for awhile to give other editors space to work on it would be the best solution for the article. Schazjmd (talk) 16:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I can completely see how this happens. Wikipedia attracts/has an institutional bias in favour of scepticism. You can't fight them all, sometimes you need to put yourself first and withdraw. Secretlondon (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I haven't looked at all the ins and outs of this particular article, but must say that scepticism (towards anything, including claimed visionaries and the established church) is a lack of bias, and part of a neutral point of view. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I don't think the skepticism/faith balance of the article is the real problem here: the actual issue is the longterm breaching of multiple policies, including NPOV. Many editors with a point of view can and do edit without problem as their edits reflect "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." And that has not been happening. Slp1 (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

And again... [47]. This kind of behaviour shouldn't be welcomed on Wikipedia. As I said these kind of requests from Red Rose 13 are malicious. So, I noticed everytime Red Rose 13 goes around, maliciously editing here and there, they complain how "they're stressed". This kind of hypocritical behaviour was explained earlier - they call me to work as a team, then afterward call me out on so many articles to do some fixes (the articles I barely edited), giving ultimatums and requests. This was a subject of previous discussions here, where they talk how they're "becoming a nervous wreck and I don't think editing on Wikipedia should cause so much stress.", to which another editor responded with: "Other comments: Red Rose, you do not have the competence to judge who is or is not capable of reading, writing, speaking, or translating from Croatian. English sources are preferred, not mandatory. I am incensed by your attempts to portray Sheng as a danger to you. If anything, they've been unnecessarily patient with your insulting conduct.". I'm just saying - there's a very, very long history of them "chasing" after me, and then portraying themselves as some kind of victim of harassment. I intended to stay away from this discussion, and let others conclude what they can (I could have been subjective and accuse someone too harshly), but this just doesn't stop, even after reporting the incident(s). --Governor Sheng (talk) 21:04, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I have been editing sporadically in this general area since about 2014 and made Catholic Church response to the Medjugorje apparitions "easier to read", according to its Talk page. (I'm not sure it still is.) much of this could be trimmed, as it's already covered there, as well as under Herzegovina Affair. I have not done so, as I am not particularly interested in engaging in endless, pointless debate.

I have had little direct contact with Governor Shang, probably (because I am not conversant in Croatian), but I have on a number of occasions simply walked away from the article currently under discussion for extended periods of time due to difficulty in editing with Red Rose 13. While she frequently quotes wiki guidelines, I find her application of same woefully subjective. Apparently if a known publisher decides he can sell a book about Medjugorge, that makes it RS regardless of the author's qualifications. Kengor is a political hack with no apparent experience in the Balkan political scene. (Next, I expect to see that the moon landing was done on blue screen.) Continued to push Mart Bax as RS even after being referred to Bax's article where he is discredited. A litany of hearsay, and in some instances suspect, "private" endorsements by JPII which cannot be verified, but have been contradicted. Red Rose 13 focuses on the visionaries and the alleged apparitions with little or no interest in context or ramifications. If a source supports her views, it's RS.

An inability to grasp the influence of Croat nationalism in either the timing of the apparitions, nor the funds generated from the pilgrims and directed through the Hercegovačka banka to the ultra-nationalist HDZ. ("I am wondering if a couple of sentences couldn't be put in the Political section under Background and then link to the Medjugorje page for the bulk of the information? We are trying to keep the page organized and streamlined."[!]) If anyone thinks Vatican oversight is only to do with "pastoral concerns", I have a bridge in Brooklyn in which you might be interested. I wouldn't be at all surprised if someone at SFOR dropped a hint.

It's an interesting and nuanced subject. I listed a half-dozen fine sources but to no avail, The article at present is a waste. Like so many others I just can't be bothered and leave. Manannan67 (talk) 22:31, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I am not comfortable bashing fellow editors but I do need to say something in my defense. Fyi... GSheng is referring to his edits on the Jozo Zovko page where he edit bombed Sullivans(secondary source) citations with a citation needed tags. I spent many months looking at every single edit and every single source to check for distortions in editing. I found many with Governor Sheng and a couple with Manannan 67 and when I found them I would correct it and then either leave what happened in the edit comments or mentioned on the talk page. They would either leave out critical information from the source or not reflect what was in the source and write their own bias. This just happened with GSheng as you can see on the talk page. In regards to our discussion about Max, I took Manannan67 objections and found a link that supported what Manannan 67 was alluding to and I removed the reference. He forgot to tell you that. I completely support reliable secondary sources even when I don't like what it is saying. I don't know what he is talking about that he presented many sources but to no avail. GSheng actually reverted one of Manannan67 edits thinking it was mine and ridiculed his source. Also I use a primary source for basic information like OConnell because she had basic information about the seers that others did not have. I never removed a post using a secondary book source from this page. Just because I ask a question about what someone is posting, doesn't mean I am trying to block it from the page. The rest of Manannan67's judgements are so off base, I don't feel a need to respond. If an editor is upset because I post something positive on the page using a reliable source, to me that just shows their bias. Thanks for listening. I am looking forward to the page being trimmed way back and will watch in delight.Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I got dragged into this and was asked to look into this here, and in short my response was basically for Red Rose to go edit other articles for a while, and if that failed, an interaction ban. See here for that. The very next non-user talk page edit was right back where we started so clearly I wasn't listened to at all, so at the least an interaction ban would be needed, which would in effect be a topic ban on this article because I can see no solution where one user edits the article and the other does not given the history here. As an aside, I don't know the source material well enough to determine which user is "correct" on what sources or viewpoints should be used, and honestly I don't care, I'm just looking at the user conduct itself. Wizardman 14:27, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Wizardman for your input but I do need to communicate a couple of things since you are completely new to the problem. I have been actively editing on this page and other related pages for 2 + years and editing Wikipedia for 10 years. The recent edits you saw on this page was a recent flurry of activity by GS after our edit block was lifted. So your statement "where one user edits the article and the other does not given the history here" is completely incorrect. Go further back in the history of editing. After his flurry of edits it is hard for me as an editor to correct the page because I can't revert his edits that are a problem and it is impossible to discuss every single edit with him. I experience him as an edit bully who doesn't want to work as team and insists on using primary sources for controversial edits and refuses to remove it. In fact he refuses to admit that 4 of his sources are primary sources.[[48]] In fact I had to put a tag (secondary source needed) after a few of his primary sources that he was using for a controversial post. He then attacks the reliable secondary source with tag bombing of citation needed [[49]] Jozo Zovko page and reverting edits that use this source as well. Also I did listen to you I was cleaning up one last bit that needed to be exposed. I am hoping that Slp1 puts both GS and myself in a subject matter ban for at the very least 3 months and hopefully longer. I am exhausted. Here is a sampling of documentation of Governor Shengs edit bullying from a variety of OLM related pages. Remember it is just a sampling:

False accusation and uncivil communication bullying

• Accusing me of malicious editing when from the concern of errors in references found and discussed on his talk page with 2 other concerned editors, [[50]] I thought I should review all the OLM connected articles listed at the bottom of OLM page. Many of those pages I have been editing since Feb, March or April 2021- Jozo Zovko, Tomislav Vlašić, Frane Franić, Pavol Hnilica, Pavao Žanić, Catholic Church response to the Medjugorje apparitions(editing since Nov 2020). Out of courtesy I brought the problems I discovered and left them at the page and did not take them to his personal talk page. I did make a couple of errors and I apologize for that but it did not come from malicious intent.
• Right below this post, Governor Sheng again calling me borderline hypocritical.
• Right in his opening statement he calls me passive aggressive
• Here "What the f is wrong with you? " [[51]] Scroll down almost to the bottom.
• Here inappropriate words: "I pooped vs. it was pooped in my toiled during my pontificate" [[52]]
• Here he is accusing me of removing a sentence that had a secondary source using the word malicious - "*Someone* made a little mess... :) Who is it I wonder... Deleting properly referenced sentence... hmmm. Very malicious editing" [[53]]. All he had to do was read the paragraph and see the sentence. You can see it about halfway down. This is on a OLM related page.
  
• User Rotten Rose deleted the source in her rampage [[54]] Just look to the left and you will see Manannan67 did it legitimately. Not only did he falsely accuse me but called me Rotten Rose.
  
• Two more: [[55]] and [[[[56]] For F's Sake]]

Disruptive Editing/Deletes secondary sources and post:

• Deleted a photograph of a statue of the Gospa instead of moving it, saying sandwiched [[57]]
• Here he is deleting sections of this page including two secondary sources one of them being the author Klimek.[[58]]
• Another one [[59]]
  
• Disruptive editing - Here he is rearranging and deleting properly sourced information from the section without a discussion and at the same time adds a new reference with no cite. [[1] Also when making the edit he gives no comment and claims it is a minor edit. At the same time there is a discussion on his talk page about the cite missing on his references on many other pages reported by two other editors as well as myself. [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Governor_Sheng#Short_form_references] I took this new non working reference to the talk page to ask about it. His response: “…there was no intention on my side to keep the non-referenced inserts I added.” The question is why disrupt Wikipedia and rearrange and delete words and then revert it? [[60]]

Self started edit warring
[[61]] and [[62]] and [[63]] and [[64]]
Calling primary sources secondary sources

• [[65]]
  

Adding references without the cite to many pages

• Talk going on at his talk page. [[66]]

Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

References

No. 271 is me reverting myself, so the comment for F's sake was implied for myself. :) Rotten rose is german for red rose? Maybe I'm wrong. Other than that, finding an example of a year-old edit warring... I don't know why is that even relevant anymore. As for "spamming" "secondary sources", you did that before I have to Kutleša's books, didn't you? ([67]; even though there was an ongoing discussion about this exact subject; when both of us were just out of 24hrs "jail" for edit warring, this was a clear provocation). Like the other user said, "borderline hypocritical". It is my legitimate right as an editor to question sources. --Governor Sheng (talk) 23:00, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

UPDATE: [68] Really? During an ongoing discussion where I clearly stated my disagreement, and after both of us were just unblocked? Governor Sheng (talk) 00:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

• Not again!?! I will comment within 12 hours. This was a long unsuccessful moderated discussion at DRN. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:24, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

There is history at [[69]] and at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/OLM . I will review the history and comment on it within 24 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Some Thoughts from a Former Neutral Party

I will try to comment on my involvement with this controversy, without having read any of the recent history except to observe that there was edit-warring. This was one of those cases where the disputants both wanted me to read the history of lengthy talk page exchanges, and I repeatedly told them to be civil and concise. What has changed in the past one-and-one-half years is that they are much more openly uncivil.

I first became aware of this dispute on 2 December 2020, when User:Governor Sheng filed a Request for Arbitration. It was a good-faith erroneous request, because they were not really requesting a quasi-judicial process, but help. The statement by User:Red Rose 13 is a good summary of what they wanted at the time: "We desperately need an unbiased, expert editor to guide us." I later came to understand the significance of that request. I said at the time that this was a content dispute with no conduct issues. At the time, it was. I said that they should request a Third Opinion, and maybe use one or more Requests for Comments. ArbCom rightly declined the case as not requiring arbitration. It appears that they then did request a Third Opinion, and that User:Slp1 answered, and worked with them at length, for which thanks are due. They then requested mediation at DRN, and I spent a month trying to mediate. The mediation was largely about Pavol Hnilica, a bishop who was involved in the controversy about the reported visions, and also about Our Lady of Medjugorje (OLM). It was excessively difficult to get either or both of them to identify specific article content questions to be resolved by RFC or specific sources about which the reliability could be evaluated at RSN. One of them, Red Rose 13, continued to insist that sources had to be either in English or translated into English. They never did answer my question of why they were asking to ignore Wikipedia policy on sources. After about a month, they said that what they really needed was an expert editor to guide them in rewriting the OLM article, and the articles on some of the clergy. I concluded that they had the idea that Wikipedia has a reserve pool of editors who are identified and rated as experts who are available for assignment to assist in rewriting articles. I was not prepared to work with them in rewriting the article to their satisfaction, and ended the mediation. They said that they would try to work on improving the article. Based on what Slp1 and other editors have now said, it appears that they have been worsening the articles by quarreling.

It now appears that they have been arguing for another year. They are no longer being civil, because Governor Sheng has said that Red Rose 13's edits are malicious.

At this point, my opinion is that whatever sanctions are imposed should be for at least a year. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

At the very least, agree with the above. Wizardman 00:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I do need to make a correction Robert. I never recall ever "asking to ignore Wikipedia policy on sources." In fact if you read Slp1's section above there is a link (#37 - then scroll down to Ogledalo pravde) where I am analyzing a book in great detail providing links to all the Wiki Policies. Thank you. Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Red Rose 13 - It is true that you never explicitly asked me to ignore the Wikipedia policy on sources. But you did repeatedly argue that we could only use English-language sources or sources for which there was an English translation. When it was pointed out that Wikipedia policy allows non-English sources, you ignored this policy statement, and continued to insist that only English-language sources could be used. I asked why you were asking to ignore the policy that allows non-English sources, and you didn't answer, but said that only English sources should be used. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:37, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Partial Block

• Our Lady of Medjugorje (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Pavol Hnilica (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Governor Sheng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Red Rose 13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In the absence of any other proposal, but since something should be done, I will propose that both editors be partially blocked from Our Lady of Medjugorje (OLM) and Pavol Hnilica for six months, and topic-banned from all topics related to the Catholic Church in Croatia and Herzegovina, broadly construed. I suggested above that there be sanctions for a year, but am offering a shorter version to see if the community will agree to and act on something. Something needs to be done. This has gone on too long. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I oppose such a block because my area of editing is mainly the Church in Croatia and Herzegovina. I don't see how blocking me on writing about the church events from the 18th century could be constructive. Such a block would effectively only affect me, which is not justified. Governor Sheng (talk) 16:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support as long as the topic-ban also includes all the pages related to Our Lady of Medjugorje that are listed at the very bottom of the page - not all were in the Croatia and Herzegovina area. I am requesting and hopeful that @Slp1: will agree to oversee these pages. Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
• Partially support but only the topic ban regarding OLM, Hnilica and connected subjects, excluding broader ecclesiastical topics in Croatia or Bosnia and Herzegovina. --Governor Sheng (talk) 16:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support, but based on Governor Sheng's comment, I would be fine with the topic ban being for the Catholic Church in Croatia and Herzegovina post 1970. One other idea, It is unusual for both editors in these situations to accept restrictions so willingly. Would you both be willing to promise not to edit any of the articles/talkpages about Catholic Church in Croatia and Herzegovina post 1975 for 6 months. ie make a voluntary restriction and topic ban yourselves? It would be a serious commitment and breaching your promise would have serious consequences, but if you can make that promise and stick to it, it would be much better for your reputation as editors.Slp1 (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

  I could agree with that. Governor Sheng (talk) 19:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• Question will the related pages of Our Lady of Medjugorje be included? Some of these are not in Croatia and Herzegovina diocese: Catholic Church response to the Medjugorje apparitions, Pavao Žanić, Ratko Perić, Petar Palić, Jozo Zovko, Slavko Barbarić, Tomislav Vlašić, René Laurentin, Frane Franić, Pavol Hnilica, Herzegovina Affair, Romanis Pontificibus, Catholic charismatic renewal, and Medjugorje International Youth Festival. (Listed at the very bottom of the OLM page) Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

All of these should be included; and anything related to the Catholic Church in Croatia and Herzegovina post 1975. Manannan67 (talk) 05:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I can oblige myself not to edit articles related to the Catholic Church in Croatia and Herzegovina post 1975 or articles related to the Medjugorje phenomenon. As Slp1 (talk · contribs) said, avoiding "official" block may be the best solution, since Red Rose 13 (talk · contribs) and I have voluntarily agreed to abstain from editing the said articles, to preserve our reputation as editors. The risk of sanction for breaking this obligation is in itself a good and efficient corrective measure for both of us I believe. Governor Sheng (talk) 09:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@Slp1: Would it be possible to reword your proposal to include the 14 pages related to OLM page that are listed at the very bottom of the OLM page and listed above? Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I am glad that this might work for you both. It certainly would be best for you if it works out. I want to be very clear that you would both be promising not to edit anything to do with Our Lady of Medjugorje and the Catholic Church in Croatia and Herzegovina after 1970, broadly construed. It is not a good idea to name some articles: the onus is on you to understand that anything related to either topic is off limits for 6 months. That means no edits to any articles or talkpages even faintly related to the topic, no posts to noticeboards about the topic, no asking other people to intervene or take a look at edits, no emailing others. Nothing. Take the pages off your watchlists and forget about the whole area. You are also strongly recommended to promise to avoid each other on Wikipedia: do not to follow each others edits, do not follow each other to other articles and topics, do not comment or make complaints about the other. Again nothing. Slp1 (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

• I agree. I assume the time frame would be 6/23 - 12/23/22.Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@Slp1: I do need to say that the reason I can easily let go is because I completely trust you and if you are overseeing all these pages all will go well.Red Rose 13 (talk) 10:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Red Rose 13, you've made variations on this comment several times, but I have not addressed it, but I will now. I may or may not follow or engage in those articles, but I will not be overseeing them in any formal way. Robert McClenon noted that you seemed to hope that "expert" editors would write/rewrite the article, and this seems to be part of the same mistaken impression. Editors and administrators will self-select to improve (we hope) the articles. There is no hierarchy or ownership of articles.Slp1 (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

• So, we have an agreement then - no editing of the said articles till 23 December 2022. Governor Sheng (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

How about January 7th 2023? I am sure you would both like to get through Christmas etc without worrying about what would happen if you both start engaging again?Slp1 (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

• Other editors and administrators, do you agree with this voluntary topic ban and interaction ban? Is it adequate? I have never before been engaged in brokering one, so ideas and advice about what has been missed (or if it is worth trying) would be gratefully received.Slp1 (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 2: Interaction Ban

• Governor Sheng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Red Rose 13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Just like Slp1, I find it very strange that the two editors who started this quarrel are both agreeing to be topic-banned. I still think that they don't understand that there is no guarantee that neutral expert editors (who have been appointed by the Editorial Board as traveling experts) will rewrite the articles, and so no guarantee that they will be better in January 2023. I think that part of the problem is that each editor insists on cleaning up behind the other editor, so that each of them would prefer to have the other one excluded. I had avoided proposing an interaction ban as the first remedy because interaction bans provide a first-mover advantage. Now that they are agreeing to be banned from the articles mainly in contention, I think that we should avoid allowing them to spread their apparent antagonism for each other to elsewhere in the encyclopedia. So I will propose that, in addition to the topic ban, the two editors be subject to an interaction ban for twelve months. Each of them should find a topic area to edit, and can edit it without interaction with the other editor.

I am aware that this is an unusual remedy, but this is an unusual case. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Suspicious activity of User:Akoikollie

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

---

User:Akoikollie has been repeatedly reverting 1 byte edits on their user page, I assume in attempt to farm edit count for confirmation. I didn't think it belonged in any other notice board categories so I am putting it here. I noticed these rapid edits while looking at the edit filter log, where these edits were picked up as "New account suspicious activity". ~XyNq^t_c 01:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I have a theory. They are trying for extended-confirmed status. Why? There’s a clue in the one Wiktionary entry they wrote. They used “Cornelius Keagon” as a definition. Who is Cornelius Keagon? I don’t know, but that page on Wikipedia was salted, and until very recently required extended-confirmed status to recreate. In the past few days it was changed to require administrator access to recreate. Wise and timely move! — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:26, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Probably User:Cornelius Keagon. Same IP range as the last sock, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)  Note: The account has been globally locked yesterday. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:41, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

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

20SS00 categorizing by cause of death

User:20SS00 has recently created over 200 categories to classify biographical articles by cause of death and, particulary, by cause of death by location. I'm not the first to find that these are not generally defining categories, WP:CATDEF, and I just filed one collection of them to be considered for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 June 20#Cardiac arrest deaths. It seems I'm not the first to bring this concern to the 20SS00's attention:

• The user was asked in April not to create such categories because they aren't defining.
• At least two categories have been submitted for speedy deletion under WP:CSD G4, indicating (I think) that the user would have been notified on bringing the category up for creation that it had been previously deleted. One of them is Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in Thailand; see the user notification for one of them.

I'm posting this here out of concern that these are indeed undesirable categories and that the user may continue to create large numbers of them. Examples of earlier deletion discussions of such categories, suggesting that my concern about the inappropriateness of these categories is legitimate, include Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 November 12#Deaths from cardiovascular disease and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 September 15#Cardiovascular disease deaths. Largoplazo (talk) 12:26, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

• I share Largoplazo's concerns. 20SS00 did not respond to my suggestion on their talk page that they stop creating such categories, which had previously been deleted by consensus, and went on to create more today. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I share these concerns. 20SS00 has committed a further infraction my mis-spelling infarction for the whole new hierarchy Category:Deaths by myocardial infraction. I propose to tag all these for speedy deletion. – Fayenatic London 09:58, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
    • I don't usually LOL in serious discussions, but I'm going to LOL. LOL. Largoplazo (talk) 10:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
• Category:Myocardial infraction deaths in Connecticut [70] -- Really, how stupid can you get? But honestly, why are will still bothering with categories at all? They're never even 20% complete and correct -- you always get some error-prone subset of what you want. I don't think I've ever found them useful, period. EEng 17:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

  I'm with @EEng this is patently fucking ridiculous and unencyclopedic. I'd suggest topic banning this person from categories but at that point, they may as well just be outright blocked. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

  It's actually worse than it seems at first blush: infarction is misspelled. EEng 18:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

  This also appears to be a problem cross-wiki as well. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to block 20SS00

I started cleaning up their mess only to realize they haven't bothered to address any of these concerns or respond here despite editing since this was filed and they were notified, so I'd suggest a block indefinitely from mainspace or outright until they can demonstrate an understanding of these concerns and commit to not doing this. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support ban on any category related editing. To include creating them or any adding, deleting, or recategorizing involving mainspace articles....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
• I've partially blocked 20SS00 from both category and article space pending their participation here. They have been dismissive of the concerns raised and have continued editing without addressing this thread.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support ban on any category related editing. In April I removed his addition of the category "Stroke-related deaths in Arizona" from Lillian Moller Gilbreth. On his talk page I warned him not to do this and explained defining and non-defining categories, specifically mentioning the Gilbreth article. Today he added the category back after stating yesterday on Fayenatic london's talk page that The fact that it’s considered "non-defining" is purely based off of opinion. The editor seems to be unable to abide by editing guidelines such as WP:CATDEFINING or to follow consensus in this matter. StarryGrandma (talk) 15:54, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
• Obviously I support my own proposal but I think it's probably worth noting for anyone on the fence, beyond the silly category disruption, this user just simply appears to be unable to adequately collaborate based on the fact that they have over 30,000 edits and less than 0.1%, a whopping 34 total, of those edits are to talk pages (user talk, article talk or any others) which indicates to me that they absolutely do not understand that communication is a requirement here. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

• NikolaosFanaris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• AkisAr-26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:NikolaosFanaris:

1. falsely claimed I'm sugarcoating and admiring criminals and neonazis [71][72][73]
2. deleted an ANI to avoid a ban (and lied about it) [74]
3. falsely claimed I am affiliated with a far-right party [75]
4. raised COI against me in which he lied in order to convince the admin [76]

My efforts to resolve this on his page were deleted.[77] AkisAr-26 (talk) 19:59, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Before we look at the other editor, who has not been perfectly civil, let's talk about you. How did you find ANI on your 53rd edit to Enwiki [78]? Admittedly you had a handful or prior edits to el.wikipedia.org, but not enough to be this familiar with process. It looks very much like you've had a prior account. Please address whether you have ever edited Wikipedia using a different account. Jehochman ^Talk 20:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I've been doing math for decades. Is it hard to look through 30 pages of WP documentation to figure out how to ANI? Besides if I knew how to do it properly I wouldn't have waste hours to write a detailed report. I would have done what did now. AkisAr-26 (talk) 05:41, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I just realized you added me as "suspicious"[79] (I am assuming this initiates an investigation against me as well?). Apart from "ANI on [my] 53rd edit" is there another reason you did? AkisAr-26 (talk) 06:32, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

At the top of this message board it says (or should say), that all editors involved in a dispute may be subject to scrutiny, including the filing party. You've explained yourself and I have not requested any sanction against you, but let's see what other editors who are familiar with the topic area have to say. Somebody who is familiar may notice behavioral evidence that sheds light on the situation. Jehochman ^Talk 13:43, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Not sure how "behavioral" evidence will help, when there's physical evidence (digital forensics WP uses to detect sockpuppets) which proves I haven't violated any related rule. Regardless, I respect your concern but disagree on the suspicion thresholds. Kind regards, AkisAr-26 (talk) 14:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

@Jehochman Although I am not defending either editor I'd like to mention that it's completely possible to find ANI before making a single edit. Some editors, myself very much included, like to work out what to do (and what not to do!) to resolve conflicts, what sort of mistakes are commonly made, and learn a bit of site jargon and etiquette before jumping in. Please don't use an interest in understanding how the site works as a reason to be suspicious of new editors! StartGrammarTime (talk) 09:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Based on my 17 years of participation, it happens more often than not that a user who runs to ANI early in their history is a sock puppet account. Correlation does not imply causation and this is not proof, but it is a circumstance that should be pointed out and investigated. Jehochman ^Talk 13:43, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

If there are still personal attacks on a live page, you may feel free to remove them. It is permitted for any editor to remove what is unevociably a personal attack. I doubt any other action will come of this report when there are no new violations. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 04:32, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

How can I remove them? Do I just delete them? AkisAr-26 (talk) 05:32, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Follow the instructions listed and replace the problematic material with {{RPA}}. Make sure that the material removed would not be construed by a reasonable editor as anything more than a personal attack, and post a diff here when finished so that the removal can be reviewed (as it's your first time refactoring talk pages). Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 05:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance. Please see if I did it correctly [80]. It does work in removing PA but not sure what is considered PA. Are obvious lies about me PA? Baseless accusations? Should I remove them too? Also, can't I just mark the whole discussion as RPA? Otherwise it will take quite a while to search all his references to me. AkisAr-26 (talk) 06:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1099#NikolaosFanaris: continuous baseless accusations against me. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

So there are no new incidents? This is a rehash of a month ago. ANI is preventative, not punitive and it seems in this case to have worked without any blocks or bans neccessary. WP:DROPTHESTICK as without new diffs, there is nothing for this board to discuss. Slywriter (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I already attempted to provide the same advice/guidance User talk:Ponyo#Unresolved report in ANI archived. What should I do?, to no avail.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

You did not address the ongoing defamation and the fact I could delete the offensive material. I do thank you for the rest of the guidance though. AkisAr-26 (talk) 05:34, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I understand. I don't mind him not getting a ban. I simply want to remove the defamation and ensure he doesn't do it again. Doesn't it get noted so that if he offends in the future it shows he's done it before as well? AkisAr-26 (talk) 05:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Don't worry, I will not "defame" you again in the future. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 08:31, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate that. Could you remove all such content with the {{RPA}} tag? AkisAr-26 (talk) 08:42, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Will proceed with the removal in due course. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 09:05, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I'd appreciate this is done promptly, preferably before this ANI resolution. I'm not saying you'll postpone it intentionally indefinitely after doing 1-2 edits, but I just want to make sure my concerns are addressed. Thanks. AkisAr-26 (talk) 09:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Not only did you not remove the defamation, but on the contrary you re-introduced it: "sugarcoat Kasidiaris' criminal past and neo-Nazi ties"[81], after I removed it. You lied like in your previous lets-retract offer[82]. AkisAr-26 (talk) 07:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the personal attack I saw [83], and if it is restored I know how to make sure the editor gets sanctioned. Will you please list any other personal attacks you think remain (leaving out anything that's borderline) and I or somebody else will deal with them. Jehochman ^Talk 13:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the assistance. I'll list them in my Talk Page. Does the user that re-introduced the attack get any sanctions for it? AkisAr-26 (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Terran Intelligence Community

I received this ‘warning (threat?) on my talkpage. Likely linked to my reply to the message user:XLinkBot#Error Grid. I have reverted the warning, but it suggests that there is some background editing going on which may need to be scrutinized (I don’t believe this is pure standalone). I’d appreciate some independent handling of this. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:28, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

That's clearly some troll-child messing around. I say revert and ignore. see this PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

• IP's post lol'ed me. Take it light heartedly Beetstra Someone is simply trying to annoy/scare you. —usernamekiran (talk) 07:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

  They did it to me too. And I stand by my statement to them. PRAXIDICAE🌈 13:51, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Asdfghjkl9658

Asdfghjkl9658 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Despite multiple warnings and urgings over the last couple of years this user has so far not responded one single time. Is there any policy how to deal with Wiki behaviour like this – or should we say lack thereof? Antique Rose 20:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Another question is why is such an absurd and hard to read username allowed on here?--2A00:23C4:3E08:4001:2D32:2A48:E944:B665 (talk) 20:59, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Lol, look at your username. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 03:37, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• Question -- behavior like what? Is there a link or reference you'd like to provide?--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Looking over their talk page and contribs after I came across them yesterday, and as I noted on their talk, it's a clear case of WP:RADAR. Any more disruptive edits, or refusal to engage and I'll block them. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 00:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

They've edited twice since the final warning. The edits themselves are minor and not disruptive, though they are still not using edit summaries. I'll be shocked if they actually engage here, but I'll give them a chance to answer this here at ANI, in case hell has frozen over. Also concur that they should have been warned about the username long ago. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 00:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

User(s) blocked: Asdfghjkl9658 (talk · contribs). They kept on with the same pattern after warnings and being asked to come here. Only 24 hours as it's the first time. If they don't shape up we'll revisit and up it. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 00:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

@CorbieVreccan: The user has returned and they show no signs of changing their Wiki behaviour. Antique Rose 17:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Note that "indefinite" doesn't mean forever. If the user starts communicating, acknowledges their past behavior (or lack of), and wishes to be unblocked, any admin is free to do so. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I support the indef-block. It's what I would have done. Let us know if another account or IP continues with the same editing pattern. Often these types of users keep up the pattern with socks. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:20, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

User:JamesJohn82 giving me warnings for fixing his edits

JamesJohn82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi, the User:JamesJohn82 has given me two warnings for disruptive edits even though I left detailed comments in the edits/reverts I did. I tried to leave some details about his edits on his talk page but they were removed by him. Kenm v2 (talk) 10:25, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I see you used the talk page. JamesJohn82 did not. JamesJohn gave you notices that do not seem consistent with what you were doing. I noticed you made a minor error in applying policy and guidelines - removing content from your own talkpage is normally an exception from the removal prohibition on talk pages.

JamesJohn82, can you explain your actions, please?Lurking shadow (talk) 11:23, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, yes, I left a couple of topics on his talk page related to the edits I did.

And understood on the removal prohibition. Kenm v2 (talk) 12:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I would find that the refusal to even acknowledge abuse of warning templates on the part of JamesJohn82 to be unacceptable on its own. In fact, we have a warning series for that. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 11:54, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• Note: I've temporarily blocked JamesJohn82 for advertising since they continue to add the jagatguru link. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• From the many warnings on their talkpage, JamesJohn82 has been making work for other users by egregious sourcing errors for years. Their ability to distinguish reliable sources doesn't seem to have gotten any better since Kuru's painstaking warnings and explanations about Wikipedia mirrors in 2020. An indefinite block might be on the cards if the problem continues unabated after RegentsPark's block. Bishonen | tålk 10:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC).

Personal attack by Semsûrî

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

---

The User Semsûrî who have already started an Editwar in the page Melek Taûs to push his POV calls me a troll in the edit summary.(see here the diff link) Dortana (talk) 21:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:No personal attacks Dortana (talk) 21:59, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I mentioned your behavior to an admin just moments ago.[84] You are a NOTHERE editor for me. You keep removing well-sourced information and then complain about an edit war. Also, you have received six warnings from me in less than a month. Don't complain when I call you a troll then. Semsûrî (talk) 22:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

This is not a reason to attack other editors and call them a troll. I have just changed the page back to the revision before the Editwar that you have started took place. You have only pushed your POV there. Dortana (talk) 22:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

The edit war is taking place because YOU keep removing well-sourced information. Read Wikipedia:IJDLI which I have urged you to do before. I'm not going to entertain this nonsense anylonger. Semsûrî (talk) 22:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

This is what I mean by trolling.[85] You dislike the well-sourced content for whatever reason and thus put in some templates. It screams NOTHERE. Semsûrî (talk) 22:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

You shouldn't insult other users just because they don't endorse your POV. Dortana (talk) 22:28, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

At both: Please stop edit-warring and talk this through in the talk page. Semsûrî, please assume good faith. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Not everyone who disagrees with you is a troll, and you may not assume that they are unless you have really strong evidence. Disagreements happen. Use the talk page a bit more, explain why you want to insert or retain that material, discuss the reliability of your source, due weight... but please remain civil. Incivility can(and eventually will) get you blocked and hurts your credibility.Lurking shadow (talk) 22:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Lurking shadow Good faith is difficult to maintain by now as I know how Dortana behaves Even when they do use the talkpage its mostly with nonsensical explanations[86] If I never get a meaningful answer and they keep reverting, what more can I do? I stand by my NOTHERE and IJDLI. In regards to my bad faith and my evidence, I have this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ezidishingali but sadly a stale investigation. I'm impatiently and frustratingly waiting for an admin to take the case. Until then I guess I have to deal with this annoyance. Semsûrî (talk) 23:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Semsûrî, I am an administrator and you have been edit warring, which is a blockable offense. You are warned to stop. Dortana, you have been edit warring, which is a blockable offense. You are warned to stop. Semsûrî, you have been engaging in personal attacks, which is also a blockable offense. Calling a good faith editor a "troll" over a content dispute is not appropriate, so stop it. This is a content dispute, which should be resolved through discussion on the article talk page rather than through edit warring. Various forms of dispute resolution are available. Use them and work to build a consensus. Cullen328 (talk) 00:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328: The talkpage has been used but as always I only receive non-sensical explanations[87] like "Kurdistan is very confusing and misleading for readers". What am I suppose to do with that? So its okay to keep removing academic references on baseless claims? Semsûrî (talk) 09:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

No, of course not. But there was an argument, that you are not following WP:NPOV. Give an overview about sourcing in the topic to disprove(or not) the claim.Lurking shadow (talk) 09:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I merely added non-controversial content explicitly stated in the (academic) references. They should explain what's so POV about that. Semsûrî (talk) 09:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Dortana has now been blocked for sockpuppetry. Semsûrî (talk) 10:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

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

Volunteer Marek's incivility and POV-pushing

• On 9 June Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) said that according to me Kidnapping of children after murdering their parent and forcibly Russyfying them is not a "war crime" but benevolent adoption by loving Russians [88]. I immediately told them that this was a gross misrepresentation of what I'd been arguing for and asked them to strike through their comment [89], but they didn't comply.
• On 20 June VM repeated that claim and made it even more ludicrous: I had made comments, they said, in which I claimed that kidnapping Ukraine children should be described as "adoption" and "naturalization" and that carrying out murders as part of a genocide aren't a war crime [90]. I asked them to provide a diff, they published this comment of mine and repeated that it proves that I am proposing to refer to the kidnapping of Ukrainian children (after their parents were murdered by Russian soldiers) as "Naturalisation" and "Adoption". In the same comment your wording actually manages to imply that it was in the interest of the (Ukrainian) child to have their parents killed and then be adopted by some Russians. [91].
• VM was referring to this discussion. Note the following:

1. As I mentioned in that discussion, I was one of the first editors who inserted in the article contents on forced deportations to Russia and arbitrary detention of Ukrainian civilians. On 24 March I added a reference to deportations in the lead [92], on 27 March I added allegations of illegal detention [93] and I created a section on detention of civilians and torture [94], on 29 March and 2 April I added many contents and sources about deportations [95] [96] [97]. Lastly on 2 June I added contents and sources on forced deportation of children [98]. All these edits show that I believe, or rather know, that forced deportation is a war crime.
2. Apart from knowing it, I also repeatedly said it. In the discussion VM mentioned, I said again and again that forced deportation of children is a war crime: This is a Wikipedia article on war crimes, thus we use "deportation" (or force displacement), we don't use "kidnapping", just like we use (wilful) killing of civilians, not assassination (or murder) of peaceful citizens [99], Of course I agree with this! Forced deportations of civilian is a serious war crime. [100], n. 2 [Kidnapping is not a war crime] is entirely false: where did you get this from? [101]. AdrianHObradors (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) even warned VM, @Volunteer Marek please, try to refrain from making personal attacks and assumptions. @Gitz isn't arguing that kidnapping children is or isn't a war crime, that is not the subject of discussion there [102]
3. In that discussion I made the following points.
   1. First, we'd better use the "forced deportations" terminology instead of speaking of "kidnapping". This view got consensus but unfortunately VM kept on forcing the "kidnapping" terminology upon the article, as they claim that "deportation" is an euphemistic weasel word for kidnapping [103] [104] [105]. I soon gave up reverting their edits simply out of boredom and frustration.
   2. Secondly, I argued that the Russian Duma drafting a law on adoption does not amount to a war crime in itself, no reliable source claim that it does, and therefore we should not report it. I wrote the following: I don't think that this decree is an act of generosity by the Russian state - not at all. But we cannot even depict it as a war crime (...) There are many different interests at stake here, and the interest of Ukraine in avoiding Russian naturalisations is only one (and relatively minor compared to the interests of the child). So this kind of content belongs to an article on Naturalisation during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine or Adoption during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. We cannot just say that it is "background and context" to an alleged war crime (forced deportation) and report it without any scrutiny directly from the Facebook account of Denisova. [106]. I haven't changed my mind on this; apparently I did not get consensus and we didn't drop that reference to the new Russian law on adoption. Maybe I was right, maybe I was wrong, but anyway editors must be allowed to share their views in an open discussion without being offended, trivialized and denigrated.
   3. Finally, I argued that genocide is not a war crime - which is simply true, genocide is not a war crime (see here a discussion and here a few references). For some reason this view (which is not a view actually, it's a fact) didn't get consensus either, and we still have a section on genocide. But no one could ever maintain that carrying out murders as part of a genocide aren't a war crime. Contrary to what VM claims, I've never said or even thought something so absurd.

• In attributing these views to me VM was deliberately and grossly misrepresenting my arguments. This way of doing is contrary to our policies and guidelines (WP:CIV, WP:GF) and is especially disruptive in a sensitive area as this one.
• This was not a one-off. VM is used to attributing mean intentions to fellow editors. A few examples.
• On the 18 June VM repeatedly removed a section on a missile that fell on Donetsk killing 23 civilians [107] [108]. As Donetsk is controlled by a self-proclaimed secessionist republic, it's possible that the missile was fired by the Ukrainian army. The incident was reported by Reuters and The Guardian, among others, and the section had been there since mid-March. Other editors, including me, didn't agree on removing the section and asked VM to discuss on the talk page. Which they did in the following way: we absolutely must have an article and text in this article about THAT ONE maybe-Ukrainian missile!!!!!! Because "balance" or some shit. I'm sorry but that kind of approach is just sick. And it's the quintessence of violating WP:UNDUE to push a POV ("both sides do it!!!!") [109]. VM claimed that there had been constant and repeated attempts to turn this article into a piece of Russian propaganda, and that If we were being honest here we'd have text on every single one of those tens of thousands missiles fired on civilian targets by Russia (actually we have nearly 20 sections on indiscriminate attacks by the Russian army, some of them with much smaller casualties that this one; we've basically been reporting what WP:RS say, that's it). In fact VM is now trying to have the main article March 2022 Donetsk attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) cancelled and in the meantime they are making a total mess out of it: [110]. But the point is: whitewashing Russian war crimes, not being honest, attempting to use Wikipedia as a Russian propaganda vehicle... how dare they say so?
• On 3 June, Of course genocide can be a war crime! Wth? Do I need to draw a Venn Diagram here? (...) This isn't hard and removing this info looks insanely bad faithed [111]. What, whose bad faith is VM talking about? On 22 May, speaking to Luizpuodzius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), If you're gonna come to an article in order to push a particular POV it helps if you actually bother reading it first, otherwise the WP:ADVOCACY and the WP:NOTHERE are kind of obvious [112]. And it goes on and on like that, VM's behaviour is unacceptable: talking to me and to Ilenart626 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), they said What you and Illenart are doing here is trying to give the readers a very skewed presentation of what reliable source say and falsely convince them that reliable sources portray Ukrainian war crimes as on par with Russian ones [113].
• Also their edit summaries are often unnecessarily offensive, threatening and contrary to Wikipedia:Assume good faith: Please stop trying to whitewash war crimes by sprinkling "alleged" in front of everything. That's a pretty clear violation of POV. [114] Seriously anyone who tries to claim that the murders in Bucha are only "alleged" needs a quick trip to WP:AE [115] these may very well be (are) human rights violations and crimes, but they are not "war crimes" and none of the sources actually label these as such. This is just another attempt at bothsideism [116] undo the obvious POVing and obnoxious attempts at whitewashing [117] you REALLY need to stop with this awful POV and white washing [118] no, these are obviously highly POV changes, they are not supported by sources and frankly, given the nature of this topic the changes amount to some very problematic and disruptive attempts to whitewash some horrendous shit [119]
• I find the accusation of being a Russian POV-pusher quite insulting. First of all I'm a friend of the Ukrainian people, also my family originates from that region, I think that Putin is a violent dictator, that the war is an unlawful aggression, that the Russian army has committed hideous war crimes in Ukraine, and I'd very much welcome if the perpetrators will be held on account. I wrote nearly 1/3 of the article War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, which means that I've spent dozens of hours documenting and describing horrible war crimes committed by the Russian army (here a selection of some of my edits on Russian crimes [120][121][122] [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] [129] [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] [136] [137] [138] [139] [140] [141] [142] [143] [144] [145] [146] [147] [148] [149] ).
• On the other hand VM, who always speaks about POV and WP:UNDUE, is the most blatant and disruptive POV-pusher I've ever encountered. They even reached the point of questioning whether shooting Russian POWs in the legs amounts to torture [150] [151] - seriously? They asked for RS stating that kneecapping is torture, they were given a lot of them [152] [153] and it's all ok, but it takes time and it's disturbing and frankly there's no need of it. On multiple occasion I had to revert VM pushing badly sourced war propaganda into the article [e.g., [154]), making gross misrepresentations of reliable sources [e.g., [155]) and removing an "alleged" here and there [e.g., [156]).
• I've tried to address their tendentious editing on their talk page, but what I got was not very encouraging Explain to me why I should bother reading past your first two and a half sentences [157]
• VM's edits summaries and comments show the basic and constant features of their contribution to the article (and possibly elsewhere): aggression, rudeness, lack of cooperation and a prevailing almost exclusive concern for the question "who is more guilty?" (the obvious answer being the Russians). VM gives a comparatively small contribution to the writing of the article and an enormous, often disruptive contribution to finding the "right balance", which for them always falls in one direction: emphasising the responsibilities of the Russians (which are indeed huge and catastrophic) and downplaying those of the Ukrainians (which occasionally are serious and worrying). They like playing the role of the self-appointed political commissar on that article, and they've done so in the most offensive, uncooperative and partisan way, always attributing mean intentions to fellow editors ("obnoxious attempts at whitewashing", "awful POV", "attempts to whitewash", etc.). They cannot even imagine that others might have good-faith reasons, different from "whitewashing", for mentioning Ukrainian war crimes in the lead and reporting them elsewhere in the article: e.g. trying to be objective and detached, trying to gain authoritativeness through independence, and trying to do justice to all the victims, no matter their nationality.
• In what follows I was not the victim of their insults, but still seeing a fellow editor Dunutubble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) treated in this way is humiliating and intimidating: For fuck's sake, this also restores the idiotic notion that two Russian soldiers being poisoned by some pies is ... ... CHEMICAL WARFARE!!! Gimme a break. There's absolutely no source for such a claim (probably because it's patently ridiculous). The given source certainly doesn't say anything so stupid. But it's also frankly offensive (...) even attempting such a comparison is offensive, vulgar and dishonest. I am very tempted to report this fairly transparent violation of WP:POINT. [158]
• This is the way they express their view and I find it aggressive, even abusive. We have a policy (WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL) that aims at protecting us from belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgemental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen", "snipped crap"). No editor in good faith should ever be exposed to such a treatment.
• Luckily User:Dunutubble is very calm and reflective and reacted like a true pro saying that Throwing a WP:TANTRUM is not the correct reaction to someone who made an effort to restore many of your edits. But unfortunately Anonimu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was less cool-headed. They reacted very badly to VM's editing style and started to repeatedly call VM a "vandal". So on 12 April VM submitted a request for enforcement and Anonimu was topic banned. Anonimu brought it upon themselves, no doubt, but I think that they were reacting to a deliberately provocative and contentious approach, which proved to be highly destructive on that article and talk page.
• I had warned against the risk of escalating the inevitable conflicts among editors: We are working here on a delicate article and we need to discuss in a peaceful and argumentative environment [159]. It's incredibly time-consuming and stressing to work in an environment poisoned by VM. I know they've been around for a long time, but I'm asking you to protect from them both the editors as individuals and the editorial processes taking place in an article as delicate and controversial as War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

  It appears to me that you are bringing here a content dispute Gitz6666. There are other ways to resolve disagreements, you know. You may want to consider outside input to assist in resolving your disputes such as asking for participation from uninvolved editors to create consensus for your desired modifications. Consider also Neutral point of view noticeboard – you can submit inquiries about the objectiveness of articles or Request for comment (RfC) to request replies from a number of editors. If you have an issue with the behaviour of a given editor, the first step would be to talk to them on their user talk page in a polite, simple, and direct manner. Have you tried that other than confrontational accusations of disruptive and tendenciousness editing? I will not be suprised if this report ends up in a WP:BOOMERANG -->[160] - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with everything Gitz has stated about Volunteer Marek’s conduct. In addition to VM’s abusive language, pov pushing and disruptive edits, he constantly writes misleading edit summaries and when you review his changes you find other changes not mentioned buried in the edits. Plus I have also noticed for any article he does not like he will place a pov tag without leaving any comments in the talk page. Ilenart626 (talk) 04:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

All of these accusations are false (note that not a single diff is provided by Ilenart626). Volunteer Marek 07:02, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Since you asked, here are the diffs that indicate the above statement is true:

Missleading edit summarry

[this one] VM's edit summary talks about "alleged". Scroll down and you find most of the actual edit is removing a section where the Ukrainian Parliament dimissed Ukraine's human rights chief Lyudmila Denisova, nothing to with with alleged.

adding pov tag without explanation on the talk page.

[|here ] Note that VM added the tag on the 9 May but only provide an explanation on the talk page on the 15 May after the issue was raised by another editor.

Ilenart626 (talk) 04:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm only going to reply to a couple points here because most of this is simply tl:dr territory.

• The context here is the forced abduction of Ukrainian children by Russia in the current Ukrainian-Russian war [161] [162] (what many sources refer to as "kidnapping" [163] [164]). Contrary to his assertion Gitz666 was NOT the first editor to add this info to the article - you can see here in the diff they provide that the section is already there [165], he's just adding a lot of "according to Zalensky". Once they added the "according to Zalensky" stuff in the very next edit they REMOVE the existing text [166]. So this is basically a sneaky way to remove well sourced text which simply states what is happening and replace it with a WP:WEASEL version of "it's only happening according to the President of Ukraine". Gitz666 has repeatedly tried to remove this info from the article under the very strange pretext that the Russian Parliament (Duma) passing a law which legitimizes this practice of kidnapping of Ukrainian children itself is "not a war crime". [167] Parse that. Since passing a law which gives legal cover to a war crime is not itself a war crime, according to Gitz6666, we cannot include that info in the article. Huh.

• But so far this is plausibly just a content dispute. The real problems are in some of the comments Gitz666 has made on the talk page [168]. The mildest one here is the " But we cannot even depict it as a war crime, can we?" "just-asking-question" strategy. The more problematic parts areGitz6666's assertion that There are many different interests at stake here, and the interest of Ukraine in avoiding Russian naturalisations is only one (and relatively minor compared to the interests of the child). Think about what this is saying. Gitz6666 is saying that the only reason why Ukraine is reporting on the kidnapping of its children is because it wants to "avoid Russian naturalisation" of its citizens. Not because, oh I don't know, kidnapping children's whose parents' you killed is freakin' a bad thing to do?!?! The part about the "interests of the child" is even more disturbing. The clear insinuation here is that while this kidnapping of Ukrainian children is not in the interest of Ukraine, it is "in the interest of the child". Excuse me???

• Along the same lines [169], Gitz666 proposes to remove the text on the kidnapping of the Ukrainian children entirely from the "War crimes" article (but remember, they say that they acknowledge that it is a war crime, so...? yeah, i don't understand either) and instead to create articles called Naturalisation during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine and Adoption during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Because armed forces abducting children whose parents they have killed (either through shelling, direct military assaults or worse) is just an issue of "naturalisation" and speedy "adoption". I guess the article on Kidnapping of children by Nazi Germany should be moved to Adoption of children during World War 2 as well, right? Sorry, not going to apologize for my view that this kind of framing is simply f'ed up. And it's pretty clear and blatant attempt at POV pushing. WP:CPUSH but POV push nonetheless.

• The assertion that "forced deportations" rather than "kidnapping" or "abduction" had consensus by Gitz6666 is simply false (it's a claim of false consensus). Note that this phrasing also tries to minimize the severity of what is actually happening.

• Then we have the whole "is genocide a war crime issue". Yes seriously, that is being actually debated. The thing is, yes, genocide as a concept is indeed distinct from the concept of a "war crime" simply because genocide can take place outside of war. For example the Rwandan genocide was not a "war crime" because there was no international war there. But to then use that to pretend that if genocide IS happening during the war it is not a war crime because sometimes it happens outside of war is just sophistry, pure and simple. And when you start using that kind of argument to try and remove reliably sourced info from the relevant article then once again you're clearly in POV pushing territory.

• For someone who claims that their views are being misrepresented, Gitz6666 really has some nerve to accuse me that I "even reached the point of questioning whether shooting Russian POWs in the legs amounts to torture [178] [179] - seriously?". Look at the diffs they provide. I say nothing of the kind. I am merely pointing out that the sources they use say absolutely nothing about torture.

• Gitz6666 also brings up another editor User:Dunutubble, whom they praise as "very calm and reflective". Right. This is the user who edit warred to try and pretend that Russian soldiers getting food poisoning from some pie they ate constituted "chemical warfare" by Ukraine. Seriously. [170] (bottom of the edit - but note also the top where Dunutubble tries to deny that the Bucha massacre was committed by Russian troops (something no serious source questions) and instead pretends that this is only a claim made by the Ukrainian government). Honestly, I should have reported Dunutubble right there and then (diff is from April) because this is just such over top WP:TENDENTIOUSness it really takes the cake (or pie, I guess) but I was busy at the time. Dunutubble has also been trying to move/POV the article on the Moura massacre by pretending it was just a "Siege of Moura" (with some unfortunates deaths as a side effect). Virtually ALL reliable sources call it a massacre. What's the connection? It was perpetrated by the Russian Neo-Nazi affiliated mercenary Wagner Group. So more attempts at whitewashing. What makes it even worse is the use of flagrantly false edit summaries to justify it [171]. There Dunutubble claims "HRW, Reuters, Guardian etc. all called it a siege". This is just straight up, blatantly, unashamedly, false. Here is HRW [172]. The title of the article is "Mali: Massacre by Army, Foreign Soldiers". The word "siege" does not appear at all in the article. Dunutubble is simply... telling untruths. Here is Reuters [173]. It says Survivors said white mercenaries suspected to be Russians took part in the massacre. The word "siege" does not appear at all in the article. Here is Guardian [174]. It's titled "Russian mercenaries linked to civilian massacres in Mali". The word siege does not appear at all in the article.

But Dunutubble claims "HRW, Reuters, Guardian etc. all called it a siege". How are you supposed to interact with someone who will just sit there and make blatantly false statements like that to justify their POV and edit warring? And this is the editor that Gitz6666 holds up as an example of someone wo is "very calm and reflective" and, you know, I'm being mean to them, by pointing out the problems with their edits (never mind that calling someone's comments a "tantrum" as Dunutublle does is not very civil, nor "calm", nor "reflective" - it's just a passive aggressive personal attack).

Gitz6666 also holds up editor User:Anoimu was another editor that I supposedly "provokoed". Anonimu is topic banned so I don't want to discuss them here since they can't reply, just want to note quickly that cotnrary to Gitz6666's assertion, Anonimu was NOT topic banned for calling me a "vandal" (which yes, that was bad), they were topic banned for "tendetious editing" [175]. Basically for making edits in the same vein and similar to the ones that Gitz6666 has been making.

The fact that Gitz6666 is holding up these two very problematic users (one of them already topic banned) as paragons of virtue in this topic area pretty clearly illustrates where the problem really lies here. Volunteer Marek 08:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• Point of information, there was a war going on during the Rwandan genocide. The Rwandan Civil War. Some (but not all, maybe not most) of those killings were probably classic war crime scenarios, but I'd need to doublecheck with the scholarship. -Indy beetle (talk) 13:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

• I'm definitely concerned by Gitz's clear attempt to slide in content with weasel word caveats while sliding out reliably sourced content in Wikivoice. I'm similarly concerned by the pushback on the idea that abducting Ukrainian children (and adults), i.e. the deportation or forcible transfer of population, is a war crime. This is a very clear war crime, and has been since 1948. Now perhaps the timing of this comment was just unfortunate, but just a day later, the war crime association was made plain as day by Reuters. However, the subsequent comment, after Ukraine had officially announced its war crime investigations into the abduction of children, is less excusable, and points to something else at work. Finding and assessing the readily available sources - like the Reuters one, which explicitly explain the nature of crimes related to forcible displacement - at this point was not hard. Should anyone who can't perform this basic function - availing of the information that sits in plain sight for all to see - be throwing their weight around on the subject? And yet Gitz was pushing the 'forced deportation' terminology (don't agree with VM that his minimizes it), which makes this yet more odd, since 'forced deportation' is precisely the type of technical language used to classify these activities as war crimes. So Gitz is espousing the technical war crime definitions even as he pushes back against the classification. Bizarre. Meanwhile, trying to tow the Russian line of masquerading these abductions as naturalizations or adoptions is a fairly extreme example of POV pushing. Is there anyone outside of the Kremlin's propaganda department and particularly gullible members of the Russian public that genuinely views these events this way? Iskandar323 (talk) 08:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

  I did not pushback on the idea that abducting Ukrainian children (and adults), i.e. the deportation or forcible transfer of population, is a war crime. I've never NEVER said or implied that forced deportation does not qualify as war crime and/or falls outside the scope of the article. I just said that the info on Russia passing a law on easing adoption of Ukrainian children should not belong to the section on forced deportation of children in the article on War Crimes in Ukraine; that information - I argued - requires more context and more sources, and basically should be the subject of a dedicated article. That was my argument, it might be right or wrong, but it was an honest argument, and I made a good-faith edit with a clear summary; once reverted, I exposed my views on the talk page and I abode by consensus. So I don't see why I should get flagged and blamed for that, let alone be grossly misunderstood and misrepresented. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:58, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I have edited at 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and related articles but I was unaware of this particular dispute. I am specifically aware of interactions with Volunteer Marek. I am pretty sure that I have interacted with Gitz6666 but would be pressed to specifically recall. Most editors on these articles have partisan views on the invasion and I would observe that VM is not an exception. However, my recollection is that, while they might be forthright in their opinions, their contributions could not be considered exceptional wrt civility or POV. I have found them to be generally acceptive of broader consensus. These particular discussions might be "tense" but I am not seeing anything exceptional in the circumstances. This is essentially a content dispute and most content disputes can be attributed to a differing POV. It should be resolved through the normal pathways. However, bringing the matter here with a claim to WP:CIVIL is another matter and I'm not seeing that this claim is clearly being substantiated. If there is anything to be addressed here, it would be incivility. But from what I read, it has been used as a throw-away add on. The case attempted focusses on the content dispute, which is a "not here". Waving the civility stick around is a matter that should be considered here. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
• This should probably be at AE rather than here. I am of the general opinion that that Gitz6666 is POV-pushing problematically here and I note they have had an ARBEE alert in April, so going to AE is possible. Black Kite (talk) 12:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
• Yeh, Gitz666 has a POV here. [176] - reverting to say that "The Russian military allegedly exposed the civilian population to unnecessary and disproportionate harm by using cluster munitions" instead of just "Russian military attacked the civilian population using cluster munitions". Is anyone in doubt that they in fact attacked the civilian population using cluster munitions? Or this - including word "alleged" 6 times where it arguably does not belong and well poisoning by including irrelevant content about living person. My very best wishes (talk) 18:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

  The second diff you just shared is actually User:Ilenart626 reverting Volunteer Marek. Note, by the way, VM's edit summary there, where no mention is made of the removal of contents about Denisova's dismissal. When I added those contents (22:33, 16 June 2022, diff. not available) I made it clear in the summary: Denisova's dismissal (+ sources) is relevant here as it was determined also by her unverified allegations of sexual crimes involving children. So that diff actually shows the difference between cooperative editing and POV-pushing. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

  Agree I specifically reverted Volunteer Marek’s edits as the edit summary was missleading, refer my comments and examples above. Ilenart626 (talk) 04:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

No, I think what you both did was misrepresenting or at least editorializing the sources because the inline references did not say and did not even imply a number of "alleged" you restored (a couple of the "alleged" could be fine), as I explained on article talk page [177]. My very best wishes (talk) 12:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

• Given the lack of qualified observers on the ground in the Ukraine, and how much misinformation (even if unintential) from both Ukraine and Russia sources, we should be careful on stating certain events as facts on Wikivoice until proven out through time. Eg much of the discussion would be better handled if NOTNEWS and RECENTISM were respected, knowing that a clear picture of events is unlikely in the short term. We don't need to include every detail particularly if there lots of questions around it. --Masem (t) 22:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

  Well, this is not about "sides", but about fairly describing what mainstream RS say on the subject. If they say "alleged" about something, then yes, sure. But if not, this is POV-pushing. What I mean is explained in more detail here. My very best wishes (talk) 03:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Dunutubble tries to deny that the Bucha massacre was committed by Russian troops

Read Talk:Bucha massacre, I've been one of the main contributors to that page and if you somehow see how any of my edits there "deny" the Bucha massacre (especially since I was one of the first editors to support the removal of the words "alleged" from the lede), I don't know where you got that idea from. The reason why I changed the text in that link was because I had used Twinkle to restore an earlier version of the page (and restoring doesn't mean you can pick-and-choose words like that).

Dunutubble has also been trying to move/POV the article on the Moura massacre by pretending it was just a "Siege of Moura" (with some unfortunates deaths as a side effect)

You didn't read the summaries I gave where I said that There was a massacre but it happened during the siege and Article also covers the siege; massacre occurred during the siege. Why somebody would cherry-pick my edits (coupled with the fact that it was I who actually started the article, so it doesn't make sense to think I'm tryin to deny what happened) is beyond me. It's not uncommon to have "Siege of X" or "Battle of X" instead of "X massacre" article titles which we can see with "Raid on Dartmouth (1751)"/"Dartmouth Massacre", "Siege of Tel al-Zaatar"/"Tel al-Za'atar Massacre", "Siege of Badajoz (1812)"/"1812 Badajoz massacre", etc anyway.

calling someone's comments a "tantrum"... it's just a passive aggressive personal attack).

I was pointing to WP:TANTRUM, which is a real Wikipedia essay on civility. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 20:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Dude, the diff is right here. In that diff, you:

1. Pretend that Russian soldiers getting food poisoning from eating some Ukrainian food is equivalent to Ukraine "using chemical weapons". Like, that right there, gives away your POV simply because it's so over the top and crazy that someone would try to put that into a Wikipedia article. Of course the source you pretend cites the information says absolutely NOTHING about "chemical warfare" [178]. So there's another instance of you blatantly misrepresenting sources and pretending they say something they don't.

2. You change the text "(Bucha massacre was) committed by Russian forces, including torture and deliberate killings of unarmed civilians, including children" which is well sourced and beyond doubt in any mainstream source to (Bucha massacre was) attributed by the Ukrainian authorities on the Russian troops" as if the culpability here is in doubt.

You say that you only restored someone else's edit and you had to restore all of it, including the POV parts, because you were using Twinkle. I'm sorry but "I was using Twinkle" is not a valid excuse for reverting problematic text back into the article. Just. Don't. Use. Twinkle to edit war.

And here is the other diff [179] for the Moura Massacre.

In the edit summary there you explicitly claim that "HRW, Guardian, Reuters" despite the fact - that as I've already shown above - this is blatantly false. All of them call it "massacre". NONE of them even use the word siege. I don't care if some other articles on "sieges" WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, how is that relevant? Volunteer Marek 21:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• Disclaimer: I'm the creator of this article; not currently active in maintaining it. I do not think that this is purely a content dispute. I think that almost all of the active editors of the article who are involved in this discussion at WP:ANI each have some valid edits and valid points in discussing the edits. However, some of the comments are either misleading or outright wrong (verifiable by checking the evidence), and several violate WP:AGF. We are now getting WP:WALLSOFTEXT. I think that as Black Kite said, going to WP:AE might be better than ANI, thanks to the tightly constrained format. Gitz6666's opening comment here is about 2388 words and 70 links (mostly diffs?), and Volunteer Marek's responses are long too. WP:AE's limit of 500 words/20 diffs would make it easier both for the participants and for uninvolved people willing to comment or propose sanctions or constraints (such as 1RR). Despite the abhorrent nature of the content of the article, constructive editing and respect for each other as Wikipedians should be possible. This is not the first, nor will it be the last, of Wikipedia articles on XXIst century war crimes. Boud (talk) 22:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• I have protected War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine for two days to prevent edit warring there. Please help the editors to find a compromise if you can. All editors of the article a good people, working in good faith. The topic is very emotional and occasionally good faith content disputes can offend participants. I implore everybody and especially Marek to assume good faith and before putting an emotional summary to an edit or an emotional entry to the talk page to think that that the other participants a live people who have their emotions too. I do not think any other administrative actions are useful at this time. Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Alex Bakharev good judgement.👍, I think the same. - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  There is not a compromise here. Gitz purpose (in this area) is to edit in and promote Russian propaganda and excuse/deny war crimes, that is clear from their editing. Just broadly topic ban them from the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not aware of this particular dispute but VM accused me of trying to push a certain POV that I wasn't trying to push, which I wasn't- I was simply separating the two to be more specific on who holds what. This probably falls under WP:AGF IMO. --Firestar464 (talk) 11:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

From last IP Range

Since this other IP editor asked this question relating to this, would you take a look at this edit? Here it is:[[180]] Also, you should take at look at 205.155.237.189, 2600:1011:B00F:D1:4858:819E:FF80:90F2, 104.243.113.132, 24.234.55.138, and 172.85.211.18. Also, did you review edits of 204.129.232.191? They asked many unhelpful and disruptive questions and posts unrelated to the improvements of the talk page, such as What if 2020 was a person? and What if 2020 came to your house?. They even cause disruption to the Wikipedia articles by making bad edit requests. What do you think of them? I know that they were blocked earlier for disruptive editing. I would like to thank for the admin and bureaucrats for reviewing their edits. --2601:205:C001:EA0:1823:FE7C:343F:65B4 (talk) 09:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

This is a well known individual. Report them to WP:AIV if they cause further disruption. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes this person's trolling forced Talk:2022 to be protected for a few days. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 21:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

An Anonymous User is changing Eurovision Contesters for no reason

Nearly 2 Days Ago, a user changed these article's songs -

• Slovenia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2021
• Finland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2021
• Eurovision Song Contest 2021

Please do something about it--2A10:8001:E494:0:5DE8:D957:3901:9AB0 (talk) 11:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

A few edits were made a couple of days ago, they’ve been reverted and not redone. This is most definitely not an urgent chronic behavioural problem requiring immediate administrator attention. There’s nothing to do here. Canterbury Tail talk 11:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Recent influx of problematic articles on Arabian language novels

The last few weeks, we have seen a large influx of new articles on Arabian language novels. Most of them seem to be notable, so should normally be welcomed, but the creations, even though done by different editors, have serious issues which have seen many of them draftified or speedy deleted already (including very poor translations leading to unintelligible prose and factual errors). This seems to be related to a #KMUOS project or drive from the University of Sharjah[181]. Other editors who have dealt with this include User:Moonswimmer, User:Praxidicae, User:Timtrent, User:Doug Weller, User:RandomCanadian, and User:Liz. This is a recurring problem, see also Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard/Archive_21#Project_#KMUOS which indicates that it was run in February 2021 and again in November 2021, with the same issues. See Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard#Resurrected_from_the_archives_(#KMUOS) for a short recent discussion. Many of the articles are unattributed, copyright violating translations from Arabic sources, so at worst a mass deletion may be necessary, apart from some method to deal with the editors and the project as a whole. Examples:

• User talk:Reyami.Alsalman, an endless list of deletions and draftifications, with zero posts to article or user talk by the editor involved
• User talk:Farah Afana, again a long list of issues with articles, and again not a single edit to talk or user talk
• User talk:Shahdmurshed, same story, same complete lack of interaction
• User talk:Hanan Wadi, same, but 1 user talk message[182]
• User talk:Aisha abdulsamad, same, no talk page posts
• User talk:Fatimah Al Ani, same
• User talk:Sanabaghhh, same

The creation, and recreation, of this many problematic articles is seriously taxing New Page Patrol (and other processes). All help is appreciated. Fram (talk) 13:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

If it really is a case of a lecturer instructing their students to do this, then sanctioning the individual editors (students) involved presumably won't help much; next term or year there will be a new cohort. And if (per Timtrent's earlier comments) contact with the lecturer has been attempted but they're not responding, then is it possible to prevent new article creation from the university's IP range, at least temporarily just to get their attention? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

- @DoubleGrazing, @Fram I tried reaching out to the putative instructor by email and was totally ignored.

We have several options:

• Sanction the students - fruitless and likely to hurt us, not the student
• Getting WMF to contact the university and tame this instructor - my favourite, but will they, and how do we initiate that?
• Treat each article on its merits and delete - solves the short term issue, but takes work and is a dostracton
• Block the university - Will only work if they receive a targeted message requiring the errant instructor to get in real contact.

I suppose there are other routes. What I am not in favour of is any special treatment of the students nor their articles. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

The problem VAST. I just looked at one editor's contributions. I was tempted to AfD, but, but but..... So many 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:17, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Who was it that you reached out to? Was it the one Dana Khalil mentioned here, or someone else? It's odd, because in theory, the brief says all the right things! Iskandar323 (talk) 14:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

One, perhaps more, of

Prof. Sane Yagi (most likely)

Dr. Najib Jarad

Ms. Dana Khalil

Ms. Serine Brahim

No response at all 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

They should be blocked as they come, just as we do with problematic contest editors. PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Considering that User:Aisha abdulsamad alone has created 3 more articles since they were notified of this discussion, I agree. No use in letting them continue if they don't communicate at the very least. Fram (talk) 14:51, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Preventative blocks, followed by article inspection do, now, seem to be the right way to proceed 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Blocking will also at least bring to their attention that something is wrong and may lead to them or their instructor communicating with the rest of the community. I'm doing some NPP today, but I'm skipping these article (a few more of which have been created since the article creators were notified of this ANI thread). Singularity42 (talk) 15:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

If they're not responding to any talk page comments or this thread in a timely manner, I don't see an issue with blocking them all as a preventative measure. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

This raises a couple of general questions. Do such drives ever produce positive results? If so, do they constitute a net positive or negative to Wikipedia? Wouldn't we do better to disband the WMF department that encourages educational projects and spend the money on more important things like making the mobile interface work for editing? I know that these questions are not directly linked to the problem here but they need to be asked. I still, after many years of saying such things, think that the WMF would get more bang for the buck by employing a few highly-skilled and highly-paid technicians than these armies of unskilled "outreach" workers. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger I fear this project is outside the WikiEd remit, so is an instructor doing their (very poor) best. Surely a discussion about extending WikiEd might bear better fruit, but elsewhere and away from the problem this instructor is causing their students.

I feel sorry for the poor students. But not sorry enough to object to blocking them and deleting the unattributed translations which must thus be copyvios. Or, I suppose, attributing them and keeping or deleting in their merits 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I have not considered the copyvio issue. I don't read Arabic, so I rely on machine translation (I know, I know) to get a feel for what the sources say. In an article I just looked at, Embrace on Brooklyn Bridge, I even have a concern that that isn't the English title of the book—or at least, it's only the editor's original research of what the translated title should be.

I do have sympathy for the students, but when I've crossed paths with education-related projects and student editors in the past, sometimes the only way to get the instructor's attention is when they have students coming back to the instructor complaining that their articles are being deleted or their accounts are being blocked. —C.Fred (talk) 17:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Given the similarity of this and this, and the fact that the articles all seem to the same odd table at the end, I'm wondering bifn they have been pointed to arabicfiction.org and told to translate it. Can a translation be so bad and to avoid copyright infringement? - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

A retired IP lawyer writes: A colleague once remarked that the great principle of copyright law is, "Go and write your own". A dreadful translation still violates that principle - it's freeloading on someone else's work. Narky Blert (talk) 04:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I have been draftifying these articles as I see them show up in the edit filter log, I feel like it would probably be best to draftify most if not all of them, see if they have merit, and then clean up the translation as fit, but that is certainly a lot of work to do so. I'm not even sure these articles have a place on English Wikipedia, but that's my own opinion. ~XyNq^t_c 19:17, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree that if there aren’t copyright violations, draftification provides a safe place to save and fix those articles worth saving. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

...but most are copyright violations, so draftifying is not the solution (though better than nothing of course). Preventing the creation of new articles would be nice though. Fram (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Maybe then just a block from Article space so they could still use Talk pages and Draft space would be a good solution. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Yep. Or as a wider fix, block the university's entire IP range from mainspace, with AO off and ACB enabled. Obviously, this would need a CU to determine the IP range, but if as suspected they're all coming from a named university that IP range is unlikely to be private information anyway. Black Kite (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Draftifying just means they'll go through AfC and be accepted by reviewers who are unfamiliar with this problem, though, right? I've accepted at least one of them (but this one was a translation from ar-wiki as far as I can tell). I share @C.Fred's concern about the titles though (in my case, why not The Sail and The Storm instead of Sail and Storm?). It never occurred to me to check if the editor had ever edited a Talk page - so much the fool me, I guess. Unless there are some Arabic-speaking Wikipedia editors handy to rope into dealing with this, I think blocking (in the hopes of getting the attention of the professors) is probably a good call. -- asilvering (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

• I have blocked User:Aisha abdulsamad, User:Reyami.Alsalman and User:Sanabaghhh from mainspace as they were still creating articles after being notified. Will look at the others later. Black Kite (talk) 05:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  Good and pragmatic call. To get the attention further I have suggested Draft:Death bed number 12 for CSD as a copyvio referencing this discussion.

  However, doing this individually to each such suspected copyvio seems arduous. I believe admins have tools to perform certain actions on user edits en masse. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 05:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  Distressing case; if only the instructor(s) would have the decency to respond. Meanwhile, we are forced to punish their students and destroy their well intentioned work. I had a look at Draft:Death bed number 12 and looking at our article on the author, Ghassan Kanafani, and searching on the urls of 2 references the editor removed led me to conclude the draft is a translation of موت سرير رقم 12 on Arabic Wikipedia (we translate the title as "A Death in Bed No. 12"). Pretty obviously notable, and I'm not sure an unattributed translation from another language Wikipedia is speediable, especially since the editor may have intended the first edit summary, "translate from arabic to English", to mean just that? But the translation obviously needs clean-up (and no, I can't read Arabic), and if I'm right it's a good illustration of how formats and expectations differ between versions of Wikipedia. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:59, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, this is why I've moved the articles of the pblocked editors to Draft: space, so they can continue to work on them. But we simply can't have them bombarding us with dozens of articles ranging from tolerable to utterly non-notable. Black Kite (talk) 09:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

• Hanan Wadi (talk · contribs) is still going on with creating articles after the notice. ~Styyx^Talk? 19:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  And very close to getting blocked for copyright violations. —C.Fred (talk) 01:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

• CU comment I've just taken a look at the first two accounts listed above. They all geolocate to the same city, but they are both jumping around multiple different ranges - preventing just those two accounts from editing would require eight different wide range blocks. In other words, anything less than drastic and wide-ranging action is not going to be effective if we go off the IPs they're editing from. If we want to address this, we're going to have to go at it from the 'block the accounts to get their attention' angle. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Ongoing disruption from an IP range

• 2001:FB1:156:19B5:A9FC:A0E8:7B6E:B140 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2001:FB1:156:19B5:701B:3F11:F8FB:B9EC (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2001:FB1:156:19B5:CE8:93FC:E81E:CB61 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2001:FB1:156:19B5:B8D5:ECF:C52D:F16C (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

An IP hopping over a range in Thailand has been making repeated disruptive postings, all of which are basically identical to this: [183] and this: [184]. Many of the postings are on User talk:Doc James, but others have been on various article talk pages. There are no constructive edits from these accounts. I don't know much about IP ranges, but I hope that an admin with experience in rangeblocks can put a stop to this. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

That's one /64 range. Also 2001:fb1:156:19b5:90a:97a:79d9:4756 from the 16th. Block it. --StellarNerd (talk) 20:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Going back, on the 24th of May it was 2001:fb1:155:d92:b6e6:2aff:fe8a:2b1e which is a different /64. And on the 9th of June it was 2001:fb1:155:7aaf:b6e6:2aff:fe8a:2b1e --StellarNerd (talk) 20:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

2001:FB1:140:0:0:0:0:0/42 covers it. Or part of it. --StellarNerd (talk) 20:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, I've blocked 2001:FB1:156:19B5::/64, which covers Tryptofish's report, to be going on with. I can't, or daren't, handle /42:s. Bishonen | tålk 21:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC).

Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

As IP ranges go, that /42 range isn't super-active - there would be some collateral, but not a huge amount. Tryptofish, if you notice this continuing after this current block, give me a shout and I'll see if I can figure out a block that would do the trick. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Will do. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: 2001:FB1:154:3115:8851:B080:AF69:2EAB, with gloating over getting past the block. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I see that Blablubbs has gone ahead and blocked the /44 range for a month. Let us know if they keep at it and we can look at widening, extending, etc. Cheers Girth Summit _(blether) 19:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping @Girth Summit, I didn't realise there was an ANI thread about this. As far as I can tell, the /44 catches the same number of recent bad edits as the /42, but with a little less collateral. I think it's fairly likely that this will need tweaking at some point (since there indeed seem to be some edits from a couple months ago that are contained in the /42 but not the /44), but I'm hoping this will do the trick for the time being. --Blablubbs (talk) 19:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes please. I've cleaned Doc James' page too often in the last couple of days. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 23:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

OK, late to this party and I was commenting on Trypto's post only, as incompetence led me to believe that all this good work hadn't been done yet. Sigh. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 23:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Editing vital articles list without discussion

Back in December 2021, I stumbled upon the Vital articles - specifically the Level 5 vital articles. There's where I noticed Saturdayopen adding and removing entries with no discussion on the talk page. The talk page has made it clear on when entries should be changed. I pretty much was told off from I made my first notice to the user. (Others have noted before and after me it seems on the talk page.) I was just told the same situation from Kazamzam. It seems the user has at least made discussion on the talk page but the same results are happening. I also just realized they have been warned in the past with editing vital article lists. I feel like some action should be done to at least put editing the list on hold for a bit. – The Grid (talk) 01:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Not their first rodeo - see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1047#User:Saturdayopen modifying Vital Article List without consensus, 10 September 2020. Narky Blert (talk) 04:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I would really like someone who has been involved in the Vital Article project be involved, please. Saturdayopen (talk) 05:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Blocked as a sock puppet of Afdafadsfas (talk · contribs). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. – The Grid (talk) 05:36, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Likely disruptive IP range

2604:B000:B127:FEE1:85FC:CF8F:54B5:8E05 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is on the same /64 as the 2604:B000:B127:FEE1:900D:69C6:CD05:586 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), recently given a one-year block for personal attacks. Both have, on their talk pages, asserted that Wikimedia is "A NONEXISTENT!" [sic] and consistently insert their replies to warnings above the boilerplate "shared IP advice". That all-caps paragraph in general, though tamer than what I've seen from the already-blocked IP, certainly doesn't look like the statements of anyone here for constructive editing, either. Under these circumstances, any block — whether a rangeblock or more direct — would probably be best served with their talk page access being taken away. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

More IPs on this /64, 2604:b000:b127:fee1:65eb:bdd:eb0c:f25f (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 2604:b000:b127:fee1:3d82:2502:83d9:93fe (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), have been making similar all-caps demands calling for Wikipedia and the rest of Wikimedia to be shut down (and the first of those involved editing someone's talk page archive…), something the already-blocked IP has called for as well. I suspect all this might also be evading a block on 70.45.219.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), which has the same ISP as the /64 and would respond to their blocks with similar "SHUT DOWN WIKIPEDIA!" demands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked the /64 for a couple of weeks.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Questionable conduct between two users

This conversation indicates that one or both users might intend to tag-team/canvass together – in particular, note the "rope" comment. 96.76.220.221 (talk) 10:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

That looks like standard practice for WP:DUCKs, and appears that they are waiting for an abundance of evidence before opening a WP:SPI. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I see no issue with this, they appear to be discussing and monitoring a potential sock puppet. — Czello 11:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry short on time this week.....evidence is there just need to compile will do so this weekend. In the mean time have asked for "Temporary extended confirmed protection: Persistent sockpuppetry" for United States. Moxy- 11:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, re: the "rope" comment, it's in reference to WP:ROPE. Nothing malicious, simply illustrating that the sock puppet they're discussing is likely to expose themselves further. — Czello 12:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

• I've blocked EstWhenever as a sock of Mrbeastmodeallday.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
• You think the IP here could be related? They have knowledge of WP:ANI with no previous edits. It just sounds like WP:BEANS. – The Grid (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  Was going to do a report with IPs and any other accounts...check user was my intent. That said wonderfull to see others helping out with this as its pretty clear by page edit history we have an ongoing problem. I do think that if the page was "Temporary extended confirmed protection" it would be less of a time sink for us at the article. But that would have the affect of 500 edits to other pages we may have to deal with. Thank you all. Moxy- 16:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Moxy I believe there is some IP hopping going on at Talk:United States. Three different IPs are removing your comments, and they all have very similar edit summaries. I think we have a problem on our hands. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 00:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

  Correct they said they would do this. The talk page did have some protection...but that expired days ago. Not sure why this sinkhole isn't being recognized. Moxy- 02:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Kainedamo and Gamergate

Kainedamo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is clearly not here to contribute to article editing, but rather to argue the very old and very tired "it was just about ethics" side. They are not an WP:ECP-qualifying editor, thus are limited to the tslk page and not Gamergate (harassment campaign) itself.

Selections -

• User_talk:Kainedamo#In_which_I_try_to_reason_with_wikipedia_janitors_about_GamerGate.
• Obsession with Zoe Quinn's Kickstarter details [185].
• Arguing about the latest right-wing subreddits that have been banned [186].
• "To quote the sealion, in order to defeat me you'd have to show which of my positions are wrong."
• "It is about ethics"
• Both points you made were just intellectual cowardice

And on and on and on. Honestly, just browse through the combative bludgeoning in Talk:Gamergate_(harassment_campaign)#Studies_regarding_attitudes_of_GamerGate_supporters, Talk:Gamergate_(harassment_campaign)#172_is_spurious,_unscientific_nonsense_and_should_be_removed, Talk:Gamergate_(harassment_campaign)#chopping_discussion:_glasgow_and_peckford to get the full picture. ValarianB (talk) 16:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I find it very odd the account doesn't have any edits at all for 10 YEARS then goes to one of the most tenacious subjects that we have. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Are people allowed to disagree with the current narrative of the GamerGate page? Nobody's ever debunked the Leigh Alexander/Sunset ethics controversy, which people can read about complete with details and evidence, over at deepfreeze.it, under the article Unfair Advantage. I'm very satisfied that at the very least this is the appearance of a journalist using journalist connections to unethically boost a game she was paid to work on, with no disclosures from those connections. While there are many other examples of games journalists behaving unethically, I focus on this one because it's particularly key. Leigh Alexander is referred to multiple times across the references. I see comments like "GamerGate lost the ethics argument". It isn't true. It's simply the case that these kinds of ethics transgressions are not covered or acknowledged by the typical sources the editors like.

I have ideas for suggestions using "reliable sources" that are more in keeping with how you guys do things.

Am I allowed to say it's about ethics in the Talk page? Kainedamo (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

"Arguing about the latest right-wing subreddits that have been banned [190]."

That's a complete misrepresentation of that argument. The discussion was about a source that examined KiA, which is neither right wing nor banned. I was pointing out the massive, gaping holes in the reasoning of the source which claimed evidence that KiA is Right Wing Extremist. I pointed out, for example, that the section on 'free speech is hate speech' from that essay is begging the question. Standing up for free speech is a liberal principle. Why would the presumption be that it's a RWE talking point? Applying Occam's Razor would suggest it's safer to assume an innocent motive over RWE, when people are talking about supporting free speech. Then some wiki editor argued with me and gloated about subbreddits being banned and how "KiA is next". Kainedamo (talk) 17:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I also gathered from that discussion that the guy I was arguing with is completely incapable of distinguishing a sincere support of free speech as a principle, and Right Wing Extremism. Kainedamo (talk) 17:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Kainedamo is here to argue that Gamergate is right and to post negative stuff about Zoe Quinn. They have expressly refused to work within the way we do things. They are unquestionably not here to build an encylopedia. This sort of behavior is exactly why we have discretionary sanctions for this topic area. Please apply them. MrOllie (talk) 17:05, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

'post negative stuff about Zoe Quinn.'

And that is forbidden? Kainedamo (talk) 17:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I am intensely critical of GG (and not always in agreement with those who were targeted by the waves of harassment), but I will say that Kaindemo's topic seems to of elicited a lot of responses, which would move it beyond the realm of simple trolling. But sh*t such as refuting "anti racist is code for anti white" is dangerously close to being a WP:NONAZI issue. Kainedamo, you may not like it, but that statement is irrefutably a neo-nazi or white supremacist dog-whistle. And my spouse being referred to a "chink" over and over again by an irate co-worker is not free speech - we call that "hate speech".--SinoDevonian (talk) 18:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the source provided context for the quote "anti-racism means anti-white". Context matters. There's a school of thought in current day identity ideology that says it isn't enough to not be racist, one must be anti-racist. Which sounds good on paper, but when applied by 'progressive' hyprocrites and bullies, who believe racism is everywhere, who are themselves racist against white people, it can be twisted emotional manipulation. So, I say without the context it was said in, we can't really make judgements about "anti-racism means anti-white" in itself. For more information go to New Discourses, Social Justice Encyclopedia, antiracism. Kainedamo (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Kainedamo, it might be worthwhile to peruse WP:BLP. Negative information is of course allowed, but should be backed up by reliable sources. While there is more flexibility on the talk page than the article, BLP policy applies there as well. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I didn't quite get the wikipedia formatting correct, but is this better? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gamergate_(harassment_campaign)#New_section_suggestion:_Johnny_Depp/Amber_Heard_Trial Kainedamo (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

You forgot to sign, but generally speaking, yes, that is a cogent suggestion that follows Wikipedia guidelines (to my mind, at least). Dumuzid (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Above, I see comments like "GamerGate lost the ethics argument". It isn't true. It's simply the case that these kinds of ethics transgressions are not covered or acknowledged by the typical sources the editors like.. This is really no different than an editor (and there have been a handful come and invariably go) going to 2021 United States Capitol attack and vociferously arguing that the election was stolen from Donald Trump. ValarianB (talk) 18:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Not really. More people should learn and understand Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor doesn't always apply, but it is often useful as a tool to cut through extraordinary claims. "Video games journalists were/are unethical" is a rather mundane claim, nothing like claiming a Presidential election was stolen. These are worlds apart in terms of assumptions. Kainedamo (talk) 18:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

ANI is not a forum for your views on article content. The article title is a disambiguation made necessary by the existence of Gamergate (ant), in case you were not aware. You are free to suggest alternatives in the appropriate venues
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User 'The Hand That Feeds You' is consistently antagonistic. He accuses me of defending 'far right bigotry' when I talked about freedom of speech being a liberal principle, he brags about subbreddits being banned which has nothing to do with anything, he threatens to ban me. His responses never address my points. Kainedamo (talk) 19:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC) I've always found the media narrative against gamers to be extraordinarily dehumanizing, going all the way back to the Jack Thompson era of media moral panic. On August 28th, 2014 there were at least ten articles from games journalists and academics declaring 'gamers don't have to be your audience, gamers are over', with even more articles in the days that followed. Full of nasty generalizations. "Young men queuing with plush mushroom hats and backpacks and jutting promo poster rolls. Queuing passionately for hours, at events around the world, to see the things that marketers want them to see. To find out whether they should buy things or not. They don’t know how to dress or behave. Television cameras pan across these listless queues, and often catch the expressions of people who don’t quite know why they themselves are standing there." Negative stereotypes of men with autism. Despite Alexander's claim to support inclusion, the 'gamers are over' articles were not inclusive. "These obtuse shitslingers, these wailing hyper-consumers, these childish internet-arguers -- they are not my audience. They don’t have to be yours. There is no ‘side’ to be on, there is no ‘debate’ to be had." Ugly personal attacks, and intellectual cowardice. 'No debate to be had'? The Sunset controversy says otherwise (as just one example). These articles asserted all sorts of nonsense about swathes of people, projecting as though they have crystal balls and can read minds, blaming the culture and community of gaming for all sorts of horrible things instead of blaming the actions of a relative handful of individuals. Negative descriptors followed by 'male', 'white', like in Arthur Chu's article. It was a sign of this emerging 'progressive' bully ideology, based on identity, and full of gaslighting and projection when anybody pushes back. The narrative that had quickly formed by the journalists in August, 2014 has never really been seriously questioned or examined, except by a handful of journalists and researchers like Cathy Young or Brad Glasgow. Here's some food for thought. Neither the wikipedia page on Nazis, or the wikipedia page on Islamic State, are as negatively worded as the GamerGate page. The nazism page isn't titled Nazis (holocaust), the Islamic State page isn't titled Islamic State (terrorists), but the GamerGate page is titled GamerGate (harassment campaign). It's so over the top. Let's compare opening sentences. Nazism - Nazism (/ˈnɑːtsiɪzəm, ˈnæt-/ NA(H)T-see-iz-əm), the common name in English for National Socialism (German: Nationalsozialismus, German: [natsi̯oˈnaːlzotsi̯aˌlɪsmʊs] (listen)), is the ideology and practices associated with Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party in Nazi Germany. Islamic State - An Islamic state is a state that has a form of government based on Islamic law (sharia). As a term, it has been used to describe various historical polities and theories of governance in the Islamic world. GamerGate - Gamergate was a misogynistic online harassment campaign and a right-wing backlash against feminism, diversity, and progressivism in video game culture. Dudes, why are the pages for Nazism and Islamic State more neutrally worded than the page on GamerGate? Misogyny word count. Nazism page - 0. Islamic State page - 1, at the side under ideology, not in a sentence. GamerGate page - 10 times in the article itself, more in the titles of references. I believe it's far more likely that journalists are engaging in hysteria, moral panic, exaggeration, sweeping generalizations, myth making, demonization, even chasing clicks and social clout off the back of the topic. I don't think it's particularly likely that, somehow, gaming culture, gamers, or GamerGate, are more uniquely sexist than other segments of modern civilization. The data (as in, hard data like Christopher Ferguson's work, or various other studies like Sexist Games=Sexist Gamers? A Longitudinal Study on the Relationship Between Video Game Use and Sexist Attitudes), shows no real evidence that video games influence negative beliefs or behaviours. Claiming some variation like "reinforce" is the same claim. Claiming it's the culture, or the community of gamers that is the problem, just moves the claim back a step and adds a whole other layer of assumptions. Journalists and academics that behave more like activists, have behaved incredibly irresponsibly, constantly pushing a cruel lie that misogyny and hatred are these every day things that permeate even hobbyist communities, when I have every reason to believe instead that the gaming community is inclusive, and never needed these journos to be so. The journos can't force the community to agree with Anita Sarkeesian, and so critics of Anita Sarkeesian are sexist. At every point, their arguments require assuming the absolute worst about other people's beliefs and motivations, and applying these assumptions to, essentially, swathes of total strangers, and any push back is framed as harassment. Why is the wikipedia page on GamerGate like this? Why does every sentence drip with this desperate need that there can be no room for doubt - this group of people who used hashtag GamerGate, are a hate campaign of misogynists who are racists and they send every threat you can imagine and they don't love their children like we proper good people do. It's like the page itself is one big virtue signal. It reads like war time propaganda against an enemy nation. When data indicates GamerGate supporters were hugely diverse and came from many countries. The narrow POV of San Francisco style identity politics really does not fit most of these people. I think - I hope - if the future does lean towards progress and knowledge - one day, people will be embarrassed that they justified such ugliness for the sake of a convenient boogeyman that absolutely anything can be projected onto. Kainedamo (talk) 22:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I've hatted the above section, which appears to be an attempt to bludgeon the discussion in a new venue. Acroterion (talk) 00:53, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Bad Faith Reverts by User:Citobun

I would like to preface this notice by stating that I am new to Wikipedia. I ask for understanding in case any action is not in line with common practice.

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

• Airport Authority Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Lee government (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Marine Department (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This notice relates edits made to three articles on 22 June 2022 as listed above. The edits were reverted by Citobun a few hours after the edits in quick succession over a period of no more then three minutes.

Citobun provided the below rationale for the reverts:

1. Airport Authority Hong Kong (diff)

"Original wording was more direct and is reflective of what's in the cited source"

2. Lee government‎ (diff)

"The kind of wording you're adding to various articles is indirect and unclear"

3. Marine Department (diff)

"Poorly written and indirect"

Upon reviewing the rationale for the reverts, it would seem that Citobun has not taken the proper time to review the content in the edits.

In general, each edit was composed of more then just copy-editing elements and included the addition of both new links and references. In some cases, more accurate content was added to improve information on the entities referred to in the article.

However, of greater concern is the unfounded nature of the rationale themselves. For each edit, I have aimed to copy-edit the text, making improvements to the grammar, wording and flow. This is especially apparent in "Marine Department" where the edited section was mostly unreadable to a normal person, whereas "Airport Authority Hong Kong" was moderately hard to read. I have also made wording amendments to use more natural terms in accordance with WP:NOPV.

Taking the above into account, it seems that Citobun's rationale for the reversions were entirely unjustified, and reflects almost the complete opposite of the actual reality. From a brief look at Citobun's edit history, it seems that a past tendency to make problematic reverts is also present.

While I have reinstated the articles and posted a informal warning on Citobun's talk page, I felt that taking the step of posting this notice was warranted, taking into account the egregiousness of the above actions, the blanket reversion of edits with multiple elements, and Citobun's history.

Carter00000 (talk) 16:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Carter00000. Accusing another editor of bad faith is a very serious charge that requires solid evidence. You have presented no such evidence. Please read Assume good faith, which is an important behavioral guideline. This is a routine content dispute that should be resolved on the article talk pages per WP:BRD. You made some bold edits, you were reverted, and now it is time to engage in discussion with the editor who reverted you. This noticeboard does not adjudicate content disputes. Cullen328 (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Carter00000, when you informed the other editor, you mentioned the wrong noticeboard. I have corrected that. Cullen328 (talk) 17:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Cullen328 for your correction and information, and noted that the notice used was incorrect. Carter00000 (talk) 13:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Cullen328 for your comments. However, after reviewing you comments, I would like to raise my objection with your comments.

I would like to reiterate my accusation that Citobun acted in bad faith when reverting my previous edits. Citobun's rationale for the reversions were entirely unjustified, and reflects almost the complete opposite of the actual reality.

Given that you have issued a warning to me, stating that my accusation of Citobun acting in bad faith is baseless, and have further precluded the administrator noticeboard's role to adjudicate, I will assume that you have taken the time to carefully review the background of each of the three reverts in question in coming to this conclusion.

For the sake of simplicity, I have selected one revert to highlight. I draw you attention to the page Marine Department (Hong Kong). Citobun's reason for the revert was "Poorly written and indirect". Given your warning, I can only assume that you believed that this reason was appropriate in the context of the revert. @Cullen328 I would like you to provide an explanation of your rationale for your conclusion, and why you felt that such a comment was appropriate and reflective of the reality of the subject matter.

Below is the original text prior to my edit. I would like to reiterate my view that this version of the article has significant issues with the quality of the prose. I draw your attention to the last sections, where the wording is almost incomprehensible.

On 19 April 2013, Lamma Island Accident Investigation Board submitted a 238-page report about the 2012 Lamma Island ferry collision to the Hong Kong Government. On 30 April 2013, the chief executive, Leung Chun Ying, announced the report of Lamma Island accident and noted that the report detailed analyze the causes of the collision, the reason of why the vessel sank quickly and serious injuries; Also Marine Department has a series of problem of regulating vessels, he said that government will take it seriously this year, they will draw a lesson and make improvements. He said that he has instructed the Transport and Housing Bureau and the Marine Department to adopt the contents of the report, and full implementation, in order to improve maritime safety in Hong Kong. If the incident involves officials of human error and misconduct, the Hong Kong government will strictly deal with it, including disciplinary hearings  On the same day, Secretary for Transport and Housing Anthony announced the establishment of the Marine Department, reform Steering Committee, chaired by him, the leadership of two members, and later announced that appointees were former Ombudsman Alice Tai and Arts Development Advisory Committee Koo, respectively term two years. He said the Hong Kong government will learn a lesson, pay special attention to the report loopholes and deficiencies relating to the Marine Department system; committee will be a comprehensive review of the system of the Marine Department, including management, licensing regulatory, enforcement and inspections and other matters, and launched reform program and timetable. In addition, he said that it has obtained the consent of CSB, to send them a Grade B officer to become the Deputy Director of Marine, and assisted by an assist Director of Marine Department dealing with the maritime affairs reformation, an additional two Assistant Director of Marine will help them. The Marine Department will invite international experts to give advice to strengthen its reform efforts. Director of Marine Liaohan Bo said the Marine Department will cooperate a fully reforms, including the establishment of the Executive Team to co-ordinate inspection Affairs. Committee Secretary for Transport and Housing Anthony leadership will supervise the Director of Marine comprehensive examination and a thorough reform of the Marine Department, and to develop a timetable to implement the reform program.

May 21, 2013, reform of the Steering Committee held its first meeting of the Marine Department, to determine the terms of reference of the committee, including three points: first review the regulation of passenger safety and inspection aspects of Hong Kong vessel, the elaboration of a detailed reform plan, implement and monitor programs; second is review of Marine Department and reorganization of operations management processes, operating procedures and oversight structure, in order to strengthen internal control department governance; finally to formulate strategies to solve the case of shortage of personnel departments, and developing training programs. Thereafter, the Commission will hold a meeting once every two weeks. Reform of Marine Affairs Steering Committee is divided into two phases; the first phase of the Marine Department will inspect the various departments to understand processes and procedures in the hope within 4–6 months to improve existing procedures and practices to submit proposals, and be implemented, which then deep reform of the Marine Department to conduct a review.

Below is my edited text:

In 2012, the 2012 Lamma Island ferry collision occurred. On 19 April 2013, Lamma Island Accident Investigation Board submitted a report on the 2012 Lamma Island ferry collision to the Hong Kong Government. On 30 April 2013, the chief executive, Leung Chun Ying, announced the findings  and the Government's intention to make improvements to the Department. On the same day, Secretary for Transport and Housing Anthony Cheung announced the establishment of the Marine Department reform Steering Committee, chaired by himself, along with two other appointees. The appointees were former Ombudsman Alice Tai and Arts Development Advisory Committee Koo. The Marine Department also invited international experts to give advice. Director of Marine Liaohan Bo said the Marine Department would establish an Executive Team to co-ordinate inspection Affairs. Committee Secretary for Transport and Housing Anthony Chueng would supervise the examination and reform of the Marine Department, and develop a timetable to implement the reform program.

On 21 May, 2013, the Steering Committee held its first meeting to determine the terms of reference of the committee. Three main aims were provided: (1) To review the regulation of passenger safety and inspection aspects of Hong Kong vessels, elaboration of a detailed reform plan, and implementation and monitoring of programs; (2) To review and reorganize the operations management processes, procedures and oversight structure, to strengthen internal controls; (3) To formulate strategies to alleviate shortages of personnel and develop training programs. Thereafter, the Commission held a meeting once every two weeks. The reform program was divided into two phases; in the first phase, the Marine Department inspected various departments to understand the processes and procedures, aiming to provide suggestions for the improvement of existing procedures and practices 4–6 months, leading to the second phase where the reform of the Marine Department would be undertaken. Carter00000 (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I've got to say, from a glance at the diffs presented, Carter00000's edits did look like improvements to me, both in terms of NPOV phrasing, and in terms of general quality of prose. I'd be interested to hear Citobun's rationale for reverting all these. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Girth Summit for your support. I myself would also like to find out more about Citobun's rationale for reverting my edits. I have invited him to provide more information or highlight specific sections of concern on all three reverts and his talk page after the reversions, but have not received any responses so far. Carter00000 (talk) 13:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Multiple IP user: Consistently removing the passive against advice in the Manual of Style.

Some relevant synonyms of the user:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/131.203.251.134 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/210.48.190.95 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/210.48.190.88 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/223.26.27.203 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/131.203.30.137

This user has a particular dislike of the passive voice and the use of the verb to be in general, and frequently removes them in ways which damage the prose of articles.

1. It was brought to their attention on their talk page that the passive voice is acceptable in wikipedia, to which they replied by arguing the MoS justified their actions in removing the passive wherever possible.
2. This led user:WhatamIdoing to start a discussion at MoS talkpage, which resulted in the removal from the MoS of any language which could be misinterpreted as saying that the passive was not acceptable in wikipedia.
3. The IP user recently posted on that thread somewhat opaquely, implying that despite the change in the MoS, they would continue to edit in the same way.
4. Following this, they made at least two edits replacing the passive against the MoS:

• The first replaced the impersonal "...the topsoil was then typically removed" with "...people then typically removed the topsoil".
• The second replaced "It was first recorded as being cultivated by the ancient Greeks for medicinal purposes." with " The first historical records of its cultivation for medicinal purposes involved the ancient Greeks."

The user appears unable to understand what the users at MoS are asking them to do, in which case WP:CIR is relevant. If they do understand but are ignoring the consensus, then WP:NOTHERE is relevant. I would ask for some action to be taken to stop the user editing in this way. Boynamedsue (talk) 17:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

• Also reported last February at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive341#Advice about an IP user. EdJohnston (talk) 17:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
• (after edit conflict) There is no diktat against using the passive voice, which is part of the English language, on Wikipedia. The only advice is to avoid using it when saying something in the active is stylistically better. Matters of style are often not clear-cut, so any particular case should be subject to consensus rather than one user's dislike of the passive. Maybe (and I stress "maybe" - I don't know what the editors there think of this) such a campaign would be better suited to the Simple English Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
• Will no one rid us of this useless IDHT style warrior? In pursuit of his obsession he's changed The word tapu can be interpreted as to One can interpret the word tapu as and these areas were often surrounded by a protective fence to protective fencing often surrounded such areas. Complete waste of everyone's time. He needs another hobby. EEng 18:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
  • You mean, another hobby is what he needs. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm tempted to add "another hobby is needed by him", but that actually would be wrong.Boynamedsue (talk) 18:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

This is the type of arrant pedantry up with which I will not put. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Errant too. EEng 20:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

• FWIW, the changes mostly seem value-neutral to me; the MOS doesn't call for them but also doesn't forbid them. If I saw one of these changes in my watchlist I would just sigh heavily and move on, because people are always making changes I find vaguely disagreeable or pointless, but that's the wiki way. I can kind of see the point as to WP:NOTHERE, specifically Little or no interest in working collaboratively, but I don't see any accusations that the user has engaged in the kind of actively disruptive conduct that that section seems to target. -- Visviva (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  If I saw one of these changes in my watchlist – Yeah, but what if you saw a flood of them? These kinds of obsessive-compulsive campaigns -- flitting from article to article to remake everything according to what WP:MISSSNODGRASS taught him in the seventh grade -- are decided net negatives, and disruptive wastes of everyone's time. Look at the amount of time spent by multiple editors, over at MOS, trying to get him to understand that he shouldn't be doing this dumbfuckery. EEng 19:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Replacing a passive ("x is done") with a construction saying "people do x" is unencyclopaedic prose, and adds nothing, as both phrases mean the same and the former is the option most users of standard English would choose in a formal context. The introduction of the random verb "involves" is introducing ambiguity for the sake of avoiding the passive, as detailed by the ip user below. These are both examples where the writing is damaged. The user ALSO does this wherever they can when both versions are equal, but there are dozens of examples up to now where the prose is worsened. I'm only adding these two in particular because they happened after the consensus was clear. Boynamedsue (talk) 21:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

There's only two choices. Deal with the individual 'now', or deal with the individual later. My advice, deal with'em 'now'. Be it per WP:CIR or WP:NOTHERE, the lad must be escorted off the project. GoodDay (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

• This change for one is definitely for the worse. "It was first recorded as being cultivated by the ancient Greeks for medicinal purposes" is perfectly clear. "The first historical records of its cultivation for medicinal purposes involved the ancient Greeks" is unclear; how did the records "involve" the ancient Greeks? Were they in favour of cultivation, or against it, or were they mentioned just in passing? This kind of wooly phrasing is not an improvement, and is just for the sake of "removing the passive voice at all costs". -- 2001:16B8:149D:6000:9484:A5D5:8B37:8141 (talk) 21:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  It's not a good change, but the original is also rather clunky and suboptimal. There has to be a crisper and more informative way to write this. Of course, figuring out how to rewrite it tends to require some topic knowledge, which I think is what is tripping up the contributor here. What are these mysterious "historical records" anyway? Maybe "Ancient Greek historian X reported that people in Y used it for medicinal purposes." Rare is the sentence on Wikipedia that couldn't benefit from some tuning. If the irritation spurred by these changes leads to some work towards language that improves on both the original and the anon's modifications, that seems like it would be beneficial to the project. From that standpoint I don't see this as radically different from people parachuting into an article to add citation-needed or clarification tags, even when no citation or clarification is particularly necessary in context. That is, it's mostly an annoyance and sometimes downright wrong, but occasionally it may spur positive change. -- Visviva (talk) 03:05, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

  If the irritation spurred by these changes leads to some work towards language that improves on both the original and the anon's modifications, that seems like it would be beneficial – That's a great idea! Making an article worse is a great way to get other editors off their asses and improve it. We should have whole teams of editors making articles worse! EEng 03:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

  I mean, the community is cheering on such an editor on WT:V right now, but I digress. The anon has scraped off a little bit of cobwebs and mildew from this article (by adding a source and correcting the factual statement in the article to match the source), and I noticed a duplicate ref that annoyed me so I scraped off a little bit more. That's definitely an improvement for an article that has been languishing without any substantive edits since at least 2015. -- Visviva (talk) 04:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

  Update on my above comment: Looking more closely at the diff, I don't think the anon's changes are being characterized accurately. Yes, the passive voice is being replaced, but in the same edit the contributor is adding much-needed references to several statements. In addition, the change to the "involved" language is actually supported by the quote in the citation provided (in a sentence that was formerly uncited). The quote says that the tansy was being cultivated and that ancient Greeks used it for medicinal purposes, but not that the ancient Greeks were the ones cultivating it. I think the anon is actually making a significantly positive contribution in this case. -- Visviva (talk) 03:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry, but that's silly. the first historical records involved the ancient Greeks – You must be kidding. EEng 03:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there is any way to paint the introduction of ambiguity in the word "involved" as a positive change, but I have no problem with their occasional adding of references. They also occasionally add dates and some of their proofreading is ok. I am a little more suspicious of the way they fiddle with the format of references, it seems a little pointless but there may be good reasons for it. Boynamedsue (talk) 04:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's great phrasing, but I am saying that it is correct for the source given, and the previous phrasing was not. The source (which the anon helpfully quoted, a rare and very beneficial practice) says that The first historical records of common tansy cultivation are from the ancient Greeks who used it for a variety of ailments. It says the ancient Greeks used it, and it says that they recorded its cultivation, but it does not say that they were the ones cultivating it. Hopefully a better source will be added, since this one isn't great. But until it is added, what we say in the article should reflect the source we have. Had the anon not changed the language, the cite would not have supported the sentence. -- Visviva (talk) 04:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I take a backseat to no one on careful use of sources, but V does not require us to abandon our common sense. By your reasoning, if a source says "The first indication that Disease X had spread to the US came in 1992 when a man sought treatment at a San Francisco emergency room", we're not allowed to say, "The first known US case of Disease X was seen in a San Francisco emergency room in 1992" because, ya know, maybe the guy went in for a sprained ankle and happened to mention, along the way, that his Aunt Sally had a case of Disease X. It's silly. EEng 05:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I think you are giving the user too much credit there, I'd be surprised if they looked at the source. The reason the editor chose the word "involved" there is specifically to avoid using the verb "to be", they hate any structure containing it. If there had been an edit which introduced a sentence, with an edit summary stating the same as you, I would have considered it nitpicky but I wouldn't have worried unduly. Boynamedsue (talk) 05:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

They literally added the quote from the source, you can see it right there in the diff that you provided. (And I checked it against the citation, it is an accurate quote, and it isn't present anywhere in the previous version of the page, so they definitely checked the source.) (Actually they added the quote twice, which I've fixed with a named ref, but if inexpert citation practice was a bannable offense very few of us would be here.) I'm not sure where the hostility to this user is coming from, but it seems to be based on something other than the diffs provided. -- Visviva (talk) 05:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I take the bit about not looking at the source back. The difs provided are just the two most recent of dozens, perhaps hundreds of edits which reduce the quality of wikipedia. This user actually had the MoS changed specifically for them, but is still making the same errors. A little frustration is, I think, understandable. -Boynamedsue (talk) 05:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

• The changes are generally for the worse, and more to the point it's anti-consensus behavior. We just had a big discussion about why this kind of "death to passive voice" prescriptivist activism behavior is misguided.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

fAgree, I do. Solve this problem, we must. Herostratus (talk) 21:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this is a problem that would be advisable to have solved. Such unhelpful Wikipedia editing that is contrary to consensus advice sometimes results in accounts or IP addresses being blocked. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

• Why is the anon user so unwilling to properly engage? Most of their changes degrade the text. Please stop this behaviour. Tony (talk) 00:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

• Would it not be possible to topic ban the editor from making grammatical changes? I mean AFAIK the editor is sincere (altho he might not be). 100 years people ago were brought up to avoid the passive altogether, and remember in those days grammar teaching was entirely prescriptive. Even 50 years there was still a rear-guard action being fought for that notion -- Strunk & White, maybe the last gasp of strict anti-passivism, was published only 60 years ago. There are probably a few cases where this is still passed down parent to child even into this century probably. We do not want to throw people overboard if it is avoidable? This is why I suggest maybe a topic ban, perhaps he can find other useful things to do here? Herostratus (talk) 01:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

  I definitely don't think a topic ban on "grammatical changes" would be in any way ambiguous, or lead to endless hairsplitting, or anything like that. Clear and well defined. Surgical. EEng 02:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

In principle I agree with such a topic ban, but the amount of effort they put into wikilawyering over this suggests it will lead to more trouble. They seem to enjoy arguing with us far more than editing. Unless they appear here and indicate some understanding of what we want them to stop doing, I feel your reasonable suggestion will be unfeasible.Boynamedsue (talk) 04:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

If you thought my comment was serious then you might want to take your irony detector in for recalibration. EEng 15:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

• I do not see any consensus at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Wikilawyering_over_passive_voice that the active voice is bad or that the passive voice should never be replaced, such that the anon's edits would be "anti-consensus". The consensus that emerged from that discussion -- indeed, the only topic on the table at all -- was to eliminate language that might be construed to encourage edits like the ones the anon has engaged in. But there are lots of acceptable editing behaviors that we don't encourage. That there was a consensus not to encourage a particular kind of editing does not make such editing "against consensus". -- Visviva (talk) 05:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

  Just to clarify, nobody here is arguing that the active voice is bad, or that replacing the passive is always incorrect. We argue that the way the anon user is doing this is not appropriate and that they should stop it.Boynamedsue (talk) 05:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

  Exactly. Look, I happen to think the word accolades (as in List of accolades received by Gravity (film)) sounds idiotic. But I don't go around changing it to awards and recognition everywhere just to scratch my obsessive itch. EEng 05:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

• There's no clear, bright-line rule about this issue. The MOS just has some waffle buried in one of its many footnotes. That was changed recently but is still not crisp or clear cut. So, this is just a matter of prose style and taste and so de gustibus non est disputandum applies. There are lots of gnomes who make gratuitous copy-edits of this sort and that's inevitable, given the open nature of Wikipedia. "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance". Andrew🐉(talk) 11:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

  Someone heedlessly going around making edits others have to fix needs to stop or be stopped. Whether MOS has anything to say about the specific thing being done is irrelevant, as is Thomas Jefferson.

  It's unfortunate this thread was opened as "IP removing the passive against advice in the Manual of Style", because that's a red herring; it should have been entitled "IP making a lot of poor changes others have to revert all the time". EEng 15:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Uncommunicative editor, disruptive editing

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

I have implored this editor to read multiple notices on their talkpage regarding disruptive editing [187][188][189]. In the final warning I mentioned WP:DISRUPT and taking up their actions up at a noticeboard. They persist in adding formatting contrary to Manual of Style and un-reverting their edits like this and this. They have never replied on their own talkpage and rarely use edit summaries; I'm not even sure they are an English speaker. Help requested here. By the way their editing is all or nearly all in the single topic of beauty pageants, which is covered by Wikipedia:General sanctions/Beauty pageants. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

To help the user find their talkpage, I have blocked them, with a link to the page in the block log. Communication is required. Bishonen | tålk 19:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC).

And I've reblocked as a sock; one of our beauty pageant frequent flyers.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Ahem. An aviation passenger is a flier. A flyer is e.g. an advertising handbill. You can thank me later. EEng 20:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

To be fair, given the abject promotoin, the sock is a combination of both.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Not if you are British. DeCausa (talk) 07:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick work everyone. "Beauty pageant frequent flyers" brought a much needed smile to my face. I suspect this is not the only sock right now -- a number of pageant articles recently lit up with similar editing. See my edit history. There's a parallel discussion at User talk:Bbb23#It's beauty pageant sock season again that is probably relevant to this discussion, too. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Uncommunicative pageant editor #2

• Satur3435 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I feel sheepish to bring up another one so soon but its kind of the same thing all over again. They are reverting my edits, don’t use their talkpage, and don’t leave edit summaries. Notified for second time here, continued disruption here (just one example). ☆ Bri (talk) 04:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

So, I've done the exact same kind of block again, and also feel sheepish. Ponyo may have a sockblock up her sleeve. Bishonen | tålk 07:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC).

HumanxAnthro and music charts

User:HumanxAnthro has been adding Finland chart data from this book to song articles, and discussion is currently ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:Record_charts#Finland's_chart. The issue is that while some data (specifically the second column) may be reliable and a good source for peaks, most of the book is not and there is no consensus for its implementation. Since 1995, Finland's main chart is The Official Finnish Charts. HumanxAnthro believes it is not enough to include peaks from this chart alone, and peaks in the first column from the hittialistalla chart in Rumbassa magazine are more accurate because they are multi-metric (incorporate sales + airplay). However, there is clear evidence that the official chart which has been used is multi-metric. On the January 29, 2000, issue (page 20) of Music & Media magazine, the source for The Official Finnish Charts was "YLE 2 Radiomafia/IFPI". This indicates that both radio airplay and sales are being used to compile the chart. Moreover, on the YLE 2 Radiomafia website the chart formula is clearly provided: "Singles chart is based on weekly sales and playlists from four national radio stations." Despite this, HumanxAnthro has been adding data from the Rumbassa chart and others with no consensus for it. Not only having they been adding it, but they are removing peaks from The Official Finnish Charts. Upon evidence that some positions in this book are from WP:SINGLEVENDORS, which goes against WikiProject consensus, HumanxAnthro has not reversed their edits.

While there are often disagreements among WikiProject users, I have always found there to be a sense of civility and mutual respect. HumanxAnthro has disrupted this atmosphere with hostility and personal attacks, for example calling User:Ss112 "elitist", and basically admitting they don't care about consensus: "You users have vague, not-based-in-any-guidelines and against-Wikipedian-principles standards for chart inclusion, so I'm not gonna even bother to have these discussions. You frankly should be topicbanned, for the good of the website, from leading chart inclusions if this is how you all think. I'll edit however fast I want to edit, and add whatever edits need to be made regardless". They have been warned on their talk page to slow down with the contentious edits multiple times, including by an administrator, but less than 24 hours ago have continued adding chart peaks for which there is no consensus for inclusion. Heartfox (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Can I ask you something? Was that Official chart from radiomafia existent and published in the 1990s? User:HumanxAnthro (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 20:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

OK, fine, you all WP:WIN. I'm staying out of charts from now on because apparently anyone will dismiss my contentions on the talk page as a "personal attack" no matter much not-personal-attack rationales I give. I'm out of the charts, I'll work on not chart-related stuff. Happy? Just, let's stop this here before this gets any worse. User:HumanxAnthro (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 20:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, Ss112 does have WP:OWNERSHIP over nearly all of the discography articles that list charts in the table, so the "elitist" label was not meant to be an insult. He's admitted on my talk page (Diff and Diff) that he has a watchlist of nearly every discography article and reverts any users' edits the instance he notices them. User:HumanxAnthro (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 20:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

This is a miss characterisation of @Ss112: who yes does work on a lot of popular music topics but nowhere has Ss112 said they have every discography page on wikipedia or that all edits everyone does are reverted. Fairness where it is due - lets not mischaracterise the fact that HumanXAnthro has made a huge number of changes which are not supported by existing practice, with little or no attempt to discuss or engage with other project editors instead swamping discussions with reasons why the rest of us misunderstand their point of view. Tagging Ss112 in case they want to comment too - its unfair to mention them and not give them opportunity to chip in. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I've linked the diffs if people want to figure out for themselves whether what I said was a fair characterization. User:HumanxAnthro (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 20:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, you're giving a skewed picture of the book's reliability. Only very recent entries in that book below 20 have Spotify positions listed, a small chunk of the book, and that's only one SIGNLEVENDOR chart, not "some" single vendors. User:HumanxAnthro (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 20:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Chipping in my two pennies, consensus isn't built by ram-raiding through changes and making humungous amounts of edits that aren't inline with project guidance and existing consensus at WP:RECORDCHARTS. Multiple editors asked HumanXAnthro to stop and engage in discussion or an RFC first. Some of my questions of HumanXAnthro were met with comments like "and it would only not indicate that to a moron", as well as me being asked to "stop controlling how they edit" when I politely asked that they may wish to consider changing their signature as it does not match their username and emojis don't display properly on mobiles. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I've done what you've recommended nearly everytime, including here, and clearly everything I'm saying is being viewed as a "personal attack" as a result. Can we just end the discussion and have me topicbanned me from WP Talk:RECORDCHARTS if it makes you all feel any better? User:HumanxAnthro (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 20:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I didn't notice the change in signature. Thanks for doing that. It wasn't an attack just a genuine request to prevent confusion about who is editing and to enable others to find your talkpage/username quicker. Regarding everything about "what we've recommended" we all pointed you in the direction of WP:BRD - you were bold, you were reverted, multiple people asked you to stop and refer to the charts guide and then asked to start an RFC. You chose not to do this and only changed your signature after failing to assume good faith, deleting the message from the talkpage and then accusing me of trying to control what you edit. Mass changes outside of established practice should always be discussed and consensus sought rather than mass changes which are time consuming to undo. In the face of opposition, did it not occur to take a breather and start a forum RFC or ask other uninvolved editors. I'm sorry to hear you think you need to be TopicBanned to make us feel better - from my side that's not going to help. If someone wants to contribute to the project and add missing charts that's always welcome but surely you stop and wait for a discussion to conclude before going ahead and making mass edits? ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

That "moron" comment is not a personal attack against you. It's a way of stating something is so obvious that somebody with WP:COMMONSENSE could not not notice something. Stating that something isn't true to widely-understood standards of truth is not an insult or a personal attack. A bad choice of words, I'll retrospectively say, but not an insult. And it's not hostile to call out when things are not based in guidelines and claim they should be expected standards of argumentation from administrators and established users. User:HumanxAnthro (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 20:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I accept you weren't intending to insult. Its difficult to engage in conversation with someone though when they use such language and all the while you're continuing to make edits not supported by the project or other editors. That's not in the spirit of consensus or community ownership. It screams "I'm right and I'll do what I want regardless of what others say or how many people object. I know better...". ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:59, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

• I was separately asked to weigh in on this situation. My two cents was that HumanxAnthro should want to cut this out right away, because they're concurrently very visibly frustrated and also completely failing to persuade anyone in these disputes. My approach was to wait and start intervening if things escalated any further, but I certainly wouldn't oppose any more pro-active approaches. I recommend disengaging immediately adding a more constructive means of editing Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 21:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  I've declared that I'm staying away from anything chart-related. Now. Staying away, not even thinking about it. User:HumanxAnthro (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 21:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  I think that's a good idea. If you stick with that stance, then I'd say we're all set here. Sergecross73 msg me 21:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

User: Instantwatym

Hi, I wanted to ask for assistance with the singer Chris Brown's page. I believe that the edits on his page are violating MOS:LS & WP:NPOV. To be specific the edits made by user user:Instantwatym. The lead section does fit the four paragraph guidelines but those paragraphs are EXTREMELY lengthy. The lead is full of trivia, like radio records that the artist has broken etc that should be restricted to his legacy section or on the song's lead page. Also he’s being dubbed as "the King of R&B" "by several" in his lead when the citation provided only states that radio personality Ebro Darden and his fans have called him such. Which is not enough for someone's lead on Wikipedia. Anyone’s fans could give an artist an honorific nickname. I’ve tried to give a more neutral edit that was shorter and less biased without removing too much of the information provided and it keeps getting reverted by this editor. I also want to add that several editors have complained about this on the talk page. And I also want to make note of a mention in the lead that states that Billboard has called him "one of the most influential and successful R&b acts". That is completely false, the citation states that he "become one of the biggest names in R&B and pop" in the past nine years. Kanyfug (talk) 23:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't see a discussion about the lead on the article's talk page (only about the phrase "King of R&B"). You should start there. Schazjmd (talk) 00:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

That is what I was referring to, sorry if I didn’t clarify that. The conversation here talk:Chris_Brown#The_King_of_R&B? is where several editors have complained about the "King of R&b" title. Also as I stated before Billboard magazine's words were twisted to fit the editor’s narrative. Nowhere in the Billboard article is that stated, and it says "according to Billboard". Kanyfug (talk) 07:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Kanyfug, my point is that you and Instantwatym don't seem to agree on what should be in the lead, but the two of you haven't discussed it on the talk page. (Battling edit summaries is not a productive approach.) You really should try that first. If the two of you are unable to reach an agreement, then there are dispute resolution avenues you can use to resolve the content dispute. Schazjmd (talk) 13:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm open to engaging in dialogue and resolution as per BRD. I felt you were bold in your edit and its fine to be bold but if someone feels that bold edits were not constructive they are allowed to revert them and that alone does not constitute edit warring. Rather than engaging in dialogue with me on my talk page or the article's take page you created an ANI notice over 1 revert on 1 article. Nevetheless I will address the points you brought up. The length of the lead is appropriate given the length of the rest of the Wikipedia article. Lengthy leads can also seen on articles for artists such as Michael Jackson and Elvis Presley who have a long article and need a longer lead to provide a summar on their respective careers. The title "King of R&B" is honorific title similar to the title "King of Pop" for Michael Jackson or "King of Rock & Roll" for Elvis Presley. These are not official titles for anyone but are included as honorific titles for different artists in different genres. They are bestowed on artists by their industry peers and I can see that on your talk page someone already provided you various references for the honorfic title for this artist that are not limited to a statement from a radio host. You ignored that before creating this notice. Furthermore aside from the radio records none of the content which you are disputing was originally added to the article by me and does not constitute WP:NPOV. I only agree with the inclusion of this content as good lead for the artist. The radio records can be rearraged. I already removed one from the lead before you created this notice. I can also include a better references for the one of the most influential r&b singers. As you can see on the talk page of that article there is already a proposition for a legacy section which states his influence. Lastly the point about being one of the most successful r&b acts doesn't even need a reference as there's referenced content in the lead that cites him as of the best selling artist of all time, one of the most decorated Billboard artists and r&b artist in history and the 3rd most successfull billboard artist of the decade for the 2010s. It's a prelude to cited and verified information to come in the same section. Thanks. Instantwatym (talk) 16:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Multiple accounts at Draft:Chobblesome

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

---

• Draft:Chobblesome (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Draft:Chobblesome is about a recent neologism coined by a YouTuber, which is tagged for speedy deletion per G3. Several users and IPs have appeared to edit only this draft or its talk page; in chronological order:

• WikiPoisi (talk · contribs): Initial creator of the draft.
• TobiasfromtheUK (talk · contribs)
• Dorchadais (talk · contribs)
• ChuffedtoBits9 (talk · contribs): Submitted the draft and created the talk page.
• PewGod (talk · contribs): Only user to edit the article after the CSD tag, first to contest the CSD, and created a now deleted sandbox about the same topic as the draft.
• 82.154.127.143 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): Geolocates to Lisbon, Portugal, with ISP PT Comunicacoes.
• 2600:1008:b160:547d:3180:c5c0:8590:f46a (talk · contribs · WHOIS): A Verizon IP that does not appear to geolocate to a specific location in the United States.

All three comments at the talk page are malformed, with the reason for contesting the draft placed after the signature instead of replacing the filler text. I have opened an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WikiPoisi about the six accounts listed above. I am not sure which of the involved users should be notified of this ANI, or if I should add the IP users to the SPI with no checkuser request. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

The draft was just deleted by Orangemike (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Thisisonlysoicanmakechobblesomeaword (talk · contribs) recreated the draft, and has been added to the SPI. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Chobblesome was clearly a hoax, and has been protected from recreation on those grounds by User:Liz. I would block all the above accounts for vandalism under WP:MADEUP and not bother with the SPI. EdJohnston (talk) 03:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

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

Disruptive POV-pushing in Marcos articles

For several weeks, there has been a slow edit war in several articles with language such as "She is the adopted daughter of the late former Philippine president, Ferdinand Marcos and former first lady Imelda Marcos." changed to "She is the adopted daughter of the late former Philippine president, dictator, and kleptocrat Ferdinand Marcos and former first lady and graft convicted Imelda Marcos."

This is not impartial and these "descriptors" are clearly non-neutral and don't belong in tangentially related articles, even if sourced. This has happened in Imee Marcos, Irene Marcos, Aimee Marcos, Bongbong Marcos, Sandro Marcos, Ilocos Norte, Matthew Manotoc, and possibly others. These changes have been removed multiple times, and re-inserted with edit summaries including "revert vandalism" and "revert whitewashing". There are multiple auto-confirmed accounts involved.

With multiple articles and multiple editors, what is the best way to deal with this. MB 01:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Template:Nnacmt @MB: Link some diffs and/or talk page discussions pertaining to this behavior. Are there any specific users that seem to be causing recurring disruption? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

A few of these articles were brought up at WP:NPOV/N, see specifically Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 96#Dictator and kleptocrat ? and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 96#Bongbong Marcos lead. At least in considering the Bongbong lede, it was determined to be coatracking to name-drop the terms that are associated with the parents. This is not saying the terms can be appropriate to include related to their parents elsewhere in the body, but they should be shown the relevance and not just "name dropped". --Masem (t) 02:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

MB, please list the editors involved. Cullen328 (talk) 02:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Just looking at Sandro Marcos, it started with this edit by Siuhl10 who added first added "kleptocrat" and "convicted criminal".

Then Firekiino added "dictator" here, and reverted removal of these terms five times:

• restore June 8 (no edit summary)
• restore June 19 (Reverted descriptor removal)
• restore June 20 (→‎Early life and education: Readded descriptors. The said descriptors are used in all other articles of related indiciduals. Thus i see no reason not to include them.)
• restore June 22 (no edit summary)
• restore June 22 (no edit summary)

It would take quite a bit of time to do this for all the articles. In glancing at the others, I know that Firekiino is involved in all the articles I listed above. I do believe there is at least one more editor who has made similar reverts. MB 02:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I just checked my watchlist and found that RPC7778 just put this language back in Irene Marcos and Aimee Marcos but self reverted a few minutes later. MB 03:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello! It was not my intention to start an edit war. I was reverting what I thought was vandalism due to the removal of terms without clear consensus on their respective talk pages. As far as I can tell, the descriptors, specifically those used in the Bongbong Marcos and Imee Marcos articles have been present for some time now. For Bongbong, the earliest usage of some of these descriptors date back as far as 2019 here. For Imee Marcos I found that the descriptors were added as far back as 2019 as well. Although I believe the term kleptocrat was added much later.

Over the pass few years these terms have been added, removed and re-added numerous times now especially by unregistered IP users or newly created accounts. The Philippines has also had its national elections recently and these pages seemed to be repeatedly targeted generally by new unconfirmed accounts and unregistered IP users. Which is why I was especially vigilant towards these pages. While my edits do not contain edit summaries I have tried to request sources from users who removed said descriptors to explain their removal.

Regarding the descriptors being against WP:NPOV,I checked their respective talk pages, and the impression I got was to keep these terms in the article. Most of the discussions held specifically on Bongbong's talk page seemed to be about the usage of the said descriptors. With the general conclusion of those discussion being to retain their use. With most dissenting opinions lacking the sources to back up their arguments and using arguments along the lines of "No. marcos was a great president" and such. Some examples can be found [1] [2], [3].

I might also add that the talk page of Bongbong Marcos also mentions in its FAQ that any removal of the descriptors should at least be discussed first in the talk page.

Might I also add that some well known dictators' relatives are described "as relatives of the dictator x" in their intros. Some examples being most of Mussolini's listed relatives (Edda Mussolini,Vittorio Mussolini, Bruno Mussolini,Romano Mussolini) and even Hitler's parents (Father,Mother). I believe even Hitler's birthplace is described as the "birthplace of Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler" [4].

tldr; I do not believe adding these descriptors breaks WP:NPOV as these are well established to be facts and not a point of opinion by the consensus of editors on the respective talk pages. Firekiino (talk) 09:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Dictator is a very subjective term, therefore you should not be restoring it. >>> Extorc.talk 12:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

@Extorc: If you think that the term dictator shouldn't be restored, then the term should be changed from the pages of relatives of Hitler and Mussolini as well. RPC7778 (talk) 12:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

See links to discussions at NPOV/N. "Dictator" can be a subjective term and should not be assigned by WP editors just because they think it fits. But as long as there is clear expert backing (in this case, those in pol-sci circles) that have determined the term is appropriate, then we can use it, though there is still a COATRACK issue to bring up the "sins of the parent" on the children/related people. --Masem (t) 13:03, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

@MB: I reverted my edits because I saw your complaint. I still believe that the said descriptors are well-established facts that have been referenced by several credible sources and are neutral. I do not see why there is a need to omit them. If ever the descriptors needed to be modified or removed (from the articles of Ferdinand Marcos' relatives), at least retain the term dictator when referring to the former president. This is based on the examples made by Firekiino when describing Mussolini, based from the articles of his relatives. RPC7778 (talk) 12:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

@RPC7778: See WP:POINT. If you think that Mussolini or Hitler article is causing problem then go fix it instead of using these articles as example to cause problems elsewhere. >>> Extorc.talk 14:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

I feel User:The admans refuse to ban me and User:Wei49eb are sockpuppets, each claiming a sister or brother used their account. Both have account creation blocked, so are they using different IPs? Nythar (talk) 08:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think these are related. The first is clearly a troll, WP:DFTT, WP:RBI. —Kusma (talk) 08:20, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious even without sockpuppetry confirmation that they're trolls who are not here, but in the future, please consider WP:SPI for any sockpuppetry concerns, not WP:ANI. It probably means little too, but make sure to notify any users who you file an ANI report on next time. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 11:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:CIR block needed

User:N1TH Music has created too many problematic articles and redirects, and shows no signs of improvements. Past articles include the endless List of Comunal Documents of Santa Margherita Ligure (and its AFD, or others deleted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loch Urigull or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Underground Driving Motor 3701. I was looking through his other creations, after I noticed that too many of his articles still had such issues. I nominated a few for deletion already and tagged others as having major problems, e.g. Trudlerbaach, about a small brook which is filled to the brim with badly written original research: "The source is elevated at around 305 metres (1,001 ft) as opposed the Syre which it joins to having an elevation of 283 metres (928 ft). In addition the Syre flows 1.3 kilometres (0.81 mi) from its source to where it meets with the Trudlerbaach while the Trudlerbaach itself flows 2.6 km (1.6 mi) so it is believed by some that the source of the Trudlerbaach is in fact the source of the Syre." is sourced to... Google Maps[190].

Then followed yesterday Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abellio, Ellesmere Port, with their very worrying explanations for why they created it (they found it on a Wikipedia list, and basically made up everything around it based on poor reading of maps).

I hoped that tagging, redirection, deletion discussions... would be sufficient, but after their latest comment, I think it is utterly hopeless, and letting them contribute further will not improve Wikipedia, as they have no idea or care about even the basics of reliable sourcing.

Today, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blackslough Wood, they want to keep because of this. Hopeless. Fram (talk) 11:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

That's not why I wish to keep this, I was just stating why I though there was a building there, earlier I though there was something else N1TH Music (talk) 11:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I feel the need to make it clear that I am very much aware of my mistakes but I've read the notability guidelines and I'm certain some things which supposedly aren't notable enough are. But I digress and I apologise for my faulty work. I'm sure I can improve because I've certainly made good articles in the past. Loch Hope, Loch Rimsdale, Loch Nan Clar. I think my problem was trying to take the topics which I believed were just about notable but the very least so and thrusting myself into the deep end trying to work there. If I write about something more notable, I will and have done a better job. Look at Abbas Combe. Also I admit that I can do much better work than what I have done previously, please give me a little more time. I have started working more seriously since what happened with Santa Margherita Ligure but Fram keeps uncovering stuff from the beginning of this year. N1TH Music (talk) 11:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Earlier ANI thread on the same issue. [191] AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump I think I have made improvements with referencing but the problem was as I said myself I was taking not notable enough topics. If they were written perfectly, they would be accepted but it was simply setting myself up for a fall. I have shown improvements since then when I made Loch Rimsdale or Loch Hope. Even Abbas Combe or Loch Brora both quite recent were at least ok. I realised folllowing my mistake in Santa Margherita Ligure where I wasn't exactly sure as to how the copyright regulations worked that I needed to work better. Hence why now I've been working on drafts and broader topics and larger article. E.g Geography of Santa Margherita Ligure where work has been gradual. Also Draft:Combino (Pasta) was something I initially wanted to put on the main space but in the end I knew well it wasn't good enough and I needed time. Also Blackslough Wood and Aaron's hill were from March, I think I've changed my editing style since may, to work harder. So what I wrote before then is less important. I stand by that work because I still believe that both those article Just about clear being notable I know they have some big issues. But I'm already taking steps in the right direction I think. Recently I've also been editing more by going on Special:Short Pages and Special:New Pages and redirecting unsourced and too short articles. N1TH Music (talk) 12:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Abellio, Ellesmere Port was created yesterday... Fram (talk) 12:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

@Fram I've explained my mistake to that, I have thought for the longest time, that that list was an official list, which was different. You are right I should have looked into it to realised Abellio didn't belong there. I have already apologised I do not stand by that. Same with the original Loch Urigull. N1TH Music (talk) 15:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure you want to use Geography of Santa Margherita Ligure as an example of good work. All you're doing is creating unsourced cruft, because believe it or not, we do have higher standards to writing an article than simply proving something exists and google maps isn't exactly a beacon of journalistic excellence or relevant to an encyclopedia. In fact, that article is a prime example of why you should be manispace banned/blocked - it's a hot mess and needs to be nuked from orbit. All you've done is create content based on your own observations as opposed to summarizing what reliable sources say, and that is called original research. PRAXIDICAE🌈 13:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean, it's not original reasearch, if it was oposed to something, I'd change it. Also no it's not a very good example of my good work it's just an example that I understand notability. Some might say that is overdetailed slightly but it's not done most sections aren't done. It's C class now it'll be worthy of B at least once finished. Also there are many sources N1TH Music (talk) 14:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

For example, you say "xyz is the tallest mountain" yet none of the sources state that. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I say Monte Portofino is the tallest in the commune and I cite Openstreetmap, Peakvisor and I think somewhere else all of which gave me simple statistics. I assumed Peakvisor is a valid source, no? Also if references are bare, I could find more because everything I wrote is correct. N1TH Music (talk) 15:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

The fact that you do not understand that this is precisely what I was referring to is the exact problem. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Then what are you referring to. I'll fix it I haven't looked at that part of the article for a while, it's old I'd write better now I'm telling you N1TH Music (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Given you are asking for specific advise, I would suggest that if you want to improve that article, you remove any content cited to google maps, peakvisor, OpenStreetMap, and any other non-text source. In addition, remove any content cited to clearly unreliable text sources, such as Tripadvisor. I would then advise sticking only to reliable text sources for any future edits and page creations. CMD (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Abbas Combe is definitely a settlement, I improved the article stating that it still exists. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I think a ban from mainspace page creation could be an alternative, but looking at the history of Don't Believe the Truth Tour makes me think that might be too generous. —Kusma (talk) 11:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

@Kusma Well Don't Believe the Truth Tour remained on the mainspace for years and I thought those references were ok, didn't look like a wiki of sorts to me. Other than that a ban form mainspace page creation seems fair and I would be willing to accept that so long as there was a way it could be reverted in future If I can prove change N1TH Music (talk) 12:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

It is in the reference title that setlist.fm is a wiki, and the other source reveals after one click that they take their content from setlist.fm. Perhaps you should improve your critical reading skills before you continue attempting to write an encyclopaedia. —Kusma (talk) 12:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abellio, Ellesmere Port is really concerning. This is an article which is effectively completely made up, as the settlement doesn't exist. Yes, it had an erroneous entry in Wikipedia itself, but Wikipedia isn't a reliable source for anything, and certainly wasn't in this case. Black Kite (talk) 12:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I thought that list was a special page at the time. I never tried to edit is and it looked different format-wise so I assumed everything there was perfect and verified and I apologise for that. N1TH Music (talk) 12:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

For some reason, they continue to provide evidence of the massive WP:CIR issues during this very discussion: at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blackslough Wood, they defend one of the two articles up for deletion with "I think I got more eveidence as This states what language the "people" of Aaron's hill talk in which implies it is or up until recently was populated." Please keep them away from the mainspace or from Wikipedia in general. Fram (talk) 12:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

There certainly seem to be severe competence issues. See e.g. their recent addition to the Non-government reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article: Russian Youtuber "Life of Boris" has hinted at being against the invasion however has not publicly spoken against it. He has stated that he is safe and that "things are bad, but could be a lot worse." [192] There are too many things wrong with that edit to even contemplate... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Alright I'll take some time off editing to learn in better detail what I'm doing but you don't need to block me. N1TH Music (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

You've been editing for two years. That is more than enough time to learn simple things such as "don't use Wikipedia as a source", especially after numerous warnings and deletion nominations [193]. I think some sort of sanction is warranted, and I'm not sure if a partial block from mainspace would be sufficient - there is a history of copyright issues, which are still a problem in draftspace, and some AfC reviewers do not do their due diligence and accept anything that superficially looks notable (e.g. a geographic location) without checking to see if the sources support the content - this is a concern given the large number of GEOLAND articles that they have created with faulty or misleading sourcing. Spicy (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

@Spicy That's not quite it, I understand my misleading sourcing and I have truly learnt my mistake but at first nobody pointed out that what I was doing wrong was wrong. Most of the problems listed here I have already learnt my mistake from within the last few days I've been overconfident in my definition of notability. At first much of my articles got "reviewed" so I assumed everything was good. That hapenned after Aaron's Hill, Somerset and with my edits of Contern. So I was confident in making Backslough wood and expanding Santa Margherita Ligure. Nobody ever told me to stop until now. I made some slips ups which had been noticed before a few days ago and I have fixed that and also I only really started editing a year ago and even then it was simple articles where I just googled the topic and wrote about it. Recently I picked up tasks where I don't have that many sources and many. My copyright violations hapenned with one article and I have already expressed why I mistakenly thought that they weren't actually copyright at first. Most of my new edits have been nothing but good contributions. N1TH Music (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

@Spicy Also I know very well that Wikipedia isn't a source just I thought that was a well maintained page and the existence of one obvious red link to a settlement in gazetteer of place names, with coordinates and an OS grid references on what I initially thought was a page with limited access was strong enough evidence to so little as the settlement existing. N1TH Music (talk) 15:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

N1TH Music, I think you'll need to convince people that you are actually capable of learning. Which you won't do by making posts like your last one above. [194] You seem to have no understanding of basic Wikipedia concepts, like notability and how to assess sources for reliability. You habitually use maps and other sources for original research. You add badly-sourced and off-topic trivia to articles. Why should we assume that you are capable of learning now, given that you said much the same thing in the previous ANI thread, to no obvious effect? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I think there is an effect, but I believe I may have become overconfident in my ability and in my knowledge of what counts as Notable. I think it is the Dunning-Kruger effect and now I've learnt what's wrong with much of what I did. How about I create an article now and I'll show you all I can make a competent well made article. N1TH Music (talk) 15:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

You say you have "learnt what's wrong with much of what I did". How about demonstrating what you have learned, by taking a look at the "Life of Boris" edit of yours I linked above, and then explaining what you think it was that led me to describe it as having "too many things wrong with that edit to even contemplate". AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

@Fram well it does say that, and I didn't hold it infront of you as huge evidence I just said multiple webpages such as Ordnace Survey, Streetmap and that all are worded to believe that Aaron's hill is a human settlement, which they are. I see that is might not be inhabited but what I had read from lead me to believe it was. N1TH Music (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I didn't claim that it didn't say that, I just believe anyone who is capable of editing here, anyone who truly believes they have learned from past mistakes and has improved their referencing shouldn't look at that page and believe for one second that it is a reliable source or that there has even been one second of human intervention while making that page. The same site creates e.g. also a page for Abellio[195], you know, the "place" you created as well and will be deleted at AfD. Hey, they also speak English there! And the nearest train station is only, er, "2931.3 Miles" away, oops. Still better than for Aaron's Hill, where the nearest train station is "2870 Miles" away. Their script page generator seems to have some flaw. You claim Openstreetmap as a good source, yet e.g. Blackslough Wood was added to it by a user accidentally the same day you created the article for it here[196]. It's a wiki, and you are using what is likely your own addtion to a map as a source for your own article. Fram (talk) 16:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Relevant xkcd — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Kishtwari

Long term campaign, apparently by a single editor using mostly IP accounts, to revise content without sources. See edit history and page protection in the recent past. I've requested resumption of protection, as well as a block of the registered account. Whether further measures are necessary I leave to administrative discretion. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:0:0:0:8AC6 (talk) 15:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

• Page semi-protected for two weeks. Katie^talk 15:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Negligent Adjudication by Administrator (User:Cullen328)

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

---

• Cullen328 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

• Airport Authority Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Lee government (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Marine Department (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This notice relates to an adjudication made by an Administrator relating to a Administrators Noticeboard (Incidents) notice (Bad Faith Reverts by User:Citobun). While the original notice is still open, I have opened this new notice to specifically address the Administrators actions, which is a separate matter.

On 23 June 2022, I posted a notice on the Administrators Noticeboard (Incidents). The notice related to reverts of my edits made by User:Citobun which I believed had been made in bad faith. For each revert, the rationale for the reversions were entirely unjustified, reflecting an almost complete opposite of the actual reality. I have since re-instated the edits.

Less than 20 minutes after the notice was posted, an Administrator User:Cullen328 responded to the notice. Cullen328 did not attempt to find out more information or initiate a discussion with myself or the other parties involved, proceeding directly to issuing an adjudication. Cullen328 opined that an accusation of bad faith was a serious matter, going on to say that I had accused Citobun without reasonable evidence. Cullen328 further opined that I had breeched Wikpedia's policy of assuming the good faith of fellow editors, and precluded the usage of the Administrators Noticeboard to resolve the dispute.

The original comment by Cullen328 is included below.

Accusing another editor of bad faith is a very serious charge that requires solid evidence. You have presented no such evidence. Please read Assume good faith, which is an important behavioral guideline. This is a routine content dispute that should be resolved on the article talk pages per WP:BRD. You made some bold edits, you were reverted, and now it is time to engage in discussion with the editor who reverted you. This noticeboard does not adjudicate content disputes. 

Upon reviewing the rationale of Cullen328 for the adjudication, it would seem that Cullen328 has issued the adjudication in error. The adjudication fails to take into account that Citobun's rationale for the reversions were entirely unjustified, reflecting the opposite of the actual reality. This is readily apparent from just a cursory study of the diffs, and any reasonable person would come to the conclusion that Citobun's rationale for the reversions were unfounded. Consequently, it is unlikely that the reversions were made in good faith, precluding the use of normal content dispute methods. A second Administrator User:Girth Summit has expressed his support for my notice.

While I have responded to the adjudication in question, I felt that taking the further step of posting this notice was warranted. Taking into account that Cullen328 is an Administrator which comes with significant responsibilities requiring sound judgment, I believe that Cullen328 actions is of notable concern. The above issue was elementary, which should have been easily distinguishable as problematic by even a person unfamiliar with Wikipedia. Taking this into account, this calls into question Cullen328's judgment as an Administrator and ability to clearly and diligently assess disputes in his role.

ANI and administrators do not adjudicate content. Cullen328 is correct to point that out. Hatting content litigation
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
To provide a example of the nature of the reverts, I would like to highlight the revert of "Marine Department (Hong Kong)". Citobun's reason for the revert was "Poorly written and indirect". Below is the original text prior to my edit. This version of the article has significant issues with the quality of the prose. I draw your attention to the last sections, where the wording is almost incomprehensible. My edit aimed to copy-edit the prose to a more readable state. On 19 April 2013, Lamma Island Accident Investigation Board submitted a 238-page report about the 2012 Lamma Island ferry collision to the Hong Kong Government. On 30 April 2013, the chief executive, Leung Chun Ying, announced the report of Lamma Island accident and noted that the report detailed analyze the causes of the collision, the reason of why the vessel sank quickly and serious injuries; Also Marine Department has a series of problem of regulating vessels, he said that government will take it seriously this year, they will draw a lesson and make improvements. He said that he has instructed the Transport and Housing Bureau and the Marine Department to adopt the contents of the report, and full implementation, in order to improve maritime safety in Hong Kong. If the incident involves officials of human error and misconduct, the Hong Kong government will strictly deal with it, including disciplinary hearings  On the same day, Secretary for Transport and Housing Anthony announced the establishment of the Marine Department, reform Steering Committee, chaired by him, the leadership of two members, and later announced that appointees were former Ombudsman Alice Tai and Arts Development Advisory Committee Koo, respectively term two years. He said the Hong Kong government will learn a lesson, pay special attention to the report loopholes and deficiencies relating to the Marine Department system; committee will be a comprehensive review of the system of the Marine Department, including management, licensing regulatory, enforcement and inspections and other matters, and launched reform program and timetable. In addition, he said that it has obtained the consent of CSB, to send them a Grade B officer to become the Deputy Director of Marine, and assisted by an assist Director of Marine Department dealing with the maritime affairs reformation, an additional two Assistant Director of Marine will help them. The Marine Department will invite international experts to give advice to strengthen its reform efforts. Director of Marine Liaohan Bo said the Marine Department will cooperate a fully reforms, including the establishment of the Executive Team to co-ordinate inspection Affairs. Committee Secretary for Transport and Housing Anthony leadership will supervise the Director of Marine comprehensive examination and a thorough reform of the Marine Department, and to develop a timetable to implement the reform program. May 21, 2013, reform of the Steering Committee held its first meeting of the Marine Department, to determine the terms of reference of the committee, including three points: first review the regulation of passenger safety and inspection aspects of Hong Kong vessel, the elaboration of a detailed reform plan, implement and monitor programs; second is review of Marine Department and reorganization of operations management processes, operating procedures and oversight structure, in order to strengthen internal control department governance; finally to formulate strategies to solve the case of shortage of personnel departments, and developing training programs. Thereafter, the Commission will hold a meeting once every two weeks. Reform of Marine Affairs Steering Committee is divided into two phases; the first phase of the Marine Department will inspect the various departments to understand processes and procedures in the hope within 4–6 months to improve existing procedures and practices to submit proposals, and be implemented, which then deep reform of the Marine Department to conduct a review. Below is my edited text: In 2012, the 2012 Lamma Island ferry collision occurred. On 19 April 2013, Lamma Island Accident Investigation Board submitted a report on the 2012 Lamma Island ferry collision to the Hong Kong Government. On 30 April 2013, the chief executive, Leung Chun Ying, announced the findings  and the Government's intention to make improvements to the Department. On the same day, Secretary for Transport and Housing Anthony Cheung announced the establishment of the Marine Department reform Steering Committee, chaired by himself, along with two other appointees. The appointees were former Ombudsman Alice Tai and Arts Development Advisory Committee Koo. The Marine Department also invited international experts to give advice. Director of Marine Liaohan Bo said the Marine Department would establish an Executive Team to co-ordinate inspection Affairs. Committee Secretary for Transport and Housing Anthony Chueng would supervise the examination and reform of the Marine Department, and develop a timetable to implement the reform program. On 21 May, 2013, the Steering Committee held its first meeting to determine the terms of reference of the committee. Three main aims were provided: (1) To review the regulation of passenger safety and inspection aspects of Hong Kong vessels, elaboration of a detailed reform plan, and implementation and monitoring of programs; (2) To review and reorganize the operations management processes, procedures and oversight structure, to strengthen internal controls; (3) To formulate strategies to alleviate shortages of personnel and develop training programs. Thereafter, the Commission held a meeting once every two weeks. The reform program was divided into two phases; in the first phase, the Marine Department inspected various departments to understand the processes and procedures, aiming to provide suggestions for the improvement of existing procedures and practices 4–6 months, leading to the second phase where the reform of the Marine Department would be undertaken.

Carter00000 (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Your complaint would probably go further (if there's any merit) if you would be more concise and not paste giant walls of text, so I suggest you remove this entirely as it appears baseless or at minimum, BRIEFLY outline the issues. PS: This isn't a court room, so the legalese is only likely to piss people off. PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I adjudicated nothing and expressed no opinion on the content dispute because this noticeboard does not deal with content disputes. I explained the importance of assuming good faith, and explained the BRD process. Now, Carter00000 returns to assume bad faith of me for trying to explain how things work, and is seemingly trying to force those of us who participate at this noticeboard to decide the content dispute. Cullen328 (talk) 16:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I'd say a speedy close and perhaps a block for the filer is appropriate, then. PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Definitely tl;dr and WP:BOOMERANG situation. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:48, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

• I was pinged above, but have no intention of reading through all that. I did opine in the earlier report that the changes I looked at seemed like improvements, and that I would like to hear an explanation for the reverts (since the edit summaries used in the reverts were quite vague). However, to say that Cullen was negligent in making the comment he made is ridiculous - the OP appears not to understand what this board is for, or what the role of the administrator is here. I suggest this be closed post-haste. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I've hatted the content dispute digression, and Carter00000 is warned for personal attacks and for fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of this board and the roles of administrators. Acroterion (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

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

WP:NOTHERE but also Redacted?

I initially encountered Alubone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) back in March where they introduced deliberate factual errors into some professional wrestling articles. I warned the user, where they said they were predicting the results of a future match. I informed them of WP:CRYSTAL, and their response was Whatever as long as I am in Wikipedia I am predicting😏😈😈😈. I ignored it and moved on. Now they've done a similar thing again. Once more I've warned them -- but then I noticed their user page, where they identify themselves as (Redacted).

I'm unsure what the next steps should be. On the one hand this user has been given a welcome note at the top of their talk page and later was invited to the Teahouse back in August. But on the other hand, to put it bluntly, this user is not here to build an encyclopedia. I feel a bit guilty doing the whole vandal warning thing to a (Redacted), but I don't think a (Redacted) is really able to contribute to the project. Should this user be given additional guidance, something like WP:MENTOR? Previous welcomes don't seem to have worked. — Czello 16:37, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Alubone. Cullen328 (talk) 17:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)