Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • Try dispute resolution
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

---

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

Start a new discussion

JacktheBrown

I have reviewed the edit history of @JacktheBrown and observed that they have been involved in several edit wars, consistently motivated by a personal, seemingly nationalist POV. Their aim appears to be the removal of non-Italian influences or antecedents to certain dishes that they consider to be Italian.

In the article on Cappuccino, they first removed a referenced statement, claiming it was not reliable, even though it came from a professor of food history. They have now labelled this professor as "controversial" within the article.[1]

Same in the article Carbonara: [2]

Here they changed the place of origin of White pizza, removing America without any discussion or reference: [3]

In Zeppola, they refuse to include a mention of the American version of the dish, saying it’s “absolutely not necessary” while other users asked for it in the talk page: [4]

They have also been engaged in edit wars on the article Orzo, removing names and versions of the dish that are not Italian, with another editor restoring them: [5]. The only argument they have is saying “they are Italians so they have more knowledge”: [6]

Furthermore, in the article Porchetta, they had an edit war and refuse to acknowledge that the dish is also typical of another region outside of Italy. The discussion in the talk page [7], in my opinion, lacks respect and demonstrates an inappropriate behaviour for Wikipedia, by refusing to engage in discussion. Here they even ask to remove an ANI: [8]

In Penne alla Vodka, they removed an entire sourced paragraph that claimed that the dish was probably American: [9]

I noticed that today they edited the Mont Blanc article to list Italy before France in the infobox, even though alphabetical order would suggest the opposite. This change was made without explanation. This small detail reveals their nationalistic bias, as they always seem to prefer placing Italy in the first position: [10]

In the article Cappuccino, there was a consensus to include both Austria and Italy in the infobox, as seen in versions prior to February 2024, for example here: [11]. I wanted to change it to include only Austria but did not reach consensus. However, I noticed that Jackkbrown decided to remove Austria in April [12] without reaching a consensus and does not accept any changes.

I believe that they are not contributing positively to Wikipedia. Their bias consistently leads them to advocate for a subjective nationalist point of view instead of considering the facts. Additionally, they never use references to support their changes or statements. They claim to have expertise ([13]) in Italian cuisine, but I only see someone who avoids using references, refuses to engage in discussion, and promotes a nationalist perspective. I think this does not help Wikipedia, and such behaviour should be banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sapsby (talk • contribs) 13:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@Sapsby: only from the sentence "Here they changed the place of origin of White pizza, removing America without any discussion or reference" it can be clearly stated that the seriously problematic user isn't me; you just want to hurt me. The white pizza (Italian: pizza bianca) has always been Italian, it's like saying the calzone is American... JacktheBrown (talk) 13:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Jack, I'm totally open to the idea that Pizza bianca is the precursor to White pizza. But I'm also open to the idea that they are two different foods that have a similar name. Pizza Bianca Romana alla Pala del Fornaio seems to be more like focaccia, and pizza that is sauced with bechamel and topped with cheese seems like a very different food. I value that you can search in Italian, are bilingual, and are knowledgeable about and interested in Italian cuisine, we definitely need that, but you do seem to be having trouble editing without getting yourself into trouble in even areas that would normally be assumed to be noncontentious, which is fairly unusual for someone with nearly 70k edits and 20 months' experience. Valereee (talk) 16:53, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee: a few minutes ago I changed the article, now the origin is both Italy (precursor) and the United States (modern version): Special:Diff/1241158526. Update: the change has been cancelled; perhaps it's best that I abandon the encyclopaedia completely for a while. JacktheBrown (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Jack, I'd actually recommend not abandoning now, as there are two open discussions at ANI, but you could certainly stop making major edits without prior discussion while those discussions are going on. That reverted edit was not bad, it was just not how we generally handle a food item (modern version/precursor) in an infobox. If I were enwiki food czar I'd leave place of origin off the infobox until I'd decreed there needed to be two articles, one for Pizza Bianca Romana alla Pala del Fornaio (which as an apparently recognized DOI food if I'm reading correctly is the kind of thing enwiki could really use your work on) and one for the 'white pizza' known outside of Italy. :) Valereee (talk) 19:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

IMO an important thing to remember is that if you find unsourced content that you think is wrong, the solution is rarely to replace it with other unsourced content that you think is right. Instead it's either to find sources and adjust the content if needed, or failing that just remove it. You can also tag it, but if you're really sure it's wrong but can't find any sources easily, it's entirely reasonable to just remove it IMO. (I mean you can remove it even if you think it's right, but it's far harder for an editor to complain about you removing unsourced text without giving others a chance to fix it or making enough effort yourself; if the reason you removed it is because you think it's not only unsourced but also wrong.) But the other thing is, AFAICT, this is a dispute largely over the infobox with almost nothing in the article to support it either way. What really should happen is someone needs to introduce text about the origin of white pizza and it's possible connection to Pizza bianca. As it stands, the infobox is source of whatever, since the article just discusses two different things without connecting the two in any real way. Nil Einne (talk) 10:07, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

This type of constantly shifting problem has been a regular issue for this editor, who has been here already recently for things like spamming the Teahouse, making rapid-fire edits to fit their style desire, ignoring WP:ENGVAR, and the likely GENSEX topic ban above. The thread of nationalism has always been there, but the hope was that he would direct this impulse towards productive editing, not warring. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed all of the diffs presented fully, but I am concerned about edits such as this, where an academic is vaguely described as 'controversial', in defiance of MOS:CONTROVERSIAL. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:49, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Clarifications for anyone perplexed like me: JacktheBrown was JackkBrown until an account name change on 17 Aug 2024[14], but their sig had been JacktheBrown for a while. The above saying “they are Italians so they have more knowledge” refers to two edit summaries last month, both ending I am Italian, and I have no right to own this page, but I have more knowledge than you, because it is an Italian food, justifying capitalising the infobox alternative name of Orzo, from "risoni" to "Risoni",[15] and putting single quotation marks around pine nuts[16]. The tban from Gensex proposal is above at #Proposal: Topic ban from GENSEX (Behaviour of JacktheBrown). NebY (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

• Involved comment since I decided to participate in the Cappucino discussion but other than the MOS:CONTROVERSIAL violation by JacktheBrown, it seems like the point around cappucino is entirely a content dispute about whether Austria should also be listed as a place of origin along with Italy. Sapsby says "there was a consensus" though it is through simple editing which is the weakest form of consensus on wikipedia. Some of the recent additions of Austria being in 2021 with this edit, removed at some point and reverted by the same editor in 2023 with vandalism claims, all of which were not subject to any talkpage discussion. The two most recent discussions on the issue where both JacktheBrown and Sapsby are involved resulted in what I can best describe as no consensus and weak consensus in favor of removing Austria, with pretty low participation in both cases. No other form of dispute resolution was seeked.

I will also add that white pizza has general issues on sourcing and the edit by JacktheBrown was neither challenged nor discussed and the original statement of originating from America was also unsourced therefore making a fairly weak claim on breaking any WP:RULES in this instance.
No comment on other issues.

Adding: an ip address brought up suspicions of WP:SOCK by Spasby relating to Xiaomichel on the cappucino talk page if someone more familiar than me with WP:SPI procedure could look into it. Yvan Part (talk) 17:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

• Block, Jack's editing is exhausting and a time sink as he doesn't retain the information despite numerous attempts at helping him. It's benign -- a mix of not having the English-language fluency (not a PA, I don't have it in Italian) to get the nuance and context of discussion. This is happening above in the CTOPS discussion and he has a habit of "retirement" to avoid sanctions, which he also threatened above. It's time to enforce it. Star Mississippi 01:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: according to Talk:Cappuccino#edit war, User Talk:Stephen Hui#Obvious sockpuppets and more, the user who reported me (Sapsby) is, unfortunately, very very problematic.
Furthermore, as I said, I would like to stop editing Wikipedia these days, or weeks (except for active discussions and rare edits to non-controversial pages). I'm very sad; this is the reason for my "retirement". Reply to "he has a habit of "retirement" to avoid sanctions, which he also threatened above.": absolutely not, don't come to unfair conclusions; as I said a few lines earlier, "I'm very sad; this is the reason for my "retirement"." (behind the Wikipedia user, user who always tries to improve, there's a person with feelings). Thank you and have a very great day, Star Mississippi. JacktheBrown (talk) 07:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Do we need this discussion in two places? Slatersteven (talk) 09:32, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

• I think I'm semi-involved here because I've participated in some RMs initiated by Jack. I won't comment on the broader issues here, but I don't believe his labeling of "a professor" (Alberto Grandi, since no one else has linked to him directly) as "controversial" is as problematic as others have suggested, though maybe the phrasing could be better. This is because Grandi's claims are in fact controversial. See [17] [18] [19] [20]. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 13:47, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
• In my close of this discussion from 6 months ago, which resulted in a 1 month block, I wrote "Any further disruption following the lifting of the block is likely to end up with an indefinite block implemented by any administrator." I cannot say I have yet read through this thread in its entirety, but this may potentially apply. Daniel (talk) 22:06, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree Jack's nationalist attitude is somewhat problematic, but I think he should be let off with a warning to focus on adding content rather than removing it and to propose potentially controversial changes on the talk page before making them. Regarding the alleged misbehaviour:

• As has been noted, the professor is in fact controversial.
• I've proposed a solution to the dispute at Talk:White pizza. We went through something similar a while ago with Italian sausage.
• Adding the American version to Zeppola may well be a good idea, but all Jack did was object to a proposal on the talk page that it be added. No one has actually added it so Jack hasn't actually removed anything.
• Jack seems to have accepted the changes at Orzo.
• The "sourced paragraph" at Penne alla Vodka was only added recently and the source was a blog. --Un assiolo (talk) 13:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
• Jack accepted Sapsby's changes at cappuccino, improving them, although "Unfortunately, I was forced by Sapsby to accept their changes"; see: [21] and [22]. JacktheBrown (talk) 14:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Note that the OP of this thread has been blocked as a sock at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xiaomichel. Pinguinn 🐧 16:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the information but given the concerns brought up, I don't think this discussion should be closed yet. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

• Just pointing out that Jack has been t-banned from WP:GENSEX in the previous discussion, and has reacted gracefully to the notification of that. Valereee (talk) 12:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, Valereee. This discussion involves food articles though so not covered by GENSEX. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I know, I just thought it was worth pointing out that this editor seems to be trying to take concerns on board. Valereee (talk) 11:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

• I wish I'd seen this discussion when the previous one was going on. Eating a lot of italian and watching a lot of shows about cooking and cooking history I probably agree with Jack on some of these things (Carbonara and Pizza Bianca), however the manner in which they have been WP:POVPUSHING and disregarding consensus is unacceptable. After the comments by admin in the other discussion about their problematic editing elsewhere, and now this, I think a indef block is necessary as a preventative measure to put a stop to further disruption. TarnishedPath^talk 11:04, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
  • @TarnishedPath: I have never ignored consensus. An example? On the discussion page of the porchetta article I wrote for several weeks with the IP address, but they never convinced me and my idea remained unchanged; if you read the discussion carefully, you will notice that I advised the IP to add what they wanted within the paragraph "In France" (obviously without errors). Furthermore, a very expert, competent and skilled user agrees with me (part of their comment: "In regards to the origin of Porchetta, you need to draw a distinction between "a tradition" and "originates". Just because there is a tradition somewhere does not mean that that's where it originates. Both the "traditions" and origins can be discussed, suitably sourced, in the article. But generally the lead should be focused on the origins and locations that the food is most identified with. Most reliable sources seem to think it is an Italian."). Finally, regarding the cappuccino article, as written on the discussion page, "...the consensus for "Austria" that Sapsby claims to have achieved never existed...".
    In conclusion, the sentence "...and disregarding consensus is unacceptable." is completely, totally wrong. I wish you a very beautiful day, TarnishedPath. JacktheBrown (talk) 13:01, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

• I think for all the concerns -- which are valid -- Jack is still a net positive. Oppose indef as throwing the baby out with the bath water. Valereee (talk) 12:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

• Irrespective of anything else, I have had quite enough of JacktheBrown's endless editing of his comments. After leaving this comment here, JacktheBrown has made 17 edits to it over the course of 7 hours. He has been warned about this in the past but seems unable to stop. Enough already. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 22:36, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
• This doesn't really feel like a good faith report.
  At Carbonara, JacktheBrown characterises as controversial a figure in a sentence sourced to Italian academic cooks up controversy with claim carbonara is US dish (Giuffrida, 2023).
  At Penne alla vodka, he removes a single sentence formatted as a paragraph, which had stated a New York origin of the recipe is "a common claim", sourced to the corporate blog of a New York based pasta sauce company, which itself goes on to give three other proposed origins, two of which are cited to cookbooks. The report characterises the removed text as an entire sourced paragraph that claimed that the dish was probably American.
  The manners at Talk:Porchetta aren't exemplary, but I'm having trouble feeling judgemental towards an attitude that seems to amount to "I'm not going to be able to have a productive conversation with you here while you have open ANI reports against me."
  I haven't looked at everything. I'm aware JacktheBrown has filled up at least one or two ANI stamp cards for being such a loyal returning customer. Yall see the absurdity in arguing the "origin" of recipes, right? Like in all the kitchens in all the world, no two people have ever looked at the same ingredients and had the same idea? Folly Mox (talk) 07:57, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

  At Penne alla vodka, they removed a paragraph that was sourced from a blog, as you mentioned. However, a quick search can yield reliable sources (I will add some to the talk page). It seems that this user is not motivated by objective knowledge, but rather, as stated before, by inserting their nationalist views into every article they're interested in.

  I see there have also been issues with their edits at Imane Khelif, which in my opinion fall into a similar category. In that case, as Imane Khelif won against an Italian boxer in the Olympics, and Jack wanted to promote the version that she did not truly deserve her victory. Enamait (talk) 17:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• I agree with an indefinite block. This user seems to need more education about Wikipedia's culture of collaborative editing. Their bias is obvious and makes them unable to engage in constructive discussion.Enamait (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Adding: IP 79.21.222.19 who is active at cappuccino talk page has just been blocked due to edit warring and seems to share a similar nationalist Italian POV with JacktheBrown. This IP was also restoring JacktheBrown's version at cappuccino ([23] and [24]). I find it a bit suspicious, maybe someone should investigate more.Enamait (talk) 12:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@Enamait: could you please stop creating false reports? Thank you. JacktheBrown (talk) 13:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I opened a SPI case:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/JacktheBrown Enamait (talk) 14:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Sort-of legal threat by IP user

49.36.176.122 (talk · contribs) posted something which kind of is a legal threat but kind of isn't on Talk:2024 Kolkata rape and murder incident; they're demanding a given change be made to the article and saying that if it is not then Indian employees of the Wikimedia foundation will be in legal jeopardy (something I'm fairly certain is untrue, but I digress) - but not directly threatening to report it themselves. One could construe it as a misguided if good-faith attempt to be helpful, I suppose. Anyway, it probably warrants a look. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm on the fence about this one, they are talking about Indian law without threatening to take action but they are making demands for an editorial change. It's complicated because they are an IP address. If they were a registered account and they made a clear legal threat, we would indefinitely blocked them until they retracted their threat. But we don't indefinitely block IP addresses and this account was issuing a warning about potential future actions rather than making a specific threat. I'd like to hear what other admins and editors think. I'm also doubtful of the accuracy of what action they say could happen. But their remarks could serve to intimidate editors working on this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The message looks to me like the ip may be concerned about WP editors rather than a legal threat to take action? Knitsey (talk) 17:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

There's been ongoing requests at that page to remove the victim's name under Indian law, and repeated replies re WP:NOTCENSORED. In this particular case, I read this as an IP trying to scare editors to make the requested change out of the supposed liability under Indian law, and the supposed stance that the Wikimedia Foundation isn't properly protecting users. I don't think any of this is true, but I don't think it is a specfici threat from this user themself. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

It is an attempt to chill discussion and weaponize the law in a content dispute. It is definitely against the spirit of the rule if not the letter, and ought not to be tolerated. MrOllie (talk) 18:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Isn't it covered by the 'Perceived legal threats' section, "Your edits could be illegal..." wink wink nudge nudge. Reading their further replies that certainly seems to be what they are suggesting. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

They're saying that it is an "ORDER to WMF by India's 2nd most powerful court" and that "WMF counsel has agreed to comply and turn the user details over for service of court summons/notice." // "WMF is certain to throw its editors (admins) under the bus". Seems like very obvious legal threats to me. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 21:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll consider this edit Special:Diff/1241706132 to be a legal threat in the context. I see the IP user to be physically involved with legal bodies Special:Diff/1241714216 to be of much concern as to whether they might, if not already, initiate such legal processes themselves or thru their proxies. — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 17:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Reading their responses since I posted my opinion, I think both you and MrOllie may be correct. Knitsey (talk) 18:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

For fairness' sake I should note that the user posted on their talk page in response to the ANI notice. Being an IP user, they can't respond here directly. AntiDionysius (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

They have also posted about this on the non autoconfirmed subpage. GrayStorm^{(Complaints Dept.|My Contribs.)} 02:22, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

The somewhat personal attacks should not be accepted (as seen here). Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 21:24, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Whereas I read those "personal attacks" as a good faith attempt to sensitize an editor from India about the potential liablities of editors under their own (often draconian) local laws, as also set down in our Terms of Use. FWIW I view Special:Diff/1241719272 as a genuine advice to that editor by the IP. Sectioneer (talk) 13:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't see it as a legal threat, just throwing big words around in an attempt to get their way. Concerning, but nothing to worry about, yet. Should it escalate, that could be another discussion. Oaktree b (talk) 12:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

throwing big words around in an attempt to get their way

That's kinda the heart of WP:LEGAL. They're attempting to browbeat others into editing in favor of their POV by using legal language, or "cautioning" others that they could be prosecuted. That's the chilling effect mentioned, and the entire reason WP:LEGAL was created, so people can't use claims of legal action to drive other editors off the page or make them perform specific edits. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. If someone has information they think relevant to legal matters, they should forward it to WMF legal. They should not be giving I-am-not-a-lawyer legal advice to other editors. EEng 23:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Meta Voyager's tendentious editing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Total stats

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

Proposal: Topic ban

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose Meta Voyager has made a total of 6 articles to Article namespace (assuming none were deleted) as of writing; 4 of which are related to Christianity. None of the edits remotely violate policy nor even resemble POV pushing (permissible or not). This report is preemptive and premature. People with WP:COI are welcome to make {{Edit requests}}. And to be clear, reliable sources very convincingly lay out that International Churches of Christ is a cult. Wikipedia's role in challenging WP:FRINGE remains, but it's not a license to WP:BITE editors. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 01:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive edits in politics-related articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can we get a block here please?

• Edit warring on adding "communist": [25]
• Edit warring on "man of steel": [26] [27] [28]
• Edit warring on both of the above: [29] [30]

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

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

• Floriano Peixoto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• [31] [32] [33] [34]

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

POV-pushing by User:Hystricidae21

Hystricidae21 (talk · contribs) has been adding essay-like content promoting a libertarian/anarcho-capitalist POV to various articles. I have reverted a few of his additions, but he's been at it for a whole year and, while some of it was immediately reverted, much of it went unnoticed. For example, Compulsory cartel contained several paragraphs claiming (in Wikivoice) that public healthcare was "economic totalitarianism" for the better part of a year. I have warned him on his talk page that this is completely unacceptable and asked him to familiarize himself with WP:NPOV.

Due to the extent of his activities, I don't know if I am qualified to handle this by myself. Should I just revert everything to the latest version before he made any edits? Some of his changes may be good, but there's so much to go through, and what about later changes by other people?

I originally posted this at WP:NPOVN, but was told to post it here. Un assiolo (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

You need to tell him (on his take page) about this ani (see top of this page). Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I did, 8 minutes before you posted. Is the fact that I didn't use the template a problem? It says When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}}~~~~ to do so. (emphasis mine). I understood this as meaning that the template is not mandatory. Pinging User:LilianaUwU who subsequently added the template (immediately below my message saying that I have reported his activity at ANI). --Un assiolo (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

That seems to be a thread about the NPOV thread, not this ani, however, someone has done it for you. Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

So the problem is that I didn't add a new heading? Neither did User:LilianaUwU. She posted it immediately under my message. --Un assiolo (talk) 17:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)]

No the problem is you did not link to THIS ani. Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Slatersteven, they did. Are you reading the same user talk page? Celjski Grad (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean? I included a link to ANI followed by a link to this section, which I thought would be helpful since the user has never done anything outside mainspace and may not know how to navigate. That's more than the template does. --Un assiolo (talk) 18:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

yes, it seems they posted theirs at 5:02, then someone else did the same at 5:16, I missed their edit, and just saw the second person. Slatersteven (talk) 18:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

The standard ANI notice doesn't even link to a particular thread. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

You also need to share diffs here. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Here (see lead section), also here, adding political content unrelated to the topic of the article, more of the same. --Un assiolo (talk) 18:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't know why someone would have told you to bring this to AN/I; this looks to me like an extremely obvious content dispute over whether an article should have cited language to some economist or some other economist. Why is this a conduct dispute? Because you think that they are an anarchist? jp×g🗯️ 23:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Really? Because this edit on the "Health care rationing" page looks absolutely looney-tunes to me. It includes this as a reference:

<ref>Verify yourself why www.bergmanclinics.nl the largest private supplier of medical services in NL offers it's services only and normally with a prescription from a gatekeeper.(+31 88 9000 500)</ref>

as well as a photo of "Armed Hamas gunmen hijacking patient in hospital" which is quite bizarre for the article topic. Toughpigs (talk) 01:44, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

At best this should warrant a warning for them to correctly cite. Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

83.87.67.120 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) must be the same person. They added similar content, sometimes to the same article as Hystricidae21. The IP's edits go back to 2021. Diffs: [35] [36] [37] --Un assiolo (talk) 18:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

And another one: 84.107.129.50 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). This is absolutely a conduct dispute. They were involved in multiple edit wars and never posted anything on a talk page as they were told to do in other users' edit summaries. User talk:83.87.67.120 has a bunch of warnings. The fact that nearly all of their edits are POV essays indicates they are WP:NOTHERE. On one occasion, they removed "useless references to bad works" (academic works on the subject) and replaced them with a reference to Atlas Shrugged.

I have to ask: how did this go undetected for nearly three years? Many people reverted his additions but no one bothered to investigate the person behind them? For around a year, anyone looking up self-ownership on Wikipedia got a 20 kB essay instead of a lead section (half of it an anti-abortion WP:COATRACK). This is not an obscure article; looking at the pageviews, this was seen by tens of thousands of people during that period. A major lapse on the part of the Wikipedia community. I've spent several hours cleaning up the mess and will most likely spend several more. Much of this could have been prevented had it been detected earlier. --Un assiolo (talk) 14:53, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• Bump. I agree with Un assiolo, the edits of Hystricidae21 should be examined. (Although the IP edits may be precursors, not WP:LOUTSOCKing.) Examples of Hystricidae21's edits already given above include violations of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV and not merely a misunderstanding of WP:RS but replacement of adequate sourcing with poor sources:
  • [38], [39], Un assiolo example, degradation of sourcing
  • [40], Toughpigs example, insertion of POV essay content in mainspace, instructing reader to "Verify for yourself" as a reference
  • [41] (by one of the IPs) and subsequent edits by Hystricidae21, converting the introduction of Self-ownership to a POV essay, Un assiolo example, see their revert on 17 August
  • [42], article referred to by Un assiolo, POV rewrite of intro of Compulsory cartel and insertion of essayistic sections on "Compulsory medical cartel" and "Compulsory banking cartel" and a paragraph presenting the "Dutch medical welfare state cartel" as an example of Economic totalitarianism.

This is surely enough to establish that there is a serious behavioral/judgement issue with their editing. (Yes, un assiolo promply notified the editor, and someone else then notified them again; Hystricidae21, can you please respond here?) Yngvadottir (talk) 00:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I assume the logged out editing was in good faith and was not meant to conceal anything. I have cleaned up all of their edits, both from the account and from the IPs, so that's been dealt with. They are active intermittently so I'm not expecting a response, but I will keep an eye on them in case they come back. --Un assiolo (talk) 15:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

This needs an indef or site ban, TBAN at the least. If you look at the "Toughpigs example," not only does it literally cite to OR ("verify for yourself"), but there are large swaths that are entirely uncited (all the "Marxist" stuff), and the stuff that is cited fails verification (check the first cite in that diff, for example). "Absolutely looney-tunes" is an apt description. I don't think this person should be touching mainspace. Levivich (talk) 15:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to not block them, so that we can track their activity if they come back. If they are blocked, they might just come back with a different account or IP and thereby remain undetected for a while. A topic ban sounds like a better idea. --Un assiolo (talk) 16:47, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Topic bans require the editor themself to stay away from the topic, and can't be automatically enforced. So the community would still have to watch out for POV editing of articles in the topic area either way. The fact their edits have been 100% in mainspace—no talk space participation whatsoever—also doesn't inspire confidence that they will respect a community decision. Which is why I pinged them to participate here. Since as you say they edit intermittently, I suggest an indefinite partial block from mainspace to get them to engage when they return (an AGF step below Levivich's suggestion of a simple indef). Yngvadottir (talk) 23:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Un Assiolo already made the rip containing the diffs: Non-aggression_principle, Market_economy], Self-ownership, Health_care_rationing, Compulsory_cartel, Economic_totalitarianism, Totalitarianism, Anti-competitive_practices, Johannes_Voet, Free_market_democracy, supposedly to restore a Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. Since these contributions were clearly added to create more NPOV, he is actually creating bias by reverting. Take for example the article on Free_market_democracy, which provides a different (non-fringe) view on the concept of democracy.

Most of these contributions ripped contain references to reliable sources, giving evidence of facts that were added. There might exist other references to contrary facts, if so Un Assiolo should resolve the conflict by adding nuance to the facts/matters (by for example adding context) and provide the references Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Try_to_fix_problems, Wikipedia:ASSERT. Some matters (for example inferences) may look like original research, but may have reliable sources that support a POV Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Explanation, possibly by adding some more context. Un Assiolo could have only reverted those parts and point out sources for the contrary of the matter. Sources are still lacking on pages like Market_economy, Self-ownership,

Un Assiolo should actually come up with the precise reason why he could not resolve the problem and preserve. NPOV is a very broad topic. A simple example would be the article of Johannes_Voet, where the voetstoots norm including references was removed. How was that a NPOV problem? Another example is the removal of the definition of economic totalitarianism from the compulsory cartel page, leaving us with no definition at all.

On the Health care rationing page Un Assiolo claims political screed and that NPOV needs to be restored. I suppose that he means that the page contained subjective political opinions instead of facts, but this is not the case. It is a commonly known fact in the netherlands that all medical care, with only a few exceptions require a referral of a GP. I have several references for this: "In the Netherlands, as in many European countries, the health care system has been organized in such a way that people cannot enter higher levels of medical care directly." and "Primary Healthcare In the Netherlands, general practitioners (GPs) function as gatekeepers for patient referral to specialists." and "Private Spending Out-of-pocket payments have been declining steadily in the Netherlands – from a share of 9 percent of total healthcare spending to 7.1 percent in 2005 and then sharply to 5.5 percent in 2007.". I was about to add these references in support of this fact. So clearly this is a compulsory monopsony eliminating the market economy for patients as buyers of a basic necessity good and service (medical care).

The page Non-aggression_principle (NAP) a reversion was made of material already reviewed by many and extensively supported by references. But there is always the issue of interpretation of academic documents. Reference Roderick Long "ANARCHISM/MINARCHISM" (2008) does not give a definition of the non-aggression principle or formulate the principle currently stated on the NAP page: "initiating or threatening any forceful interference with either an individual or their property, or agreements (contracts)". No citations from Long (2008) are given. Long does talk about initating an action including a possible threat in: "initiating the use or threat of physical force against one who has not himself initiated force." (p157), but does not come to a principle there. But anyone who disagrees can contest this by providing citations. So the reversal actually introduced less support for any formulation of the NAP inso creating more bias. Zwolinsky (2015) also does not define the NAP. He does cite Rothbard "For a New Liberty: Libertarian Manifesto" (1973) on page 516, a document that was referred to for the NAP in the version of the article directly before the reversion: 'Murray Rothbard (1973). For A New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto.Citation (p. 27) "... that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else. This may be called the "nonaggression axiom." "Aggression" is defined as the initiation of the use or threat of physical violence against the person or property of anyone else."'

Un Assiolo claims that Self-ownership before his reversion was an anti-abortion essay and that is was WP:COATRACK. I will try to understand him and provide some citations for how he may have come to this conclusion: (a) "Since the legal norm of property title claim incapacitates (or bans) other people (except the zygote) from claiming property title over the same resource at the same time, the right to control or interfere with one's own body in any arbitrary way is secured." and (b) "The conception action is legally a power norm that imposes the (positive) parental duty on the parents which is understood not to violate the individual's sovereignty or impose involuntary servitude because it was imposed on themselves by their own behavioral physical interference action with a zygote as a negative claim right of the zygote to the parental duty which is an implicit obligation similar to a sanction norm in corrective justice. One is obligated not to create a zygote by an pure (physical) interference action or perform the parental duty which is an obligation resulting from negative sovereignty by assuming an implicit law on the zygote." Part (a) is based on Murray Rothbard's "Ethics of liberty" and a reference and citation is provided. It is not an anti-abortion essay, but an explanation for how self-ownership of the conceived baby comes to be. By the way Rothbard actually thinks that you can abort a baby but after birth, as he talks about in the same book. Libertarianism contains abortionists and anti-abortionists, but self-ownership is less contested and is partially supported by Rothbards principle. In extend to the anti-abortionist position, there are also many people around the world who think that there is a parental duty. In this article I draw the logical conclusion (inference) that the Voetstoots norm can be used to come to such a conclusion. I thought that would not be contested :D The parental duty is relevant to the concept of de-facto self-ownership, because without the parental duty many newborns may die or never achieve de-facto self-autonomy. I provided two references that support the parental duty position.

I mostly respond to comments made after reversions, at least the first time one occurs on a particular contribution, but I respond by resolving the NPOV issue by adding context and references. I don't see how intermediate edit results half a year ago are of any interest. I might have made an error which I corrected. It takes too long for now to go into a defense of all articles reverted. Hystricidae21 (talk) 04:39, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

References

@Hystricidae21: I left a note regarding Johannes Voet on your talk page to avoid cluttering things up here. If you believe the sourcing at the NAP article is inadequate, you can add sources and possibly discuss it on the talk page, but a novel is not an acceptable source. Most of the sources you added were WP:PRIMARY sources, which are not the preferred kind of source. The problem with the text you added was that it was presenting one point of view as objective fact and not just a subjective point of view.

The topic of your article on Free market democracy is not how the term is usually used, and I don't think Mises's usage is notable enough for a standalone article. Also, most of the article was original research, which is not accepted on Wikipedia.

Regarding the health care article, those sources are better than the "verify yourself" citations you originally added, which are completely unacceptable. But your interpretation that this constitutes a "cartel" or "economic totalitarianism" is original research. You need a source saying Dutch health care is a cartel if you want to add it to the article on cartels. Regarding Self-ownership, you say I draw the logical conclusion (inference) that the Voetstoots norm can be used to come to such a conclusion. Again, this is original research and is not acceptable. See also: WP:NOTESSAY. Some of the content you added may be appropriate if you add it to a separate section, not to the lead, and if you present is as just one point of view. --Un assiolo (talk) 15:56, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Un assiolo's summary appears accurate. Hystricidae21, thanks for responding, but you're both drawing conclusions and selecting examples to support your analysis. That's not so much encyclopaedic writing as argument; note in particular the policy against original research and the policy that the reader must be able to verify everything from citations. Since you say you were intending to add better citations, consider proposing a refined form of some of your changes on the article talk pages, with better referencing (avoiding primary sources, the novel Atlas Shrugged, and instructions to the reader to make phone calls, now that you've been made aware of what we consider reliable sources). That's recommended practice when edits are contested. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:08, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Un Assiolo is misrepresenting things by saying that replacement of Long (2008) and Zwolinsky (2016) with 'Atlas Shrugged'-Rand (1957) (and Kinsella) is a problem, because many references were added later, including 'Virtue of Selfishness'-(1964), a reference work on objectivist thought. The most import sources of the NAP are objectivism, libertarianism, and international law, in particularly just war theory. The following references were present on NAP right before the reversal. Reference Rand (1957) the novel is mainly important because it is the first known written work in which the 'non-initiation of force' principle is formulated, especially the usage of the term 'initiation', in the meaning of 'relative initiation', is a first, even though many writers in history have written on the NAP in this meaning, they never-expressed themselves clearly 'Non-aggression principle a short history' Fuller (2018). User:Yngvadottir was also participating in this misrepresentation. Hystricidae21 (talk) 00:08, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

These are considered primary sources for our purposes. We can't use such sources to make claims about their own legacy. Directly citing John Locke, for whom neither "libertarian" nor "non-aggression principle" existed as terms (I just checked) to support claims about the non-aggression principle is not acceptable for a tertiary source like Wikipedia. Remsense ‥ 论 00:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, @Hystricidae21, are you calling The Virtue of Selfishness a reference work? Valereee (talk) 16:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: mainspace pblock

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

---

• Support partial block from mainspace per Yngvadottir's suggestion above and WP:CIR. <ref>Verify yourself ... is the kind of reference that no editor should ever be adding to mainspace. Same with replacing academic works with references to works of fiction (Atlas Shrugged). Same with adding, e.g. a picture of a three-toed sloth to an article about health care rationing, which is just bizarre (as is the Hamas photo). In addition I see other examples above of failed verification, and in the article histories, edit warring to reinstate those edits. Their responses above show that they do not understand WP:OR, so they don't have the competence necessary to edit mainspace. The damage they did is significant; this is almost hoaxing, it's certainly POV-pushing, but I assume it's more a lack of competence than malice. Levivich (talk) 16:35, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

  I would tend to agree with this. It is fine for a new editor to use some questionable sourcing every now and then, so long as they are willing to learn and improve, but it is not fine for them to just insist on continuing to do so after everybody tells them this is awful and obviously violates policy. jp×g🗯️ 22:05, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

  @User:Valereee. Rands' VOS is a reference work or rather an informative non-fiction work on the topic of Objectivism as indicated on that page. There are more references there. Should those be copied to the NAP page too, to sustain the VOS reference?

  @User:Levivich: On the NAP page the previous and current references to (A) Zwolinsky and Long were not replaced only by Rand's novel. As indicated above a whole list of reference works was added: Hamowy,Rand,Hoppe,Molinari,Friedman,Rothbard,Locke,Kinsella, including citations. It remains to be investigated whether these are 1st,2nd or 3rd type references. To all these references, citations were attached, in contrast to the existing references (A). Hamowy's encyclopedia (probably a type 3 reference) was put together with Long in a single reference, does that indicate a relation. You mention that that these are academic works, but I requested citations above to supply support for the current definition of the NAP: "initiating or threatening any forceful interference with either an individual or their property, or agreements (contracts)". Many different formulations have been given to the NAP. One way of checking the quality of such a formulation is running it through some basic logical and semantics evaluations. For example: (1) Does interference mean physical interference or the beaching of some other constraint, e.g. a right (liberty-from whatever). (2) The principle seems to indicate that initiation of force forceful interference is illegitimate, but also that all threats of forceful interference are illegitimate. But such a threat cannot be retaliated with forceful interference and the initiation of forceful interference cannot be retaliated with any threats. Since the NAP is usually understood as a fundamental principle of morality or law this would leave severe enforcement problems. So most probably this principle is wrong and not identified as the NAP in either Long or Hamowy. But please give me a citation to prove me wrong.

  @User:Levivich: You stated "I see other examples above of failed verification, and in the article histories, edit warring to reinstate those edits.". Please can you give links?

  The damage that was done by the rip of User:Un_assiolo is significant, because not all of his deletion and reversions violated the NPOV. In one case he does not give any reason in the comments: Natural rigths. The deleted piece on Lysander Spooner contains text from his page in 2020 including references and citations from his book The Law of Intellectual Property page 63. So a summary of the book was made from the context of natural rights, using a citation. Is this an acceptable level of interpretation? I don't think you can expect a secondary source to exist for a summary (incl. citations) for every book in the context of every subject for which such context reasonably does exist.

  @User:JPxG Please give links were someone does "just insist on continuing to do so after everybody tells them this is awful and obviously violates policy"? Hystricidae21 (talk) 00:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  reference work or rather an informative non-fiction work

  Our point is that if we're writing about the prominent concepts within a particular intellectual movement, we usually do not cite what we deem to be the "original source" of those ideas—for our purposes, those are primary sources. Instead, we almost always cite secondary sources that have analyzed and contextualized the historical impact of said primary sources on establishing those ideas, since we are a tertiary source. We cannot use a text to verify claims rooted in the conceptual impact said text had after it was published, which are implicitly the types of claims you're trying to verify.

  Hamowy,Rand,Hoppe,Molinari,Friedman,Rothbard,Locke,Kinsella, including citations.

  Let's hone in on one example here to best illustrate what we're trying to tell you: is it not a major problem to you that Locke at no point used the term "non-aggression principle" throughout his entire œuvre, and was writing in a totally different context where most of the intellectual and social concepts we use in 2024 were either situated entirely differently or did not exist at all? We cannot directly cite what he says because he was writing in a different world and to successfully do so requires an interpretive layer in between by someone who is qualified to navigate the historical differences that always result in interpretive errors among laypeople.

  I don't think you can expect a secondary source to exist for a summary (incl. citations) for every book in the context of every subject for which such context reasonably does exist.

  If such a summary doesn't exist, then it reflects too niche a point to be made on Wikipedia. We only present claims sources plainly say; we don't provide novel interpretative claims of said sources. Remsense ‥ 论 01:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  As one example, same link Toughpigs posted above and below: Special:Diff/1214758081/1215141021. Levivich (talk) 02:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Hystricidae21: I'll start simple. Do you understand why you adding stuff like "Verify for yourself that you cannot order an MRI scan at private hospital eng.medassist.co.il, Tel Aviv, without a gatekeeper's prescription. (+972 37724228)" is deeply concerning and not something you should have ever done? Nil Einne (talk) 04:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  Other examples of "verify yourself" references: 1, 2. Levivich (talk) 05:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  @User:Levivich:

  Link to Natural rights diff.

  Link to Lysander Spooner 2020. Hystricidae21 (talk) 01:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry everyone, I'm slow on the uptake here. When I first saw it, I thought this diff adding a picture of a sloth to the health care rationing article was some kind of copy/paste error or CIR thing. It just dawned on me: it's a statement that government-run health care is slow. Duh, I should have known from the heading of the added section, Economic totalitarian market-driven medical welfare state in the Netherlands, described in the edit summary as Added a reference. Improved wording. No political opinion present, only political analysis.. I no longer think this is a CIR issue, I think it's anti-government-health-care POV-pushing. Levivich (talk) 05:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  Hi, just noting I (slightly) edited your opening comment (replacing {{code}} with <code><nowiki> tags), as the stray <ref> tag caused most of ANI to be invisible until the next reference many threads below. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support block of any kind. These edits to Health care rationing are completely inappropriate for mainspace: arguments and opinions, including bizarre non sequiturs. Hystricidae21's wall of text responses in this discussion have not included a single instance of self-reflection, only excuses and defensiveness. Toughpigs (talk) 01:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support some block unless Hystricidae21 can demonstrate some emergent understanding why all of 1) the exceedingly silly sloth edit, 2) a reliance on citing Locke and Rand directly in the NAP article, and 3) "verify for yourself" are not acceptable to do. Remsense ‥ 论 05:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block from article space. This editor's axe grinding and POV pushing of fringe theories at Health care rationing has been way out of line, and any editor who thinks that a fictional novel is a reliable source for anything but the plot of that novel must be prevented from editing encyclopedia articles until the editor repudiates that bizarre notion and fully commits to the neutral point of view and our other core content policies. Proper use of neutrally written, well-referenced edit requests might help teach this editor how proper encyclopedia articles are written, but if tendentious editing resumes elsewhere, a sitewide block may be necessary. Cullen328 (talk) 06:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
• Hystricidae21, I know you are getting a lot of feedback right now but I just want to say one thing. Your writing looks like a college paper where you are using primary sources to put forward an argument that you put together. That's great writing for other venues but it's not encyclopedic writing. We don't share our own ideas and conclusions but those of reliable, independent, secondary sources. If you can't see the difference after all of these words, then I don't think your time here will last very long. If you can adjust to Wikipedia's styles and standards, well, maybe there is a way forward here but it does rest on you understanding while your contributions are not in line with Wikipedia's approach to encyclopedic writing. It's all resting on you and how you can adjust. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  Aye. When I participate in deliberations like these, I only do so when I think there's some point to it: my comments above weren't rhetorical or meant to pile on someone who's already beleaguered—I would very much like that cases like these that are brought here to result in something other than one fewer motivated editor. Remsense ‥ 论 08:36, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support TBAN+pblock: This user seems to have serious WP:CIR issues, as evidenced by the fact they seem to confuse primary and secondary sources and their questionable use of images. A broad Economics and Politics TBAN and pblock on the respective pages would probably be good. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I think a permanent banning is wrong. I am sorry for my Wikipedia:SYNTHs. There's no doubt that a permanent ban would give some relief to you.

@User:Remsense Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources says "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Look to me that it is allowed to keep the Lysander Spooner citation on property rights. Can you please give detailed links to and citations of the wiki rules were claimed to exist: 1) "We cannot directly cite what he says because he was writing in a different world and to successfully do so requires an interpretive layer in between by someone who is qualified to navigate the historical differences that always result in interpretive errors among laypeople." and "a reliance on citing Locke and Rand directly in the NAP article is unacceptable. 2) Images of sloth crawling the road and terrorist hijacking of patient in Israeli hospital are against wiki policy.

@User:Toughpigs and @User:Levivich: Note that the reference NL GP waiting lists was also added to health care rationing. Would it have been acceptable if I would have replaced the footnotes like "Verify yourself at the largest private diagnostic healthcare provider in the Netherlands, whether colonoscopy and gastroscopy's are available" with a footnote refering to the talkpage indicating that there is an issue with proper references to original research about what is a common known fact, that the answer to the above citation is no for all healthcare providers for buying patients?

@User:Cullen328: Please explain me what fringe theory was added to Health care rationing and what wiki rule was violated (links and citations). As discussed many times above, the Rand novel was not meant as a reference for the NAP, there were plenty of other primary sources added. The Rand novel could have been added as an interesting early source of the NAP, in the same sense as a movie can be a source of a particular song. Long (2008) a reference that was removed, unfortunately is not a reference for any formulation of the NAP. Are you suggesting to put a wiki page on lock or make Wikipedia:ER imposed on me only.

@User:Allan_Nonymous: Please give a link where a confusion of No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources primary and secondary sources lead to a wrong contribution to wikipedia?

@User:Levivich and User:Un_assiolo: The title "Economic totalitarian market-driven medical welfare state in the Netherlands" is not an anti-government or anti-welfare state POV. Economic totalitarianism as a concept was introduced by Ludwig von Mises in Planning for freedom (1952) and by Milton Friedman "Capitalism and freedom" (1962), and Mises clearly explains that totalitarian economic management is where interventionism eliminates the market economy, which obviously means in a particular goods and services group, because even the soviets were not able to eliminated money altogether. A monopsony or oligopsony would be an example of such a elimination of the market economy, even though these organizations consist of private enterprise, because we are looking at the market economy for the patients. A secondary reference for Mises (1952) is. This reference also explains that a welfare state does not have to be totalitarian. The NAP is not anti-government either, it just rejects illegitimate governments (territorial rulers). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hystricidae21 (talk • contribs) 14:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support indefinite partial block, or really any block. it seems clear that Hystricidae21 cannot even understand the extreme basics of Wikipedia, like why they should never be posting in article to "verify yourself" by calling a number or visiting a website and finding if they offer some service without a gatekeeper. I sometimes approach editors I feel I can get through to help them, but this editors misunderstandings about how wikipedia operates are so fundamental that I wouldn't even know where to start. Others are welcome to help, but I expect it to be a very long process and until that happens, I don't see much hope for them editing productively by themselves. Nil Einne (talk) 17:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Re your statement that I think a permanent banning is wrong. What's proposed isn't a ban, it's a block from article space. That means you can directly edit anything except articles, where you'd instead have to make a requested edit, per WP:EDITREQUEST, rather than making the edit yourself. Basically this means at least one other editor agrees with your edit. It's also not "permanent". Generally these types of blocks can be appealed, and often are successfully appealed once the editor understands what they're doing wrong and knows how to avoid doing it in future. Valereee (talk) 19:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block from article space, to be appealed in six months at the earliest. I'll say it one more time: the time and patience of constructive editors is Wikipedia's most important resource. It's not for squandering like this. Bishonen | tålk 19:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC).

The above is yet another wall of text that doesn't include even a single instance of Hystricidae21 saying that something they did was possibly incorrect. H21 is litigating every single point. I don't think that there's much reason why we would want this kind of behavior even on talk pages. Toughpigs (talk) 20:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Hystricidae21 Final reply unless some indication is shown that I'm not wasting my time. I will state plainly that I am talking about Locke and Rand specifically, not other edits since I haven't perused those.

Can you please give detailed links to and citations of the wiki rules [...]

Directly above and below your excerpt:

2. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. While a primary source is generally the best source for its own contents, even over a summary of the primary source elsewhere, do not put undue weight on its contents.

3. [what you cited]

4. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.

Images of sloth crawling the road and terrorist hijacking of patient in Israeli hospital are against wiki policy

Wikipedia:Image use policy: The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article. The relevant aspect of the image should be clear and central. Remsense ‥ 论 20:19, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support indefinite p-block from mainspace. Hystricidae21, thanks for responding here, and I've been reading your posts as well as others' responses, but it's clear you are still thinking in terms of making a point and supporting it. Wikipedia is a general reference work, not a set of lectures. I'm not dismissing your knowledge in the topic area, or your willingness to help us cover it better. Blocks can be appealed—they are different from permanent bans—although if you are blocked, the blocking administrator may require you to wait for some period, such as six months as has been suggested, and demonstrate in the meantime through edit requests that you've gained an understanding of how to explain with references in the context of an encyclopaedic article, and of issues of focus (WP:UNDUE). I agree with the others that you haven't yet reached that point of understanding. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support at least a temp ban from mainspace due to the various reasons mentioned above. Although I'm worried the behaviour might continue when the temp ban time is up. A perm ban wouldn't be out of the question either, but I'd give them a chance with a temp ban first.Oaktree b (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@User:Valereee: Since you did not respond to my Rand-VOS question, I assume you are dropping your objection concerning this reference w.r.t the NAP page? Imposing the Wikipedia:Edit_requests assumes that a block was imposed for editing, which first needs to be justified. I assume that this would be based on disruption or disruptive editing (@User:Levivich: which is also what Wikipedia:Competence_is_required refers to), which in turn would be based on edit warring. Edit warring happens when editors repeatedly override each others contributions. Wikipedia does not define what overriding is, so for now I assume it is a revert. Let's check whether an edit war actually happened.User:Avatar317 made the following reversions of section "Economic totalitarian market-driven medical welfare state in the Netherlands": first after which I added the following [update] of the section, which is not a revert to the earlier version but an improvement also addressing the Wikipedia:NOR objection by adding reference zorgverzekeringswet and news article about waiting lines (WL). Later on the sloth was added and reverted by User:Avatar317. The 'verify for yourself' footnotes were not reverted or discussed in contribution summaries or talk pages, until User:Un_assiolo started this threat and performed the rip above. The final update contained new phrasings and new reference Palyi (1950). User:Avatar317 and I did not start a discussion on the talk page. There was no repeated overriding of the same text by neither of us. The earlier revert] by Special:Contributions/76.167.105.62 was also not reverted but followed by an update of the text and references concerning public health care spending. So consensus by silence was reached on the page, until User:Un_assiolo started this issue on ANI.

@User:Toughpigs, @User:Nil Einne, @User:Levivich: Adding the ‘’verify for yourself..’’ footnotes was probably wrong because it is imperative mood, which is not a fact or inline citation. Wikipedia article text usually contain factual statements and citations. Even the statement "Everyone can verify at private medical diagnostic healthcare providers in the Netherlands, whether/that colonoscopy and gastroscopy's are not available for booking without gatekeepers prescription" would not fit article text because Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_manual,_guidebook,_textbook,_or_scientific_journal. The fact would be within the scope of the the concept of medical rationing because medical rationing is the situation where everyone is unable to buy medical care, which is the action of contacting the medical provider and negotiating for a price on a medical good or service delivery. A medical services guide could be a reference for this.

@User:Valereee, @User:Yngvadottir: Let's go to the procedure for editing a page: 1) In contributions added information should be [verifiable], which does not mean that references must be added immediately, but those are requested if the added information is challenged/contested. If added information is deleted with summary 'rv Wikipedia:NOR' editors can still try to reach consensus through compromise by editing (see image) instead of boldly overruling the revert: 'Seek a compromise means "attempt to find a generally acceptable solution", either through continued editing or through discussion.'

@User:Levivich: Failed verification can be solved by challenging it. Ask for references for a particular line or interence. What POV-Pushing do you mean, Wikipedia:Civil_POV_pushing? Can you give me a link and citation to what the POV-Pushing rule that was violated.

@User:Yngvadottir: You said: "you are still thinking in terms of making a point and supporting it." Can you give me an example of what you mean by this? Can you point me to the wiki rule that states that this is not allowed? Where did I violate Wikipedia:UNDUE?

@User:Valereee, @User:Bishonen, @User:Cullen328, @User:JPxG, @User:Liz admins. Who is entitled to participate in this voting for a sanction and according to what wiki rule. Link and citation please? Does the sanction satisfy [43]? How is the sanction justified by the violation [44]? Was there disruptive behaviour? Some participants in the discussion did not keep to the rules concerning discussion Violators: User:Oaktree_b, User:Bishonen.

@User:Remsense: There is always some level of interpretation going on. It is allowed to quote primary sources, but this usually happens within the context of the article. Often no explanation is required. For example Natural_rights_and_legal_rights#American_individualist_anarchists Benjamin Tucker is quoted with "Man's only right to land is his might over it" with a primary reference to "Tucker, Instead of a Book, p. 350". How is this different from the Lysander spooner quotation? This text is equally old as Spooner’s quote mentioned above. In law a few centuries is nothing, jet in software programming a decade can change the world. Why should old primary sources always be interpreted and new ones not necessarily? Should we remove Tucker's quote then? And please refer to wiki rules, or are you trying to promote a wiki philosophy? You quoted "The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people,things, activities, and concepts described in the article.". The images may depict analogies instead of the concept itself, by generalization of the concept described in the article: The sloth crawling the road, depicts a creature that is severely handicapped in performing an action that is essential for his survival, crossing the road. Not being able to pay for medical care, and instead having to rely on cattle farm GP's is handicapping (bourgeoisie) people. Quite similar. The hijackers of the patient are putting him in detention (imprisonment), while the regulators creating the medical welfare state compulsory cartel, are putting patients in economic detention (not being able to buy medical care). I did not contest removal of both images. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hystricidae21 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

What you need is a blog. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:19, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Support both indefinite p-block and siteblock. Whether the above is the WP:SEALIONING it appears, or just WP:CIR on how to collaborate, I feel a p-block would just move what seems to be a WP:RGW problem to talk space from article space. Hystricidae, you've had WP:NOR explained to you many times. If you still don't understand after thoroughly reading that linked policy, it's either WP:IDHT or WP:CIR. You may also wish to consider shorter replies, per WP:WALLOFTEXT. I do believe there's a way out so you can keep editing: if you step back, announce that you understand that you've done something wrong, accept the p-block, and will take time to consider it, perhaps you could still make edit requests on talk pages. After six months of collaborating well and showing understanding of wikipedia's policies, I expect an appeal would succeed. But the first step is realizing that if everyone is telling you that you're wrong, it's unlikely that they're all mistaken. EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

@Hystricidae21, re: Since you did not respond to my Rand-VOS question, I assume you are dropping your objection concerning this reference w.r.t the NAP page? which was referring to Rands' VOS is a reference work or rather an informative non-fiction work on the topic of Objectivism as indicated on that page. There are more references there. Should those be copied to the NAP page too, to sustain the VOS reference? No and no. I didn't respond because your question just confirmed you don't yet understand what constitutes a reliable source.

Re: Who is entitled to participate in this voting for a sanction and according to what wiki rule. Link and citation please? Does the sanction satisfy [39]? How is the sanction justified by the violation [40]? Was there disruptive behaviour? The fact you're asking these questions is reminding me how inexperienced you are here on Wikipedia. Which is fine, we're all unfamiliar with policy when we start. The problem is when a newer editor insists they're correct over and over again, even when other more experienced editors are trying to help them learn, which wastes those editors' time, which is disruptive. The partial block from article space is to require you to spend some time learning. Which means it's preventative. Anyone can participate here, we work by WP:CONSENSUS. Valereee (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Wahreit

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

---

The user Wahreit has been continuously adding historically inaccurate claims to the Defense of Sihang Warehouse Article. Wahreit has been asserting their claims primarily with various low-quality English sources. Most of their historically inaccurate claims can be traced back to a web article they and their sources are citing, which itself has no citations, and is highly likely to have copied un-cited and erroneous claims from a much earlier version of the Wikipedia article in question (passages in the article as very clearly reworded from the mid 2000's version of the Wikipedia article). I open multiple RfCs regarding the sources and content of the article but ultimately due to other users not being able to read Japanese sources which are the leading scholarship on the subject, there was no resolution met. I have already compiled the major Japanese sources for the subject and translated them on the article's talk page. The persistent changes made by Wahreit has resulted in the article presenting a baseless ahistorical depiction of the Japanese forces, which quite literally conflicts with all major Japanese sources (as well as many modern Chinese) on the subject. None of the sources presented by this user actually lead back to primary or scholarly Japanese sources, in fact most of them do not cite anything at all for the erroneous claims. I have attempted to explain this to the user on both the article's talk page and their user talk page but to no avail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adachi1939 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Adachi1939, can you a) sign your comments and b) present diffs/edits that are evidence of the problem you see? You are supposed to present an well-developed argument so we can see what conduct you are objecting to, and that is supplied with diffs, not just a narrative. Without evidence, you are unlikely to get much of a response here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

If they state that many claims from the article lack WP:V, that should not be so hard to establish. Of course, providing some examples would be appreciated. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I apologize for the lack of clarity.

The most questionable of the sources were brought up on the Reliable sources/Noticeboard. The most egregious of these sources is Eric Niderost's "Chinese Alamo: Last Stand at Sihang Warehouse" which was published in December 2007. There are no citations in the article despite it being used to support claims on the Defense of Sihang Warehouse Article. There are passages which seem to very likely be directly lifted from Wikipedia, for example:

"The Sihang defenders faced the Japanese 3rd Division, considered one of the best of the Imperial Japanese Army. They also had mortar teams, artillery, and armor—probably Type 94 Te-Ke tankettes."

And for comparison, this uncited passage from the 07:17, 9 August 2007 revision of the Defense of Sihang Warehouse Article.

"The Japanese 3rd Division (one of the most elite IJA divisions at the time) had suffered heavy losses at the hands of the Chinese 88th Division, whom they called the "Hated Enemy of Zhabei". However, their organization, officer corps and command structure were mostly intact, and Japanese forces enjoyed air and naval superiority, as well as access to armoured vehicles, likely Type 94 Te-Ke tankettes, and also Type 89 mortars. Japanese infantry used the Arisaka Type 38 Rifle."

Another so-called historian's source brought into question—Stephen Robinson's "800 Heroes"—has almost no citations that verify the IJA 3rd Division's involvement, with most passages lacking citations altogether. The one citation that does back up his claim is the aforementioned Niderost's Chinese Alamo, which evidently has issues. This has been discussed on the talk page over a year ago.

Paulose's "Three Months of Bloodshed: Strategy and Combat During the Battle of Shanghai" is also cited. Page 18 (frame 10) states the involvement of the IJA 3rd Division and cites "O’Connor, Critical Readings on Japan, 273-75." I have not been able to read O’Connor's work and verify if this work actually mentions the IJA 3rd Division. The book is rather expensive and no libraries near me posses it.

Another web article with no citations by Peter Chen is used as well.

Lastly, Wahreit has cited page 166 (Frame 93) Marta Kubacki's Thesis "On The Precipice Of Change" which has a chart noting the IJA 3rd Division's involvement at Shanghai, however the author notes the data was "compiled from Wikipedia and Simon Goodenough’s War Maps."

It seems ridiculous to give these types of sources equal weight to Japanese sources that include official war histories and reports from the Japanese military themselves. Not only did the Japanese military staff present at the actual battle report the IJA 3rd Division was not present and it was only the IJN's SNLF, but also military historians at Japan's National Institute for Defense Studies have concluded the same in their postwar studies.

Rather than acknowledge this fact, Wahreit has rewritten the article to make it seem like the Japanese sources on the subject are unclear on this matter.

Compare the article on 2024/08/24 before his edits:

"...the IJA 3rd Division's unit history published in 1967 makes no mention of their involvement at Sihang Warehouse, instead noting the Division was in engaged in the Suzhou River Crossing Operation at the time. Period Japanese military reports similarly record the IJA 3rd DIvision as outside of Shanghai at the time (although not far away), with only SNLF listed in the attack. Senshi Sosho—the official war monographs of the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy authored by the Japanese National Institute for Defense Studies—have no mention of IJA forces attacking Sihang Warehouse in their volumes covering the Second Sino-Japanese War, crediting naval landing forces as the sole participating force in the attack on the warehouse."

To what he has rewritten as 2024/08/26:

"There is some contention with Japanese sources, as the IJA 3rd Division's unit history published in 1967 notes the Division was in engaged in the Suzhou River Crossing Operation as it's primary focus at the time. Period Japanese military reports record the IJA 3rd Division was positioned just west of the Warehouse (although not far away), with the SNLF (Japanese marine force) instead listed as the primary attackers on Sihang Warehouse. Senshi Sosho—the official war monographs of the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy authored by the Japanese National Institute for Defense Studies— credit the Special Naval Landing Forces as the main participating force in the attack on the warehouse."

The fact the IJA 3rd Division's unit history makes no mention of their involvement at Sihang Warehouse has been completely erased by Wahreit. They have also changed the information about SNLF being listed as the sole attackers to primary or main attackers. The original sources do not leave room to interpret the IJA 3rd Division being involved, but Wahreit has rephrased the content of the article in a way it may seem so.

Overall it seems they are of the belief that there is some sort of western narrative or western academic consensus with the Japanese participating forces when in reality there is basically no detailed high quality English material on the matter. Wahreit has stated:

"the consensus: the established consensus is that the primary attackers on sihang warehouse were the 3rd division from the Imperial Japanese Army. this was established on the defense of sihang warehouse page since its origin in 2006, and was only removed by adachi in early 2022 in the spirit of "removing chinese propaganda.""

None of the sources presented by Wahreit so far have been able to disprove Japanese-language war monographs and military records. If the IJA 3rd Division was in fact involved there should simply be some Japanese literature either about the division or at least one of the four subordinate infantry regiment's fighting at the warehouse. But there is not, because it did not happen. Someone wrote it on Wikipedia nearly two decades ago without a source, Eric Niderost copied it into an article, and that misinformation has been repeated up to present day. Wahreit also is unware or perhaps ignoring non-English scholarship on the subject. Taiwanese Historian Jack Hwang for example, had already written in 2018 that the attackers were SNLF in a Chinese-language article and provided a number of citations with his writeup.

Sorry for the exceptionally long response, but hopefully it is of use to others checking in on this discussion. Adachi1939 (talk) 09:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Adachi1939 It seems to me that this is not the correct venue. This looks very much like a content dispute, better resolved with mediation at WP:DRN. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I have requested others to look over the sources on numerous occasions but it never went anywhere.

IMO this user's issue is not just their poor choice of sources and constant manipulation of the article to present misinformation which suits their opinion, but also their inability to engage with me in a respectable manner.

Rather than acknowledge the sources I have presented which contradict their information, they have framed me as a historical revisionist pushing a narrative by stating things such as: "user @Adachi1939 has been suppressing the involvement of the 3rd ija division in the battle of sihang warehouse". With this sort of statement there is little doubt their mind is already made up about the participating Japanese forces. It doesn't matter what reliable sources on the matter say, they would rather see me as wrong.

In addition, they have left a number of immature comments across the website which provide nothing of value to the discussion:

Example 1: "if youre still stalking me adachi do smth less weird with your time, would ya"

Example 2: "hey partner, checking in to see if you're okay. while i don't know you, it seems from your activity and interactions with others on the battle of shanghai and sihang warehouse pages that you're very stressed out and upset. for two years actually, that can't be good for your health. from one guy to another, i want you to know you shouldn't take this personally, and that at the end of the day this is volunteer work, not an actual job with real consequences. in the chance that you don't respond to this with an angry tirade, you should check this page out. if there are trees where you are, i'd also recommend you go on a long hike in the outdoors or maybe try taking a break from here once in a while. remember, it's wikipedia. it's not that deep. have a great day :)."

Example 3: "it seems that this adachi guy has been implementing his own narrative of sihang warehouse by framing the battle as a skirmish and chinese propaganda."

I don't see these types of comments as seriously egregious, but their overall behavior of negatively altering articles to suit their opinions coupled with poorly punctuated unprofessional writing style in discussions across the site makes me question if this user even possesses the maturity to engage with Wikipedia as an editor. Adachi1939 (talk) 01:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

figured since ive been mentioned here, i'd say my piece.

the reason why adachi's RFC's didn't go anywhere was because it wasn't an rfc in the first place: there was no easy to follow question or guidance for external users to comment, rather it was an accusation of me promoting misinformation and requesting someone support his side (he did the same with user @KresyRise some while back. editor @Awshort (the only response) agrees with me here:

"No comment on the content itself, but this RfC seems improperly done. There is no neutral easy to follow question for participants to answer. I have to agree with the statement by Wahreit above regarding the RfC itself." (Battle of Shanghai talk page).

the content dispute in question was one i stumbled upon a while back when making some edits based off a book i own (stephen robinson). upon editing some information in the sihang warehouse page, i found out that user @Adachi1939 has been controlling the narrative on the sihang warehouse page, where edits made by prospective editors (e.g. @Kapitan318, @KresyRise, @SPQRROME) are constantly reverted to fit his own interpretation of the battle (check the sihang warehouse page history) under the guise of "fighting chinese propaganda" or "historical revisionism." it's behavior that's resulted in adachi getting sanctioned twice (check adachi1939's talk page).

it's also strange that adachi's accusing me of being immature, when his behavior has consisted of:

accusing editors of malicious lying:

"I think you should add reading to your hobby as well. Your last edit on the Sihang Warehouse Article is yet more proof that you do not actually read sources. I'm still waiting to hear back from you on why you decided to fill the Defense of Sihang Warehouse article with a bunch of claims that your citations didn't even support." (September 2, 2023)

accusing editors of being illiterate:

Kapitan318 appears to be unable to read Japanese sources or is involved in vandalism to this article. (April 8, 2023)

accusing editors of spreading chinese propaganda:

"This has moved far beyond making reasonable corrections to the article and into edit warring to try and force your viewpoints across. There is no doubt you are trying to frame the Chinese account of events and figures presented as some sort of western consensus." (July 15, 2024)

accusing editors of being victims of brainwashing:

"While I get a strange sense of satisfaction in receiving negative responses from victims of historical propaganda to my corrections to the Defense of Sihang Warehouse article, your hostile remarks and unjustified revisions have the potential to cause serious damage to historiography on the Second Sino-Japanese War if continued elsewhere, so please reconsider your actions." (May 12, 2023).'

accusing editors of distorting history:

I am not a big fan of people that taint history. (May 16, 2023)

trying to gatekeep and control other editors:

If you are able to do this your research has no basis and your changes are not welcomed on the article (May 16, 2023)

accusing editors of spreading misinformation:

How difficult is it to just say "I was wrong about the IJA 3rd Division being at Sihang Warehouse" and move on? You are wasting precious time in your life asserting something that is simply false. Your behavior is part of the issue which is why I am calling you out on it. You've been shown why you are wrong time and time again for months now and just ignore it and try to push your fictionalized view of history. I'm sure you are an otherwise fine person but that doesn't give you a free pass to spread misinformation on one of the most viewed platforms for knowledge (July 15, 2024)

ill provide more on request.

for my part, ill concede those comments could have been more polite, but adachi has been constantly watching and following my profile for the past two months, which is evidenced by the fact he interjects into convos i have with other editors uninvited to accuse me of spreading propaganda and lies:

"Have you ever stopped to consider this sounds a lot like projection and you are in fact the one promoting your own version of the battle and attempting to suppress changes?" (on user @Alexysun's talk page, one of the first times he reached out to me despite me not involving him)

i have tried being cordial because i was genuinely concerned for adachi's wellbeing (some of the language he uses seems quite concerning), but my patience has a limit. id wish that this issue could've been resolved this without escalating to this, but i really don't like seeing the wikipedia community and its editors being treated like this. Wahreit (talk) 04:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

All the users mentioned including yourself were wrong and shoehorned bad quality sources to try and support their opinions. There is no "Adachi interpretation" of the event. There is simply official records and war monographs which state what happened which I have referenced in the article. Not a single source you have presented nor the others can verify the IJA 3rd Division's involvement. This is not a matter of conflicting opinions, you are in denial. If you had respect for me as a fellow editor you would at the very least apologize for mistranslating the Japanese KIA report as 2 dead when it clearly didn't say so. You don't know what you're doing and don't take responsibility for it. One can only wonder what misinformation you have added to other articles.

Do you really think Niderost or Robinson has some secret source which confirms the IJA 3rd Division's involvement? They don't. They are bad historians, who got caught by an enthusiast on Wikipedia.

We know down to which companies of the Shanghai SNLF were involved. These so-called historians can't even tell us which regiment of the IJA 3rd Division participated.

If this were an actual academic debate and not Wikipedia your ridiculous attempts to rewrite well documented events with low quality poorly cited sources would not be tolerated for a second. Adachi1939 (talk) 07:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• Except for the incivility, this seems like clearly a content dispute with different opinions on sources and, as such, is more suitable for Dispute Resolution than ANI. There are times when some editors in a dispute come to ANI, hoping that their "opponent" gets blocked, and the dispute will be over. But reading over these comments, I just don't see that happening here. The nature of the dispute rests on nuances of sources and their interpretation and ANI is not the place to come to a resolution over these differences of opinion. While I can see that you don't have much respect for each other, you really need to talk this out with a mediator instead of trying to be the last one standing. But, at least, do not follow an editor to other discussions and pages you are not involved in just to cause them aggravation...that kind of behavior CAN lead to a block. This is just my take after reading through all this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you Liz. I will admit I am guilty of incivility as well. Based on your comments as well as those from Timtrent‬, I suppose it would be best to close this discussion and start a Dispute Resolution over the content. Adachi1939 (talk) 08:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  appreciate the feedback Liz. i'm willing to compromise (i've actually reached out to other editors for mediation before) over the content. it's just gotten annoying having a stranger shadowing my activity and trying to provoke a reaction in every interaction he starts with me. Wahreit (talk) 17:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

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

MOS:RETAIN and Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:22A0:38F0::/64

Hi, this is a duplicate of another section I opened here several days ago that made it through this board without any response. The behaviour has continued since the section was automatically archived. Please see the old section. Tollens (talk) 09:46, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Tiresome ENGVAR warrior with few positive contributions, none major. A block seems reasonable. Folly Mox (talk) 01:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for a week to start. Izno (talk) 22:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

User:SLIMHANNYA

User SLIMHANNYA seems to be using WP:BADFAITH for poltical gain and run over wiki neutrality, in the page about Kyoto International Junior and Senior High School user uses unecessary and weirdly redundant info to try demage the reputation of the school intentionally (eg. the school article text already cites that the school has 30/70 korean/japanese split, but he stil wants to double down saying that the number of korean studants in some clubs is smalller than that, even if sources from MULTIPLE countries say that the split overall of the school is 70/30), user also seems trying to use a ideologically Uyoku dantai source (Bungei Shunjū) non stop and deletes any type of sources that comes from other websites, even if other third party sources posted by me and other third party users tends to point, the same info posted as the source he deleted, even if i try to put 10 different sources telling the same thing as the original source he tries to delate it and change it back, when warned about the vandalism, instead of stop, he doubled down and tried throw the blame to me in a long post in the the talk page.
since he seems that dont want to reach consensus, i decided that is worthless engage with conversation and instead i am asking anti-vandalism action to be done for him and to original page so writing quality and neutrality be followed, i am open to futher questionaments from the moderation . Meganinja202 (talk) 09:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

For extra context, Kyoto International Junior and Senior High School has just won the Summer Koshien probaly the biggest japanese sports tournament in Japan, the school is a japanese-korean school and atracts the ire of jaapnese ultranationalists for various reasons it was cited in various sources in japan and outside japan as you can see here here and here Meganinja202 (talk) 10:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment You should respond to Talk:Kyoto International Junior and Senior High School#August 2024 first before reporting to this WP:ANI.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• SLIMHANNYA has opened a talkpage discussion, which you have completely ignored. My past experience with them is that they reliably oppose nationalist editing, so my initial response to your claims here is skepticism. Suggest you participate there and drop this ANI report. Grandpallama (talk) 15:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• User:Meganinja202 - Two points:
  • When you open a report about another user at WP:ANI, you are required to notify them. I have notified them for you. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
  • You filed a request at DRN after filing this report. The request at DRN has been closed as pending in another forum (this one). If you want to request moderated discussion of a content dispute, this report must first be closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

ජපස's intractable incivility

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

At the end of March this year, the behavior of ජපස, signed JPS, was raised at this noticeboard. During the course of that thread, The Wordsmith issued a 1 week block as an AE action. A hope was expressed that the latest talk page response and jps's experience will lead cause this to be one-time event, and no further community or administration action was taken.

For the past month, JPS has resumed an aggressive pattern of behavior:

• Zanahary expressed concern that JPS was needlessly temperature-raising; JPS replied by accusing Zanahary of tone policing.

• Epachamo left a comment pleading with JPS to presume good faith and give another user the benefit of the doubt and work with them rather than against them; JPS noted this but otherwise expressed a rejection of the advice.

• Yesterday, while talking over our different interpretations of some secondary sources, JPS called my participation bloviation, i. e. being empty and pompous, and when I asked if JPS would retract the insult, JPS did not, replying that he considered it of an equivalent register to saying someone was wrong about what secondary sources said, which he said he did not consider a personal attack. I recognize that JPS says he meant no insult, though I'm not sure how calling me 'empty and pompous' isn't insulting, and I don't see how it's equivalent to disagreeing about what sources say (we seem to mutually think each other are misunderstanding the secondary sources).

Related to this behavior is a continued tendency to raise the temperature by speaking caustically about source authors. In the last ANI thread, it was pointed out that JPS objected to sources he disagreed with by making sweeping assertions and accusing scholars of being "fringe". In a similar vein, in the present, JPS is objecting to citations of the academic work by characterizing professional scholarship as flights of fancy. Seemingly according to JPS, when historians like Dan Vogel, Sonia Hazard, and Ann Taves argue that Joseph Smith manufactured a fake set of 'metal plates' (not that he possessed a supposedly magic ancient set like his followers believed; just that he fabricated a prop to use with those followers), they are engaged in psuedoscientific apologetics.

Sometimes Wikipedians disagree about how to interpret secondary literature on a topic. It happens in complicated subjects and fields, including and certainly not limited to religious studies. But whether or not one is right about the issue doesn't justify incivility. Others in the thread disagreed with me without incivility. The current behavior, even if not yet at the same sharp peak as was reported in the last ANI thread, is still part of the same pattern of temperature raising, incivility, and rejecting requests to turn the temperature down and contravenes our fundamental expectation of respect and civility. With multiple requests by different users to tone things down going disregarded, the behavior seems intractable, and I'd hope users aren't required to simply take such chronic incivility until it gets the worst it can possibly be. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 13:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

{Uninvolved comment) I have read the back-and-forth here, and this seems to me a content dispute. I do not consider anything written by jps in that thread to be a personal attack, whereas the OP is listing heavily into tendentious WP:IDHT territory. I suggest that the OP withdraw this complaint, step away from that discussion/topic for a while, recognize the possibility that they are not on the "winning" side of that particular content dispute, and consider that attempting to silence a content dispute "opponent" at ANI does not always work out well. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Is there a way I can reassure you that my concern is about the incivility and not about the content? While JPS and I did disagree about how to interpret the state of secondary literature, other users in the thread, like Feoffer and Fiveby, also disagreed with me, and I didn't bring up their behavior in the OP because they weren't uncivil. In the course of the discussion I haven't attempted to add content to mentioned articles—golden plates and early life of Joseph Smith—and as the thread stands, I don't expect my sense of the secondary sources to be added to them. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 15:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with this reading. JPS really does insult and disrespect those with whom he disagrees—that’s why I, as an uninvolved observer, raised the concerns that Hydrangeans has linked to here. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Zanahary: This comment reads to me like you believe there is an objective standard by which "insult" and "disrespect" can be identified. In my brief reply to you, I was expressing my honest worry that it is easy to fall into tone policing in these contexts. For example, I have said things like, "your holy book contains demonstrably false claims" and people have told me that this is insulting and disrespectful. However, I think this kind of straightforward analysis serves a clear purpose in improving the encyclopedia. jps (talk) 15:29, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Anyone is free to click on the diff and see that you did not say "your holy book contains demonstrably false claims", you said a bunch of hostile, unnecessarily rude stuff that did not need to be said in order to make your point. And your raised example of "your holy book contains demonstrably false claims" being so far from the real material of (I paraphrase) "Worst sentence ever? Is this a joke or something? I know you Book of Mormon-obsessed folk are all drooling over this, but…" shows that you know what incivility is, and you know that you’ve been enacting it. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:34, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for clarifying. It strikes me as you are strongly in favor of tone policing. YMMV. jps (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

LOL ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

To be fair your tone could do with some self policing. Abrasion only polishes so far. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I really like the section at WP:ESDOS, and might be what User:Zanahary is getting at. Specifically:

"

• Use neutral language.
• Don't make snide comments.
• Don't be aggressive.

"

Epachamo (talk) 17:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

[off-topic?] I do see this commentary as tone policing, whether y'all intend it that way or not. Compared to the inordinate amounts of discussion on this website as to what is civil or not civil, there are very few discussions of what tone policing looks like within our online community and whether it is unduly encouraged by a robust WP:CIV policy. jps (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

The question isn't whether or not it's tone policing, the question is whether you are going to police your own tone or whether others are going to police your tone for you. Self-regulate or be regulated. Levivich (talk) 18:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia loves to regulate those they believe are insufficiently self-regulating. That's for true! jps (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Er weren't you (Levivich) involved in an extensive thread a few days ago about the evils of the pearl-clutching civility police cabal or something? Seems inconsistent. Elinruby (talk) 02:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Legitimate question, is there a tone policing policy, or something like unto it on Wikipedia? Epachamo (talk) 01:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Nope. Only really been discussed a few times: six months ago, in 2016, in 2020. Wikipedia culture has just always really kinda been okay with it. jps (talk) 02:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

To echo some of what was said in the 2020 discussion, appropriating the term and framework of tone policing seems pretty insensitive. Tone policing is about folks with systemic privilege silencing the marginalized and oppressed. Appropriating the language and concept implies claiming that Zanahary asking you to be less inflammatory was a form of oppression comparable to the misogyny that women experience and the racism that people of color experience. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Do you think it is civil to accuse another editor of appropriation? jps (talk) 12:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes: it is called WP:CIVIL, and it is one of the five core policies around which all other policies and guidelines are based. As far as I can tell, the thing which is here being referred to as "tone policing" is "when people expect you to follow it". jp×g🗯️ 05:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

One thing I note is that WP:CIVIL does not come right out and say that people should give the benefit of the doubt to comments about which reasonable people might disagree. Below, I was accused by the filer of this report of being uncivil for asking a question about tone policing. I have had people accuse me of being uncivil for saying something was "uncouth". It is obvious to me, at least, that this policy is a favorite one to WP:GAME precisely because there are so rarely any consequences for accusations that don't land. jps (talk) 12:19, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

[45] I thank Hydrangeans for clarifying that she was hurt by my use of the term "bloviation". I am happy to taboo use of that word with respect to her in the future. jps (talk) 14:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

While I'm grateful you have, albeit after multiple several requests, retracted the personal attack, I'm not sure why this commitment to changed behavior is limited not only to just one word but apparently only to me. The pattern of temperature raising and aggression also concerned other users and involved behavior toward other users. While on some level it can be nice to get special treatment, a sense that other users won't be victims of incivility would be more reassuring. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 15:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Are you seriously claiming you were unable to discern that using the word "bloviation" to describe another contributor's comments would be taken as an insult? jp×g🗯️ 06:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Seriously. jps (talk) 21:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Where is the incivility? Nothing here from JPS looks like it belongs at ANI Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I see no incivility. But in looking at the links provided, I'm struck by the post two comments up from the "hope" post Hydrangeans linked to about Hydrangeans' behavior: I am slightly concerned about what might amount to a desire to take an opponent off the board, so to speak. The last time I checked, the primary definition of "bloviate" is to be long-winded or unnecessarily verbose. This filing is borderline vexatious. Grandpallama (talk) 15:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I also fail to find a definition of bloviate which is not an accurate description of Hydrangeans' arguments, verbose and windily with an emphasis on the windily. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree too with regards to definition. It comes across as misrepresentation is this filing when bloviate is a pretty accurate and concise description (and concise is important when dealing with an editor that doesn't get to the point). There is no insult there unless self-manufactured and such reminders to stay on topic are occasionally needed.

Hydrangeans' portrayal reminds me of the trope of an English teacher making words sound bad to students (as a teaching moment in how people often trick themselves in vocabulary). Something like, "The girl defenestrated her boyfriend in front of the entire school." That teaching moment often catches people thinking it has sexual meaning when it's instead a dispassionate way of saying she threw him out the window. Maybe Hydrangeans' way of portraying that was retaliatory, but the WP:BELLYBUTTON approach I'd take here is that they simply learned a new word (relevant xkcd) and didn't check the definition before jumping to conclusions. KoA (talk) 15:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, while I don't think it's quite at ANI levels in a vacuum, reading the same discussion I did independently notice that jps was being very aggressive. In combination with past warnings, I do think it's probably deserving of a filing here. Loki (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I think you might be misrepresenting Epachamo's comment and JPS's response, they made an identical one on my talk page [46]... And you seem to be presenting one thing as two, there is no plea seperate from the quote but "and" suggests that there is. JPS also does not reject their advice (he does not go and try to chase anyone off or say that he will... He says he will continue to AGF even though its being stretched to the limit). Epachamo's advice isn't bad though as a universal maxim for effective editing, I find it fitting in this situation as well "I beg you [Hydrangeans] to give him [jps] the benefit of the doubt and work with him rather than chase him off, even if it takes time, patience and effort." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

No incivility here, just an editor pushing against some pro-religion POV-pushing and the POV-pusher getting upset that their religious views fall afoul of WP:FRINGE 208.87.236.180 (talk) 18:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure how saying that Joseph Smith had a fake set of plates is promoting Mormonism. Wouldn't that be the opposite? Epachamo (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Indignant Flamigo's semiotic square with emic, etic, true, and false at each corner kinda explains the problem. Certain religious studies scholars don't like debunkers -- in my estimation because they don't like the quiet part being said out loud. There was even a footnote to that effect in one of the proposed sources! jps (talk) 20:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

My impression is that jps enjoys arguing, and while that sometimes is helpful in situations where POV-pushers are trying to wear out opponents, it is so fucking tiresome when there's no "off" switch. I have also noticed a tendency to characterize situations as one click more severe than is necessary, e.g. an explanation that might not entirely oppose a religious viewpoint becomes "apologetics", a comment that takes time to parse and consider becomes "bloviation", a human person asking for some human consideration of other humans participating in a collaborative environment becomes "tone policing", etc. I don't think that approach encourages collaborative editing.

At the same time, in this particular area of the encyclopedia, we've got multiple people who actually share an opposition to the purely religious interpretation of events, but are camped out in different corners of the semiotic square. So unfortunately we get situations where (for example) "the whole golden plates thing is bullshit" is set against "the whole golden plates thing may not entirely be bullshit in one or two specific aspects but is obviously not true in the religious sense" (aka "not not bullshit"), rather than both recognizing that they share an opposition to "the golden plates were real and confirmed and holy" (aka "not bullshit"). That entrenchment is not helpful to the encyclopedia, either. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 19:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I 100% second this comment. Couldn't have said it anywhere near as well myself. Loki (talk) 19:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Ultimately, I worry about our encyclopedia being written in a way that confuses physical reality with subjectivity and contextual belief. So while I think it fine to have an article on the golden plates, I don't think it's okay to pretend that there is any meaningful argument over whether there are or were literal physical objects... and unfortunately I saw the conversation veering in that direction in a way I continue to find contrary to WP:ENC... as in not directions a serious reference work should be going. jps (talk) 19:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, but Hydrangeans has provided sources that appear to show at least some secular religious studies scholars think that Joseph Smith did have literal physical plates (likely forged by him). Wikipedia follows the sources no matter what they say, so I found it very odd that you responded to this by yelling at her rather then providing contradictory sources.

Plus I don't see why this feels so odd to you? Like even outside the fact that sources exist, if I happened to be a fraudster whose claims relied on my possession of a physical object that people were going to want to see, I would also go out and make myself a forgery of said physical object. Loki (talk) 20:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

What I have been trying to explain, but have been accused of "misreading" or "misunderstanding" is that these scholars are arguing on the basis of "plausible explanations" for what they think are the contexts of these texts. I have absolutely no objection to Wikipedia mentioning, even in some detail, these scholars "flights of fancy" (yes, I called it that and, no, I don't think it insulting). I don't even object particularly to the story itself. It's a nice one. Clever. I like it. But there is no way to confirm (or disconfirm) that this is what happened! So what I object to is a problematic conclusion, reiterated multiple times by multiple people in that thread, that "Joseph Smith likely had a physical object...." No, there is a plausible explanation (story) for how it could be that he might have had a physical object, but there is also no real evidence that he had anything at all. Everything is based on a web of "testimonies" which were, as far as I can tell, a kind of currency of truth in that time and place but do very little to confirm any facts of the matter from the perspective of a person interested in knowing about, say, physical evidence for a claim.

My main motivation comes from how I see how Wikipedia phrasing gets consumed and interpreted by students in their research. Something as simple as "Joseph Smith had physical objects" in wiki-voice with a buncha citations after it is basically taken at face-value. I wish it weren't the case, but it is. I would like Wikipedia to avoid that very particular wording because it is misleading. jps (talk) 20:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

JPS... I am sorry if I am being thick, or am missing something, but would you mind (since you've raised the argument) explaining what exactly WOULD be satisfactory evidence of an historical fact to you? In this case, the incredibly mundane question of whether or not a man did have plates made of metal in his possession, irrespective of whatever looney claims he made about them? How is anything in history "verified"? Is there some minimum number of people that have to be present to witness a thing? In addition to secular observers, should there have also been a Roman Catholic priest, a Baptist minister, and a Jewish rabbi? Would a physicist with a PhD have to have shown up to verify that metal objects were physically present, then publish it in a journal? Whatever it is you're claiming to be insufficient seems unrealistic, but it might be helpful if you would say what WOULD be sufficiently "verifiable evidence". 73.2.106.248 (talk) 01:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:ASF. As I said over at WP:FTN, we can say in WP voice that the Joseph Smith Papyri exist. jps (talk) 02:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The problem is it's really unclear at least to me, what you mean by any of that. As someone who thinks most religious stuff is silly but a lot of the LDS believes is particularly silly, I've been observing this from afar on FTN and frankly without knowing much about the scholarship, it's looked to me like the others have been far closer to trying to promote text that is in accordance to our policies and guidelines than you have.

As others have said, the existence of plates is fairly unrelated to whether you accept Smith's story about how he came to them. It's perfectly possible to think Smith's story was utter nonsense while accept one or more set of plates which Smith showed to people did exist at one time.

If I may use a different example, AFAIK and supported by our article it's widely accepted that someone called Jesus of Nazareth did exist around the time Christians believe he did. It might be fair to say we cannot "prove" he did exist anymore then we can prove virtually anyone specific, beyond I guess those who show up in modern gene pools, existed that far back. But AFAIK the evidence for him is considered so strong that claims he didn't exist are generally considered fringe. In fact, I think it's been said that our evidence for Jesus is stronger than we actually have for a number of other historic, non-religious figures we generally accept did exist.

Accepting the existence of Jesus does not require accepting that he was the son of god, born of a virgin, rose from the dead, that he turned water into wine or performed other miracles etc. But we do get the occasionally skeptic who incorrectly believes that the correct skeptical position is to reject the existence of Jesus when it's clearly not. Yet your approach to the existence of these plates has struck me as similar to those skeptics trying to convince us we shouldn't generally accept the existence of Jesus.

To be clear, I'm quite sure the evidence for these plates is not as strong as our evidence for Jesus, but it seems perfectly possible to me that it is strong enough that our articles should present them as factual, just as I'm sure our articles largely present the existence of Jesus as true. But it's not clear to me you understand this.

An alternative might be because the evidence is lower, we might present the plates as something which most likely did exist, but there are alternative non fringe theories which suggest they didn't. It's possible the evidence is weak enough that even this is too far, but there's definitely no reason why we should present the existence of plates as something in significant doubt, just because Smith made a number of nonsensical claims about them.

What matters is ultimately what reliable secondary sources who have analysed the evidence from a non-Mormon POV have concluded about the existence. If the vast majority of such sources have decided these plates do exist then that's what our articles should present, no matter whether editors may disagree with their analysis per WP:RGW etc. Such editors are welcome to do their own analysis, get it published in a reliable secondary source and wait their analysis to get widely accepted and then present it to use along with their WP:COI for us to evaluate and improve our articles.

Nil Einne (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

This is different from Christ Myth Theory because, basically from the get-go, the issue was that people accused Joseph Smith of making it up and not having the plates. I know of no comparable argument going on in, say, 1st/2nd Century Roman Empire about whether Jesus existed. Do you? jps (talk) 18:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

By the way, unlike Jesus where there are plenty of independent, non-religious sources which state without equivocation that Jesus existed, I don't see any of the sources about the plates saying anything definitive. Instead, arguing that something existed is couched as plausible. jps (talk) 18:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, there are absolutely zero sources that even mention Jesus during his lifetime. All sources that exist mentioning Jesus were written after his lifetime. We have zero independent sources from people that met, saw, or heard of Jesus during his lifetime, only from his close followers. The first anti-Mormon book was written by E.B. Howe in 1834 Mormonism Unvailed, which you can read here. We even have the story of transporting the plates in the beans. "A box, which he said contained the plates, was conveyed in a barrel of beans, while on the journey." Howe heavily alludes to doubts about the existence of golden plates, but NOT that Joseph Smith had a box which he said contained plates. Howe knew Smith, and hated Smith personally. You would not find a worse enemy to Smith than Howe. This is primary source analysis, but is evidence even historically to show that there was little doubt that he had a prop. Epachamo (talk) 23:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

We can argue over the close reading of Howe elsewhere but, suffice to say, I see no categorical acceptance that there was a prop... certainly not enough for us to make a declaration in WPvoice. jps (talk) 11:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I think I've said enough but just wanted to note that "non-Mormon POV" was poor phrasing on my part. I meant to exclude those treating the existence of the plates as a matter of faith, but of course that isn't the only problem. In fact we shouldn't trust someone approaching this from a "Catholic PoV" etc either. Instead what matters is an academic historian PoV. Nil Einne (talk) 09:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I tend to agree with this formulation... but what I think is relevant here is that Wikipedia doesn't go beyond what the sources say. There are lots of sources that ask the question "If Joseph Smith was showing off something that he was saying were Golden Plates, what explains that?" A decent question, but what I don't want is for WPVoice to use those sources, which all seem to approach the subject as a plausibility argument, as an argument to include text in WPVoice that says something like "Joseph Smith was showing off something" as though this is a plain fact. jps (talk) 11:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I also 100% agree with this description, and one part is so apt I will quote it:

I have also noticed a tendency to characterize situations as one click more severe than is necessary, e.g. an explanation that might not entirely oppose a religious viewpoint becomes "apologetics", a comment that takes time to parse and consider becomes "bloviation", a human person asking for some human consideration of other humans participating in a collaborative environment becomes "tone policing", etc. I don't think that approach encourages collaborative editing.

I would sum it up as unnecessary hyperbole that increases the temperature of a given discussion. It is confrontational rather than collaborative, and not cool. Less of this would be cool. Levivich (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree that using "bloviation", which has negative connotations, unnecessarily escalates confrontation in a discussion. A more dispassionate description can be effectively used to convey the desired point. isaacl (talk) 16:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I am also concerned about the behaviour of ජපස. Recently, they blanked a section in Worship of heavenly bodies. When I restored it, rather than taking the issue to the article talk page, which would be the correct and respectful path, they went directly to a noticeboard [47]. The way their characterize my edit "Skyerise insists we have a section ..." and "I am worried that this is WP:POVPUSHing" seem to verge on personal attacks, considering we haven't yet even discussed the issue on the article talk page. In my opinion, this editor needs to moderate their pushy methods: premature forum shopping? Skyerise (talk) 20:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

In response to this, they posted this rudely terse post on the article talk page, not even deigning to engage in any form of actual discussion. Is this the way editors are expected to behave? Perhaps a bit of a wikibreak, voluntary or enforced, is in order when an editor can't even use their words? Skyerise (talk) 21:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Well certainly if we're going to talk about editors who need to have their tone policed, it seems sensible that you should be here. --JBL (talk) 00:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• Would someone wanting to support a case against jps please provide three diffs of recent incivility (and nothing more). It's ok to post a dozen links in an opening statement, but please start with the punchline and don't make us wade through fluff. Johnuniq (talk) 02:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Worst sentence (said of an editor's writing)
  • Unintelligible (said of an editor's summary)
  • tone policing (said to an editor about their advice)
  • bloviation (said to an editor about her reply)

  Borrowing Loki's phrasing in this thread, while I don't think it's quite at ANI levels in a vacuum [...] In combination with past warnings, I do think it's probably deserving of a filing. The intractability and repeated dismissal of requests to dial down the temperature resulted in ANI seeming necessary. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  The first three diffs are two months old. The fourth quotes some text, then, referring to the text, says "This is bloviation." That is followed by an assertion that no reliable sources support a claim that apparently lurks in the quoted text. The current FTN discussion shows "bloviation" was struck. Calling part of a comment bloviation might be unpleasant but it's not a CIVIL problem. I think people should focus more on the plain meaning of comments rather than feeling slighted. That is, are there any reliable sources supporting the claim in question? If not, words which cover up the situation might reasonably be referred to in a disparaging manner. Johnuniq (talk) 01:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  Calling part of a comment bloviation might be unpleasant but it's not a CIVIL problem. I think people should focus more on the plain meaning of comments rather than feeling slighted. Yes. But a bit more than that, Hydrangeans went out of their way to link to an article about a style of political speeches, so that they could allege a more insulting version of "bloviate" than the common usage. That's disingenuous at best, and deliberately misleading at worst, and a large part of why I called this a borderline vexatious report. It mostly suggests to me that we might not be out of line considering a one-way IBAN for Hydrangeans. Grandpallama (talk) 02:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• Only comment so far, but I don't think an editor identifying incivil comments counts as "tone policing". That's a euphemism that deflects an accusation and turns it back on the other editor instead of addressing and explaining the original comments. It's as if an editor identifying racist language is then being called "hateful" for pointing it out. I'm not addressing individuals but talking about the language we use to discuss problems. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:04, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not sure I would call tone policing a euphemism, but I completely agree that the majority at this website seem to align with your opinion on the matter. Wikipedians as a group just do not think tone policing is a problem when discussions turn to civility. jps (talk) 12:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think this is Tone policing. This filing doesn't try to discredit your content arguments because your tone is bad. You may be right on content; that doesn't mean your tone doesn't break the site rules. And if your tone did break site rules, that doesn't mean your content argument was wrong. Put another way, if you start commenting loudly in the theater about the acting, you may be right on content, but it's not tone policing for other patrons to shush you. They're just trying to enforce the rules of the forum, regardless of whether you're praising or condemning the actors. So too here in Wikipedia; WP:CIV is one of the rules of the game, and you have to abide by them or else go somewhere else.

  If it's alleged that this filing is an attempt to silence you on content, then you could provide some diffs and make a case for WP:GAME against the filer. Absent that, the complaints about Tone Policing seem to misapply what that term is used for and ignore the actual issue alleged. EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  Well, the filer did the classic WP-thing of hopping over to dispute number 2 and reflexively took the "enemy of my enemy is a friend" approach -- a daring WP:AGF maneuver:

  • [48]
  • [49]

  This isn't the first time she has done that, neither.[50]

  But generally, I really don't like this kind of score settling argumentation in spite of the obviousness of this low-level harassment she continues to direct at me. While I continue to have concerns over her signal to noise in areas where we overlap, I remain convinced she is a net positive for the project.

  jps (talk) 13:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  I think it is obviously false that "Wikipedians as a group just do not think tone policing is a problem when discussions turn to civility"; it would be more accurate to say that "Wikipedians as a group do not agree with jps's definition of the term 'tone policing'". jp×g🗯️ 04:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  "Obviously false", eh? I am interested in how you were able to determine "my definition" of that term. jps (talk) 11:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  How would you define the term? Epachamo (talk) 18:45, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  I do not object to the Wikipedia definition. jps (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

• On a brief look, it seems like this report heavily relies on history -- it's hard to see these most recent diffs as particularly beyond the pale such that admin action is needed. I haven't looked in detail, though, and mainly wanted to jump in about this "tone policing" stuff. Tone policing is the phenomenon of a dominant or otherwise powerful group dismissing grievances from marginalized groups because of the way they made their argument, thereby derailing the conversation or avoiding the subject. It degrades understanding of a real tactic to apply it to "people keep telling me to stop being a jerk even though I'm right" situations on Wikipedia. We're a collaborative project where, in theory, nobody has more power than anyone else (but if anything, the long-time, somewhat more aggressive users have more power), and we have a civility process because we have to figure out how to co-write encyclopedia articles. Black Lives Matter activists, Republican politicians, and Fox News pundits are not in a situation where they're all on equal footing trying to collaborate on a single task. It's one side who wants change/action but lacks political power and another side looking for ways to dismiss/mischaracterize them. That's not what's happening here. Now that I'm writing this, I'm realizing it's become enough of a pet peeve that I should probably write an essay... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  I would appreciate such an essay. But I will say that power dynamics on WP don't necessarily settle out in neat up-down dichotomies. jps (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• Unless I missed something, this wall of text has had only one administrator comment in it. Like most disputes about civility, people feel strongly, but this is looking to me like diminishing returns. If any admins see anything that requires them to act on it, that hasn't emerged yet, and otherwise, this isn't going to accomplish anything. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  There is more here than just incivility; this editor is engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND-type tactics, revert-warring just up to the line on multiple articles, abandoning ongoing talk page discussions in the process, and forum shopping for support. Check their edits as Worship of heavenly bodies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), then stalking me to Liber OZ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which unless I am mistaken, they never edited before; opening threads at WP:FRINGEN after a single edit was reverted, without going to the article talk page first, etc. Adding a whole "list" of article at Talk:Worship of heavenly bodies not as a serious query, but as a WP:POINTy edit. In short, this editor has been and continues to edit in an abrasive and dismissive manner, doesn't accept that other editors can have good faith differences of opinion from them, and occasionally strays into incivility when they are called on their behavior. Skyerise (talk) 21:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• Popping in here to note that my biggest problem with jps' conduct is an unreasonably expansive definition of FRINGE that encompasses every alleged religious miracle, as readily recently admitted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russell Humphreys: Claims that Jesus Christ bodily rose from the dead or that the Red Sea literally split apart [...] are fringe claims. (my edit; see the full AfD discussion for context). jps' insistence that religious beliefs be treated as FRINGE scientific theories is a persistent Category error present throughout our recent interactions, and I can see why less experienced editors might find that position offputting and uncollegial. Jclemens (talk) 07:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  I would love to have this discussion, but I'm not sure what venue is appropriate (I doubt it is here). Wikipedia seems to prefer etic versus emic approaches, and to the extent that it does, we are under a sincere obligation to make sure the text does not say things in WP voice like, "Jesus bodily rose from the dead" or "There is evidence that Jesus rose bodily from the dead" or "There is controversy over whether Jesus bodily rose from the dead" or "Some scholars accept that there is evidence that Jesus rose from the dead". There are, of course, a myriad of ways to talk about the subject of miracles that satisfies everyone, but there are definitely ways to talk about miracles that Wikipedia needs to eschew as a WP:MAINSTREAM reference work. jps (talk) 11:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  And just to be pedantic, people come back from the dead all the time. It's called Lazarus syndrome, and we don't have to appeal to miracles to explain it. Viriditas (talk) 12:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  I have no problem with this explanation, but it has nothing to do with the discussion I was referencing. Jclemens (talk) 17:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with JPS and HEB on this one, and wonder if there was a miscommunication. In an article about theology, these miracles (or Young Earth creationism) would not be fringe. In an article about the creation of the universe, it would be. As you pointed out, the article on Creationism shouldn't treat YEC as fringe, because it's in the context of theology. However, History of Earth very much should. In the linked AfD, I got the feeling JPS was arguing that insofar as Russel Humphreys would only be notable for his Creation science work, that work itself is considered fringe and thus not work covering. (Note "pseudoscientific" in the creation science article.) JPS, please correct me if I misinterpreted what you were saying. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe this is overly technical but isn't that just stating a truism? A miracle is something that lies entirely outside of conventional scientific and medical knowledge and practice... That is it has no explanation other than the supernatural. Theories which lie entirely outside of conventional scientific and medical knowledge and practice are fringe theories as wikipedia defines them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Jclemens: now that we appear to have established that you were wrong about that being disruptive behavior (because FRINGE does actually cover every miracle, including the religious ones) perhaps in the spirit of civility you could apologize to JPS? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  There are no less than three separate unfounded or incorrect assumptions in this statement. I could provide an apology that's not related to what you think it should be, but I'm afraid someone would object to that as snarky or petty. jps knows where my talk page is, and is welcome to bring up any concerns with my statement there. Jclemens (talk) 17:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  That is surprising to me, what are the three or more unfounded or incorrect assumptions you see? Always happy to correct/explain/strike when mistaken Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

 Question: @Hydrangeans: What is your primary objective in starting this report? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timtrent (talk • contribs) 11:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

For a chronic, intractable behavioral problem to be resolved. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 22:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• Weak report. The only admins who have commented so far (Johnuniq and, briefly, Liz) don't seem interested in sanctioning jps without much better and more recent examples of incivility, and I'm not either. And it's humorous, if anything, to see Skyerise (currently blocked) complaining in several posts above about an opponent's incivility in discussions where Skyerise themselves displayed rampant incivility and edit warring. Hydrangeans, do you want to improve this report, or withdraw it? Bishonen | tålk 12:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC).

  For completeness, I'll note that a third administrator, JPxG, also has commented.

  With community discussion about the user's behavior apparently ongoing, withdrawing the report seems premature. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 22:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  Probably also worth mentioning that JPxG clearly does, at a minimum, think jps has done something wrong here. Tho I'll leave it to him to say if he actually wants to do anything about it. Loki (talk) 23:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'll second the recommendation that this report be withdrawn, but reasonable minds can certainly differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  I will third the recommendation. The primary issue as I see it is that jps does not suffer fools gladly, and I have often been on the receiving end of this many times, even when I was pretty sure that I wasn't being foolish. To his benefit, I think jps has toned it down quite a bit in the last year or so, and is no longer vying for the curmudgeon of the year award. I also note a measurable improvement in his approach to other editors, including idiots like myself. For what it's worth, I tend to lean on him for his help and expertise, so I find him to be a valuable resource in spite of his blunt and unforgiving attitude at times. He's corrected my mistakes in several places, and he managed to do so with respect while leaving my dignity intact, so he can be a nice person when he wants to be, and for that I thank him. Viriditas (talk) 01:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing anything actionable here. The diffs don't demonstrate incivility. This comes across as reporting someone for an issue that there are already preconceived notions of in the expectation that traction will be forthcoming because of prior discourse. TarnishedPath^talk 13:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  Do you agree with the characterization offered by Indignant Flamingo and Levivich above? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 23:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

It's time to close this and return to our regularly scheduled construction of an encyclopedia. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

• It’s unfortunate to see this pattern come up again. At this point I think it's a knock it off rather than a sanction, maybe a formal warning, but it is a demonstrated pattern of not understanding community norms. It doesn't matter of you are right, you don't act like that. PackMecEng (talk) 19:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Thenightaway

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

---

Hi. Yesterday, after adding the "criticisms" section to the article on the Innovation Agency, which operates under the Ministry of Digital Development and Transport of Azerbaijan and is one of Azerbaijan's major state agencies, I realized that I had mistakenly edited the ministry's page instead of the agency's page. However, I later realized that the Innovation Agency's article had been redirected to the ministry's article, and since I accessed the article through language links, I was automatically redirected to the ministry's article. The issue is that this redirection was done without any discussion, and moreover, the content about the agency was not transferred to the redirected article. The user who carried out the redirection, Thenightaway, similarly redirected the articles of other Azerbaijani state agencies and committees to the respective ministry's article without transferring the content, simply deleting it instead. (State Agency for Compulsory Health Insurance, State Fund for Development of IT, State Service for Registration of Plant Varieties and Seed Control, State Agency on Renewable Energy Sources,State Service on Property Issues, Academy of State Customs Committee, Azersu Open Joint Stock Company) Despite my investigation, I couldn't find any discussion or consensus for this action. As a result of this action, information about more than one organization has been lost because no content was transferred during the redirection, only deleted. There is also no consensus. Generally, I should note that I believe the said user (Thenightaway) is not neutral toward Azerbaijan and Azerbaijanis. Previously, the same user accused two administrators of the Azerbaijani Wikipedia of a conflict of interest without any evidence, and both administrators have been indefinitely blocked on English Wikipedia since then due to this accusation without any evidence. (you might find this discussion interesting as well). As an administrator of the Azerbaijani Wikipedia, I have been familiar with the activities of both administrators for years and am confident that the accusations are unfounded. The user even did not provide any evidence. I had already noticed that Thenightaway was not neutral regarding Azerbaijani topics, but this action, redirecting articles without discussion and deleting content, is also against the policies of the project. I suggest applying a topic ban to the user. Sura Shukurlu (talk) 10:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence to suggest that Thenightaway's actions were motivated by anti-Azerbaijan feeling rather than, say, entirely normal policy concerns? I must say that the latter looks far more likely to me. Axad12 (talk) 11:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, you didn't inform the user that you had started this thread, as per the note at the top of the noticeboard. I have informed them for you on this occasion. Axad12 (talk) 11:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Pinging Rosguill as the admin for actually blocked the two Azerbaijani admins.

Also just to note blank-and-redirect is not against policy, unless deliberately done for a disruptive purpose. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:04, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The COIN thread provides a lot more discussion and analysis from multiple editors than Sura Shukurlu gives credit here and its invocation en passant here undermines the primary complaint. I’m not necessarily endorsing the BLARs at issue, but these should have been challenged/discussed directly before bringing to ANI, either by opening a discussion on Thenightaway’s talk page or even just by reverting the edits. Jumping to ANI is premature and topic bans seems very premature here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 12:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I stand by the substance of these redirects. For example, should the training program for Azerbaijan's customs agency have its own Wikipedia page? I don't think it should and therefore re-directed the page[51] to Azerbaijan's customs agency. However, if I didn't follow the right process or if this was controversial, then my apologies. The same applies to the other pages. Every single subdvision, program, project and initiative by an Azerbaijani ministry does not merit its own page. They might if there's abundant reliable sourcing or if they're clearly notable, but these pages are exclusively sourced with non-RS, mostly government sources. In a lot of ways, these pages just look like English translations of Azerbaijan government websites. Thenightaway (talk) 16:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I have to take responsibility for this discussion thread, the OP came to my User talk page asking me to impose a topic ban and I defered him to ANI saying that most topic bans I've seen imposed arose out of ANI discussions. I didn't look into what previous discussions had occurred (or the lack of any) which I should have done before replying. I have no experience with this subject area so I also advised them to reach out to admins who have dealt with sanctions in the Azerbaijan/Armenian area and they could probably assess the situation better than I could. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• The Innovation Agency is one of the largest state agencies in Azerbaijan. The decision to delete the content of an article about such a significant state body, and to provide a redirection should be made through discussion. --Sura Shukurlu (talk) 11:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  Out of interest, do you intend to retract your claims that the redirection was motivated by anti-Azerbaijan bias, or is that still your opinion? I'm not sure how things tend to go on Azerbaijani Wikipedia, but those sorts of allegations don't go down very well here. Axad12 (talk) 11:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Axad12, I have never labeled anyone as anti-Azerbaijani biased, and I am more in favor of discussing the redirection that was made. Since I am not familiar with the administrative processes on enwiki, I wrote to an administrator about this and approached here based on their advice. Based on the recommendations here, I will revert the full deletion of content and redirection in the articles I consider notable. I hope we won't encounter such a problem again. Sura Shukurlu (talk) 11:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, but that won't do.

  In your original post you said Generally, I should note that I believe the said user (Thenightaway) is not neutral toward Azerbaijan and Azerbaijanis and I had already noticed that Thenightaway was not neutral regarding Azerbaijani topics.

  Evidently you were not suggesting that the user has a pro-Azerbaijani bias, therefore you were accusing them of having an anti-Azerbaijani bias.

  For you to now claim that you have never labeled anyone as anti-Azerbaijani biased is clearly untrue (as were some of your comments in the original post in this thread).

  Also, I don't think you should revert the edits. Axad12 (talk) 12:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  I may not have expressed my thoughts correctly. Let me explain again. I reached out because I believe the user cannot make neutral decisions regarding articles on this topic, given their actions in numerous articles related to Azerbaijan's state institutions. I have never used the term "anti-Azerbaijani" in any of my statements, nor have I accused anyone having biased actions or edits. Therefore, my comments should not be taken as an attempt to slander or falsely accuse anyone. Regarding the reversion, one of the administrators mentioned in this discussion that it was the correct step, and based on that, I am reverting the redirection and content deletion in the Innovation Agency article, also considering that this agency is one of Azerbaijan's largest state agencies. I hope the user will not delete content and redirect articles about Azerbaijan's state institutions in this manner without discussion again. Sura Shukurlu (talk) 12:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  You didn't use the term "Anti-Azerbaijani" but your meaning was entirely clear, i.e. you accused the user of being biased. Indeed, you have even doubled down on that general sentiment above, saying that you believe the user cannot make neutral decisions regarding articles on this topic. And then in the following sentence you claim, contrary to all logic, that you haven't accused anyone [of] having biased actions or edits. The whole situation looks to me like you are acting in very bad faith. Axad12 (talk) 13:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  I expressed my personal opinion and explained why I came to this conclusion. I also mentioned several times that this is just my personal opinion. Please do not accuse me of having bad intentions, because that is not the case. Sura Shukurlu (talk) 13:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  You expressed your personal opinion that the user was biased, and then (directly afterwards) you said that you hadn't accused anyone of being biased. Instead of arguing, why not retract the allegation of bias, which is entirely unsubstantiated, which the user has denied (stating that the edits were based on policy concerns), and which is effectively a WP:PERSONAL ATTACK. Axad12 (talk) 13:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Axad12, sorry, but I don’t understand exactly what you mean and why my comment was considered a personal attack. Maybe I didn't explain my point properly. Could you please indicate the part you interpreted as a personal attack so that I can retract it? I want to emphasize that I had no intention of making a personal attack or making claims as you mentioned. If you think any part of my comment was a personal attack, I am ready to retract that part Sura Shukurlu (talk) 13:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  Stating that a user is biased against a certain nationality, when there is no evidence to substantiate such a claim, is a personal attack.

  Your intention in making such a claim was perfectly clear, as you have now made it on at least 3 occasions. Axad12 (talk) 13:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  Honestly, I don't understand how my comment escalated to a personal attack. This page is for such observations and requests. I made my request based on my own observations. If my observations and conclusions are incorrect, so be it. There’s nothing wrong with that. I made a request, and the user themselves and other users have evaluated it, provided feedback, and given recommendations for appropriate procedures. Thank you for clarifying the issue and for your recommendations. --Sura Shukurlu (talk) 14:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  If you still believe that There’s nothing wrong with that then we are wasting our time. Axad12 (talk) 14:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

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

Out of the ordinary

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

---

So today at work we had a tray of doughnuts, my colleague called out to the office, "I'm going to have the last one unless anyone else would like it?". At this point, I realised that I don't think I've ever heard anyone respond saying that they would like the last thing and neither had any of my colleagues, which made me curious about how you would actually respond to that.In the UK, it is fairly common to ask questions like:"Would anyone like the last thing?""I'm going to eat the last thing, unless anyone wants it?""Does anyone want the last thing? Otherwise I'll have it."Such questions are a common way of declaring to people that you would, in fact, like the last thing that you're offering to others. So, it's a bit strange when someone would reply 'Yes'. I don't know how to respond when someone would do that. 109.166.233.126 (talk) 11:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

What does this have to do with Wikipedia? 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:8109:980C:14AE:425F (talk) 11:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The anon probably thinks this is social media. Deb (talk) 11:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

So is anyone gonna help me out here or what? 109.166.233.126 (talk) 11:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

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

Couldn't someone have linked them to the WP:REFDESK or something? jp×g🗯️ 18:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

No, because REFDESK ate the last doughnut. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Gerryyabes and copyright violations past fifth warning

In Special:Diff/1242570748, User:Gerryyabes added a large section of text very closely paraphrased from this website.(Worryingly, they didn't cite the source) I went to warn them, only to discover that they'd been warned five times in the past two months for similar behaviour by @Fram and @Diannaa. I'm perhaps foolishly hoping that this is a compromised account, given the fact that I can find no earlier warnings - but I think that, given their unresponsiveness, they'll likely need to be blocked (at least from article space) until they show that they understand copyright. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Let's see if Gerryyabes responds here, noting they appear to live in the Philippines so time zones may be an issue. But yeah, it does look like this has been an ongoing issue. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Gerryyabes doesn't respond as of replying to this comment. Ahri Boy (talk) 15:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I have p-blocked Gerryyabes from articlespace as a preventative measure. As far as I can tell he has never responded to any concerns brought up on his talk page; at the very least, in my opinion, he should acknowledge the issues and explain how he will avoid them in the future before he's allowed to edit articles agai, with the very clear understanding that he'll be given the hook if he continues his current trajectory. This isn't a newbie editor, they've been around for 18 years. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I endorse this block as a reasobale measure until such time as they choose to engage with the community over this issue. We can leave this discussion open for a little while in the hope that they will respond. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:06, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Whitewashing

Whitewashing going on at In the Light of Truth: The Grail Message. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I've been doing reading on several neo-religious/spiritual movements on this website. A number of them are free of such descriptions as you ascribe to In the Light of Truth. Claims of cultism and cult-like leadership, if anything, should be a separate section of 'criticisms' but descriptions of the group and its beliefs should not be described with such bias. The Eckankar page is a great example of how such discussion is addressed Johnthewhale (talk) 21:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute. @Tgeorgescu, your obscure message repeated on the article's talk page and the new editor's talk page does not seem to be an attempt to resolve the dispute. Schazjmd (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Criticism sections are dissuaded.

My opponent seeks to whitewash that cult. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I do not seek to whitewash anything. However, the descriptions of Bernhardt and the failed coming of the Kingdom and the 'bafflement' of adherents at the failure have nothing to do with the contents of the book itself. It is off topic and few other spiritual movements are treated as such on Wikipedia in general. Why is this any different? Johnthewhale (talk) 21:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF. That failed coming and the bafflement are WP:V in a mainstream scholarly WP:RS. Also, predicting that coming is all the book is about.

Predicting the imminent apocalypse of the 1940s and quickly preparing for the coming of the Kingdom of God are the main topics of the book.

In other words, Abd-ru-shin thought he is the Second Coming of Jesus. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

This also feels like a content dispute to me. My prescription for this involves a healthy dose of discussion in an attempt to hopefully achieve a WP:CONSENSUS. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

If everybody were allowed to delete WP:V information based upon mainstream WP:RS, Wikipedia would go to the dogs.

My opponent seems to pit a paper of cult apologetics against mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP ([52]). tgeorgescu (talk) 22:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Schazjmd, you may want to take another look at what is going on here. Last week a new editor, Calvasche (now blocked, prior ANI), arrived at Grail Movement, pushing some "source" posted on a blog "REFUTATION of the text “MILLENNIAL EXPECTATIONS IN THE GRAIL MOVEMENT” by Zdenek Vojtisek". The blog promotes the works of this Brazil publisher. They really don't like the work of cs:Zdeněk Vojtíšek of Charles University, near as i can tell our best authority on the group(s) involved. Now comes Johnthewhale, removing content cited to Vojtisek, taking issue with new religious movement, and pushing the same "source". He is also arguing pretty much as Vojtisek says the main group does here: downplaying or rationalizing the millennial aspects. fiveby(zero) 00:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

fiveby, maybe you should open a case at WP:SPI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johnthewhale. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, please note I have not made similar changes to Grail Movement, which is where I think it is more appropriate to include such statements Johnthewhale (talk) 14:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The millenial aspects are not my concern, though what Vojtisek states does not really match other sources I've seen. My only concern was the line in the synopsis (as it has nothing to do with an actual synopsis). I also stopped editing the 'new religious movement' section because I realize other similar movements are discussed in the same manner. Works in other new religious movements Armstrongism, Theosophy, and others are not described in the main body of their respective articles using words like cult and the like. Such a framework is reminiscent of New religious movement#Opposition, which reflects bias even if on a scholarly basis. I simply feel that such descriptions belong in a separate 'criticisms' or 'controversies' section. These changes are meant to contribute consistency in the way these things are discussed and have nothing to do with my personal beliefs. Johnthewhale (talk) 14:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, "Criticism" sections are frowned upon. They're a vestige of early Wikipedia, and do not conform to modern editing standards. Any criticism should be naturally written into the article, alongside whatever point is being criticized. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

And what of 'controversies'? Johnthewhale (talk) 02:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I managed to find one of his WP:RS at https://www.ezw-berlin.de/publikationen/artikel/70-todestag-von-oskar-ernst-bernhardt/ . Contrary to what Johnthewhale claims at WP:SPI, it does not contradict Vojtisek's paper. As someone wrote elsewhere, let's call it liberal approach to sourcing. Namely, the source never denies that the Grail Movement is a millenarian movement, and agrees with Vojtisek that Abd-ru-shin called himself the Son of Man. Marloes Janson states that the Grail Movement adopted the "supermarket model" of New Age religion, rather than stress dogmatism. I do not have access to all those pages, but it does not seem to me like she is denying its millenarian beginnings. She wrote "The Grail Movement was founded by the self-proclaimed Messiah Oskar Ernst Bernhardt..." tgeorgescu (talk) 00:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I never used the word contradict. I simply said disagree. A disagreement does not have to be a direct calling out or an explicit difference, but rather an inconsistency with the approach and voice of Vojtisek. Moving the goal posts you are Johnthewhale (talk) 01:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Just because they stress different aspects of the movement, it does not mean that either WP:RS is wrong. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Monjento consistently removing AfD templates and AfD listings

Monjento (talk · contribs) has been removing AfD tags and templates for Remah Naji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). See [53], [54] and [55]. They have had 2 warnings on their talk page [56] and [57], and the behavior continues despite these warnings. LibStar (talk) 00:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Further removal of AfD template [58]. LibStar (talk) 00:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

An admin has stepped in and partially blocked User:Monjento for edit warring. LibStar (talk) 00:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Also worth noting their blatantly dishonest edit summary [59] "Updated spelling error" and their battleground mentality [60] "Truly exemplifying using process to oppress women's history". duffbeerforme (talk) 01:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

By sheer coincidence, an account with similar comments appears now. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Monjento LibStar (talk) 03:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Monjento has now resorted to personal attacks basically at all editors opposing their view in the AfD [61]. LibStar (talk) 04:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

This is an editor who clearly cares about this topic, doesn't really understand our notability policies, and is being piled on. This could still be a learning moment for this editor, hopefully one that allows them to contribute productively. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I've left a message for them on their talk page: User talk:Monjento#Some advice. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't see a pile on. I see an editor engaging in personal attacks against multiple editors. TarnishedPath^talk 05:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment:
  • On 16/08/2024 with the edit at Special:Diff/1240636409 @Deb moved Remah Naji to draft with edit summary "Deb moved page Remah Naji to Draft:Remah Naji without leaving a redirect: Move to draftspace (WP:DRAFTIFY): nowhere near ready for article space".
  • Deb notified Monjento on their talk at Special:Diff/1240636897.
  • On 17/08/2024 Monjento submitted the article to AFC with edit Special:Diff/1240645572.
  • On 17/08/2024 the article was rejected by an AFC reviewer at Special:Diff/1240651098 with them leaving edit summary "*Declining submission: bio - Submission is about a person not yet shown to meet notability guidelines (AFCH)".
  • On 17/08/2024 Monjento, despite the article being rejected by AFC, moved it to mainspace at Special:Diff/1240708788.
  • The next edit at Special:Diff/1240708996 Monjento removed the AFC templates, including a comment left by the AFC reviewer, and left a personal attack in their edit summary writing "Removed the editorialised and uneducated opinion of someone that does not live in Australia".TarnishedPath^talk 09:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  The personal attacks continue [62]. I get a real sense that this user thinks they WP:OWN the article in question. LibStar (talk) 10:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  They probably do. This is their second article, and the first one was approved through AfC. I can understand why a new editor who has never collaborated on something might think that the article they worked on and put out to mainspace is their work. They responded well on their talk when I suggested they join WIR. I think this editor can be a productive member of the community. I'm not excusing the personal attacks, but I can understand why someone who is being templated instead of talked to might react negatively. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  "editor can be a productive member of the community" whilst this may be true, they really need to cease their personal attacks of anyone who disagrees with them if they want to stay in the WP community. LibStar (talk) 02:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  And they have for a good while. I hope they continue to desist. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  It's become common for new contributors, especially those whose first language isn't English, to take the attitude that everyone is against them and refuse to accept that they've done anything wrong. If this pattern of editing continues, a block would be appropriate. Let's wait and see how the sockpuppet investigation goes before taking action. Deb (talk) 13:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  I have my suspicions, but we can wait to be certain. Oaktree b (talk) 20:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

TBAN Proposal

Due to there behaviour at Remah Naji and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Remah Naji, Monjento be topic banned from Australian politics broadly construed. TarnishedPath^talk 01:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a bit excessive for edit warring over one article. There's been no evidence presented here of broader disruption. I think instead of jumping to the big guns, somebody should first explain our guidelines on notability to Monjento, specifically how we're cautious about the notability of candidates for political office. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

(ec) If the disruption is confined to one article, this seems like overkill. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree, don't see the need to topic-ban an editor who has 73 edits and is currently disrupting only one article. The next step here if the disruption either continues or spreads is an indefinite site-block based on their short tenure. Daniel (talk) 04:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll withdraw the proposal. Hopefully their behaviour doesn't continue. TarnishedPath^talk 05:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• removal of the AfD templates is concerning, but not enough for a complete topic ban I think. Oaktree b (talk) 12:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm being followed around by other users and don't appreciate it

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

---

I hate to bother, but there's been one or two users who've been followed me around and reverting all my edits for seemingly no good reason. I'm all for reverting edits if said edit is flawed, but all of my edits are sourced reliably. The reason given for all of my edits being reverted is that I didn't discuss them beforehand, but there is no policy that calls for doing this. I've edited on Wikipedia back in the day, around 2016-2017, but can't for the life of me recall my username. I tried to create this account a month ago or so, but couldn't because of some sockpuppet in my area called Diskyboy. I'm well aware of the rules and how everything rolls. I don't appreciate being followed in this way, but am most concerned about a block threat I got on my talk page. The user who sent this doesn't seem to be an administrator, but I'm still scared to do any more edits with that possibility. I just want conformation that I'm in the right here and can continue on editing. If that's somehow not the case, please don't hesitate to tell me. Sorry for wasting your time. An example of this kind of behavior can be found on the article Feuer frei! where I removed an unsourced genre and got my edit reverted. So odd... thanks in advance and hope you can help. Carnivore82 (talk) 00:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Your response here when asked if you've ever edited under different accounts is interesting: I tried to create this account a month ago or so, but couldn't because of some sockpuppet in my area called Diskyboy. (Diskyboy SPI archive page). Diskyboy also genre warred over metal songs. I think I hear some quacking. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I've never checked to see what edits said user has done, but if so that's quite the coincidence. I don't see how you can accuse me of something like that without any real evidence other than assumptions. I'll tell you myself that none of those edits are mine. Carnivore82 (talk) 01:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

You literally reinstated (with different phrasing) an edit made by a Diskyboy sock with a source: <sock edit>, <your edit>.

Your edit summary was "Nope. The source never claims the song is groove metal, but that its merely reminiscent of what would come to be known as the genre. I did reword some things and add another source however to make things a little more clear and accurate." - at this point it doesn't matter if you're truly 2 people, you're doing the same disruption from the same place in the same topic, you're going to be treated as one person. – 2804:F1...32:E973 (talk) 01:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't even notice such a thing. Whatever, if you think I'm a sockpuppet than do whatever you have to. I'll be retired by the time you see this reply so it's not going to affect me much in the end. Happy editing to all, and wish you well in the expansion of Wikipedia for years to come! Carnivore82 (talk) 01:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

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

More block evasion Rishabisajakepauler from Texas

• Rishabisajakepauler (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 64.189.244.0/22 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Banned User:Rishabisajakepauler from Texas has been using the range Special:Contributions/64.189.244.0/22 for the past few weeks. His signature style is to ask for a redirect to be created, then later he will create an article from the redirect, bypassing the requirement for article creation to come from registered users. He has been editing articles about hip hop music.

• Example 1: On July 4, Special:Contributions/104.190.206.106 from Texas requested a redirect to be created for American Dream Tour.[63] CFA approved the request and created the redirect the same day. On August 15, Texas IP 64.189.246.115 removed the redirect to create a new article.[64]
• Example 2: On August 23, Texas IP 64.189.247.245 requested a redirect for Drugs You Should Try It. [65] CFA created the redirect the same day. On August 27, Texas IP 64.189.246.115 created a new article from the redirect.[66]

Past IPs

• May 2022 and August 2024: 24.28.41.237 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• May 2024: 72.181.10.67 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• March to July 2024: 104.190.206.106 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2023–2024: 98.6.144.50 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (blocked six months)
• 2023–2024: 76.183.116.95 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• In 2022, Special:Contributions/2600:1700:74C6:E80:0:0:0:0/64 was blocked for a year to stop Rishabisajakepauler's disruption. Many more IPs have been involved in the past two years.

I am asking for a rangeblock on Special:Contributions/64.189.244.0/22, and extra eyeballs on the problem to catch whatever disruption comes next. Binksternet (talk) 01:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

... Yet another AfC/R block evader to add to my list. Thanks for the ping. C F A 💬 01:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Adding Special:Contributions/129.120.67.51 because of this reversion today. Binksternet (talk) 14:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I've blocked all of the active IPs/ranges for roughly the same amount of time the sock has been active on those IPs (anywhere between 1 month to 1 year). This includes Special:Contributions/129.120.67.51, Special:Contributions/64.189.244.0/22 and Special:Contributions/76.183.116.95. @Binksternet:, did I miss anything?-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, that should do it. Binksternet (talk) 16:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

DelusionalThomaz515610

DelusionalThomaz515610 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) It does not seem likely that this user will stop removing all mention of Vietnam from discussions of East Asia or the Sinosphere, which is not very nice of them. Remsense诉 20:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

This user returns every few months to revert a dozen articles to their preferred version, removing Vietnam but also intervening edits by other editors,(e.g. [67]) and ignoring attempts to communicate.[68][69] Kanguole 23:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

OK, I'm just about to Wikipedia:PBPOL Deranged Thomas from those articles they have have shown an disruptive interest in. For those following along here, in the various historical states and kingdoms in what is now Vietnam, Cambodia, Korea and so on, Classical Chinese was the shared language of scholars, sort of analogous to Latin in Mediaeval Europe. Case on point: the "nam" in "Gangnam Style" is the same "nam" in Vietnam - please see Wikt:南--Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 11:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

On reflection, "OK, I'm just about to Wikipedia:PBPOL Deranged Thomas..." would appear to be pretty much synonymous with "OK, I'm going to precipitate unnecessary WP:DRAMA".: Change of plan. I'm just about to ask DelusionalThomaz515610 about this about this. And if that there isn't a satisfactory outcome there, seek more opinions, discuss it further, and so on.--Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Not Cambodia, I think (used Khmer written with an Indic script), but the rest, yes. If past behaviour is any guide, DerangedThomaz is now gone until he returns in a couple of months to repeat. Kanguole 23:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Unarchived, as he's circled back around for this month and done the exact same thing again. Could someone please help me out with this? If you need a single revision to clue you in, this one will do. Communication has not helped here. They blatantly remove all discussion of Vietnam or Vietnamese from articles centered in the Sinosphere / East Asia, including removing all the sourcing in each case that discusses Vietnam just like the other relevant countries, fully attesting its equal relevance—with the only consistent justification being that "Vietnam is part of Southeast Asia, not East Asia". It should be clear from the supplied reversion (et al.) that there's nothing I can do but revert him each time he comes around, but I don't want to do that anymore. Remsense ‥ 论 02:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Here are a couple of prize edit summaries. [70][71] Propose an indefinite block. This user is clearly not here for any purpose other than to push their personal crusade. Grandpallama (talk) 02:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked DelusionalThomaz515610. Cullen328 (talk) 04:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate it—though something in me always wishes I could communicate better in these situations. I just don't have the patience. Remsense ‥ 论 04:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328 according to the block log you blocked them for three hours. Victor Schmidt (talk) 05:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Victor Schmidt, thank you for noticing my misclick, which I have corrected. Cullen328 (talk) 05:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Lindenearlejones

Lindenearlejones (talk · contribs) This user was repeatedly warned about inappropriate editing of "Short description". After the last remark his response was "You're being uber trivial; no need acknowledging such trivializing", meaning they have no intention to change their behavior. I suggest blocking is a reasonable measure now. --Altenmann >talk 04:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Without thinking, Like here But most of then they remove "None", that's how I noticed. Another common nuisance is wrong capitalization like here --Altenmann >talk 04:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

That edit also referred to the otherwise-unknown Swiss canton of Calais (should have been Valais). Narky Blert (talk) 08:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I left a warning at User talk:Lindenearlejones#August 2024. Let me know if problems persist, perhaps by raising any new issues at user talk and pinging me from there. Johnuniq (talk) 09:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Persistent unsourced/unexplained date changes by Coco cejero

Coco cejero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps making unsourced and unexplained date changes to articles for films, continued after final warning and hasn't responded to warnings. Examples of unsourced/unexplained date changes: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Waxworker (talk) 07:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Coco cejero is still making unsourced date changes with no communication (1, 2). Waxworker (talk) 06:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Nori Bunasawa / user DN27ND

This general topic has been discussed at ANI before, [72]. The issues have continued however so I'll give an abbreviated account below including recent developments (diffs can mostly be found on the previous thread)…

Earlier this year, new user DN27ND wrote the article on Nori Bunasawa off-wiki and forwarded it off-wiki to another newly created user, 110347nbtough, who has identified themselves as Nori Bunasawa at Commons. User 110347nbtough then created the article as a draft and referred it to AfC. DN27ND, who had no previous experience at AfC, then approved the article into mainspace as one of his first actions on Wikipedia.

The article was later referred to AfD for notability reasons here [73]. During that discussion DN27ND resorted to bludgeoning, battleground behaviour, misquoting of policy and racism. Before the AfD was concluded the user was blocked from both the article and the AfD by Star Mississippi (for disruptive editing, COI and bludgeoning). The article was then deleted.

Shortly afterwards the user recreated the article as a draft. While the article remained as a draft it was nominated for speedy deletion under WP:G4 by user:Lavalizard101. At that point DN27ND recreated the draft in Sandbox3, apparently to avoid losing the draft through deletion. Ultimately the draft wasn’t deleted under G4 because it hadn’t been moved into mainspace.

Earlier today DN27ND did move the article into mainspace, in clear breach of his block. I nominated it for speedy deletion under WP:G4 (recreation of deleted material), although it could as easily have been nominated under WP:G5 (created in violation of a block). The user contested the deletion but it was deleted and salted by Novem Linguae.

DN27ND then took the issue to Requests for Undeletion, here [74] (copy pasting their note to contest the original speedy deletion) and has resumed the same kind of uncivil behaviour that affected the AfD.

As far as I can see, the user has a clear conflict of interest, has spent most of their time on Wikipedia trying to get this article into mainspace, has continued their attempts in that regard despite being blocked from the article, and is generally disruptive. I’d therefore suggest that the user be site blocked to prevent further timesink.

Also copying in Marchjuly and Daniel who had previously been involved. Axad12 (talk) 09:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you guys are that important. And the allegations of "During that discussion DN27ND resorted to bludgeoning, battleground behaviour, misquoting of policy and racism" is your interpretation and I disagree. I think the article should be judged on the sources and whether it meets the criteria. Block or no-block, that's pretty miniscule and insignificant in the grand scheme of things. Just check the article and judge its quality and whether it meets criteria. The subject of the bio I wrote has lots of international fans, are you going to delete and block everyone? The article was written using legitimate quality sources and sources that are accepted within that particular community and its available online or through a paywalls. DN27ND (talk) 09:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Marchjuly, Daniel, Star Mississippi, Lavalizard101. Who are these people? Are they checking these articles using some sort of criteria? To me these users are anon. Are they high school graduates, just wiki contributors, editors of known journals, college or high school professors? How about just check the quality of the article rather than try to check people's behavior and wikipedia might get more donations. DN27ND (talk) 09:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for providing further evidence of your general MO, much appreciated.

The request for undeletion has already been turned down by Novem Linguae and user:Black Kite. How many more 2nd opinions do you feel you need?

Also, re: your block evasion being pretty miniscule and insignificant in the grand scheme of things, I don't expect you'll find many to agree with that here... Axad12 (talk) 10:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not a block evasion. It's a new article and it included evidence from Kyodo News in terms of notability. I think having a huge production company adapt a book for a feature film is a notable artistic project. DN27ND (talk) 10:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I think you have some sort of personal issue with me? Perhaps review the sources and the article? DN27ND (talk) 10:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't have a personal issue with you. Only with your conduct. This forum is the appropriate location on Wikipedia for raising conduct issues. Axad12 (talk) 10:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

That's hilarious that Wikipedia is a conduct regulating website. I thought it was for general information about topics.

I really contribute to a few sports and martial arts articles on here on my spare time. A block for me isnt that big of a deal. Isn't this place all volunteer based anyways? So no one is getting paid to contribute? DN27ND (talk) 10:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

That's hilarious that Wikipedia is a conduct regulating website. Don't all social groups have norms and rules? Hard to get multiple people to work together if there's anarchy. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

We moderate our content/disputes/discussions here. This website just doesn't happen, you need people to move all the widgets and throw the switches that keep this place moving along. Volunteers yes, still work though. Oaktree b (talk) 16:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

To be honest, Marchjuly, Daniel, Star Mississippi, Lavalizard101, NovemLinguae, Axad12, etc sound like members of a local high school journaling club who spends more time discussing other user's behavior rather than the substance of articles. They have way too much free time on their hands. DN27ND (talk) 09:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

DN27ND, if you make another personal attack, thereby violating WP:NPA again, I will block you immediately. You don't get another warning. --Yamla (talk) 10:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

What I see is DN27ND is blocked from Nori Bunasawa. They worked on a sandbox article and then moved it to Nori Bunasawa. What confuses me is they then seem to have edited the article directly thereafter. I'm not sure how that technically happened, given the block. This does appear to be a violation of the clear intent of the block at the very least. I'm unsure if DN27ND should just be blocked indefinitely or if we should first attempt a WP:TOPICBAN on martial arts, broadly construed. I think given the bludgeoning and COI concerns, probably an indefinite block is more appropriate, but I'm not casting my vote yet. --Yamla (talk) 10:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

If it helps, the technical issue has been addressed here [75]. Axad12 (talk) 10:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

It does help! And the explanation makes sense to my software developer brain, too. Thanks. --Yamla (talk) 10:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Kind of interesting that wikipedia is some sort of pseudo-democratic community of computer programmers? I only contribute to some sports and martial arts related content, a block is not that huge of a deal DN27ND (talk) 10:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Where do you contribute to non-martial arts related sports content? Presumably under an alternate account? Axad12 (talk) 10:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Are you trying to ask leading questions to find out if I have more than 1 account? DN27ND (talk) 10:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Let's be honest, you already gave it away. There aren't any non-martial arts sports related edits on the contribution history for DN27ND, so you must have been doing them on another account. Perhaps that's why you're so untroubled by the prospect of being blocked? Axad12 (talk) 11:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Sure bro...you run with that one DN27ND (talk) 11:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

You would make a good lawyer in real life. Too bad they require bar exams. DN27ND (talk) 11:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

It seems most of the people proofreading for quality control have no expertise in the subject they are proofreading on, and personal issues between users affect quality control of the content published independent of whether the content is quality or not. DN27ND (talk) 10:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

And they are asking for donations to wikipedia to keep this type of format alive DN27ND (talk) 10:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Enough's enough, please indef block' DN27N for civility and battleground mentality issues. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I went ahead and indef blocked just now for personal attacks. There are two in this thread, one of them after Yamla warned them for it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@Axad12, got a diff for 110347nbtough, who has identified themselves as Nori Bunasawa at Commons? This will make it easier to block that account. Oh and would also need a diff of DN27ND identifying themselves as Nori Bunasawa. Or any other on-wiki evidence of a link between the two accounts (no off-wiki evidence please, as that would be WP:OUTING). –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, no problem. It's right at the top of this COIN thread [76].

Many thanks for your help with this today, much appreciated. Axad12 (talk) 11:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't see enough to block 110347nbtough at this time. They haven't edited since 2021. If they come back to life, feel free to ping me and I'll take another look. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Is it also worth deleting this version [77] of the deleted article, currently sitting in the user's sandbox? Axad12 (talk) 12:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll take a pass on deleting that. I think that might stretch WP:G4 a bit. Any other admin may feel free to act on it though if they are more confident about deleting it than I am. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Novem Linguae for taking action here — full support from me on the indefinite block. Coming to you live from the 'local high school journaling club', Daniel (talk) 12:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Returning personal attack behavior of SchroCat

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

---

Yesterday evening I was casually reading our articles on the Marchioness disaster and on the vessel MV Bowbelle (1964) which was involved in that disaster. I noticed the article on the vessel has a properly sourced claim it sank itself years later, under different ownership and a different name, with all of its crew perishing. The article on the Marchioness disaster, on the other hand, in its aftermath section claims only one crewmember died when the Bowbelle sank. I then decided to edit the article on the Marchioness disaster to adress the contradiction based on the sources in the vessel's article. This was immediately met with aggressive and continuous reverting by SchroCat, who kept backing themself up by naming the crew of the Marchioness[78][79][80]. This shows very clearly they misunderstood what I had actually edited. I posted a warning and a follow-up message on their talk in vain to try to point out they were mixing up the sinkings, but all that resulted in was two edit summaries directed at me with plain insults[81][82]. ShroCar has shown that behavior in edit summaries before and was repeatedly blocked for it, to the point of an indefinite one at one point. Clearly they haven't changed and such direct insluiting of other editors should not be accepted. This is why a post this report. Update: my mandatory notification of this report on their talk page was removed with similar disdain Tvx1 10:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Not only were you also aggressively and continuous reverting, you didn't bother with the talk page, despite the fact I requested you followed BRD and, when you didn't, opened the thread: you continued to edit war. Two different editors asked you to provide sources on the talk page, but you didn't. You edited an FA-rated article by inserting incorrect information that was not supported by the sources: that's just poor. The reliable source you were relying on did not support the information you inserted into the article. If you had bothered to follow BRD and use the talk page, the whole thing could have been sorted out much more quickly without problem. If you'd have provided sources, it could have been cleared up easily. Instead, despite there being a thread open on the talk page, you thought it best to harass me on my talk page? That's just poor. - SchroCat (talk) 11:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Nothing of what I did justifies insulting me like you did in your edit summaries. No Wikipedia policy of guideline allows that. You should know that by know from your earlier blocks. You could have just acknowledged that you mixed up the sinkings in your edit summary. You chose to characterize my edits to your talk page as "harrasment", my intention was just to make you accept your mistake. Tvx1 11:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

"to make you accept your mistake". To make me? That aggressive battlefield approach is just a personal grudge, rather than any serious attempt to discuss how the article should be phrased. That pretty much sums up opening this ANI thread too. - SchroCat (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

No, I do not hold any grudges. I just do not accept being insulted like you did. Wikipedia forbids personal attacks and if you cannot see, even after all your blocks, that your behavior in those edits is unacceptable I'm really at a loss. I think we've said enough between us, let's let the administrators deal with it now. Meanwhile, I'm trying to find a constructive solution to the content dispute, but that isn't reprocitated. Tvx1 11:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree entirely with SchroCat: to make him?? You have been on Wikipedia for far too long to blurt out such an egregious crack as that. If you think that we're on Wikipedia to count coup or force our enemies to submit, you are very badly mistaken. Ravenswing 11:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

SchroCat is not my enemy in any way. I hadn't even been involved with them before that I remember. I just don't accept being insulted like that. Can you point me to the policy that allows insults?? Why do you flatly ignore their past repeated misbehavior? They were blocked repeatedly for this exact behavior, even indefinite at one point. So why is that exact same behavior acceptable now?? Tvx1 11:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

That's the secondthird time you've misspelled my name: could you try and spell it correctly please. It's the fourth time you've mentioned by block log. Why the obsession with it and why the obvious desire to see someone blocked? This approach is leaving a rather bad taste. - SchroCat (talk) 11:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Because you repeatedly insulted an other editor (me) which is utterly unacceptable and because your block log shows that you clearly haven't learned from your past and you have barely changed and I want to prevent any other editor from being subjected to what you have subjected me to in future. Tvx1 11:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Tvx1, a key policy of Wikipedia is verifiability. This means that sentences should be supported by the citations at the end of them. In this case, you refused to consider that the sources cited in Marchioness disaster might support the relevant sentence, until you found that they did—something you neglected to mention above and which you have neglected to apologise for, as far as I can see. I would personally classify that as tendentious editing; would that designation be incorrect? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Tendentious, certainly – and, tangentially, in English law there is an offence called Wasting Police Time. We have something of the same thing here in Tvx1's accusations, it seems to me. Tim riley talk 11:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

So in your opion issuing insults to other editors in edit summaries, especially by someone who was blocked indefinetely for that before, is proper acceptable behavior. Have you checked those diffs? Tvx1 11:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Look I can admit my mistake, but as explained in the talk page discussion the other editor was mixing up incidents so I couldn't be sure he was referring to the right one. Verifiability is indeed key, but not every source is a easily verifiable, so it took me some time. At the same time the other editor showed no intention to be colleboratively. I kindly asked them to share the link to the url they used to verify the source, but they flatly refused (and still do) and only responed with a blunt "find it yourself". I eventually did a while after. All of that could have been much easier if they just had posted the url to begin with, and the fact remains that there are contradicting sources. Nothing of that justities issuing these insults though. They have shown that behavior against other users before, were blocked but persisted, did it to me now and what's to say they won't do it to others in future. Why would these insults be acceptable. Tvx1 11:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

You couldn't be sure SC was referring to the right incident, and you couldn't verify the source, so you decided that the best course of action was... to repeatedly revert without posting on the talk page? Where's the intention to collaborate there? As far as I can see, this aggressive edits summary of yours was the first escalation in tone, followed by accusations of being "utterly disruptive/utterly ridiculous", and templated user talk warnings. You have now proceded to deny that you were edit-warring and sanctimoniously claim "I can admit my mistake" without actually having done so.

Let's be clear: I would say that this edit from SC breached the civility line, as it commented on the contributor, not content. However, they are under no obligation to provide a direct link if a quote has been provided. Meanwhile, I find your self-presentation as an innocent martyr when your edits were escalatory and tendentious to be quite manipulative, Tvx1; it seems like it would be far more productive to collaborate with SC than you. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not an innocent martyr in any way. I already said I made a mistake and own up to that. Sure there was no obligation to provide the url, but it would have been constuctive and collaboratibe to do so, no? I mean, I ultimately provide it and it should even already be in the article. Regardless, this report isn't so much about that content dispute. It's about the insults SchroCat dericted me. Most importantly it's about them having repeatedly been done that before, been blocked for that and clearly not having changed their behavior. That's actually very worrying. Can you please focus on that? Tvx1 11:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

As addressed, while they directed one insult at you ("Idiot", you directed two at them (an accusation of WP:OWN, "utterly disruptive"). I can see no reason to focus on SC's conduct instead of yours; see WP:BOOMERANG. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Sinds when are claims of ownership behavior and edits being disruptive insults?? I just issued my concerns about their behavior. That's cleary no the same thing. There is clear difference between that. Tvx1 12:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

No, you made accusations of severe misbehaviour with no evidence, which is the definition of WP:ASPERSIONS. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but they aren't personal attacks like insuslts. Massive difference. Please do not mischaracterize my edits. Tvx1 13:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) When they are untruthful - as they are here. See Wikipedia:Ownership_of_content#Ownership_and_stewardship, and note "the editor proposing the change should first take the matter to the talk page, without personal comments or accusations of ownership". You should probably read WP:FAOWN too - it's also core to this discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 12:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Erm.. Tvx1 was edit warring (on a FA), which I warned them against on their Talk Page. I protected the page for 24 hours to allow time for some dust to settle. Their response to this was, and to my warning, to be frank, rude. "And putting the page under full protection was an uneccesary overreaction". I suggest we close this report and move on. Graham Beards (talk) 11:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@Graham Beards: Why are you leaving messages on my talk instead of keeping the conversation in one place? SerialNumber54129 12:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@Graham Beards: FAs are not listed as an exemption under WP:EWNO, and your warning was (putting it gently) misguided. Both parties reverted four times. Having said that, Tvx1, SC told you to fuck off; while possibly uncivil (I'm not sure the community has codified a position on it yet) is neither an insult nor a personal attack and it might be deemed an aspersion to suggest you have been so attacked. SerialNumber54129 12:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Did you check the second diff of a personal attack I posted. How is that not an insult? Tvx1 12:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Tvx1, I know, but Schro is an on-wiki pal, as he is to Graham and Airship. I mean, watcha gonna do, you know? SerialNumber54129 12:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

So that's what's going here. Friends are backing up one another here defending their mate. Not sure that sort of behavior is tolerated on Wikipedia either. Tvx1 12:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can remember, I have never had a conversation with SchroCat. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

You're missing out. Intelligent conversation is hard to find on Wikipedia. Almost chimerical  :) SerialNumber54129 12:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

So you honestly state that issuing of insults in edit summaries, despite prior blocks for that, is perfectly fine? Why do you accept such behavior? And why does everyone need to assume the worst of my comments? My reply to you was actually intended to be an assurance to you that I had no intent to revert any further anyway, so your protection wasn't necessary, yet I get critisized for being rude?? Tvx1 12:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I has now emerged that some friends of SchroCat have joined this discussion in their defence. This seriously calls in question the objectiveness of some of the comments here. The most fair thing to do here is for those editors to refrain from this discussion and let the (other) administrators actually look at it.Tvx1 12:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear! Anyone who has worked with SchroCat is ineligible to comment here? Pur-lease! Perhaps Tvx1 would like to name a few editors whom s/he regards as eligible to comment? Tim riley talk 12:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying that. It's just that a bunch of friends defending against a reporter isn't entirely fair. It's always better to have uninvolved people. Tvx1 13:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Completely uninvolved admin here. Tvx1, don't edit war or call other editors ridiculous. You're lucky to have escaped a 3RR block. SchroCat, don't edit war (good on you for starting the talk page discussion, though) or call other editors idiots.

Anything else to do here? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

+1 EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Tend to agree but also don't think enough weight is being given to the spirit of WP:FAOWN. SchroCat's indiscretions on the whole are far less severe than Tvx1's in my opinion, only compounded by Tvx1's conduct in this very thread. While closing it with a slap on the wrist all round is an adequate solution, I hope we don't see Tvx1 back at this noticeboard anytime soon as the conduct above will potentially need to be considered at that point. Daniel (talk) 12:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Before we go, I would like to hear why Graham Beards thinks that a comment such as putting the page under full protection was an unnecessary overreaction is "rude", but calling someone an idiot is OK? Please explain why the former merited an implied use of your admin tools, while the latter did not? SerialNumber54129 13:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

No. Graham Beards (talk) 13:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

In the interest of preventing more drama, could you do a quick review of WP:ADMINACCT and make a better reply? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

And why are you going so lightly over SchroCat's behavior? Why does everyone keep ignoring the fact that this editor was blocked for this exact behavior repeatedly, to the point of indefinite. Why do they continue to get so much credit despite their history? I posted this report because I'm concerned that an editor is continuing to display behavior for which they were blocked indefinitely in the past. This is not about me, but about protecting any editor from being subjected to this in the future. Instead, I'm being portrayed as the sole blame of all of this. Really disappointing.Tvx1 13:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Specks and planks, mostly. I wagged my finger sternly at both of you, but I'm not going to block someone for personal attacks reported by someone who personally attacked them during an edit war where they broke 3RR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

What do I really have to do to point out that this is not an isolated incident? I posted this report because of a continuous pattern of such behavior which resulted in repeated and serious blocks that still haven't appeared to resolve it. Why do you keep ignoring that? You can criticize my edits and I have no problem admitting my wrongness, but I have NOT been repeatedly blocked for posting personal attacks. So please, do not put me on par with the editor I reported. Tvx1 13:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

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

unexplained revert - engaging in edit war - VIOLATED 3RR

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

---

User:CFA has engaged in edit war in artcle Onam and violated 3RR here [83][84][85]. He is reverting content without explanation. Suspect he is using some bot to edit.

He is aware of 3RR:

"The three-revert rule states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period."

Thank you Kllbj (talk) 18:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

They have not performed more than three reverts. You should've taken this to the talk page of the article. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 18:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

ok, i will let the user know. But please warm him for this as he is reverting unexplained. Kllbj (talk) 18:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Please see the talk page of the article for previous discussions about this topic. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 18:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted the edits of blocked sock user Herplas whom invloved in the talk and edited the artccle.

Added few pics too. Kllbj (talk) 18:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban or block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. Log into your original account and request an unblock. I have no opinion regarding the article content. C F A 💬 18:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

And to no one's surprise, OP is a sock evading a block. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

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

A very concerning comment from Boscaswell

I'm very sorry if this is not the best place to report this; I don't know how can I report such a thing, but Boscaswell made an unsubstantiated racism flavored claim that a million white girls have fallen victim to moslem rape gangs. This misbehaviour was pointed out to them by DWMemories on 20 August 2024, yet they didn't retract it. I'm afraid that leaving such comments for too long may give the false impression that such comments are allowed on Wikipedia even tho they aren't.

I also believe their talk page may suggest that they're on some WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS crusade.— 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 19:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• I have redacted that bit of particularly unpleasant racism and revision-deleted it from the history. User:Boscaswell, you are almost certain to be blocked from editing if you pull a stunt like that one again. If any other admin wants to take further action, please feel free. Black Kite (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  Considering they're trying to pretend the racist English Defense League no longer exists, it seems this person is just here to spread bigotry. Per WP:HID, I'd say they need indeffed. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  To be fair, there is genuine doubt as to whether the EDL still technically exists. A number of their other edits are ... dubious, though, it has to be said. Black Kite (talk) 20:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, compared to the now-redacted comment, the view that the EDL no longer exists isn't particularly controversial. I heard it expressed by several commentators during the 2024 United Kingdom riots, including by Hope Not Hate. Our own article on the organisation refers to it as "defunct". Cordless Larry (talk) 20:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

In my defence… the statement originates with UK Labour Party MP for Rotherham Sarah Champion, who said in 2015, "There are hundreds of thousands and I think there could be up to a million victims of exploitation nationwide, including right now." One massive and now very well known problem which existed around the abuse is that anyone drawing attention to it feared being labelled as racist.
On my user page I am merely reflecting the views of Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger. Boscaswell talk 21:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Not a solid defense, she didn't mention anything that concerns the background of the rapists or the race of the victims.

Should we understand that you are doubling down? — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 21:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Hang on a minute, the complaint revolves around a statement I made being unsubstantiated, but when I do substantiate it, I’m at fault? The information in the Shadow Minister for Women and Equalities section of the Sarah Champion article also refers, in particular the quotations in paras 2 thereof. All that having been said, I accept that my making the statement where I made it was not a wise move. I bid you good day. Boscaswell talk 23:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

But your comment hasn't been substantiated for the reasons Cheesedealer explained.

Your original post also included other invented statistics to back up your flawed argument. DWMemories (talk) 00:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

The article doesn't show that "a million white girls have fallen victim to moslem rape gangs", it says "There could be up to a million victims of child sexual exploitation in the UK" without any mention of the perpetrators. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

From the statistics 89% of the perpetrators will be white.[86] -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

And it's not Islam that's the problem religion: [87] Daveosaurus (talk) 05:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Or perhaps it is, if you look at the comments on this current AfD. Black Kite (talk) 12:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I saw that yesterday the original article content and name where well meant, but it was immediately highjacked and the current title is still an issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Boscaswell has AGAIN written a troubling comment. This time on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslim grooming gangs in the United Kingdom DWMemories (talk) 08:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

AI-generated spam

Emmanuel Anin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Spamming AI-generated nonsense to articles. They've been warned several times prior to this. OhHaiMark (talk) 20:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Note that, upon review of the history of Draft:Vivian Jill Lawrence and the info at User talk:Pirate 064#Mass draft creation, this appears to be related to yet yet another project where prize money is being offered in exchange for editing articles. I have never not seen such projects backfire, regardless of the intent of the organizers.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Can we just ban all contests with any sort of monetary prize involved? I don't think I've ever seen anything positive come out of them. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:9C04:452A:DEA1:1BE5 (talk) 21:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

TPA

2600:1004:b059:e97d:4c45:e92e:7536:36b9 (talk · contribs) is blocked and needs TPA revoked. Remsense ‥ 论 20:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Done across the /64 range. I'll hide the edit summaries momentarily. --Yamla (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Zabezt

User left a message on my talk page accusing me of "lying about his country" and "displaying al shabaab as mighty warriors". After reverting their uncited edits. Lots of previous personal attacks on edit summaries and Wiki commons as well. WP:NOTHERE. Ecrusized (talk) 22:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

They weren’t uncited. And I’m simply trying to have consensus with you to stop our edit war. And I wasn’t even going after you personally! Zabezt (talk) 01:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Ecrusized and Zabezt, consider this a warning that edit warring behavior is a blockable offense, and the way to avoid being blocked for edit warring is to strictly avoid any edit warring behavior whatsoever. Being convinced that your point of view is correct is not a valid defense. There are a variety of types of legitimate Dispute resolution options available to you. Both of you, please explain the failure of either one of you to discuss the map dispute at either Talk:Somali Civil War or at Talk:Somali Civil War (2009–present). That simple fact makes both of you look bad. Cullen328 (talk) 03:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Ecrusized

This user started an edit war on the Somali Civil War and Somali Civil War (2009-present) articles, and is refusing to have a discussion with me to end it. Instead of talking to me so we can come to consensus, He decides to report me any chance he gets. (Victimizing himself in the process, for example in this page he said I’ve done “personal attacks” on him, when I haven’t.) The articles in question has a problem with the maps, because no one can decide which map is correct and should be used. I don’t want this user punished, nor am I intending to do a revenge request or have personal hatred for the user, I simply want to end this fight with the user so there can be peace and truth to the articles about the civil war that’s happening in my home country of Somalia. Zabezt (talk) 02:45, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

(raises an eyebrow) You don't consider "Stop lying about my country" [88] a personal attack? Ravenswing 03:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Zabezt, please heed the warning in the section above. Please also explain why you have failed to discuss this map issue on either of the relevant article talk pages? Cullen328 (talk) 04:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I’ve been trying to discuss it with him any way I can, he simply won’t respond to me for some reason. But I will take your advice and try to discuss with him on the talk page. Zabezt (talk) 04:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

That should have been your first step, Zabetz. Debating through edit summaries is a very poor practice. That is not what edit summaries are for. Cullen328 (talk) 04:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I understand, but I’m still new as an editor, So I expected something like this to happen. Zabezt (talk) 04:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if that justifies a "personal attack" more than it's said from an obvious connection / standpoint on the unfolding Somalian war and its history. But I also think an institute of war style map is probably ambitious given it would need to be updated frequently and this issue will probably exist forever. Jondvdsn1 (talk) 04:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn’t mean it aggressively! It was more like a suggestion. Zabezt (talk) 04:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

And one carrying the obvious premise that he IS "lying." Which is a personal attack. You may indeed be a new editor, but keep on just assuming that someone whose opinion differs from yours is doing so out of malice, and you likely won't have the chance to get more experience. Ravenswing 07:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I understand. Zabezt (talk) 09:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Zabezt, you failed to inform the editor that you started a discussion about them here. There are multiple notices, including a bright message on the edit page when you posted this complaint, informing you that this is mandatory. This is required. Please do so now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Done. Zabezt (talk) 09:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Wait… now done. Zabezt (talk) 10:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Ecrusized

I think this is a retaliatory filing by the inexperienced user, who in my opinion is not here to build an encyclopedia.

1) Narrow self interest or promotion of themselves or their business

Zabezt entire editing history is limited to trying to change the Somali Civil War map to a prior version, before Al-Shaabab offensive in 2022-23. Additionally Zabezt has referred to Somalia as "their country". And referred to the latest revision as trying to portray Al Shabaab as "mighty warriors".

2) Treating editing as a battleground

Zabezt has attempted to get the file deleted initially, after this attempt failed, they started an edit war by reverting the file to a previous revision, (which resulted in the file being protected). After these attempts, they started removing the map all together from Wikipedia pages (citing ongoing discussion, despite being explained multiple times that their revision is being reverted for not citing a source).

3) Personal attacks

Zabezt has resorted to personal attacks after being reverted by calling me a liar, and accused me portraying a designated terrorist organization, Al Shabaab as mighty warriors which prompted me to open this notice. And the user appears to further their battleground behaviour by filing a notice again me WP:BOOMERANG.

4) Possible sock puppeting

There are multiple account and IP's doing the exact same reverts with Zabezt on the map file, one of which Zabezt has admitted to being their own IP. SPI is currenty ongoing. Ecrusized (talk) 10:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

1. Ive done edits beside the civil war articles. You can see that by simply looking at my edit history.

2. The edit war started weeks after the nomination. and if you really want to point fingers, blame someone like @Munsaar55, not me. And I only removed the map because people were discussing the map on the talk page, so I thought until they sort it out, a map shouldn’t be there at all, and I did find a good source on the file itself and you still deleted for the same reason you just mentioned.

3. I’m sorry. I simply freaked out when you reverted the map and resorted to saying.. that. I promise to not try to do something like that again.

4. I can assure you that I’m not a sockpuppet account. I have no other accounts other than the one I mentioned. I have no idea who people like Munsaar55 are. Zabezt (talk) 12:26, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Being followed around by an editor with an apparent grudge

There is a user, Ybsone, who is following me around and either reverting my edits or objecting to my proposed edits on talk pages. His conduct strikes me as that of a "grudge" mentality because we had content disagreements in some RUSUKR articles in late July (e.g., War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine), and because of these disagreements he has taken to opposing my future edits on even unrelated topics. This conduct does not strike me as being in the collaborative spirit of the project. He is making the editing process a personal battleground. This is in particular a violation of WP:FOLLOWING.

The majority of these "following" cases are in RUSUKR but the most blatant ones would be those outside this topic area where there isn't any plausible deniability; those are selected below as examples.

Example A: Most recently, he has reverted an edit I made on the alcohol article within 30 minutes. This revert is his only contribution to the article. The latter fact combined with the short time window is strongly indicative of a decision to follow me around rather than an organic interest in editing the article.

Example B: A bit over two weeks ago, he objected to a proposed change I suggested in the article on controversial psychologist Kevin MacDonald. Again, he has never contributed here before.

Example C: This is within the RUSUKR topic area where we originally had a content dispute, so I cannot accuse him of following me around for this case (it is plausibly genuine interest), but it is illustrative of his grudge and battleground mentality towards me. Consider the RfC Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#RfC: Mention Russian demand on NATO expansion in lead?. The user in question wrote five separate timestamped comments underneath my yes vote. These were five separate "original" comments so to speak (they were not replies to replies addressed to him, as is typical). They were made over a five hour period (08:49 UTC on 13 August to 14:01 UTC on 13 August). This is unusually aggressive bludgeoning. It is an unusual level of personal interest in another user's vote that you would make multiple comments about their vote over a five hour period, unprompted by anyone else. Noteworthy also is that the user devoted far more bits of text to criticizing my vote, than justifying his own vote, which was left as a short (and frankly incoherent) sentence, seemingly an afterthought.

Indeed, if you look over the user's edits over the past month, it's mostly either chastising me (both within RUSUKR and without) or editing about sports cars (which is a favourite topic of his).

Finally, I note that the user has been warned of his conduct by another user, Mellk, on his talk page here.

I would request that the user be asked to cease this conduct. JDiala (talk) 10:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

You could just take the criticism of being wrong when trying to change the tone of a long standing articles and move on. YBSOne (talk) 10:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Am I "disrupting Your enjoyment of editing" when pointing out that You have changed the lead of an article because of mistakenly thinking that "is one of the most widely abused psychoactive drugs in the world" is "undue". Again, nothing to do with drinkers it is just being widely abused out of other psychoactive drugs. Am I "disrupting Your enjoyment of editing" when Special:Diff/1236158164 preventing You from WP:SOAPBOXing and changing the tone of the lead in a long standing article? Has Your enjoyment of editing been disrupted? YBSOne (talk) 10:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Other instances of soapboxing reversal by me with talk page discussions. Special:Diff/1236481183 Talk:War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 27 and Talk:War_crimes_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_26#Lead_is_clearly_POV; Special:Diff/1238537335 Talk:Vladimir_Putin#Public_image_in_Lead; Special:Diff/1237547921 Talk:Russia#"Very_low". In my opinion this user is WP:NOTHERE to better Wikipedia but to clear Russia/Putin/Russian aggression, of a bad image and change the tone, to spread propaganda and to WP:SOAPBOX, hence my behaviour that may have been mistaken for WP:FOLLOWING. I urge admins to check the editing history of other subjects like: Special:Diff/1238510210 Talk:Kevin_MacDonald_(evolutionary_psychologist)#Ordering_of_labels_in_lead_sentence.

User spends majority of edits on [talk page battles] with other editors to make their way by any means necessary. YBSOne (talk) 10:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

See as an example [89] where he argues that Nazis don't believe in white supremacy]. Nazism has sources saying they did. I topic banned him in June from ARBPIA. Doug Weller talk 12:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Also: "Mention that she's Jewish in the first paragraph, as this is most natural." and Talk:Jesus#Do_not_call_him_Jewish_in_the_first_sentence. YBSOne (talk) 12:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Also: Special:Diff/1240305960, Special:Diff/1238429006, Special:Diff/1237921444, Special:Diff/1237852938, Special:Diff/1237502321, Special:Diff/1237004405, Special:Diff/1236988703, Special:Diff/1236988472: allowing themselves to discredit or discard RS or parts of it when it doesn't meet their expectations nor agenda, as mentioned by other editors. YBSOne (talk) 13:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

It is a legitimate technical question whether "white" as a category adequately describes the particular group the Nazis regarded as being superior, especially since, as I note, they regarded many racial groups conventionally regarded as "white" (namely Slavs) as being untermensch. I certainly was not suggesting the Nazis weren't racist, which is what your misleading phrasing suggests. It's also not clear what the point you're trying to make here is. This is disappointedly sloppy engagement by an administrator. JDiala (talk) 13:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@JDiala Nazism included in the definition of Nazism white supremacism. They didn't think that Slavs etc were white but were Untermensch )eg Jews, not just slaves) as you say, sub-human. For them, only Aryans were white. I'm not suggesting you don't think the Nazis were racist. I'm not surprised you don't show good faith to someone who topic banned you. Doug Weller talk 15:59, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

That is a content disagreement. I'm not sure what the point of you bringing up this separate content disagreement is. Is it to imply I'm a WP:NOTHERE as suggested by Ybsone? It's not a usual expectation for editors to look at other WP articles (in this case Nazism) for definitions of things when editing a given article (in this case White ethnostate), especially since WP articles aren't themselves considered reliable sources. I've presented what I think is a sensible rationale for my position, and I note that for the relevant content dispute (the inclusion of Nazi Germany in the White ethnostate article) there are other editors agreeing with me (indeed, it was someone else who brought the matter to NORN in the first place.) You can object to my position, you can present sources disagreeing with it, but that's a far-cry from a NOTHERE case.

While I don't mean to assume bad faith from you, and I appreciate your reply here, I hope you can see my perspective. I present what I think is a legitimate concern that I think I am being stalked by someone with evidence to boot. You join the discussion as an administrator, don't engage at all with my concerns, and assert what amounts to "heh, he said Nazis aren't white supremacists, here's a link" which is an awfully simplistic description of my position and that entire discussion in general. Considering also the power balance here (you are a highly experienced editor and an administrator), this interaction made me feel deeply unsettled. I'm not sure that was intended but it was the effect. JDiala (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Also: Special:Diff/1239684673 Talk:2024_Kharkiv_offensive#Propaganda_Posters. When sources say just that, too bad for the sources. YBSOne (talk) 16:21, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Notice to anyone reading the linked thread how myself and Cinderella157, the user agreeing with me in the discussion, have clearly articulated policy-based arguments whereas YBSOne provides nothing but a link-dump and a (usually grammatically incoherent) rant. JDiala (talk) 02:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the OP is a victim here, given that they have showed a rather strong WP:TENDENTIOUS pattern, particularly when it comes to RUSUKR. This is usually under arguments of improving "neutrality" followed by double standards on how sources should be used to attain this "neutrality".

WP:FOLLOWING says: "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles"

It seems more likely to me that JDiala would find themselves "followed" because YBSOne wants to prevent disruption, rather than this editor in good standing with well over ten years of experience suddenly deciding to single out an editor to harass them.

All in all, I think if anything should be done here it's a WP:BOOMERANG, if that is in the form of another topic ban for this user or something else I don't know. TylerBurden (talk) 18:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

There was never a double standard on how any source should be used. You incorrectly alleged a double standard here which I responded to and refuted. Your appraisal of WP:FOLLOWING is likewise incorrect. Note the word "unambiguously." These cases aren't unambiguous because there's talk page discussions with reasoned disagreements in each cases (in KM's case, we have a lengthy discussion with multiple editors agreeing me). This is a typical content dispute not a reversion of NOTHERE content.

Editors can judge my contributions in RUSUKR for themselves. The two major editing positions I have been pushing for in the topic area over the past two months—the more liberal inclusion of Ukrainian war crimes in the War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine and increased emphasis on NATO expansion in the Russian invasion of Ukraine—both are being endorsed by the editing community in their respective RfCs (1, 2). I convince other editors with the strength of my arguments; others use more insidious mean like stalking, lawyering or making "boomerang" demands when called out on their inappropriate conduct. JDiala (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Glad You mentioned this particular instance where at first You pushed for inclusion of the content when there were allegations, or word for word "concerns", nothing else:

You have added those allegations 4 times "no consensus for this revert. AI report explicitly frames Ukrainian conduct as an IHL violation", "No consensus for this removal. You need to start an RfC if you're trying to remove all Ukrainian allegations", "(1) This is a BRD violation, (2) the link to the Amnesty report was removed, (3) allegations UAF violated IHL were removed, (4) I object to moving it to a different section." "There's an ongoing discussion about this." basing it only on twisting the Amnesty International report that only says it raised "concerns". But when this did not pan out, You imidiatelly started pushing for speedy removal of the same content: "Report says Russia didn't commit war crimes here, so why is this in this section?", because it was no onger under Ukrainian allegations so better get rid of it so not to cast shadow on Russian allegations. "Reducing length of this to two sentences per past RfC decision. This is ultimately pending the outcome of the current RfC." and "The past RfC decided it is 1-2 sentences. Please do not engage in disruptive editing. This is a compromise position I've agreed on which is literally verbatim what the past RfC says.". Talk:War_crimes_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_26#Ukraine_accusations; Talk:War_crimes_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_26#Lead_is_clearly_POV; and Talk:War_crimes_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_27#Reversion_of_attack_on_care_home_edit. My original WP:NOTHERE allegations are still standing. YBSOne (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, as for "increased emphasis on NATO expansion" there is already a section for it: Disinformation_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Allegations_of_NATO_provocation_and_aggression YBSOne (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

You evidently have strong opinions on the content here. That is fine, but it is important to accept situations where consensus does not reach your favored outcome. As I’ve mentioned, it is apparent from both RfCs that the position I espouse is that endorsed by a solid plurality of editors at this time. This is far from NOTHERE. It’s actually highly productive editing in a contentious area. JDiala (talk) 20:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

"increased emphasis on NATO expansion" is not the same as "Mention Russian demand on NATO expansion" which was in fact just a pretext, but You cannot see that because of Your pro-Russian POV. Incluson of those demands is not the same as real expansion and real threat of NATO, as was already presented to You with a RS in that discussion Special:Diff/1240079541. YBSOne (talk) 20:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting my views here. As far as article content goes, my position has always been to include a variety of perspectives on NATO, not necessarily state the anti-NATO claims as being factual in wikivoice. JDiala (talk) 01:47, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not convinced he's misrepresenting your views. My one encounter with you was about three weeks ago where you argued public polling on Vladimir Putin should be included in the lead with reasons such as him having higher approval rating than American leaders. Given the article itself discredits public polling as useful in the body it's unclear why you wanted to use it in the lead.

Looking through the other links provided here in the topic area and it's evident you're only making changes that benefit Russia. Some edits you make have merit such as mentioning Russian expansion in NATO (I strongly disagree with that, and many policy experts refute it but nonetheless the issue exists at all). In other cases though, you seem willing to ignore Wikipedia policy arguments to advance a pro-Russia view like the example above. If your edits all had good sourcing to back them up I'd have no problem but this just isn't the case, you need to be more rigorous with sourcing and policy arguments especially in a topic area as controversial as Ukraine-Russia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vladimir_Putin#Public_image_in_Lead HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 05:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

You are writing that "I'm not convinced he's misrepresenting your views" but you reference a separate content dispute which has nothing to do with the topic at hand (NATO). In general, if you're going to opine on someone else's views, it's best to provide germane evidence, for instance in the form of diffs, not bring up something entirely unrelated. You write that "the article itself discredits public polling as useful." This is misleading. The body of the article makes no such claim in wikivoice. Rather, it briefly attributes a claim made by the director of the Levada Center where he indicates that polling in Russia is not comparable to polling in the West due to a lack of political alternatives. It is also an incorrect summary of his quote. For instance, the summary uses the word "irrelevant" where nothing in what he actually said in the quote (or in the cited article overall) would indicate the usage of such a strong word. This is all followed by extensive polling evidence indicating that Putin enjoys considerable support in Russia, often with concrete, non-propaganda reasons given like an improvement in living standards and an improvement in Russia's standing internationally, which cannot just be handwaved away as disinformation or brainwashing. OK, we can talk about this and how these disparate facts should be weighted. This is a content dispute more suitable for the talk page. I am open to a compromise position where his widespread support was discussed in the lead but framed in the context of a personality cult. But the position I'm espousing isn't per se wholly unreasonable or a blatant misrepresentation of the source material presented in the body, which is what a NOTHERE allegation would entail.

You are also writing that I have a "pro-Russia" bias. This is incorrect. I have a pro-neutrality bias. The topic area is currently, in my estimation, leaning heavily to the pro-Ukrainian side. I am working to mitigate this bias in accordance with policies. Note that I can cite multiple cases (1, 2) where I made edits which could be regarded as anti-Russia as well. My edits thus aren't uniform in their POV. JDiala (talk) 08:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

The topic area is currently, in my estimation, leaning heavily to the pro-Ukrainian side It is not Your job to estimate that. This is the point all those editors are trying to make. Your edits are not NPOV, Your edits are pro-Russia-POV to balance the mythical pro-Ukrainian-POV, that does not exist in reality. YBSOne (talk) 09:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Actually, editors are allowed to make judgement calls on the neutrality of a given article or set of articles. As a side note, the words "you" and "your" are not capitalized in the middle of a sentence in the English language. JDiala (talk) 10:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

This subthread is also emblematic of the bludgeoning Ybsone regularly engages in. Notice he has two separate replies beneath a comment that was not addressed to him (I am talking to HetmanTheResearcher here). JDiala (talk) 10:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

"British lawmaker", "Ukrainian official", etc. are awful sources. and random allegation made by a belligerent in the conflict (btw US Embassy nor US are a belligerent in the conflict), and yet You have no issues quoting Russian lawmaker and Russian official and belligerent Putin, right? Putin saw the role of NATO in Ukraine as a direct military threat. This has nothing to do with neutrality as You are not here for neutrality but to correct the mythical anti-Russian bias. YBSOne (talk) 09:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Belligerents in a war are generally considered dubious sources for statements of fact. That was the point I was trying to get across. I apply the same standard to Putin. Any claims made by Russia or Putin I would want attributed to them, not in wikivoice. I also don't think claims made by foreign politicians or lawmakers who are not investigating matters on the ground and who lack any particular wartime or IHL expertise should be weighted highly, irrespective of their country's stance in the war. There was also a clear consensus from multiple editors on the corresponding thread that random US embassy tweets are poor sources for war crime matters. I'm sorry that you are upset that your views on content aren't always what consensus reaches but that's something you should learn to accept; you don't always get your way here. JDiala (talk) 10:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Some more ungrammatical rant on Your alleged NPOV. Removing a critical and sourced information on the death of the critic of Putin's regime Anna Politkovskaya, while claiming sources do not state this fact: the mention of Putin's birthday in the lead is speculative, undue and also not discussed in the sources provided. and The link with Putin's birthday is undue and unencyclopedic; it's just meant to elicit speculation., while that is what cited source tells, even emphasizes this; that was also debated in numerous other sources; that can be used too if needed and the source provided: "If there is a connection between the Politkovskaya and the President of Russia, it is the day of her death - his birthday.". Other sources that You didn't bother to check "She was assassinated two years later, on October 7th, 2006, the day of Putin's birthday." "On Putin's birthday in 2006, Politkovskaya was murdered" because Your goal is to distance Dictator from this clearly political murder. YBSOne (talk) 11:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

This response does not inspire confidence. Putin is a central figure in the Ukraine War and giving hi a favorable view does by proxy gives a pro-Russian stance to the conflict (as opposed to, say, making edits about Russian cities and their histories. Still related to Russia, but not to the conflict). Although, I won't press further what's a talk page dispute as you said.

Nonetheless it's still evident your bias is pro-Russian. The first edit you show seems very tedious more than showing bias since I've seen scholarly sources which go both ways in calling these territories disputed (For disputed, look to 1. Arel D, Driscoll J. A Frozen Conflict Thaws. In: Ukraine’s Unnamed War: Before the Russian Invasion of 2022. Cambridge University Press; 2023:171-196. "The process stalled from the beginning for lack of an agreement on how to conduct local elections in the disputed Donbas territories."). The second could be seen as neutral, but you also mention that "belligerents in a war are generally considered dubious sources for statements of fact" just above me so this doesn't diminish my case of bias. In any case, one response is not enough to show neutrality when most if not all of the other edits you make in the topic area are pro-Russia. I'd have more issue with Ybsone if your edits were using scholarly sources instead of ephemeral news articles (for lesser-known topics I can understand, but in the Ukraine-Russia space there's a wide selection of articles published after 2022) but you're not, so I view Ybsone's efforts here as preventing additions with dubious quality rather than any grudge against you. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 13:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

then to be consistent it makes sense to accept them for anti-NATO material YBSOne (talk) 07:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

"in wikivoice" This diff is completely consistent with what I wrote above. JDiala (talk) 08:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

JD Vance Couch Hoax Disruptive Behavior

This issue has been taken to WP:BLP/N and has been subject to a long and drawn out debate. After a brief edit war yesterday, the controversial subject matter was removed, but a few editors have persisted on the talk page insisting that sources must be cited to prove the subject matter is controversial. @Cortador in particular has continued to persist in demanding sources be presented or the material restored despite BLP policy clearly stating that disputed content should be removed until there is affirmative consensus.

I warned Cortador in this edit, and he has continued to make the same argument without citing any policy to back up his argument. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I was notified, but I can only summarize what I said on the talk page and at BLPN: I don't think I've ever edited this article or talk page. I saw the discussion at BLPN, looked at the material in question, looked at the talk page, didn't see a clear consensus to include contentious material in a BLP, and so removed it because we need consensus to include rather than exclude. Regardless of whether it should be included here or elsewhere in some way, a hoax claiming a BLP had sex with a couch is very obviously going to be controversial and anyone arguing that it isn't should probably take a step back from editing BLPs. (To be clear, this doesn't mean I think the situation is ANI-worthy and am not arguing for any admin action). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

• Whilst BLP is obviously the overriding policy here, I sort of understand the point they are making. The hoax was widely covered by lots of reliable sources, and the section (before it was removed) make it very clear that it was a hoax and it was false. We have entire articles about hoaxes with BLP implications so I am unconvinced that a sentence or two here is UNDUE. Regardless, I don't think that Cortador or the others arguing for its inclusion are in any way being disruptive, so I don't think any admin action is required here. Black Kite (talk) 14:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for looking into this. At this point I'm not fishing for sanctions, however, perhaps an admin coming along and reiterating the policy on BLPs and that an RFC should be opened rather than continuing what appears to be an unending discussion. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  Also, for whatever it's worth, there is no mention of the Pizza Gate hoax on James Alefantis page. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:18, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  WP:OTHERSTUFF

  Kingsmasher678 (talk) 16:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  Are you replying to me or @Black Kite? Because sword cuts both ways. Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  This is not the place to play games. You made some very signficant allegations about disruptive behavior which you have failed to substantiate, that is a big problem. Please substantiate your allegations. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Boomerang proposal for Kcmastrpc

Please see the talk page at Talk:JD Vance, but Kcmastrpc has repeatedly used the threat of AN/I to try to disrupt and discourage discussion at the talk page after finally getting their way and having the paragraph under discussion removed. This is not collegial interaction, and threatening users who are in no way being disruptive is, itself, disruptive. Instead of answering the questions posed (likely because they can't) they've chosen this instead to try and find an administrator to end this for them. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Since this discussion has been spiraling out of control for over a month now, wouldn't a formal RfC be wise to establish a consensus for inclusion/exclusion? No opinion on a boomerang proposal. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

^ Would advise discussing options before launching this, because this is a case where the wording and placement will matter quite a lot. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, maybe we could use the removed content as a starting point for wording, since those who supported inclusion in the first place seemed to be fine with, and then discuss proposals for placement. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Support boomerang, the pattern of bludgeoning and attacking... Then threatening ANI... Needs to stop. Kcmastrpc appears to be NOTHERE, they do almost nothing editing wise that could not be described as participating in the political pissing contest de jure in at best a not helpful manner... Top ten articles edited: JD Vance, Twitter Files, Chloe Cole, Lauren Boebert, Tucker Carlson, Riley Gaines, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Attempted assassination of Donald Trump, Andy Ogles and 2024 Solingen stabbing... Top ten article talk pages edited: Talk:Chloe Cole, Talk:JD Vance, Talk:Attempted assassination of Donald Trump, Talk:2023 Nashville school shooting, Talk:Marjorie Taylor Greene, Talk:Hunter Biden, Talk:Thomas Matthew Crooks, Talk:Andy Ogles, Talk:Tucker Carlson, and Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez [90]. Wikipedia is not a political forum, there is no reason to keep this Yahoo Comments style disruptive editor around when they don't even do any good work to balance out the negative personality traits and constant disruption. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: de jure du jour 100.36.106.199 (talk) 22:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Haha, yes. If you had seen my high school report cards it would come as no surprise to you that I have badly bungled the French language. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

lol :) 100.36.106.199 (talk) 23:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Locke Cole Suggesting WP:BOOMERANG for behavior you yourself have exhibited is a WP:BOLD move. Per @Horse Eye's Back, I brought diffs, and I'd suggest you bring diffs and not just a list of articles that I engage with. Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Diffs of bludgeoning are tedious due to the sheer volume of comments... For example at Talk:JD Vance you appear to have bludgeoned at least three different discussions amounting to some 80 edits over only 17 days. Now to be fair I myself have 58 edits on the same talk page so my house has windows, but those 58 edits are over a period of more than two years not less than three weeks. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Kcmastrpc For anyone curious, please look at the diff Kcmastrpc provided and the context. Traumnovelle was casting WP:ASPERSIONS (claiming, that editors in the discussion were acting out of a political ideology/motive and not on the basis of sources or WP:PAG) without any evidence whatsoever. I rightly told Traumnovelle to provide evidence and open a discussion at WP:AN/I instead of repeatedly casting aspersions. This is significantly different than what Kcmastrpc did: I'm about to take this to AN/I if you continue to persist and I'm literally drafting the AN/I report right now, which were attempts to silence the discussion they didn't like. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Not voting, but I will point out that a look at @Kcmastrpc's talk page will show that there has been other problems with this users talk page behavior in the past.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 17:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Are you referring to when I had to literally invoke WP:USERTALKSTOP after @Horse Eye's Back wouldn't stop engaging me when I asked them politely to continue the discussion on the articles talk page? I would argue that most of my interactions are cordial, with disagreements coming to an amenable conclusion. I'd ask editors bring examples or diffs. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Didn't say other wise, and not declaring support for this because of that. I am talking about the other sections of your talk page, which present a picture of this being a issue which has been raised in the past, independent of this article.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

That seems to be presenting history in a way which is favorable to you but not entirely factual... You chose to invoke USERTALKSTOP as a trump card after doing poorly in a discussion about your use of misleading edit summaries (you know that a discussion about user conduct can't be conducted on the article talk page, so insisting on directing a discussion about user conduct to a talk page is a kosher but sneaky way of getting out of the discussion), not because I was being disruptive on your talk page (or anywhere else). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:21, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

This also isn't the first time @Kcmastrpc has been accused of Wikipedia:Casting aspersions or of Wikipedia:Edit warring. See here.

Also see here: Talk:JD Vance#Introduction of PRIMARY sources by Skyerise - Acknowledgement of possible 3RR violation & accusing others of Wikipedia:Gaming the system while offering no evidence. Wozal (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Skyerise is currently blocked for 1 month after edit warring, and blocks seems to be a recurring issue for that editor. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of who was or was not banned, it's not an excuse for the behavior that I've expressed concerns about in my original comment, especially as it involves other users who are not banned. Wozal (talk) 17:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

In the same token, I'm not sure how an instance of a single 3RR block, an accusation of aspersions (both made years ago), and a recent interaction with a user who has a record of incivility and edit warring that was recently blocked has anything to do with this particular AN/I boomerang request, especially in light of the reporting editors behavior. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

And what would be your issue with the reporting editor's behavior in the linked diff? That once again seems to be vaguely casting aspersions of misconduct without ever actually drilling down and explaining yourself. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:23, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

The article discussion is at Talk:JD Vance#Remove the nonsense about the couch and, as noted above, the two BLPN reports are here and here. The issues discussed above (who has been most bad) are trivia because there has been pushing and shoving on both sides. What needs to be sorted out is what should happen regarding text in the article (and at Talk:Tim Walz#Inclusion of Horse S*men Controversy?). My feeling is that the normal procedure of bludgeoning and low-level edit warring should not be permitted. Instead, contentious material should be omitted until a well-advertised RfC supports inclusion. I was thinking of asking for views at WP:AN regarding that as ANI is not really suitable, but we are here now. Johnuniq (talk) 08:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support broad boomerang - In addition to the above instances of bludgeoning and tendentious editing on AmPol articles pointed out by others, they violated BLP at Talk:Imane Khelif with this edit by "just asking questions" re: Khelif's gender. At this point, with their propensity for engaging in American Politics and tangentially-related culture war issues, I would go as far to support an indef as WP:NOTHERE. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  13:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

References

POV pushing by Zlogicalape

This user @Zlogicalape: has been pushing his POV for days. Adding that Joseph Barbera has Lebanese descent. Which is a minority view. And which creates a false balance. And also has been casting aspersions on me by claiming that I use multiple accounts.

The issue is explained in the Talk Page which Ive started but I'll try to summerize it: Joseph Barbera wrote an autobiography, in this autobiograohy he says that his parents were Italian/Siclians, and says that his grandmother was from siciliy too. He also talks about his Italian heritage and Sicilian ancestors and doesn't mention anything whatsoever about Lebanon or the Arab culture. The majority of reliable sources say that he was a son of Italian/Sicilian immigrants. However, the daily telegraph and the Atlantic (the atlantic only mentions it in passing) say that his parents were of Lebanese descent, contradicting what barbera state in his autobiography. And also contradicting what one of the closest friends of Barbera stated.

I have provided many reliable secondary sources on Talk Page, such as The Independent and the Gaurdian, which state he was a son of Italian/scilian immigrants.

To reach a middle ground, I had previously added an explanatory note stating that the daily telegraph states that his parents were of Lebanese descent contradicting what barbera states in his own autobiography. But later user Zlogicalape reverted it saying that there's no contradiction and implying that his father was Lebanese who was granted the Italian citizenship. A claim that has no reliable source to back it up. He added that his father was only of Lebanese descent. And removed what the many other sources, including Barbera's autobiogrpahy, say.

I opned a talk page to start a discussion with him, but his only real argument seem to be that Barbera's ancestors were Lebanese by origin, and that Joseph Barbera had hidden sentiments about his Lebanese heritage. The issue with this is that this is not what the daily telegraph states, it doesn't state that his parents were Italians of Lebanese descent, or that Barbera had distant Lebanese ancestors. it only say they were of Lehanese descent. This in my opinion shows that the daily telegraph simply made a mistake here. Besides, Per WP:NOTGENEALOGY: Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic.

I seeked a third opinion

I asked an administrator to help us in the discussion

i took the issue to the dispute resolution noticeboard

But nothing worked, after 3 days of discussion, the user removed my reliable sources and the accompanying note, again https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Barbera&diff=prev&oldid=1242917953 The user seems to be playing games by misusing wiki policies, they said that I'm engaging in original research and other things which clearly I didn't

Also during the discussion, the user was engaging in original research and started personalising the topic and said weird things like moooooo!! He also casted aspersions on me which is a personal attack by saying that I'm using multiple accounts without providing evidence.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1242818262

They also made several unsupported implications that im misusing multiple accounts which can be seen on Talk page I think my position is the most policy based and represents all views fairly, since the majority of reliable sources say he was a son of Italian and not Lebansse immigrants. And since that is what Barbera's states in his autobiography. Adding that Barbera's parents were Italians with an explanatory note stating what the daily telegraph states should be enough.

Note there was previously a consensus on talk page that the Lebanese descent should be removed but it was later archived. See Joseph Barbera ethnicity. I know consensus can change but I thought the discussion they had would be beneficial to read Whatsupkarren (talk) 14:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

This user has taken matters into his own hands while displaying "innocent intentions" all while sticking to his main rhetoric and avoiding the arguments presented to him. In addition to avoiding what he has been told on the dispute page:

"Continue discussion at the article talk page. If discussion at the article talk page is inconclusive, a Request for Comments may be used to obtain community consensus."

Not to mention being in violation of WP:NOR, WP:NPOV as well as WP:THISORTHAT

Note: Everything is available on the talk page.

P.S: His statement towards the end "And BTW, I just found out that the Lebanese MTV's actual name is Murr television" is also meant to throw ppl off as showing good faith. Not that it matters to me or the conversation but i just wanted to state that he ain't foolin no one. Zlogicalape (talk) 18:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, weird stuff.

I was the one who requested a comment, and the third opinion agreed with me.

I'd also like from this user to explain how I have violated WP:NOR.

I'm the one who opened the talk page discussion and discussed with you for 3 days, I requested a third opinion, I requested an admin opinion, I took the issue to the dispute resolution noticeboard in which you refused to engage productively and casted aspersions on me which is considered a personal attack

I also said MTV (Lebanon) is unrelated to MTV because an admin whom I requested their comment, thought they were related.

What's your issue with this exact action? How am I throwing people off? It's just weird Whatsupkarren (talk) 18:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

MGBD and IP socks on SM Kamrul Hassan

• SM Kamrul Hassan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• MGBD (talk · contribs)

Over the past couple weeks I've been dealing with a slow-motion edit-war over on SM Kamrul Hassan with MGBD and a handful of IPv4 addresses that may as well be them; more specifically I've been removing content that is unsourced/badly sourced while MGBD has been reinstating it using the argument "But every other article on Pakistani military officers is sourced this way!". I've asked for protection once but it was declined on the grounds that MGBD isn't too far off from attaining the extended-confirmed userright. Since I'm tired of having to strip out BLP-violating material on a daily basis, I'm coming here to figure out what needs to be done here to stop MGBD from mindlessly reinstating content removed per BLP. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

• Yeah, masses of unsourced stuff in a BLP is not great. I have reverted it back to the sourced version, and fully protected it for two weeks. If MGBD et al want to add material to it, they can provide a request on the talk page. Black Kite (talk) 17:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey jeske why are you so after this page. This information is accurate and found from military pages. I have previously given you links. and cited it but you just keep deleting them. I am the creator of this page and been running it for 4 years now but you are kind of attacking this individual. I can understand it. But please stop this is a very important person in the country. next time when the information is provided it will be cited again but donot delete this again and please leave this page alone. MGBD (talk) 17:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I am the creator of this page and been running it for 4 years now *ahem*. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 17:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry but you can't issue instructions to other editors to leave a page. Also you need to read Wikipedia:Ownership of content. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi thats understandable.. but when the information provided was it was sourced at some point. even the template..was being repeatedly deleted... MGBD (talk) 18:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

No, MGBD, there isn't any version prior to my gutting the article where everything was properly sourced in compliance with WP:BLP; I've looked. Every revision from the creation of the article to when I took an active interest in it has had swathes of unsourced text. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

there was a citation done from, the official national defense college (NDC) bangladesh page...after your request of citing them properly. but you said this was extracted from a prior version of the wiki page which is not true. this information is accurate in offical NDC page. Also today I also cited the lietutenant general tittle (3star) on the office template, along with comand of 66th Infantry division and BMA commandant, which is written explicitly in the news references used in this page. So please do not say. So this information is accurate and what can be done now to restore this information and keep in on this page then, tell me.. Please. MGBD (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

This version (which is how you left the article) is almost completely unsourced. Whether the information is accurate or not is irrelevant. Unless it can be sourced, it must stay out of the article. Black Kite (talk) 18:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Look at this version I did few days ago. this was deleted by @Jéské Couriano, based on that it was pulled from wikipedia. But is put on NDC Page and still is (please click on the link and sm kamruls picture to load his biography). So he deleted that and i tried to re-instate it. However since the general is a big public figure I think other indiviuals tried to fix the info without citing it. MGBD (talk) 18:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Black Kite Please look at this version and kindly re-instate it. That would be very appreciable. Thanks MGBD (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Black Kite also please look at this version most of the information was already cited if you see from the reference of this version especially from BMA commandant and Chief Instructor DSCSC Archived wesites. before @Jéské Couriano started deleting them. MGBD (talk) 19:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

all of the referred websites provide the same information written in different words and was updated with time. MGBD (talk) 19:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Black Kite also I think @Jéské Couriano is after this page only with some kind of intention... isnt it double standards that other similar pages are not being deleted and only this one... please consider this. This page was never attacked like this in last 4 years, but started since last week... since the sm kamrul got promtoed to lietutenant general... MGBD (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

My only intention is making sure the article is in compliance with WP:BLP, which is a policy that has legal implications and thus has to be adhered to more-or-less to the letter. I also explained why I removed content that appeared to be properly sourced; the NDC article is copied from Wikipedia and the two sources in Bengali do not support the claims they were being used to cite. As to why I'm focusing on this article specifically, we had a helpee come in and complain about it while demanding we also lock down the article so only they could edit it. My gutting the article addressed their complaint minus the impossible protection request. There is no nefarious conspiracy here beyond the fact I have zero tolerance for people reverting edits that were clearly labeled as BLP-compliance-related. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 07:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Also Bangladesh Militray academy page and Staff college bangladesh page which was archived... also if you notice all the other bangladeshi generals also have similarity in their pages with the lietutenant general rank and 3 star images on template and other information's are presented from similar military websites and so on.... My question why are you specifically onto this page only? and not any others? they are not sourced.. based on your standards... MGBD (talk) 18:47, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

MGBD, if you'd bothered to actually read the NDC source you'd have noticed it's pretty much taken from Special:Diff/1085141269, right down to copying the citations (very poorly). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

You cannot determine @Jéské Couriano that an official website page of national defence college is providing false information on their website ok. It was upto them to choose where they take their information from but on official website theres always official and accuate information. Please no more war. lets work together if necessary. MGBD (talk) 18:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Official does not mean accurate, and official websites are not immune to WP:CITOGENESIS by copying information from Wikipedia. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Also please look at this version most of the information was already cited if you see from the reference of this version especially from BMA commandant and Chief Instructor DSCSC Archived wesites. before @Jéské Couriano started deleting them. MGBD (talk) 19:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

If you'd read the edit summaries, you'd know why I removed them - they couldn't support any of the claims they were used for. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 07:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

@MGBD, content needs citation to an WP:INDEPENDENT source. (Please read that link; it's important for you to understand this.) The Army and its PR service are not independent; they have a vested interest in making him look good. So the fact they say something doesn't mean we include it. About the only thing we want from an affiliated source is bare dry facts, such as date and place of birth, parents' names and occupations, college/degree/date of graduation, dates of promotion, etc. For everything else, we need independent reliable sources to be discussing. Valereee (talk) 13:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:James Conan Niag and IP cohorts

They are disrupting the infoboxes of articles related to leaders that are of interest to both WP Bangladesh and WP Pakistan. I first noticed the issue in the A. K. Fazlul Huq (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article, where they altered his birthplace to its present-day location rather than the location as it was at the time of his birth, all while remaining logged out. After I requested protection for that article, they logged in under the name James Conan Niag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and continued the disruption. They then moved on to the Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article, where they removed the present-day location from his birthplace. When I confronted them, they reverted my edit with an offensive summary (while logged out), calling me "illiterate" and "paki", a derogatory term used to describe people of Pakistani heritage. I am reporting this disruptive behavior, sockpuppeting, and the personal attack. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment: I've noticed over the past few days there has been a big spike in the number of incidents related to Bangladeshi articles. I could just be sleeping under a rock, but what could be the cause of this? I didn't see much of what is appearing now 20 days ago while the protests were occuring. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

The outright coup? An authoritarian government toppling? New tensions with India and all the fallout? This isn't going to be a matter of a sudden and brief spike. Ravenswing 07:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

A lot of office-holders were replaced after the unrest, though I don't think it explains the issue of East Pakistan politicians here. Borgenland (talk) 08:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Copyright violation by User:Yewtharaptor

In Special:Diff/1242371226, User:Yewtharaptor added a large section of text which, for the most part, was a near exact copy of a piece of text from this abstract booklet, page 10-11. I intended to leave a warning on their talk page, but was reminded that they have previously received warnings, article deletions and blocks (including two indefinite ones) because of copyright violations.

I'm also paging @Diannaa, @Yamla and @Rosguill, seeing as they were involved in the process surrounding the user's previous bans. Although they were unbanned in March 2023, and don't seem to have received any warnings since, I am of the opinion that this is a troubling return to the behavior seen pre-ban. Hence why I was inclined to bring it up here. The Morrison Man (talk) 21:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I have been doing what I promished, Crafting detailed articles respecting the rules os the wiki as I told I would do. I have been editing a lot of articles SINCE 2023 (Specially polishing bad writing) and in all the cases with full respect for the rules. In this Case, there wasn´t a proper translation of the cited anatomical features of Asfaltovenator (Difficult without quote the Same name that they have featured on the Abstract). But, I solved that error by deleting the compromised names and polished the overall article to be ON RULE.

My defense is all the edits I have been doing since 2023 within the rules.

I´m not going to touch any anatomical-related section since I have seen I can´t write them, I will limit to what I know to work well

Or nothing, at this rate I gess...

It was fun to have the Tafraout group done, I had the wish to add our future articles data

Yewtharaptor (talk) 22:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

It seems they've righted their wrong and acknowledged the copyright violation by fixing the section. Conyo14 (talk) 23:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

User:O recomeço and WP:CIR 3

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

It had recently been brought to my attention that last month, Northern Moonlight pointed out a myriad of edits O recomeço made that had grammar and spelling errors on their talk page - [91]. Furthermore, since then, there have been further edits containing such errors ([92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97]).

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

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

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

long, rambly comment coming...

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

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

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

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

which borders on gibberish regardless of language

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit warring User:Joshua Jonathan

Joshua Jonathan (talk · contribs) appears to be engaged in WP:SOAP and WP:TE on a WP:BLP article titled Michael Witzel. I am not very aware of the subject but I was asked by an editor RealPharmer3 (talk · contribs) to come and try to help on the article where they asked me User_talk:Jtbobwaysf#Wanted_to_get_your_opinion_on_WP:BLP. It appears to be a situation of a Joshua editing generally in a religious genre and maybe trying to push a particular WP:POV. I am not an expert in religion but just my somewhat uninvolved quick view on things. In this matter specifically professor Michael Witzel appears to be a Harvard professor with a controversial (at least to some) opinion on Hinduism. His article seems to contain too much POV content that attempts to frame a WP:FRINGE debate between various opinions about Hinduism (I am maybe doing a poor job to summarize, forgive me). I have warned Joshua here about edit warring as well as WP:BLPRESTORE. Maybe just one of these cases where you wade into a dispute you dont understand, but at least from a BLP perspective we should be careful of what defamatory content we put on the article, particularlly in that it appears to promote some controversey that might not even exist in the mainstream WP:RS, thus it has no business on a BLP, and certainly not promoted to the WP:LEAD.

Edits:

• first revert 07:39, 30 August 2024 Appears to violate BLPRESTORE and after the editor had been warned.
• second revert 03:09, 30 August 2024

Users:

• Joshua Jonathan (talk · contribs)
• RealPharmer3 (talk · contribs)

Thank you! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

You selectively removed info with an appeal to WP:CRIT and WP:RS; I explained at Talk:Michael Witzel#Criticism that WP:CRIT does not apply, and that you retained other info from the same source. In response, you issued an edit-warring warning after one revert, which is misplaced, if not rude, and stated at the the talkpage that WP:BLPRESTORE applies, without explaining how. Instead, you're escalating further. You should step back, and simply discuss and explain, instead of throwing around warnings, policies, and vague accusations ("maybe trying to push a particular WP:POV"). Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

And don't forget to mention that you did mass-reverted yourself diff, with a minimal explanation at the talk which did not address my concerns. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Where in the discussion have you ever articulated what the actual BLP issue is supposed to be? I can’t find any place where you (or RealPharmer3) have articulated anything like “this particular part of the article violates this particular part of this particular policy, because [explanation goes here].” 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Joshua Jonathan - I asked @Jtbobwaysf because we worked on a previous article and was able to learn a bit about WP:BLP and the standard necessary to uphold such an article. Can you explain which content was retained from the same source? From the interview and the Pacific News Service, it was removed if it wasn't backed with another source. If i missed one - please remove it - because my opinion aligns with the policy for WP:BLP.

I also dont agree with you suggesting that it is misplaced or rude that @Jtbobwaysf responded the way he/she did because in my interpretation of the policy, it should have been discussed about before bringing back to the page because an Interview and Pacific News Service is not a high quality reliable source and can easily be misconstrued. I touched upon how WP:BLPRESTORE applies here.

Lastly, lets have calm discussion about this and see where we land. Willing to work together. RealPharmer3 (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi RealPharmer3; thank you for your kind response. The Reditt-source has been completely removed indeed; my mistake. Regarding Jtbobwaysf's response: giving an edit-warring warning to a regular editor after one revert without adequately responding to my concerns is misplaced and rude; edit-warring is repeatedly reverting without discussion, and 'don't template the regulars'. It's not exactly the kind of response that invites a collquial discussion - in contrast to your response. For the details, we can duscuss them at the Witzel-talkpage. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:29, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Joshua Jonathan - not a problem. I'd like to say that @Jtbobwaysf is an experienced editor and I'm confident his intention is in good faith, and ultimately I do agree with his judgment here. I don't believe he is acting out of line - you moved too quickly in reverting the edits without trying to discuss anything on the talk page (WP:BLPRESTORE) about its inclusion within the article. Again, I have no problem having a discussion and hearing your POV and thoughts - regardless of the content - as long as it is sourced by high-quality reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and I'm confident that @Jtbobwaysf agrees. RealPharmer3 (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Long term disruptive editing – 68.234.69.0/24

An editor from the range of 68.234.69.0/24 has been repeatedly making poorly sourced or entirely unsourced changes to American football templates and articles, specifically American football positions, which from what I've realized this morning, goes back a couple years. Within the past two days, this IP editor has been edit warring based on sources which explicitly state that they are unofficial. I've made significant efforts with this person, as have others, and I feel I'm too involved at this point to take further action. Given how many warnings and blocks they've had in the past, I think it's time for a long term block for this range.

Some of the edit warring within the last 2 days:

• Template:Philadelphia Eagles roster: 1, 2, 3, 4
• Bryce Huff: 1, 2, 3
• Brandon Graham: 1, 2, 3
• Source the IP is using, which explicitly states THE UNOFFICIAL DEPTH CHART IS COMPILED BY THE EAGLES' MEDIA RELATIONS DEPARTMENT.
• Sources which show Bryce Huff as "DE" (defensive end) and not "OLB" (outside linebacker): The Eagles, ESPN, NFL.com, Pro Football Reference
• Sources which show Brandon Graham as "DE" (defensive end) and not "OLB": The Eagles, ESPN, NFL.com, Pro Football Reference

Some of the evidence that this is a long term issue from this range:

• Poona Ford: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
• T'Vondre Sweat: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
• Devonte Wyatt: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
• Jarran Reed: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
• Jabaal Sheard: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
• Dexter Lawrence: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
• Kayvon Thibodeaux: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
• Xavier Kelly: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Some past warnings and explanations:

• 68.234.71.61 talk page, which has been blanked a number of times. Hasn't edited from this address since July of 2021 (so I wouldn't ask for it to be blocked, but it is part of the /22 if you went that wide), but the warnings and edits are very largely related to American football.
• 68.234.69.24 talk page on April 27, 2024, prior to being blanked. Lots of diffs there.
• 68.234.69.24 talk page on June 20, 2024, prior to being blanked on June 21. Has more diffs.
• 68.234.69.26 talk page on August 23, 2024, prior to being blanked.
• 68.234.69.218 talk page today.
• 68.234.69.24 talk page today, prior to this being posted. Has some relevant very recent diffs.
• 68.234.69.26 talk page today, prior to this being posted. Has some relevant very recent diffs.

Some relevant block logs of the IPs:

• 68.234.0.0/16 – 1 rangeblock
• 69.234.69.24 – 1 block
• 69.234.69.27 – 1 block
• 68.234.69.28 – 2 blocks, with a third that looks like it might have been a mistake
• 68.234.69.218 – 1 block

Which translates to..

• May 1, 2022, 24 hour block from article space on 68.234.69.27 (Edit warring across multiple articles)
• May 11, 2022, 72 hour block on 68.234.69.28 (Persistent addition of unsourced content)
• May 11, 2022, 1 month block on 68.234.0.0/16 (rangeblock) – note that this was adjusting the above block to be longer and to apply to the range instead
• September 24, 2022, 1 week block on 68.234.69.28 (Vandalism)
• January 9, 2024, 31 hour block on 68.234.69.218 (anonblock)
• May 9, 2024, 31 hour block on 68.234.69.24 (Persistent addition of unsourced content)

They appear to have been at 68.234.71.61 from September 2018 to July 2021 (Xtools) and have been at this /24 range since then. Note that many of the warnings, especially the recent ones, are focused on their new focus of sources which explicitly state they are unofficial and explaining that this is not appropriate. Given the extensive history, and their insistence on pressing forward regardless of what's been voiced to them, I do believe the /24 should be given a ban of a decent length to prevent further disruption. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I blocked the range from article space for three months. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much @ScottishFinnishRadish, but would you also consider adding template space to the block? They typically update the relevant roster template (from Category:National Football League roster templates) with these sources then go to the player pages to do so as well. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:50, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

All set. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Much appreciated :) I'm good with this being closed since the matter has been addressed. Now I at least have everything noted down for if this resumes post block. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:54, 30 August 2024 (UTC)