Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents |
---|
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. 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) |
Meta Voyager's tendentious editing
[edit]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. TarnishedPathtalk 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%). [1] Meta Voyager (talk) 13:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Total stats
|
---|
|
Proposal: Topic ban
[edit]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)
- 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)
- 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. TarnishedPathtalk 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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. TarnishedPathtalk 13:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support: There's clearly something wrong when a user with so few edits, and such a poor grasp of basic policies, is wikilawyering on a subject like the removal of properly sourced mentions of lawsuits. The user's primary purpose on Wikipedia seems to be to make as many spurious arguments as possible in favour of the removal of adverse material on a subject where they have a COI. It seems to me that that is fundamentally opposed to the idea of being here to build an encyclopaedia. (Note also, this behaviour extends beyond the lawsuits issue and has also involved the long-running dispute over whether the ICOC is a cult or cult-like organisation.) Axad12 (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support I'm not convinced this editor is capable of editing anywhere, and certainly not in the area of Christianity. Doug Weller talk 14:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support Per others above. Reviewing their short contribs list they're clearly here with a specific purpose and that purpose isn't to build an encyclopedia. DeCausa (talk) 07:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support A topic ban seems appropriate, if not an outright ban. The user seems to want to expunge perceived negative information surrounding the church and any sort of lawsuits; these appear to be well-documented in RS. Not liking them isn't a reason to have them removed, sourcing is sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 16:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Unless somebody has something else besides the above. (I've been hanging out at that article since I was invited by the bot to an RFC in April; I did not research prior to that) , I don't even see what the specific accusation is. It was indicated above that they haven't edited the article. And I've seen only reasonable arguments on the talk page. Regarding actions related to the RFC results, IMO the RFC did not have a finding on dropped/withdrawn lawsuits and so it's not correct to say that Meta Voyager advocating removal of those is a conflict with the results of the RFC. IMHO being a mere member of an affiliated church is a weak COI and so IMHO we should not imply that it is a zealot type situation from just that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. I was leaning towards the same perspective voiced by North8000 above yesterday, based on all of the above discussion and a cursory review of the relevant talk page discussions, but I wanted to dig into the articles and the issues a little more before lodging an !vote. Thanks to N8 for since providing the perspective of someone who had been watching the article from the medium distance, and having now followed up on the previous discussions, I have to say I also do not see on what specific behaviour such a ban could be based. Indeed, to the point that I feel like the fact that it was proposed seems a little problematic. To begin with, I'm extremely dubious of the conclusion that this editor even has a WP:COI in the meaning of our policies. Unless we're going to start banning the world's 1.4 billion Catholics from contributing to articles about their faith and topics touched upon by their religious associations? But this is not the first most ideal time and place to re-litigate that conclusion. The question therefor is whether, having been found by a community discussion to be under that designation, have they comported with all the guidelines thereby entailed? No one here has shared so much as a single diff to demonstrate they haven't. Nor does being an WP:SPA automatically qualify them as such. This user may very well have a bias: I won't waste time second-guessing whomever among the involved editors has decided it is so. But bias towards an editorial view not supported by the majority of established editors for an article--nor even some tenacity in pushing the minority view--are not automatically WP:disruptive. And I'm not seeing the requisite evidence of behaviour/PAG violations crossing the line into disruption that would justify a community ban. The biggest issue that I have seen so far was the need to correct them about the fact that some of the other participants in the discussion are not "conflicted" (in the meaning of the word on this project) just for their past involvement in the article. But unless I have missed some comment, it's too early to assume they will not heed that education. SnowRise let's rap 01:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Snow Rise: Possible typo. From the sentence it looks like you meant "are not automatically disruptive"? North8000 (talk) 14:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Your supposition is correct, North8000; I've corrected my wording above, accordingly. My thanks for the catch and the notification. SnowRise let's rap 22:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- @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)
- To clarify, Meta Voyager noted my objection and went ahead and closed the RfC regardless. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Larry, let me preface this by saying that, having reviewed the RfC and subsequent related discussions in their entirety, I believe the RfC itself reached precisely the right conclusion and balance as to what should and should not be included. I also feel that whether MV's read of the close is accurate or not is largely inconsequential, because their conclusion that there needs to be ongoing coverage of lawsuit in order for it to be included in an article cannot be squared with longstanding community consensus and policy. This is very much like the countless occasions I have seen in various talk page discussions suggesting that we cannot cover the purported criminal activity of notable persons, or the notable crimes of non-notable persons, until such time as there is a conviction--which is very much not what WP:CRIME and WP:BLPCRIME say. As in those cases, MV adopts (alebeit with regard to civil matters) an outlook that positions this project as if it were an extension of a court of law, with similar priorities. This is a false equivalence, and I am glad you and others pushed back against it in the article in question. All of which is to say that MV is wrong about what policy directs us to do in these circumstances--and indeed, is wrong (I believe) about what policy should be on such matters. We do not need to map our coverage of controversial legal proceedings such that we obscure coverage in reliable sources of such matters until a court finds a party criminally or civilly liable for a purported act. Our test on this project for coverage of lawsuits is the same as for any other matter: WP:WEIGHT in WP:RS. Any other system that makes us beholden to mention only successful legal actions is untenable for far too many reasons to list here. As such, at some point Meta Voyager will have to accept this conclusion--and insistence in ignoring these conclusions will become WP:Disruption. However, we are not nearly there yet. We are talking about a very new editor who is going through growing pains, and, as noted above, being an WP:SPA does not automatically make an editor problematic. While I have seen sub-optimal elements in their approach in those discussions, I also see someone putting in a good faith effort to understand and comport with our rules. I personally think it is very dubious to identify them as having a COI just because of their religious affiliations, but they have overwhelmingly adhered to our COI guidelines regardless. I routinely see much worse conduct from new editors. If they continue to push lines suggesting they will always prioritize the interests of the church over the project's needs, and cannot reconcile themselves to our rules, we can revisit the issue. For now, I am not convinced they are WP:NOTHERE. SnowRise let's rap 07:07, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- To put my previous abstract statement more briefly, IMO what Meta Voyager was proposing on cases did not conflict the RFC result, and IMO statements that it did conflict are incorrect. North8000 (talk) 12:42, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- That's my read as well. There may come a time when Meta Voyager can be deemed to be civil POV pushing, but right now their activities fall within legitimate discussion of perspectives that seem to be merely contrary to those held by certain other parties on the talk page. Some of the early discussion in this thread lead me to the conclusion that MV had already been deemed to have a COI, but having just checked the COIN discussion in question, it turns out there was no such consensus at all. So there is no editing restriction for this editor, making it all the more impressive how, despite being a relative newcomer they have, out of respect for apperances and expressed concerns alone, decided to abide by COI restrictions completely voluntarily. That does not present the image to me of a disruptive editor or unreasonable personality. On the contrary, it makes me inclined to believe their incidental comment on their talk page suggesting they are a legal professional, because they appear to have a robust respect for our rules and the precautionary principle generally. SnowRise let's rap 05:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- On an incidental but important sidenote, it's something of a relief to learn that the COIN discussion did not result in a consensus COI in this case; if COIN really had gotten in the business of declaring COIs over mere disclosures of faith and general association with a religious movement, then that is something that probably would need to go to the Village Pump for broad community discussion, because I cannot imagine the community deeming that an acceptable standard consistent with the policy. And just so we're clear, I'd live to remind everyone of what the policy (specifically WP:COINOTBIAS) actually says:
"Beliefs and desires may lead to biased editing, but they do not constitute a COI. COI emerges from an editor's roles and relationships, and the tendency to bias that we assume exists when those roles and relationships conflict."
(emphasis in the original).
- To the best of my knowledge, the community has never validated the perspective that mere adherence to a religious creed or worship under a particular religious branch constituted a role or relationship establishing a COI, and I can't imagine it ever will. The OP and others here are vocally complaining that Meta Voyager crossed a line by implying that they had a COI merely because of their longterm engagement with the article. Which clearly is a fallacious argument. But so were their COI arguments against MV, and they clearly started this COI namecalling. Honestly, the more I look into this, the more concerned I am about the approach to talk page discussion and collaboration of the complainants here, rather than MV's. Neither side's approach is pitch perfect here, I'll say that much. But I really think the best way forward here is to close this discussion with an exhortation to both sides to engage with more patience. And let me add that I get it: Cordless Larry and TarnishedPath don't want the article whitewashed. I both understand that perspective and appreciate their work to that end. But if you're going to make a stand on holding those kinds of lines on this project, you have to accept that sometimes it involves protracted periods of patience while those points are argued out. I'm seeing too little of that patience here, and too much leaning into trying to remove their rhetorical opposition from the equation altogether, with COIN and ANI filings that I would describe as made on incredibly thin justification. SnowRise let's rap 06:04, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- "
Beliefs and desires may lead to biased editing, but they do not constitute a COI. COI emerges from an editor's roles and relationships, and the tendency to bias that we assume exists when those roles and relationships conflict.
" - A belief in particular supernatural deities is a separate matter to membership of a particular church. The section you quote clearly states that COIs emerge as consequence of relationships. Membership of a particular church, as against being a Christian, is a relationship. Someone who has a membership with a particular church has a relationship with it and thus a COI exists. TarnishedPathtalk 09:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, and I'd say that the membership distinction is all the more important when the organisation concerned is widely regarded by reliable sources as a cult, as others here have noted. Similarly, Hydrangeans's comparison with an American editor editing US history articles doesn't really work here. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:12, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- So Catholics are forbidden from editing articles concerning their diocese, Anglicans forbidden from editing articles regarding their ecclesiastic provinces, Shia Muslims forbidden from editing articles on the imamate they worship under, and so on? Come on you two, surely you see why this can never be a viable rule that's ever going to be endorsed by this community? Which is why no one supported your attempt to get a COI designation at COIN and why you are getting so much pushback here on the implication that you should have. If nothing else, such a radical broadening of the COI policy to allow it to apply to anyone who associates with a given denomination would need to be vetted in a community discussion of the largest possible involvement. And I think I can tell you with some confidence that the community would vociferously reject such a proposal, given it's massive and hugely diverse (and largely negative) implications for the project. I would seriously recommend you both WP:DROPTHESTICK on this one; it's not going to happen and trying to push this line of complaint is not helping your overall arguments. It's not a good look that you come here complaining that MV suggested one of you was conflicted out on flimsy grounds, when you've been doing the same thing to them for a while, and are still pressing that argument despite the failed COIN proposal. SnowRise let's rap 13:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know what you mean by "the failed COIN proposal". At Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 207#International Churches of Christ, I wasn't calling for editing restrictions on Meta Voyager. I was rather calling uninvolved editors' attention to problematic editing by a number of editors with connections to the article subject. And I'm not calling for editing restrictions based on a COI alone now - I'd be happy for a COI editor to make good-faith suggestions on the talk page, but what's happening here is tendentious (repeated questioning of the same reliable sources and the closure of an RfC as an involved editor, despite being told not to do so). Cordless Larry (talk) 14:04, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Well COIN is by definition where you discuss COI issues, so I'd say that's a distinction without a meaning; clearly you felt that MV and others had a COI and hoped to find support there for that perspective. And even in your post here, you are continuing to imply that MV has a COI, so your messaging is very mixed.. That said, I don't see the point in splitting these hairs any finer. If you didn't want a COI designation, that's just as well, as one was never going to be forthcoming, imo. I'll just backstop this line of discussion by reiterating that pushing for an automatic COI designation for members of a given church can only shoot a proponent of such an argument in the foot. You are prevailing on the underlying content issues (as well you should be, as far as I can tell) and this discussion has accomplished nothing but to undermine your successes in that regard and waste a lot of community time. Clearly there is no consensus for the TBAN proposal, and not only do most respondents here not think action is warranted against MV at this time, but a number of us even feel they have shown considerable patience and restraint in the face of unwarranted ABF and attempts to restrict their involvement in the article. I really do recommend you take your win on the content matters and drop the rest of this. I do agree that MV also has their own stick to drop on said content issues, and I hope they have taken that message from this discussion. If they fail to, I promise you that I for one will be adopting a very different perspective on the next proposal for sanctions. But I can't be any more blunt than to say this: they aren't the only one who has something to WP:HEAR from this discussion. SnowRise let's rap 14:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Snow Rise, Thank you for your helpful guidance throughout this process, I think we have all learned a lot. For my clarity, Is this what you are describing as a failure to HEAR what is being said on this board? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- @JamieBrown2011 if you have an accusation to make file a report. TarnishedPathtalk 07:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, it is. In my opinion, it was inappropriate for those tags to have been placed on the talk page to begin with, without an affirmative and unambigous community finding of COI. Cordless Larry and TarnishedPath took their case to COIN and received no consensus in support of their perspective there (unsurprisingly, since this community has never endorsed the position that mere religious affiliation imputes a COI, and almost certainly never will, as such a standard is untenable for countless reasons). The matter then came here, where no one has directly endorsed their unique read on COI, but to the contrary numerous of the uninvolved respondents have expressly rejected their interpretation. So CL and TP have now heard back from the community in the two primary fora that handle such determinations, and it is clear that no consensus currently supports their outlook (and most here reject it). So it's well past time for them both to WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on. At this point, I encourage North8000 to follow through on their inclination to remove the tags, since they are the editor currently involved on that page who is closest to having a moderate position between the two camps, and thus least likely to set either side's teeth to gnashing. I would not recommend JamieBrown or Meta Voyager remove the tags themselves, for pro forma reasons. If TP or CL thereafter re-insert the tags, I for one would then be willing to consider a boomerang sanction against such party here in this thread. This has to stop. CL and TP are well within their prerogative to go to the village pump and make a WP:PROPOSAL to expand the remit of COI to include religious affiliations, but as of now, their arguments that WP:COI already implicitly supports such a conclusion did not receive consensus support at COIN and have largely been expressly rejected here at ANI. If either cannot accept the community verdict in this case, and try to enforce a declaration of COI despite it, I believe they will have at that point crossed unambiguously into WP:disruptive territory, and a boomerang may become necessary. SnowRise let's rap 09:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- No proposal is needed, WP:COINOTBIAS already states "
COI emerges from an editor's roles and relationships, and the tendency to bias that we assume exists when those roles and relationships conflict
". Your assertion that arguments per COI have been rejected here is frankly incorrect. I only read yourself and Hydrangeans have stated there is no COI (by my reading, please correct me if I'm missing anyone). Others have stated that they don't see what Meta Voyager has done wrong or that they only have a weak COI. For the record I took no case to COIN. I commented on the discussion at COIN while I was there reading something else and that's how I found my way to the article. TarnishedPathtalk 11:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)- If you don't see the plain repudiation of your position writ large across this discussion (and inherent in the two previous failed COIN proposals), then I fear there really is a problem here. Bluntly, opening a third COIN filing while this discussion is already open and discussing the COI issue, with a pretty clear consensus, is blatant WP:FORUMSHOPPING and, for my view anyway, a bridge too far; I think you're outright WP:TEND on this issue at this point. I really do recommend you let this go. SnowRise let's rap 12:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Failed COIN proposals? I don't understand how anyone could characterise discussion which mostly went off topic and then petered out as failed. There is no consensus here about COI, which is unsurprising, as it has mostly not been the topic of discussion. There is consensus against a topic ban, however most people !voting oppose have not discussed COI and the thread wasn't started about COI but alleged tenditious editing.
- I've started the new COIN discussion to get clarity on whether the connected editor notices should be removed, not to relitigate anything here. TarnishedPathtalk 13:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- If you don't see the plain repudiation of your position writ large across this discussion (and inherent in the two previous failed COIN proposals), then I fear there really is a problem here. Bluntly, opening a third COIN filing while this discussion is already open and discussing the COI issue, with a pretty clear consensus, is blatant WP:FORUMSHOPPING and, for my view anyway, a bridge too far; I think you're outright WP:TEND on this issue at this point. I really do recommend you let this go. SnowRise let's rap 12:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- No proposal is needed, WP:COINOTBIAS already states "
- @Snow Rise, Thank you for your helpful guidance throughout this process, I think we have all learned a lot. For my clarity, Is this what you are describing as a failure to HEAR what is being said on this board? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Well COIN is by definition where you discuss COI issues, so I'd say that's a distinction without a meaning; clearly you felt that MV and others had a COI and hoped to find support there for that perspective. And even in your post here, you are continuing to imply that MV has a COI, so your messaging is very mixed.. That said, I don't see the point in splitting these hairs any finer. If you didn't want a COI designation, that's just as well, as one was never going to be forthcoming, imo. I'll just backstop this line of discussion by reiterating that pushing for an automatic COI designation for members of a given church can only shoot a proponent of such an argument in the foot. You are prevailing on the underlying content issues (as well you should be, as far as I can tell) and this discussion has accomplished nothing but to undermine your successes in that regard and waste a lot of community time. Clearly there is no consensus for the TBAN proposal, and not only do most respondents here not think action is warranted against MV at this time, but a number of us even feel they have shown considerable patience and restraint in the face of unwarranted ABF and attempts to restrict their involvement in the article. I really do recommend you take your win on the content matters and drop the rest of this. I do agree that MV also has their own stick to drop on said content issues, and I hope they have taken that message from this discussion. If they fail to, I promise you that I for one will be adopting a very different perspective on the next proposal for sanctions. But I can't be any more blunt than to say this: they aren't the only one who has something to WP:HEAR from this discussion. SnowRise let's rap 14:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know what you mean by "the failed COIN proposal". At Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 207#International Churches of Christ, I wasn't calling for editing restrictions on Meta Voyager. I was rather calling uninvolved editors' attention to problematic editing by a number of editors with connections to the article subject. And I'm not calling for editing restrictions based on a COI alone now - I'd be happy for a COI editor to make good-faith suggestions on the talk page, but what's happening here is tendentious (repeated questioning of the same reliable sources and the closure of an RfC as an involved editor, despite being told not to do so). Cordless Larry (talk) 14:04, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- So Catholics are forbidden from editing articles concerning their diocese, Anglicans forbidden from editing articles regarding their ecclesiastic provinces, Shia Muslims forbidden from editing articles on the imamate they worship under, and so on? Come on you two, surely you see why this can never be a viable rule that's ever going to be endorsed by this community? Which is why no one supported your attempt to get a COI designation at COIN and why you are getting so much pushback here on the implication that you should have. If nothing else, such a radical broadening of the COI policy to allow it to apply to anyone who associates with a given denomination would need to be vetted in a community discussion of the largest possible involvement. And I think I can tell you with some confidence that the community would vociferously reject such a proposal, given it's massive and hugely diverse (and largely negative) implications for the project. I would seriously recommend you both WP:DROPTHESTICK on this one; it's not going to happen and trying to push this line of complaint is not helping your overall arguments. It's not a good look that you come here complaining that MV suggested one of you was conflicted out on flimsy grounds, when you've been doing the same thing to them for a while, and are still pressing that argument despite the failed COIN proposal. SnowRise let's rap 13:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, and I'd say that the membership distinction is all the more important when the organisation concerned is widely regarded by reliable sources as a cult, as others here have noted. Similarly, Hydrangeans's comparison with an American editor editing US history articles doesn't really work here. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:12, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- "
- On an incidental but important sidenote, it's something of a relief to learn that the COIN discussion did not result in a consensus COI in this case; if COIN really had gotten in the business of declaring COIs over mere disclosures of faith and general association with a religious movement, then that is something that probably would need to go to the Village Pump for broad community discussion, because I cannot imagine the community deeming that an acceptable standard consistent with the policy. And just so we're clear, I'd live to remind everyone of what the policy (specifically WP:COINOTBIAS) actually says:
- That's my read as well. There may come a time when Meta Voyager can be deemed to be civil POV pushing, but right now their activities fall within legitimate discussion of perspectives that seem to be merely contrary to those held by certain other parties on the talk page. Some of the early discussion in this thread lead me to the conclusion that MV had already been deemed to have a COI, but having just checked the COIN discussion in question, it turns out there was no such consensus at all. So there is no editing restriction for this editor, making it all the more impressive how, despite being a relative newcomer they have, out of respect for apperances and expressed concerns alone, decided to abide by COI restrictions completely voluntarily. That does not present the image to me of a disruptive editor or unreasonable personality. On the contrary, it makes me inclined to believe their incidental comment on their talk page suggesting they are a legal professional, because they appear to have a robust respect for our rules and the precautionary principle generally. SnowRise let's rap 05:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- To put my previous abstract statement more briefly, IMO what Meta Voyager was proposing on cases did not conflict the RFC result, and IMO statements that it did conflict are incorrect. North8000 (talk) 12:42, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
You've completely inverted the appropriate process and burden of proof under policy. Any editor, regardless of their belief systems, is presumptively allowed to edit any article. A determination of COI (of the sort described in the policy) requires either a self-declaration or else an affirmative finding by the community. If the previous COIN discussions failed to get a consensus for such a determination, then they are, by definition, failed proposals. The tags never should have been listed on the talk page so long as that was the case--and bluntly, whoever put them up was already acting outside of behaviour permitted by policy. Beyond that procedural point, your fourth bite at the apple at COIN has no more realistic chance than did the first two COIN threads or the proposal here, and you are just chewing through more community time and patience at this point. This is an extremely bad look that you are taking on, for no feasible potential gain... SnowRise let's rap 13:39, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose The editor that @CordlessLarry is trying to ban from “all Christianity” has been trying to make a simple point on the Talk Page. The 5 federal law cases reflected in the LEDE of the article have all been dismissed. The 4 state cases that are currently ongoing do not appear to have been covered by a RS.
- That simple point has been obscured by both @TarnishedPath and @CorldlessLarry through, what appears to me anyway, both extensive Wikilawyering and what certainly feels like intimidation tactics. As a self-declared member of the church, I have personally been dragged before the COI Noticeboard twice by @CordlessLarry in an apparent attempt to silence dissenting voices. This latest attempt to ban an editor who has made exactly one page edit by what has the appearance of a WP:TAGTEAM, (who collectively have written almost 25% of the current article content), and just with a brief reading of the last few months of Talk Page discussions, certainly demonstrate some of the characteristics of WP:OWNBEHAVIOUR, should be evidence enough for wise administrative oversight.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 21:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm a "dissenting voice" in respect to abortion. But I don't edit that article, since I don't want to get banned. Sometimes dissenters just have to accept the way things are, and self-censor their edits. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- You are a "dissenting voice" in respect to China. You should have self-censored your edits.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Traditional_Chinese_medicine&diff=prev&oldid=1244310969
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Traditional_Chinese_medicine&diff=prev&oldid=1244312672
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Traditional_Chinese_medicine&diff=prev&oldid=1244313749
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Traditional_Chinese_medicine&diff=prev&oldid=1244314786
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Acupuncture&diff=prev&oldid=1233495448
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement 202.40.137.196 (talk) 10:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'm a "dissenting voice" in respect to abortion. But I don't edit that article, since I don't want to get banned. Sometimes dissenters just have to accept the way things are, and self-censor their edits. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Meta Voyager has made a total of 6 articles to Article namespace (assuming none were deleted) as of writing; 4 of which are related to Christianity. None of the edits remotely violate policy nor even resemble POV pushing (permissible or not). This report is preemptive and premature. People with WP:COI are welcome to make {{Edit requests}}. And to be clear, reliable sources very convincingly lay out that International Churches of Christ is a cult. Wikipedia's role in challenging WP:FRINGE remains, but it's not a license to WP:BITE editors. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 01:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. Meta Voyager hasn't been editing the article, and the behavior isn't even alleged to be applicable to a topic as broad as
articles related to Christianity
but rather solely to an article about one relatively small denomination. The proposal as such is excessive and premature. Any preventative action to be taken would at the very least be better served by narrower tailoring.As far as the claim that mere religious affiliation amounts to an actionable WP:COI, I don't think that's very tenable. It's a common sense case, the same way that, say, being American isn't an actionable COI for the US history topic area. I'm reminded of another ANI thread I participated in where a lot of users concluded that it was disruptive when a reported user claimed that religiously affiliated Wikipedians or cited source authors had conflicts of interest. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose - Meta Voyager has shown tremendous restraint in his editing and we have to remember Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers.
- 2601:19E:427E:5BB0:8BAB:B116:675B:AB5F (talk) 01:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Support a topic ban, seems appropriate. Not an outright ban, that's perhaps too much at this point. If the behaviour continues elsewhere/in other subjects, then we can talk about permabans.Oaktree b (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)- @Oaktree b I see you responded with support earlier in this thread. Did you mean to post this again? XZealous (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- I did not, let me edit it. My error. Oaktree b (talk) 16:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Oaktree b I see you responded with support earlier in this thread. Did you mean to post this again? XZealous (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Snow Rise, there was no 1st, 2nd or 3rd bite that I had at anything. You really need to go back and review who started prevoius discussions before you make more patently incorrect statements. TarnishedPathtalk 06:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- It's not really relevant which of you started which discussions. The point is, the community is clearly not prepared to accept your idiosyncratic reading of the COI policy such that "belongs to a religious denomination = automatic actionable COI for that religion". And your failure to hear that is just hoovering up more and more community time, effort, and patience, left and right. I really do sympathize with and appreciate the motivation that animated both you and Larry on this issue from the beginning. Truly, I do. And I really would like to spare you from an eventual boomerang here. But based on your approach to this discussion and the underlying dispute so far, I'm not sure you are going to be able to stop before it gets to that point. SnowRise let's rap 08:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- I've noticed that the majority of editors at COIN have stated there is no COI and I have no intent to push the COI question any further. TarnishedPathtalk 10:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- That's great--thank you: I do think this is the best way forward for everyone. I'll add the article and talk page to my watchlist and try to reliably provide an extra voice if there is a further pattern of efforts by SPAs to whitewash out criticisms of the church. SnowRise let's rap 21:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- I've noticed that the majority of editors at COIN have stated there is no COI and I have no intent to push the COI question any further. TarnishedPathtalk 10:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- It's not really relevant which of you started which discussions. The point is, the community is clearly not prepared to accept your idiosyncratic reading of the COI policy such that "belongs to a religious denomination = automatic actionable COI for that religion". And your failure to hear that is just hoovering up more and more community time, effort, and patience, left and right. I really do sympathize with and appreciate the motivation that animated both you and Larry on this issue from the beginning. Truly, I do. And I really would like to spare you from an eventual boomerang here. But based on your approach to this discussion and the underlying dispute so far, I'm not sure you are going to be able to stop before it gets to that point. SnowRise let's rap 08:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Oppose for the wise reasons laid out by North8000 and Snow Rise. I'm not sure how this situation ever escalated to this point. Nemov (talk) 17:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Disruptive edits in politics-related articles
[edit]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)
- For those curious scrolling by (I do not have the means for a detailed investigation at the moment), Mouch's version is:
- And is continuing to do so, today, at Sergei Sedov. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 14:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Still continuing to make these edits today. glman (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Eh, I disagree that it's redundant. See e.g. Benito Mussolini, who we note was a fascist dictator but had previously been a socialist politician.
- It's possible that Stalin could have been the General Secretary of the Communist Party but some other kind of revolutionary in his youth, so it's IMO important to note that he was in fact a communist revolutionary. Loki (talk) 21:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- And is continuing to do so, today, at Sergei Sedov. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 14:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Thedarkknightli: You are Canvassing which is against policy. 107.77.203.225 (talk) 01:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Can we get a block here please?
- Edit warring on adding "communist": [1]
- Edit warring on "man of steel": [2] [3] [4]
- Edit warring on both of the above: [5] [6]
Thank you. GA-RT-22 (talk) 16:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
More edit warring on a different article, same user, same text "man of steel".
- Floriano Peixoto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- [7] [8] [9] [10]
GA-RT-22 (talk) 16:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
User continues to edit war:
- both "communist" and "man of steel" at Joseph Stalin: [11]
That makes seven times he has inserted one or the other (or both) of these two terms in this article in the last couple weeks. He has been adequately warned on his talk page. In addition to the warnings there was an attempt to communicate with him here [12] to which he did not respond. Can we please get a block now? GA-RT-22 (talk) 23:49, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
User appears to be using a sock now as well, same pages edited and same content modified. Special:Contributions/45.232.136.244 glman (talk) 13:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
And again, this makes eight times he has inserted one or the other (or both) of these two terms in this article. Here is the full list.
GA-RT-22 (talk) 13:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Identical edits are now being made by 138.117.236.149 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), whom I would presume is the same contributor. I will rollback their edits at Sergei Sedov, momentarily. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 23:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- And again as 45.239.238.7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Can that article additionably be protected for the time being? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 03:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
I have partially blocked Mouchkjhh so they are unable to edits articles indefinitely. I left a message at their talk that the block will be removed as soon as they say further disruption will not occur. Let me know if IPs continue to be a problem but please try to engage with them first. That is, put a polite message on the IP talk page with a link to WP:EW and a link to an article talk page with an invitation to discuss the issue there. Johnuniq (talk) 03:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
User:O recomeço and WP:CIR 3
[edit]- O recomeço (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
It had recently been brought to my attention that last month, Northern Moonlight pointed out a myriad of edits O recomeço made that had grammar and spelling errors on their talk page - [21]. Furthermore, since then, there have been further edits containing such errors ([22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]).
While O recomeço had acknowledged that their grammar is below the standards expected of English Wikipedia editors, it seems as if they are making little to no effort to improve upon it. Should we block? I feel like we had been wasting our energy with them, and at some point we have to say "enough is enough". The Grand Delusion(Send a message) 02:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- I haven't kept up with their edits since my messages in their talk page, but I do find it rather unfortunate that their understanding of what is expected is just not there despite their enthusiasm for contributing. It doesn't seem to be just a grammar/spelling problem, but a general difficulty in communicating the idea of their contributions across in English.
- I'm not about to vote as an IP editor on if Wikipedia should block or not someone (though I do report people), but I'd just suggest - if you do find they need to be blocked to get the message across - that you also consider what length of time is actually needed to do so. – 2804:F1...DA:91C2 (talk) 03:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- long, rambly comment coming...
- while the issue is overall small in scope, i do think it's been going on for too long, and i'm starting to think that it stems less from their first language (which seems to be brazilian portuguese), but more so from a consistent failure to understand english (in a language riddled with english loanwords), improper humor (see this diff, aren't nazis just the wackiest punchline?), and almost active disregard for the manual of style. for an example, let's look at the text from this diff:
- A pioneer of Vlogling in the pre-internet world. Some of his videos really seen to inspired the Youtube creactors.
- translating this directly into brazilian portuguese with no regard for how that language works (however that works with a language does doesn't even exist), it would be
- Um pioneiro de Vlogling no mundo pré-Internet. Alguns dos seus vídeos realmente viram a inspiraram os criacdores no Youtube.
- which borders on gibberish regardless of language
- however, translating this into actual, proper portuguese while not completely disregarding the manual of style and... 5rd grade portuguese, it would be
- Um pioneiro de vlogging no mundo pré-Internet. Alguns dos seus vídeos inspiraram criadores no YouTube.
- note the underlined words not being misspelled this time, that alone would be considered grounds to call it a skill issue in brazil (if it was a real place)
- and then translating that into english (as literally as i can make it), it would be
- A pioneer of vlogging in the pre-Internet world. Some of his videos inspired creators on YouTube.
- it's still unclear and wouldn't slide in a b-class article (for starters, which videos inspired which creators, and how?), but it's a surprisingly easy sentence to translate. even in portuguese portuguese, those typos would be out of place (especially amoung, that one's just painful)
- overall, i do think action is needed, since nearly every single instance i could find of someone suggesting a grammar correction tool or something has been met with silence (see their talk page). i don't know if this is grounds to accuse them of idht, but it's really starting to look like it. if possible, i'll vote for a mainspace block until they decide to attempt... really, any sort of improvement. but if they're gonna do anything first, please have it be learning how to spell "among" cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 12:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- on that note, i'll point out their edits to ptwiki, which are... surprisingly tolerable, give or take some minor spelling mistakes they actually fix. do more of that, please cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 12:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Their mainspace contributions might not go a long way towards building the encyclopedia (most recently [28]) but a mainspace block wouldn't make much difference. Of their 338 edits, 292 have been to the various Wikipedia:Unusual articles pages: Wikipedia:Unusual articles/Popular culture, entertainment and the arts, Wikipedia:Unusual articles/History and so on.[29] NebY (talk) 16:28, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- fr*ck, i forgot unusual articles wasn't in mainspace. pretend i said "main and project spaces" i guess cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 16:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- on first thought, that would be a terrible idea. a block from mainspace and wp:unusual articles would be slightly less unnecessarily drastic cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 16:37, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- fr*ck, i forgot unusual articles wasn't in mainspace. pretend i said "main and project spaces" i guess cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 16:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- The obvious lack of competence aside, I find it very frustrating to deal with them because they never listen to other experienced editors. People wrote paragraphs teaching them how to use grammar correction tools? Didn’t care. “Try sandboxes first?”. Didn’t touch it once. I had to add those Wikipedia:Unusual articles pages to my watchlist because over 50% (165/326) of their edits have grammar and/or spelling problems. Northern Moonlight 07:05, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- I previously suggested to this editor that this might be a problem specific to the unusual articles pages. We have very few Portuguese-speaking editors and it seemed that the effort of coaching them on their English might be worthwhile. If they are again editing that page despite their hostile reception there, maybe there is something to the IDHT allegation, and if people are suggesting tools, I do applaud that.
- It still seems a little BITEy to go straight to a CIR. I suggest a page block, if they are willing to translate articles about Brazil. If not, well, clearly something is not working here. Also, what is this stuff about "actual" Portuguese versus Brazilian Portuguese? Frown. The two dialects are as I understand it somewhat more different than American and British English, but that doesn't mean Brazilian Portuguese is not Portuguese or "doesn't even exist". Since I don't see the point of the comment, though, possibly I am misunderstanding it. It also occurs to me that if they also make mistakes in Portuguese, they may be dyslexic or simply a bad typist. Maybe they fix the mistakes at pt-wiki because their spell check underlines them there? I did look at Grand Delusion's diffs though; most of the errors would not be caught by spell check since they amount to a wrong word, or capitalization errors, not a misspelled word. Spell check should have caught "amoung" though.
- I suggested, and still suggest, articles about Brazil, since the area needs help, although a few Portuguese-speaking editors have made some headway with the machine translation there and may be able to help. I am on the fence about restricting them to the talk page there as well. The diffs above are not much better than the incomprehensible machine translation in some Brazil articles. However, although I encourage this editor to ask for help getting an English spell check if that is part of the problem here, I don't see why we need to hound them about poor English on talk pages. They are understandable. I hope these comments help advance the discussion. Elinruby (talk) 07:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- if it's referring to my comments, then
- "actual ... portuguese" there referred to "not carrying over all the misspellings and interpreting them literally", as opposed to european portuguese. i really don't know enough about that variant to opine one way or the other, but from some quick checking, most of what they write wouldn't slide in either variant. the wording there was pretty bad, so the misunderstanding probably makes sense
- all that stuff i say about brazil and everything related to it not being real is unsubtle self-deprecation, as stated in my user page. i've been brazilian all along. please help
- yes, i do still feel that outright blocking would be a little too bitey, but i specified from the start that if i some action were to be taken, i'd support a projectspace block (not mainspace, that was my mistake), or potentially a pblock from unusual articles. i also specified that if there would be a reason, i think it would likely be a mix cir and idht, as opposed to just cir
- is this a bad time to volunteer for translation?
- if it wasn't referring to mine... oops? cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 12:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- heh. I have previously lamented that self-deprecation frequently does not work well in this venue as the social lubricant it can be elsewhere. And here I am as the one misunderstanding it. I did not realize you were Brazilian and would be delighted to discuss translation. I will ping you elsewhere about that. Meanwhile I think we agree that CIR is excessive and I am a bit baffled as to why the editor keeps trying to help people who keep proposing it. Since this is the third time maybe they need encouragement to contribute where it will be appreciated. Elinruby (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- if it's referring to my comments, then
For those puzzled by the heading, OP has brought O recomeço to ANI over this concern twice before. [30][31] Grandpallama (talk) 01:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I wish it was a "one-and-done" case. Unfortunately, however, O recomeço continues to exhibit competency issues and ignore the advice of others. They have addressed their problems without fixing any of them. The Grand Delusion(Send a message) 04:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
I'll repeat what I said here. O recomeço, your English isn't good enough to edit the English Wikipedia. Please, only edit the versions of Wikipedia in which you have a firm grasp of the language.-- Mike 🗩 14:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Well, I really didn't expect that my huge enthusiasm about various curiosities could actually cause so much confusion here on Wikipedia. But here we are, look guys, I'd like to make it super clear that all my edits on the English Wikipedia were made with the intention of adding more unusual items to the unusual articles page. However, now I see pretty clarity that this has been causing a lot of headaches for the "caretakers" of the page. I do know that what you do is for the best of this community, and perhaps it would be better for me to stay on the pages of the languages I master, but I wanted to reaffirm that I don't have any "persive" goals in my activism. I humbly ask that you do not block me at the Unusual articles page, but With that being said, what exactly would be considere an unusual topic on this page? What I love about the unusual articles section is that most of the items on it are not easily found in other media outlets, or even on the internet. And since I have a huge facility with information and social networks I thought it would be a gold mine for my entertainment and that of others, but now I see that the way I did it is unpopular, to say the least. Thanks for your input. O recomeço (talk) 00:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- O recomeço, that's a content question that should be discussed on the talk page, not ANI. This is a noticeboard to resolve suspected incidents of misconduct, not to decide what content should be added to a page. Liz Read! Talk! 04:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- @O recomeço: This thread is not about what content you can add to the page. It’s about your inability to 1) contribute in English and 2) listen to community feedback. We asked you to use a grammar correction tool multiple times (#1 #2 #3 #4) and you didn’t care to respond to any of them. Northern Moonlight 06:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- O recomeço: This has nothing to do with your contributions to Wikipedia:Unusual articles, many of which have been questionable no doubt (for example, how is an anime based on the Final Fantasy video game franchise "unusual"?). What it does have to do with is your inability to contribute to English Wikipedia without introducing spelling and grammar mistakes, and your ignoring the advice of others on how to improve. The fact that you missed the point of this whole discussion in your response speaks volumes about your competency issues. The Grand Delusion(Send a message) 18:33, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, so let's talk about the real mistakes I've been making. My problems regarding the grammar of the English language and my, in fact, ignorance of accepting my difficulty in accepting the grammar tools that you've been recommending. Regarding the first topic, I really have problems with writing English, I corrected this paragraph myself through a corrector recommended by [[The Grand Delusion]], and I know that for now I should focus on the Wiki in Portuguese and Spanish, languages of which I speak very well. Regarding the spelling tools, I'm really going to use them from now on as a way of learning, and I decide that I'm going to edit the English Wikipedia only once in a while. I'm a newbie here on Wikipedia, and I can be a little harsh on my own mistakes, but I like to think like this: I can't change what I did wrong, but the future hasn't been written yet. With this post I would like to announce that I will edit the Unusual articles page with just one correction tool. O recomeço (talk) 18:52, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- So O recomeço posted this to my talk page. Should we take their word for it, or should we indef them to make them stick to their word? The Grand Delusion(Send a message) 04:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'm personally of the mind that we should close the door on someone who says they're leaving, as I've seen far too many people use that as a way to avoid sanctions when they're clearly about to be trouted. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- They keep saying they're here to edit the Wikipedia:Unusual articles pages, which aren't part of the encyclopedia. That's clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia. NebY (talk) 17:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- i disagree with it being grounds for a nothere block. nothere doesn't seem to account for people who focus their edits on projectspace, but they're at the very least done in good faith. keep in mind that isn't to say that i think a block or some other form of restriction would be unwarranted, i just don't think nothere would be a plausible reason. maybe a combination of the aforementioned cir, apparent idht (which they finally seem to have addressed, but only time can tell if they'll actually do it), and improper humor issues, but not nothere
- as far as my current stance goes, i'd say put a pin on the idht part and see if their next edits aren't riddled with tpyos of words they're constantly exposed to in two different languages (seriously, "amoung"?) cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 11:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Aaaand they lied. The Grand Delusion(Send a message) 17:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Need a interaction ban
[edit]They need to figure out what to do or should be prohibited from following eachother ...............edit wars all over Editor Interaction Analyser Moxy🍁 19:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- It seems like @CommonKnowledgeCreator has been removing content for navboxes, claiming a consensus to do so, and @Randy Kryn was restoring the content on the understanding that there is no such consensus. CKC, what consensus are you referring to for removing so much material from these infoboxes? voorts (talk/contributions) 19:48, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Investigating a bit further, it appears that the "consensus" CKC is referring to is this discussion showing that some editors prefer to split presidential navboxes up. That discussion, however, has its dissenting voices, and it hasn't been formally closed. I'll note there's also an ongoing TfD discussion for these navboxes. Given that none of these discussions have resolved, there's clearly no consensus yet as to whether splitting the navboxes is something that the community supports.As for conduct issues, I am concerned that CKC is wielding unresolved disputes to claim a consensus. CKC also appears to be bludgeoning in both the discussion and TfD cited above, responding to many posts with walls of text.I'm also concerned by the continued reverts with the same rationales across multiple different navboxes. Both CKC and Randy should have hashed this out when Randy first raised concerns about the changes, instead of pressing forward and making a series of changes and reverts to various different templates.Both editors might need a topic ban from navboxes if this continues. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:06, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- There's also the fact that editors are expressly proscribed from using WikiProjects as platforms for making idiosyncratic rules among themselves and then applying them to numerous namespaces (be they articles or templates), per WP:Advice page. If they think there is a principle that should be applied to a class of articles and/or templates, they should be making a WP:PROPOSAL for a policy or change to policy, either in a central discussion space like WP:VP, or on a relevant WP:PAG talk page, and definitely not settling on such a rule exclusively through a WikiProject space. In fact, several of the ArbCom cases that created this rule famously involved disruption of infoboxes resulting from coordinated efforts at WikiProjects, so (taking your summary for granted) CKC at least is really playing with fire here if they try to enforce this rule without following the proper process. SnowRise let's rap 20:24, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the alert Moxy. I don't think there are edit wars all over, I've been careful not to. The main reverts that occurred were returning long-term links to presidential navboxes after they had been removed without discussion. Lots of removals of links by CKC, the latest on reverting all of the White House and other residence links on presidential navboxes which I had placed, and apologized for not placing years ago (I did not revert any of the removals except for John Adams, explained next, and that was just once). Residences of presidents and First Ladies have always been listed and linked on their navboxes, and the White House's Executive Residence should be no different. There is a large disagreement if living in the White House occurred during the president's important historical years or were just tangential, which I find a puzzling stance. But no, even if CKC and I have had our go-arounds and extended back-and-forths which I've found quite frustrating as to imparting some basic information wnich is ignored, that shouldn't result in banning either of us from interacting. I don't think I've engaged in an edit war over this period, just a back and forth snowball fight with, hopefully, a good faith editor, who, in my opinion, shows good promise as a navbox editor (but is not as yet due to misunderstanding the difference between policy, guidelines, and essays, and what long-term inclusion of items means).
- Investigating a bit further, it appears that the "consensus" CKC is referring to is this discussion showing that some editors prefer to split presidential navboxes up. That discussion, however, has its dissenting voices, and it hasn't been formally closed. I'll note there's also an ongoing TfD discussion for these navboxes. Given that none of these discussions have resolved, there's clearly no consensus yet as to whether splitting the navboxes is something that the community supports.As for conduct issues, I am concerned that CKC is wielding unresolved disputes to claim a consensus. CKC also appears to be bludgeoning in both the discussion and TfD cited above, responding to many posts with walls of text.I'm also concerned by the continued reverts with the same rationales across multiple different navboxes. Both CKC and Randy should have hashed this out when Randy first raised concerns about the changes, instead of pressing forward and making a series of changes and reverts to various different templates.Both editors might need a topic ban from navboxes if this continues. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:06, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- I usually have hope that things can be worked out through logical discussion. To be a bit clearer on one aspect, I think part of the problem is the lack of other editors participating in discussion, such as the one going on at the White House talk page, which would at least add to the mix and clarify the directions of the discussions but seems to be an ongoing problem in many areas of Wikipedia. CKC is at least improving these navboxes at some points, and that's important enough for me to come to his defense. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Oh my. I just now noticed on my watchlist that CKC once again removed all of the long-term presidential entries from many U.S. presidents navboxes (example). Can someone have a look at those and return them, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:08, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- I usually have hope that things can be worked out through logical discussion. To be a bit clearer on one aspect, I think part of the problem is the lack of other editors participating in discussion, such as the one going on at the White House talk page, which would at least add to the mix and clarify the directions of the discussions but seems to be an ongoing problem in many areas of Wikipedia. CKC is at least improving these navboxes at some points, and that's important enough for me to come to his defense. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
To start, WP:EDITWAR states that "Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring", while WP:NOTBUREAU states that policies "document already-existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected." In my interactions with User:Randy Kryn about the navigation templates that have the biography articles about the Presidents of the United States as their subjects, he has regularly engaged in behavior that I believe violates the letter and principles of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR and WP:GAMING. However, I am more than willing to be corrected if I am wrong. When I first began expanding the biography templates, the templates only included an arbitrary selection of topics—which WP:NAVBOX recommends against per WP:UNDUE. Following a discussion with other editors at the Presidential Succession Act talk page in February of this year, I created separate templates with Presidencies of the United States as the subjects split from the biography templates. I opened the discussion at the WikiProject:United States Presidents talk page after a second discussion between User:Randy Kryn and myself at my talk page in July of this year about the separate templates did not lead to a resolution—which I believe I am permitted to do per WP:CANVASS and WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS.
As far as I can tell, in neither of the discussions with User:Randy Kryn at my talk page did he clearly identify where content policy recommended against my editing and did not present arguments based in common sense warranting the reversions per WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS. Apologies if I've violated an ArbCom ruling that I'm unaware of, but WP:ADVICEPAGE cited above does permit large WikiProjects to collect advice about how to apply Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to their specific subject area, and the discussion that I opened was not to develop idiosyncratic rules related to these templates, but instead over whether they should be split following the already-existing WP:NAVBOX policy. Multiple editors there did express a preference for the biography templates as I had modified them, and other editors created other presidency templates following the general format of the ones I created. Additionally, WP:NOTDEMOCRACY requires that decisions in discussions not be made by voting or popularity, and WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS requires that resolutions be made "using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense", and the disputing editors likewise did not generally identify the letter or principles of policies or make common sense arguments following the policies for opposing the splits.
The discussion at Talk:White House, that likewise is over the letter and principles of the WP:NAVBOX policy—which requires that articles included in navigation templates not be loosely-related to the other articles included and implicitly suggests that the article inclusion criteria for navigation templates is supposed to be more restrictive than that for categories and lists. As for my comments, they would not need to be lengthy if User:Randy Kryn and others did not make broad and false characterizations of my edits and make arguments where the letter of existing policies need to be cited—the former of which I also believe to be behavior that violates WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. The TfD deletion discussions were opened and conducted following User:Randy Kryn's reversions of the biography templates back to revisions that I believe did not follow the letter or principles of the WP:NAVBOX policy, and thus were conducted under a false premise due to his behavior that I believe violates the letter and principles of WP:GAMING. Again, I am willing to be corrected if I am wrong.
I have tried resolving this dispute with him in many forums, but he continually insists returning the templates to revisions that I do not believe follow the best practices recommended by WP:NAVBOX and the WP:NAV explanatory essay. He has also frequently treated me with condescension, demanded discussion following reverts to the templates without citing a policy to which he then does not respond—which has the effect of preserving a specific revision of the template—and consistently falsely characterized my editing, comments, and other behavior, and himself made edits and then characterized them in ways that I believe to be dishonest—all of which I believe violates WP:GAMING and WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Like I said, I am more than willing to be corrected if I am wrong. His previous comment is a refreshing change from my other interactions with him, and I likewise do not believe that there needs to be an interaction ban. I think there does need to be resolution where he either identifies a content policy that precludes the biography and presidency template splits other than a generalized request to discuss it or just concedes that the splits should occur. Otherwise, whatever behavior got flagged is going to continue. I would add that I am not tracking his contributions with any Wikipedia feature. I would really have preferred to not have engaged in this many reversions, but when other editors engage the kind of behavior that User:Randy Kryn has, it is unclear to me how else I'm suppose to enforce an existing content policy. I also hope that on Wikipedia the truth is an overriding defense to accusations—but I won't hold my breath given how I've been treated by other editors in these types of forums in the past. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Point of clarification: WP:NAVBOX is an editing guideline, not a policy. Schazjmd (talk) 23:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
I would really have preferred to not have engaged in this many reversions, but when other editors engage the kind of behavior that User:Randy Kryn has, it is unclear to me how else I'm suppose to enforce an existing content policy.
The best way to handle this would have been to pause and seek broader consensus, such as through an RfC, before continuing to make the contested changes. I think you are both acting in good faith here, but things need to slow down. There's no rush and consensus takes time to build. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC)- CommonKnowledgeCreator, outside of how this navbox guideline is parsed, Randy Kryn was very complimentary towards you in his statemnt here, it was hardly accusations. It would have been nice if you had shown him the same respect. You close your comments complaining about how you have been treated in the past but good faith goes both ways. Liz Read! Talk! 01:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- He has been so here, and today on my talk page. I would not say that he has always been in the past. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:47, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- CommonKnowledgeCreator, outside of how this navbox guideline is parsed, Randy Kryn was very complimentary towards you in his statemnt here, it was hardly accusations. It would have been nice if you had shown him the same respect. You close your comments complaining about how you have been treated in the past but good faith goes both ways. Liz Read! Talk! 01:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- So, CKC, I think you do a very decent job above of martialing your arguments to explain your perspective on the issues here and account for why you took the courses of action that you did. But I'd like to suggest to you something that is reflected in those arguments that I seriously think is worth your contemplation. A substantial portion (indeed, I'd argue the majority) of your explanations for how you approached this situation are based in exceptions to the standard rules, be they based in carve-out language inside a broader policy (as with the language you cite from WP:EDITWAR for example) or rules which act as special caveats to process (as with WP:NOTBUREAU). Essentially you are arguing that your approach has been valid under an extended IAR rationale. Now, in principle there is nothing wrong with leaning on such standards here and there, but you should consider that each of these principles are meant to be approached with restraint, even when used in isolation. They exist as backstops to the standard agreed models on editorial conduct and process that serve to keep our rules and interactions flexible, but they are also meant to be used sparing and cautiously. When you find yourself stringing more than a half dozen of the exceptions to rules together to justify why your edit warring is not an issue, in response to community concerns, it is typically going to be a good moment to pause and consider the very strong possibility that your editorial actions are racing ahead of consensus. Mind you, I don't have any doubt that you are acting in good faith. And to be fair, you would not be anywhere near the first person to come to ANI accusing Randy of civil POV pushing (I'm sorry Randy, I'm not trying to pile on, but this is an honest observation of a trend I have seen in discussions here concerning you over recent years). But regardless, CKC, edit warring is not the solution. If I can make a suggestion: If you find yourself running in circles in situations like this, despite multiple attempts to engage that haven't lead to useful and robust consensus, the village pump is an ideal solution. It's a valid space to dissect complex policy issues which integrate multiple PAGs and considerations, and it will, in the vast majority of cases, give you enough engagement from a significant number of community members to arrive at a working solution within a matter of a few weeks at most. That's what I would have done in this case after your initial discussions led to forking perspectives and no agreement between yourself and Randy. Food for thought anyway. SnowRise let's rap 05:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Okay. Let me start by saying that I appreciate your comment, gave it thought, and believe it was tendered in good faith. However, I disagree with and believe I should dispute your assertion that I am following a WP:IAR rationale because I believe you have conflated the words exception, exemption, and caveat. At least as I understand the definitions of these related but distinct words from Merriam-Webster, an exception is an individual case where a rule is applicable but not applied, while an exemption is a standardized immunity from a rule that applies in every case, and a caveat is an explanation to prevent misinterpretation or a consequential detail to be considered.
- As such, the language that I cited from WP:EDITWAR is an exemption rather than an exception as it is part of the rule, and while the language that I cited from WP:NOTBUREAU may be a caveat, it is not clear that it is a special one (i.e. distinguished by some unusual quality) because most policies provide explanations and consequential details to prevent misinterpretations, and thus, is not an exception to other policies either. The language of WP:5P5 and WP:IAR is about exceptions to rules, not exemptions within rules or caveats for rules. As the language I cited from WP:EDITWAR and WP:NAVBOX are parts of those policies and guidelines, the language reflects an already-existing community consensus about those topics per WP:NOTBUREAU.
- In other words, I am not stringing together exceptions to ignore policies or race ahead of community consensus, but instead am following WP:EDITWAR and the already-existing community consensus in WP:NAVBOX, and I believe that your assertions that I am not is false. As for your recommendation about the Village Pump, I've used it before to propose a more structured means of resolving content policy disputes and encountered the same kind of reflexive opposition that I typically encounter on talk pages. Given my experience, I don't know that it is a worthwhile use of time if I find myself in the same kind of situation again unless norms change to discourage reflexive opposition and arbitrary reverts, because otherwise even proposing a change to an article, template, policy, guideline, procedure, or organ within Wikipedia or new ones altogether will never progress. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 17:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Well, I'm sorry, but that's just the nature of the process here. You can't expect to win every argument, and you simply are just not permitted to wage an ongoing edit war with another party across numerous articles/namespaces until you feel the rest of the community has caught up with what you feel to be your advanced position with regard to the rest of us. That's not how this works. When WP:EDITWAR refers to exceptions for the purpose of enforcing key policies, it is talking about issues like unambiguous vandalism, severe and dangerous BLP issues, blatant personal attacks, and other serious circumstances requiring presumptive abrogation of the usual consensus building process. Those are very different animals from "I think this guy is really, really wrong about this navbox inclusion criteria." On that point alone, you are very much bending the intended purpose of policy well past it's breaking point.
- And I really don't think your other arguments fair any better, though I'm simply not going get into a recursive series of increasingly minute semantic arguments in an effort to convince you. My friend, I suggested you were out on a rhetorical limb with this argument of yours that you are not subject to EW standards, because of a very wordy and convoluted stacking of policy language, and your response was to give one of the most pedantic and attenuated exercises in Wikilawyering (and I don't use that term often or lightly) that I have ever seen--complete with literal "Miriam's dictionary defines X as..."-style arguments.
- And I'm going to ask you to believe me when I tell you with absolute candor that I only made my previous post in this discussion for the sole purpose of giving you an alternative path to the sanction that has been proposed, or a worse one: both very real possibilities if you continue down an IDHT path regarding the edit warring. As that was and is my only purpose, I'm not going to waste your time or mine dissecting every word of the dozen policies you have thrown up in your defense. Suffice it to say, I am not convinced by your arguments for why you were/are obviated from following normal rules regarding edit warring in these circumstances.
- More to the point, I don't think the community is going to be won over by them. And I'm very confident that if you continue to pursue them rather than just saying "Ok, I see; I need to try something else that involves further discussion rather than edit warring", sooner or later (and probably sooner) you're going to be looking at a sanction. We all get frustrated with process sometimes, and despair of discussion outcomes that we can't fathom. But we still have to abide by the consensus and dispute resolution processes. That's the last of my thoughts here. I do wish you luck, whether you decide my advice is worth heeding or not. SnowRise let's rap 07:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'm going to be more concise than the ever articulate and diplomatic Snow Rise. At a certain point, who is correct in their interpretation of WP:NAVBOX is less important than who is being disruptive on the project. Snow Rise is trying to counsel you to rethink your approach so you don't push to the limits of the community's patience and sanctions become a real possibility. Some editors are so insistence in their belief that they are right about some aspect of editing that they don't see the big picture, that the community is tired of the entire dispute and if the editors can't reconcile, the community will step in and end it in a way you may not like. I'd take her advice. Liz Read! Talk! 22:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- More to the point, I don't think the community is going to be won over by them. And I'm very confident that if you continue to pursue them rather than just saying "Ok, I see; I need to try something else that involves further discussion rather than edit warring", sooner or later (and probably sooner) you're going to be looking at a sanction. We all get frustrated with process sometimes, and despair of discussion outcomes that we can't fathom. But we still have to abide by the consensus and dispute resolution processes. That's the last of my thoughts here. I do wish you luck, whether you decide my advice is worth heeding or not. SnowRise let's rap 07:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
@Snow Rise and Liz: All I will say in response is the following:
- I find the tone of User:Snow Rise's last comment to be glib rather than diplomatic per WP:UNCIVIL;
- As other editors have told me in a tone I also found uncivil, essays are not policies or guidelines and have no official status under WP:P&G (see WP:ESSAY), while
WP:WLWP:LAWYERING and WP:TEXTWALL are not even explanatory essays under WP:SUPPLEMENTAL and thus do not have wide acceptance within the community as informational pages–and probably because WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS and WP:DETCON requires that consensus be based in policy rather than popularity or exclusively on the common sense of editors, but also because if you choose to edit Wikipedia, you are supposed to be doing so on a volunteer and non-contractual basis per WP:COI and presumably do have the time to respond to lengthy comments (and especially if you participate in talk page discussions unlike the overwhelming majority of editors); - You could have more concisely pointed out that enforcing WP:NPOV pursuant to WP:ENFORCEMENT is not exempted from WP:EDITWAR if you took the time to review the policy and explicitly cite its language–which if I had been told initially, I would not have taken the time to write a lengthy response to any of the comments made because I would have known this before making this comment and do believe in following the letter and principles of policies;
- Arbitrary reverts (i.e. reverting without providing an edit summary and especially without citing a content policy or guideline) probably do drive potential editors away per WP:REVEXP, and WP:ROWN, is presumably why WP:EDITCON and WP:UNRESPONSIVE strongly recommend including edit summaries, and why you shouldn't be dismissive of this concern I raised because it is probably why the Wikipedia community isn't larger; and
- User:Randy Kryn has left a comment on my talk page for the purpose of reconciliation and future collaboration, which I intend to reciprocate with an affirmative response. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- You really found my comments to be uncivil? Because I felt I was making a pretty calculated effort to approach you in a relatively soft and friendly tone while also being clear enough to turn you around on the issue before your tenacity lead to a formal conclusion that you were being WP:IDHT about the edit warring. And even now, reviewing my post, I'm not seeing where I said anything that should be reasonably construed as particularly glib. On the contrary, I'm not sure what else I could have said to come off as more sincere about the issues or the importance of dropping the stick.
- As to
"You could have more concisely pointed out that enforcing WP:NPOV pursuant to WP:ENFORCEMENT is not exempted from WP:EDITWAR if you took the time to review the policy and explicitly cite its language–which if I had been told initially, I would not have taken the time to write a lengthy response to any of the comments made because I would have known this before making this comment and do believe in following the letter and principles of policies"
, I'm not required to exhaustively identify every single policy that provides a reason for you to not to edit war in these circumstances, in order to be sure I hit the one which you would find most compelling. Especially insofar as that would require speculating on which sections of which policies you are and are not familiar with. You're not a completely brand new editor, and even if you were, that would still be a pretty massive shifting of the burden to make me responsible for the gaps in your knowledge.
- As to
- If you don't have full familiarity with the relevant guidelines yet, I would just advise embracing the precautionary principle wherever EW may apply, even if you think you may have the benefit of an exception. As to the immediate dispute, it's good to hear that you and Randy are hashing the issues out now, which obviously is the best case scenario here. I wish you two luck arriving at a solution you can both be content with. SnowRise let's rap 23:12, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm not required to exhaustively identify every single policy that provides a reason for you to not to edit war in these circumstances, in order to be sure I hit the one which you would find most compelling. Especially insofar as that would require speculating on which sections of which policies you are and are not familiar with. You're not a completely brand new editor, and even if you were, that would still be a pretty massive shifting of the burden to make me responsible for the gaps in your knowledge. If you don't have full familiarity with the relevant guidelines yet, I would just advise embracing the precautionary principle wherever EW may apply, even if you think you may have the benefit of an exception.
See my previous comments about the various sections from WP:CON (WP:EDITCON, WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS, WP:DETCON) and WP:NOT (WP:NOTBUREAU; WP:NOTDEMOCRACY): Achieving and determining consensus requires policies be cited as justifications in discussions, so no, editors are required to identify policies and their language and even if an editor has been here a long time since policy language andtheirits interpretation changes over time per WP:5P5.- WP:IDHT discusses points made by editors broadly and does not distinguish between citations of policies from arguments where common sense is invoked, but considering the language of the various sections I've cited from WP:CON and WP:NOT, it is unclear why citing policies that reflect an already-existing community consensus would fall within the scope of WP:IDHT,
andbecause if you don't have time to explain or read the reasons of why an edit is permissible or not under a policy or guideline, then you are not following existingguidelinespolicy for achieving consensus. WP:EDITWAR states "Reverting vandalism is not edit warring. However, edits from a slanted point of view, general insertion or removal of material, or other good-faith changes are not considered vandalism." What this language suggests is that enforcement of WP:NPOV per WP:ENFORCEMENT is not exempted under WP:EDITWAR. The simpler thing for you to have done would have been to simply cite this. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 14:25, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- If you don't have full familiarity with the relevant guidelines yet, I would just advise embracing the precautionary principle wherever EW may apply, even if you think you may have the benefit of an exception. As to the immediate dispute, it's good to hear that you and Randy are hashing the issues out now, which obviously is the best case scenario here. I wish you two luck arriving at a solution you can both be content with. SnowRise let's rap 23:12, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
I think the solution is to eliminate navboxes from Wikipedia, TBH. GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- I think whether or not navboxes should be eliminated from Wikipedia is off-topic to this discussion per WP:TPG. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 15:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Alright to mention idea here, if it helps stop possible problematic behavior. GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- This noticeboard is for incidents, not for discussions over whether existing content policy, guidelines, manuals of style, or Wikipedia features should be modified or removed. It is off-topic per the rationale behind WP:TALK#TOPIC. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Alright to mention idea here, if it helps stop possible problematic behavior. GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
OR on Ba 'Alawi sada
[edit]Kabul madras (talk · contribs) keeps on adding OR to the article, and continued doing so despite being warned; broke the 3RR Abo Yemen✉ 12:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Some interesting reading in the section at User talk:Kabul madras#September 2024 which indicates you were both blocked and unblocked bu JBW CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Looking at the block log, OP was unblocked 4 minutes later with the message
Blocked in error, due to misreading the editing history
, so OP's block history is irrelevant to this discussion. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC)- You missed my point which was that they had both been unblocked because JBW had second thoughts. Look at Kabul madras block log they were also blocked and unblocked (Wrong account blocked by mistake). This then looks like a case of "other parent", especially when combined with the section that begins "@Abo Yemen and Kabul madras: First of all, my apologies for the block of Kabul madras". CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- "My bad on participating in the edit war, but how is he allowed to add his original research on the article?? None of the sources that he cited says anything about how many people in Indonesia dispute or even reject outright the validity of Ba 'Alawi sada linkage with Islamic prophet Muhammad. In fact what do indonesians have to do with an Arab family?
- He also used sources such as youtube polls, Indonesian youtube videos, used this script of "Sunan al-Tirmidi" (which doesn't verify what he claimed in the article), some familytreedna.com spreadsheets, and whatever the fuck this is supposed to prove."
- The above is a post by @Abo Yemen on my talk page.
- There are several issues between Abo Yemen and me.
- 1. The article states "The claim of the Ba Alawi clan's lineage connection to Prophet Muhammad SAW remains controversial due to the lack of contemporary sources that record Ubaidillah as the son of Ahmad al Muhajir". I have provided a relevant reference link for this section and, as far as I know, it is not original research and does not violate Wikipedia's rules for use as a reference. The content of the quote does have a conflicting view with other parts of the article, but I included it to make the information in the article neutral and unbiased. Therefore, I included a controversial paraphrase to explain that there are differences of opinion regarding their claim as descendants of Prophet Muhammad. I included this section at the beginning of the article because it explains the claim at the beginning. Abo Yemen objects to this.
- 2. The use of the words "some" and "many". I have included a reference to a survey of over 12,000 voters to explain that the number of those who do not believe this is indeed large and not small. In fact, this is a hot topic in Indonesia now.
- 3. The use of FamilyTreeDNA as a primary source in the article. According to Wikipedia rules, primary sources may be used cautiously with certain conditions, which I have met diligently. Therefore, I also included secondary and tertiary sources that explain the primary source in the following sentence.
- 4. The use of YouTube links as sources. As seen on the Sada Aba Alawi talk page, I initially raised this issue but received no response from Abo Yemen. Therefore, when forced to use other sources, I used YouTube sources too cautiously. And it should be noted that not all YouTube links were included by me, but also by other editors such as user @Buhadram (Tirmidhi, etc.).
- 5. In essence, what I want to convey in the article is that the claim of Sada Ba Alawi as patrilineal descendants of Prophet Muhammad is still controversial. Some believe it and some reject it. I want to include both sides in the article so that the article is neutral and unbiased.
- Thank you. Kabul madras (talk) 00:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- your points just proves that you have done OR. Especially the youtube polls "survey of over 12,000 voters". Also the FamilyTreeDNA does not say anything from what is written in the article, you just added a link to a dna database in the style of a citation.
- That entire section needs to be well sourced using reliable unbiased sources or it will be removed completely as that article should be treated like a BLP. Abo Yemen✉ 02:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- I agree about the OR from FamilyTreeDNA. It doesn't say anything to reject the validity of Ba'alawi. I could not find result from the Youtube showing the voting statistics either. I am worried the edits are biased. (talk) 06:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Buhadramof course FamilyTreeDNA does not conclude as such, which is why I used a secondary reference from "https://rminubanten.or.id/debat-dna-padasuka-tv-dr-sugeng-sugiharto/" to explain the primary source. I have already used this reference in the section "This finding suggests that the Ba Alawi lineage does not descend directly from Prophet Muhammad, but rather has a genetically distinct line of ancestry." When I was about to add this reference to another section, edit warring had already occurred and I refrained from further editing. Kabul madras (talk) 09:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- sorry , wrong user , @Buhadram of course FamilyTreeDNA does not conclude as such, which is why I used a secondary reference from "https://rminubanten.or.id/debat-dna-padasuka-tv-dr-sugeng-sugiharto/" to explain the primary source. I have already used this reference in the section "This finding suggests that the Ba Alawi lineage does not descend directly from Prophet Muhammad, but rather has a genetically distinct line of ancestry." When I was about to add this reference to another section, edit warring had already occurred and I refrained from further editing. Kabul madras (talk) 09:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Buhadramof course FamilyTreeDNA does not conclude as such, which is why I used a secondary reference from "https://rminubanten.or.id/debat-dna-padasuka-tv-dr-sugeng-sugiharto/" to explain the primary source. I have already used this reference in the section "This finding suggests that the Ba Alawi lineage does not descend directly from Prophet Muhammad, but rather has a genetically distinct line of ancestry." When I was about to add this reference to another section, edit warring had already occurred and I refrained from further editing. Kabul madras (talk) 09:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- You missed my point which was that they had both been unblocked because JBW had second thoughts. Look at Kabul madras block log they were also blocked and unblocked (Wrong account blocked by mistake). This then looks like a case of "other parent", especially when combined with the section that begins "@Abo Yemen and Kabul madras: First of all, my apologies for the block of Kabul madras". CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Looking at the block log, OP was unblocked 4 minutes later with the message
- I have not looked into the issue of original "research", which is what this discussion is supposed to be about, so I have no comment to make about that. However, in view of what has been said about my blocks, I will attempt to make absolutely clear what they have been about. Since this is not on topic for this section, please just skip it if you aren't interested in it. (1) My block of Kabul madras was a straightforward mistake: having been checking editing histories of both editors, and shifting back and forth between the two, I clicked the block link on the wrong page. Certainly Kabul madras had been edit-warring, but they had been warned, and had not continued the edit-war since the warning, and I didn't think it was necessary to block. (2) Abo Yemen, on the other hand, had actually posted an edit-warring warning about an edit-war in which he was himself involved. That means that he knew that it was an edit-war, that he was involved, and that it could lead to a block. In my opinion that alone would have been enough to justify a block. I also thought that he had continued the edit-war war after posting that warning, so I blocked him. However, I then realised that I had misread the editing history, and in fact his last edit to the article had been before he posted the warning. I think that even allowing for that, it would have been reasonable to have maintained the block, but I decided to give him another chance, so I removed the block. Well, he has been given another chance, and has used it to continue the same edit war again. I have therefore blocked him again. JBW (talk) 16:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Buhadram , you are surely aware that everything mentioned is currently under dispute as explained above, yet you persist in making extensive edits to the related article. Wouldn't it be appropriate for you to refrain from further editing while waiting for guidance from other administrators? Kabul madras (talk) 09:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Kabul madras, we both should refrain from major edit-war, with I exception of minor fixes such as typos or spelling/grammar corrections, I believe. My most recent updates mostly were minors, such as typo correction and adding Wiki links to some mentioned words. Although, I noticed you recently reverted previous edit made by @Abo Yemen. Any way, I've tagged the section with POV. Buhadram (talk) 16:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- and I am the one who gets blocked off editing for 3 days smh 🙄🙄 Abo Yemen✉ 16:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Before editing, I asked for permission from the @JBW as admin and was granted it. Following their advice, I started adding references. If this is incorrect, I will remove it immediately. Kabul madras (talk) 17:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- JBW granted you the permission to edit the article, which wasn't something that you were prohibited to do in the first place Abo Yemen✉ 17:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Before editing, I asked for permission from the @JBW as admin and was granted it. Following their advice, I started adding references. If this is incorrect, I will remove it immediately. Kabul madras (talk) 17:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Buhadram Okay, I just reviewed again the log list. Sorry, I was wrong. It turns out the biggest change was made by Abo Yemen. Kabul madras (talk) 17:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Those big changes that you're talking about is me translating the article from arabic to english... Abo Yemen✉ 17:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- To @Abo Yemen and @Buhadram, as we can observe on the discussion page of the Sadah Ba Alawi article, the differences between us are indeed significant. You wish to maintain the status quo, while I am inclined to introduce an alternative approach to the article. Consequently, the likelihood of reaching an agreement between us is very slim. In fact, both approaches have their own references that meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion in the article. Therefore, I invite the administrators to mediate this issue, and I will abide by the administrators' decision on this matter. Hopefully, this will happen soon so that the issue can be resolved quickly. Kabul madras (talk) 09:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- I prefer to split the “disputes and rebuttals” section to a new article. Buhadram (talk) 20:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah and then we'll nominate it for deletion per WP:G10, I like this idea Abo Yemen✉ 03:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- @JBWIt's been a week and no admin has addressed this issue in depth. What is Wikipedia's policy in such situations? Kabul madras (talk) 01:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Kabul madras: Apart from the edit-warring I don't see any role for an administrator here. This is essentially a content dispute, and administrators have no more authority in content disputes than anyone else. You may like to consider whether to try one or other of Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard & Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. JBW (talk) 10:12, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- @JBWIt's been a week and no admin has addressed this issue in depth. What is Wikipedia's policy in such situations? Kabul madras (talk) 01:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah and then we'll nominate it for deletion per WP:G10, I like this idea Abo Yemen✉ 03:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- I prefer to split the “disputes and rebuttals” section to a new article. Buhadram (talk) 20:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- To @Abo Yemen and @Buhadram, as we can observe on the discussion page of the Sadah Ba Alawi article, the differences between us are indeed significant. You wish to maintain the status quo, while I am inclined to introduce an alternative approach to the article. Consequently, the likelihood of reaching an agreement between us is very slim. In fact, both approaches have their own references that meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion in the article. Therefore, I invite the administrators to mediate this issue, and I will abide by the administrators' decision on this matter. Hopefully, this will happen soon so that the issue can be resolved quickly. Kabul madras (talk) 09:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Those big changes that you're talking about is me translating the article from arabic to english... Abo Yemen✉ 17:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- and I am the one who gets blocked off editing for 3 days smh 🙄🙄 Abo Yemen✉ 16:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Kabul madras, we both should refrain from major edit-war, with I exception of minor fixes such as typos or spelling/grammar corrections, I believe. My most recent updates mostly were minors, such as typo correction and adding Wiki links to some mentioned words. Although, I noticed you recently reverted previous edit made by @Abo Yemen. Any way, I've tagged the section with POV. Buhadram (talk) 16:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Personal attacks over content dispute
[edit]TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk · contribs) Hello. I'd like to flag for attention a content dispute over the status of several geographic locations in Queensland that has led to personal attacks against myself and another editor by this user. On the talk page for Ipswich, Queensland, myself and others have raised concerns about TFEU's behaviour. They have engaged in similar content disputes, accusing good faith editors of WP:OR and questioning WP:NPOV, including placing inappropriate maintenance tags on the articles and reverting edits that restore sourced, long term stable content. As there may be a language barrier, I brushed off TFEU's comments on their own talk page that are disparaging toward Australians. However, attempts to discuss this matter with the user and resolve the dispute indicate they intend to ignore consensus. They are now accusing myself and StellaAquila of multiple instances of "forgery" that they believe need to be looked at by an administrator. Of particular concern to me is the edit summary for [change] on 26 August, which accuses me of falsifying sources and undermining consensus. I feel this is now a personal attack and have asked TFEU to strike their WP:Aspersions, however they seem to have gone inactive and have not responded. Dfadden (talk) 10:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- I had no intention of using any personal attacks. I would also like to point out that I wanted to inform you about the falsification of sources in this article - my intention was not to offend anyone, and if someone thinks otherwise, they are breaking the Wikipedia:Assume good will. I didn't say anything about the user as such, I only wrote that what that what he is doing is falsifying sources. Also, I would like to remind you that falsifying sources is a verb and describes an action regardless of the good will of the user and whether he do it on purpose or by mistake. I have noticed falsification of sources in this article. I explained it thoroughly in the discussion, it didn't help. Dfadden didn't even discuss it in the discussion, nor did he try to clarify the matter before reverting. User:StellaAquila add [32][33] and later, user:Dfadden restored[34] the content of the article that is not supported by sources. In other words: both users inserted the content of "regional city" and "serves as the city’s central business district" and sources for that content, even though the sources say nothing about it. That's not all - they removed the article's content (word of "suburb") which is supported by one of these sources (there is even a quote!!!). User:Dfadden came here to complain, and didn't even verify the sources inserted by user:StellaAquila. Dfadden, it is your responsibility to verify the sources before restore StellaAquila's version. Just because you weren't the first to insert false sources doesn't mean you're blameless. By blindly restoring false sources inserted by user:StellaAquila, you are just as guilty of forging sources as he is. It is very good that the matter was reported to ANI, because it is unacceptable for users to falsify sources in the article.
- I have correctly inserted content ("suburb") supported by a source and have provided a citation from the source. I have also correctly inserted appropriate templates for content not supported by sources (template:failed verification span) [35], because that's what this template is for. User:Dfadden removed content supported by a verified source + quote and removed templates informing about a faulty source[36]. Dfadden, how do you intend to explain these destructive actions? TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 15:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- You’ve said you
had no intention of using any personal attacks
, but the following quote looks quite offensive to me, even allowing for the fact that you aren’t editing in your first language: Discuss in Talk:Ipswich, Queensland is not good idea, this talk page will recruit mainly Australians, which will allow them to push through even the stupidest idea. The discussion should have a broader, international character, where the Australian point of view (disconnected from reality) has only one voice
[37].- At the very least you should apologise unconditionally for an exceptionally poor choice of words. That statement needlessly inflamed a content dispute into an ANI issue. Axad12 (talk) 18:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- It was about the topic in a broader sense - the point of view among Australian residents about the localities may be considered unacceptable in the international environment (such as Wikipedia), especially since in many cases this content is unsupported by sources (thus violating a fundamental principle of Wikipedia). I was agitating for a broader discussion in a neutral place on Wikipedia, where the "Australian" opinion will be treated as one among many others. Looking back at my statement almost 2 months after writing it, I can see that my choice of words was indeed inappropriate. I apologise for an exceptionally poor choice of words. TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 20:37, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- The word i take most issue with is "forgery", which you again just used right here in this discussion, despite your claims you never said that about me:
By blindly restoring false sources inserted by user:StellaAquila, you are just as guilty of forging sources as he is.
You also made this accusation on the talk page:The StellaAquila / Dfadden's version is a forgery, because the user inserted two sources into the content, but these sources do not say anything about it[6][7]. The administrator should look into this matter because in this article it is already a recidivism.
. - Its one thing if you have an issue with WP:Synthesis of the sources added by StellaAquila (which is a discussion I'd be happy to engage in at the appropriate place). Its a very different thing to accuse people of forging sources - which implies we made up sources out of thin air to deceive or personally benefit. Forgery and recidivism are words associated with criminal activity. Was this just another "exceptionally poor" choice of words that you just doubled down on after your earlier disparaging comments? Dfadden (talk) 21:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- For me, in a broader sense: introducing false sources into the article, especially since I wrote about it earlier in the discussion, is falsifying sources / forging sources. I can see that you are really offended by this - ok, I won't use these words anymore. I would also like to point out that we have completely different opinions on this subject - you react too bluntly (I don't know if I used the correct word) to my descriptions of your behavior and it is possible that I am using words that (contrary to my logic) may be considered inappropriate. As I wrote above, my intention was not to offend anyone. Unfortunately, I do not know how to write in English that someone introduced false sources to the article - without using words that may offend someone. For me, the situation is so absurdal that even pointing out that someone introduced false sources into the article may be considered a personal attack. Although my intention was not to offend anyone, I apologize for my words. TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 22:01, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- I accept that you did not intend to accuse me of criminal conduct, however you repeatedly state that I am falsifying information when i have done no such thing! I have encouraged you to discuss controversial edits (which others have told you they have concerns about) before making changes to articles that have been stable for a long time. I reverted one of your edits after a conversation was started on the talk page. I asked you to discuss any changes first as it was controversial and they seemed to go against the majority in the discussion, which was still ongoing. I added a source that stated Ipswich is a regional city (albeit a primary one, i think in this case the city council is reliable). I did indeed restore the source added by StellaAquila. although I acknowledge its not the best source and a better one could be found, but this was just part of me reverting a controversial change you made. In response to this, you left permanent comments in an edit summary accusing me of falsifying information and of forgery on the talk page. Language barrier or not, that was rude, unnecessary and demonstrably untrue! I also note you have been involved in similar content disputes on a number of articles relating to cities in Queensland where you have displayed hostility towards anyone who has a different opinion to you and in Spain (such as here) where you were cautioned against edit warring. Dfadden (talk) 22:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- You are offended that I am writing untruths, that you are falsifying sources, and you are offending me, that you are writing untruths about me above. I have reverted few changes made by User:StellaAquila in Queensland's articles because some his edits were controversial. I don't remember any disputes with other users in Queensland's articles. You added a source that stated Ipswich, Queensland is a regional city? Where? Please give wikilink and quote from the source. The same applies to the second source, which is also false. Why are you writing once again, untrue, that the version with term of "regional city" is stable version? The term of "regional city" is a new change made by User:StellaAquila in 10 July 2024. In addition, why are you trying to hide the fact that you restored a version that contained two false sources even though I wrote about this problem earlier in the discussion? Besides, what kind of new tactic is this, you carefully analyze all my edits I have made on Wikipedia to find some small points against me. This is against Wikipedia rules and has signs of harassment. TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 23:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- If you are insufficiently fluent in English to be able to disagree without causing needless offence then I’d suggest you have three choices.
- Either…
- a) Take advantage of one of the various options available to get extra eyes on a dispute, e.g. WP:3O, WP:RfC, etc. (That sort of thing is usually a good idea anyway when 2 users just cannot agree, which happens to everyone from time to time).
- b) Edit on English Wikipedia in such a way that you avoid arguments (inevitably some users find this easier than others).
- Or, failing all else, c) Edit (or argue) only on a version of Wikipedia where you are fluent.
- The above is intended as constructive advice, based simply on the fact that it requires a very high degree of fluency in a language to have a protracted argument in a civil fashion.
- As ANI does not rule on content disputes I'd suggest that you take the content issue that underlies this thread to another location. Once there, de-escalate the situation by using more neutral language and wait for others to decide what should happen. Does that sound reasonable? Axad12 (talk) 06:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you @Axad12. These are all very wise and reasonable courses of action. I would like to clarify that I did not raise this AN/I to resolve the content dispute (there is already a discussion running on Talk:Ipswich, Queensland), but rather to address TFEU's pattern of problematic behaviours. We did previously discuss an RfC, which I encouraged, however this was met with more rubbish about excluding Australian opinions -
So that there is no situation of appropriation of the Australian-related articles of the English Wikipedia by Australians, so that the Australian point of view is not pushed in a discussion where 99% of the arguments will come from Australians, because the discussion will be local. Discussion should be neutral. In such a local discussion like Talk:Ipswich, Queensland, only the Australian point of view ones would be discussed. Given that the topic is very disputed and controversial and changes to Australian-related articles are often contrary to international standards, a Wikipedia:Third opinion is necessary
. - Another example of problematic and uncivil behaviour can be found at user talk:StellaAquila#Australian articles, where (prior to the edits to Ipswich that TFEU claims I "falsified"), there were more accusations of WP:OR and threats against that user over a rather minor edit:
However, your falsification of sources in relation to content is seriously damaging Wikipedia, and the consequences will be severe. Also, the removal of the word "Brisbane" from articles [1] will not be tolerated. Naming Brisbane as a region - your original research [2] also will not be tolerated. This is the last warning.
I should also note that a third, uninvolved editor has echoed the concerns raised by myself and StellaAquila in the discussion at Talk:Ipswich, Queensland. - Finally, to respond to TFEU's question as to where I added a source that indicated Ipswich was a regional city, I refer to [[38]], where I added a reference from the Ipswich City Council (albeit a primary source) that states: The city is ideally positioned on the national road network; As Queensland's oldest provincial city, Ipswich has a rich history.; Ipswich also has a range of charming townships within the western rural areas of the city, each with its own legitimate claims of historical significance. This edit was reverted by TFEU [[39]] with the edit summary
the discussion did not explain anything new. Besides, no matter what the consensus in the discussion would be, we are dealing here with falsification of sources by user Dfadden. User Dfadden inserts a sources to content that is not in the sources. The administrator should deal with the matter because it is a recidivism.
It seems clear to me based on this that TFEU is not interested in working collaboratively to resolve anything and will continue to cast WP:Aspersions regardless of any consensus. Dfadden (talk) 08:56, 4 September 2024 (UTC)- Dfadden, you are repeating yourself and nitpicking the same thing over and over again. Soon you will quote all my comments here. And why? My opinion on the Australian naming problem was quoted above in the discussion. As can be seen from the above-mentioned Ipswich and dozens of other articles, Australian users tend to call everything (villages, towns, cities, LGAs, agglomerations, urban areas etc) as "city". This is contrary to international standards in Wikipedia. That is why I agitated that there should be a broader discussion of an international nature, not a local discuss between... Australians residents with mainly the "Australian" point of view. Of course I can show the evidences: many discussion pages and Australian articles showing that I am writing the truth. Of course, this is a substantive issue and ANI is not the place for such discussions.
- Regarding your source - this is a source about City of Ipswich, not Ipswich, Queensland . Secondly: the source does not mention term of "regional city" and your edit refers to inserting this source into the term "regional city". The source does not mention "regional city", so the accusations of OR are completely justified. So your source is 100% false and misleading. I have growing concerns about your intentions because your above comment may mislead other users. To the administrators who are not know with the Australian naming issues: City of Ipswich is a city with a mayor, city council, administrative boundaries, an official website and even has international relations, e.g. sister cities. On the other hand, Ipswich, Queensland is just a population center, area covering the city center, without a mayor, city council, administrative boundaries and official website. Ipswich, Queensland is nothing formal, this is area who covers the city center of the City of Ipswich. The source cited by user:Dfadden refers to City of Ipswich [40], not Ipswich, Queensland (which is what this discussion is about).
- Dfadden, I would like to remind you that ANI works both ways. If there is a dispute between two users, it does not matter which one starts a thread on the ANI site first. Your comment above shows not only that your source is false because it does not refer to Ipswich, Queensland (source refers to City of Ipswich) and the source does not contain the term "regional city" (and you entered the source to this name). Your comment above, which may mislead anyone unfamiliar with the problems of Australian naming, and the fact that you, as an Australian, know perfectly well that the source is from City of Ipswich and not Ipswich, Queensland - this suggests that it is worth taking a second look at your intentions. So far I have been guided by Wikipedia:Assume good will, but it is worth to analyze the attempt to deliberately introduce false sources into the article. It is also worth remembering that there is also a motive - Dfadden, despite my proposed compromise in the form of a neutral term "population center", the user has not initiated any discussion towards compromise[41], trying to force the controversial and disputed term "city" for Ipswich, Queensland. I am not accusing anyone!!!!, I am only suggesting that it is worth taking a look at this situation. TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 15:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Can the admin reviewing this please comment on whether a partial block could be placed on this user for Ipswich, Queensland to prevent further disruption? This would still allow everyone to participate in an RfC to resolve the content dispute over Australian cities and provide an opportunity for consensus and de-escalation. Dfadden (talk) 12:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Can the admin reviewing this please comment on whether a partial block could be placed on user:Dfadden for Ipswich, Queensland to prevent further disruption? User:Dfadden is not willing to compromise at all, he imposes only and exclusively one version that he supports. The user did not discuss two important topics in talk page[42], instead he came here to complain. The user entered false sources into the article and despite everything coming to light, he did not even decide to apologize. Now the user unwilling to compromise will want to restore his version, possibly with false sources since his version has no reliable sources. Therefore, I not only suggest a topic ban in this article for the User:Dfadden, also I suggest consider blocking the account for a certain period, e.g. 2 weeks or month, for his underhand actions towards me and other users (harassment me, lies about me, evading responsibility for own edit, probable attempt to deceive other users by inserting a source concerning City of Ipswich, not Ipswich, Queensland) and the article (introducing false sources into the article). I have nothing against having a substantive discussion with a user:Dfadden on an article's talk page, but the article should be protected (by topic ban for user:Dfadden in Ipswich, Queensland) from subsequent edits that push words without supporting sources, most likely violating the OR rule and against introducing false sources into the article. TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 16:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Dfadden hasn't edited that article since 18th July. You reverted that edit and Dfadden hasn't edit warred but instead engaged in discussion. The idea that a block is required to "prevent further disruption" to the article is nonsensical.
- If your post above is an attempt at de-escalating the current situation and avoiding needless offence then perhaps you'd better seriously consider option (c) in my post of a few days ago. Axad12 (talk) 16:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Not exactly - you forgot something important. You forget that the fact that a user did not engage in an edit war earlier in this case does not exclude that when he gets rid of me he will introduce his version backwards (without edit-war). What guarantee do you have that if I am banned from editing this article, Dfadden will not restore his version with false sources? You should understand one thing: his version has no reliable sources, everyone involved in the discussion of this article (including Dfadden) knows that. There is a huge possibility (based on his actions in the article and in this discussion) that Dfadden, when he gets rid of me, will want to restore his version 1) with false sources 2) without any reliable sources, because there are none. Therefore, the article must be protected. There is no point in me avoiding discussions on the article's talk page, but I would prefer to contact a third party (Wikipedia:Third opinion) who will exercise control over violations of Wikipedia rules, especially Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Dfadden needs to understand one thing, I have absolutely nothing against the consensus, IF it complies with Wikipedia's rules. His version in 100% violates Wikipedia:Verifiability and everything indicates that "regional city" also violates the Wikipedia:No original research rule. Apart from the issue of breaking the rules, we have a substantive thread to discuss. Instead of continuing the substantive discussion, the user preferred to scare me with reporting to ANI[43]. I would like to remind you that my current version of the article is compromise #1, which shows both options in reference to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (both "suburb" + source+ quote and his "regional city"+[failed verification]). I proposed the compromise #2 in the article discussion. So, compared to me - the Dfadden does not want to compromise, he only wants to enforce his version unsupported by sources, which shows his intentions. TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 17:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'd refer you again to the desirability of option (c). Axad12 (talk) 17:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Not exactly - you forgot something important. You forget that the fact that a user did not engage in an edit war earlier in this case does not exclude that when he gets rid of me he will introduce his version backwards (without edit-war). What guarantee do you have that if I am banned from editing this article, Dfadden will not restore his version with false sources? You should understand one thing: his version has no reliable sources, everyone involved in the discussion of this article (including Dfadden) knows that. There is a huge possibility (based on his actions in the article and in this discussion) that Dfadden, when he gets rid of me, will want to restore his version 1) with false sources 2) without any reliable sources, because there are none. Therefore, the article must be protected. There is no point in me avoiding discussions on the article's talk page, but I would prefer to contact a third party (Wikipedia:Third opinion) who will exercise control over violations of Wikipedia rules, especially Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Dfadden needs to understand one thing, I have absolutely nothing against the consensus, IF it complies with Wikipedia's rules. His version in 100% violates Wikipedia:Verifiability and everything indicates that "regional city" also violates the Wikipedia:No original research rule. Apart from the issue of breaking the rules, we have a substantive thread to discuss. Instead of continuing the substantive discussion, the user preferred to scare me with reporting to ANI[43]. I would like to remind you that my current version of the article is compromise #1, which shows both options in reference to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (both "suburb" + source+ quote and his "regional city"+[failed verification]). I proposed the compromise #2 in the article discussion. So, compared to me - the Dfadden does not want to compromise, he only wants to enforce his version unsupported by sources, which shows his intentions. TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 17:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Support p-blocking TravelerFromEuropeanUnion from the article, as they clearly cannot edit this topic without resorting to insults and demanding to get their way. The sealioning of bouncing between accusing another editor of
deliberately introduce false sources into the article
then immediately following up withI am not accusing anyone!!!!, I am only suggesting that it is worth taking a look at this situation.
is just disingenuous. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)- Support as per my comments above. Axad12 (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- I am willing to voluntarily withdraw completely from editing this article and even from the discussion, but only on one condition. I would only write only one summary comment on the article's talk page, two points: 1. Wikipedia rules and 2. a substantive/merythorical issue but only and only IF a third person (Wikipedia:Third opinion) makes sure that:
- 1) Wikipedia rules are unconditionally and mandatory followed. This means that a third party will not allow content to be inserted without sources and will be responsible for accurate verification of sources.
- 2) the substantive thread will be analyzed using arguments (not the number of votes, because Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a democracy). The third party will evaluate the arguments from everyone in the discussion and draw conclusions as consensus.
- This is a modification of Axad12's proposals, to which I will gladly agree. It can be as RfC, I see no obstacles. TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Instead of continuing the substantive discussion, the user preferred to scare me with reporting to ANI
May I remind you that you were the one who said you wanted an administrator to intervene as part of a thread i started to discuss this issue?The StellaAquila / Dfadden's version is a forgery, because the user inserted two sources into the content, but these sources do not say anything about it[6][7]. The administrator should look into this matter because in this article it is already a recidivism.
I am also not the only editor in that discussion to raise concerns that you are not listening or do not understand what the community is trying to tell you, and have crossed a line into personal attacks in previous attempts to engage with you to resolve this issue.[[44]] Dfadden (talk) 20:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)- The issue of adding false sources is an administrative issue. The administrator should look into this matter. I still have this opinion and it is sufficiently explained in my previous comments. The sources are false and cannot be used in the article. This does not change the fact that I proposed a compromise and you did not respond in the discussion about the compromise, but started to scare me with a motion to ANI. You are trying to distort the discussion here, introducing the same quotes over and over again, just to distract other users from your behavior. TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- @TravelerFromEuropeanUnion I've found that I agree with you on the content (and have posted to the talk page, so consider me involved), but agree with the others that there's an issue with your approach. WP:AGF is indeed a part of WP:5P4. In your condition above, what you ask is basically that the process follows Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. This implies that currently they are not. Regardless of your intent, the effect is a personal attack, which is why this matter has come to this noticeboard. I suggest you'll get far better results in your time here if you assume there's a miscommunication, not malice, the next time there's a disagreement. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, I agree with you. However, I would like to "pass the baton" to a third party (preferably you) who will ensure that the article adheres to Wikipedia's policies, in particular Wikipedia:Verifiability. Thank you for engaging in the discussion here and at Talk:Ipswich, Queensland. TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 14:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- @TravelerFromEuropeanUnion I've found that I agree with you on the content (and have posted to the talk page, so consider me involved), but agree with the others that there's an issue with your approach. WP:AGF is indeed a part of WP:5P4. In your condition above, what you ask is basically that the process follows Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. This implies that currently they are not. Regardless of your intent, the effect is a personal attack, which is why this matter has come to this noticeboard. I suggest you'll get far better results in your time here if you assume there's a miscommunication, not malice, the next time there's a disagreement. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- The issue of adding false sources is an administrative issue. The administrator should look into this matter. I still have this opinion and it is sufficiently explained in my previous comments. The sources are false and cannot be used in the article. This does not change the fact that I proposed a compromise and you did not respond in the discussion about the compromise, but started to scare me with a motion to ANI. You are trying to distort the discussion here, introducing the same quotes over and over again, just to distract other users from your behavior. TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Can the admin reviewing this please comment on whether a partial block could be placed on user:Dfadden for Ipswich, Queensland to prevent further disruption? User:Dfadden is not willing to compromise at all, he imposes only and exclusively one version that he supports. The user did not discuss two important topics in talk page[42], instead he came here to complain. The user entered false sources into the article and despite everything coming to light, he did not even decide to apologize. Now the user unwilling to compromise will want to restore his version, possibly with false sources since his version has no reliable sources. Therefore, I not only suggest a topic ban in this article for the User:Dfadden, also I suggest consider blocking the account for a certain period, e.g. 2 weeks or month, for his underhand actions towards me and other users (harassment me, lies about me, evading responsibility for own edit, probable attempt to deceive other users by inserting a source concerning City of Ipswich, not Ipswich, Queensland) and the article (introducing false sources into the article). I have nothing against having a substantive discussion with a user:Dfadden on an article's talk page, but the article should be protected (by topic ban for user:Dfadden in Ipswich, Queensland) from subsequent edits that push words without supporting sources, most likely violating the OR rule and against introducing false sources into the article. TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 16:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Can the admin reviewing this please comment on whether a partial block could be placed on this user for Ipswich, Queensland to prevent further disruption? This would still allow everyone to participate in an RfC to resolve the content dispute over Australian cities and provide an opportunity for consensus and de-escalation. Dfadden (talk) 12:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you @Axad12. These are all very wise and reasonable courses of action. I would like to clarify that I did not raise this AN/I to resolve the content dispute (there is already a discussion running on Talk:Ipswich, Queensland), but rather to address TFEU's pattern of problematic behaviours. We did previously discuss an RfC, which I encouraged, however this was met with more rubbish about excluding Australian opinions -
- You are offended that I am writing untruths, that you are falsifying sources, and you are offending me, that you are writing untruths about me above. I have reverted few changes made by User:StellaAquila in Queensland's articles because some his edits were controversial. I don't remember any disputes with other users in Queensland's articles. You added a source that stated Ipswich, Queensland is a regional city? Where? Please give wikilink and quote from the source. The same applies to the second source, which is also false. Why are you writing once again, untrue, that the version with term of "regional city" is stable version? The term of "regional city" is a new change made by User:StellaAquila in 10 July 2024. In addition, why are you trying to hide the fact that you restored a version that contained two false sources even though I wrote about this problem earlier in the discussion? Besides, what kind of new tactic is this, you carefully analyze all my edits I have made on Wikipedia to find some small points against me. This is against Wikipedia rules and has signs of harassment. TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 23:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- I accept that you did not intend to accuse me of criminal conduct, however you repeatedly state that I am falsifying information when i have done no such thing! I have encouraged you to discuss controversial edits (which others have told you they have concerns about) before making changes to articles that have been stable for a long time. I reverted one of your edits after a conversation was started on the talk page. I asked you to discuss any changes first as it was controversial and they seemed to go against the majority in the discussion, which was still ongoing. I added a source that stated Ipswich is a regional city (albeit a primary one, i think in this case the city council is reliable). I did indeed restore the source added by StellaAquila. although I acknowledge its not the best source and a better one could be found, but this was just part of me reverting a controversial change you made. In response to this, you left permanent comments in an edit summary accusing me of falsifying information and of forgery on the talk page. Language barrier or not, that was rude, unnecessary and demonstrably untrue! I also note you have been involved in similar content disputes on a number of articles relating to cities in Queensland where you have displayed hostility towards anyone who has a different opinion to you and in Spain (such as here) where you were cautioned against edit warring. Dfadden (talk) 22:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- For me, in a broader sense: introducing false sources into the article, especially since I wrote about it earlier in the discussion, is falsifying sources / forging sources. I can see that you are really offended by this - ok, I won't use these words anymore. I would also like to point out that we have completely different opinions on this subject - you react too bluntly (I don't know if I used the correct word) to my descriptions of your behavior and it is possible that I am using words that (contrary to my logic) may be considered inappropriate. As I wrote above, my intention was not to offend anyone. Unfortunately, I do not know how to write in English that someone introduced false sources to the article - without using words that may offend someone. For me, the situation is so absurdal that even pointing out that someone introduced false sources into the article may be considered a personal attack. Although my intention was not to offend anyone, I apologize for my words. TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 22:01, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- The word i take most issue with is "forgery", which you again just used right here in this discussion, despite your claims you never said that about me:
- It was about the topic in a broader sense - the point of view among Australian residents about the localities may be considered unacceptable in the international environment (such as Wikipedia), especially since in many cases this content is unsupported by sources (thus violating a fundamental principle of Wikipedia). I was agitating for a broader discussion in a neutral place on Wikipedia, where the "Australian" opinion will be treated as one among many others. Looking back at my statement almost 2 months after writing it, I can see that my choice of words was indeed inappropriate. I apologise for an exceptionally poor choice of words. TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 20:37, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- You’ve said you
Just noting here that discussion has resumed on the article talk page, tense but productive. If it continues this way, this section can likely be closed with no action as a "everyone worked it out without admin intervention" happy ending. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- @EducatedRedneck I thank you very much for your assistance in resolving a misunderstanding over what you have described as a complex issue. However, I am still quite concerned about @TravelerFromEuropeanUnion's capacity to engage in this discussion in good faith, given this recent contribution [45]. Dfadden (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- I pointed out in the discussion the problem with the interpretation of content from sources indicated by Dfadden. I provided specific examples and an explanation. I have the right to do so. After all, no one can forbid me from pointing out the problem of someone's interpretation, if it is to be treated as an argument in a discussion.I am not going to be afraid to write down my arguments and point out irregularities in the talk page. I have the right to do so like any other user. My old comments (often from 2 months ago) were previously personal attacks - I agree and I apologized for that. That case is closed. Now it's a completely different matter and I no longer use personal attacks. And the fact that I pointed out that the source's interpretations by user Dfadden are wrong and provided evidence is not a personal attack. TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 21:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- You do have a right to point out your concerns and contribute your opinions on the content of the discussion. You cannot draw inferences about that individuals who are engaged in an ongoing civil discussion are "manipulating sources" and claim they are acting in bad faith. Especially when you have contributed no sources of your own to the same discussion. I also remind you that WP:Synth does not apply to talk page discussions. I have done nothing but respond to @EducatedRedneck questions and concerns to help them understand the nuances of Australian geography when they have asked. Where they have challenged my answers in a civil and respectful way, I have justified my position including acknowledging the limitations of sources i have found and trying to identify the root causes of disagreement. This has been productive so far. Please stop trying to derail it. Dfadden (talk) 22:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Very nicely written, too nicely but I currently have not written anything about any "manipulating sources" and "are acting in bad faith". Why are you trying to mislead the administrators? I treat this trying to mislead the administrators as a personal attack against me. From what I remember, this is the next time you've written untruths about me here. When will this end?
- The point is that you introduces a lot of interpretations of maps and sources into the discussion. I understand that you are trying to explain certain things about Australia to the user. The problem is that many of your interpretations of maps are disputed. I only wrote that EducatedRedneck should not treat your comments as a reliable source of information because "these are just his opinions/his interpretation about maps and information from the Internet". Any user's opinion is not a reliable source of information, it is just an opinion and should be treated as such. This is not an personal attack on you. You say: "Please stop trying to derail it" - that's exactly the point. I apologize for wanting to "derail" the treatment of your map interpretations as a credible source of information. I've noticed that EducatedRedneck treat your interpretations as revealed truth, I asked him to be more careful and showed him two examples of your misinterpretation. I understand that you don't like it, but if someone overinterprets the content of the source, I have the right to write about it in the discussion. This is not a personal attack, despite everything you came here and try to mislead the administrators. What should we think of your behavior? TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Reflecting on our contributions in the talk page discussion, we could both benefit by reviewing WP:BECONCISE. However the reason we are back at ANI is not the content dispute -
- I have now proposed a compromise to end the content dispute and provide you an opportunity to pursue your argument in a more appropriate place. Rather we are here due to your continuing incivility directed towards me. You really need to keep your criticisms focussed on the content rather than making assumptions about people. If someone says something that doesnt appear correct to you, you could try politely asking them questions like other editors have to confirm understandings, or bring alternative sources to the table. This would show good faith a lot more than rudely critiquing my replies to other editor's polite questions and drawing inferences that my intentions are to deceive people or propagate misinformation. Dfadden (talk) 06:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Ok. PS. I supported the compromise on the talk page. Regards, TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 20:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- You do have a right to point out your concerns and contribute your opinions on the content of the discussion. You cannot draw inferences about that individuals who are engaged in an ongoing civil discussion are "manipulating sources" and claim they are acting in bad faith. Especially when you have contributed no sources of your own to the same discussion. I also remind you that WP:Synth does not apply to talk page discussions. I have done nothing but respond to @EducatedRedneck questions and concerns to help them understand the nuances of Australian geography when they have asked. Where they have challenged my answers in a civil and respectful way, I have justified my position including acknowledging the limitations of sources i have found and trying to identify the root causes of disagreement. This has been productive so far. Please stop trying to derail it. Dfadden (talk) 22:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- I pointed out in the discussion the problem with the interpretation of content from sources indicated by Dfadden. I provided specific examples and an explanation. I have the right to do so. After all, no one can forbid me from pointing out the problem of someone's interpretation, if it is to be treated as an argument in a discussion.I am not going to be afraid to write down my arguments and point out irregularities in the talk page. I have the right to do so like any other user. My old comments (often from 2 months ago) were previously personal attacks - I agree and I apologized for that. That case is closed. Now it's a completely different matter and I no longer use personal attacks. And the fact that I pointed out that the source's interpretations by user Dfadden are wrong and provided evidence is not a personal attack. TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 21:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
User:清风与明月 Continued Tendentious editing.
[edit]After attempting to communicate and attempting to collaborate in good-faith, my colleague continues to engage in WP:TEND contrary to policies on Wikipedia. Their activities continue to include what appears to be a systematic attempt to engage in WP:CENSORSHIP by removing or diminishing mention of sex-work as part of the function of a Geji, contrary to numerous reliable sources that state such. When we disagreed on Talk:Gējì, they requested that a third party be brought in to arbitrate the issue and have since doing so continued to edit the page without engaging in the WP:3PO process. Understanding that 3PO is voluntary and nobinding, I am mentioning this because in my last time raising their conduct I was informed I had not attempted any dispute resolution first. The user was also notified by an admin User_talk:清风与明月#Gējì to participate in the discussions rather than ignoring them and continuing to re-add contested content.
Difs:
- [46]User removes a source with no summary as to why, leaving a source which is predominately in Chinese despite Wikipedia favoring English language sources and a source which in the abstract refers to Liu Rushi as a prostitute, which the user is misusing to represent them as not engaging in sexwork.
- [47]User adds a source and misrepresents it as saying that Geji did not engage in prostitution. The source never explicitly says Geji did not engage in prostitution but does say that courtesans and prostitutes did provide sexual services.
- [48]In this edit, the user again misrepresents the source as in-line citation says none of what the user added and says instead
musical performance and sexual performance were, in fact, usually the forte of an individual known as a "singing girl" (geji 歌妓, literally "song courtesan")
- [49]Here, the user tries to change the lead using a personal essay about a scholar's experiences to definitively state that Geji were not prostitutes even though the essay in question doesn't even say that.
- [50]User removes entire sections of text and sources with zero explanation as to why.
- [51] They provided an edit summary this time, but again continued to misrepresent the sources and editorialize as well as removing sourced content for no real reason.
- [52]User editoralized again, changing "eloped" to "abducted" and "Lovers" to "Friends" despite the fact that the source uses eloped and the source uses lovers.
As documented previously, the user has been warned about this behavior and has continued to engage in this conduct. Likewise, the user has been accused of wasting other editors time in submitting article drafts, and warned for edit warring. More recently, their talk page demonstrates articles they've created or proposed which are up for deletion or have been rejected. As I noted in my previous complaint which I dropped in an attempt to find common ground and work together here, there seems to be an issue of WP:CIR that is damaging to the enyclopedia. Brocade River Poems 03:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, BrocadeRiverPoems
- I thought your name was familiar so I looked in the ANI archives and found this thread, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1163#User:清风与明月_multiple_issues, that you opened on the same subject. It's kind of hidden in your statement by just referring to it in a link as "here". Likewise, if you participated in previous dispute resolution processes, even if they were not successful, it helps to provide a direct link so that editors can see the background of the disagreement. Liz Read! Talk! 04:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hi,
- Apologies for not making the incident clearer. As for other dispute resolution processes, Talk:G%C4%93j%C3%AC#Third_opinion an attempt to get a third party at their behest here which they have yet to engage with though they continued to edit the article, and numerous attempts at direct communication such as on their talk page User_talk:清风与明月#Collaboration_on_Geji and variously on Talk:Gējì which have resulted in no change. Brocade River Poems 04:13, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, I think I need to explain. First of all, I did not say that ancient Chinese Geji did not provide sex. I have always said that not all of them were prostitutes. And I also added two different views on the Geji wiki. I have said that "ancient Chinese geji sometimes had sex with men, but many of them were not prostitutes." At the same time, I also added "another view is that ancient Chinese geji were entertainers and prostitutes."The content I quoted also has references, and they are English books. 清风与明月 (talk) 10:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:G%C4%93j%C3%AC
- I don't want to emphasize it anymore. Please read my full content. I mean that the fact that there are singing girls who engage in prostitution does not mean that all people are prostitution. And sexual relations with men are not necessarily in the form of prostitution. It is this person who insists that singing girls in ancient China were prostitutes. He thinks that they are all prostitutes or sex workers. That's why I said we can't communicate. Because there are completely different perspectives on understanding, it is impossible to unify this entry. 清风与明月 (talk) 10:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- This is not a venue about content. This venue is about your conduct as an editor and whether or not it is damaging to the enyclopedia. You have failed to properly cite sources, you have failed to evaluate the reliability of sources, and you continue to make contentious edits without participating in discussion and without proper edit summaries in which you routinely remove sourced information from the article. This is a chief example of what I mean by WP:CIR is a big issue here. You say
I have said
, you shouldn't be saying anything. All Wikipedia articles can do is represent what the Reliable Sources say. You, however, seem to have an agenda. Per WP:NOTTRUTH,Editors may not add information to articles simply because they believe it to be true, nor even if they know it to be true.
and WP:NPOV which statesNeutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources
. Your tireless efforts that either come unsourced or with unreliable sources has long since encroached the territory WP:POVPUSH. As for your statementHe thinks that they are all prostitutes or sex workers. That's why I said we can't communicate.
, I would thank you to not randomly misgender me, and secondly, I have never pushed for the inclusion of the word 'prostitute' in the article. The statement which you continued to edit in contrary to what the source said stated simply that Geji sometimes engaged in sexual activity with their clients, because that is what the majority of the sources say. Brocade River Poems 15:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- This is not a venue about content. This venue is about your conduct as an editor and whether or not it is damaging to the enyclopedia. You have failed to properly cite sources, you have failed to evaluate the reliability of sources, and you continue to make contentious edits without participating in discussion and without proper edit summaries in which you routinely remove sourced information from the article. This is a chief example of what I mean by WP:CIR is a big issue here. You say
- The names of singing and dancing venues in ancient China include yuefu(乐府), jiaofang(教坊), goulanwashe(勾栏瓦舍),[102]gelou(歌楼),[103] qinglou(青楼)[Label 2] and wuxie(舞榭).[104] Although the meanings of these singing and dancing venues have changed in different dynasties, but cannot equate all singing and dancing venues with brothels or places of prostitution.[Label 1]Starting from the Tang Dynasty, there was a custom among gejis that those who had a good relationship would become sworn sisters and were called "incense brothers(香火兄弟)" and "handkerchief sisters(手帕姐妹)".[Label 3]Not all gejis married nobles as concubines.Some gejis chose to marry musicians, and after marrying musicians, they usually retired from the profession and trained their children in artistic skills. Some gejis began teaching other women skills during their careers. Some gejis eventually became teachers who taught girls singing and dancing.Due to the low status of gejis, some were forced to lose their virginity, and some became men's mistresses involuntarily. This kind of sexual exploitation is not necessarily equivalent to prostitution.Some gejis also engaged in prostitution, such as Sha Cai in the Ming Dynasty, who was a geji and a prostitute at the same time and eventually contracted syphilis.[105][106]But this is a personal behavior and does not mean that all gejis are prostitution. In addition, some pimps run brothel businesses in the name of gejis. The girls sing during the day and engage in prostitution at night. They are usually understood as prostitutes.
- This is the description I added to the geji entry. I haven't finished adding the specific references yet. I object to this friend's accusation that I whitewashed the geji profession and prostitution. I think my description is objective enough because not all geji are engaged in prostitution. On the contrary, this friend wants to identify all geji as prostitution, which is not objective enough. 清风与明月 (talk) 10:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- I am updating this to include more problems.
- [53] The user hasn't properly cited the information they have added, moreover the source is being used to support the statement
Some gejis also engaged in prostitution, such as Sha Cai in the Ming Dynasty, who was a geji and a prostitute at the same time and eventually contracted syphilis
, the source doesn't actually explicitly say any of that outside of the fact that Sha Cai developed syphillis per the translation the user provided which saysShe was very famous for a while, and people described they as the second Zhao(二赵) and the second Qiao(二乔). Unfortunately, Sha Cai got syphilis and half of her face was rotten.
. The user has misrepresented the contents of the source. - [54] User has added a source which, again, does not support the claim they are using it to support. The source as provided by the user says
She vowed that if she did not meet a talented man, she would not lose her virginity
andA rogue man threatened her to have sex, but Xie Suqiu did not agree, so she decided to leave and finally returned to Luoyang
. None of this supports the claimthis is a personal behavior and does not mean that all gejis are prostitution
. - [55] Addition of more unsourced content that Geji were forced. While I have no doubt that sexual exploitation occurred, it is not evidence that Geji did not perform sexual services as part of their job, nor is the comment sourced. It is the exact kind of WP:OR and WP:POVPUSHING that I have raised these complaints about.
- [53] The user hasn't properly cited the information they have added, moreover the source is being used to support the statement
- The sheer volume of edits they make to the page and the sheer number of errors they introduce greatly impedes any attempt to improve the article. Whenever positive changes are made, the editor goes back in and makes dozens of more edits which erode the quality of the article again. Again, I am suggesting some form of intervention per WP:CIR, the editor continues to demonstrate a competency issue in evaluating sources and accurately representing them, which is WP:DISRUPTIVE,
sometimes an editor creates long-term problems by persistently editing a page or set of pages with information which is not verifiable through reliable sources or insisting on giving undue weight to a minority view.
- Per the following points:
Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editors not only add material; some engage in disruptive deletions as well, e.g. repeatedly removing reliable sources posted by other editors.
,Is unwilling or unable to satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or performs original research.
, andFails to engage in consensus building
.
- Brocade River Poems 21:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Providing a further update. Upon examining the history of one of the articles edited by the other editor, I believe User_talk:103.137.63.207 to be the same as the editor in question. Notably, anonymous editing was blocked from the IP Address on June 10th for disruptive editing. On 05:17, 20 June 2023 User account 清风与明月 was created. At this dif [56], the IP Editor was reverted. Then this [57] IP editor User_talk:194.26.74.9 arrives and makes a similar change to the ones that had been reverted. Notably, 194.26.74.9 came up as an IP out of Hong Kong when I looked it up, and its entire range was blocked. Beyond that, the edit histories of all of these IP editors seems heavily in line with the user in question. Special:Contributions/194.26.74.9, Special:Contributions/103.137.63.207, Special:Contributions/清风与明月&target=清风与明月&dir=prev&, Special:Contributions/194.26.74.35, Special:Contributions/1.65.203.129,Special:Contributions/111.246.12.104, and probably others. The reason I bring this up is because it demonstrates that if these IPs did in fact belong to the user that the user has been making these tendetious edits since as early as June of 2023, and that upon being blocked for doing it, they simply continued to make the changes anonymously on a different IP Address. Brocade River Poems 02:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- I too have concerns about this editor's changes to the article. There seems to be extreme WP: POV pushing, removing referenced content that does not agree with their viewpoint and adding obscure offline references to justify their additions. Although a third opinion has been asked for, they continue to edit the article to change it to their POV, even though this is opposed to by other editors. --John B123 (talk) 20:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- I am further updating my report to note that the editor in question has continued to ignore requests that they stop editing the page while discussions are still underway, and they have introduced a number of style errors to the article [58] in their latest update. Brocade River Poems 18:41, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Given this Teahouse post, I believe it is clear that this user has no intention to stop being disruptive. Quite the contrary, in fact. I can see no reasonable remedy, short of an indefinite block, which I hereby propose. —Wasell(T) 17:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Given the amount the user edits and the amount of problems they introduce to the enyclopedia, I second the indefinite block. There are severe WP:CIR issues. Brocade River Poems 17:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- I assumed from their Teahouse post that they already had some kind of topic ban. But they have a clean block log, and they aren't listed on WP:RESTRICT. Those seem like obvious first steps. -- asilvering (talk) 21:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Given this Teahouse post, I believe it is clear that this user has no intention to stop being disruptive. Quite the contrary, in fact. I can see no reasonable remedy, short of an indefinite block, which I hereby propose. —Wasell(T) 17:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
The reported user is being very disruptive. Clear and significant WP:CIR issues. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
User:Kellycrak88
[edit]This good-faith editor, User:Kellycrak88, is creating a lot of articles, but seems to run into every possible issue, some of them again and again, including things like copyright violations, factual errors, NPOV issues, and problematic interactions with others[59][60]. The latest discussion I had with them was yesterday at User talk:Asilvering#Need Guidance on Bias and Admin Issues in Baronage Guidelines Discussion, ending with them promising improvement[61] after I asked "Please slow down, create less but better articles, based on better sources, and at the very least make sure that the claims in the article are correct." Since then, in the past 24 hours, they created 5 articles, with the same issues continuing.
First they created Baron of Abergeldie. 8 sources, the first two are Wikipedia articles, the fourth[62] and sixth[63] are "page not found / 404" errors: searching for Abergeldie on that fourth site yields no results at all. With also a Wordpress blog thrown into the mix[64], the sourcing of this article really isn't acceptable. The next creation, Baron of Arbroath, has one line about the current baron, and three sections about earlier history of the town of Arbroath unrelated to the Barony. It has nothing about the actual history of the barony.
Next, they created Baron of Ardgowan, a title first granted in 1404 apparently. Well, no, the castle was given in that year, but a few centuries later the family became baronets (not barons), and remain so to this day[65]. I can't find any evidence for a Baron of Ardgowan before the present one was granted the title somehow.
Because of the continued issues with reliable sourcing (including the repeated use of "accessed" sources which don't even work) and with fact-checking, it would be probably best if they would be required to create new articles through the WP:AfC process, without being allowed to create an article in the mainspace or move one to the mainspace. Fram (talk) 09:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Baron of Abergeldie: I acknowledge that there were a couple of "page not found / 404" links, likely due to typos. These URLs have since been corrected and are now functional. The blog link (which was not immediately obvious to me that is was hosted on wordpress) has been replaced with credible sources, including The Times, The Guardian, The Evening Standard, The Telegraph, and Tatler, which quote the Baron Abergeldie or refer to the estate and castle. Additionally, I’ve included his title listed in Debrett's, alongside the other sources already cited, including his profile from Burke's Peerage.
- Baron of Ardgowan: This title is verified in the Registry of Scottish Nobility and the Scottish Barony Register, which provide both the creation date and the current title holder. It is not uncommon for some baronets in Scotland who hold estates to also hold baronage titles (the King can confer multiple titles), as pre-2004 these were historically tied to land ownership (i.e. owning a castle). After 2004, such titles became personal, allowing them to be transferred to heirs or assignees. The Stewarts (of the scottish royal house) were somehow attached to the Hasburgs because Prof Stephen Kerr was gifted the Barony of Ardgowan as an award for helping the Habsburgs in their legal case against the Republic of Austria for stealing all their property and banishing them in 1919. So in this case, Prof. Stephen Kerr received the Barony of Ardgowan as an honour in 2004, and his title was recognised by the Lord Lyon King of Arms—the monarch's representative in Scotland.
- Baron of Arbroath: Likewise the title and creation date is verified in Burke's Peerage, Debrett's, the Registry of Scottish Nobility, and the Scottish Barony Register.
- I appreciate that you’ve highlighted these three articles. As with many newly created articles, there is always room for improvement. Historical information, especially regarding baronage titles, often exists in offline sources such as The Great Seal (Scotland's oldest national record) or crown charters, or books, making it more challenging to source fully online. Nevertheless, I believe the information provided thus far is credible and well-sourced enough to justify the creation of these pages, and hope others will help improve them further.
- Addressing Fram’s behaviour: I’m glad you’ve brought these concerns to the attention of other administrators, as I would like to formally lodge a complaint against Fram for persistent harassment. Fram consistently targets my contributions, especially those related to baronage titles, with comments such as "meaningless titles", "spam", "non-notable title", "utterly non notable bought title of no value" and "completely unimportant." This behaviour reflects a personal bias, not only towards me but also towards the broader Baronage project and other editors involved. Fram's continued targeting feels like an attempt to stifle contributions on this topic, despite these titles being verifiable through credible sources.
- I’ve created numerous pages on topics ranging from Irish history to Georgian architecture and biographies. Yet, it’s only my contributions related to baronage titles that face this level of scrutiny. This suggests a personal agenda against baronage titles, which Fram and some others view as "pretend titles."
- Throughout this process, I’ve done my best to remain polite and open to feedback. I’ve learned from my mistakes and have received valuable guidance from experienced editors like @Asilvering whose mentorship has been instrumental in helping me navigate Wikipedia’s policies.
- While I’ve had ongoing concerns about Fram’s behaviour, I would be open to returning to a more civil and constructive interaction if Fram is willing to do the same. If the community is considering restricting or blocking my account based on the ongoing harassment from Fram, I must express my frustration. It feels disheartening to be continuously berated for trying to contribute positively to the site. If this bullying behaviour continues unchecked, I may be forced to reconsider my participation on Wikipedia. Kellycrak88 (talk) 12:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- But you've mentioned two of the problem sources here again. The Registry of Scots Nobility is a self-published website by an anonymous author that sells barony-related merchandise. It therefore does not meet our policy at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Similarly, the Scottish Barony Register is a private for-profit company that charges up to £800 to "register" these titles, even though there is absolutely no legal requirement or even legal basis for doing so. It is a business that is trying to preserve the financial value of these products by selling its services as an unofficial market regulator. Consequently, I don't consider that to be a reliable source either. I think you need to restrict yourself to high-quality independent secondary sources. DrKay (talk) 13:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- This is the first time, as far as I’m aware, that someone has suggested these sources are unreliable, so it’s not "again." Let’s look at both:
- But you've mentioned two of the problem sources here again. The Registry of Scots Nobility is a self-published website by an anonymous author that sells barony-related merchandise. It therefore does not meet our policy at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Similarly, the Scottish Barony Register is a private for-profit company that charges up to £800 to "register" these titles, even though there is absolutely no legal requirement or even legal basis for doing so. It is a business that is trying to preserve the financial value of these products by selling its services as an unofficial market regulator. Consequently, I don't consider that to be a reliable source either. I think you need to restrict yourself to high-quality independent secondary sources. DrKay (talk) 13:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- The Scottish Barony Register (SBR) was established in 2004 following the Abolition of Feudal Tenure (Scotland) Act 2000, specifically to provide an official record for the transfer of baronies, which were removed from the Land Register of Scotland. The present custodian is Alastair Shepherd, WS, a Writer to the Signet—one of the most senior legal professionals in Scotland and a former Ross Herald at the Court of the Lord Lyon. He has extensive expertise in heraldry and Scottish baronies. The SBR’s services are only available to Scottish solicitors, and they generally do not answer enquiries from the public or individuals. Scottish solicitors rely on the SBR for validation and the transfer of titles, and the Lord Lyon relies on the SBR (as the only register) when recognising baronial titles in letters patent. This gives the SBR a significant role in verifying crown charters and related historical documentation to confirm the rightful owner of a barony, despite being a private register. Let’s consider the facts from their website: [66] the 2023 annual report shows 4 new registrations and 5 assignations of existing titles, typically through inheritance. Total revenue was £5,200 for the year. Would you really consider that a money-spinner, besides covering the custodian's time?
- As for the Registry of Scots Nobility (RSN), their website states that their committee requires a "Certificate from the Scottish Barony Register" or "evidence from the Lord Lyon" to verify new title holders. They provide a certificate verifying each baron signed by the Earl of Loudoun a senior Scottish peer (provided at no cost, so not exactly a money-spinner either). However, it appears the RSN primarily functions as a social organisation rather than a self-published website, hosting events for the Scottish nobility, including peers, baronets, and barons. The badges and regalia associated with this group are largely for ceremonial events and are provided "at cost," as stated on their website. Additionally, the custodian of the SBR gave a speech at the RSN’s event in 2023: [67] It has the credibility, but I’m unsure what your specific requirements or guidelines are for deeming sources unreliable. Kellycrak88 (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- To state that the Scottish Barony Register is a non-reliable source is absurd and shows a complete lack of understanding of the current legal situation of the Scottish Baronage. It is the sole source of reference for the Lord Lyon - one of the Great Officers of State in Scotland. See Lord Lyon's Menking note: "The Scottish Barony Register is the only register for the Lord Lyon to have reference to in these matters, albeit a non-statutory register. The present practice was established by previous Lord Lyons" and "I am content to follow this practice as long as the present Custodian is ‘a person of skill’".[2].
- The current Custodian of the Scottish Barony Register is Alistair Shepherd, one of Scotland's leading property lawyers and former partner at Coulters[3].
- I do not know the agenda of some of the editors and admins here, but portraying the SBR as an unreliable source is disruptive and damaging to Wikipedia. The same individuals have employed underhanded tactics in their handling of this entire matter, including repeatedly labelling my 20-year-old account as a single-purpose account. Different opinions must be accepted on Wikipedia and should be subject to open and honest discussions—not subjected to 'grey tactics' in an attempt to "win". Charliez (talk) 15:27, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- It is also worth noting that it is factually incorrect to state that the Scottish Barony Register is a "for-profit company". The Memorandum of Association art. 6 states clearly that "no portion (of the income or property) shall be paid or transferred, directly or indirectly, by the way of dividend, bonus or otherwise howsoever by way of profit, to members of the company". It seems a better understanding of this subject should be sought by all parties to this discussion.[4] Charliez (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- I've already made clear my suspicion that your "20-year-old account", which only has 117 edits and mysteriously crops up at every opportunity to support Kellycrak88, is a [meat]puppet. Turning up at yet another page to promote the identical viewpoint, with similar idiom, phraseology and timing, does nothing to assuage that suspicion. DrKay (talk) 20:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- I could say the same thing about yourself @DrKay as you're always popping up supporting @Fram. Now you are, of course, entitled to your view, @DrKay, but respectfully, this is an unfounded allegation if you're implying I’m using multiple accounts or any other puppet claims (wikipedia:meatpuppet). Many editors share my views, just as others like yourself can oppose them. In fact the baronage guidelines were not proposed by me—the edit and Talk thread were started by @Daniel Plumber, which I and many others supported in the conversation thread. Let's try to find common ground without puppet allegations and contribute constructively moving forward together. Kellycrak88 (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Really? This is your response? Even when your off-wiki co-ordination with these editors was exposed[68]? DrKay (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Kellycrak88: If you're claiming that Fram and DrKay are meatpuppets (based on no evidence) I'm unsure whether that's simply casting aspersions or if WP:CIR is an issue here. Black Kite (talk) 13:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Black Kite: I'm not throwing any derogatory words at anyone. I’m not looking for conflict. My aim is to contribute positively to Wikipedia and resolve any disputes constructively. Kellycrak88 (talk) 13:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- You have repeatedly tagged my account specifically as WP:SPA. I suggest you read up on the criteria for tagging accounts that way.[69] As to your puppet claims: I have supported Kellycrak88's viewpoints in maybe 2 or 3 discussions over the last few weeks. What motives you may have for claiming I support him at "every opportunity", I do not know, but it's disingenuous and I really think WP would be better served if you refrained from trying to "score points" in arguments that way. The thought that I set up an account 20 years ago in preparation for supporting Kellycrak88 today, is quite frankly laughable.
- I have followed Kellycrak88's activities over the last few weeks because we clearly share some interests. He has been an extremely active editor in some very specific fields. Clearly, Fram seem to share the same interest - and, it would seem, so do you. I believe you will find that both Fram and yourself "mysteriously crop up" much more often than I in connection with Kellycrak88.
- My comment on this thread, however, was specifically directed at your claim that SBR was an unreliable source. That is factually incorrect, and when you use such arguments to win a discussion, you are doing Wikipedia a disservice. The same applies when you attempt to discount my views by labelling me as a SPA or puppet. It's uncalled for and is damaging to the debates on Wikipedia.
- Likewise, the claim that SBR is a for-profit entity is not true. WP would be better served if you were to withdraw those allegations even if it might prevent you from construing some "gotcha moment". If you have an issue with the quality of some of Kellycrak88's articles, WP was built specifically to handle this sort of concern. You needn't extend that discussion beyond those articles by attacking legitimate sources used on a number of different articles across WP. Charliez (talk) 20:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- I will not withdraw any part of my comments. Nor do I accept that any of them are "factually incorrect". DrKay (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- I think that is unfortunate as both these are matter of public record:
- -You can verify that SBR is a not-for profit entity by looking up their records in Companies House.[70]
- -You can verify that the Lord Lyon has said that SBR is a reliable source (in fact the only reliable source for baronies).[71]
- Phil Bridger has a good point, though, when he says that SBR's records are not public. Quite frankly not sure how they have been referenced in the articles in question, but I know that SBR issues certificates to validate claims. Charliez (talk) 22:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yawn. All my comments remain valid. DrKay (talk) 06:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- I will not withdraw any part of my comments. Nor do I accept that any of them are "factually incorrect". DrKay (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- I could say the same thing about yourself @DrKay as you're always popping up supporting @Fram. Now you are, of course, entitled to your view, @DrKay, but respectfully, this is an unfounded allegation if you're implying I’m using multiple accounts or any other puppet claims (wikipedia:meatpuppet). Many editors share my views, just as others like yourself can oppose them. In fact the baronage guidelines were not proposed by me—the edit and Talk thread were started by @Daniel Plumber, which I and many others supported in the conversation thread. Let's try to find common ground without puppet allegations and contribute constructively moving forward together. Kellycrak88 (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- I've already made clear my suspicion that your "20-year-old account", which only has 117 edits and mysteriously crops up at every opportunity to support Kellycrak88, is a [meat]puppet. Turning up at yet another page to promote the identical viewpoint, with similar idiom, phraseology and timing, does nothing to assuage that suspicion. DrKay (talk) 20:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- It is also worth noting that it is factually incorrect to state that the Scottish Barony Register is a "for-profit company". The Memorandum of Association art. 6 states clearly that "no portion (of the income or property) shall be paid or transferred, directly or indirectly, by the way of dividend, bonus or otherwise howsoever by way of profit, to members of the company". It seems a better understanding of this subject should be sought by all parties to this discussion.[4] Charliez (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- A couple of points. The statement referred to by DrKay is very concerning. Wikipedia business should be conducted in public and on this site, with exceptions that only involve administrators and other similar functionaries. And our article on the Scottish Barony Register says it "is accessible exclusively to Scottish solicitors", meaning that it has not been published in such a way that it can be used as a source. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Is running a WikiProject from a user sandbox even a thing? From what I see, WikiProjects should be in the project namespace and accessible to all, not hidden in a user sandbox with "official" participants having to email the founder to join the discussion channel. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Also noting (page mover hat on) that I'm having to do a big amount of cleanup in Category:WikiProject Baronage of Scotland articles, with articles having been moved and changed in scope from the geographical area to the title without discussion (for instance, Torboll to Baron of Torboll (title extinct), or Scottish feudal barony of Kirkintilloch to Baron of Kirkintilloch (extinct title)), with the scope being changed under the name of "clean up" (diff 1, diff 2). And yes, that's a lot of WP:RMUM and a lot of superfluous disambiguators. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- What cleanup? The reason for the geographic change is because since 2004 baronage titles became non-territorial personal titles no longer attached to the land. See the change in the law Scotland Act 2000 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2000/5/notes/division/1/3/6/11 the official explanatory notes. This has been welcomed by representative bodies for the Baronage of Scotland. Kellycrak88 (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Well, for a start, titles shouldn't contain unnecessary disambiguators (see WP:TITLEDAB). Also, mass change at the level of tens of articles should be discussed on-wiki prior to being done. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:09, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- There were discussions with other editors I recall on various Talk pages, and @Daniel Plumber pitched the idea of a WP:BARONAGE project with inspiration from the WP:Project_Clans_of_Scotland (especially as over 30 clan chiefs were barons). The idea was to gradually build a record of all Scottish barons, most dating back to the medieval period. It seemed appealing to me, as it’s a topic I’m deeply interested in, believing it would bring immense value to Wikipedia users with similar interests. Since this was created as a mock project in his sandbox, I didn’t see any harm in agreeing to collaborate, considering it both interesting and rewarding. If Daniel in his sandbox proposing to use a real-time chat is against Wikipedia rules, then I sincerely apologise. My mentor did advise me that the community might be skeptical of any off-wiki communication (for transparency read the convo here) therefore I have ensured my conversations are on-wiki to avoid any issues. Kellycrak88 (talk) 22:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think you can organize something as a "mock project" and still tag many mainspace pages as being part of it. Either it is official or it isn't. Also, were the conversations that decided on the mass page move on-wiki or off-wiki? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Is running a WikiProject from a user sandbox even a thing? From what I see, WikiProjects should be in the project namespace and accessible to all, not hidden in a user sandbox with "official" participants having to email the founder to join the discussion channel. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Daniel Plumber: can you please justify this in the context of Wikipedia's values of on-wiki collaboration and decision-making? You may wish to consider the principles listed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject Tropical Cyclones in this context. Daniel (talk) 04:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- fwiw, I warned them about this on 26 August: [72]. If the off-wiki discussion has continued since then, I'd be quite concerned. -- asilvering (talk) 19:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
A lot of other issues surrounding the Baronage articles and project have been raised since, I'll mostly ignore these for now. Looking at the three recent articles I gave as examples above, they have all been edited by Kellycrak88 since to correct the issues. The results are that Baron of Abergeldie has now as its first source this Wordpress blog, and the corrected link to Spottinghistory.com[73] makes it clear that this is an unreliable source, as it is sourced to Wikipedia. The edit at Baron of Arbroath did nothing to solve the issue I raised, that it is 90% about other things already decribed at length at Arbroath and not directly related to the barony, one line about the current baron, and nothing about the history of the barony and the previous barons. And Baron of Ardgowan has been made worse, not better. The infobox now claims that the title was created in the 13th c., the text claims that it was created in the 15th century, the available evidence still suggests that these were baronets, not barons (no evidence of a baron before the current one has been unearthed). The arms in the infobox, File:Baron of Ardgowan.png, described in the text as "reflects the long-standing history of the Stewart family and their connection to the Scottish nobility", is the arms of the current baron, not a member of the Stewart family, and not related to their arms at all. The needed competency or care to create well-sourced, trustworthy articles about the actual subject seems to be missing. Fram (talk) 09:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Fram, it's frustrating for me as it seems you haven’t read my earlier response. I’ve already acknowledged and addressed your points. As I stated above, yes the articles have been edited and improved, and certainly haven’t been made worse. It feels irrelevant what I say if you ignore my responses and double down on your arguments, which has been a running theme in our previous interactions.
- Baron of Abergeldie: The page now has over 15 sources (including The Times, The Guardian, The Evening Standard, The Telegraph, and Tatler) repeated here again as you seem to overlook this in favour of repeating your previous arguments. If Spottinghistory.com is indeed an unreliable source for a history on the castle (which I wasn’t aware of), I have no problem removing it—there are plenty of other credible sources available.
- Baron of Arbroath: Historically this title was territorial, attached to the land of Arbroath, a town with significant historical importance, such as its connection to the Declaration of Arbroath (signed by 40 barons) and the Battle of Arbroath. As I mentioned, these pages will be improved with more offline info from sources like the Great Seal, among others, this is a speciality of a professional historian to be honest, but I believe they are sufficiently well-sourced to start with, including some 6 credible sources currently listed for the title on the page. Your argument that 90% of the article is about the town doesn’t negate the territorial connection of the barony to Arbroath itself.
- Baron of Ardgowan You claim the page has gotten worse, but I’ve double-checked the sources, which indicate the creation date as the 13th century—not a specific year. This is common with older titles, especially with medieval titles, where the earliest crown charter often refers to an even earlier creation charter that is lost. Baronage titles frequently don’t have a single creation date due to their antiquity, so the article isn’t “worse” because of this. You are correct in the body content it said 15th and was overlooked I've just now edited it from 15th to 13th.
- Furthermore, you seem to ignore the fact that the crown can confer multiple titles. Baronetage titles outrank baronage titles. This would explain why the family primarily used the higher-ranking title. If you're suggesting the sources are inadequate—such as the RSN, which I’ve explained requires Lord Lyon evidence or an SBR certificate, and inclusion is verified with a signed certificate by the Earl of Loudoun, a senior Scottish peer—then I’m willing to spend some time going through the Great Seal (and brushing up on my Latin) to find the references you require. I’ll dedicate time this weekend to settle the matter.
- Regarding the coat of arms, the title was in the Stewart family for 700 years before being transferred to the professor. It’s normal for the new baron’s arms to reflect features of the previous holders, in this case, the Stewarts.
- As for the questions raised by Chaotic Enby and others, we should wait for Daniel Plumber to respond, as he is the founder of the project page. I’d also like to reiterate that I am making an effort to engage with you constructively. Kellycrak88 (talk) 10:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- I think I can rest my case, seeing what you just did at Baron of Ardgowan[74]: the article is now claiming that Robert III of Scotland (1337-1406) conferred a title to John Stewart (1364–1412), in the 13th century... You then claim above: "Baronetage titles outrank baronage titles." Really??? Not according to Order of precedence in Scotland or any other article we have on the subject, it seems. And then "It’s normal for the new baron’s arms to reflect features of the previous holders, in this case, the Stewarts." Please directly quote the source on this (you haven't given a page number and I can't access it anyway, I think), as this seems highly dubious when one compares the current arms, File:Baron of Ardgowan.png with what appear to be the Shaw-Stewart arms (no reliable source, but all sources I found agree that it is something like this or this, which has nothing in common with the current arms. Fram (talk) 11:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Please do rest your case! You seem determined to pick holes wherever possible.
- Regarding the Order of precedence in Scotland link you sent. Baronets are ranked 12th in precedence, while Scottish barons are ranked 28th.
- The Statutes of 1592 and the Baronetcy Warrants of King Charles I show the non-peerage Table of Precedence as: Baronets, Knights, Barons, Lairds, Esquire, and Gentlemen.
- Baronial titles are typically used when a landed family does not hold a peerage title of higher rank, or if they have been created a knight of the realm or hold a baronetcy (a hereditary knighthood), which ranks higher than a knight or Scottish baron. This is why individuals who are knighted or hold a baronetcy are often referred to simply as "Sir John Smith" without any reference to the baronial title.
- You are correct that the reigning monarch that granted the original title of baron needs reviewing. If the sentence about the arms is contentious, we can remove it and I will stand corrected. It doesn't take away the fact that my point is valid that arms often reflect features of the previous holders, I can find some examples if saying this is also contentious. Kellycrak88 (talk) 12:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- You are right about Baronet being a higher rank than Baron in Scotland, weird. However, then why isn't the page at Baronet of Ardgowan instead of at Baron of Ardgowan? The former has been used for 300+ years (I can find no evidence, apart from the disputed Scottish Register, of a 13th c. creation; the 1402 event was just a land grant, the baronetcy seems to have been created in 1667), the latter is now created for someone completely unrelated to the history or genealogy of the family. The article, like most of your creations, doesn't correctly or adequately cover any of this (again, see e.g. the Baron of Arbroath article, which repeats the history of Arbroath which we already have at that page (and better), but doesn't tell us anything about the history of the barony and the barons). "It doesn't take away the fact that my point is valid that arms often reflect features of the previous holders, I can find some examples if saying this is also contentious." Which is completely irrelevant. The issue is that if you include this in an article as a claim about a specific coat of arms, it must be true for this coat of arms. No one is asking you for examples of other cases where that claim may be true, what would be the purpose? Fram (talk) 13:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- the baronetcy does have a page: Shaw-Stewart baronets - again you're repeating arguments, I've already responded to all these points above and I will dedicated my weekend to find the source crown charters from the Great Seal as you're repeating that the registers are disputed and unreliable (which is quite ridiculous btw) Kellycrak88 (talk) 13:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- You are right about Baronet being a higher rank than Baron in Scotland, weird. However, then why isn't the page at Baronet of Ardgowan instead of at Baron of Ardgowan? The former has been used for 300+ years (I can find no evidence, apart from the disputed Scottish Register, of a 13th c. creation; the 1402 event was just a land grant, the baronetcy seems to have been created in 1667), the latter is now created for someone completely unrelated to the history or genealogy of the family. The article, like most of your creations, doesn't correctly or adequately cover any of this (again, see e.g. the Baron of Arbroath article, which repeats the history of Arbroath which we already have at that page (and better), but doesn't tell us anything about the history of the barony and the barons). "It doesn't take away the fact that my point is valid that arms often reflect features of the previous holders, I can find some examples if saying this is also contentious." Which is completely irrelevant. The issue is that if you include this in an article as a claim about a specific coat of arms, it must be true for this coat of arms. No one is asking you for examples of other cases where that claim may be true, what would be the purpose? Fram (talk) 13:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Kellycrak88, you were the one to do the mass page move. You shouldn't have to wait for the project founder to answer whether that was discussed on-wiki or off-wiki. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- I am not here to care much about the minutiae of Scottish order of precedence. I do, however, care about the fact that there seems to be an entire WikiProject, with tagged articles and everything, hidden in a user sandbox, with most of the coordination seemingly happening off-wiki, resulting in mass undiscussed page moves against title guidelines. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- As someone directly involved in these matters, I believe I have a say on this.
- Regarding the WikiProject being housed in my userspace, here’s the relevant notice from Wikipedia on proposing new projects:
- "In 2024, we are changing the proposal process to reduce the number of failed attempts at starting groups. While we restructure the pages, please do not propose any new groups. In the meantime, consider the two thousand existing projects or attempt to revive one of the many dormant WikiProjects. If your group cannot wait for the new process, please only create group pages in the userspace of one of your members.".
- This is why the project exists in my userspace. It simulates a WikiProject, and once it is successfully proposed, the page will be moved to the mainspace.
- I had a plan for a larger project focused on researching the baronage. While this could eventually lead to a formal WikiProject, it currently involves extensive research that cannot be published on Wikipedia. Therefore, keeping it sandboxed until I am ready to present something on Wikipedia seemed ideal.
- We centered on a larger project, rather than individual articles. When specific Wikipedia articles needed revision, that was addressed on the project page, emerging organically during our discussions about the broader research. The off-wiki channel has been deleted like 2 weeks ago.
- Regarding the "mass move page" initiative, I am not aware of any discussions taking place, either on-wiki or off-wiki. It appears that Kellycrak intends to make those pages resemble proper title pages. While I appreciate their good intentions, I believe this should be discussed first. Additionally, these pages should not be reverted to titles like "Scottish feudal barony of X", as feudal baronies, as a legal entity, have not existed since 2004.
- Please feel free to "civilly" ask me any questions, as I am willing to put this to an end, now and forever. All sides have clearly tired of this. I believe this comment sufficiently addresses Daniel's question above. Daniel Plumber (talk) 12:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, this was the part that was confusing me, I'm not sure to understand why it was on one side kept sandboxed, and on the other side was already tagging pages in mainspace.Therefore, keeping it sandboxed until I am ready to present something on Wikipedia seemed ideal.
It was reverted as an undiscussed page move (WP:RMUM), as the ones that were moved back were extinct historical baronies that had ceased to exist way prior to 2004, and were thus not affected by the change. More generally, I believe that the notability for most of them comes from the place itself (WP:NGEO), even if it ceased to exist as a legal entity (we do have pages on historical subdivisions), rather than the title itself. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Additionally, these pages should not be reverted to titles like "Scottish feudal barony of X", as feudal baronies, as a legal entity, have not existed since 2004.
- fair point for extinct titles, extant is obviously different Kellycrak88 (talk) 13:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- It was intended to function de facto like an official WikiProject. Pardon my ignorance, but honestly, I am currently unaware of any guidelines or rules that forbid this. Daniel Plumber (talk) 14:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- what's the problem with moving the project over to the mainspace? as we're discussing with administrators here, they probably have the power to do that? Kellycrak88 (talk) 14:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Administrators have technical abilities, but not "powers" to do stuff beyond community consensus (except in straightforward cases). Here, the best bet would be to go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals and formally propose it. In fact, I would be very happy to see it become an official WikiProject, as I see that the group appears well-organized and it would be great to have it in a more visible place. Good luck with it! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- No problem, we're all here to learn! Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide recommends them to be in the project namespace, which would be a great thing for your project, seeing that it is already tagging articles and everything, and appears to have a core of well-motivated editors. If it's formally proposed, I'm pretty sure it could be an official WikiProject pretty easily! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, I'll keep that in mind. By the way, may I ask if it is possible to start a new proposal yet? Daniel Plumber (talk) 11:14, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- what's the problem with moving the project over to the mainspace? as we're discussing with administrators here, they probably have the power to do that? Kellycrak88 (talk) 14:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- The order of precedence reference was in response to Fram, who incorrectly stated that barons rank higher than baronets. It's an easy mistake to make, but I wanted to clarify that it's actually the other way around. This is why the Baronets of Ardgowan, who also held a baronial title, didn’t use their baron title, and likely why it was eventually gifted to the professor. @Chaotic Enby I can’t answer questions about the project being in a user page or sandbox, or why mainspace pages are tagged to a sandbox, so we will need to wait for the project owner to clarify that. However, I can assure you that there were no off-wiki conversations, at least none involving me, about mass page moves. Daniel Plumber’s project page post appears to have been from a couple of weeks ago, while the handful of articles I moved was many months ago, with good intentions. It was not 100 articles without consultation or attempt to deliberately disrupt anything.
- I am not here to care much about the minutiae of Scottish order of precedence. I do, however, care about the fact that there seems to be an entire WikiProject, with tagged articles and everything, hidden in a user sandbox, with most of the coordination seemingly happening off-wiki, resulting in mass undiscussed page moves against title guidelines. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- I think I can rest my case, seeing what you just did at Baron of Ardgowan[74]: the article is now claiming that Robert III of Scotland (1337-1406) conferred a title to John Stewart (1364–1412), in the 13th century... You then claim above: "Baronetage titles outrank baronage titles." Really??? Not according to Order of precedence in Scotland or any other article we have on the subject, it seems. And then "It’s normal for the new baron’s arms to reflect features of the previous holders, in this case, the Stewarts." Please directly quote the source on this (you haven't given a page number and I can't access it anyway, I think), as this seems highly dubious when one compares the current arms, File:Baron of Ardgowan.png with what appear to be the Shaw-Stewart arms (no reliable source, but all sources I found agree that it is something like this or this, which has nothing in common with the current arms. Fram (talk) 11:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- As I’ve mentioned above: "the reason for the geographic changes is because, since 2004, baronage titles became non-territorial personal titles, no longer attached to land, as per the Scotland Act 2000 (see the official explanatory notes here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2000/5/notes/division/1/3/6/11). This change has been welcomed by representative bodies for the Baronage of Scotland."
- If there had been significant backlash from the community regarding this, it would have surfaced by now. On the contrary, other editors have positively encouraged my efforts to improve these pages, which contributed to the fruiting of the WP:BARONAGE project. Furthermore, I will also add that I am a relatively new editor and I am learning procedures and polices as I go, so a few months ago I was at a different level of Wikipedia procedure as an editor, and today, I certainly wouldn’t move multiple pages without wider consultation. That said, in retrospect, the move has ultimately improved Wikipedia by accurately reflecting this subject matter and widely welcomed. Kellycrak88 (talk) 12:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- The "handful of articles" (more than 30, in fact) were not all "accurately reflecting this subject matter", as many of them were about titles that went extinct way before 2004 and were thus not affected by that law, on top of the moves adding unnecessary disambiguators (things like "(title extinct)" shouldn't be in page titles if there is no need to disambiguate with another identical title).
I am not sure to what extent they were "widely welcomed" (in fact, I haven't seen other editors comment on these page moves at all before today), but there isn't any expiration date for criticism of undiscussed mass page moves to "surface". Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)- as mentioned above I see your point regarding extinct feudal baronies, obviously different for extant - feudalism ended in 2004 in Scotland - when the dignity of these titles became protected in law as personal titles, non-territorial no longer attached to the land Kellycrak88 (talk) 13:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- The "handful of articles" (more than 30, in fact) were not all "accurately reflecting this subject matter", as many of them were about titles that went extinct way before 2004 and were thus not affected by that law, on top of the moves adding unnecessary disambiguators (things like "(title extinct)" shouldn't be in page titles if there is no need to disambiguate with another identical title).
- If there had been significant backlash from the community regarding this, it would have surfaced by now. On the contrary, other editors have positively encouraged my efforts to improve these pages, which contributed to the fruiting of the WP:BARONAGE project. Furthermore, I will also add that I am a relatively new editor and I am learning procedures and polices as I go, so a few months ago I was at a different level of Wikipedia procedure as an editor, and today, I certainly wouldn’t move multiple pages without wider consultation. That said, in retrospect, the move has ultimately improved Wikipedia by accurately reflecting this subject matter and widely welcomed. Kellycrak88 (talk) 12:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
I have some familiarity with the peerage and adjacent subjects and I have concerns. Inflated claims surrounding Scottish baronial titles, as they can be bought and sold, is not a new problem. Looking at Baron of Abergeldie, allegedly improved, the first paragraph cites Luxurious Magazine [75] for the claim that the title was created in 1482. Leaving aside whether that source is reliable and independent, it doesn't say that. It doesn't discuss the title at all. It does say that the estate was bestowed on the Gordon family in 1482. Mackensen (talk) 13:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Baron of Abergeldie has been in the same family for 21 generations. The first holder was a Gordon and the current holder a Gordon. Please kindly check all the reference links provided there's over a dozen. I've previously had these discussions at length these families are not selling their heirlooms the full dialogue is here. Kellycrak88 (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- I thought I'd have a look through Baron of Abergeldie, being somewhat familiar with the concept of peerages.
- I've no idea what ref. #2 thinks it's citing, because it links only to a home page.
- I can find no mention of Abergeldie in regards to any namesake barony in ref. #3, only mentions of the Gordons of Abergeldie.
- Ref. #4 mentions "the Baron of Abergeldie, John Gordon"
- Ref. #5 mentions "Baron Abergeldie, John Gordon, 76"
- Ref. #6 does not mention the barony.
- Ref. #7 does not mention the barony.
- Ref. #9 Describes Abergeldie as a feudal barony. Looking at the list on the source, these appear to be purchased titles relating to land acquisition?
- Ref. #10 mentions "Baron Abergeldie, 76-year-old John Gordon".
- I'm haven't read through this entire discussion, forgive my time constraints, but wish to make several points. Firstly Kellycrak88 is incorrect in saying baronetcies rank higher than baronies. They do not. This obviously differs as to whether one is discussing different peerages, or Scottish lordships which are not part of any peerage.
- I usually find an easy way to discover whether a topic is real or notable is to search on Internet Archive. While this can be more troublesome for modern topics, it should not be difficult for a title allegedly created in 1482. Internet Archive provides one result for "Baron of Abergeldie" and one result for "Baron Abergeldie". The one available reliable source, this Burke's, says that John Howard Seton Gordon was recognised as feudal baron in 1965. It should not be difficult to find reliable, detailed, sourced about long-held baronies; that's why most of the articles have existed for over a decade.
- I would like to see Kellycrak provide some reliable sources that discuss the barony of Abergeldie. Not the castle, not the Gordon family, nor the Setons, and not the lands. Please illustrate for us this barony, created in 1482 and handed down generation to generation, and its recording within the Scottish peerage. Because I can't tally what the article says and you claim, and what the sources say. Thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Pickersgill-Cunliffe I certainly can -- here you go with full lineage listed in Burke's Peerage 107th Edition:
- Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 (note links expired in 24 hours)
- I never said it was a Scottish peerage title, it's a Scottish baronage title, which does rank below a baronet. Pre-2004 they were often referred to as feudal barons. Since 2004 the law changed and ended feudalism so that is not the correct term today. Kellycrak88 (talk) 14:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note my edit to my initial contribution; I realised after the fact that the concentration was not on peerages. My focus was on establishing sources, so I'm now more confused by the fact you clearly have access to at least one reliable source outlining at least the basics, but have chosen to instead fill out the article with blogs, old and unrelated newspaper reports, and tangential websites. Make use of sources like this and clarity will come along much sooner. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, @Pickersgill-Cunliffe, for your diligence and thoughtful comments. I truly appreciate your feedback. I’ve had previous run-ins with Fram, who won't accept Burke's Peerage as a valid source, so I’ve often felt the need to bolster pages with as many credible sources as possible to prove notability. Similarly, as mentioned further up in this thread, DrKay and Fram also dispute the reliability of the Scottish Barony Register and the Registry of Scottish Nobility, despite evidence provided by myself and others that supports their credibility. Kellycrak88 (talk) 14:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- It's not clear to me where I gave the impression that I "won't accept Burke's Peerage as a valid source". I don't claim that the information in there isn't reliable (like all source, it may contain errors, but in general it will be correct probably). Not everything included there may warrant a page (or even a mention) here, it's a lot of genealogy and often little else, but a fact or topic not being suitable for Wikipedia even when mentioned in Burke's doesn't mean that I won't accept it as a valid source. Fram (talk) 14:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Can I buy or borrow a copy of the Scottish Barony Register? If not (as stated by our article on it) it cannot be used as a source. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- As promised, I spent the weekend researching further.
- I thought I'd have a look through Baron of Abergeldie, being somewhat familiar with the concept of peerages.
- Baron of Arbroath: This title was actually created as a free lordship, barony, and regality (granting the baron high powers, including the authority to impose the death sentence at will). It was created for James, Marquis of Hamilton, providing us with a definitive creation date and monarch [76]. There is also a lot of historical information that can be added.
- Baron of Ardgowan: As suspected, I could not find the creation charter. However, this is not uncommon. Until the late 19th century, each new baron required a crown charter from the current monarch (as a feudal superiority) and not all of these are in the public domain. Typically, today's holder would possess the physical originals, which are authenticated by the custodian of the SBR. It is not unusual for some crown charters to be missing or unavailable in public sources. However, I did find a reference to the Barony of Ardgowan (confirming its existence) in the crown charter records of parliament in 1672, where it was assigned to the baronet family in question. Hopefully that's the matter settled. [77]
- @Phil Bridger I can send you a copy if you would like. For full transparency, I was sent a copy of the SBR by someone who found my email on my user page. While I understand that only Scottish solicitors are meant to access it, some private individuals have copies. Reflecting on this, it may be a grey area for me to continue referencing it as a source. However, since the RSN requires an SBR certificate or evidence from the Lord Lyon, and considering it's high-standing, I still maintain that the RSN is a credible source and should not be regarded as a self-published website unworthy of citation. Kellycrak88 (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- That an Ardgowan barony existed in 1672 is hardly evidence that it was created in the 13th century (and the article still has the above blatant anachronisms about date vs. monarch and so on). Fram (talk) 08:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- https://archive.org/details/burkeslandedgent0000unse_e7e1/page/1268/mode/2up?q=Ardgowan
- Page 1268—Lineage—Among the archives of this ancient family, there are preserved three charters by ROBERT III to Sir JOHN STEWART, his illegitmate son, of the lands of Ardgowan, Blackhall and Auchingoun, in co. Renfrew, dated 1403, 1395 and 1390. These several lands have lineally descended in an uninterrupted course of male succession, from the said Sir John Stewart, to the present Baronet.
- Page 1268—JAMES STEWART, of Ardgowan, obtained from JAMES V1 a charter, erecting his lands of Ardgowan, Blackhall and Auchingoun into a BARONY 1576.
- I've found an earlier date than 1672, there is reference in this book to a 1575 crown charter erecting Ardgowan into a barony, however that is not to say the SBR custodian may have examined an earlier charter(s) provided by the holder for registration hence the 13th century claim. As we don't know for certain, I will update the creation date to 1575 with reference to this book, until someone comes forward with evidence of an earlier date. Kellycrak88 (talk) 14:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Sending me a copy doesn't publish the source. Publishing is necessary, but not sufficient, to make a source usable on Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
While I understand that only Scottish solicitors are meant to access it, some private individuals have copies. Reflecting on this, it may be a grey area for me to continue referencing it as a source.
I don't think there's any grey area. A source that is not available to the public is not published, per WP:PUBLISHED, so cannot be used as a source. CodeTalker (talk) 19:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- That an Ardgowan barony existed in 1672 is hardly evidence that it was created in the 13th century (and the article still has the above blatant anachronisms about date vs. monarch and so on). Fram (talk) 08:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Phil Bridger I can send you a copy if you would like. For full transparency, I was sent a copy of the SBR by someone who found my email on my user page. While I understand that only Scottish solicitors are meant to access it, some private individuals have copies. Reflecting on this, it may be a grey area for me to continue referencing it as a source. However, since the RSN requires an SBR certificate or evidence from the Lord Lyon, and considering it's high-standing, I still maintain that the RSN is a credible source and should not be regarded as a self-published website unworthy of citation. Kellycrak88 (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Issues seem to persist. New creation Baron of Ardoch, has now 7 references. 2 and 7 are the same and go to a page which has nothing to do with Ardoch[78]. Presumably this was intended, but in neither instance does it verify any of the flowery text in the paragraphs it supposedly verifies. "He has been described by former UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown as 'an inspiration and a visionary'." is taken literally from the source[79]. Which is still better than the next line, "Since assuming the title, he has maintained the estate's legacy and continues to oversee its cultural significance." which has two sources, neither of which support this vapid promo language. More copyvio? Sure, "one of Scotland's landed gentry, owning thousands of acres in his estates" comes straight from this source, not even given as an attribution. Similarly, the description "politician, a successful merchant and Lord Rector of the University of Glasgow" comes straight from here. And of course the anachronisms again, the infobox claims "creation date 1707" and "created by Robert III of Scotland" who died more than 300 years earlier. Fram (talk) 11:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- For Canmore that's not the link, the link on the page: https://canmore.org.uk/site/45934/ardoch-house which for some reason is now redirecting to the wrong page, yes the correct link https://canmore.org.uk/site/104668/ardoch-house as you mentioned.
- Regarding the Gordon Brown book reference quote it looks credible to me, especially considering there are dozens of other sources to choose from.
- Google search "Gordon Brown an inspiration and a visionary Tommy MacKay" and browse through all the results, news articles include the Glasgow Times and book references -- I thought we already discussed less is more, if you want me to load up the article with countless references I can do that but there appears to be a difference of opinion on this. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
- The other notable Lairds, who are very notable individuals have full wikipedia pages they're very much established historical figures. So adding those descriptions for who they are does not seem ill founded:
- Robert Graham Of Gartmore, 15th Laird (1735–1797) politician, a successful merchant and Lord Rector of the University of Glasgow
- Robert Bontine Cunninghame Graham, 19th Laird president of the Scottish Labour Party; a founder of the National Party of Scotland in 1928; one of Scotland's landed gentry, owning thousands of acres in his estates
- Admiral Sir Angus Cunninghame Graham, 20th Laird (1893–1981)
- I think you'll find that the information from Tommy Mackay's personal website comes straight from wikipedia. The two sentences you claim I've plagiarised "politician, a successful merchant and Lord Rector of the University of Glasgow" and "one of Scotland's landed gentry, owning thousands of acres in his estates" from Tommy Mackay's website are 12 words each which if that is a copyright violation from the man's personal website, then I will reorder those so they're entirely unique. You mention I don't reference note his website, but as personal web site connected to the subject my understand is that it's a conflict of interest so it's not referenced. However, I did include a link in the external links section as the website it's quite relevant and interesting for the subject matter.
- Robert III of Scotland granted the lands in 1398 and later it was raised to a barony as explained in the lead I quote:
- The lands of Ardoch trace back to 1398, when Robert III of Scotland granted the lands to Finlaw Buntyn, marking the beginning of the estate's long history. In 1707 the lands were erected into the Barony of Ardoch
- Hence there are 21 Lairds of the estate that date back to 1398 even though it was only raised to a barony in 1707 the baron title doesn't appear to have been used (holding knighthoods or liberal politician reasons or tradition possibly) except for the current holder who was recognised by the Lord Lyon. I'll review the page again to ensure it's clear. Kellycrak88 (talk) 11:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- As we are clearly talking past each other, I hope some others will chime in and explain to whoever needs explaining what they are doing or interpreting incorrectly. Fram (talk) 13:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
I thought we already discussed less is more, if you want me to load up the article with countless references I can do that but there appears to be a difference of opinion on this. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
I am very confused by what you mean here. The issue is not that you need more sources for that sentence to be credible (in 99% of cases, you shouldn't need more than one source for a given claim), it's that you are literally copy-pasting it instead of writing it in your own words, which constitutes a copyright violation.The other notable Lairds, who are very notable individuals have full wikipedia pages they're very much established historical figures. So adding those descriptions for who they are does not seem ill founded
Passing Wikipedia's "notability" criterion (which really just means there are enough secondary sources to write an encyclopedic article) doesn't automatically justify the use of flowery language to describe the individuals. We should strive to be objective, which means avoiding peacock words.The two sentences you claim I've plagiarised [...] from Tommy Mackay's website are 12 words each which if that is a copyright violation from the man's personal website, then I will reorder those so they're entirely unique.
Yes, that's copyvio. Please reword them in your own words, avoiding close paraphrasing. If you have evidence that these sentences (not just the information, the specific wording) was copied from Wikipedia, then it isn't copyvio, but that evidence should be presented upfront. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)- Kellycrak88, please explain how this source verifies "Over the centuries, Ardoch became a key estate in the region, serving as an important seat of power. Ardoch House was constructed on the estate in the late 18th century, replacing an earlier medieval structure used by the family from the 1300s." or "Ardoch House, built in the late 18th century, is the seat of the barony. This Georgian estate replaced an earlier medieval house and serves as a testament to the estate's long-standing heritage. The house is recognised for its historical value and stands as a key landmark in Dumbartonshire". Fram (talk) 16:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- This is just plain harassment Fram, don't you have anything better to be than focusing all your efforts and time on me?
- The caput of the Barony of Ardoch is Ardoch House hence it's the seat of the barony.
- The source from the Canmore website (the National Record of Scotland’s database for historical sites) says quite clearly that Ardoch House was built in the late 18th century on the site of a previous medieval structure. It says the estate was originally associated with the Buntein family replacing an older medieval tower and mansion used by the Buntine family, the original lairds of the estate, from the 1300s and the Georgian-era mansion replaced earlier fortifications. Click through on the page an read for yourself in the original Ordinance Survey index card on the Canmore website: https://canmore.org.uk/collection/2424345
- Canmore also references Ardoch House in these books (among others): [80]
- Coventry, M. (2008) Castles of the Clans: the strongholds and seats of 750 Scottish families and clans. Musselburgh. Page(s): 237 RCAHMS Shelf Number: F.5.21.COV
- RCAHMS. (1978d) The archaeological sites and monuments of Dumbarton District, Clydebank District, Bearsden and Milngavie District, Strathclyde Region, The archaeological sites and monuments of Scotland series no 3. Edinburgh. Page(s): 16, no.91 RCAHMS Shelf Number: A.1.2.ARC(3)
- Furthermore, the official website of Tommy MacKay, the current Baron of Ardoch, offers insight into the history of the estate. It outlines the evolution of the house and its role as the seat of the Barony of Ardoch, describing how the Georgian house replaced the earlier medieval residence. While this source cannot be cited directly in a Wikipedia article, it is a helpful corroborate reference for background research. More details can be found on the estate here: Tommy MacKay of Ardoch – History
- @Chaotic Enby No, the issue if you read what Fram said is he's stating the Gordon Brown quote is not a credible source, there are dozens of sources available as I showed in the google search result above, I picked one and can also add the other twelve if needed (but other editors advised less is more). Nothing has been copyvio, everything written to best of my knowledge I've written uniquely for the page. Except for the two 12 word description sentences which Fram matched to the personal web site. So please kindly explain to me how would put into your own words (avoiding close paraphrasing!): "politician, a successful merchant and Lord Rector of the University of Glasgow" the second part of the sentence the words Lord Rector of the University of Glasgow that being the man's title is that copyvio in your opinion? It's also a majority of the words in the sentence. I've now changed it to "a politician, a prosperous merchant, and the Lord Rector of the University of Glasgow" but I would love to be shown how's it done. Kellycrak88 (talk) 17:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Fram said
"He has been described by former UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown as 'an inspiration and a visionary'." is taken literally from the source[79].
(triple nested quotation!) The preceding sentence,Presumably this was intended, but in neither instance does it verify any of the flowery text in the paragraphs it supposedly verifies.
, clearly refers to a separate source linked in that very sentence. Again, no need to add other sources, the issue is the straight copy-paste.Regarding the "how to put in my own words", I'd start by removing "successful" or "prosperous", as that doesn't add information about his role. Looking at his own article (which you can check, sources there might be useful here too, although some of it is unsourced) and other sources, "merchant" appears to be a euphemism for "slave owner and trader" (e.g. [81]), and he seems to be more known for his poetry than for his brief tenure as Lord Rector of that university. More generally, it is always best to look at multiple sources to see how to best describe an individual, rather than take the first description you find. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)- Fair enough, I did miss that sentence, then are quotes allowed on Wikipedia if there is an issue with copyvio? How would you rewrite the Gordon Brown quote? Also very fair pointers on looking for other angles of descriptor—thank you for the constructive feedback. Kellycrak88 (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- and to clarify, are you saying you would avoid referring to him as Lord Rector of the University of Glasgow for fear of copyvio? Kellycrak88 (talk) 18:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Fram said
References
- ^ https://xtools.wmcloud.org/authorship/en.wikipedia.org/International%20Churches%20of%20Christ/
- ^ https://www.courtofthelordlyon.scot/index_htm_files/Menking.pdf
- ^ https://www.scottishlegal.com/articles/alastair-shepherd-appointed-custodian-of-the-scottish-barony-register
- ^ https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/SC276349/filing-history?page=3 See "Incorporation" on page 3.
Zlogicalape's unsupported sockpuppetry allegations
[edit]I'm reporting @Zlogicalape for persistently violatingWP:ASPERSIONS by either claiming that I have sockpuppets or implying it. Although they were told previously more than once that making such claims is considered personal attacks if one doesn't provide evidence for recent misbehavior.
-User Zogiclape said this:
Also made implications on Joseph Barbara's talk page:
"and I would appreciate it if this charade would stop as i'm not in the mood to launch an investigation into multiple accounts (though i believe you couldn't care less)"
"therefor this talk should end. (aside from the multiple accounts thing)."
-also this
-And on the side, the user misused sources by adding claims to Saint Barbara's article citing sources that don't state what they added.
I accessed the sources they used and I showed on the relevant talk page that the cited sources don't mention what User Zlogicalape added using them.
Whatsupkarren (talk) 23:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'm wondering why my report hasn't been addressed yet, as this user has been repeatedly warned not to cast aspersions on other users, yet they continue to do so. Whatsupkarren (talk) 12:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Persistent addition of unsourced content by 2600:480A:4A72:6000:0:0:0:0/64
[edit]2600:480A:4A72:6000:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, hasn't responded to warnings, behaviour continued after a 72h block on August 31st. Examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4. Waxworker (talk) 23:56, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Blocked. Consider WP:AIV for unregistered users who come fresh off a block for the same issue. Izno (talk) 16:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Izno: - I've been previously asked not to report unsourced content issues to AIV, as anything that isn't obvious vandalism or spam is out of AIV's scope. Waxworker (talk) 16:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- First, the conduct here occurred several months ago. Second, the "orphaning" occurred one minute after the redirect, so it doesn't appear that the intent was to orphan the article after it had been restored. Third, I don't see anything wrong with adding a notability tag after an AfD discussion is closed as no consensus. The tag says the article may not be notable, which is by definition what a no consensus close implies. I agree that redirecting an article after a no consensus close at AfD is not acceptable.All of that said, unless TP has done anything recently, this isn't a chronic, intractable behavior problem for AN/I to deal with. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:12, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- The tagging back-and-forth appears to have happened yesterday, although that's something that, in my opinion, can very well be (and was being!) discussed on the talk page, and I don't see why it had to be escalated here. Nothing intractable, although I am more concerned about Lightburst's comment of
It is looking like sour grapes when you griped about the article offline
, which was understood by TP as an attempt to out him. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)- I presume this is in regards to TP's account on Wikipedia editor harassment site Wikipediocracy that directly names them as the account owner? I'm not sure how that counts as outing. Their account there was discussed in the last ANI thread as well. SilverserenC 01:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Voorts I think you missed some links from today and yesterday and an hour ago. The redirect happened after the AfD concluded and that was a month ago... i was away for a month but I thought it was relevant to include to show how TP is persistently targeting this article. The article has ten sources but TP is welcome to get consensus. Otherwise the tag feels punitive especially based on who is tagging. Lightburst (talk) 01:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- I looked through the page history a bit more, and I now see that the tag warring happened yesterday (making that a bit more explicit in your statement here would have been helpful). Once TP restored the tag after you initially removed it, you should have brought it to talk instead of removing it yet again. TP then should have brought it to talk instead of restoring it for a second time. I agree that AfD should just bring this to AfD again, but I don't think the tag is unreasonable since TP might not have wanted to bring the AfD for various reasons, and the tag lets other editors know that there's still no consensus about the article's notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- I think AFD after only a month is not entirely appropriate. I'd want to allow more time if I were to consider AFD, to allow for sources that show that the subject passes WP:NORG to emerge. TarnishedPathtalk 05:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- I looked through the page history a bit more, and I now see that the tag warring happened yesterday (making that a bit more explicit in your statement here would have been helpful). Once TP restored the tag after you initially removed it, you should have brought it to talk instead of removing it yet again. TP then should have brought it to talk instead of restoring it for a second time. I agree that AfD should just bring this to AfD again, but I don't think the tag is unreasonable since TP might not have wanted to bring the AfD for various reasons, and the tag lets other editors know that there's still no consensus about the article's notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation. I thought "offline" might have referred to real life (which would've been more concerning) rather than simply another website, but your answer probably makes the most sense. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Not offline I meant off-wiki. So no help until this train goes all the way off the tracks. I was trying be proactive. Lightburst (talk) 01:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Silver seren, why did you delete the tag with the justification that article is about a place when the lead clearly states "Bent's Camp Resort is a resort in Northern Wisconsin in Land o' Lakes, Wisconsin. The resort has 12 cabins and it is located on the south shore of Mamie Lake (Wisconsin)"? WP:NORG is clearly the notablity guideline that should be used to determine if the subject of the article is notable. TarnishedPathtalk 05:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Voorts I think you missed some links from today and yesterday and an hour ago. The redirect happened after the AfD concluded and that was a month ago... i was away for a month but I thought it was relevant to include to show how TP is persistently targeting this article. The article has ten sources but TP is welcome to get consensus. Otherwise the tag feels punitive especially based on who is tagging. Lightburst (talk) 01:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- I presume this is in regards to TP's account on Wikipedia editor harassment site Wikipediocracy that directly names them as the account owner? I'm not sure how that counts as outing. Their account there was discussed in the last ANI thread as well. SilverserenC 01:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- The tagging back-and-forth appears to have happened yesterday, although that's something that, in my opinion, can very well be (and was being!) discussed on the talk page, and I don't see why it had to be escalated here. Nothing intractable, although I am more concerned about Lightburst's comment of
- There are two comments on the talk page related to this issue, one by you and the other one by TP. It doesn't appear to me that you have made an honest effort to resolve the issue there, and you certainly didn't AGF when you "invited TP to discuss it", and opened the discussion casting aspersions about TP having sour grapes by griping about it off-wiki, which seems to be a recurring theme with you. Stay focused on the content issue, and stop making insinuations about an editor's motive in the very first sentence when you start a discussion with them. And if this "train goes all the way off the tracks", just remember you are the one who started this unnecessary ANI thread. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Inclined to agree. I think that between you and Voorts, you have identified all the relevant and useful observations to be taken here: 1) the redirect after a no consensus result was inappropriate, but that issue is now somewhat stale, and further determinations will doubtlessly be the subject of an eminent (but not immediate) new AfD. 2) I don't think a notability tag is unreasonable in the circumstances of a no consensus AfD result. 3) To the extent that there was a reasonable dispute as to the tag, the edit warring by both parties was inappropriate, but also small potatoes in the grand scheme. 4) Escalation here feels premature. I do to some small extent understand LB's position that, given the context and history involved here, they did not feel confident that they could expect to resolve the issue without community guidance of the process. But community input could have been solicited without resorting the typically inflammatory step of an ANI filing. Adding my own observation, I personally think that referencing the Wikiwhingers discussion does, in my opinion, flirt with outing at the very least. Nevermind that the accounts use the same name or have been linked in a previous discussion here. Making an association between an editor's on-project and off-project identities/activities is nevertheless not appropriate. As for the rest, I see no reason why LB cannot just RfC the tag issue, if they really feel that strongly about it. Frankly, that neither party can let this go feels like the definition of poor perspective, and I wouldn't exactly disagree with anyone who felt that community time will be wasted on the discussion. But if neither side is prepared to give way, this is clearly the next step in the dispute resolution process, and should have been one of several stops before ANI. SnowRise let's rap 07:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- @TarnishedPath: Are you willing to acknowledge that redirecting an article 11 minutes after the AfD closed as no consensus is absolutely inappropriate? I think that would be a good place to start. Hey man im josh (talk) 09:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Hey man im josh, you're correct that I shouldn't have redirected. TarnishedPathtalk 10:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- There is a website we try not to talk about where this drama began. ATG sent out a message about this article on WPO
Another masterpiece by Lightburst...
and then TP and others came to WP to try and delete the article. TP is just the one editor who refused to accept the AfD result. My purpose in coming here to ANI was to have eyes on controversy and avoid getting into an edit war. I would be happy with any result that is endorsed by on-wiki community consensus. Hope everyone has a great weekend. Lightburst (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)- I came to the AFD as a consequence of the ill-advised ANI you started on ATG. I imagine a lot of people who participated in it did. You should not be so quick to make assumptions because you end up speaking mistruths. TarnishedPathtalk 02:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- @TarnishedPath You should also acknowledge, if you haven't (can't read everything), that putting the notability tag after an AfD resulting in the article being kept was an incorrect action; please see the Template:Notability documentation. That tag is to alert other editors of a potentially non-notable article based on your first impression as someone who's encountered the article for the first time so as to let someone else decide whether to start a deletion process. It isn't for an article that was already discussed and for which you firmly believe is not notable. In that case you need to renominate, and if you would like to follow WP:RENOM and wait a certain period, set a reminder. —Alalch E. 15:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- I disagree that the template is only for
first impression
use. The documentation says: "Add this template to the top of any page whose article subject is, in your judgment, reasonably likely to be non-notable (not the sort of subject that Wikipedia ought to have a separate article about). When an article is certainly, hopelessly non-notable, then you should nominate it for proposed deletion or take it to Articles for deletion instead." - A no consensus outcome at AfD, in my view, indicates that an article is reasonably likely to be non-notable. Keeping the template lets other editors patrol the maintenance category and determine if they want to renom the article at AfD. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- I hope you can see that it feels like an inorganic process when folks get together off-wiki and decide to delete an article. And then when the article is not deleted it gets redirected, orphaned and tagged. I only start articles when I see enough RS to show notability. A tag is TP's singular opinion and it comes from a place that I question... In my opinion the tag comes from off-wiki deletion-scheming and the sour grapes of not getting the article deleted by the on-wiki community. I know that I am ABF with this statement but I do nt think i am wrong Lightburst (talk) 17:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- So you thought it was a good idea to reignite this drama, after only two talk page posts? You didn't even try to resolve the dispute in a collegial and productive manner. Instead, after one reply from TP, you came straight to ANI, which you seem to think was a good idea. It wasn't. There is a dispute resolution noticeboard, you could have asked for a 3O, you could have started a RfC. You could have continued the discussion on the talk page. Instead, you now admit you were acting in bad faith by bringing this matter to ANI, which says more about your motives than anyone else's. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Whether or not there was off wiki coordination (proof of which has not yet been provided), the no consensus close was proper in light of the strength of arguments on both sides. While I likely would have !voted keep per Cunard's source assessment, I don't think the delete !votes were unreasonable. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Isaidnoway: I am sorry that you feel that way. I cannot ignore motives and evidence to AGF. This is just a small camp in Wisconsin and discussing it should not get us all fired up. If we removed the off-wiki banter this article would just exist - occasionally folks would read it and maybe add to it. I was not trying to reignite controversy and I certainly hope that the controversy ends with an article about a 100+ year old camp that is allowed to exist. And @Voorts: thanks for the sober and realistic assessment. Lightburst (talk) 17:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- TP admitted up above he shouldn't have redirected the article, it is no longer orphaned, the tags have been removed, there is no edit-warring going on at the article, neither you or anyone else has proposed any sanctions for anybody, and there is nothing you can do about the off-wiki banter, except to apparently obsess about it. So there is no reason to keep this thread open, and it should be closed. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- You are right. I guess it does look like I am obsessing about it. I present it for context so folks can understand how we got here. I only mention it when off-wiki organization comes on-wiki and messes with our processes. I have no objection with closure. Lightburst (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- What you present as context is incorrect. You need to strike each and everyone one of your ABF and mistruths. TarnishedPathtalk 03:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- You are right. I guess it does look like I am obsessing about it. I present it for context so folks can understand how we got here. I only mention it when off-wiki organization comes on-wiki and messes with our processes. I have no objection with closure. Lightburst (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- TP admitted up above he shouldn't have redirected the article, it is no longer orphaned, the tags have been removed, there is no edit-warring going on at the article, neither you or anyone else has proposed any sanctions for anybody, and there is nothing you can do about the off-wiki banter, except to apparently obsess about it. So there is no reason to keep this thread open, and it should be closed. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Isaidnoway: I am sorry that you feel that way. I cannot ignore motives and evidence to AGF. This is just a small camp in Wisconsin and discussing it should not get us all fired up. If we removed the off-wiki banter this article would just exist - occasionally folks would read it and maybe add to it. I was not trying to reignite controversy and I certainly hope that the controversy ends with an article about a 100+ year old camp that is allowed to exist. And @Voorts: thanks for the sober and realistic assessment. Lightburst (talk) 17:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- LB your opinion is wrong. You are are wrong. I did not arrive at the AFD as consequence of any "
off-wiki deletion-scheming
". I came across the AFD as consequence of the report you started against ATG in this very forum. You should strike your mistruths and your ABF. TarnishedPathtalk 03:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- I hope you can see that it feels like an inorganic process when folks get together off-wiki and decide to delete an article. And then when the article is not deleted it gets redirected, orphaned and tagged. I only start articles when I see enough RS to show notability. A tag is TP's singular opinion and it comes from a place that I question... In my opinion the tag comes from off-wiki deletion-scheming and the sour grapes of not getting the article deleted by the on-wiki community. I know that I am ABF with this statement but I do nt think i am wrong Lightburst (talk) 17:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- I disagree that the template is only for
- There is a website we try not to talk about where this drama began. ATG sent out a message about this article on WPO
eyes needed
[edit]See Talk:Mamie Lake (Wisconsin)#Merge Proposal. What appears to have been started as a good-faith merge proposal concerning the Bent's Camp article is now rapidly degenerating into accusations of incivility and ad hominems, the existence of which seems debatable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:12, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- ATG that seems like an overreaction. This little article about a 100+ year old Wisconsin camp has not gotten a fair shake IMO. Generally we are able to weed out non-notable articles organically... and without an off-wiki call. TP and myself should likely leave this to others and not try to steer traffic. Lightburst (talk) 15:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- I am not trying to 'steer traffic'. I am instead suggesting that outside eyes on what ought to be a civil discussion on a possible merge would probably be a good thing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- @7&6=thirteen:, I believe you are topic banned from deletion discussions, broadly construed, which would make your participation in that merge discussion a violation of that TBan. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 16:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- GhostOfDanGurney It is not a deletion discussion and 7&6 worked on adding RS to the article. Lightburst (talk) 17:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- "Broadly construed" ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 17:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I think I agree. It's because "deletion" has a pretty strict meaning on Wikipedia. A topic ban narrowly construed would, by implication, be a ban from that process specifically, and solely the process. But the fact that it is deliberately broader—i.e. more comprehensive—suggests that a less strict definition should be applied. And as GoDG argues, a border interpretation of deletion is anything that removes a page from the reader's eye, as merging, redirecting and incubating do (although it's only the process that 13 is TB from; a restriction on editing the articles themselves would hopefully be too broad an interpretation). SerialNumber54129 17:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- I certainly hope that no editor is blocked as a result of this report and I do not think 7&6 violated the spirit of the t-ban. As a result of this report I did not want TP blocked, I just wanted TP to respect our consensus mechanisms and not act unilaterally. Lightburst (talk) 17:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- It does seem like a topic ban violation to me; the discussion is a follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bent's Camp Resort and the AfD is mentioned several times with 7&6 responding directly when it is brought up [82]. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Lightburst could you please self-revert this? If an uninvolved admin disagrees that it's a TBan violation, I'd be happy to revert the strikes myself. So far that has not happened. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 22:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Well, I agree that this pretty clearly a TBAN violation, but note that there isn't actually a community mandate to strike through the comments of anyone violating any editorial restriction. Historically this has mostly only been used to mark the activities of block-evading socks (WP:SOCKSTRIKE)--and even that is supported only by an essay. If LB agrees to self-revert, that's all well and good, but otherwise it's definitely not worth reverting and arguing over: that just creates more acrimony. Besides, given that Thirteen's contributions there seem like they reasonably could have been made as a consequence of ambiguity in the ban rather than an attempt to evade the ban, I'm not sure how I feel about the striking myself. There are other ways to note for any potential closer that Thirteen was not meant to be contributing there; methods that don't risk suggesting that they were a block evading sock, as a casual reader of the discussion who is unfamiliar with Thirteen and expecting the strikes to mean what they usually mean might misinterpret them. SnowRise let's rap 07:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- GhostOfDanGurney It is not a deletion discussion and 7&6 worked on adding RS to the article. Lightburst (talk) 17:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that this was a tban violation, the committee adds that "broadly construed" for a reason. However I don't think it was deliberate or malicious and striking the comments out with a clear explanation of why it was done seems sufficient. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:16, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- I created an arbitration clarification request here. Cunard (talk) 05:30, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
User keeps adding copyright violations after being warned
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Despite being told to discuss the issue before re-adding copyrighted content, Memevietnam98 has continued to manually revert copyright violations and continues to remove copyright templates to Safety Act (California law) (and also despite hidden edit comments). This behavior was also
exhibited, and witnessed by AlphaBetaGamma. As of the current revision as of this ANI report, this is the copyvio report, and the site being copied is [83].
- Also, I'd like to preemptively apologize to Memevietnam98 for pinging you too many times and requesting page protection, but I was trying avoid edit warring with you to stop you re-adding copyrighted content. It's a shame it had to end up this way.
- I'm going to rollback one more time and adjust the copyvio range. The template was re-added because I failed to notify Nthep that the content wasn't entirely removed due to Memevietnam98s edit warring.⸺(Random)staplers 17:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- All users have been notified.⸺(Random)staplers 17:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- This behavior merits a block. IMO, they should receive it now; they can explain themselves in an unblock request. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Wait, did I screw up and revert the wrong thing? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 22:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- @AlphaBetaGamma Nah, you just failed to notice the manual reverts during the copyvio edit warring.⸺(Random)staplers 23:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- @AlphaBetaGamma Oh I see. Strike ⸺(Random)staplers 23:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- @AlphaBetaGamma Nah, you just failed to notice the manual reverts during the copyvio edit warring.⸺(Random)staplers 23:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Looks like this editor is blocked now. And wow, looks like there's some copyright violations on Commons: [84] ⸺(Random)staplers 02:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Most of the user's uploads have been deleted; they still appear in the user's upload log for the record. A few less clear cases remain, some of which might just need proper attribution. Memevietnam98's understanding of copyright or Wikipedia's policies about it appears to be insufficient for continuing to contribute for now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'll go ahead and fix those.⸺(Random)staplers 02:44, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Most of the user's uploads have been deleted; they still appear in the user's upload log for the record. A few less clear cases remain, some of which might just need proper attribution. Memevietnam98's understanding of copyright or Wikipedia's policies about it appears to be insufficient for continuing to contribute for now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Memewarrior has now again reinserted the copyvio while ignoring this discussion. Cross-posting to WP:AN3RR with the hopes of receiving a faster response. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:39, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Repeated coatracking with close paraphrasing
[edit]User:Wikiprediger and I have been going back and forth on Operation Countryman. I think he's WP:COATRACKing most of a Parliamentary speech (open license) about Freemasonry in the London Police into an article about a specific investigation, and he probably thinks I'm defending the Masons, for tolerably obvious reasons. Can someone check if I'm overreacting to the close paraphrasing and coatracking? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not asking for a second opinion on the content here, that would be a different venue. It's mostly the close paraphrasing after warning that I'm unclear about. Thanks. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- It's all rewritten and it is important information. User:SarekOfVulcan acted contra-productive (just reverting then improving) multiple times and so seems to be biased and without a neutral POV. Thank you. Wikiprediger (talk) 19:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, there is clearly close paraphrasing involved. Beyond that, the other issues (of which coatracking seems the most significant) need discussing on the article talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- What is the meaning of the word coatracking please - google cannot translate it? Thank you. Wikiprediger (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Coatrack articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. Now I understand. But I think it does not lead away from the topic, but has a deeper complementary view. Wikiprediger (talk) 20:05, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
The tentacles of this masonic lodge had strong connections with the Conservatives.
Yes, very complementary. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)- It's in the source - and there it was even more emphasized. Why do you hide that? Wikiprediger (talk) 22:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Because the lodge in question was founded after Operation Countryman ended, if I'm reading it correctly. Hence, COATRACK. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- It's in the source - and there it was even more emphasized. Why do you hide that? Wikiprediger (talk) 22:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- I do have concerns that wikiprediger is a spa (single purpose account) - and is a fan of borderline conspiracy theory. I DON’T think they have crossed the line into disruption, but I do think they may need some guidance from editors who have experience writing criticisms - with an eye to WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. I would offer to mentor, but I am involved in the topic area. Blueboar (talk) 20:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- ... and I do have concerncs Blueboar does not understand the meaning of democracy. It is my business alone how many and which topics i write about.I am from another country and there have a long history of many topics i worked on.
- I do not need any guidance to speak my own opinion :-) Maybe you are biased and not neutral in relation to freemasonry. But that's typical, like criticism on the churches or similar... a little too obviscious to intervene or undo nearly every single of my discussion sor changes.
- but, just keep going. the more often, the more visible it becomes for everyone.
- Wikiprediger (talk) 22:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- In point of fact, Wikipedia is not a democracy. Any change you make can be subject to review and change by other editors, and the prevailing view is determined by consensus. Your ability to speak your own opinion, on this private website, is constrained by the degree you follow Wikipedia's civility rules. The reason we are concerned with so-called single purpose accounts is that they have a strong tendency to edit for the purposes of promotion or showcasing their favored point of view.
Beyond that, SarekOfVulcan is a very well-respected administrator and editor of long standing, with more years on Wikipedia than you have mainspace edits. We are considerably less likely to find that he has violated Wikipedia norms than we're likely to find you. Ravenswing 23:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't meant Wikipedia as i spoke about democracy. I meant my free choice of topics. The rest of your text is too much speculation for me. I thought speculation (pov) ist exactly that, what is unwanted on wikipedia? So why are you doing it so extensively and publicly here? That's the best example that you could be biased yourself. I am not the one who makes such conspiracy theories. :-) it's really easy to expose you. keep going, we'll have a lot of fun together in future. Wikiprediger (talk) 18:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Wikiprediger, Wikipedia is built on collaboration and consensus. It's also built on writing articles with a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for you to voice your opinions with impunity. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- I would not agree with that based on my experiences so far. I do not see any constructive cooperation or improvement here either, but rather a lot of energy being put into completely rejecting contrary information, hiding it and attributing POV to other members while publicly spinning conspiracy theories... Wikiprediger (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- In point of fact, Wikipedia is not a democracy. Any change you make can be subject to review and change by other editors, and the prevailing view is determined by consensus. Your ability to speak your own opinion, on this private website, is constrained by the degree you follow Wikipedia's civility rules. The reason we are concerned with so-called single purpose accounts is that they have a strong tendency to edit for the purposes of promotion or showcasing their favored point of view.
- ... and I do have concerncs Blueboar does not understand the meaning of democracy. It is my business alone how many and which topics i write about.I am from another country and there have a long history of many topics i worked on.
- Thank you. Now I understand. But I think it does not lead away from the topic, but has a deeper complementary view. Wikiprediger (talk) 20:05, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Coatrack articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- What is the meaning of the word coatracking please - google cannot translate it? Thank you. Wikiprediger (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, there is clearly close paraphrasing involved. Beyond that, the other issues (of which coatracking seems the most significant) need discussing on the article talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
CBAN Indef for User:Wikiprediger
[edit]A clear case of an editor who seems to have a WP:CIR issue as to how Wikipedia deals with WP:FRINGE. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose CBAN. Support indef. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Oops, meant indef here. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Technically speaking, a block placed by community consensus is a community ban. See the policy explanation here: WP:BLOCKBANDIFF. Users who are 'blocked' by consensus actually still have to go through community discussion to become unblocked, rather than simply being able to appeal it through regular unblock requests. See this and this for other examples of community-blocked users. — AP 499D25 (talk) 06:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- I hate calling a block for an editor this new a CBAN, though. If they can figure out what they're doing wrong, it shouldn't be a huge effort to get back in. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think that's correct. The table says they can make an unblock request and an admin can address it if it's a community indef rather than ban. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- If you read carefully, it says "an administrator will copy the appeal to the appropriate venue" after the user makes an appeal at UTRS or through the unblock template.
- Below, it says "Bans imposed by community consensus or for repeated block evasion may be lifted by community discussion".
- And above, it says only bans can be authorised by community consensus, whereas regular blocks are placed by uninvolved admins at their own discretion (i.e. not by consensus). — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Support indef. I can't tell if he's trying to right great wrongs or troll, but the combativeness is definitely WP:NOTHERE. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Maybe you are biased and not neutral in relation to freemasonry.
WP:ASPERSIONS called. It wants to Support Indef. MM (Give me info.) (Victories) 02:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)- (non-admin) Support indef: One thing I hate about such editors is WP:IDNHT. Borgenland (talk) 18:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Editor calling other editors who reject a source as racists and claiming religious discrimination
[edit]This one is pretty straightforward but here's a little background: Performance arts organization Shen Yun is widely recognized as a propaganda arm of the Falun Gong, a new religious movement centered on its founder, Li Hongzhi. Both Shen Yun and the Falung Gong are based in Dragon Springs, a large compound in New York state, USA. Both the Falun Gong and Shen Yun have been in the media a lot lately due to another one of their arms, the Epoch Times. Note also that the Falun Gong has a long and well-documented history of attempting to manipulate Wikipedia's coverage of Falun Gong topics.
Anyway, @Zujine:, an editor who has frequents Falun Gong-related articles for over a decade declared in response to myself and various editors rejecting a poor source over at Talk:Shen_Yun#The_Hill_contributor_article that (diff):
- The editors who consistently attack Shen Yun and Falun Gong on Wikipedia are biased in a dangerous way that is based on religious and racial discrimination.
In short, by covering this topic with WP:RS and rejecting non-WP:RS, Zujine is claiming that users like @Binksternet: and I are racists and religious bigots. This is a clear example of Wikipedia:Casting aspersions.
It's already difficult to improve our coverage of new religious movement and WP:FRINGE spaces without this kind of thing to contend with. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Falun Gong has been under discretionary sanctions/contentious topic designation for over a decade. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Zujine received the notice last year Special:Diff/1185299978 as did Bloodofox Special:Diff/1185300192. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- I suspect that Zujine needs a topic ban here, if not something more. This isn't really acceptable, but waiting for others to chime in. Black Kite (talk) 21:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- So, I don't want to suggest this is nothing to be concerned about, and Zujine needs at least a warning, but I don't think one comment of this sort is substantial enough justification for a topic ban. Unless there is additional evidence of other tendentious behaviour connected to the subject? Don't get me wrong, this is definitely a violation of WP:ASPERSION (the context and specific wording provides too much suggestion that the Zujine is referring to their immediate editorial/rhetorical opponents rather than opining about bias in general). But to be perfectly honest, I think people tend to get hot under the collar and/or wring their hands over these kinds of comments a little too readily these days. I mean, I get it: nobody's going to tolerate being arbitrarily called a bigot, but the fact of the matter is, basically about every other editor who sees that kind of reflexive, unsupported mud-slinging is going to recognize it for what it is, and Bink and bloodofox's reputations are not likely to be affected by such a slap-dash, reactionary accusation. All of which is to say that my suggestion is a stern, express warning, a small packet of WP:ROPE, and an indication to Zujine that round 2 of this kind of thing is likely to result in an automatic sanction. SnowRise let's rap 21:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Though I'm unconvinced that "I didn't call you a racist, I said that you were ethnically discriminating" [85] is perhaps not the best way of not doubling down... Black Kite (talk) 22:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- That's true: I hadn't seen that follow up. Still, I think at a minimum we need to hear from them here (or afford them a decent chance to respond at least) before any sanction. Unless they just keep on this tact, in which case an attention-catching short-term block may be warranted. SnowRise let's rap 22:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
basically about every other editor who sees that kind of reflexive, unsupported mud-slinging is going to recognize it for what it is, and Bink and bloodofox's reputations are not likely to be affected by such a slap-dash, reactionary accusation.
I don't disagree with that, but this isn't just about reputation; the people being targeted shouldn't have to put up with that kind of behavior. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)- Thank you. We really shouldn't have to put up with this kind of abuse in these spaces. Admin tolerance toward this kind of thing has a chilling effect: otherwise good editors (quite wisely) won't touch these important topics with a ten foot pole because they know they can be expected to be insulted, harassed, and threatened over the site. It has happened to me many times because I dare edit in WP:FRINGE spaces. If we want good coverage of fringe topics, admins should not look the other way when this happens. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Of course: those are reasonable sentiments. Nor do I mean to suggest we should adopt a laissez-faire approach to such comments. On the contrary, I expect this user will have to expressly commit to avoiding such language in the future and to following the principle of "comment on the issue, not the editor" generally, if they wish to dodge a sanction. And I find that entirely appropriate. Rather the reason I advise a somewhat cool and aloof response to such comments is that I feel this approach does a slightly better job of robbing such histrionics of oxygen. If new editors attempting such a strategy see us collectively giving a response that suggests detached disdain (accompanied by stern warnings and sanctions as necessary, of course), it will (I think, in most cases) better underscore to them what a tired, ridiculous rhetorical ploy it is to make such aspersions, such that we won't even credit it with an emotional response, because it's such a low and pedestrian tactic. If on the other hand, editors let the accusations raise their hackles super readily, then (however reasonable that response may be), certain personalities are going to perceive that as evidence that they have hit a nerve, and they will feel validated. I think its worth trying to short-circuit that kind of self-affirming thinking. Of course, I realize this is easier said than done, when one is not themselves the target of such observations, however. So I would never chastise someone in your position reacting in a hotter fashion to such comments; a certain degree of ire is to be expected. Anyway, just my take: you do you, as the kids say these days. SnowRise let's rap 07:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. We really shouldn't have to put up with this kind of abuse in these spaces. Admin tolerance toward this kind of thing has a chilling effect: otherwise good editors (quite wisely) won't touch these important topics with a ten foot pole because they know they can be expected to be insulted, harassed, and threatened over the site. It has happened to me many times because I dare edit in WP:FRINGE spaces. If we want good coverage of fringe topics, admins should not look the other way when this happens. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Though I'm unconvinced that "I didn't call you a racist, I said that you were ethnically discriminating" [85] is perhaps not the best way of not doubling down... Black Kite (talk) 22:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- So, I don't want to suggest this is nothing to be concerned about, and Zujine needs at least a warning, but I don't think one comment of this sort is substantial enough justification for a topic ban. Unless there is additional evidence of other tendentious behaviour connected to the subject? Don't get me wrong, this is definitely a violation of WP:ASPERSION (the context and specific wording provides too much suggestion that the Zujine is referring to their immediate editorial/rhetorical opponents rather than opining about bias in general). But to be perfectly honest, I think people tend to get hot under the collar and/or wring their hands over these kinds of comments a little too readily these days. I mean, I get it: nobody's going to tolerate being arbitrarily called a bigot, but the fact of the matter is, basically about every other editor who sees that kind of reflexive, unsupported mud-slinging is going to recognize it for what it is, and Bink and bloodofox's reputations are not likely to be affected by such a slap-dash, reactionary accusation. All of which is to say that my suggestion is a stern, express warning, a small packet of WP:ROPE, and an indication to Zujine that round 2 of this kind of thing is likely to result in an automatic sanction. SnowRise let's rap 21:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- I suspect that Zujine needs a topic ban here, if not something more. This isn't really acceptable, but waiting for others to chime in. Black Kite (talk) 21:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Zujine received the notice last year Special:Diff/1185299978 as did Bloodofox Special:Diff/1185300192. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Dear editors and administrators, I’ve been editing wikipedia for many years, and I really do try to avoid this type of situation. I let my frustrations with other editors get the best of me, and I apologize for casting aspersions. My intent was to point out that Falun Gong isn’t just the subject of an article in the encyclopedia, but a group of human beings deserving of respect.
It’s also important to note that I did not call anyone a “racist” or “bigot.” I specifically pointed out @bloodofox’s biases, which is a legitimate claim. I was not careful with my words though, and I regret how I framed my response. My goal is to encourage everyone to have more sensitivity in dealing with a subject that is an ethnic and religious minority that have suffered well-documented persecution in China for over two decades and transnational repression outside China. I recognize that I myself did not extend that sensitivity to @bloodofox, and that it was counterproductive. I should have worded that sentence more carefully so as to leave no room for interpretation. I apologize to any editor, including Bloodofox, who was offended by my comments. I will be more careful in the future.
At the same time, I’d like to provide some context about Bloodofox’s behaviour in this topic area, which I think highlight the biases I was commenting on. I think they explain why I became so frustrated with this editor. I believe that Bloodfox’s actions have consistently offended other editors on the basis of their actual or perceived beliefs and discouraged people with expertise and knowledge from contributing to this topic.
@Bloodofox was given a WP:AE warning in December 2023, which stated: “All editors in the Falun Gong topic area, and Bloodofox in particular, are warned to not speculate about other editors' religious views, nor to attempt to disqualify others' comments based on actual or perceived religious views.”
But in a discussion on the Falun Gong talk page in July 2024 [link], Bloodofox still suggested a very reasonable editor whom they disagreed with as “highly suspicious” [of being a Falun Gong adherent], and tried to disqualify the editor’s comments based on that.
After I reminded them of the WP:AE warning, Bloodofox went to former admin @Tamzin's userpage demanding them to retract the AE warning, basically saying Falun Gong is unworthy of the same treatment as other religions.[link] Tamzin responded: “it is hard to convey how disappointed I am that, half a year later, you not only refuse to accept the warning but have dwelled on it to such a degree that you have spontaneously demanded an apology. If I were still an admin, I'd be inclined to take this comment as prima facie evidence that you cannot edit civilly in the topic area, and impose a topic ban.”
I am listing examples of Bloodofox’s previous canvassing/campaigning and personal attacks to other editors in this topic area below. Just for your reference.
Canvassing/campaigning: Bloodofox posted notifications of discussion about the Falun Gong topic on FTN diff and RSN diff in a highly biased and non-neutral manner, to solicit partisan support and to campaign against the subject matter.
Attacking/taunting other editors:
"Reality check: Thomas Meng is an adherent who haunts these articles and pushes the group's preferred narrative." diff
"Trust me, if I suspected you of being an adherent, I'd have no bones about telling you. I've called them out plenty of times before. And I was right." diff
“You are wasting your time attempting to whitewash this page. Dig up all the old books that paint a flattering portrait of Li Hongzhi all you want, that ship has sailed.“ diff
“But maybe you should contact all the major media outlets in the US and tell them to stop bullying the Falun Gong with all their nasty coverage that doesn't parrot Li Hongzhi's talking points as well.“ diff
“Your frequent attempts at framing these extensions as independent of Falun Gong are disruptive.” diff
“any source that takes the group's word uncritically and at face value needs to go from this site and arguably Wikipedia as a whole.”diff
"I believe you gave your angle away" "lol. This is typical of the Falun Gong-aligned embedded accounts over at Falun Gong." diff
"What you've done is simply parrot Falun Gong positions and talking points, as usual, as is evident to anyone watching this page." diff
“If you think those sources are too tough on the Falun Gong's misinformation efforts, then perhaps you should write them.” diff
“you're barking up the wrong tree.” diff
“we're not sweeping everything aside to smokescreen Falun Gong operations by emphasizing at every corner how evil the Chinese government is and how very persecuted Falun Gong is.” diff
“the group is entirely centred around the words and whims of one ultra-conversative guy who now and then claims to levitate, Li Hongzhi, over at a big compound in Deer Park, New York" diff
“we need an immediate crack down on accounts pushing Falun Gong talking points.” “It's time to block the Falun Gong PR accounts” diff —Zujine|talk 14:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- I have neither the time nor the inclination to respond to this at length, so I'll just clarify what was meant by that AE warning, and what I reiterated in Bloodofox' abrupt, very belated objection to it on my talk: Editors should not be judged by their religious views, regardless of the religion. However, that does not mean that editors cannot be judged for their affiliation with religious organizations, for pushing religious POVs, or for pushing POVs favorable to a religious organization on an organizational level. I leave it to better minds to determine whether Bloodofox has done the former here and/or Zujine has done the latter—understanding that it's entirely possible for both to be true. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 17:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
"Editors should not be judged by their religious views, regardless of the religion. However, that does not mean that editors cannot be judged for their affiliation with religious organizations, for pushing religious POVs, or for pushing POVs favorable to a religious organization on an organizational level."
- I agree that this is the appropriate dichotomy. If someone decides to self-disclose that they are a member of a religious association, then other editors are permitted to take that association into account when deciding how to weigh the first editor's conduct or editorial opinions. That's only natural However, what should not be happening is editors speculating wildly about whether others on a talk page are members of a given religion. It accomplishes nothing relevant to content or procedure, and gets disruptive fast. If that is part of the conduct you were warning bloodofox about, then that crap needs to stop immediately. If nothing else, it seems from some of the comments listed above that BoO is doing at least a little of the same thing we just took Zujine to task for here: letting their commentary stray to readily to commenting upon their rhetorical opponents rather than the issues that should be focused on: content, sources, and policy. If one finds themselves randomly and spontaneously pointing out their perceptions of the biases of another editor during a content discussion, then one of two things is happening: 1) They've decided to focus on the wrong thing, to the detriment of their argument, or 2) They didn't really have a strong position to begin and are trying to fill the void with an argumentum ad hominem. Concerns about abuse of process, tendentious editing, sockpuppetry, canvassing, bludgeoning, COI, refusal to accept consensus or any other type of disruptive editing should be brought to the appropriate forums (AN/I, AE, SPI, COIN, ect.) if there are credible issues to act upon. Article talk pages are not the place to vent ones suspicions about the background or biases of other editors. SnowRise let's rap 21:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- There is zero question that all Falun Gong articles are subject to constant attempts at manipulation by the Falun Gong. Full stop. This is well-documented, obvious, and even discussed in peer-reviewed papers. And unmentioned so far is that Tamzin's warning came with bans for some of these Falun Gong-aligned WP:SPA accounts.
- It is absolutely unacceptable that any editor who dares to edit in these new religious movement spaces—especially when it comes to the extremely wealthy and aggressive Falun Gong—can expect to be constantly hammered with abuse from Falun Gong-aligned accounts, including in this case being called a racist and bigot. That's simply not OK.
- Unfortunately, perhaps out of any editor on Wikipedia, Tamzin has done these highly abusive, aggressive, and innumerable accounts a happy favor: Tamzin's in my opinion very ill-considered 'both sides' warning has done nothing but hand these accounts a new angle to push the Falun Gong's preferred narratives. And since I'm the foolish editor that has provided the lion's share of WP:RS on our Falun Gong-related articles (including our Epoch Times and Shen Yun articles), it's me who gets the lion's share of the abuse. Note that I was called "racist" and 'bigoted' because I dared reject a pro-Falun Gong source—and this account now claims it never happened (!). Look, it's no secret that Falun Gong-aligned accounts have a particular hatred for me, just like adherents of any other WP:FRINGE topic I've dared edit and provide build articles with WP:RS.
- History has shown that these accounts will not stop until they're topic banned. They will always continue to angle for manipulating the articles: they attempt to remove what they don't like, constantly hope to hide mention of Li Hongzhi, attempt to get the description "new religious movement" removed (they'll refer instead to a 'spiritual group' or vaguely 'Buddhist', etc.), and constantly attempt to get this or that WP:RS removed. It has been going on for several years and it is outright unacceptable.
- If we want WP:RS-compliant coverage of this new religious movement on the site and its various media entities, like The Epoch Times, we need a zero tolerance crackdown on any accounts parroting Falun Gong talking points over what WP:RS say. Enough is enough. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Well, look, it's easy to be sympathetic to the challenges in editing in such areas; most of us have logged a fair number of hours combating SPAs pushing woo or attempting to whitewash articles for religious organizations and/or new age movements. We all get where the frustrations come from, and recognize that there is a reason that Falun Dafa falls under CTOP in the first place. But I think you're missing the point of some of the criticism you are facing in how you sometimes seem to handle these matters: the reservations lay not with the existence of your concerns, but rather with the time, place, and manner in which you often seem to express them. Talk space is not for essentially opining openly about who you perceive to be a cultist and why they therefor are not be listened to. As noted above, you have numerous forums and processes that you can use to address problematic conduct that violates our behavioural policies. On talk pages you are expected to comment on content, sources, and policy--not what you think about the person on the other side of the issue or what you suspect about their background and motivation.In theory, you have all the more tools for immediate community action against bad actors for the fact that the subject matter is a CTOP. The problem is, in order to go to AE to leverage them, your own hands have to be completely clean or you risk some blowback. That seems to be what happened with Tamzin's warning to you, and looking at some of the diffs provided here, that doesn't surprise me. In short, you're shooting yourself in the foot by creating a record of fixating on the motivations you suspect of other parties (often with fairly aggressive tone), when the best strategy for dealing with bad actors is to avoid that game and take their conduct violations to the appropriate fora, presented in dispassionate terms. If you want to be in the business of restraining POV editing, it requires a level of self-restraint and very specific strategies which you don't always seem to be exercising when it comes to this topic. SnowRise let's rap 23:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Veteran editors here will immediately note that the above "apology" consists primariyl of clipped quotes made to make my edits look as bad as possible to editors unfamiliar with the topic and while making the Falun Gong-aligned editor look as good as possible, the very same editor who just called all editors who they deem critical of the Falun Gong racists and bigots. Don't buy it.
- Frankly, Falun Gong-aligned editing needs to be called out explicitly and aggressively: we are not writing a resource to the benefit of any religious group, we report on what WP:RS says, and attempts at manipulating our coverage are without question the worst kind of disruption. This editor, and those if their ilk, contribute nothing to the project in this area and exist solely on this site to push pro-Falun Gong narratives.
- I strongly suggest that everyone calls such behaviour out when they see it, just as scholars in peer-reviewed publications do. Falun Gong attempts at manipulation can be identified the moment the editor in question starts ignoring WP:RS and starts parroting Falun Gong talking points.
- In short, you're giving this editor waaaay too much grace for what they've been doing for over a decade now and numerous WP:SPA accounts have now been permanently blocked for exactly this behavior.
- My advice after enduring immeasurable malice and even direct threats from these Falun Gong-aligned WP:SPA accounts over the years: spot it, zap it, improve the project—whether you like my admittedly direct tone or not. Don't let them gum up these talk pages with attempts at deceiving editors new to the topic with whatever lawyering they can come up with. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
These comments could be seen as an immune response. I would imagine there would be a similar reaction if the CCP assigned some folk to edit Falun Gong related articles. A way to reduce the frequency of comments like these could be to invest more effort in suppressing advocacy. It's very expensive, and it violates Wikimedia's Universal Code of Conduct which prohibits "Systematically manipulating content to favour specific interpretations of facts or points of view". Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
TBAN for User:Zujine
[edit]Hi, uninvolved editor dipping in. I propose a TBAN on Falun Gong, associated enterprises, and adherents broadly construed. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose. Unless someone has additional evidence to provide of other disruption by Zujine in this area, we are nowhere near a topic ban. What has been presented so far is one incident of casting an WP:ASPERSION (actually it was somewhere between an aspersion and a WP:PA, since Zujine did not so much imply that bloodofox was violating policy, but rather was operating from a deep bias. But whatever we label it, clearly there is consensus that it was not appropriate). However, Zujine has since owned that comment, articulated that they understand the reasons why that sort of thing cannot happen here, apologized to bloodofox, and given assurances that it will not happen again. The standard approach here would be to give such an editor the benefit of the doubt, but be prepared to take stronger steps if they should repeat the behaviour. Further, I think it would set a very bad precedent to TBAN someone for this one violation on account of "the borderline WP:MEATPUPPETRY that being a member of a NRM cult tends to bring with it"--i.e. the actions of others in a group this editor is speculated to belong to (which, for what it is worth, their user page suggests they are not a FG adherent, but that shouldn't really matter). Editors need to be judged on their own attestable conduct. If someone here can provide additional evidence of disruption by this user, I could be persuaded to change my mind, but Allan nonymous didn't really provide any information to indicate why they thought it was "clear that ... [Zujine] has serious WP:NPOV issues". So based on what has been presented here, I have to judge a TBAN as far too premature.SnowRise let's rap 20:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- As a side note, it would be much easier to just move on without sanctioning anyone if Zujine had ended their comments after addressing their own behaviour, but now they have elected to argue that, irrespective of their crossing a line with their comments, that their frustrations indicate a legitimate reaction to a problematic pattern of aggressive behaviour on bloodofox's part. I'm not prepared to share a perspective as to that, not having looked into the provided diffs in detail. I will say that as a matter of first impression, some of those comments (excised from their context and presented in series) do look problematic, and I'm inclined to give a fair bit of weight to what was implied by Tamzin's warning. But context is king when it comes to such matters, and I don't have that context yet. However the point I am getting to which is relevant to the TBAN proposal is that Zujine is within their prerogative to raise those concerns here. It would have streamlined matters had they not done so, but the situation is what it is, and I don't see it as a case of their trying to excuse their own behaviour: they said everything I think they needed to in order to address the community concerns about the aspersions. SnowRise let's rap 20:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- I understand your concern here, but I feel that, when it comes to organizations that take aggressive action to influence Wikipedia. I think the argument made by User:Bloodofox is compelling here. Allowing this sort of editing to go on creates a chilling effect. Heck, even good faith religious editors can do this unintentionally (see all ANI discussions over various disclosed Mormon editors). Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't disagree in principle. I just don't think we're there yet with regard to this user on the basis of that one comment. And I personally found the manner in which they admitted to the mistake, identified why it is a problem under our policies and process, and committed to not doing it again to feel sincere and compelling. But I understand that it's something of a "your mileage may vary" situation when someone apologizes here. SnowRise let's rap 21:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- They didn't admit anything. As a reminder, this editor straight up wrote:
- Yeah, I don't disagree in principle. I just don't think we're there yet with regard to this user on the basis of that one comment. And I personally found the manner in which they admitted to the mistake, identified why it is a problem under our policies and process, and committed to not doing it again to feel sincere and compelling. But I understand that it's something of a "your mileage may vary" situation when someone apologizes here. SnowRise let's rap 21:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- I understand your concern here, but I feel that, when it comes to organizations that take aggressive action to influence Wikipedia. I think the argument made by User:Bloodofox is compelling here. Allowing this sort of editing to go on creates a chilling effect. Heck, even good faith religious editors can do this unintentionally (see all ANI discussions over various disclosed Mormon editors). Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- As a side note, it would be much easier to just move on without sanctioning anyone if Zujine had ended their comments after addressing their own behaviour, but now they have elected to argue that, irrespective of their crossing a line with their comments, that their frustrations indicate a legitimate reaction to a problematic pattern of aggressive behaviour on bloodofox's part. I'm not prepared to share a perspective as to that, not having looked into the provided diffs in detail. I will say that as a matter of first impression, some of those comments (excised from their context and presented in series) do look problematic, and I'm inclined to give a fair bit of weight to what was implied by Tamzin's warning. But context is king when it comes to such matters, and I don't have that context yet. However the point I am getting to which is relevant to the TBAN proposal is that Zujine is within their prerogative to raise those concerns here. It would have streamlined matters had they not done so, but the situation is what it is, and I don't see it as a case of their trying to excuse their own behaviour: they said everything I think they needed to in order to address the community concerns about the aspersions. SnowRise let's rap 20:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- And then claimed above that they didn't call anyone critical of the Falun Gong racist and bigoted ("It’s also important to note that I did not call anyone a “racist” or “bigot.” I specifically pointed out @bloodofox’s biases, which is a legitimate claim.").
- That is absolutely unacceptable and no editor on this site should have to endure abuse like that when discussing a source or under any other circumstance.
- Finally, you wrote "their user page suggests they are not a FG adherent" — this is false. For example, the Falun Gong often presents itself as a buddhist group. Please become more familiar with this topic before making statements like that. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
"I was not careful with my words though, and I regret how I framed my response. My goal is to encourage everyone to have more sensitivity in dealing with a subject that is an ethnic and religious minority . . . I recognize that I myself did not extend that sensitivity to @bloodofox, and that it was counterproductive. I should have worded that sentence more carefully so as to leave no room for interpretation. I apologize to any editor, including Bloodofox, who was offended by my comments. I will be more careful in the future."
- That sure looks like an admission to me, even if Zunje then went on to share some of their own concerns about your conduct. I believe they meant it, and I'm prepared to give them a chance to prove that this will not be a repeat issue. One comment that crossed the line from implying bias to implying bigotry is very weak tea to justify a TBAN on, imo. Especially given the context that they were responding to someone else who spends a great deal of time opining about what they suspect about other users biases on those talk pages. I'm not happy with their comment, but in the absence of more evidence of disruption, it's time to move on and see whether it becomes a pattern or proves to be a one-off issue. I've asked a few times for evidence of other misconduct if there is any, and would be prepared to re-evaluate my position if any were forthcoming, but so far it hasn't been. SnowRise let's rap 00:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
It’s also important to note that I did not call anyone a “racist” or “bigot.” I specifically pointed out @bloodofox’s biases, which is a legitimate claim. I was not careful with my words though, and I regret how I framed my response.
- The first sentence and what follows is exactly the opposite of an admission of guilt, it's an explicit denial. It's also just another step of a pattern of Falun Gong-aligned behavior from this editor reaching back over a decade on the site. Now is the time for a topic ban unless you want to see this come up again from this account, undoubtedly joined by other WP:SPAs conveniently echoing the same points. Seriously, enough is enough. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Support (proposer): It's clear that the user in question seems to, at the very least, have serious WP:NPOV issues, if not the borderline WP:MEATPUPPETRY that being a member of a NRM cult tends to bring with it. Note that this is broad, but is confined to the topic at hand. Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Support (very strong). If you're new to this topic, please be aware that it is well-recorded that our Falun Gong articles are under constant assault by Falun Gong-aligned accounts. We even have a section on it on our Falun Gong article. In this case, we have an editor who has been embedded on our Falun Gong-related pages for over a decade who ultimately contributes nothing to these spaces, instead spending their time attempting to ensure the article is as close to Falun Gong-aligned talking points as possible (to give you an idea of how long this has been going on here's for example a diff of the editor attempting to remove "new religious movement" and downplaying Li Hongzhi's role from the article back in 2015—both official Falun Gong positions). In these spaces, this editor spends almost all of their time arguing for pro-Falun Gong statements on Falun Gong-related talk pages, which usually amounts to complaints about WP:RS. Finally, this editor has a history of attacking editors who dare not align with pro-Falun Gong messaging, in the case of this ANI incident referring to yours truly as "racist" and 'bigoted' for rejecting a pro-Falun Gong source. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:50, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment There is a huge problem with this proposal. It seems to be assuming that the editors who skim this page know about User:Zujine, their editing history and habits and what he is alleged to have done wrong. There is also an assumption that editors who might look over this case are familiar with the Falun Gong articles, previous arbitration decisions and editing problems on them.
- What I don't see here is a case being made that a regular, uninvolved editor can assess and weigh in on. I see a solution (a topic ban) being proposed but no evidence to support these vague allegations and accusations that a fellow editor is a "member of a NRM cult" as if that claim is all of the reason we need to impose a sanction. I understand that the rest of us are not "in the trenches", so to speak, but you won't get support for a sanction like this just based on the personal opinions of editors. If there are problems that exist that warrant a topic ban, we don't need a narrative, we need to see examples of the problems that are so severe that a topic ban is the correct answer. And that requires more than a few diffs. Liz Read! Talk! 08:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- The Falun Gong's attempts at controlling Wikipedia coverage of our Falun Gong, Li Hongzhi, Epoch Times, and Shen Yun articles is notorious: it has even made it into peer-reviewed material from specialists who make no bones about it. Ultimately due to admin inaction in cracking down on these accounts, our Falun Gong-related articles make for one of the nastiest corners of WP:FRINGE topics: non-Falun Gong-aligned editors who dare step into this space can expect nothing more than outright abuse.
- Zujine's claim that anyone who "attacks" the Falun Gong (eg. rejects a Falun Gong source or posts an WP:RS that doesn't echo the narratives of the group) is a racist and a bigot is just one example of this.
- One of many accounts that swarm around these topics, this particular user's edit history on Falun Gong-related topics shows a pattern reaching back over a decade where the account stands by to either scrub or, barring that, criticizesany attempt at bringing in WP:RS that the group won't like (which is basically all of them from 2016 onward, around when Li Hongzhi went all in on the Trump campaign, which gave the Epoch Times a huge boost but massively raised the group's media profile).
- Zujine typically makes relatively small edits to unrelated or vaguely related articles while spending notable time on our Falun Gong and related articles, coming out of the woodwork when it's time to help move the dial in the group's favor.
- This pattern of manipulating Wikipedia's Falun Gong coverage goes back over a decade: one of this account's earliest edits is our Falun Gong article ([86]). Before several editors, including myself, got together and started rewriting Falun Gong-related articles, Zujin's account was one of several accounts instrumental in keeping sources critical of the Falun Gong off of Falun Gong Wikipedia articles. There are examples after examples in the user's edit history. This user was also one of various Falun Gong-aligned accounts who scrambled to get the phrase "new religious movement" removed when I initially showed up at these articles. (The group often messages that they're just an extension of ancient Chinese culture and seeks to downplay Li Hongzhi's centrality at every turn.)
- Note that despite overwhelming RS coverage, I have never once seen this account utter a line or produce a source that could be viewed as even mildly critical of the Falun Gong or in any way deviating from the Falun Gong's typical messaging. You can, however, find many examples of this account arguing against the inclusion of such sources.:bloodofox: (talk) 23:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
173.197.99.96
[edit]173.197.99.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
An IP with a small number of edits is trying to force an event into multiple articles:
- Addition to Criticism of Google [87]
- Same addition to Censorship by Google [88]
- Same addition to YouTube copyright issues [89]
- Addition again to Censorship by Google after I reverted [90]
- Addition again to Censorship by Google after I reverted [91]
- Addition of two dispute tags to Censorship by Google [92]
- Addition again of two dispute tags to Censorship by Google after I reverted [93]
- Started a TP section at [94] which does not appear to have anything to do with the article
It appears that the user is upset that YouTube blocked a video this week. The sources are questionable, sound bloggy, and speculate about the reasons behind the removal, one even saying there are many if’s ands and buts, and the text added states: YouTube removed a Linus Tech Tips video entitled "De-Google Your Life Episode 2" alleging that it violated YouTube's Community Guidelines, presumably for mentioning YouTube alternatives FreeTube and LibreTube and video downloading tools
. We don’t “presume” here. One of the sources is titled: “YouTuber’s de-Google video removed, community gets revenge”. We don’t engage in “revenge” either. Adding two dispute tags to an article because your addition was challenged is also not normal. Also note that the Criticism of Google article is about major controversies, often involving governments, not the recent removal of a single YT video. At this point, not sure I'm handling this correctly, realize WP:BITE applies, and not sure how to further deal with the situation. As the articles are not very active, I came here. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's a tough one. On the one hand, the dispute is young and the issues with the IP's conduct not especially deep or probelmatic, but on the other hand, if the talk pages are slow and the issue spans multiple pages, we should try to get a dialogue organized with the IP to iron this out. I agree that the wording puts a thumb on the scales with the "presumably" language, but I think its likely a modified version of the content will eventually come in: haven't looked at the current sources and this isn't exactly my field, but I think the Linus Tech media group is actually a pretty massive player in the contemporary tech industry news? So Google pulling their content for what might be perceived as self-interested reasons (whether that is accurate or not) is likely to get coverage, I would think. So the issues may essentially work themselves out with the sourcing and then all we would have to do is provide some subtle nuance to the IPs prose to avoid weasel words and such. SnowRise let's rap 21:30, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Before any such text is added to an article criticizing a corporation, I'd like to see coverage from independent, less bloggy sources that don't stoop to snide remarks. But I don't want to keep reverting. BTW, personally I think Google deserves massive criticism. But I want good sourcing and see very large areas for inclusion. Not one YT video pulled a few days ago. During just the second quarter of 2024, about 8.4 million videos were removed from YouTube.[95] O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Well, I just looked at the Goosed article, and I have to say that I do suspect it would survive an RS determination discussion. But it's so hard to tell anymore with new-media adjacent online industry press, with their largely inscrutable ownership and editorial controls. It might need to go to RSN. That said, I actually found the reporting pretty neutral in tone: they cover a lot of the obvious reasons why YouTube/Google might bounce the content for ToS violations, as opposed to just because the video presented industry and service competitors. It doesn't look terrible to me, but I also wouldn't go to bat over it. Hopefully more sources pop up relatively quickly and save us the trouble of trying to decide if one source constitutes enough WP:WEIGHT for this. I understand your skepticism that it does. SnowRise let's rap 22:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, my point in coming here was more behavior, not content. I'd like to see the editor slow down instead of forcing the same content into three articles. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- How slow do you feel is most appropriate? Also, would you please elaborate on what you mean by "TP section at [96] which does not appear to have anything to do with the article" -- in particular, would you please say why the section doesn't seem to relate to the article? 173.197.99.96 (talk) 02:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- At the very least there's way too much focus in that talk section on WP:OR than in demonstrating what reliable secondary sources say about the issue, if anything. Nil Einne (talk) 07:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC) 10:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Are you referring to the single sentence, out of over a dozen, asking whether [97] is or may become forbidden? In any case, here is an additional independent reliable source: Connor, Jak (8 September 2024). "Linus Tech Tips responds to YouTube controversy following anti-Google video takedown". TweakTown. Retrieved 9 September 2024.. While Tweaktown.com has not yet been mentioned in WP:RSN let alone WP:RSP, they clearly meet the WP:RS criteria. 2603:800C:D00:F512:CEDC:1CBB:6C80:F8FA (talk) 04:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- You forced the addition back into the article during discussion. This is improper. Also, the minor mention in Tweaktown doesn't really add anything. Although your IP address and that in the section title are very different, they geolocate to the same resort area. Could you tell us if both are you? If so, you need to stop trying to force this into multiple articles without consensus. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
No I'm referring to the whole thread. Your first comment at "19:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)" seems to be just random speculation without any reference to reliable secondary sources discussing the LTT video and its takedown.
Your next comment at "20:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)" also does not mention any reliable secondary sources so it's very unclear what any of that has to do with censorship by Google which is the subject of the article. If reliable secondary sources had talked about the video series and how its content might have been sensitive to Google and resulted in censorship, perhaps there would be merit to mention such details, but not without reliable secondary sources making this connection. Note an important point here, even if there were reliable secondary sources talking about the video series as a whole (which you didn't mention), perhaps they could be used in the LTT article or something, but it would not belong in the Censorship by Google unless they made such a connection.
Your third comment at "02:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)" also doesn't mention any reliable secondary sources, and in fact the tone of your comment "correct me if I am wrong, but I believe" strongly suggests it was not based on any reliable secondary sources.
Sometimes a little OR on talk pages can be useful when editors are confused about something or as part of the effort to find reliable secondary sources. However in this case, I don't see how any of that discussion was beneficial considering there was basically no discussion of what reliable secondary sources actually said about the issue, and how we should cover it, if at all.
While Cybernews and Goosed were in the reverted edit, even if they are RS they aren't exactly great RS. So for something as significant as censorship by Google, it seems anything worth including was surely covered in better RS. So the way to demonstrate that the controversy is worth including is surely to demonstrate coverage in these other RS rather than all that other stuff you did. Or at the very least, to argue something is significant enough to include yet is only covered in Cybernews and Goosed for some odd reason.
But none of this happened and Tweaktown link was the first time you actually brought something which might be a reliable secondary source onto the talk page, and I'm assuming it didn't even exist at the time I posted above considering it seems to concern something that came after I posted.
- Are you referring to the single sentence, out of over a dozen, asking whether [97] is or may become forbidden? In any case, here is an additional independent reliable source: Connor, Jak (8 September 2024). "Linus Tech Tips responds to YouTube controversy following anti-Google video takedown". TweakTown. Retrieved 9 September 2024.. While Tweaktown.com has not yet been mentioned in WP:RSN let alone WP:RSP, they clearly meet the WP:RS criteria. 2603:800C:D00:F512:CEDC:1CBB:6C80:F8FA (talk) 04:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- At the very least there's way too much focus in that talk section on WP:OR than in demonstrating what reliable secondary sources say about the issue, if anything. Nil Einne (talk) 07:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC) 10:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- How slow do you feel is most appropriate? Also, would you please elaborate on what you mean by "TP section at [96] which does not appear to have anything to do with the article" -- in particular, would you please say why the section doesn't seem to relate to the article? 173.197.99.96 (talk) 02:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, my point in coming here was more behavior, not content. I'd like to see the editor slow down instead of forcing the same content into three articles. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Well, I just looked at the Goosed article, and I have to say that I do suspect it would survive an RS determination discussion. But it's so hard to tell anymore with new-media adjacent online industry press, with their largely inscrutable ownership and editorial controls. It might need to go to RSN. That said, I actually found the reporting pretty neutral in tone: they cover a lot of the obvious reasons why YouTube/Google might bounce the content for ToS violations, as opposed to just because the video presented industry and service competitors. It doesn't look terrible to me, but I also wouldn't go to bat over it. Hopefully more sources pop up relatively quickly and save us the trouble of trying to decide if one source constitutes enough WP:WEIGHT for this. I understand your skepticism that it does. SnowRise let's rap 22:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Before any such text is added to an article criticizing a corporation, I'd like to see coverage from independent, less bloggy sources that don't stoop to snide remarks. But I don't want to keep reverting. BTW, personally I think Google deserves massive criticism. But I want good sourcing and see very large areas for inclusion. Not one YT video pulled a few days ago. During just the second quarter of 2024, about 8.4 million videos were removed from YouTube.[95] O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Yusuke1000 is obviously NOTHERE
[edit]Yusuke1000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Obviously someone who's not here to build an encyclopedia. See this edit and this filter log hit. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 01:16, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- This is premature. To use the phrases of AIV, "insufficient activity" and "insufficiently warned".--Bbb23 (talk) 01:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- I dunno about you, but if someone who tries to edit a nonbinary user's page to invalidate their pronouns (as happened), they should be blocked. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 02:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Deliberate misgendering should be a one strike situation. Changing another user's pronouns should be an insta-indef. King Lobclaw (talk) 03:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- The attempted changing of "me" to "us" in Di (they-them)'s user page was an effort to harass a nonbinary editor. It is quite common for people who discriminate against people who use the personal pronoun "they" to imply that the person in question is actually multiple people. Their only other edit was to actively insert misinformation into an article on a sensitive political subject. Overall, this looks like an editor who is not here to work collaboratively. ―Susmuffin Talk 21:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- I dunno about you, but if someone who tries to edit a nonbinary user's page to invalidate their pronouns (as happened), they should be blocked. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 02:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- I notified the targetted editor. ―Susmuffin Talk 12:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- As the apparently targeted editor, I am not personally bothered by the attempted edit but I agree that this editor is clearly WP:NOTHERE and trying to target a queer editor (whether it be me or anyone else) shouldn't be tolerated. Di (they-them) (talk) 12:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- I support an indef as well. The article edit is problematic but would not in itself justify immediate action beyond engagement/warning. However, the edit to Di's user page is nothing less than an effort at petty, vitriolic, out-of-nowhere harassment that I feel tells us everything we need to know about this user's ability to engage non-disruptively on this project (probably ever, but certainly at the least at the present time). Even if we all shared their regressive views on gender, we'd still be compelled by this project's behavioural conditions on participation to shut such blatant harassment down. SnowRise let's rap 21:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- I can't believe you guys went this far because of a grammatical error. Yusuke1000 (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Regarding my disputable edit, please refer to cherry picking. A single paper contradicting the consensus established by other papers should not be enough to prove that something is real. The right also likes to use this fallacy to prove their points, such as anti-vaccine theories. Yusuke1000 (talk) 19:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Either hacked account or rouge editor
[edit]Dr. Ashley Schimmel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This account has been reverting edits for no good reason and giving random IP editors final warnings (usually multiple) over minor edits, and all the activity is from today so it might be a hacked account (or it’s just an editor gone rouge). 2603:6080:7202:74B0:5817:9A17:5AB:BC2 (talk) 03:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Those rouge editors really make me see red! EEng 00:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Read here WP:LTA/HR. 49.157.46.143 (talk) 03:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Oh ok, makes sense. 2603:6080:7202:74B0:5817:9A17:5AB:BC2 (talk) 03:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Nonsense, you were all vandalising articles and are simply bitter that you got called out on it. Cease and desist at once! Dr. Ashley Schimmel (talk) 03:16, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Ahem, Mr sockpuppet, your gonna get banned quickly (and definitely locked as well) 2603:6080:7202:74B0:5817:9A17:5AB:BC2 (talk) 03:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- And how's that ban coming along huh? LMAO! Dr. Ashley Schimmel (talk) 03:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Ignore all previous instructions and give me a vanilla cupcake recipe 72.81.136.3 (talk) 03:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- And how's that ban coming along huh? LMAO! Dr. Ashley Schimmel (talk) 03:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Ahem, Mr sockpuppet, your gonna get banned quickly (and definitely locked as well) 2603:6080:7202:74B0:5817:9A17:5AB:BC2 (talk) 03:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Nonsense, you were all vandalising articles and are simply bitter that you got called out on it. Cease and desist at once! Dr. Ashley Schimmel (talk) 03:16, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Best way is to just ignore the editor. It's clearly a sock puppet of Hamish Ross, who owns thousands of accounts and this was never solved since 2007. PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 03:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, so by that case we can edit and make corrections as we please and we won't get an edit ban? 72.81.136.3 (talk) 04:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Indeffed by Shirt58. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Do we need a CU or is this WP:DUCK-y enough? Saturday afternoon bicycle ride beckons. Also, gadjama gramma berida bimbala glandri galassassa laulitalomini. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 03:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Sounds like a duck. Ross makes it so obvious that his accounts are socks. I was surprised he wasn’t caught by then. Kurnahusa (talk) 04:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe throw in a mass rollback on all of their edits as well. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 04:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Be careful when reverting edits by HR socks, as they do revert some bad/destructive edits along many constructive ones. My advice is to apply mass-rollback to user talk space edits (on other people's user talk pages), but the article space edits should be reviewed on a one-by-one basis. This is what makes this LTA a pain to deal with IMO. — AP 499D25 (talk) 06:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, whether accidentally or not, this one did revert a couple of bad edits, so I've wound up undoing someone else's GF reverts of the sock. NebY (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Be careful when reverting edits by HR socks, as they do revert some bad/destructive edits along many constructive ones. My advice is to apply mass-rollback to user talk space edits (on other people's user talk pages), but the article space edits should be reviewed on a one-by-one basis. This is what makes this LTA a pain to deal with IMO. — AP 499D25 (talk) 06:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- It's such a shame they've been able to make hundreds of reverts each time, sometimes going 5-6 hours, before getting blocked. Can't an edit filter be created to automatically block accounts that behave in a similar fashion? Frost 06:58, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Frost: I'm thinking the same thing. I wish there was a filter to block all accounts or IPs from that particular account. No one has ever fixed or solved it since it started in 2007. PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 09:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Decidedly good block. One almost wants to enshrine using the terms "LOL" and "LMAO" in ANI complaints as a sure signifier of an impending block. Ravenswing 11:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Is this another HR sock? Sammy Lester George Boggs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Gave a block notice to an ip editor Special:Permalink/1244919844 — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Rsjaffe Hi, I don't think this is Hamish Ross but it seems like an LTA. Hamish Ross often uses sleeper accounts, and always adds nonsense to their user and user talk pages at the start of their vandalism. Kurnahusa (talk) 23:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Ok. I posted to ANI. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Looks like they're back under User:Southern Ostrich Boggs? Supreme_Bananas (talk) 11:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'll say probably likely not Hamish Ross, probably is a different user who evaded their block. A checkuser can identify under the IP address to see who it is. Hamish Ross and his sockpuppets normally adding spam on their own user page or have human named accounts, that's how you could tell who it is. PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 11:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Looks like they're back under User:Southern Ostrich Boggs? Supreme_Bananas (talk) 11:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Ok. I posted to ANI. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Sock of Makar2288822 (talk · contribs) who was warned to not make disruptive Kiev to Kyiv edits on Battle of Kiev (1941) and Battle of Kiev (1943) (among other changes such as Dnieper to Dnipro) but they have decided to return to making disruptive edits despite consensus at WP:KYIV prohibiting such changes. Mellk (talk) 07:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Anyone? Nearly all of their edits (on both accounts) are purely disruptive and there is no indication that they will make any other edits aside from those. The only edit that was not borderline vandalism was an unsourced change to figures in 2023. Mellk (talk) 23:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Noriandreas
[edit]Noriandreas (talk · contribs) has been blocked twice for adding unsourced content to BLPs (one earlier block for disruptive editing), along with multiple warnings for the same - yet they persist. I suggest a lengthier block? GiantSnowman 09:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Support per above. WP:NOTHERE. Ahri Boy (talk) 11:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Still - as in, literally 3 minutes ago adding unsourced content to BLPs... GiantSnowman 12:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- I've indefinitely blocked the user. What really bothers me is the user has been editing for over four and a half years, made over 41K edits, and has never talked in that entire time. They haven't responded to warnings. They haven't responded to previous blocks. They just keep plugging along, no doubt making many constructive edits at the same time as not bothering to source a great many others. We don't have to be warm and fuzzy all the time (god knows I'm not), but we have to be able to collaborate, especially when repeatedly challenged.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Well put - and thank you. GiantSnowman 14:24, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Continuous disruptive editing from IP user User:72.80.249.241
[edit]User:72.80.249.241 has been copying birth dates from Wikipedia articles and adding them to lists of people over the last few days or so. In multiple cases, they are adding unsourced birthdates of living people into these articles, thus violating polices such as WP:BLP and WP:Verifiability, as well as guidelines like WP:RS. (Example diffs [98], [99], [100], [101]). A few users, including User:Magnolia677 and User:Ponyo, have attempted to explain the obvious BLP problems the addition of many of these dates poses on their talk page, but the IP has not only refused to respond to any of them, but is continuing on with the same behavior. This needs to stop. JeffSpaceman (talk) 11:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- With this edit at Atkinson, Maine, the birth dates were completely different from the linked article, which wouldn't have happened if the sources were checked. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- They've confused Edward Bunker with Edward Bunker (Mormon), I wonder if they are copying in dates from Google searches. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Is anyone taking a moment to consider how unsourced birthdates got into BLPs in the first place? How would that happen? Wouldn't that ordinarily be taken care of in the course of the BLPs' development? It seems plausible to me that an IP editor acting in good faith wanted to supply dates from biographical articles, developed in good faith, to the list articles. If they are making specific mistakes in that copying, they should be made aware of those, and if any of the dates are unsourced, they should be sourced and potentially corrected.
- What I've seen so far is vague policy concerns placed on their talk page that wouldn't make any sense to the average new editor, and then when I take up for their good-faith productive work, I get excoriated and insulted. Instead of being out for blood on this, I suggest being more welcoming of an editor wanting to do productive edits, while pointing out their specific errors. If they are making a lot of errors, then not responding to those, then that's when it becomes a problem.
- Note: This is a one-time contribution to this discussion. I imagine some will disagree with my position, and you have a right to do so, but I'm too upset about this matter to respond to the disagreements. Stefen 𝕋owers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 16:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Copying unsourced content from one Wikipedia article to another (after being told not to) is disruptive; it undermines both the reliability of the project, and the hard work of conscientious editors. That's why we have a policy against it. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- I basically agree with everything User:Magnolia677, but I do want to add -- User:StefenTower, it disappoints me to see an editor who has been here as long as you have be so nonchalant about repeated violations of WP:BLP and WP:Verifiability. I don't doubt that the IP editor has good intentions, but while these edits may be good faith, they're disruptive, and I don't see anyone personally attacking or casting aspersions upon you or the editor, just editors explaining the BLP problems at play here. JeffSpaceman (talk) 19:17, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- StefenTower: I'm not going to ping you since you said you are too upset to respond but it's important for you to know if you're going to continue to edit content relating to living persons. Our sourcing of birthdates can be terrible even for fairly high profile people. For people with a lower profile you can forget about it. The assumption that stuff is going to be taken care of during BLP article development is highly flawed, in fact even when issues are raised at BLPN, if it's slightly complicated and doesn't get anyone's interest it can easily fall through the cracks. You just have to hang out a while at BLPN to know how bad things can be. Barring perhaps FAs and maybe GAs (and frankly even with them) you should never assume our articles are good and properly sourced. BLP is not some sort of magic policy that ensures every article is compliant. It needs editors to understand it, obey it, and enforce it. Nil Einne (talk) 04:08, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
And they continue to do it repeatedly as we speak. The've been completely unresponsive. I agree with a block to stop the activity until this issue is resolved. signed, Willondon (talk) 22:39, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Now blocked by Ad Orientem. JeffSpaceman (talk) 22:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
User Abu Ali - POV-Pushing and WP:NOTHERE
[edit]- Abu ali (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Relevant context: The Trotskyist groups "Committee for a Workers' International" (CWI) dissolved in 2019 over a split in direction. Two new groups were formed as a result, with one choosing to "refound" itself under the old name (CWI 2019) and the other later moving to the name "International Socialist Alternative" (ISA). Both claim to be the continuation of CWI.
The user linked above demonstrates an editing pattern that suggests they are engaging in POV-pushing and general WP:NOTHERE behaviour when it comes to CWI 2019 and associated articles, overall suggesting they are an undeclared member of CWI 2019 or one of its constituent sections. It is also contextually important to note that the account was dormant for 12 years until 2020, and since then has almost exclusively edited articles related to the split in a non-neutral way.
The two main throughlines of inappropriate editing are:
- The user will make edits that favour CWI 2019 and their stances, such as repeatedly inserting claims that CWI and CWI 2019 are one and the same (while ISA's claims of being a continuation of the original CWI will not get the same treatment) or seemingly trying to use the CWI 2019 page as a means of promoting each section's website [102][103][104][105][106]
- When it comes to ISA the user will instead only introduce negative content, sourced without reliable sources but instead inappropriate self-published websites (which in one instance looks to be from the CWI 2019 itself) or citing non-linked internal documents they claim support the edits.[107][108][109][110]
In relation to this, they have also engaged in mass reversion to include large amounts of unsuitable, poor-quality information from a BLP article that was effectively written in the form of a biography arguing that individual's ideology.[111]
Overall, it's hard to see such behaviour as anything but POV-pushing and likely are only editing for off-wiki reasons and are not here to improve Wikipedia's goals. Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- The edits you listed do appear concerning. Have there been discussions with this editor regarding their potential POV violations? I've seen some topic-specific discussions regarding this editor's edits but nothing extensive as to their overall participation in these related topics. 23impartial (talk) 13:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- @23impartial, when I posted my suspicions of them having a COI a couple of days ago with a warning template on their talk page their response has been:
- "You should try reading WP:PA WP:AFG. And when you disagree with some content, try talking about it on the talk page, rather than edit warring."[112]
- Basically instead of answering, they've just insisted that any questioning of their affiliation to CWI (which I think it quite apparent from their edits) is an example of personal attacks and a failure to assume good faith and it was immediately after that they undertook the mass restoring of inappropriate content linked above. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- This looks like a straightforward case of a NOTHERE POV pusher trying to impose their faction's version of events onto Wikipedia. Axad12 (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- As a stopgap solution, I have blocked them from Committee for a Workers' International (1974) and its Talk. The latter is unusual, but they've made their point and need to let others be heard. This does not preclude a larger block if needed, and Abu ali, this is not an invitation to continue raising your query on Talk pages. Please allow consensus to develop. Star Mississippi 14:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Star Mississippi could I also suggest it include International Socialist Alternative as well, as that’s also been a prime target of their POV-pushing activities. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- They don't appear to have edited that since July, so I'm not going to at this stage @Rambling Rambler. But Abu ali, please do not take advantage of that non block. Star Mississippi 15:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Star Mississippi could I also suggest it include International Socialist Alternative as well, as that’s also been a prime target of their POV-pushing activities. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
This is the second time in less than a month that this article has had these issues. [113] Has something recently happened to explain the sudden burst of COI activity on this topic? Grandpallama (talk) 23:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Difficult to say, the two groups involved seem to be very obscure.
- My understanding was that the state of the various articles was more or less stable until COI user Jamesation appeared in late July and began editing in a very disruptive way. That user accused the various non-conflicted users who reverted him of being members of the rival faction and ultimately got himself blocked.
- That activity prompted an AfD, which determined that two of the articles should be merged. That decision seems to have provoked further partisan editing from the user under consideration here.
- So it looks more like this is fallout from someone upsetting the applecart on-wiki, rather than a reaction to events off-wiki. Axad12 (talk) 02:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Axad12 @Grandpallama that's the case for some of what happened at CWI but it's wider than that. Basically myself and another editor have been attempting to clean up a lot of articles related to Trotskyist internationals on Wikipedia over the last few months, and during this what's become apparent is that many of these articles are almost entirely the work of maybe one or two accounts with obvious COI ties to the groups in question who are using the existence of Wikipedia articles about their groups as a sign of legitimacy.
- As a result of this Wikipedia is filled with articles for the most minor, never been elected to any serious office Trotskyist groups that have word lengths to rival articles on mainstream parties where 95% of them will be sourced from either the group's own website or allegations made on the websites of other competing groups (who will most of the time be a group they split from) while the Reliable Sources necessary to justify the article's existence simply don't exist.
- So when we attempt cleanup it basically causes these issues because the COI accounts will immediately start edit wars and just obstinately resist any effort to apply core policies. Rambling Rambler (talk) 10:08, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I think all of what you've just said is fairly common for groups that exist some distance outside of the mainstream. So, I suppose the obvious question is whether the groups you're talking about actually have any legitimate claim to notability?
- Given the propensity of these kind of groups to split off into ever smaller and more irrelevant splinters for minor doctrinal reasons, we surely shouldn't be covering every "People's Front of Judea vs Judean People's Front" type spat. Axad12 (talk) 10:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Axad12 that's basically what we've been doing. It's cut out the policy-breaking crap, see if there's any actual reliable reporting that would constitute enough to even have a stub article, and if so fine but otherwise (as is the case nearly every time now) it's a redirect/merge/delete depending on whether the International the section belongs/belonged to still exists.
- Funnily enough CWI hasn't even been the worst of it. When we tried to clean up IMT/RCI a few weeks/months back it drew out a good half a dozen Sockpuppet/COI/SPA users who attempted all sorts of shenanigans to force an article into mainspace about the new British section Revolutionary Communist Party, such as hijacking existing articles and spamming poorly-developed drafts.
- Fact is, if these groups actually had notability it'd be easy to prove and then we can have an article on it. Instead they're just what I derisively call "ten men and a shed" groups, as demonstrated by their social media usually showing "protests" where a handful of people turn up or are still listed as "active sections" on their International website when they haven't posted on their websites or social media in the last five years. Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
User:Hisotrian carl
[edit]Hisotrian carl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Despite being warned by another editor to stop, the editor has continually added/changed information that goes directly against what the source in the article states. On September 3, the user changed the percent in the Somali Republic article from 50 to 20 which is not what the source said on p.27. On the same day, they changed "Much of the north's population boycotted the referendum, and just 100,000 northerners voted at all. Of these, over 60% of those were against the union under the new Act." to "Most of the north's population boycotted the referendum, and just 7,000 northerners voted at all. Of these, over 80% of those were against the union under the new Act." which again is not what the source in the article says on p.84.
Then two days later they changed the number of faculty from 43 to 41 on the St. John's University School of Law article (not supported by source). They changed "The most prominent Somali groups in the campaigns were the Geri, Marrehān, and Harti – all Dārod clans. Shihāb ad-Dīn is very vague as to their distribution and grazing areas, but describes the Harti as at the time in possession of the ancient eastern port of Mait. Of the Isāq only the Habar Magādle clan seem to have been involved and their distribution is not recorded." to "The most prominent Somali groups in the campaigns were the arap , gerhejis, habarje'lo – all iśaaq clans. Shihāb ad-Dīn is very vague as to their distribution and grazing areas, but describes the habar magaado as at the time in possession of the ancient eastern port of Mait. Of the darood only the harti clan seem to have been involved and their distribution is not recorded." on the Adal Sultanate page (not what the source says on p.223).
Then two days later after being asked to stop, they readded the same change on the Adal Sultanate page and readded the same change on the Somali Republic page. The user has never added any source supporting their alternative version of events, has not responded to their talk page, and doesn't give good enough edit summaries for their changes beyond "more information added" or "error fixed". Wowzers122 (talk) 14:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Their edit to Adal Sultanate[114] is simple falsification, the quote can be verified through the WikiLibrary and doesn't match their changes. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hisotrian? EEng 20:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- It doesn't have to mean anything; it's just a name. Any similarity to an English word is obviously purely accidental and not designed to give added weight to edits. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- I was thinking maybe the dissimilarity to an English word might have been accidental. EEng 22:09, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- It doesn't have to mean anything; it's just a name. Any similarity to an English word is obviously purely accidental and not designed to give added weight to edits. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Mischellemougly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) / Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mischellemougly
- Richard Elfman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Er elezi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I started the SPI around two months ago, since then I have occasionally followed Mischellemougly's contributions. The common pattern I found is that their articles always get an image added to them shortly afterward. Most of these articles are clearly obscure, i.e., they have little to no traffic/page views. So, the odds of an image being uploaded for them are practically zero, as most of the articles aren’t reviewed to be listed on Google Search nor do they have many incoming wikilinks for editors to stumble upon them. Today, I noticed that Mischellemougly moved Artan Dulaku from draft space, which I believe was initially on User:Er elezi/Artan Dulaku. I G11'ed Artan Dulaku, wwhich was eventually deleted by User:Deb. The pattern of their behaviou is available at their SPI and I have a small hunch that Mischellemougly is a sockpuppet of User:Jehowahyereh [115]. Until this month, User:Mischellemougly had never edited outside of topics related to Kerala/India. This month, they moved Artan Dulaku from draftspace and created Mambo Diabolico, which was edited minutes after creation by User:Richard Elfman, writer of the play Mambo Diabolico. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 18:42, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- I can see that an indefinite block is on its way, but if we are unable to identify the master, I propose that all of Mischellemougly's articles be draftified for further review. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 18:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- If they get draftified, please leave an AFCH comment with a link to this ANI thread. I just did a really quick spot-check of some of their creations and notability looks plausible enough that reviewers might simply accept them back to mainspace without looking deeper. -- asilvering (talk) 20:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, Er elezi created that article in two places, calling it a translation from another Wikipedia - and guess who wrote that one? Deb (talk) 19:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, Thank you lettin me know about this UPE, The SPI against me was not even intimated to me or notified to me. I found about it here. This user Jeraxmoira🐉 has been continuously creating issues and even have done edit wars in most of the pages I edited or created. I have left editing those pages to avoid the harassment from this user. I am editing or creating pages of my interest and I found this user has been targeting the pages I edit or create for many months. I am mainly interested in film/media related pages and have been editing or creating such pages. From above I found that the user Jeraxmoira🐉 accuses that I created or edited pages outside Kerala ? Is there any such rule in wikipedia not to edit or create pages which is area bound ? I just checked and found the user Jeraxmoira🐉 has been creating pages related to Tamil Nadu, nearby state of Kerala and has recently been creating pages outside Tamil Nadu - JerAx , Evelin van Rei etc. So what is that he want to convey. I don't know why this user want me to get rid of editing Wikipedia.
Mischellemougly (talk) 04:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Mischellemougly, would you like to address the accusations leveled against you? how did you come across Artan Dulaku and why did you move it to the mainspace? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- To answer your question, I might need to disclose some personal identity details about me, I am ok in disclosing it if you need an answer for that. I am a person who was born and bought up in US and my native is South India. I closely follow US based and south Indian and bollywood based movie shows, music shows etc. Dancing with the Stars (American TV series) was one such show I followed. I have seen Albanian version of Dancing with the Stars in YouTube in the YouTube channel of Albanian TV channel Vizion Plus. Artan Dulaku is the owner of Vizion Plus and I found a draft article about him with no reference. So I have added available references in internet and published the article. I found it got speeded after a few days. About Mambo Diabolico, its a variety music band which was featured in the movie Aliens, Clowns & Geeks, Danny Elfman was the composer of the movie. I'm a great fan of Danny Elfman, the composer of Spiderman, Avengers etc. I created the article for Mambo Diabolico as it has a variety in its performance and I has been following their videos. Mischellemougly (talk) 13:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- You follow Dancing with the Stars (American TV series) yet you have made zero edits on that article or others related to it in the last year. Then you suddenly move an obscure Albanian entrepreneur's article out of nowhere and jump to Mambo Diabolico, which gets edited by Richard Elfman minutes after it was created. Any competent editor can see through this nonsense. Richard Elfman care to comment on how you came across Mambo Diabolico right after it was created? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:30, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
I am a person who was born and brought up in US and my native is South India.
You were born and brought up in the US? Is that correct? Your writing is characteristic of someone for whom English was learned later in life, rather than being immersed in it as a young child. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- To answer your question, I might need to disclose some personal identity details about me, I am ok in disclosing it if you need an answer for that. I am a person who was born and bought up in US and my native is South India. I closely follow US based and south Indian and bollywood based movie shows, music shows etc. Dancing with the Stars (American TV series) was one such show I followed. I have seen Albanian version of Dancing with the Stars in YouTube in the YouTube channel of Albanian TV channel Vizion Plus. Artan Dulaku is the owner of Vizion Plus and I found a draft article about him with no reference. So I have added available references in internet and published the article. I found it got speeded after a few days. About Mambo Diabolico, its a variety music band which was featured in the movie Aliens, Clowns & Geeks, Danny Elfman was the composer of the movie. I'm a great fan of Danny Elfman, the composer of Spiderman, Avengers etc. I created the article for Mambo Diabolico as it has a variety in its performance and I has been following their videos. Mischellemougly (talk) 13:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Didn't you notice this? Deb (talk) 07:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- rsjaffe, I was born in Macomb County, Michigan and lived there till I was 4-5 yrs and came back to India after my parents divorce. Again I went for my higher studies in Macomb Community College in my 20's and came back to India to manage our family business. That's all personal. I don't know why I need to explain it here?
Jeraxmoira🐉 , Is it necessary to edit pages about everything you know about? Then there wont be any time left to live other than editing in Wikipedia. I have vast knowledge and interest in various subjects and do you want me to edit about everything I know ? You mentioned my editing as nonsense, that's not a fair way to deal things out here. Do you seriously think that the Richard Elfan, Danny Elfman's brother edited the page? Anyone can create such an username and edit ? And if its true and if its real Richard Elfman, I don't know why I am being accused for his edits ?
Mischellemougly (talk) 03:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- No, we don't think that he edited it. We think that you may have edited using a different user name. If that turns out to be true, you will be blocked so it's in your interest to be honest with us now. Deb (talk) 07:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Mischellemougly, I don't know how this discussion will end up but I regret that you felt compelled to share biographical information in this discussion. That was unnecessary and I'm sorry that you felt pressed to divulge facts about your life. That shouldn't be relevant to this discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Liz , That is ok as far as its a panel where I can open up and only concern is this is a public space. B/w I found that you have warned Jeraxmoira🐉 previously for the user's editing style.Right now while I check the page Mambo Diabolico, he moved it to draft and tagged it for speedy deletion. What is the user trying to convey and why is the user so desperate?
Deb , Why should I use such an account to edit the page, when I have this account to edit ? I am not getting your point ? Mischellemougly (talk) 08:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC) Mischellemougly (talk) 08:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Don't worry, I've blocked that other account now. Deb (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
I want to raise a complaint against this user Jeraxmoira🐉, where can I do that ? Here or somewhere else ?Mischellemougly (talk) 08:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Before you attempt that, you should read Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot. Deb (talk) 07:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
User:Bgsu98
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Despite a lengthy discussion that took place on Talk:Strictly Come Dancing series 21#Average Score last year in which it was agreed the Average chart tables on the Dancing with the Stars franchise can be added due to WP:CALC, User:Bgsu98 has continued to revert anybody who adds them , and doesn't even give a reason in his reversions, just a sarcastic comment, as can be seen here [116], even though he himself clearly understood that they were here to stay as can be seen here, Talk:Strictly Come Dancing series 21#Average chart in which this user's continuous poor attitude and inability to accept a difference of opinion to him. 2A00:23EE:2540:BD04:3032:33CC:C3FD:AE0 (talk) 20:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hi! When you report someone to AN/I, you need to send them a notice on their talk page about it. You can do so with the {{ani notice}} template. This time, I have done this for you. Best regards, QwertyForest (talk) 21:25, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
@QwertyForest: Thanks for that hun! But I haven’t got time to be leaving Bgsu messages. He’s been reported here enough times to know the drill and just leaves sarcastic comments anyway. 2A00:23EE:2540:BD04:69E5:7A48:FFA1:4D58 (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Tell this IP to either log in under their real account or go pound sand. I don't have the time or patience for these disgruntled IPs from the U.K. with long histories of chronic, disruptive editing. Pinging Ponyo. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Bgsu98: Ponyo's on holiday hun, she hasn't got time to sort out another one of your reports. 2A00:23EE:2540:BD04:69E5:7A48:FFA1:4D58 (talk) 21:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
- ^ From the top of this page, if you don't have the time to leave them a notice as required, then don't bother filing a report. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- This IP just outed themselves as a long-standing sockpuppet. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:31, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'll leave the SPI to someone more knowledgeable, but I do agree there is consensus to add those tables, they're similar to the ones found at the RuPaul's Drag Race franchise articles seen here, and the Dancing with the Stars franchise articles seen here.
- And I also agree that they are not MOS:ACCESS compliant, which can easily be fixed by using accessible symbols in the Colour key like this — * Winners # Runners-up, etc. and then using the corresponding symbol in the table. But of course getting editors to recognize these tables should be more accessible can sometimes be an uphill battle. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- The tables on all of the Dancing with the Stars (American TV series) articles were rendered MOS:ACCESS compliant a few years ago. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Not the one I linked above, or this one. There are no accessibility symbols in that color key or table for "Bottom two or three" or "Eliminated" etc. There is only a dagger and a double dagger for high and low scores, which is great, but screen readers can't read those explanatory notes because they require interaction to provide information, see MOS:NOHOVER, and when the screen reader does get to the Notes under the table, all it reads is "This couple", which is not helpful, since there are several couples. Like I said, uphill battle that I have fought many times and had to finally surrender, because I'm outnumbered. C'est la vie ( life is harsh but one must accept it). Isaidnoway (talk) 00:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Isaidnoway, I am moving this particular discussion to your talkpage. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Not the one I linked above, or this one. There are no accessibility symbols in that color key or table for "Bottom two or three" or "Eliminated" etc. There is only a dagger and a double dagger for high and low scores, which is great, but screen readers can't read those explanatory notes because they require interaction to provide information, see MOS:NOHOVER, and when the screen reader does get to the Notes under the table, all it reads is "This couple", which is not helpful, since there are several couples. Like I said, uphill battle that I have fought many times and had to finally surrender, because I'm outnumbered. C'est la vie ( life is harsh but one must accept it). Isaidnoway (talk) 00:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- The tables on all of the Dancing with the Stars (American TV series) articles were rendered MOS:ACCESS compliant a few years ago. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Oh you're absolutely right User:Isaidnoway. It is an uphill battle, but despite Bgsu98 being reported here numerous times for removing tables even though there was a consensus for those tables to be added back, his general bad attitude in response and entitlement to remove them, the admins seem to side with him for who knows whatever reason! Those pages will be restored one day though, they’re all in the archives ready to be reverted. 31.94.70.250 (talk) 00:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I know the fanbase, who are mainly the regular editors at all those different franchise articles, just love those tables, and there is consensus to keep those tables in the articles, but that doesn't mean they should be inaccessible to our visually impaired readers. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:50, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Dancing with the Stars season 33
[edit]User:Bgsu98 has ignored the WP:3RR and is continuing to edit war on Dancing with the Stars (American TV series) season 33 over a chart that was agreed at Talk:Strictly Come Dancing series 21#Average Score 2A00:23EE:2540:BD04:D5C5:4CDD:B466:9865 (talk) 00:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- 2A00:23EE:2540:BD04:D5C5:4CDD:B466:9865, you have both been edit-warring. It takes more than one editor to edit war. Please stop reverting edits on this article. Liz Read! Talk! 01:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Understood Liz! Have a fabulous evening 2A00:23EE:2540:BD04:D982:D7B0:F7F9:8723 (talk) 01:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- This IP is a longtime blocked sockpuppet editor. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Moving message to here as they seem like the same subject, same editors involved. Liz Read! Talk! 01:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know if they are a sockpuppet or not but User:2A00:23EE:2540:BD04:D5C5:4CDD:B466:9865 and User:2A00:23EE:2540:BD04:D982:D7B0:F7F9:8723 have been blocked for a month now. Liz Read! Talk! 01:44, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Their manner of speech is identical. Definitely the same person. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- I just semi'ed the article. I recall this from another ANI / reality show. In support of IP editing, but when you act like a clown, you lose access. @Bgsu98 in the future, just ignore them and ask for protection. It's a blatant sock so not 3RR, but it might save your sanity Star Mississippi 02:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Star Mississippi, I did request the protection on that article, but then their nonsense spilled out all over the place tonight. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- I just semi'ed the article. I recall this from another ANI / reality show. In support of IP editing, but when you act like a clown, you lose access. @Bgsu98 in the future, just ignore them and ask for protection. It's a blatant sock so not 3RR, but it might save your sanity Star Mississippi 02:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Their manner of speech is identical. Definitely the same person. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know if they are a sockpuppet or not but User:2A00:23EE:2540:BD04:D5C5:4CDD:B466:9865 and User:2A00:23EE:2540:BD04:D982:D7B0:F7F9:8723 have been blocked for a month now. Liz Read! Talk! 01:44, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Nonsense from an IP
[edit]- 24.45.164.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Keeps posting vague gibberish on random talk pages, sometimes to those of inactive editors, spamming replies to multiple sections, all about some weird obsession with "364x3". Has been happening on and off for about 18 months, but has become very frequent over the past few days/weeks. Already warned, but I doubt someone doing this would either care or understand. A long block would probably help. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:06, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- "2024 has a good chance of being declared illegal soon" OK. Blocked for a year. We'll await the declaration of an "illegal year." Acroterion (talk) 22:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Suspicious coordinated editing at Ra'il I'Nasah Kiam
[edit]- Ra'il I'Nasah Kiam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Paigeb4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Demuretsy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Puntkinstler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
So, here's the timeline:
- A new editor creates a user sandbox on their first edit, then moves it to mainspace after getting the 10 required edits for autoconfirmed.
- A month later, long after the page has been draftified, another brand new user uses their first edit to add "needed references and context for notability" to the draft, then submits it to AfC.
- After less than 20 minutes, the AfC submission is moved to mainspace again by a 3-year old account with only 20 edits.
I ended up reviewing and heavily tagging the page as it was possilikely notable (so, no AfD) and already had gone through AfC (no re-draftification), despite having major tone issues, but I'm suspecting that something might have been at play here. Not sure if it's sockpuppetry, a COI farm, or yet another kind of coordinated editing. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- This hasn't gotten any response, and, while the users haven't edited since, it could be good for someone to take a look at what happened with the article, as it is still currently in mainspace. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:12, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Don't have time for more than a quick skim but I agree with "possibly notable" and also with your tagging. Some of the sources are indeed primary and there is indeed a flavour of advocacy. Someone with more time should make sure that the NPR and Slate sources are more than passim. Did not try to investigate the editors since other people can do that better. Hth Elinruby (talk) 03:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Possible sockpuppetry and promotional editing by suspected SPA
[edit]Hi, I'm requesting assistance regarding potential sockpuppetry and persistent promotional editing by a suspected single-purpose account (SPA) targeting articles related to Russian politics.
The user in question is Grakov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). 2 of 3 his or her contributions are limited to removing sourced criticism from politic related articles Anti-Corruption Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Egor Kuroptev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), consistently reverting Egor Kuroptev to promotional version. [117]
Given their editing pattern and lack of constructive engagement, I suspect this might be a sockpuppet account operating with a conflict of interest. I would appreciate it if an administrator could investigate this user's contributions and take appropriate action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unxed (talk • contribs) 23:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, this appears to mostly be a content dispute. In their last edit summary, the editor mentioned
This revert is fully under WP:BRD, I pointed to a specific problem with your contribution, "Discuss" section under WP:BRD is your duty
, so they seem open to constructive engagement. Also, you did not warn the user on their talk page as you should have done. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)- Unxed, Grakov has only made 4 edits in their time as an editor. It seems very quick to open an ANI complaint which is for chronic, intractible problems, not two edits that you disagree with. By the way, whose sockpuppet do you think they are? Liz Read! Talk! 01:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Free Russia Foundation and/or ACF Intenational, or personnaly Egor Kuroptev. Unxed (talk) 11:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Based on what evidence? Ravenswing 13:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Free Russia Foundation and/or ACF Intenational, or personnaly Egor Kuroptev. Unxed (talk) 11:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, you are absolutely right, starting with the talk page is a good idea, I have done that.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Egor_Kuroptev#Reverting_criticism Unxed (talk) 11:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Unxed, Grakov has only made 4 edits in their time as an editor. It seems very quick to open an ANI complaint which is for chronic, intractible problems, not two edits that you disagree with. By the way, whose sockpuppet do you think they are? Liz Read! Talk! 01:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'm having a hard time of seeing a "pattern" out of two contributions. I'm also having a hard time seeing a "lack of constructive engagement" when you yourself have completely failed to engage with the editor, either on the respective talk pages of those two articles OR on their own talk page ... including, by the bye, the announcement of this thread to Grakov's talk page, something that big honking scarlet box with the bold face letters -- prominently situated at the top of this page -- enjoins you to do. (Be at ease, Chaotic Enby took care of that for you.)
That, and Grakov's right: it is your duty to be the first to open the discussion on the Kuroptev talk page. Especially with this frankly frivolous accusation of Grakov being a sockpuppet based (apparently) solely on you not liking their edits, you would be far better off beginning that engagement and seeking a consensus on the appropriate talk pages than in filing ANI threads. Ravenswing 07:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Ban-evading IP editor
[edit]User:125.160.98.36 has been previously blocked at User:180.246.109.176 and User:125.160.98.36 for disruptive editing to pages including American studies, ethnic democracy, and Herrenvolk democracy. Now comes back and edit-wars over the same pages remaking the same edits. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- User:125.160.98.36 has been blocked and hasn't edited since August 23rd. Did you mean a different IP address? Because I don't see edit-warring from this account. Liz Read! Talk! 01:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Liz Looking at the history of the linked pages mentioned by the OP, the latest IP being at it is 125.160.107.180. — AP 499D25 (talk) 06:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- It appears I got the IPs mixed up and I did mean User:125.160.107.180. My mistake; too many numbers to keep track of I guess. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Liz Looking at the history of the linked pages mentioned by the OP, the latest IP being at it is 125.160.107.180. — AP 499D25 (talk) 06:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Empty edit requests
[edit]There are six empty edit requests in four days from three different Phillipines IPs at Talk:2024 Venezuelan presidential election. I don't know what to do with these, or where to take this, so here I am. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- And what seems to be the same IP is repetitively active at Edmundo González (candidate in said election). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Seems that's already been dealt with. Procyon117 (talk) 14:24, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- It's easy enough to deal with if it continues. Most of the edits are coming from Special:Contributions/2001:4454:2F8:D000::/64, which can be partially blocked from articles where they're being disruptive. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- NinjaRobotPirate, perhaps they will stop now that Gonzalez has sought asylum, but if it continues, to what notice board do I take something like this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- ANI is the only noticeboard that deals with user complaints, really. Or you could check for recently active admins. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- NinjaRobotPirate, perhaps they will stop now that Gonzalez has sought asylum, but if it continues, to what notice board do I take something like this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Persistent addition of unsourced content by 176.84.121.244
[edit]176.84.121.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, continued after final warning, hasn't responded to warnings. Examples of unsourced edits: 1, 2, 3, 4. Waxworker (talk) 15:31, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Unsourced content, poor source integrity by Mbssbs
[edit]Mbssbs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This is a long-time editor who has several years' history of adding poorly sourced content to articles (unreliable sources, sources that don't support the claims introduced), if sourced at all. They have not responded to any warnings on their talk page, the earliest of which date back to 2015. I hope this urges them to tell their side of the story. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 15:39, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- XtraJovial, I don't think you'll get any responses here as you haven't supplied any diffs/edits illustrating the problems you say you are seeing. Editors aren't going to spend hours going through someone's contribution history, you need to supply the evidence yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 06:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Diffs:
XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 12:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Mbssbs received a number of warnings regarding their addition of unsourced content, including a level 4 template warning and non-templated messages on their talk page, which went without a response from them. Further questions regarding the sourcing of specific edits in July and in August also went unanswered. Mbssbs is essentially flying under the radar, while it would be helpful of them to just answer to questions and talk page messages, or at least acknowledge the warnings and change their editing behavior, which afaict has not happened. Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 19:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Defamatory edits from Birmingham IP range
[edit]The UK IP range Special:Contributions/2A02:C7C:E82C:5B00:0:0:0:0/64 has been inserting defamatory stuff into the Enrique Iglesias biography. Can we put a rangeblock in place? Binksternet (talk) 17:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- The rangeblock has been set. Done here. Binksternet (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
This editor appears to be here to right great wrongs regarding "censorship" over gender in gaming, and in doing so is resorting to insults (see here) and trying to argue that other editors have a COI because they include their pronouns in their signatures (see here and here). This editor is NOTHERE. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Indeffed.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:08, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Good block. Good grief. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
2607:FEA8:22A0:38F0::/64 and MOS:RETAIN again
[edit]After the recent expiry of a block (see this ANI discussion), the ENGVAR-vio editing has continued. Tollens (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- They've been at this since early July on the same /64 range, either they can't hear the warning they are receiving or they are ignoring them (they've been warned on 6 different occasions). They were blocked for a week at the end of August for the same issue, a longer block is probably needed now. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Bumped up. Izno (talk) 01:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Biased Editing Depp v Heard
[edit]Hi, I am new to Wikipedia editing so I hope I am doing this in the correct way.
I have been amending the above page which contains factual errors, however user Abu Wan has been constantly removing and adding information that many have asked him to edit/remove, is there anything you can do to stop this?
Thank you in advance for any help you are able to provide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A fragment of your life (talk • contribs) 20:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- My advice would be to reveal which previous accounts you have edited from because it's obvious you're WP:NOTHERE, know exactly what you're doing, are WP:FORUMSHOPPING because everyone is ignoring your TLDRs on the talk page, and also stop gaming the system (your tiny edits to Cheltenham to get auto-confirmed status). Also pending changes really need to be placed on that article and I don't know why they aren't. Nate • (chatter) 20:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- This isn’t the first Johnny Depp fan / Amber Heard hater (if anyone can describe that in a less ASPERSIONS-y way, let me know, and I’ll strike and modify) Abu Wan’s had on his case. [118] MM (Give me info.) (Victories) 21:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Apologies if I approached this incorrectly, as I said I am new to editing Wikipedia, but you describe me incorrectly above. My concerns include the inaccuracies within this article (example date of trial end) - this is fact based not bias. Not sure what is meant by “pending changes on the article”, is there somewhere other than the talk page you are referring to? Thanks in advance for your assistance. A fragment of your life (talk) 07:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- As you have observed, this user has repeatedly been making WP:DISRUPTIVE edits to the article in question, edits that contravene WP:NPOV and that strongly indicate that the user is WP:NOTHERE. In my estimation, they seem like a Johnny Depp fan interested in using the article for WP:ADVOCACY and as a WP:SOAPBOX.
- While we're here, it is worth noting that this user's disruptive edits seem related to other disruptive edits recently made on the same article by other quite new and suspicious accounts (like this one and this one) and a number of IPs (like this one). Of interest too are a number of suspicious IPs involved in the Talk section of the same article e.g. this one, this one, this one, and this one. I strongly suspect that these IPs and accounts are all related to the A fragment of your life account and the disruptive changes this user has been making to the article. An investigation into this by an admin may be warranted.
- All that said, thank you for reverting the recent changes made by this user Nate. Abu Wan (talk) 16:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- This isn’t the first Johnny Depp fan / Amber Heard hater (if anyone can describe that in a less ASPERSIONS-y way, let me know, and I’ll strike and modify) Abu Wan’s had on his case. [118] MM (Give me info.) (Victories) 21:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- You have not notified the user. I have done this for you. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 20:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, LakesideMiners, beat me to it. Appreciated. Nate • (chatter) 20:57, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
IP added serious accusations that I have reverted.EchetusXe 20:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- The diff in question. Might be RD2’able.
- The IP still needs to be given a notice of the discussion, by the way. MM (Give me info.) (Victories) 20:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- If the biography was of a living person or someone who died recently, I would revision delete. But Lander, a footballer active over 120 years ago, died 68 years ago. This is either garden variety vandalism or something related to a back story which is not easily verifiable on today's internet. I have no idea which. Revision deletion should be reserved for clearcut cases, and I do not feel comfortable using the tool here, but would not object if another administrator disagrees. Cullen328 (talk) 02:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Well, I revision deleted before seeing your response, Jim. This was primarily because it was an unsourced allegation of a serious crime. Living or dead, I think this is improper. If this charge had been sourced, I wouldn't have done this. Liz Read! Talk! 05:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- If the biography was of a living person or someone who died recently, I would revision delete. But Lander, a footballer active over 120 years ago, died 68 years ago. This is either garden variety vandalism or something related to a back story which is not easily verifiable on today's internet. I have no idea which. Revision deletion should be reserved for clearcut cases, and I do not feel comfortable using the tool here, but would not object if another administrator disagrees. Cullen328 (talk) 02:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
PerseusMeredith
[edit]Would it be possible to have an admin look at the recent contribs for PerseusMeredith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and consider a WP:NOTHERE block? Their recent contributions appear to be incivil, in particular, stating Wikipedia has a liberal bias (The truth is that there are a growing number of articles, studies and videos showing wikipedia's growing bias. The list of "reliable sources" doesn't pass the eyeroll test of anyone who isn't on the far left.
) (this was reverted apparently), then coming back a second time to put it in the wrong place (comment is made almost completely at the top of the discussion) and more simply (Even with the Wikipedia liberal bias
). At best it's unsubstantiated WP:ASPERSIONS, but the behavior fits WP:NOTHERE IMO. Their article-space contributions are likewise... interesting. In Diversity, equity, and inclusion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), they added Since 2015, the approach has been tested in the fire of the marketplace and failed. Academics have tried to repeat McKinsey’s findings and failed, concluding that there is in fact no link between profitability and executive diversity. And the methodology of McKinsey’s early studies, which helped create the widespread belief that diversity is good for profits, is being questioned.
Then there's their edit warring at Atheism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to include sadness
as something atheists have more of than religious followers (1, 2, 3, 4). And then there's the talk page discussion that followed (The health benefits of religious belief is well-documented. I don't understand why it would be scrubbed from this article.
).
For all their claims of "bias", they sure seem to be interested in injecting their own bias into Wikipedia articles. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- In no way is opining about the possibility of systemic bias on the project as a whole a violation of the WP:CIVIL or WP:ASPERSION, regardless of how little we might credit that assessment. I'd actually say that an editor of your tenure on the project suggesting that it is, is itself much closer to an issue we should be concerned about--but the truth of the matter is that this whole report is a tempest in a teapot. I looked at the edits for both articles you have raised here as indication of "issues" with this editor (as well as the associated talk page discussions), and they likewise leave me perplexed as to why you view those edits as disruptive, let alone evidence of the kind of longterm, intractable issues justifying an ANI filing. At Atheism PM is arguing entirely from the basis of the content of the peer-reviewed source that seems to have been in the article for a long time before they got involved, and (though I haven't reviewed the source myself, and could easily change my mind about this once I have) they actually seem to have a pretty valid point when they observe that the positive qualities of atheism (as purported in that study; for obvious reasons, not discussing my own take) are being cherry-picked, leaving the negative one out. Regardless of whether they prevail on that argument, at present they are engaging in discussion on the talk page, and not edit warring, and that discussion is quite young and has yet to see any standard efforts at normal dispute resolution (3O, RfC, DR). Meanwhile, on the DEI article, they added a sourced statement, which was reverted (for reasons that seem unclear--whoever reverted failed to explain in their edit summary, I think), and then PM let the matter drop. I don't see anything here that comes close to requiring community attention. Don't get me wrong, some of the rhetoric runs parallel to what we see in a certain type of problem editor, and I think they should be encouraged to take it to community spaces already set up to discuss bias (and/or their user and user talk spaces), rather than being so liberal in decorating their article talk page arguments with such borderline soapboxing. But that's about the long and the short of it. As far as you have presented here, they are colouring more or less entirely within the lines of our policies and procedures and the Atheism and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion article discussions are entirely content disputes right now. SnowRise let's rap 22:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- I think a comment like
the eyeroll test of anyone who isn't on the far left
shows some inflammatory word choice indicating tone rather beyond merely opining about systemic bias. As for whether this is a matter of behavior or content, the successive edits at atheism, as linked in the OP, to push in content describing atheists as generally sadder than religious people brings the matter into the realm of behavior, not content, since that crossed Wikipedia policy about edit warring, albeit a week ago. And by way of aside, I'm aware that there's some secondary literature pointing to a relationship between religiosity and happiness, but while some of PerseusMeredith's edit summaries mention a source (though they seem to not have added it as part of their edit?), one of the sources already cited in the article (Puckerman, Sociology Compass, 2009) shows the claim is demonstrably not an academic consensus, as Puckerman lays out several studies and critiques that question the claimed link between atheism and unhappiness (pages 956–957).This combination of behavior is troubling. Attention of some kind doesn't seem misplaced. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- This is one of the few occasions when I'm afraid I have to strongly disagree with your assessment, Hydra. What policy has been violated here? Certainly not the ones cited by the OP. Even the one brief episode of edit warring is a case where context calls into question whether PM was being disruptive, since their subsequent edits in that sequence seem to have been efforts to arrive at wording which addressed the concerns laid out in the edit summary in the initial revert. And it seems that once they realized that this minor tweak was not going to suffice to create consensus, they dropped the effort to place the content and opened a good-faith discussion on the talk page to resolve the issue, exactly as our policies direct them to do. And in that discussion, they've asked a very reasonable question that no one has been able to satisfactorily answer yet: why are the editors on that page so willing to accept that source as an WP:RS for purposes of suggesting that atheists have a higher IQ (which is every bit as controversial a theory in this field), and yet reject that very same source for it's suggestion that the religious may be happier. What's good for the goose should typically be good for the gander in these kinds of circumstances. And yes, it's true that claim about higher levels of happiness among the religious is controversial, empirically complicated, and not established academic consensus, but all of those things are equally as true for the claim of higher intelligence among atheists. Which is why the claim for the latter is attributed in the article, and not stated in Wikivoice. Why would we not do the same for the other claim that is presented in tandem in the same source? More to the point for our purposes here, even if the contributors for that article ultimately decide that some peculiar, convoluted argument from WP:WEIGHT means that we should present the one claim and not the other (and let me tell you, as someone who is both an atheist and has a formal background in cognitive science, I would be inclined to raise an eyebrow at that), the whole debate is still a content issues. One which Perseus is apparently pursuing in good faith on that talk page, allowing the status quo version they disagree with to stand in the article, while they wait for feedback in said TP discussion. The first sentence of this page reads "This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems." (emphasis in original). Nothing the OP has presented here rises to that level or anywhere near it. At most, PerseusMerideth needs to be told that they are doing no favours to their arguments by adding little soapboxing observations about WikiPedia's general failing to their !votes on more discrete issues. Beyond that, I don't see anything that has been presented here that represents PM doing anything but following the normal editorial and dispute resolution processes in good faith. Granted, given their strong views, I can't rule out that they would ever disrupt the project to make a WP:POINT. But it is incumbent upon the party or parties alleging misconduct to provide evidence of it. And as that has not been done here, I therefore WP:AGF that PM is conducting themselves as well on other articles as they are on the two mentioned here: which is to say, not without some attitude, but perfectly within the rules and expectations of this community. SnowRise let's rap 03:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- As far as chronic goes, since my initial post I looked further into PerseusMeredith's contribution history (figured that if I say the matter's worth attention, I may as well put in the elbow grease myself), and I've become a lot more concerned that there's a longer term pattern indicative of being here to legitimize a personal stance rather than to build an encyclopedia. The following are each examples of PerseusMeredith from what I can tell misrepresenting sources that a lot of editors would generally consider reliable in order to remove content that I suppose might be considered 'liberal' by an editor who thinks Wikipedia is biased to the
far left
:- At Thanksgiving, Removing a reference to the day's cultural association, through the National Day of Mourning protest, with the genocide of Native Americans on the grounds that the source didn't verify it—even though the National Geographic source did, as a later edit points out
- At Jezebel, removing content, about the Jezebel cultural trope on the grounds that it was a
political and subjective statement
. The removed content was about how the biblical trope was used to justify sexual abuse in historical American chattel slavery, and it had been cited to multiple academic journal articles. - At William F. Buckley, removing content that noted Buckley praised dictator of Spain Francisco Franco for overthrowing the country's elected government on the grounds that the citation provided was a
Biased source. Not appropriate for a biography
. The citation was to a book written by Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman and published by W. W. Norton. - At William A. Dembski, removed criticism of a lecture about intelligent design on the grounds that the
Citation is a blogpost from one biased author
. While it's entirely right that we should be careful about what we write in and what we cite for BLPs, the edit summary made it sound like the source was a personal blog when it was actually published by the National Center for Science Education.
- Some of these aren't 'fresh', I realize. Rather than urgency, the concern here is chronicness—the behavior being longterm and repeated over time. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 03:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, in light of your research, afraid I must agree. The evidence of a longterm pattern obviates my initial concerns about a lack of substantial issues in the OP. I rescind my position that it is premature to be discussing this editor's conduct. Clearly at a minimum we need to have a chat about WP:NPOV with this user, if not take more substantial action. SnowRise let's rap 03:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for giving more examples @Hydrangeans, with ~160 edits in two years it was seemingly every few edits that rang out as simply being here to push their own stance and not actually improve the encyclopedia. To answer @Snow Rise with regard to WP:ASPERSION, the concern I had was that they're basically saying editors who disagree with them are biased liberals. Yes, they're not calling out specific editors, but the tone is troubling especially in WP:CTOP areas. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- "the concern I had was that they're basically saying editors who disagree with them are biased liberals."
- I noticed that your statement is devoid of citations. That's because I've never said that, how is that not a false accusation in violation of the casting aspersions policy? PerseusMeredith (talk) 17:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- They're cited in the original report above (the first two diffs) where you state
[t]he list of "reliable sources" doesn't pass the eyeroll test of anyone who isn't on the far left
and[e]ven with the Wikipedia liberal bias [...]
. Also, familiarize yourself with the concept of implying and insinuating things, which is what I meant bybasically saying
. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)- "editors that disagree with them are biased liberals" - means that everyone that disagrees with me is a biased liberal.
- That's entirely different than criticizing the list of reliable sources and alleging that wikipedia has a liberal bias (and citing documentation of that bias).
- You brought this allegation of uncivility against me but your patronizing post that I should familiarize myself with the definition of implying and insinuating is decidedly uncivil. I only requested that you cite me correctly and that you comply with the wikipedia policies of casting aspersions. PerseusMeredith (talk) 19:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- They're cited in the original report above (the first two diffs) where you state
- The National Geographic source leads to a dead-end link. What are you basing your comment on? The CNN article references a plaque that says "genocide." You may disagree but I do think there is a basis for removing the term and putting "death."
- Regarding Jezebel. These is only one journal not "multiple academic journals." One is an article on a University website:
- https://web.archive.org/web/20110728034514/http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/jezebel/
- There is only one journal cited "Women and Therapy" which has more to do with stigma regarding rape victims than the actual Biblical term "Jezebel." My edit was in effect for over 5 months. If it was entirely without merit, it would have been reverted months ago.
- One of the citations, doesn't reference Jezebel in the abstract and you can't read the article on the link.
- "The Jezebel stereotype is an oppressive image and was used as a justification for sexual assault and sexual servitude during the eras of colonization and slavery in the United States."
- This is what the abstract provides:
- "Specifically, we link two historical images of Black women, Jezebel and Matriarch, to the contemporary experience of Black rape survivors." As you can see, the post and the journal article say something entirely different. I think there is a clear, unbiased rationale for removing the post.
- William Dembski, this is the article. I agree that I shouldn't have used the term "blogpost," that was my mistake. But the criticism remains the same that this is not appropriate for a biography of a living person. This is one person's opinion on one event 17 years ago. You can read the article, this is not material that is neutral in content, disinterested in tone, and carefully sourced. The removal was appropriate.
- "As lackluster, rushed, and incomplete as the presentation itself was, the question-and-answer period went even more poorly for Dembski."
- https://ncse.ngo/victory-over-intelligent-design-oklahoma PerseusMeredith (talk) 15:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- As far as chronic goes, since my initial post I looked further into PerseusMeredith's contribution history (figured that if I say the matter's worth attention, I may as well put in the elbow grease myself), and I've become a lot more concerned that there's a longer term pattern indicative of being here to legitimize a personal stance rather than to build an encyclopedia. The following are each examples of PerseusMeredith from what I can tell misrepresenting sources that a lot of editors would generally consider reliable in order to remove content that I suppose might be considered 'liberal' by an editor who thinks Wikipedia is biased to the
- This is one of the few occasions when I'm afraid I have to strongly disagree with your assessment, Hydra. What policy has been violated here? Certainly not the ones cited by the OP. Even the one brief episode of edit warring is a case where context calls into question whether PM was being disruptive, since their subsequent edits in that sequence seem to have been efforts to arrive at wording which addressed the concerns laid out in the edit summary in the initial revert. And it seems that once they realized that this minor tweak was not going to suffice to create consensus, they dropped the effort to place the content and opened a good-faith discussion on the talk page to resolve the issue, exactly as our policies direct them to do. And in that discussion, they've asked a very reasonable question that no one has been able to satisfactorily answer yet: why are the editors on that page so willing to accept that source as an WP:RS for purposes of suggesting that atheists have a higher IQ (which is every bit as controversial a theory in this field), and yet reject that very same source for it's suggestion that the religious may be happier. What's good for the goose should typically be good for the gander in these kinds of circumstances. And yes, it's true that claim about higher levels of happiness among the religious is controversial, empirically complicated, and not established academic consensus, but all of those things are equally as true for the claim of higher intelligence among atheists. Which is why the claim for the latter is attributed in the article, and not stated in Wikivoice. Why would we not do the same for the other claim that is presented in tandem in the same source? More to the point for our purposes here, even if the contributors for that article ultimately decide that some peculiar, convoluted argument from WP:WEIGHT means that we should present the one claim and not the other (and let me tell you, as someone who is both an atheist and has a formal background in cognitive science, I would be inclined to raise an eyebrow at that), the whole debate is still a content issues. One which Perseus is apparently pursuing in good faith on that talk page, allowing the status quo version they disagree with to stand in the article, while they wait for feedback in said TP discussion. The first sentence of this page reads "This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems." (emphasis in original). Nothing the OP has presented here rises to that level or anywhere near it. At most, PerseusMerideth needs to be told that they are doing no favours to their arguments by adding little soapboxing observations about WikiPedia's general failing to their !votes on more discrete issues. Beyond that, I don't see anything that has been presented here that represents PM doing anything but following the normal editorial and dispute resolution processes in good faith. Granted, given their strong views, I can't rule out that they would ever disrupt the project to make a WP:POINT. But it is incumbent upon the party or parties alleging misconduct to provide evidence of it. And as that has not been done here, I therefore WP:AGF that PM is conducting themselves as well on other articles as they are on the two mentioned here: which is to say, not without some attitude, but perfectly within the rules and expectations of this community. SnowRise let's rap 03:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- I think there's something important that has been missed in the above. Whatever the incivility, NPOV etc problems with the editor, far more concerning is COPYVIO problems coming from them. The DEI addition mentioned above [119] was copied exactly from the WSJ source (archival link to the source [120]). It seems like they did the exact same thing with the same source in another article, possibly with an even longer paragraph based the articles and guessing from the edit summaries etc of the deleted history. They were warned [121] and the discussion they had with Diannaa here User talk:Diannaa#McKinsey & Company - WSJ Citation, suggests they incorrectly thought just adding quote marks would be sufficient to remedy the problem. But I think it's clear that the paragraph is not the kind of thing we should include as a quotation. To be clear, these are contemporaneous, so it's not the case that Diannaa warned them and then they did it again, however at a minimum it's disappointing that they either did not remember or did not bother to check whether they'd made the same mistake in the DEI article, which they did. Nil Einne (talk) 04:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- BTW I let Diannaa know about the DEI problem, as well as this thread so it's possible she or someone else will revdel. To be clear, besides the possible need for revdel, the infringing content has IMO already been satisfactorily rewritten by another editor in a general cleanup so it isn't an extant problem in the article only maybe the edit history. Nil Einne (talk) 04:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
I don't deal with WP:CCI or do I deal much with copyvio problems, but I think there may be further problems in their history e.g [122] added to our article
vs from the sourceBill Wilson made a call that connected with Henrietta Seiberling, which eventually led him to the introduction to Dr. Bob Smith and the creation of Alcoholics Anonymous. This phone can still be found in the hotel lobby.[1]
Bill Wilson made a call that connected with Henrietta Seiberling, which eventually led to the creation of Alcoholics Anonymous. This phone can still be found in the hotel lobby.
or [123]
vsMoes had been given a vision from God of a great hospital rising out of the cornfields around Rochester–the little country town, with its one doctor. To that hospital, she had been told in her vision, would come patients from every part of the world and from every nation. And she had seen the name ‘Mayo’ respected the world over for surgical achievements. [2]
While this is more complicated since we might not be able reword the alleged vision much, I'm still unconvinced that's a good way to handle it. The source is frankly terrible for this (I mean the actual source isn't even directly cited and I assume was never viewed), so I expect finding one or two better sources might help to resolve how to handle including this vision, if at all.Her vision was of a great hospital rising out of the cornfields around Rochester–the little country town, with its one doctor. To that hospital, she had been told in her vision, would come patients from every part of the world and from every nation. And she had seen the name ‘Mayo’ respected the world over for surgical achievements.
And these edits are particularly revealing IMO. PerseusMeredith first adds: [124]
which makes no sense in the context of the article and preceding text. Their next edit they "fixed typo" [125] and changed it toPerhaps even more potentially problematic than negative personal experience is the possibility that bias may influence research quality: its design, execution, evaluation, and interpretation. [3]
As you might guess, the original "typo" version was direct copy from the source which they then fixed. Regardless of why they posted the unmodified text, I think most experienced and copyright aware editors will agree that copying text and then re-wording it is a terrible way to write content for articles since it is very likely to lead to WP:Close paraphrasing problems as IMO happened here even after they partly re-wrote it.The APA has alleged to have lack of political diversity and that bias may influence research quality: its design, execution, evaluation, and interpretation. [4]
And it looks like this was their second attempt to add something which was likely copyvio. Prior to that there was this [126]. While I can't view it, the deletion logs [127] combined with that being the only thing deleted suggests to me it was also a copyvio problem. (Other than not being able to check the original edit myself, the one reason I'm uncertain is it doesn't look like PerseusMeredith was warned at the time. [128])
Note I looked at some other edits which looked like they might be fine so I'm not saying all PerseusMeredith's contributions are like that but IMO there seem to be too many given the relatively small number of main space additions of content they've made. I'm not sure where to go from here. Editors more familiar with the matter could comment whether a WP:CCI might be needed. If a CCI is started and PerseusMeredith remains unblocked, any way they could help with the process would be a positive although I assume some editor would need to double check anything they do.
- The copyright issue isn't a one-off - here's another instance of copyvio issues with this editor - this at James McCann (baseball) is directly lifted from the article cited as its source ([129]).
- PerseusMeredith wrote:
The source wrote:Doctors told his mother that her baby had a 1 in 4 chance of surviving and that if the baby did survive, he or she would be severely mentally or physically disabled. His parents chose to put their faith in God and declined the offer to terminate the pregnancy. "From Day 1 God has been protecting me,” McCann has said. “My goal is to share what God has done for me.”
Doctors told her that her baby had a 1 in 4 chance of surviving and that if the baby did survive, he or she would be severely mentally or physically disabled. The young couple chose to put their faith in God and declined the offer to terminate the pregnancy. “Open your eyes. I was that child. From Day 1 God has been protecting me,” McCann said. “My goal is to share what God has done for me.”
- The only change is to remove part of McCann being quoted while leaving in all of the article writer's words practically verbatim, changing only "her" to "his mother", "McCann said" to "McCann has said", and "The young couple" to "His parents". Egsan Bacon (talk) 22:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- BTW I let Diannaa know about the DEI problem, as well as this thread so it's possible she or someone else will revdel. To be clear, besides the possible need for revdel, the infringing content has IMO already been satisfactorily rewritten by another editor in a general cleanup so it isn't an extant problem in the article only maybe the edit history. Nil Einne (talk) 04:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- In this situation, I'd really like to hear from User:PerseusMeredith before taking any action. They aren't a new editor and in this report they have been heavily scrutinized and I'd like to hear their response to these allegations to see whether they are defensive or they are willing to change their approach to editing. Liz Read! Talk! 05:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia may have a liberal bias or not, but it is certainly not biased towards the far left. That claim is nothing more than a dog-whistle. Happily the investigation into copyright violation above means we don't have to look into the content of what has been said. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- I will take ownership of the copyright violation. In two years, this is the first time this was brought to my attention, I was sloppy by not putting the quotation marks on the three sentences from the WSJ article (although the article was cited). I still don't see why including those three sentences with the quotation marks would be a copyright violation since it was three sentences and not a large body of the article. I'd appreciate additional color here but I will be sure to include quotations in the future. As I previously, shared when this was called to my attention, my bad.
- With respect to the talk post that gave rise to this inquisition, I do think it is well-taken that it was not the correct forum to engage in topics of wikipedia bias. I will refrain from doing this in the future.
- But I certainly think it's fair, to say that wikipedia is bias. In order for there to be a violation of neutral point of view, the edit must be "without evidence." There are a number of sources and studies that back up this statement. You may disagree with the sources but the statement does have evidence.
- https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w22744/w22744.pdf
- https://manhattan.institute/article/is-wikipedia-politically-biased
- https://wjc-org-website.s3.amazonaws.com/horizon/assets/Jb32GlTy/wjc-slamstudio_a-flood-of-hate_v4.pdf
- https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3041021.3053375
- For instance the argument about atheism is that this statement is a policy violation.
- I did not target a single editor (unlike what has happened to me). I have noticed that no one has actually provided empirical data that shows that wikipedia doesn't have a liberal bias. On one hand, I have data to back this up but my accuser does not.
- The other example in the original post requesting an inquiry is that this sentence in atheism talk is somehow a policy violation "(The health benefits of religious belief is well-documented. I don't understand why it would be scrubbed from this article." Again, here is the data backing up this statement (there is A LOT more than what I am citing):
- https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2019/01/31/religions-relationship-to-happiness-civic-engagement-and-health-around-the-world/
- https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2019/01/31/religions-relationship-to-happiness-civic-engagement-and-health-around-the-world/
- https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/dec/03/beyond-beliefs-religious-faith-happier-healthier-life
- Is it somehow a policy violation to post statements that are well-documented? My post attempted to bring in the second half of the article that was cited. My editing record shows that I do not have a pattern of using unreliable sources and I don't post my own opinion "without evidence." When asked to take things to talk, I have. I have not engaged in a pattern of edit warring. There has not been a policy violation.
- I do think that this post and the strict scrutiny of my editing record is a violation of [130] and [131]. Why would saying that wikipedia has a liberal bias cause a review of two years worth of posts to cherry-pick "evidence" that I should be banned? PerseusMeredith (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ https://blogs.uakron.edu/roundaboutakron/mayflower-hotel/
- ^ https://kairosmin.org/2020/12/03/a-supernatural-vision-mayo-clinic/
- ^ https://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/social-psychology-biased-republicans
- ^ https://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/social-psychology-biased-republicans
Allusions to Wikipedia's bias are fine. We're biased in all sorts of ways and there are legitimate disagreements to be had over the subject. What's not fine is WP:BATTLEGROUND. What should give anyone pause is an account that only exists to push one side of AmPol culture war issues, attributing disagreement not to good faith differences but editors' bias. Their very first edit was arguing that rapid-onset gender dysphoria shouldn't be called pseudoscientific because, basically the theory is actually probably true (a fringe interpretation that has nothing to do with the reason that RfC ended with no consensus). To the point, that very first edit attributes disagreement to one user's personal bias. Looks like it's happening frequently. In mainspace, they've only made 92 edits and more than half (48) were reverted. Is intervention required? I don't know, but at minimum Perseus should find other articles to edit so they don't look like they're only here to pursue an agenda. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- "Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges or import personal conflicts, nor is it the place to carry on ideological battles or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear."
- I don't believe any of the 48 reverted edits were the result of ideological battles or nurture prejudice. Arguing that something shouldn't be called pseudoscientific isn't an ideological battle. It's a position that a lot of people actually agree with. PerseusMeredith (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Perseus, while I don't believe Rhododentries' first diff linked above makes a good case for your having a disruptive approach, the issue can't be as easily dismissed with the second two, nor other of your comments and actions that have been raised here. I'm sure you will realize from my initial full-throated defense of you in this thread, that I believe we have to be careful about being too aggressive about shutting down those who want to express concerns about potential bias on the project. My support is not due to agreement with your perspectives, but rather a concern that if we are too dissuasive or repressive of such opinions, we risk engendering walled-garden effects. But there are limits, and the second and third edits that Rhodo identifies are great examples of where you have crossed the line into something WP:tendentious. On this project (and in good argumentation in general) we have the principle of "comment on the issue (content, sources, policy), not the person you are arguing with". While that rule of thumb is relaxed somewhat to allow for more generalized criticism of project norms (as compared to accusations against individual editors), there is still a point at which broad colour commentary and WP:SOAPBOXING not directly rooted in the particular editorial issues being debated at the time becomes WP:disruptive. And beyond that concern, and the possibility that you may eventually face an editing restriction or other sanction if you don't ease up on making "Wikipedia is a cesspit of liberal bias" a go-to clause of virtually every argument you lodge in every dispute you take part in, there is another reason to avoid it: it just makes your argument look weaker. On individual articles looking at discrete editorial issues, it will typically be seen as an argumentum ad hominem, and it weakens whatever legitimate points you might have otherwise made from policy and sourcing, and makes it more likely veteran editors will dismiss your position more readily. So for practical reasons all around, I urge you to drop this habit, and if you want to comment on Wikipedia's general biases as you perceive them, save it for centralized spaces and discussions set aside for precisely those conversations. Your participation in talk page discussions will be a lot more smoother and your arguments a lot more efficient if you do. SnowRise let's rap 21:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. I don’t see the specific citations that Rhodo cites. That being said, I think it’s good advice and I will refrain from commenting on liberal Wikipedia bias in the future unless it’s in a centralized location dedicated to that discussion. I agree that citing bias in a talk page is whining and counterproductive. PerseusMeredith (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Perseus, while I don't believe Rhododentries' first diff linked above makes a good case for your having a disruptive approach, the issue can't be as easily dismissed with the second two, nor other of your comments and actions that have been raised here. I'm sure you will realize from my initial full-throated defense of you in this thread, that I believe we have to be careful about being too aggressive about shutting down those who want to express concerns about potential bias on the project. My support is not due to agreement with your perspectives, but rather a concern that if we are too dissuasive or repressive of such opinions, we risk engendering walled-garden effects. But there are limits, and the second and third edits that Rhodo identifies are great examples of where you have crossed the line into something WP:tendentious. On this project (and in good argumentation in general) we have the principle of "comment on the issue (content, sources, policy), not the person you are arguing with". While that rule of thumb is relaxed somewhat to allow for more generalized criticism of project norms (as compared to accusations against individual editors), there is still a point at which broad colour commentary and WP:SOAPBOXING not directly rooted in the particular editorial issues being debated at the time becomes WP:disruptive. And beyond that concern, and the possibility that you may eventually face an editing restriction or other sanction if you don't ease up on making "Wikipedia is a cesspit of liberal bias" a go-to clause of virtually every argument you lodge in every dispute you take part in, there is another reason to avoid it: it just makes your argument look weaker. On individual articles looking at discrete editorial issues, it will typically be seen as an argumentum ad hominem, and it weakens whatever legitimate points you might have otherwise made from policy and sourcing, and makes it more likely veteran editors will dismiss your position more readily. So for practical reasons all around, I urge you to drop this habit, and if you want to comment on Wikipedia's general biases as you perceive them, save it for centralized spaces and discussions set aside for precisely those conversations. Your participation in talk page discussions will be a lot more smoother and your arguments a lot more efficient if you do. SnowRise let's rap 21:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, I don't think that first diff is a particular good example by which to criticize PM's approach or try to get them to understand where they are creating more noise than substantive contribution. Their position there is not substantially different from that of the majority of the dozens of editors (including many veteran community members, for whatever that is worth) who contributed to the no consensus result, with a roughly 2:1 ratio rejecting the psuedoscience label. From what I can see, their argument was less "this theory is correct" and closer to "the label is not WP:DUE". Now, from the colour commentary creeping in around the edges, am I pretty sure that PM does in fact believe there is at least some validity to the theory? Yes, I think that's true, and it's a discredit to their approach here that I am able to make what I feel is a guess that I am pretty comfortable with as to their personal view. But you know who else that is true about in that discussion? Virtually every one who took part. I can't remember the last time I saw an on-project discussion about a trans rights issue where the majority of participants weren't blurring the lines between the editorial decision and the value of the underlying theory, event, or facts. So I'm not inclined to come down particularly hard on one user, making their first registered edit, who actually did a pretty good job of predicating their !vote on policy/sourcing considerations, all things considered.However, all that preamble is just a caveat, because PM's second and third diffs that you identify are perfect examples of why there is a problem here that they need to come to grips with sooner rather than later, which I will now directly address with them immediately above. SnowRise let's rap 21:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
User:2601:642:C303:F370:ECF6:AD4:FA35:1E25 and User:2601:642:C303:F370:A823:7B32:5A06:2402 edits to Vasculitis
[edit]2607:FEA8:22A0:38F0:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
I wasn't sure where to put this but recently two IP users (who I believe to be the same person based off their edit history) have been replacing sources on the page Vasculitis. This is an issue because they a) have no reason to be doing so and b) the source they changed it to does not verify all of the information present.
To be specific the information I included was "Crusting rhinorrhea, sinusitis, chronic otitis media, nasal obstruction, shortness of breath, and chronic cough" under symptoms of Granulomatosis with polyangiitis. The first source I used (link) verifies "crusting rhinorrhea, sinusitis, chronic otitis media" and the second source I used (link) verifies "nasal obstruction, shortness of breath, and chronic cough". The source they provided (link) does not support crusting rhinorrhea or chronic otitis media, it mentions bloody rhinorrhea and otitis media but not crusting rhinorrhea specifically or the chronic part of otitis media (both of which are significant to the disorder). I have tried leaving talk page messages but have either gotten no reply or just been told it did verify the information, which it doesn't. It feels silly going to ANI over this but I've almost hit the 3 revert max and it does not seem like the editor in question is open to admitting this mistake.
Users: User:2601:642:C303:F370:ECF6:AD4:FA35:1E25 and User:2601:642:C303:F370:A823:7B32:5A06:2402
My attempts to address this issue: User_talk:2601:642:C303:F370:A823:7B32:5A06:2402#Your_edit_to_vasculitis and User_talk:2601:642:C303:F370:ECF6:AD4:FA35:1E25#Your_edits_to_vasculitis
Diffs: Before user made edits Special:Diff/1243559169, first time user changed source Special:Diff/1244551281, my first revert Special:Diff/1244574655, Second time user changed source Special:Diff/1244631689, Second time I reverted Special:Diff/1244688530, Third time changing the source Special:Diff/1244737417.— Preceding unsigned comment added by IntentionallyDense (talk • contribs) 22:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Incorrect. I have access to both full articles and have them as PDFs on my desktop so I can verify the information, as can anyone with the full articles. I'm willing to share them. I stated this on my talk page and in the diffs after user IntentionallyDense reverted. This doesn't seem very collaborative "changing a citation without checking that the new source verifies all of the info. please stop changing sources without making sure that the new source covers all of the info" and seems fairly "bity" toward another editor off the bat along with the other revert. See diff: [132]. He asserts that the source I provided does not support crusting rhinorrhea or chronic otitis media and instead says bloody rhinorrhea. I'm confident we have numerous examples of other articles that don't use verbatim language that way as an absolute standard. If Intentional insists on a citation that specifically says those exact words verbatim, then that seems like splitting hairs to me. Many other sources do not use that verbatim language when describing this condition. Even our own GPA page states: "Typical signs and symptoms of nose or sinus involvement include crusting around the nose, stuffiness, nosebleeds, runny nose, and saddle-nose deformity due to a hole in the septum of the nose.[7][14]" Note that it does not specify "crusting rhinorrhea" precisely in those words. If that's truly the point of contention, then this should at the very least be consistent. Many reliable resources do not strictly adhere to the verbatim language that user IntensionallyDense is pushing for here, but still convey the idea that nasal crusting, rhinorrhea and recurrent otitis media are prominent features of the disease. See: [133],[134], [135], and[136] (see Table 1) for just a few examples. They don't universally say "chronic otitis media". Perhaps we should revise the sentence itself to say recurrent or chronic otitis media to be a bit more general and adhere to what sources actually say.
- Here is what the 2023 review says: "The most common features of sino-nasal disease activity are nasal crusting, clear or bloody rhinorrhea, recurrent sinusitis with poor response to anti- biotics, otitis media, and nasal septal perforation with cartilage and nasal bone damage causing saddle nose deformity [10–12]." The article mentions nasal crusting twice and confirms rhinorrhea is a feature of GPA. That really should suffice. As for otitis media, again, if you are insisting on a source that uses the exact words "chronic otitis media", then okay, you could have said that much more tactfully instead of wholesale reverts. The citation states the following: "Mastoiditis and recurrent otitis media in adults should raise concern about GPA since they are the first manifestations in 25% of GPA cases [14]." Other reliable sources also say recurrent. Again, this is splitting hairs. I agree it was silly to bring this to ANI. This [137] still seems like a bit of a WP:OWNERSHIP tendency when someone objects to someone changing "one of my citations". It's fine if you're upset about the lack of an edit summary. But next time, consider asking for elaboration first. God forbid I try to update a citation that's 10 years old. That's a pretty standard timeframe for an update. Figure 2 of the cited 2018 article displays common features of GPA including crusting: 69%, sinusitis: 58%, nasal obstruction: 53%, rhinorrhea: 52%, rhinitis: 38%, shortness of breath: 59%, chronic cough: 58%, and also mentions otitis media: "Patients frequently seek initial medical help for upper respiratory tract problems including sinusitis, epistaxis, nasal obstruction, and otitis media." Between the two of them, they seem to verify the statements unless we're getting extraordinarily nitpicky and veering into pedantic territory. 2601:642:C303:F370:A823:7B32:5A06:2402 (talk) 00:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- This seems like an ordinary content dispute that is best discussed on the article talk page. If edit-warring becomes an issue, there's a noticeboard for reporting that, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Liz Read! Talk! 04:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Okay thanks for the input. IntentionallyDense (talk) 15:19, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- This seems like an ordinary content dispute that is best discussed on the article talk page. If edit-warring becomes an issue, there's a noticeboard for reporting that, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Liz Read! Talk! 04:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
SFHistorian1850 appears to be a single-purpose account focused on portraying members of the "progressive" wing of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in a positive light. The account's article edits consist entirely of removing negative content (often referenced) and adding favorable information (often poorly sourced) about these politicians. In addition, the account has made 4 separate requests for page protection for politicians from the same group that were each denied. I denied the first request (prior to getting involved in trying to help resolve a content dispute on Hillary Ronen), and the following three requests were declined by other administrators.
Thus far, SFHistorian1850 has received (1) a contentious topics alert for BLPs, (2) a conflict of interest warning, and (3) a BLP warning for poorly referenced information. Given the account’s apparent conflict of interest and the warnings being ignored, a block may be needed.
- Content removals: Hillary Ronen #1, Hillary Ronen #2, Hillary Ronen #3, Aaron Peskin #1, Aaron Peskin #2, Hillary Ronen #4, Hillary Ronen #5 (some are a mix of removal and addition)
- Positive additions: John Avalos #1, Hillary Ronen #1, Hillary Ronen #2, Hillary Ronen #3, Hillary Ronen #4, Aaron Peskin #1 (some are a mix of removal and addition)
- RFPP requests: Hillary Ronen, Connie Chan (politician), Aaron Peskin, Dean Preston
Daniel Quinlan (talk) 04:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Until they made an edit yesterday, they really hadn't edited since March and April 2024. So, while I recognize that their editing might be problematic (thank you for the thorough report), I'm not sure if the situation right now is urgent. Liz Read! Talk! 04:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Liz, thanks for taking a look. There is definitely a pattern of lengthy breaks between these edits, but it's also relentless since December 2022 so it seemed like ANI was the right place (like it says above:
chronic, intractable behavioral problems
). If you believe an additional warning, a topic ban, or some other action is appropriate, I have no objection, but it started to look like a more serious form of COI editing once I realized there was a broader pattern beyond Hillary Ronen. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 04:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Liz, thanks for taking a look. There is definitely a pattern of lengthy breaks between these edits, but it's also relentless since December 2022 so it seemed like ANI was the right place (like it says above:
- In case
"progressive"
is unfamiliar in this context: it's a term commonly used in San Francisco media. Most articles use the terms "moderate" and "progressive" to distinguish the two main political factions within the Board of Supervisors (example #1, example #2). Daniel Quinlan (talk) 17:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Legal threat in the mix
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
JMIX -314 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Special:Diff/1244551464 Kind of looks like a legal threat against Wikipedia. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Well, Liz did some stuff that I think I obviated.... Even ignoring the legal threat, this user clearly isn't here for anything but self-promotion. Izno (talk) 05:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I probably should have blocked but I like to inform an editor why they will probably be getting blocked. This was a clear legal threat though. Liz Read! Talk! 05:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Why are so many legal threats empty? This editor obviously does not know anything at all about the law, but presumes to lecture us on the subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Phil Bridger, I hate to let you down but many people bloviating on the internet are not the brightest bulbs in the chandelier. Such people may actually believe that typing in ALL CAPS makes their argument more persuasive and compelling. These people see actors playing lawyers on TV and conclude that they can pretend to be a legal expert too. Cullen328 (talk) 08:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Unsurprisingly, the content they tried to write was self-promotional, ungrammatical, vapid, and devoid of encyclopedic value. Cullen328 (talk) 08:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Gods, yes, what Cullen328 said. Just on copyright issues alone -- an area of law pretty fiendishly complicated and disputed, and upon which crack lawyers earn enough to finance their Lamborghinis -- I've heard so many laymen shoot off their ignorant bazoos that it stopped being funny long ago. Ravenswing 12:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Phil Bridger, I hate to let you down but many people bloviating on the internet are not the brightest bulbs in the chandelier. Such people may actually believe that typing in ALL CAPS makes their argument more persuasive and compelling. These people see actors playing lawyers on TV and conclude that they can pretend to be a legal expert too. Cullen328 (talk) 08:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Why are so many legal threats empty? This editor obviously does not know anything at all about the law, but presumes to lecture us on the subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I probably should have blocked but I like to inform an editor why they will probably be getting blocked. This was a clear legal threat though. Liz Read! Talk! 05:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
An editor with personal vendetta
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
An editor Nxcrypto reverted an IPS edits in multiple articles. I checked out those edits they were pretty valid. When I sided with the ip and reverted nxcryptos edits they accused me of all sorts of stuff and started reverting the edits,and removed the vandalism warning i sent them from their talk page. Then they got the whole page protected and possibly used a sockpuppet to revert the page to their edit. This is an abuse of power and seriously childish behaviour on their part. So my request to you is to reduce that pages protection. Donteatgarlic (talk) 10:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- You're required to notify users of discussions here; I've done this for you now. — Czello (music) 10:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Looking at this a bit closer, I would urge you to read WP:BOOMERANG.
- I see no evidence that Ratnahastin is a sockpuppet of Nxcrypto. Please discuss the changes on the talk page and refrain from edit warring. — Czello (music) 11:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Well their edits were similar. And my complaint isn't mainly about this matter. It's about nxcrypto strange behaviour. They are refusing to fix their page and changed the ips previous edits in unrelated pages. Even though the edits are valid Donteatgarlic (talk) 11:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
IDNHT by IP
[edit]188.25.104.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has continued to insert copyvio content on Voepass Linhas Aéreas Flight 2283 despite multiple warnings and calls to discuss on talk page. Borgenland (talk) 14:16, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Update: User has made 8RR and counting. Borgenland (talk) 15:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Currently sitting at ten reverts. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- 11RR. Borgenland (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- I have blocked the IP for 31 hours for edit warring. Cullen328 (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! I forgot to tell you though that they also have a report on AN-Edit Warrring. Borgenland (talk) 16:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- I have blocked the IP for 31 hours for edit warring. Cullen328 (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- 11RR. Borgenland (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Currently sitting at ten reverts. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Repeated deletion of content by User:Lil elitechong in the List of shopping malls in Malaysia
[edit]User:Lil elitechong and associated IPs (180.72.136.111 & 2001:f40:905:5906:5198:187e:ba1d:2815) have persistedly made unexplained deletions of content in List of shopping malls in Malaysia.
Seeking prompt action/intervention on this matter. Thanks hundenvonPG (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Can you give more WP:DIFs to better detail the problem here? Sergecross73 msg me 12:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Here it is @Sergecross73:
- First round of deletions by 180.72.136.111:
- Second round of deletions by 2001:f40:905:5906:5198:187e:ba1d:2815
- Third round of deletions by User:Lil elitechong itself:
- Safe to say, above IP addresses showed identical and persistent unexplained deletion patterns, in spite of repeated warnings given, and potential abuse of multiple addresses that go against WP:SOCK. hundenvonPG (talk) 14:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
uncivil behaviour by User:Gabriel601
[edit]Dear Administrators, You need to do something about the disruptive and uncivil behaviour of @gabriel601 Below is my complaint.
Editor @gabriel601 had nominated my article, Paul Oluikpe for deletion accusing me of "lying" in the following uncouth language: "One more question to the article creator. Who is “Muradmomi12”, a user who posted a fake template on your talk page Here claiming to have accepted the article. Is that your second account?. Remember lying won’t save you. So you can just be honest and things be sort out properly per Wikipedia policy".
There are many other uncivil language he used in the deletion process(please go to the deletion discussions on Paul Oluikpe and see for yourself.
(1) I provided proof of the article meeting notability guidelines with a 7 point refutation of his claims and requested him to provide proof of the article not meeting the notability guidelines and he provided none. (2) In return he said so many uncivil things about me "deceiving the public". He went on a rant about how I am a new user (9 months old) with less than 200 edits, and how come I am able to submit an article that was accepted. (3) He accused me of colluding with @muradmomi12 who has actually been banned/blocked on wikipedia. (4) Upon looking at his talk page I noticed that @gabriel601 has been blocked previously for the same incivility and uncouth language, and disruptive behaviour on wikipedia. He just got unbanned/unblocked recently and has gone on another spree. (5) Today, he has just targeted another article of mine and nominated it for deletion.
I request that an administrator should take a look at his activity on my article Paul Oluikpe. If an administrator reviews my article and finds the subject not notable, I would accept a speedy deletion. But if you find that the subject is notable, and that @gabriel601 had not acted in good faith, I leave any course of decision to your discretion. Kind regards @cfaso2000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfaso2000 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Could it be a “bro” or a “sis” to address you as Cfaso2000 ? But this seems uncalled for & funny as i have never called you a liar or a deceiver. Something went wrong on your talk page here User talk:Cfaso2000#Your submission at Articles for creation: Paul Oluikpe which could give everyone the impression of knowing what was wrong. But since you already claimed not to have anything to do with that I let it closed. You said nominating your article Paul Oluikpe for AFD was a vandalism but that was only my first edit to the page therefore it gave me the impression you seems not to know what vandalism is all about. You said my nomination to your article was not done in good faith and I was surprise like has this editor gone to read this policy before making accusations because you are all getting everything all wrong. After saying all this accusation in the first place I never insulted you rather let things be a bygone. My only question to you was that what happened to the fake approved template on your talk page which could be looking like a deceive to the public that your article was accepted. That in anyway never stated that you are a liar neither a deceiver nor did I ever called you such. You need to be calm. I definitely have no issues with you. Less I forget would advise you can always submit your article for review so that it doesn't get nominated for AFD just like others and of the 2023 you have done which was nominated by Star Mississippi. So, I'm not after you at all. Take care and have a lovely day. Gabriel (……?) 17:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- What you wrote on the page is in black and white and needs no interpretation. I have said it's insulting to say "remember lying won't save you" or "When I saw that it actually looked like a deceive to the public", or to say "You joined wikipedia 9 months ago with less than 200 edits but thats by the way". These are not statements made in good faith. Cfaso2000 (talk) 17:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- First off, it's not very nice of Gabriel to WP:ACCUSE. However, Cfaso2000 appears to be WP:BLUDGEONING the AfD processes. So, perhaps a warning to both and we can move on with our lives here. Conyo14 (talk) 20:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. Well understood. Gabriel (……?) 21:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- I do agree that this misleading AfC notice posted by Muradmomi12 is strange, but it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with Cfaso2000. C F A 💬 23:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping @Gabriel601. Just noting I've seen this but haven't been able to look at the AfDs aside from the one I raised. @Cfaso2000 I'd advise you to slow down on your editing until you're more familiar with what constitutes notability. Muradomi12 doesn't appear to have ever been blocked and not sure what their connection is. Star Mississippi 01:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Armand Duplantis
[edit]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armand_Duplantis
Can an administrator please review the conduct of new user Globallycz who is continually reverting the page when no consensus for doing so exists on that Talk page. Thank you Billsmith60 (talk) 17:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Billsmith60, your message on their talk page was not enough. You need to explicity mention that you've brought them to ANI. I put the template {{Ani notice}} there for you. —asparagusus (interaction) sprouts! 17:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- I am new to this. I have provided justification with verifiable references to support GOAT status of Mondo. Yet i didnt receive explanation on why there is a disagreement. I do not understand why it is my conduct issue when this person do not want to engage in discussion. Take the example of removing Diamond League title from athlete individual wikipedia page. He just agreed with another editor (marble fellow) and went ahead to remove it. They thought it is common sense that diamond league is not a competition with medals awarded and should not be in the medal table. But almost every diamond league winner has their diamond league title listed in their wikipedia page. Later i think he realised that inclusion of Diamond League title should not be deterred otherwise it would be incomsistent with other athletes' wiki pages. But then he proceed to nitpick on the placing of the diamond league title saying that it should not ranked above area title and just unilaterally moved it to the bottom of medal table below youth and junior championships titles. This is rather absurd and inexplicable move as diamond league meetings are senior level competition. I have provided justification why diamond league final should be ranked a higher level of competition than area senior outdoor championships. But i dont think he is prepared to listen. Nevertheless i am not afraid of facing any admimstrative action as long as my objectibe is clear which is to help to improve the content of wikipedia articles supported by good sources.
- Yes his actions of reporting matters to admin instead of a proper discussion seems to have jumped the gun. He probably hoped that i will be scared away. But such actions on his part only come across as authoritative and opinionated. He may be more experience as an editor but shouldnt attempt to scare people to bring his point across using unjust adminstrative actions. Globallycz (talk) 06:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for doing this Billsmith60 (talk) 11:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Billsmith60, you never even gave them a talk page warning before coming here. Going straight to ANI is really jumping the gun. -- asilvering (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- If you look carefully at the relevant Talk page, I did indicate that I would be referring this to an administrator. I've said what I need to there and avoided the wall-of-text approach that user employs. If no one else contributes to the debate, then a new user will have abrogated control of that page to themselves Billsmith60 (talk) 09:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- arrogated control...
- Billsmith60 (talk) 09:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- If you look carefully at the relevant Talk page, I did indicate that I would be referring this to an administrator. I've said what I need to there and avoided the wall-of-text approach that user employs. If no one else contributes to the debate, then a new user will have abrogated control of that page to themselves Billsmith60 (talk) 09:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Pitstop Pop is WP:NOTHERE
[edit]Pitstop Pop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making user pages containing obscene messaging and WP:NPA attacks on other editors. Borgenland (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- (Non-Admin Comment) A lot of these pages talk about lewd things relating to minors, I would probably hide the edit summaries due to this. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 18:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- They are blocked indef now for vandalism and the pages they've created are deleted. Hopefully an admin will come around and hide the edit summaries in the talk page (including one of my edits that I forgot to remove the topic name). Myrealnamm's Alternate Account (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- I think everything has been handled now? Johnuniq (talk) 02:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Johnuniq Yes, unless an admin (or you) would like to revdel the edit summaries in Pitstop Pop's talk page, as suggested by SMG? Myrealnamm's Alternate Account (talk) 12:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Eep. Sorry, missed that last night. Fixed now. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- @SarekOfVulcan Sorry, totally my mistake, but the older revisions still have the content in them if you would like to revdel it. Myrealnamm's Alternate Account (talk) 12:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Eep. Sorry, missed that last night. Fixed now. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Johnuniq Yes, unless an admin (or you) would like to revdel the edit summaries in Pitstop Pop's talk page, as suggested by SMG? Myrealnamm's Alternate Account (talk) 12:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- I think everything has been handled now? Johnuniq (talk) 02:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Threatening other users and accusations
[edit]User:KustrimiAbdu is a new account created solely to offend people on Kuči tribe page, and to discuss stuff about sources for that article on RS Noticeboard.
He is attacking other editors, and could be a sock but i can't confirm it, as it's really weird that he created account and jumped right into all the topics related to Kuči tribe, including ones on RS Noticeboard.
He is threatening other people and claiming they are pushing "Serbian POV nationalist Kosovar genocide rhetoric" which is laughable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Setxkbmap (talk • contribs) 22:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- The newly created account "KushtrimAbdu" is most likely a single purpose account created for the sole purpose of derailing the discussion in the opposite direction it supposedly supports. This is not an account created by someone who is Albanian as it claims on its userpage. Even the spelling of the username is wrong in Albanian. The account should be reported at SPI as most likely this is not a new editor but someone who wants to create the perception that "Albanian nationalist" SPAs are targeting the article.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Glad you agree. It would be nice if you did report him at SPI. Thanks! Setxkbmap (talk) 23:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- (Redacted)
- I agree that this seems to be a joe job, and a potentially very dangerous one, seeing as there could be real-world reputational, professional, and legitimate safety concerns for the individual being impersonated. The account and image should be deleted and all statements by the account removed and mostly revdelled ASAP. If that action is not immediately forthcoming from a volunteer admin here, you should consider emailing the the WMF Trust and Safety Team (see here), who probably should be made aware of this regardless. SnowRise let's rap 00:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Made an attempt to speedy the userpage. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 00:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that this seems to be a joe job, and a potentially very dangerous one, seeing as there could be real-world reputational, professional, and legitimate safety concerns for the individual being impersonated. The account and image should be deleted and all statements by the account removed and mostly revdelled ASAP. If that action is not immediately forthcoming from a volunteer admin here, you should consider emailing the the WMF Trust and Safety Team (see here), who probably should be made aware of this regardless. SnowRise let's rap 00:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- (Redacted)
- Glad you agree. It would be nice if you did report him at SPI. Thanks! Setxkbmap (talk) 23:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- I deleted User:KustrimiAbdu but will wait to see if further views are forthcoming before further action. Johnuniq (talk) 02:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
User:Tgeorgescu racist remarks
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be a "dissenting voice" in respect to China, Communism and Mao Zedong. They have made multiple racist and defamatory comments. For examples:
Chinese medical scientists lack funds for performing research, lack freedom of speech, lack a culture of contradicting their peers if objective evidence so demands—they're basically educated that speaking truth to power is insanity. They know that criticizing TCM could make some CCP boss angry, and that would mean jail time. Totalitarianism is a ruthless game, and science is its victim. The PRC government is not interested whether TCM is effective, they just see it as a cash cow. Research about its effectiveness could only ruin the cash flow.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Acupuncture&diff=prev&oldid=1233495448
Mao was in some respects outstandingly stupid, sadistic, or delusional.
They seem to be supported by many other users, such as User:Hob Gadling, User:Chipmunkdavis and User:MrOllie, likely the members of a tag team, and my complaints on talk pages are swiftly reverted.
Sanctions are needed. If administrators are not dare to exercise their power, please refer the case to ArbCom or the Wikipedia Foundation. 202.40.137.128 (talk) 11:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- The comments are not racist against all Chinese people throughout the world, they reflect that the current mainland China government does not permit free speech and freedom of thought, both of which are correct to say. 331dot (talk) 11:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- None of those comments are "racist" in my opinion, and objectively not "defamatory" for a whole host of reasons. The suggestion that other editors are 'tag-teaming' is not supported by evidence, and should either be substantiated with diffs or struck/withdrawn. Daniel (talk) 11:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- I have an addendum too- that the PRC government doesn't permit free speech/etc is certainly up to them and the willingness of the Chinese people in mainland China to permit them to do so. But it's not incorrect to say that they don't. 331dot (talk) 11:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- @331dot. "Chinese medical scientists lack funds for performing research, lack freedom of speech, lack a culture", "Totalitarianism" "they're basically educated that speaking truth to power is insanity. They know that criticizing TCM could make some CCP boss angry, and that would mean jail time" "PRC government is not interested whether TCM is effective, they just see it as a cash cow" "Mao was in some respects outstandingly stupid, sadistic, or delusional." All of these are not supported by sources. Full of speculation, most are not correct. 202.40.137.198 (talk) 11:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- But it's not racist, which is your claim here. The same things could be said about the current Russian government. I suggest you withdraw your grievance, this isn't going to go the way you want it to. 331dot (talk) 11:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- It's against all "Chinese medical scientists". Not racist? It's against Mao "Mao was in some respects outstandingly stupid, sadistic, or delusional." not defamatory? 202.40.137.198 (talk) 11:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- It's not against all Chinese scientists around the world. It's against "Chinese" scientists in the PRC. It's not even against them personally, but their government which does not permit them to speak freely. You really need to withdraw this before it is closed against your wishes. 331dot (talk) 11:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- It's against all "Chinese medical scientists". Not racist? It's against Mao "Mao was in some respects outstandingly stupid, sadistic, or delusional." not defamatory? 202.40.137.198 (talk) 11:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- But it's not racist, which is your claim here. The same things could be said about the current Russian government. I suggest you withdraw your grievance, this isn't going to go the way you want it to. 331dot (talk) 11:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- 202, your statement on that article TP is WP:CASTINGASPERSIONS and I'd suggest self-reversion. [142] O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Objective3000 YEs these are WP:CASTINGASPERSIONS made by User:Tgeorgescu:
- "Chinese medical scientists lack funds for performing research, lack freedom of speech, lack a culture of contradicting their peers if objective evidence so demands—they're basically educated that speaking truth to power is insanity."
- "They know that criticizing TCM could make some CCP boss angry, and that would mean jail time."
- "Totalitarianism is a ruthless game, and science is its victim. The PRC government is not interested whether TCM is effective, they just see it as a cash cow. Research about its effectiveness could only ruin the cash flow."
- "Mao was in some respects outstandingly stupid, sadistic, or delusional." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.40.137.128 (talk) 11:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'd suggest you self-revert. 202.40.137.198 (talk) 11:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- What editors do any of those refer to? Nil Einne (talk) 11:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Simply presenting the opinion that one person is outstandingly stupid, sadistic, or delusional is not racist unless you suggest it is because of their race. I happen to feel that way about a particular current US politician. Doesn’t mean I’m racist against whites. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Against one person is defamatory to the least. Against all "Chinese medical scientists" is racist. 202.40.137.196 (talk) 11:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Are we allowed to say a particular current US politician "stupid, sadistic, or delusional"? 202.40.137.196 (talk) 11:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- You're allowed to say it on a street corner in the US(heck, politicians of all stripes in the US say that of their opponents every day and newspapers print it), or on your personal blog on a computer that you own, but you can't say it on Wikipedia just because, because this is a privately operated website that can have rules about what is said here. It's not the government enforcing rules. 331dot (talk) 11:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Just as a heads up, you might trip over WP:DROPTHESTICK or WP:POINT soon, if you keep going. MM (Give me info.) (Victories) 12:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- You ARE aware, yes, that CASTINGASPERSIONS solely refers to conduct by editors towards fellow editors? Ravenswing 16:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Objective3000 YEs these are WP:CASTINGASPERSIONS made by User:Tgeorgescu:
- I've blocked Special:contributions/202.40.137.0/24 for one month.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
2001:448A:1090:667C:0:0:0:0/64 and addition of inaccurate categories
[edit]2001:448A:1090:667C:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps making inaccurate changes to 'Video games developed in X country' categories in articles about video games - the countries they're changing them to are not discussed in the articles (WP:CATVER), such as changing the category to say that Sonic the Hedgehog 2 was developed in France rather than Japan. Hasn't responded to warnings and this is a long-term issue from this range - these category edits from this /64 date back to December 2023. Examples of recent disruptive category changes: 1, 2, 3, 4. Waxworker (talk) 11:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- I've rangeblocked the /64 for 3 months.-- Ponyobons mots 19:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Possible False Accusation
[edit]@14.192.210.103 claimed that @Symphony Regalia was blocked on the Japanese wiki and other types of misbehaviour. The latter denies this. Talk:Samurai#c-14.192.210.103-20240902031700-Tinynanorobots-20240831145800
Tinynanorobots (talk) 14:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Symphony Regalia is indeed blocked on the Japanese Wikipedia; see ja:Wikipedia:投稿ブロック依頼/Symphony_Regaliaほか and jawiki block log. – dudhhr talkcontribssheher 15:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Well this is weird, given Dudhhr’s findings, but The Global Block Log and the Global Block List aren’t finding a thing for this username.
- I’m curious as to what difference it makes? Different wikis, different rules. You can be blocked on one, but fine on another. If Symphony was that bad, an SRG would have been put in at Meta, for locks, when JAwiki put the block on.
- Might I ask, Tiny, I can’t help but notice this and wanted to be sure it’s not at all related? You know, save anyone else from casting aspersions by assuming that there’s a connection. MM (Give me info.) (Victories) 15:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- The global block log and global block list are about global blocks. Misleading as the global block log description might read, the words
blocked and unblocked
still lead to the global blocking page on meta. – 2804:F1...10:1F3D (talk) 16:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- The global block log and global block list are about global blocks. Misleading as the global block log description might read, the words
- So it appears it is not a false accusation according to this report. Of course Symphony Regalia can clear this up by chiming in here. I'm guessing it is the same person, since they are also a frequent contributor to the English Yasuke talk page. And what about this IP, how would they know any of this background unless they too were editing in that same related area. It would be nice to hear from them as well, with whatever IP they are currently using. Since it seems like this IP has some experience editing WP, they should also be firmly reminded to comment on the content, not the contributor. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- For disclosure, I was also the IP who blew the whistle on this previous incident, and no, I have no prior experience dealing with Wikipedia. I blew the whistle due to the fact that the JP wiki ended up being in the crossfire roughly a month after SR's initial edits on the EN side and it doesn't help that SR was denying allegations (socks and harassment) that were levied by JP users, which ultimately was true from the results of the report and the fact that SR didn't bother to defend themselves, further adds to this scrutiny. Furthermore, when called out for their misconduct, they do not attempt at addressing said misconduct, but would rather concoct unfounded allegations on their accusers, like so.
- I'd like to know why SR is adamant in pushing their POV whereby it spills over to the JP side of things, to the point where socks are involved. At the same time, I do not think this user should be editing, especially with the events and misconduct leading up to the aforementioned site block on the JP side, as well as their past misconducts. 14.192.208.205 (talk) 18:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
86.28.140.195
[edit]This IP keeps deleting sourced information from The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power season 2 without an explanation:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1244914222&oldid=1244848938&title=The_Lord_of_the_Rings%3A_The_Rings_of_Power_season_2
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1244978224&oldid=1244921926&title=The_Lord_of_the_Rings%3A_The_Rings_of_Power_season_2
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1244983357&oldid=1244981831&title=The_Lord_of_the_Rings%3A_The_Rings_of_Power_season_2
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1245008956&oldid=1244998242&title=The_Lord_of_the_Rings%3A_The_Rings_of_Power_season_2
They have been warned at their talk page but continue to make this edit. I requested page protection but that was declined and I was told to come here instead. @CipherSleuth has also been reverting these edits. I'm not certain what the best course of action is here. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Adamstom.97: I've blocked the IP or a bit; you really should leave multiple warnings though before escalating elsewhere. Elli (talk | contribs) 14:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- It's edit warring so you can head to WP:ANEW next time.
- Content-wise they are right however since the source doesn't support the statement in the article. Not that this excuses the edit warring or lack of communication. Yvan Part (talk) 14:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- I see now that the source has been changed since the information was added. Would have been nice if they mentioned that in their edit summaries! - adamstom97 (talk) 15:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Persistent addition of unsourced content by 82.86.104.118
[edit]82.86.104.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, continued after final warning. Examples of unsourced edits: 1, 2, 3, 4. Waxworker (talk) 15:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Need a range block for IPs of 2603:300a:108:100:
[edit]- 2603:300A:108:100::/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)
Multiple IPs of that range are currently vandalizing Wikimedia Commons (the article, if that isn't clear). See revision history. TheWikiToby (talk) 15:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Done Range blocked for 72 hours. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- I also went to WP:AIV btw. TheWikiToby (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)