Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
It’s also weird how Dustfreeworld blanked both their user page and talk page wanting some privacy for forthcoming edits as if they knew the dispute currently on the talk page would happen.
A comment on my talk page has been linked above. I have a very different interpretation of the comment, and I suggest disregarding this IP's claim that it's a sign of Wikipedia:Ownership of content.
I also respect and admire people who can correct their mistakes, and especially the editors who can publicly admit that they've changed their minds instead of doubling down on their original mistakes. For example, the alleged "ES" isn't an WP:ES, so maybe you'd like to go correct your error. (It's an HTML comment.) While we're on the subject of that point, I'll add that I was raised to believe that telling someone to shut up is not a polite way to communicate a wish for a conversation to end, but it's not actually a WP:Personal attack, and I suspect that quite a number of editors cheerfully use that phrase without thinking themselves to be behaving rudely, much less violating our Wikipedia:Civility policy. If it were, we'd have a bigger problem, because that phrase appears in significantly more than 10,000 discussions on wiki.
The only edits from this IP address are to post this here. I wonder which content dispute this logged-out editor is trying to gain an advantage in? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:23, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this IP is also me the OP, I should have clarified it but I didn't know that the IP would change. I did not care about the "shut up" in the HTML or the ES, or anywhere in general (hence I didn't bring up https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asian_News_International&diff=prev&oldid=1252101002), but rather the content that follows in the ES only. Especially the harassment accusation through the "forgetful" link. However what I would like to bring up in that diff I just posted is the editor's unwillingness to discuss their edits. Dustfreeworld states that BOLD is a lie to children, but it isn't if one is willing to explain your edits instead of where I quote "throw uppercase" to editors who then revert. During a content dispute with another editor who reminded the user of importance of discussion through BRD, the response completely ignored the point https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_Venezuelan_presidential_election&diff=prev&oldid=1239933205 showing how the editor is incompetent to judge when using BRD-is-optional arguments are appropriate.
You seem to be claiming that a note posted by this editor, on their User: page, that doesn't mention you or anything about you, is a message to you. I think that's unreasonable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since I really want to get my point across that the ES was targeted towards a specific editor, I’ll clarify. The ES was They want you to shut up. Whether it’s about war, about suicide, about PRESERVE, maybe even racism/inclusion, whatever. They want you to shut up. So you should. How forgetful I am. and I’ll focus on the bolded parts of this.
Firstly, They. The editor is clearly referencing someone/a group of people.
Thridly, the racism/inclusion. I’ve also bolded the maybe as I was unable to find an occurrence of this, so I’m guessing that the editor was presumptive about the intentions of Karnataka.
I'm not sure what an unrelated comment on my talk page has anything to do with the editor in question, and have purposely stayed uninvolved in this conversation due to my recent interaction with them. I would like to clarify, though, that in my diff'd comment, I was not telling John M Wolfson to shut up, I was acknowledging his "sit in the corner away from the mop" statement. That being said, regarding the WP:OWN complaint, I would like to point out this edit, including the statement "Your comment makes me wonder when have you put the ANI article on your watchlist. I didn’t remember inviting you to watch and then revert my edits there. I didn’t invite you to come to my talk to waste my time either."... - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would an admin or experienced user please assess if this report above violates WP:A/I/PIA (by mentioning 2 diffs from discussions about the topic)?
Additionally, I would very much like to know how you, IP, came across these interactions, seeing as you have not clarified who you are and I do not see any obvious related edits in your /40 and /32 ranges (the /64 range is empty, but that's common).
Some editors feel strongly about Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars, and our WP:UPPERCASE jargon (please click that link if you've never read that page) can be off-putting. We use it as a way of signalling that I'm in the in-group (and probably you're an outsider), as a way to avoid thinking and explaining clearly, and as a way of trying to "win" disputes. I wouldn't call it vandalism myself, because I have a pretty narrow understanding of that word, but if it's upsetting, even if you believe it "shouldn't" be upsetting, then it's best to find a different way to say what you mean.
I don't know if you're familiar with Postel's law, but following the general principle on wiki is helpful: Editors who want to communicate successfully should avoid communication styles that are objected to often enough that you wouldn't be surprised if someone complained (e.g., no profanity, not because we have a firm rule against it, but because you have real things to communicate, and you don't need your real point ignored while we have yet another discussion about whether profanity is always a blockable offense or only sometimes a blockable offense. [It's the latter, by the way]), and if someone indicates a less common but still workable communication preference, then respect that as much as feasible (e.g., to the extent that you remember this preference and have functional alternatives). If you happened to become aware of someone's dislike for the WP:UPPERCASE style of communication, then it'd be nice if you could avoid that. But, of course, if you don't know that, or if you happen to forget, then that needs to be okay, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The difference here is that Dustfreeworld’s handling is highly hypocritical. You will find WP links in almost every one of the Dustfreeworld’s talk page messages and many of ES, so how is it vandalism when it’s done only towards Dustfreeworld? As Dustfreeworld is consistently using WP links, surely they are actively indicating that the best way to communicate with them is also with WP links.
That was my understanding also. Considering how many WP shortcuts Dustfreeworld throws around, in almost every message they post, I assumed that they were part of said 'in crowd' and responded in kind. - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2A02:6B67, I regret that I must apparently be the one to break the unfortunate news to you, but: humans are not perfect. And Wikipedia editors are humans.
Complaining about ordinary human beings – with their ordinary human frailties, faults, and self-contradictions – is not the intended purpose of this noticeboard. Admins have no tools to make humans be perfect, and if we banned everyone who made an occasional mistake, or who discovered that they didn't like a particular behavior once the shoe is on the other foot, there would be nobody left to write articles.
Hello! I am here because I was pinged by the OP. I am not experienced enough to sling around a lot of WP:(whatever) policy quotations, but did want to leave my opinion here.
The editor mentioned by the OP has already received a broad ban from editing medical topics, which is clear evidence of prior repeated problem behavior. They came to my notice because of the Joss paper article, which had some errors in correctly paraphrasing at least one source (primary, actually,) as well as blank section headings and references which strongly implied significant health issues existed, etc., without proper sources or even any actual text at all. After some back-and-forth reversions, I discovered the medical topic ban and reminded the editor thereof. In the process, I came across numerous edits and talk page postings that persist in the same pattern of incorrectly citing policy and using dozens of allcap WP: links to basically smother disagreement.
Succinctly, the editor in question has a history of tendentious editing - just looking at the Joss paper editing and the username shows a likely problem with NPOV. There is a further unwillingness to engage properly in generating consensus; accurate complaints about problem behaviors/edits are met with hundreds of words quoting dozens of often inapplicable policies, or with "I don't have time for this," instead of reasonable replies.
Wikipedia has a lot of rules, for reasons, but I am a firm believer that if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, full genome sequencing may be unnecessary in determining which of the Anseriformes it is. This is clearly a problem editor.
I was going to link to a diff of the ~15:00UTC OCT 20 post by @Adolphus79 on the problem editor's talk page, but it's now in a purple box of some sort that I am too inexperienced to manipulate properly; I agree with it wholeheartedly. Hiobazard (talk) 16:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hi, I'm here because I was invited on my talk page. I don't have a good history with Dustfreeworld - we had some issues in multiple articles and I essentially wrote what I wanted to say to him in a long reply. I've attached the last edit made to the discussion before I removed it from my talk page Special:Diff/1244386082 and even though I was quite harsh I didn't know how to counter the WP:PA, WP:HOUND and the repetitive WP:PRESERVE argument that Dustfreeworld sent to me (and he was not using properly - see also links instead of content) to the point where I had to use shortcuts which is something I rarely do. — Karnataka17:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the OP is someone with whom I have content dispute recently, thought that they have lost, holding a grudge, and post as IP in order to evade boomerang. They also hope that pinging others (who also have content disputes with me before) to this discussion can increase their chance of “winning”. There are much representations in the diffs they posted, many of them are either aged or tangentially-related. They posted those diffs in the hope that they can get rid of another editor by sheer weight of numbers, especially where said diffs involving other editors (aside from Adolphus79) were only about content dispute discussions that had either died or already been resolved. There are too many misrepresentations that would need much efforts to debunk. Anyway please see the new section below. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:51, 22 October 2024 (UTC); --Dustfreeworld (talk) 04:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I may quote myself: 'or with "I don't have time for this," instead of reasonable replies.' The lack of self-awareness here seems profound. Hiobazard (talk) 13:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comment, @Hiobazard. FYI, almost all the 16 diffs posted by the IP are misrepresentations that are either cherry picked or quoted out of context, in the hope that they can get rid of another editor by sheer weight of numbers; not to mention the 20 links to policies and essays with untrue claims that Adolphus79 posted on my talk page. Even if I can find the time to respond to all the 36 instances, I’m afraid that I don’t know how to, because most are misrepresentations that are not talking about what the issues really are (e.g., it’s like someone pointing at a dog and asks you do you like cats). If someone is determined, it won't be too difficult to cherry pick 16 diffs out of an editor's thousands of edits.
I have never heard that “don’t have time” is something that the community disallow voluntary editors to say. I have heard that wasting the community’s time *is* a problem. If I may ask, how many times are you going to quote yourself? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dustfreeworld I have been following this thread and I think that it s unreasonable to complain about the links to policies and essays that @Adolphus79 when you use them a lot too for example with my edits and WP:PRESERVE. you didn't care about my response and linked another essay Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read at special:diff/1244269909 where the second paragraph in that essay says "It can be misused as a tactic to thwart collaborative editing", which is exactly what you did by not even responding to my point - that sometimes revert/removal is the only option. I also did my job and did inform you of the removals at Talk pages, but you chose not to rea-dd the images or dispute the removal and accused me of trying to "WIN"? — Karnataka16:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I want to make it clear that it’s nothing wrong to link to policies and essays. That helps facilitating discussions. However, I don’t think linking 20 of them in one single comment (like the other user did) is an appropriate use. That’s absolutely not something I will, or have ever, do or done.
Re Tldr, I linked to it in response to your preceding comment (last sentence) that “I do hope that you read the entirety of this reply.” I interpreted that as you thought your comment were too long for me to read. But, that said, I can be wrong and there could have been misunderstanding or language barrier. I don’t think it’s true that I didn’t care about your response. I didn’t reply or edited the article further because I was conforming to the tban (which IMO not aligning quite right). Plus, since I decided that I would let go and unwatch that article, I just didn’t feel the need to response further (I won’t / can’t edit that article anymore why should I continue a content dispute with you?). Also, from our interactions I had the impression that you had dug deep into my contribs / talk page and should have known about my restrictions, so I was annoyed when I was pushed to response while I really couldn’t. That said, again, there might be misunderstanding and I might have misunderstood. If you are unhappy about my notion about WIN, I’m more than happy to retract that. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 13:40, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dustfreeworld Sure I don’t really mind about retraction because what’s said has been said. I added that because it was the first time that I remember writing a long comment like that and didn’t want my efforts to be wasted but your response to my reply clearly showed that you dismissed it (certainly not a misunderstanding), calling it a “time sink”, and I did quote what the essay said about this in the link above. — Karnataka14:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dustfreeworld But I’m confused because none of the topics we had dispute on were related to medical topics… I don’t know how Israel-Hamas war and David Pui could ever be linked to medicine (suicide could be somewhat medical-related but you rea-dded the topic on my talk page after my Israel-Hamas war article reversions so I don’t see that as a valid excuse) — Karnataka14:51, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I’ve already said my linking to an essay isn’t a “tactic” as said, I don’t think my comment above is “excuse” either. To be frank, as those content disputes were weeks or even months ago, I don’t think our memories serve perfectly and I don’t think I can clearly figure out where the misunderstandings are. Can we just be more friendly and collaborative and AGF? I do believe we did AGF, as I remember I have made an edit summary that has earned a thank from you not so long ago. It’s really not worth our/ the community’s efforts/time to dig up those dead discussions/ content disputes again just because someone pinged you here because they hold a grudge against me ... I hope you understand that. Thank you. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC); --Dustfreeworld (talk) 01:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dustfreeworld I don't think they were misunderstandings, and I do hold my reservations about this entire thing but I think it would be best if I just stopped replying here as our main editing topics are completely different and it isn't the best idea to keep dragging this, even though I don't think that this was resolved. I'll monitor this for outcome like what Hiobazard said he'll do too, but this was an experience and I don't think I'll comment here further unless I'm brought up again as you have suggested since it will be the best for both of us. thank you — Karnataka22:48, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) After 4 days, you haven't had time to make a single comment regarding the content of the original report against you, but have had enough time to file two additional retaliatory "reports" attacking me? - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I’m still studying the 36 links and pages. That said, I believe that even if I did make a single comment regarding one of the thirty six misrepresentations, it will not be enough to debunk it, and, there are still thirty five left (and, I won’t be surprised if someone continues to add more.) I figured that I’d better spend my time in filing two reports stating the true claims about the misbehaviours of an editor so that everyone can know and understand them. By the way, you declared that you are not the OP, who would you say that my reports (against you, not the OP) are retaliatory?
Baselessly accusing me of using the OP IP as a sock, and filing 2 retaliatory reports against me trying to deflect from your own report, those are personal attacks. It also further proves the points made by the OP IP and every other commentor. BTW, me calling you out on your obvious personal attacks against me is not a personal attack itself, so please drop that stick also. This is your chance to defend your statements and actions, to give the community a reason to believe you are a useful and worthwhile member or can at least make improvements, but instead you are using it to attack others and only furthering the case against you. I'm not sure what you think you are going to "debunk" by continuing the same course-of-action that got you here, but you had better hurry before this report gets closed. - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat: “you declared that you are not the OP, why would you say that my reports (against you, not the OP) are retaliatory?” It’s a query, not attack.
And again: “I don’t think my reports that written based on facts ‘attack’ you. I hope that comment is not another attack against me.”
This is your chance to defend your statements and actions, to give the community a reason to believe you are a useful and worthwhile member or can at least make improvements ... you had better hurry before this report gets closed.
I don’t know what do you mean by “elsewhere” as we are talking about this same discussion thread.
Aside, I’ve never said that I won’t make further comments here (even in the diff that you linked to); it’s *you* who said so. Please stop making comments like ”How very hypocritical of you” on other editors. I believe that kind of comments can get you blocked. Thank you. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 05:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, OP again. I pinged every user who I planned to add a diff from and adding a talk page notice to Karnataka (as I had to describe a dispute regarding you and them to WAID), including SandyGeorgia and WAID who you supposedly have good relations with so they can all see the ANI. I recognise that you don't know them, but you also supposedly have a few supporters https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dustfreeworld&diff=prev&oldid=1252453886 in which several users who have a high edit count are mentioned. Unlike described below, I am not using a VPN and even though I seem to have multiple VPNs they are all from the same area. I will continue to keep who I am ambiguous. 2A02:6B67:D622:5E00:19A5:EA39:9B52:10CC (talk) 13:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t know why you are pinging so many people here. Sometimes you implied that I was having disputes with some editors, and then later you said I have “good relations” with some of them. I hope your pings have nothing to do with this (quote: “When notifying other editors of discussions ... don't preselect recipients according to their established opinions.”). I don’t know why “my relations with other editors” are relevant to this discussion (unless people are trying to telll those who disagree with your untrue claims, or those who agree with my edits, not to post here). I’ll never be able to know your relations with other editors, as you are not disclosing who you are. Again, people who are seeing this please also see the new section below. Thanks and regards, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC); --Dustfreeworld (talk) 04:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RE to the IP's I will continue to keep who I am ambiguous
Which of the legitimate uses of sock accounts (in this case IPs) are you operating under?
It certainly seems hard to scrutinize your edits, as is expected when you comment on this board, when you have hidden your edits by editing while logged out - there's certainly good reasons for us wanting to be sure that you are not also involved in any of these or related discussions as another IP range or account.
I declare it's not me, I don't know squat about domains or proxies or VPNs or whatever, which is why I always edit logged in cuz I'm stuck on the same redneck POS DSL I've been using since 2009... also, I know how to spell 'behavior' and 'apologize'... (haha) - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UOWN indicates a user may delete anything they want from their userpage.
I have had encounters with DustFreeworld previously as well. I believe their edits are, for the most part, those of an advocacy group rather than encyclopaedic. It's quite obvious they're here on a focused mission to bring their advocacy against pollution into Wikipedia. Many of their edits are not encyclopaedic and are akin to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS or WP:SOAPBOXing. They put the same content in many articles, use live articles as sandboxes and drafts, spam their images that fail MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, add irrelevant content and twist the narrative to push for their clean air advocacy. It's an admirable advocacy, don't get me wrong, but it's not encyclopaedia building. Canterbury Tailtalk18:40, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OP here. Thanks for your input, I’d really appreciate it if you could also include some diffs so we can all see the nature of the edits by the editor. I included diffs from the other editors above in my original post but I didn’t come across this scenario, although the username Dustfreeworld does paint a picture for a start. 2A02:6B67:D622:5E00:A16E:DF9E:D908:F02F (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All these refute the above accusations and explain why I removed their problematic posts (which were posted after the discussion was closed) on my talk. There are probably more diffs, but I think the ones we have now are enough for a boomerang possible sanctions.
--Dustfreeworld (talk) 20:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC); --Dustfreeworld (talk) 04:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please kindly note my use of words “it *seems* to me”. While I’m won’t oppose a checkuser procedure, I’m not sure if it can identity all users who are using VPN, proxies, etc. Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 21:04, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, “Please kindly note my use of words ‘it *seems* to me’”. Having doubts doesn’t mean PA (as you have linked to). Please AGF. That said, I won’t mind if you change the word boomerang into “sanction”. Thanks and regards, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 21:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, I'm gonna let your completely unfounded statement of "I think the ones we have now are enough for a boomerang" stand fully on it's own, especially after our recent interaction, I'm done... checkuser, please! - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hope “your completely unfounded statement” isn’t an accusation against me. I hope the diffs I posted above can be looked into by ... someone (checkuser or whatever?) too. Thanks and regards, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 21:24, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to make this clear, if I was going to report Dustfreeworld, I would have reported them, myself, immediately after our conversation on their talk page. And I would have reported only our interaction, I wouldn't have needed any other evidence from their past transgressions. I am (mostly) proud of my edit history, and would also want those edits to count towards my account. The fact that Dustfreeworld refused to comment on a single aspect of the report though, deciding instead to single me out and openly attack me without a single piece of evidence, says volumes about their behavior in regard to the original report. - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence of what? That I used UPPERCASE just like you do? Or that I lost my cool? I've already apologized for saying a bad word (which, BTW, is mentioned 10 times on AN/I right at this moment outside of this thread), after you had tried to bully me for 2 days straight. Or do you want me to apologize for removing a message from my own talk page that was obviously left in bad faith considering your two edits on either side of that one being continuing to bully and attack me on your talk page? - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DFW, I think this post does you a disservice. It seems to support the above assertions that you cite and misapply policy you don't understand. I'm not sure what policy you're alleging was violated with your first diff, as WP:UPPERCASE is an essay, not a guideline. The second diff does indeed show some profanity... which is not inherently forbidden, and is CERTAINLY not vandalism. The third diff is the closest to what you say, but I can't say I blame Adolphus for getting heated. It's not great, but it's not the smoking gun you seem to think. The last diff is something that, again, would be better to avoid, but really doesn't seem something that would warrant sanctions, especially as it was removing a message form their own talk page.
The above thread also doesn't impress. "it seems to me" is not a get out of jail free card to imply whatever you like. If we're in a content dispute, and I said, "Oh man, there's this really bad editor I've had a dispute with. Their username starts with D, but that's all I'll say", you'd be right to accuse me of WP:NPA even though I didn't explicitly say it. You often tell people to WP:AGF, but per WP:PACT, that has limits. Also, note that checkusers don't connect accounts with IPs, and even if they did, WP:CHECKME explicitly forbids it. EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If ever asked, I would have happily apologized for the naughty word, but it was not directed at the editor themselves, and its nothing worse that you hear on broadcast TV anymore. @Dustfreeworld, I'm sorry that I was so weary of our conversation that I said a naughty word in my final message to you. - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since we now know that no one is going to do anything about this report, what's the point of adding a redundant (second) complaint about what you've already complained about above ("he said it twice")? - Adolphus79 (talk) 13:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Misunderstood WP:NBASIC, which is a section of Wikipedia:Notability (people), and wrongly think that it’s used to decide article content (while in fact it’s used to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dustfreeworld&diff=prev&oldid=1252136646 (and failed to admit that they are wrong even after the policy has been clearly explained to them “You are citing WP:NBASIC, which is a section of WP:Notability (people), but have you read the very first part of it? On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article.”)
After other’s patient explanation, they continue to misinterpret policies such as WP:N, saying that it’s used to determine “how the person is notable enough for inclusion”, while the guideline actually says, “The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic may have its own article”. Instead of admitting their mistakes, they chose to post warning template and more Uppercase, etc. on my talk page later on
jlwoodwa, please kindly note that the page you linked to (WP:LISTPEOPLE) is a section of the page Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. At the top of the page it says, “Stand-alone lists (also referred to as list articles) are articles composed of one or more embedded lists, or series of items formatted into a list.” I think that guideline is for stand-alone “list articles” only (but not the article in question which also has other content). Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 08:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:LISTBIO, which applies policies like WP:DUE to embedded lists. I don't see any discussion on the talk page making a case that it's due weight, and it's up to you to convince others it should be there, not them to convince you it shouldn't. But we're getting into the weeds here. I think it's clear that Adolphus, whether mistaken or correct, had reasonable cause for their interpretation. Even if mistaken, I don't know of any policy that requires someone to admit that they are wrong. Rather, an essay seems to suggest the opposite. It's okay to have been mistaken, and laudable to learn from it and become more correct in the future. I suggest you drop what looks like a retaliatory filing; I think it is only working against you at this point. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If Dustfreeworld had simply provided additional sources that showed the person in question was in fact notable for inclusion in a "notable person" section, anything other than "he died", with barely a mention of his name in a news article about someone else, I would have happily rescinded my opposition. Instead, they told me to find more sources to prove their point, that ONUS didn't apply to them, and tried to bully me to get their way (WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM trumps all P&G, WP:NOBLANK says I can't revert their changes, etc.). I never implied UNDUE, never said "he can't be included", I only tried to point out that Dustfreeworld was adding a "notable persons" section with a single occupant, without providing any signs of what the person was "notable" for (other than "he died"). I was genuinely hoping that Dustfreeworld would find the additional information, come back and add the individual again with some source that showed he was an award-winning journalist, that he had published a book, anything that showed a hint of passing notability concerns; instead, I had WP shortcuts thrown at me that Dustfreeworld obviously hadn't read before citing, was bullied, and continue to have attacks lobbed at me even now. All because I asked for more than "he is notable because he died". - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that any chance of reducing the recalcitrance and wikilawyering by this problem editor via discussion or consensus building is close to zero. Every rational argument, or reiteration thereof, is just met by delay and another (incorrect, typically) reference to policy with no admission or recognition of their consistently problematic and tendentious actions. @ScottishFinnishRadish: is a well-respected editor and administrator who has already been closely involved with this editor's problem behavior in the past and may be able to put this to bed - one way or the other. Other than monitoring for outcome, I won't be commenting further. Hiobazard (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This discussion is going nowhere fast. I submit all of the above as evidence, and move that this report be closed as Dustfreeworld has failed multiple aspects of WP:NOTHERE, and shows no signs of future improvement. - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you learned a new WP shortcut, and once again want to show that you failed to read it before citing it. WP:ASPERSIONS "is a situation where an editor accuses another editor or a group of editors of misbehavior without evidence". What did I accuse you of that you didn't do openly with plenty of evidence? Also, the original report is not about me, so why would it be closed with a comment about me? Unless you are once again accusing me of using the OP IP as a sock? - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm done... I do not believe you are incompetent, I believe you are simply NOTHERE. You know HOW to edit just fine, but your disdain for any comments not strictly following your "interpretation" of the P&G means you just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper. There is no reason for me to make any further comments. CalGon, take me away! - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m done too. Thank you.
P.S. For the record, I had waited for almost two days for your reply about the discussion (Indoor air quality) you initiated on my talk page before I blanked the page for privacy [2][3] (for my forth-coming edits at another unrelated article Asian News International). You were more than welcome to comment on that discussion to correct my “disdain”, although you didn’t. Instead you chose to comment/follow my edits to the unrelated ANI article and start another content dispute with me (with grudges?) ... --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Hiobazard. I’m glad that you have removed that ABF comment (which says “any further interaction with Dustfreeworld here will likely be useless”) Thank you.
I suppose by “wikilawyering” you mean the linking of 20 policies or essays in one single comment by Adolphus79? For the record, you didn’t reply to my (only) comment on Sep 27, which was a response to the discussion you started on my talk. I left the discussion opened until Oct 17before it’s closed. I don’t think that not responding to comment, and then, thought that they had lost the discussion and holding a grudge, later (when pinged) accusing another editor with claims like “consistently problematic and tendentious actions”, is a good example of consensus building or collaborative editing ...Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Request 31 h block for Dustfreeworld Regretfully, DFW doesn't seem to be getting the message that they need to disengage and perhaps reevaluate their interpretation of policy. The original report was disorganized and did not convince me there was a problem. It's only DFW's response, including two retaliatory filings and several personal attacks in this thread, which changed my mind.
Discussion has not seemed to change DFW's mind, and they have passed up several opportunities in this thread to let the matter drop. If this were closed with a warning, I suspect DFW would avoid this specific conflict, yet would continue to misapply policy (or modify essays to suit their interpretation). I hope a short block would convince them to consider others when they disagree with their novel policy interpretations rather than continue to edit disruptively based on them. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
”The original report was disorganized and did not convince me there was a problem. “ Thank you.
Aside, you said my filings convinced you there was a problem. Can you tell us more? Do you think Adolphus79’s accusing me of being “silly”, “shit on them” or explicitly failed to assume good faith (supported by their ES) when removing my message to seek peace on their talk, etc., were what convinced you? Or, do you think that citing/misrepresenting policies which were irrelevant to the situation under discussion (we were talking about embedded list, but the policies that Adolphus79 linked to were about stand-alone lists) repeatedly , was what convinced you?
PS. I urge you to retract your potential aspersion “misapply policy (or modify essays to suit their interpretation)” and "edit disruptively". That edit of mine has been standing for over a month. I don’t think the editors who have been watching that page will agree with your potential aspersion. I don't think an edit of mine telling editors to follow our editing policy is "disruptive"(if you really think so, I would start to wonder if it's a sign of WP:NOTHERE). BTW, please kindly note that it seems to me that you are making a no-edit order to tell others not to edit that page. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 07:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This response is an excellent example of why I think there's a problem. I begin to suspect 31 h is indeed too short, and an indef would better serve. Hiobazard seemed to be correct that discussion is not productive. I'll give it one last shot anyway. Why do I think some sanctions are needed?
You're harping on Adolphus instead of addressing your own behavior (a Red herring), implying that Adolphus describing something as shitting on them is somehow sanctionable, asking leading and argumentative questions that seem designed to score points rather than gain understanding (WP:BATTLEGROUND), claimed that a criticism of your behavior on a behavioral board was a potential aspersion yet somehow not realized that you're doing exactly the same thing. And claiming I'm WP:NOTHERE is particularly rich.
You also either missed the point (WP:CIR) or deliberately avoided it (WP:IDHT) regarding the essay. Consider: WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM which you tout and linked to states fix problems if you can, tag or excise them if you can't. (Emphasis mine) Your edit read Always follow the editing policy and revert only when necessary which both gives the impression that one must ALWAYS fix the problem, and also the impression that your interpretation, which is not supported by the policy page, is ironclad. That is deceptive and disruptive.
Finally, if you really don't see the difference between "you shouldn't change an essay to reflect an interpretation that has no consensus" and "don't edit that article", then that's on you. Your claim of "I didn't refute that point" also doesn't convince me that you understood the problem. And your Tu quoque of "Well if you believe that then you have to fix this other article" doesn't strike the zinger of a point you seem to think it does. In fact, it shows you still don't understand the policy. Only one entry would be removed from that list; the rest have their own articles, and therefore meet WP:LISTBIO.
It doesn't seem that discussion will be fruitful, so like Adolphus, I'm going to sit back and see what other editors think. I was originally trying to get this resolved without sanctions, and if no admin is convinced by this, perhaps that's what'll happen. I just expect we'll end up back here soon enough. EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't bother... After 8 days, it's obvious no one is going to do anything. They are just going to ignore this, letting it get archived without any action. Dustfreeworld seems to enjoy impunity here (check the archives), free to carry on their behavior with a new set of WP shortcuts to misuse when they bully their next victim... - Adolphus79 (talk) 12:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
”I begin to suspect 31 h is indeed too short, and an indef would better serve.” Because you can’t win the discussion?
”That is deceptive and disruptive.” So you are determined to join Adolphus79’s smear campaign?
What’s the problem to tell editors to “always follow the editing policy”, with a link to the policy in which it says “fix problems if you can, tag or excise them if you can't.”?
The link was added so that editors can click on it and read the policy themselves, read that line “fix problems if you can, tag or excise them if you can't” and follow it. How “deceptive and disruptive” can that be? That is aspersion.
You are linking to at least six WP shortcuts (i.e., wikilawyering), misinterpreting/ misrepresenting my edit, failed to assume good faith, escalating disputes, in an attempt to remove an editor. You're harping on me instead of addressing your own behavior (a Red herring). Your comment is making it obvious that you are WP:NOTHERE.
Aside, the person I added to the ANI article was well sourced. I did provide more sources on my talk page to support that upon query. Even if, I say if, someone really thinks that entry isn’t notable enough, removing the whole section outright (which Adolphus79 had done) is *not* following “tag or excise them if you can't [fix them]”. This further shows that how common editors misinterpret our ES and that my edit to BRD is essential. (FYI, that section of the ANI article needs *expansion*, I can’t do it because I was dragged here. They should do that. You should do that. But you decided to escalate here. Another proof that you are nothere.)
That said, let me repeat: this is not the right place to discuss policies or article content, unless you are nothere and want to use that to remove another editor, which you are trying to do now. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 13:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I didn’t refute to your comment on WP:LISTBIO because a) I don’t think this is the right place for policy discussion, b) I want to avoid battles in discussions, which is exactly complying to WP:BATTLEGROUNDS. But that doesn’t mean I agree with you on that. As I’ve said, “I think it’s normal for editors to have different opinions/ interpretations on policies. I’m totally fine with that.” (but I don't think I will ever cast aspersions on editors because of that) I suggest you reread. (BTW, if you still insist that I my interpretations of policy are “novel”, I suggest you edit this article and remove this whole section. Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 04:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even sure how to respond to that. I didn't post that retaliatory report, I didn't baselessly accuse anyone of sockpuppetry, and I didn't show how oblivious I am to the P&G (or that I haven't even read the WP shortcuts that I do use). - Adolphus79 (talk) 07:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment is telling us that you won’t stop that campaign of yours.
I give up, you make Wikipedia not fun anymore. I am tired of your attacks, your harassment, your complete lack of couth. You haven't made a single edit in the last week that wasn't attacking me in some way, and I genuinely hope someone puts an end to this before I just leave the project for good. You win, I'm the worst editor in the history of the project. Now, please, leave me the fuck alone. - Adolphus79 (talk) 08:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC) - Sorry, don't want to upset the babies... - Adolphus79 (talk) 08:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC) - we all know no one is going to stop this, 6 days of this BS without a single word from an admin about your behavior or actions just reminds me how unwelcome I am around here... you win, you can say whatever you want about me, they won't stop you, I should've known better than wander out of mainspace... I hope you figure out who the OP is one day, to focus all your misdirected hate on them instead... I'm going back to my corner... thanks for nothing ANI... - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[5] (reverting to this edit, claiming it need valid reason)
"I need a source that would suggest that Khereids were Turkic" (article literally states It is unclear whether the Keraites should be classified as Turkic or Mongol in origin. The names and titles of early Keraite leaders suggest that they were speakers of Turkic languages,)
I was mistaken, so I erased the said message. I was not politically targeted. To answer your claims, I have added the source for the Bashkurd spelling. You have also removed the assumed flag of Keraites (which you should not have done without editorial consensus) You have also labelled the last version of the Keraites page as “pre-edit war” which is not true. I have then reverted the page to the version before my first edit. You reverted it too. Vofa (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am editing this Keraites page, etc. for years, this was added later by whom idk, and there is no single indication that this is a tamga of the Keraites, so there is no reason for a consensus. And the page initially had Turco-Mongol lead, which was changed later. Beshogur (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you prove that it was that way before?[when?] You can see that the version before my edits was “Mongols|Mongol]] or Turkic” regarding their possible linguistic groups. Historians cannot tell which group they belonged to. You should not assume that they had a Turco-Mongol lead, which would not add up with the tradition itself, and would disagree with a set of historians and sources. As the Keraites arose in 10-11th centuries. You must back up the erasure of the supposed flag of the ethnic group. I need you to present sources for the assumption that Mongolic peoples had a tamga. You may be mistaking the unrelated Kerei clan in Kazakhstan with the Keraites. Vofa (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bashkurd (Beshgurd) is a historical ethnonym for the Bashkir/Bashkort people widely used in historical sources by a variety of European and Russian ethnologists up until today. I am here to make an encyclopaedia. I have provided a source for that spelling in English. It should stay up. Furthermore, I understood that edit-warring is not allowed on Wikipedia. I remember it was 3 reverts per user (not sure about specifics) I will not edit-war again and will talk to my mentor if I have any issues. Regarding Kazakhs, I have resolved the dispute. I believe the page should be protected. As for Keraites and Bashkirs I have recognised my mistakes and believe I have the right way of solving the dispute(s). I do recognise that the flag is attributed to a Kazakh tribe, not to Keraites. Vofa (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s called cherry picking and would mean that every editor involved in previous disputes on the topic may have wasted their time. I will wait for you to answer to this.
I'm not going to take any admin actions here, since Vofa contacted me ([10], [11]) before this AN thread was opened (I am not sure why this is here and not at ANI?), but it's my position that WP:NOTHERE is an absurd thing to say about this editor, who is making perfectly normal new-user edits and being reverted with unhelpful edit summaries like rv great improvement[12]. Vofa is clearly edit-warring (see the back-and-forths at Bashkirs and Keraites), but it takes at least two to edit war, and the only talk page discussion I've seen so far is Talk:Bashkirs#Bashkurd, which was opened by Vofa. There has been, as far as I can tell, no attempt by OP to resolve this in any way other than a template notice and then a post here almost immediately thereafter. Communication and assumptions of good faith are sorely, sorely lacking here. -- asilvering (talk) 20:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering: sorry, my mistake, I was going to place this to ANI.
I still don't get what am I supposed to discuss about "Bashkurd" spelling. There is literally 0 of this spelling variant in the article. I don't get his purpose here. We can put 100s of spellings for every ethnonym.
Also this user, after all this discussion, still removed "Turkic" stuff from the lead from Keraites article. Also same thing applies for Turkiishh (talk·contribs), but doing the opposite.
This user is not the first one to call me something like politically motivated editor so I have been dealing these for years. Can you please tell me how this edit shouldn't be reverted? The article literally states they're likely of Turkic origin. Most of his edits is this way. Beshogur (talk) 21:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So this user always removes some source or his edits are always correct, but according to him, we're supposed to discuss whether he adds/remove anything. Beshogur (talk) 21:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't get his purpose here, the most useful thing you can do is to give an explanatory edit summary when reverting, and recommend that the editor who made a confusing edit talk about it on the talk page. "rv great improvement" is not that. Regarding "politically motivated", it's extremely common for people to believe that wikipedians are engaged in some form of political censorship. That editors who are reverted without much discussion or rationale conclude that we're trying to hide some truth or whatever is pretty understandable, given the circumstances. As experienced wikipedians, it's our obligation to assume good faith when dealing with other editors who don't yet understand community norms - that means accepting that the editor made those edits in an attempt to improve the encyclopedia (whether they did improve it or not), and respond to them with that in mind. If you don't have the patience to deal with some particular incident, I recommend referring the newbie in question to WP:TEA, which is frequented by editors, including admins, who are used to dealing with confused newbies. -- asilvering (talk) 22:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also this is getting ridivulous. This user should stop complaining about me on administrators articles. Another example of his behavior. Beshogur (talk) 08:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are not being "targeted". You both got into an edit war, you dragged this to AN, and now the best thing you can do is drop it and discuss the changes you want to make. Take the advice asilvering gave you above. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite17:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So I need consensus because this used adds something controversial and I revert disruptive editing?. I thought it was the opposite? Maybe check this users edit history before commenting like this. Beshogur (talk) 14:45, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If your reversions amount to participating in an edit war, which they did, yes, you both need to stop editing the article and discuss your changes instead. Please follow WP:BRD. If you give a substantial, helpful edit summary when you revert Vofa, and start a collegial talk page discussion in which you assume good faith, and Vofa ignores that and reinstates their edit, then you're on much firmer ground and it's more likely that Vofa will be blocked for edit warring. If you don't do anything like that and then you're rude to uninvolved editors at ANI, it doesn't look very good. -- asilvering (talk) 15:45, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have a non-extended-confirmed user who has been warned about contentious topics in April but is edit-warring in an article which is clearly on the contentious topic issue. For me, this is an invitation for a block or a topic ban.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On top of this, he has now started mimicking the start of this discussion, and is casting accusations of WP:NOTHERE against other editors. [14][15] I would think that the response Beshogur received here should have made it clear for Vofa also that such accusations should not be made lightly. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 06:43, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask why we won't get page protection to prevent these things happening at the first place? I asked to Keraites and Bashkirs for pp, didn't get single time despite his tendentious editing. Also this user has full of personal attacks and such edits in his edit history, feel free to check his profile. Beshogur (talk) 11:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have time to look into this further this weekend, but if you or any other uninvolved editor thinks sanctions are needed, feel free. I protected the page in lieu of blocking both for edit warring. StarMississippi13:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Star Mississippi:Reverting vandalism is not edit warring. I showed this user's attitude towards other users, and edits on other articles, yet you blame me. I asked twice page protection and it was not awarded. Beshogur (talk) 14:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Beshogur, what Vofa is doing is not vandalism. Vandalism is someone making changes with an intent to disrupt the encyclopedia. This is very clearly a user who believes the best version of wikipedia includes the information they keep trying to reinstate. They might be wrong and they're certainly struggling to gain consensus for their edits, but that doesn't make them a vandal. -- asilvering (talk) 17:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am having a lot of trouble determining if Closed Limelike Curves (talk·contribs) is editing voting articles boldly or disruptively. For example, they rewrote Primary election so that it referred to partisan primary elections, and then moved the article in mid-September, changing primary election to a disambig page, which triggered a fair number of semi-automatic updates. After I moved it back to the original title a week ago, he held a short discussion involving two (I think) other editors and declared there was consensus to move it back to his preferred title.
Over at Instant-runoff voting, there was a similar problem. He tried to start a discussion at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, but there seemed to be broad agreement that there was not a content dispute, but rather a problem with CLC's editing methods.
CLC is not a newbie - they've been editing like this for some time. Their request for Page Mover in August was denied because of too many reversals.
Given the long-term disruption that this has involved, the time sink this has produced for multiple other editors, and the distortion of the neutrality of our voting articles, my suggestion would be to push them to edit some other topic that might be less fraught for them than voting. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CLC is not a newbie
Worth noting I've only been making substantial edits for under a year, so I'm still pretty new.
CLC also started a move discussion on Talk:Smith set, and when I told Lime that we needed sources for the name, not "it makes more sense", they answered Are we not allowed to include "this term makes more sense to normal people" as a consideration at all, when choosing between multiple similarly-notable names? That would certainly have changed my behavior with regard to most of the moves I've made, since generally that's the justification I've used—in all these situations, the page move was from one common name in the literature to another, similarly-common name that I think is more intuitive or memorable to the average person. On a new article, this would make sense, but after 13 years at a title, I think we need a bit more than that. --SarekOfVulcan (talk)17:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...huh. TIL there's a completely different policy for page moves than there is for edits. (In body text there's no presumption against changing things—"I think this phrasing is better" is a perfectly valid reason for an edit.) Sorry about that, then. I guess one more question:
Changing one controversial title to another without a discussion that leads to consensus is strongly discouraged.
When the policy says "controversial", does this mean something like "someone might like the old title better" (limiting undiscussed moves to stuff like fixing typos)? Or something closer to "the title is often the subject of dispute/disagreement"? – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't that problem caused by tagging the deleted article titled primary election as a disambiguation page and then people making semi-automated edits under the assumption that the tag was correct? Or is this a different incident? McYeee (talk) 04:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Involved editor here. Can you restore the deleted disambiguation to draftspace or userspace? I thought I remembered it having multiple editors, and that seems relevant to this thread. Regardless of how this thread goes, I'd also like to try to find those semi-automated edits again because they seemed to have a significant number of errors. McYeee (talk) 06:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to run a sockcheck, but I don't think our interests overlap much. I think in the first edit we're expressing almost-opposite suggestions, though; I was thinking of using AMS as the name for what most people call MMPR, i.e. the New Zealand/devolved UK system, then expanding the scope of the MMPR article to discuss other kinds of mixed rules. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 17:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For example, they rewrote Primary election so that it referred to partisan primary elections and then moved the article in mid-September,
I didn't rewrite the article much, except for the minimum necessary to change the title. The article was already about partisan primaries. However, at the time the article was written, these were the only kind of primary elections, and so the article did not make a distinction. The title "partisan primary" is more explicit and less likely to cause confusion.
In this case, the move was a response to the semantic drift, with nonpartisan primary having become a common way to refer to the first round of a two-round system, after the states of California and Washington adopted this terminology. The consensus on the talk seems to agree that the majority of the article belongs at "partisan primary", with disagreement about whether the old title of "primary election" should be a disambig or an article (McYee and Toadspike supporting an article vs. PhilosopherSpock preferring a disambig).
changing primary election to a disambig page, which triggered a fair number of semi-automatic updates.
I believe someone else changed it to a disambiguation page, which is what caused the disruption. I left it as a redirect, which shouldn't have caused any issues. I'm a bit confused by this ANI since nobody seems to have raised any actual objections to the move, just questions about what to do with the redirect that got left behind. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 16:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
my view is that this editor is an intentionalcivil POV pusher with frequent diffs, additions, or wholesale rewrites to social choice related pages to make them 1. more focused specifically on political elections rather than objects of mathematical study and 2. to emphasize certain refrains common in the amateur election reform community, namely those around IRV and STV's ability to exhibit certain behaviors, and extended & out-of-place soapboaxing about cardinal utilities vs ordinal
When called out on specific technical concerns this editor is willing to play ball by Wikipedia's rules, but the pattern of behavior shows an extremely clear lack of objectivity and technical expertise. And it is quite the burden of work for other editors to keep up with correcting all the affected articles.
One particular comment in the thread Affinepplan mentions above is where Lime claims The ANI thread is for the unrelated question of whether I made too many page moves. First, that's not an unrelated question, second, it's the quality of the moves, not the quantity, and third, it's not about if your moves are disruptive, but your editing in general. I'm focusing on the moves in this report because they can do the most damage, but they are hardly the only problem. --SarekOfVulcan (talk)20:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sockpuppet or no, CLC's editing at Instant-runoff voting continues to be out of control. Today, after being reverted for an 11k-character addition to the lead (!) with the reverting edit summary being "30 references in the lede, skipping levels of header - please review WP:LAYOUT" their response was to reinstate even-longer versions of the same changes, twice. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, @SarekOfVulcan reverted some of my changes on the grounds that I'd accidentally skipped levels in headers (i.e. went straight from 4→6), as stated in the edit summary. As a result, I reinstated the changes after correcting the formatting errors. If Sarek has some other disagreement regarding the content of the page, he can undo my edit and explain why he still dislikes the new version in the edit summary. (By the way, I did it twice because a user complained about the length of the restore the first time. I self-reverted the page back to Sarek's version, then broke the edit into two chunks to create an easier-to-read diff.) – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 23:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to suggest that Lime be restricted from moving any pages until they demonstrate that they understand when pages should and should not be moved. At Talk:Preferential voting, they just suggested moving the dab page to a (disambig) title and redirecting it to Ranked-choice voting, because TL;DR is that it looks like the majority of searches for PV are from Australia, which uses it to mean RCV. --SarekOfVulcan (talk)15:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a straightforward application of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I suggested the page instant-runoff voting/RCV is the primary topic, because "preferential voting" is overwhelmingly an Australian term used to mean RCV. I raised this issue on the talk page for discussion and did not move the page myself. How would that be disruptive? – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 16:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that proposing to move a page on a talk page should not be used as a basis for imposing a restriction on moving pages -- seeking consensus like this is what we should be encouraging. CapitalSasha ~ talk16:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Asking, or starting a move discussion, isn't what I'd consider disruptive. My concern is that Lime might go "ok, one person agreed with me, nobody else said anything, we're good" and moving a long-standing article title without any further input. --SarekOfVulcan (talk)16:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a reasonable thing to comment on the talk page, to make sure it doesn't happen. On the other hand, restricting a user's move privileges because they hypothetically could have used them incorrectly, but didn't, seems bizarre; if anything, seeing an editor ask for consensus shows they're less likely to move pages incorrectly.
(And is "one person agreed with me" never enough to declare consensus, even for minor moves? At the extreme, I don't think correcting typos requires any discussion on talk. I'd like more clarity on exactly how much consensus is needed for different page moves, ideally with examples.) – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 17:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are about 80 thousand examples of move discussions if you search for "Requested move" but usually the easiest thing to do would be to start one and list it at WP:RM (well a bot does that for you, you just need to use the template).You get free examples that way, and only in pages that you're interested in, and as an added advantage if anyone gets dragged to ANI it would likely be someone else. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m a fairly green editor and I find it very instructive to read and participate in open move discussions at WP:RMC and see how they are closed. You’ll see what’s controversial, the numerous policies and other considerations that support a title change/move, and how consensus is assessed. Typically if there is low participation or opinions are mixed a request is relisted or closed without moving. Moves are rather drastic changes and often arguments that might have been persuasive if we were deciding what to name a brand new article aren’t enough to change a stable title. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk03:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everytime I interact with this editor in talk pages, they are always throwing the WP:OWN card on me, when I have explained thoroughly in the talk page why their edits were reverted or removed. Then their usual response is bringing up "WP:OWN" rather than discussing the content posted in the article.[18][19][20] This editor was blocked last year for personal attacks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotwiki (talk • contribs) 18:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding guidelines established in WP:OWNBEHAVIOUR, here's a list of diffs.
1. The editor might claim the right to review any changes before they can be added to the article: [21][22][23]"you are once again pushing for unnecessary changes"
3 & 4/ An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it unnecessary and without provoiding an edit summary that refers to relevant Wikipedia policies: [24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31]"No need to change the lead section, no need to mention"
5. An editor comments on other editors' talk pages with the purpose of discouraging them from making additional contributions. [32][33]
6. An editor reverts any edit with a personal attack in the edit summary. [34]"nobody agreed in the first place. Let it go"
Didn't I explain why those edits were reverted? Also you've added several incorrect information which I brought up in the talk page and I didn't resort to personal attacks.[36][37][38][39][40] I Can't link everything because there's too many changes that were contested, so I suggest read the talk page archive of that article. Hotwiki (talk) 18:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the administrators, I am bringing up this issue, because I want to find a way to continue to improve the article of Kylie Minogue, without being insulted by @PHShanghai: for the next time, they made another edit that I don't agree with or I find incorrect that I would need to remove or edit for the benefit of the article. The first time I interacted with this editor (last year), they changed the entire lead section. When I pointed out the first four albums of Kylie Minogue weren't teen pop albums, they responded to not having to listen to those albums in a long time.[41] Since then, they were too many edits from that editor that I didn't agree with. Hotwiki (talk) 19:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You mean this discussion?[42] I was explaining myself. If I was owning the article, I wouldn't have removed a content I posted several years ago. Hotwiki (talk) 19:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Statement 6 from the WP:OWNBEHAVIOR guideline page is "I can see nothing wrong with the article and there is no need to change anything at all." Here are the diffs of your previous comments:
[43]"This seems like another unnecessary change to the opening paragraph, that doesn't improve the article."
[45]"I suggest you edit other articles, instead of drastically changing the lead section whenever you make an edit in this article."
[46]"If we look up at the history of this article, you've always find something to change in the lead article – which in my opinion, doesn't improve the article"
[47]"No need to point that out in the lead section"
I did explain in those links, why your changes were unnecessary. You did change the lead section several times, to the point I've noticed misinformation which I later removed then discussed in the talk page, so you would have understand why they were reverted/removed/edited. Hotwiki (talk) 19:25, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PHShanghai, @Hotwiki, there's two of you involved in a content dispute. My recommendation is that you try to solve this in small chunks at a time via WP:3O or perhaps try WP:DRN. I see that this is has been a FA since 2009. If you think it's in really bad shape, you may want to try going to WP:FAR with the issues. Both of you need to try to keep this focused on content, rather than on each other - remove the word "you" from your vocabulary if you have to. @Hotwiki, this does look at least superficially like WP:SQS; please try to revert other editors as little as possible. No comment on the content dispute - for all I know, you're correct - but try to give a little, where you can.
@Asilvering: My final comment on this- I have gone to o DRN and follow their recommended guidelines before, to try and settle the content dispute. But ultimately the issue isn't a singular content dispute (like disagreeing on one part of the article) but having my (mostly minor) edits consistently suppressed, reverted and having passive-aggressive comments consistently thrown my way. If Hotwiki would stop the stonewalling for every single one of my edits and actually work together collaboratively maybe the article can actually start to be improved. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 03:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I didn't want to collaborate, I wouldn't have explained my edits directly in the talk page. If you look at the talk page of that article, there were several times, I pinged you to discuss the changes I've made. Look at how long and extensive the talk page is, just for me to get my points across and to prevent edit warring. You aren't being stonewalled, as you've made several changes in the article, that I didn't revert, I didn't challenge and still remain in the article – before you were reported here in ANI.[48][49]Hotwiki (talk) 13:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hotwiki, as gently as I can: those are really quite minor edits. Meanwhile, you have made over 1000 edits to the article. I recognize that you've been working on the article for nearly 20 years now and your edit count is likely to be high for that reason alone, but I'm finding it really difficult to see evidence of collaboration here. That doesn't mean neither of you have ever tried to collaborate, but it's clearly not working right now. Perhaps you both need to take a break from this one for a while and try again.
@PHShanghai, I should have mentioned this in my earlier comment when I told Hotwiki that this does at least superficially look like WP:SQS: it's clear that your edits to the lead of the article are the most contentious, so I would suggest avoiding any changes to the lead for now. I do think Hotwiki needs to give a little, but you're not making it easy for them. Start with the less-contentious parts and work up from there. -- asilvering (talk) 19:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
non-admin comment - @Hotwiki, I think it's time for you to chill away from this specific article. I really want to refrain from using medical terminology, as I am not a practising doctor, but this history you've got with this article brings to mind Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD). Over a thousand edits to the article; specifically working on this for some 20 years? Look, the average Joe or Jane would just lose interest in a given article over the span of a fraction of that time. Think there's also some perfectionism going on here, something that's clearly been a bit too consuming for you. It may be time to take the dog for a walk. BarntToust16:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based from this, I made my first edit in the article in year 2005.[50] From 2005 to 2024, I have made 1,064 edits - which from my recollection, most of my edits (from that article) were published from 2023 to 2024, if I'm not mistaken. As I don't recall editing the article during the 2010s especially especially during "off-eras" - years when there was no new album. The reported editor - PHShanghai, made several incorrect information/unreferenced claims - which were all brought up in the talkpage. The reported editor also has a history of personal attacks based from reading their talkpage and I wasn't the only one they accused of WP:OWN. See this link [51] about their experience in a different Wikipedia article. There wouldn't have been an issue in the first place, if the editor I mentioned wasn't posting wrong information. This month - they claimed a live album was released in 2022, when it was originally released in 2021. They claimed that Kylie Minogue haven't toured in North America since 2011, when the artist had several shows in Las Vegas in 2024/23, also another concert in 2018. Not only they were false information, they were also unreferenced. Then there were several other false claims throughout the last 12 months. They claimed singles had a "significant noise" when those singles didn't chart in the top ten of her major markets and had no certifications. Hotwiki (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I figured. Rather, the proper words would simply be "perhaps a bit too obsessed" with a given article, no? Duly noted, @Floquenbeam.
Otherwise, frankly, I think that this compilation of slight original research from the other editor and other general, non-overbearing content inaccuracies says zilch, until some diffs can be found. BarntToust20:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In which part I was uncivil with PHShanghai? I reverted the "misinformation" they posted in the article. I did not call them names. I'm the one who is reporting that user for personal attacks. Hotwiki (talk) 20:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just make sure communication is prioritised. Your edit summaries could be a bit more detailed as to why you remove the content, and the value of "not needed" as an edit summary is about as informational and as much as an attempt to communicate on issues of content as PHShanghai's "WP:OWN" remarks. BarntToust20:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read Talk:Kylie Minogue. Plenty of issues were brought up in the talkpage and I just didn't explain things in edit summaries. I've made several talk page sections to explain certain things to PHShanghai. I've told them in that talkpage to discuss things first in the talkpage, before making dozens of changes, due to their history of making false information (that weren't backed uo by a reference) and to prevent edit warring and the cycle of reverting each other's edits. PHShanghai have also brought up their "lead section" to RFC twice, and their proposed changes weren't implemented due to lack of support. Hotwiki (talk) 20:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I agree, looking at PHShanghai's talk page, they're on a history of a few disputes November of last... year, so on, so forth. But the way to deal with editors who may introduce a problematic dynamic isn't to just shove 'em off to the side and dismiss them with a couple vague words, a direct approach is preferred. Clearly, you're right, Hotwiki, but you have to keep up with the right way of taking out the garbage. BarntToust20:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My final comments on this, just to make it very clear, as I went off-wiki for several days.
A: @BarntToust:, I am actually going to defend @Hotwiki: here. They may have a major edit history with this article, that has been acknowledged. But in real life I suffer from chronic health OCD (I am being treated currently) and your comment is very misrepresentative of OCD and the reality of it; I am just saying this to remind you, not in a way where I'm offended or take your comment as a personal attack. Hotwiki's editing and comments so far has not shown signs of emotional stress, and I doubt they have intrusive, disturbing violent thoughts about editing Wikipedia articles, as most people with OCD have. I think that they are just a perfectionist for this specific topic area. Next time I would be very careful with making those kinds of side comments randomly dropping names of disorders- some may see it as a violation of NPA. But I am only saying this to educate you and not to attack or belittle you.
B: @Asilvering:. I agree that the lead should be kept stable for now to avoid contention. I also mention that I do take a lot of breaks from editing contentious articles; the last lead disagreement in July got pretty hectic and I took time off and edited other things that describe my interests. I want to make editing the article as easy and smooth as possible. I don't think the Kylie article is that important to fight another editor on; I think that with time, the article itself will naturally improve in quality and I don't see it as a must-edit article everyday.
Second, I can point out several times you made me feel unwelcome in the Kylie Minogue editing space. You revert my edits instead of building onto them; for example, you remove text about her Tension Tour being her first all-arenas tour in NA for being "unreferenced" when we can work together to add a reference for that specific text. This is my answer to everything you've said demeaning me- the prose can be changed or modified upon, but you block my attempts to build onto the content with a usual edit reason of "No need to change this". I want to build onto the article collaboratively, but instead you have spammed unnnecessary templates on my talk page (which is usually seen as a sign of passive aggression) and looked into my previous disputes with other editors as a "Gotcha!" moment, which feels very uncivil and inappropriate. The only reason why I say WP:OWN consistently is because I don't have to talk to you in the talkpage first to make "dozens" of minor edits and have you approve every single one of them. This doesn't mean that I am permanently uninterested in talk page discussions- but as the admin notified you, my edits are not overtly drastic nor threaten the stability of the article.
Yeah, @PHShanghai, the off-colour remark about OCD was when I realised I probably wasn't thinking straight, and needed to write a joke article Wikipedia:No episcopal threats instead of saying some real dumb shit here for literally no reason. Humbly, I apologize for making an ass of myself. BarntToust12:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"You revert my edits instead of building onto them" - this is simply not right, its not my responsibility to find references for your original research. You've been in Wikipedia long enough, to know you should post references. You have a history, in that article for posting misinformation. If you are being reverted, its not for personal reasons, it was merely for the benefit of the article. My experience in that article with you - you were the first one to throw insults and thats why you were reported here in Ani. Even here, you are calling me "passive aggressive", when I am just being a direct person. There are warning templates in Wikipedia that can be placed in user talk pages, it was posted in your talkpage for a reason and it wasn't to "spam" you. I brought up your disputes with other editors, because I noticed a pattern and it's not a good look. If you were already blocked for personal attacks, surely you wouldn't do it again. Rather discussing things in a civil way with me. You once again used the "OWN" card on me, which I find very insulting as it devalues my contributions.[52] By the way, that warning template was posted in their talkpage due to them posting misinformation, which was also discussed in the talk page of that article.[53]Hotwiki (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KylieNectar is not here to build an encyclopedia; transphobia and personal attacks
Thank you. I do have issues, which I am working on. I believe this person’s attempted smear campaign is completely inappropriate considering I left the talk page on George Floyd alone after being asked to, and this person’s comments on Amber McLaughlin’s pages hit home as I have been attacked by someone similar. Obviously, Czello would not have known that but I think they need to get off their high horse and look at another perspective. KylieNectar (talk) 21:40, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A whole of fourteen edits, and in that time has managed to be transphobic on multiple occasions and accused other editors of being rape apologists. That's a pretty bad ratio. — Czello(music)21:45, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“Other editors” speak honestly. I accused you and only you. Transphobia? Others made the same point as me. You’re not making posts about them, are you? Nowhere in my edits have I had prejudice against trans people. In fact, one of my edits is correcting the language used when referring to trans woman in an article. The only prejudice I have is against rapists who use a minority group to avoid punishment. Many trans people will agree with my point here. Perhaps my behavior on talk pages is inappropriate at times, but to create a smear campaign just because I insinuated something about you is unnecessary. You could’ve left this alone, or at the very least kept an eye on my edits and made this thread when I said more things that are unnecessary on Wikipedia, but you didn’t. Please, leave me alone now. KylieNectar (talk) 21:54, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you accused me of being a rape apologist. Thank you for owning up to that. It's inexcusable.
I've removed this as a vile personal attack. The words written more generally by this editor at that talk page show a battleground mentality and need to stop. While I agree with JSS that this editor is new and should be given a chance to change, they will actually need to change otherwise this will end in a block pretty quickly. Daniel (talk) 21:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not take kindly to being called transphobic by a stranger. Just as my personal attack was wrong, this is as well. We can discuss my behavior without labeling it. KylieNectar (talk) 22:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Think what you want to. But don’t create a discussion saying I am insincere, and certainly don’t state your opinion in the discussion above. Readers of this topic need an unbiased source, and claiming I am transphobic is in fact biased especially when I am trans myself. KylieNectar (talk) 22:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can see on my contributions page that the last edit I made of Czello’s statement was at 22:17 and I replied to your comment at 22:18. KylieNectar (talk) 22:24, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KylieNectar, consider this a formal warning: The Neutral point of view is a core content policy, and compliance with that policy is mandatory. We write about crimes and criminals neutrally and dispassionately, and let readers draw their own conclusions from the neutral content presented. If you cannot edit in the crime topic area without letting your rage and indignation get the better of you, then do not edit about crimes and criminals. And do not engage in personal attacks against your fellow editors. Cullen328 (talk) 22:31, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
INDEFfed AGF is not a suicide pact and their behavior belies their edit count. They're welcome to make an unblock request and convince a reviewing admin they're not here to troll. StarMississippi00:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not, myself, accusing anyone and wished to bring this to the attention of administrators for further investigation to see if this article has ground to stand on or is baseless. The editors directly mentioned in the article will receive an AN/I notice as the news article itself accuses them of violating Wikipedia guidelines and policies. I have done no further investigation and am just simply doing the initial alert to the matter. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)04:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The statement "Pirate Wires conducted a really detailed "investigation" into several Wikipedia editors over the last several months" is inaccurate. As I have said elsewhere, I see the primary utility of articles like this as
a useful reminder of the Gell-Mann amnesia effect
a way to identify actors with an elevated susceptibility to misinformation and manipulation and/or a willingness to generate or inject disinformation into Wikipedia's systems either directly or by employing external vectors.
The Tech for Palestine group is probably worthy of some investigation however, but as I said at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel#Canvassing, this does not appear to have happened, or at least no one has presented any evidence at the PIA5 discussions or at AE about individual accounts.
Ah. Now see, I did not know it was already being discussed in ArbCom/other places already. That pretty much answered that. This discussion (on AN/I) can be closed as it seems there is already something being looked into and my alert was just late to the party more or less. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)04:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Out of interest, and setting aside the casual defamation, I will be trying to track the effects within the PIA topic area. These kinds of articles are not unusual, but this particular one is quite a nice sharp external signal. So, it may be possible to see the effects as the information impacts the topic area and editors. I have seen this and this so far. "already being discussed" is maybe the wrong way around. There is discussion about a possible PIA5 case. The discussions have included quite a lot of statistical evidence. Unless it is a coincidence, I assume the article was produced to provide external pressure on ArbCom to reduce the likelihood of them not taking the case. So far me, as someone interested in the complicated dynamics of the PIA topic area, it is quite an interesting development. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be appropriate for each of the editors involved in the ARCA discussion around PIA5 to be asked to confirm or deny whether they had any involvement in the Pirate Wires article? Onceinawhile (talk) 07:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody needs permission to ask questions in the PIA5 discussion and hope for open and honest answers. I have already asked BilledMammal since the article uses some of their data. If they have some background/context, they can share it openly, or they may know nothing about it and be surprised by the way their work has been used. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sean.hoyland, that seems reasonable. Do you know whether the second analysis in the Pirate Wires article - on co-editing - was also prepared by a user and discussed at ARCA? It is a nonsense analysis of course - it would look much the same if you cherry picked a similar number of editors who spend time in any topic area. But the interesting question is whether that analysis was prepared by Ashley Rindsberg (the write of the Pirate Wires article), or by someone else. And how did they know how to pull the underlying data? Onceinawhile (talk) 13:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Onceinawhile, Zero0000 asked something similar here so you can see my answer there. I hope the analysis wasn't done by anyone allowed to edit Wikipedia because it is horrifyingly dopey, the kind of thing that would get you immediately fired and escorted out of the building in my world. I don't know how the data was generated but the account list obviously comes from BilledMammal's list of accounts that have made 100 or more edits within the topic area since 2022. But the connection between the authors "amongst top 30 members of this group" statement and reality is not obvious to me e.g. why is Surtsicna there? They might be quite surprised to learn that they are pro-Hamas Wikipedia hijacker and might consider it defamatory and want the author to pay for them to buy a new nicer house or maybe a new car. It's easy enough for someone with access to generate page intersection counts for 30 accounts and produce a crosstab with code and share it as a google sheet, or maybe someone foolish did it manually using the Editor Interaction Analyzer tool. Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In February, an explicitly coordinated effort was launched when leaders on a group called Tech For Palestine (TFP) — launched in January by Paul Biggar, the Irish co-founder of software development platform CircleCI — opened a channel on their 8,000-strong Discord channel called “tfp-wikipedia-collaboration.” In the channel, two group leaders, Samira and Samer, coordinated with other members to mass edit a number of PIA articles. The effort included recruiting volunteers, processing them through formal orientation, troubleshooting issues, and holding remote office hours to problem solve and ideate. The channel’s welcome message posed a revealing question: “Why Wikipedia? It is a widely accessed resource, and its content influences public perception.”
Uh, I am not an Israel-Palestine DS/GS understander, but I seem to remember when GSoW, EEML, etc did this we responded with something other than "close the ANI thread within an hour and tag the journo's page with {{notability}}". Is this being addressed at the arb case?? jp×g🗯️16:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Samisawtak is one of the editors involved in running the group. As for the article itself, it misses the actual issues with the group:
It is affiliated with an actual EEML-style mailing list, to the extent of coordinators recruiting for the list on the channel
It is used by community-banned editors, who have since being blocked engaged in the off-wiki harassment and outing of Wikipedia editors, to request edits be made - requests that are acted upon
It instructs non-ECP editors to make edits in the topic area
Ah yes, I forgot about the Wikipedia rule that even connecting 2 anonymized strings across the on-wiki/off-wiki boundary is treated as a form of outing, a rule so strange to me that I can't even remember it. Nevermind then. Thanks. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JPxG, I would say, no, the Tech For Palestine group is not being addressed in the PIA5 discussions in any detail, although it has come up. Some information about the group has been available since last June I believe, or thereabouts. One thing that is interesting about the Discord screenshots for me is statements like "I have been levelling up on WP by doing quite a few simple edits". This is what a lot of people do of course to cross or tunnel through the ARBECR barrier, but I would like to know whether this kind of "levelling up" activity is being done inside or outside of the topic area and whether the accounts have EC privileges or not. Most of the topic area is not EC protected. Many edits by non-EC editors in the topic area are given a pass/not noticed because they are "simple edits" or look/are constructive. This is a backdoor that is probably being exploited by activists and ban evading sockpuppets every day. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I learned about this article and thread because WeatherWriter pinged me on my talk page. I'm sure there will be a proper investigation but just want to preemptively say that I have never heard of TFP, do not work in tech, and don't even have a Discord. Thanks. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 05:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have heard of TFP, and despite being one of the top 30 members of a powerful pro-Hamas group hijacking Wikipedia, and despite having okay tech skills, I did not even receive an invitation to join the group. This is the kind of thing people with feelings tell me can feel hurtful. I admire your optimistic 'I'm sure there will be a proper investigation' attitude, a view that I do not share. Sean.hoyland (talk) 06:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Say what? This seems extremely farfetched and far too convenient to be true.
Given that the vast majority of this world's population aware of the Israel-Hamas War statistically seem to be against the human rights violations that are happening to the Palestinians, and this is the international version of Wikipedia, isn't it far more likely and reasonable that a larger amount of Wikipedia editors would simply also share this viewpoint, whereas the editors who support the actions of the government of Israel would, without external backing, be considerably fewer in number, whereas the cited news article in question is a doctored, possibly Mossad-ordered, smear campaign in order to get almost all hindrances out of the way, so any sources that the Israeli government doesn't like can quickly be discredited and banned from any usage, especially Al Jazeera, and then remove virtually all public documentation of ongoing Israeli crimes against humanity from all Wikipedia pages related to the ongoing conflict? David A (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like the kind of product produced by one or more fools for the sizable credulous fool market rather than by smart professionals in the IC. I assume the author's main objective could simply be engagement/chasing clicks, but the objective of anyone who helped them to produce the product, and that 'anyone' could be no one of course, is not obvious to me. It might become clearer over time. For example, it is already being used to undermine confidence in RfC closures and argue for relitigating RfCs, which is quite interesting. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that in my experience, play-acting being a part of the Israeli IC doing important collection work is quite a common feature of anti-Palestine/pro-Israel activists interested in Wikipedia, and it is a comedy goldmine. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there have been a few separate quite recent attempts to completely remove the English version of Al Jazeera as a reliable source in the past, as well as at least one attempt to remove +972 Magazine as well, so if this "journalist" succeeds in getting most of the editors who are against human rights abuses against Palestinians banned en masse, without any reliable evidence, that effort could easily be resumed by others and passed this time around. Then again, I have an overactive pattern-recognition. David A (talk) 06:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A difference, I think, is that the arguments made to challenge the reliability of sources like Al Jazeera here tend to resemble the product of rational actors, whether you find them persuasive or not, rather than someone off their meds with paranoid dreams of anti-editor pogroms. Where are the Fred Fishers? Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. My apologies if I went too far with the paranoia then. There has been quite a lot of agitation against Wikipedia from news and social media that support the Israeli government recently, and I have even been subjected to a few death threats here in Wikipedia because of it. David A (talk) 17:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not you David A, the author of the article. The lack of clarity in my comments, kindly brought to my attention by Zanahary, is apparently never going to improve. Yes, editing in the PIA topic area can include a free death threat package thanks to the generosity of the more extreme anti-Palestine/pro-Israel activists. This package deal appears to expire though as I don't receive them anymore. The attacks on Wikipedia and editors will no doubt continue, and probably escalate. My view is that being attacked personally, defamed or whatever is not interesting. Don't let it distract you from continuing to do things that interest you here. The topic area needs as many editors as possible with a diverse set of biases and source sampling strategies to avoid an article neutrality version of this problem when population size n is too small. Sean.hoyland (talk) 02:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thanks to the generosity of the more extreme anti-Palestine/pro-Israel activists
FYI, this behavior goes in both directions. From what I've seen, the unacceptable behavior on the pro-Palestine/anti-Israel side is also more organized; for example, the covert canvassing on the pro-Israel side was organized by a single LTA spamming emails, while on the pro-Palestine side it is an organized group of editors. BilledMammal (talk) 02:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, no doubt there are attacks and all sorts of shenanigans from both ends of the spectrum. Sadly, I haven't been attacked by anti-Israel/pro-Palestine activists apart from the odd outlier, so from my perspective I must be doing something wrong. From my observations going back over a decade, it's just an objective fact that anti-Palestine/pro-Israel activism that targets Wikipedia and editors exists, has organized and lone-wolf components, has involved on-wiki and off-wiki individuals and multiple organizations (e.g. CAMERA and NGO Monitor) including multiple state sponsored influence operations. The pro-Palestine/anti-Israel activists will presumably learn from their opponent's mistakes and will probably have the capacity to dwarf pro-Israel activities if they choose that path. Visibility into these systems is obviously very limited, so it's hard to say anything sensible about the extent and effects, which may be small right now. Either way, Wikipedia is stuck in the middle and needs better countermeasures. Or maybe just let it go as it is an expensive problem Wikipedia does not have the tools to solve right now. I'm curious what would happen if part of the topic area was set aside for the activists and ban evading types to do whatever they want without ECR or sanctions with disclaimers added to the articles. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should add the caveat that I'm very skeptical about my ability to understand or say anything accurate anything about the topic area because it's too complicated, and that skepticism even includes being unsure whether promoting things like civility, collaboration, social harmony is the best approach to produce the best articles in the long run. The topic area is apparently more attractive to new editors that Wikipedia in general (assuming this is accurate) and they very often don't come here for social harmony. Maybe lots of randomness and conflict would work better in the long run. I have no idea. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that at least in my case it isn't about being a tribalist and anti-Israel. It is about being pro-human rights (and animal rights) in general, and that I both believe in matter of fact reliable information being publicly available, as well as "not in my name" and "never again for anyone", the latter meaning that I don't want any innocent blood on my hands, even indirectly by association. David A (talk) 09:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If admins want to investigate Tech for Palestine, I welcome it. Separately, we shouldn’t assume editors simply editing in ARBPIA are part of some coordinated campaign. Evidence is needed. I am neither involved in Tech for Palestine or a coordinated ARBPIA campaign. starship.paint (talk / cont)02:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have concerns about the evidence provided by fixfxx about Sannie Carlson not being the real singer of Whigfield. I find their evidence to be unreliable. I have provided counter evidence in the talk page. I have decided not to edit the Whigfield page as I feel whatever changes I make will be deleted by fixfxx. I have proposed that a possible rumours subsection be included as I think 5 paragraphs in the main section about Sannie not being the real singer is unnecessary especially when I have provided two pieces of evidence from Ann Lee/Annerley Gordon which states she is not Whigfield or the voice of Whigfield.
Ask for input at the talk pages of the interested projects. They're listed at the top of the article's talk page. Remember, keep your request neutral - WP:NOSOLICIT. The two sources you link here do not look like WP:RS. Cabayi (talk) 09:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, may I ask if these are reliable sources please?
I removed all of the contested content per WP:BLP, WP:NOR, etc. There wasn't even a question about it. Unsourced claims, uncited quotations from social media, synthesis used to combine low-quality sources and make them say something they didn't, etc.
Woodroar, what you are stating is absolutely false and baseless. It does not look that you are willing to discuss anything. You talk about low quality when this page looked exactly like Whigfield's official website and you just removed what you do not want to see. Obviously, you have been reverted because you removed the content that I had previously improved and checked with the help of experienced Wikipedia users, so it is not just my writing what you consider bad. Moreover, even though you like to get personal, this information is posted elsewhere on Wikipedia, not just here and not just by me, but I bothered enough to search for exact quotes, additional information and relevant sources -people and companies within the industry related to this act-, claims that you can check yourself if you really care, since someone is trying to censor not just why I included, but what everyone else have posted before regarding this on this particular page and language. It should also be noted for anyone reading, that the current producer of Carlson has tried to edit this page previously and it is suspicious that someone is "edit warring" (you accuse of what you do) everything related to this very important information that concerns both Carlson and Gordon and, therefore, Whigfield. You obviously do not want to improve the article, based on your acts, since you have not provided any objective information regarding this nor any suggestion, just negative attitude and behaviour. Fixfxx (talk) 22:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please,
I request help regarding the content of the English version of Whigfield. The Page has been "extended protected" by Woodroar in order to not have important content restored. The information that has been removed is relevant and is included in other Wikipedia articles, including Ann Lee (singer) and other language versions of Whigfield. The removed content includes the very important fact that Carlson has been accused of not being the real singer and Gordon being revealed as the real singer by producers and music labels. Previously, COI had been reported and many removals of information have occurred. Therefore, I strongly believe that this particular protection is ill-intentioned and that the erased content should be restored before protecting the Page permanently, so it includes the relevant information in an objective manner, like the other language versions, so the English version remains unbiased. This should also avoid recurrent censorship motivated by COI related to Carlson.
I understand that you might be busy, but I am not wasting anyone's time trying to improve the page. This is not original research and the sources are reliable and connected to Whigfield, including the original music label and music producers connected to Gordon. All this is included in other language versions of Whigfield and in the English version of Ann Lee (singer). Fixfxx (talk) 00:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other language Wikipedia projects are independent of each other, and accordinly what they do or do not include in articles is of no concern here. And please note that mere repetition isn't going to convince anyone that the content is in any way appropriate: it isn't, as anyone remotely familiar with the relevant policies can easily see. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, repeating that without any reasoning, when it clearly is appropriate, unbiased, and the quotes are literal and belong to persons related to the act is not proper implementation of the policies that you mention. Fixfxx (talk) 00:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise for posting on your Talk page. I brought the discussion here, since it had been reported COI on Whigfield, and someone is removing any mention of Gordon and censoring this in the English version, while it is available everywhere else. The Talk section of the page already has several threads about this issue. Fixfxx (talk) 00:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right at the top of WP:BLP: Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was not unsourced nor poorly sourced, so you did not apply the policies appropriately. It is actually something known since the 90s. Moreover, in the content I wrote with help from other Wikipedia users, I quoted persons directly related to Carlson and Gordon, specifically people that have worked with them, the music label Off Limits, that was Whigfield's, and the producer that worked with Gordon, Mauro Farina. It is absolutely reliable and important content that should remain as part of both pages. Fixfxx (talk) 01:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that either haven't read the policies I linked earlier, or lack the capacity to understand them, I see no point in discussing this further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You said that you were busy, then you did not apply the policy correctly and I politely explained why. If you keep resorting to offensive remarks instead of reasoning, I cannot help you with that. Fixfxx (talk) 01:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This issue has not been resolved, so I kindly request additional help to improve the corresponding page and avoid COI, previously reported on the page, and censorship.
The removed content from Whigfield and now also from Ann Lee (singer) by AndyTheGrump should be restored because it is relevant information backed up by reliable sources such as:
Gordon's producer Mauro Farina, who said, "Annerley Gordon, who also did Whigfield. She lent her voice for Whigfield, and it was a worldwide success."
Source:
Video interview available on YouTube with the title, "Mauro Farina confirms that Annerley Gordon is the voice behind Whigfield and Bandido"
A.Beat-C, Gordon's label posted, "Whigfield and Ann Lee were the top of artistic aliases by Annerley Gordon in Eurodance music."
Off Limits Whigfield's label, posted: "Annerley Gordon, better known as Ann Lee, is one of the most well-known dance characters in the 90s. She wrote together with Ivana Spagna "Try Me Out" and "I Don't Wanna Be a Star" for Corona and participated as a voice and author in numerous dance projects such as Whigfield."
Please, review the following sources and additional information available in the Talk section of the page in order to restore the removed content and protect the page from COI and censorship. Fixfxx (talk) 01:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unsubstantiated claims of a CoI are liable to result in you being blocked from editing. As for the rest, take it to the talk page, after carefully reading the policies you have been asked to. AndyTheGrump (talk)
As other users have posted previously regarding other topics you have participated in, please stop your uncivil conduct and stop your baseless accusations as well, such as CoI and threats such as being blocked, or you will be reported. I request help from other users to improve the page based on what I posted above.Ferfxx — Preceding undated comment added 03:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing anything actionable in ATG's remarks for lack of civility, and I'm not seeing anything in the recent threads on the talk page that indicate a conflict of interest. —C.Fred (talk) 03:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As can be checked by anyone, the conflict of interest was reported twice by other users and concerns the current producer of Carlson, who obviously would back up the side of the story that benefits Carlson, the face of Whigfield. Related to this, there are accounts that have removed content from the page written by other users previously.
Now, AndyTheGrump used "CoI" against me maliciously. If you did not see it, this is the what was written above: "Unsubstantiated claims of a CoI are liable to result in you being blocked from editing." This is a false accusation and it was the CoI reported on the page what made me search for sources and resources to back up this up and add to previous content and Talk threads on this very page and others, that are there for anyone to see and that have nothing to do with me.
I would really appreciate if this case was about these claims that have been made before and are available elsewhere, instead of resorting to uncivil behaviour and baseless accusations, in this case, by AndyTheGrump, who removed content from other users just a few minutes later, without having the time to check anything properly and whose attitude and behaviour has been disrespectful and hot-headed.
Once again, this is not about me, so I kindly ask f somebody that is not "busy" could review this case, check the sources included here and elsewhere, and improve the article so it is right and not just blurb? This is not about me, but about Whigfield and the two singers involved. Fixfxx (talk) 12:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fixfxx, these accusations of a conflict of interest are ridiculous. I've been editing Wikipedia for over 18 years and I have more than 18,000 edits. Yesterday was the first time I've ever edited the article or talk page on Whigfield. I'd never even heard of her until reading this thread. Your edits were also reverted by users who have been here for 13 years/1,000 edits, 2 years/41,000 edits, and 2 years/25,000 edits. It was also their first time editing the article. Do you really think we're Carlson's current producer, spending what is likely hundreds of thousands of hours editing an encyclopedia so that we can suddenly jump in and revert you on this random article? Or maybe, consider that we have a better understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and saw that your edits didn't meet our high standards. Please, just think about that.
Yes, someone involved with Carlson edited the article in 2015. That's 9 years ago! They admitted to it, their edits were reverted, and they were blocked. That's it. Woodroar (talk) 13:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to those edits that you mention at the end. The new accusations of CoI are ridiculous indeed, but were made by AndytheGrump, not by me. Please, check their words above. Fixfxx (talk) 13:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You definitely suggested that Woodroar has a COI here, among other bad-faith assumptions about their personal motivations. You can (and I'd suggest you do) strike those parts of your comments if you'd like to retract them, but you shouldn't pretend like they never happened. I second the comment by Johnuniq that further BLP violations should lead to a block, and I'd expand that to future accusations made with insufficient evidence. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstood. What I wrote is that the current producer of Whigfield has been reported twice. I did not accuse anyone else, but requested protecting the page from CoI, in general. My intention is to improve the page and include what is known about this act since the 90s. Fixfxx (talk) 12:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no way to protect a page from conflict of interest. We do what we normally do, which is check the edits and revert them when necessary. If necessary, we can block the editor(s).
That's exactly what happened during those two cases of CoI in April and July of 2015. Which, again, was 9 years ago. Throwing around vague accusations about CoI right now isn't helpful.
I will say, after looking through the edits from the past 4 years or so, there's been a steady stream of editors adding content about Gordon/Lee. If anything, that would suggest a CoI from the other side. But I don't think that's the case. It's more than likely just overzealous fans/followers of Mauro Farina, who appears to be very outspoken about this. But again, there's not much that can be done except to watch the page and revert when necessary. Woodroar (talk) 13:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a fan of Carlson nor Gordon, but nope, Mauro Farina only said that in 2021 in a very casual way, if you watch the interview. Besides, he no longer works with Gordon. He just said so because he assumes that everybody knows this. I recommend everyone watching that part of the interview.
The main reason why this has been discussed since the 90s is because Carlson never sings live and because of her real voice. By her real voice I mean when she ad-lib live, like in one of the videos I posted in the Talk section. She also lip-synched covers recorded by Gordon that are not part of Whigfield's albums, because the voice of those covers by Gordon and Whigfield's recordings is the same. She did this in the 90s. If Carlson was the real singer, Carlson's voice would be similar to Whigfield's albums.
When Carlson sings live, her voice is completely different, but the same as the new recording of Saturday Night and the new songs recorded by Carlson. I recommend you hearing these new recordings by Carlson and compare them to Close to You and Don't Walk Away. Not just the voices are different, but also it is technically impossible that Carlson is able to sing Close to You and Don't Walk Away. She is not able to reach those notes. Before anyone thinks of AutoTune, the voice on Whigfield's recordings is not heavily processed and sounds just like Gordon (Ann Lee) singing live. Gordon even sang Saturday Night live and it's the same voice as the original recording. Remember that there are two recordings of Saturday Night with different voices. The original recording has the same voice as Gordon. The second recording perfectly matches Carlson's voice.
If you listen to the new recording of Saturday Night, recorded by Carlson and the original recording by Whigfield, the voices are different, but if you listen to Whigfield and also Ally & Jo, the voices are the same, because Gordon lent her voice for many projects in Italy, including Ally & Jo and Whigfield. They sound exactly the same, if you listen to them. If Carlson was the real singer, Ally & Jo would not exist, it would be Whigfield that already uses Carlson's face, but for some reason the producers did not want to use Gordon as the face of any of these acts, but for the voice in many projects. This was considered fraud in USA, where she did not promote anything but the new album.
I also would like to thank you because your attitude in your last posts is positive. You taught me a few things about how articles are made even when they are not "right" or "complete", and you seem honestly curious about the topic. Fixfxx (talk) 13:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I request help regarding the content of the English version of Whigfield. The Page has been "extended protected" by Woodroar in order to not have important content restored. The information that has been removed is relevant and is included in other Wikipedia articles, including Ann Lee (singer) and other language versions of Whigfield. The removed content includes the very important fact that Carlson has been accused of not being the real singer and Gordon being revealed as the real singer by producers and music labels. Previously, COI had been reported and many removals of information have occurred. Therefore, I strongly believe that this particular protection is ill-intentioned and that the erased content should be restored before protecting the Page permanently, so it includes the relevant information in an objective manner, like the other language versions, so the English version remains unbiased. This should also avoid recurrent censorship motivated by COI related to Carlson.
I have folded this into the original section and removed the subheading (diff of change). Fixfxx, Andy is correct - please stop splintering discussions into other threads. Regards, Daniel (talk) 00:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, AndyTheGrump is correct about the duplicated discussion. This one was made because of the removal of content and extended protection, but I continued the discussion on the other thread that I had not made, so it was just once and I continued replying on the thread they created when I was advised. Any reader, please note that the most recent comments are now above this one. Regards, Fixfxx (talk) 01:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just letting you know that permanent page protection almost never happens and protection will not be put in place with the aim of retaining disputed content. QwertyForest (talk) 11:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would someone please notify me if Fixfxx adds rumors or similar inadequately sourced material to BLPs so I can indefinitely block them. I don't want to take the time to work out if that would be justified at this stage, but after reviewing a couple of diffs from above I would be happy to take action if issues like this are repeated. New users should ask questions and take things slowly to learn how Wikipedia works. Johnuniq (talk) 06:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could somebody please leave the fruitless negative attitude and personal accusations aside, be neutral, review this case, check the sources included here and elsewhere, and improve the article so it is right and not just blurb? This is not about me, but the article and the people involved. Fixfxx (talk) 12:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your sources are pretty weak and contradict other, better sources. You also seem to infer more from the sources than they actually state. For instance, the statement in Italian where it says Ann Lee contributed vocals and writing to Whigfield is not the same as saying "Ann Lee is the voice of Whigfield and Sannie Carlson is not". This is nice for some Reddit discussion about Whigfield, but here on Wikipedia the sources that back you up simply don't pass muster. Atlan (talk) 13:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you have read the History and Talk sections, but in the removed content, it was not stated that Ann Lee is the voice of Whigfield and Carlson is not. It was stated that she has been accused of not singing her songs and then some quotes to back this up, that also mention that Gordon was the real singer.
The sources are not contradicting each other, they are telling the same story, but some are more specific than others. There are dozens of people related to these singers that have discussed this publicly, but the most explicit that I have found so far is Mauro Farina, a dance music producer who worked with Gordon, that said in that interview "Gordon lent Whigfield her voice and it was a worldwide success" when they were talking about Gordon singing songs from other dance acts such as Bandido, which was a common thing in Italy in the 90s.
There is a difference between someone arguing what and how sources are used and I respect that, and someone denying all these claims and trying to hide anything related to this and turn the Page into official blurb, that's why the Talk section is full of discussion about this before I even read that Page, but I consider that if we want the Page to be right, this issue should at least be mentioned. Fixfxx (talk) 13:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the most explicit is a vague reference during an interview by someone connected to Gordon, then this is definitely not enough. And none of that should be here at ANI. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The most explicit that I could find, that is why I requested help, in order to improve the page and include these claims. The producer of Gordon is someone that would know this better than anyone else. It is not true that "Gordon lent Whigfield her voice and it was a worldwide success" is a vague reference, is absolutely clear. Fixfxx (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to share counter evidence regarding the Sannie Carlson and Annerley Gordon debate.
Here is an radio interview with Peter Lozio and Annerley Gordon uploaded four years ago on YouTube:
Peter: Tu non sei Whigfield, tu non sei Corona, quindi (You are not Whigfield, you are not Corona so...)
Annerley: No, no, no, no, no...
She later explains that she wrote songs for Whigfield but not the song ‘Saturday Night’. She later shares an anecdote during the recording of the song 'Another Day' and mentions that Sannie was in the studio. Peter states that Olga is Corona and Sannie is Whigfield to which Annerley replies, "Si, si, si..Sannie Carlson." (Yes, yes, yes...Sannie Carlson). Robinkoala (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I lent my mom my car last week when hers was in the shop. I lent my time to a local food bank last month. Mom doesn't secretly own my car nor am I secretly an employee of the food bank. That you think that a vague comment such as this that can be interpreted in a number of ways is some smoking gun, the best you have, in a strong suggestion that you're starting with the facts you want to insert and then trying to find the right source to squeeze it in. That's not how things are sourced here. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal: Fixfxx is topic-banned from Whigfield, broadly construed
This has been enough of a timesink, and there are enough instances of edit-warring, accusations against others, refusing to accept WP:BLP, and general WP:IDHT here for editors to draw a conclusion. I don't personally think it merits a stronger sanction, but I think it's clear that this editor should not be involved in this narrow topic in any way at this time. Broadly construed as their point of contention also involves other WP:BLP articles related to Whigfield. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. If Fixfxx wishes to do something useful on Wikipedia, this will present an opportunity to read up on the relevant policies, guidelines etc and do so, without wasting further time with this repetitive nonsense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the people involved here have not checked this case properly, otherwise they would review and acknowledge the evidence widely available about this, or at least there would be a discussion on topic. I have never removed or edited anyone's content, even when I knew that it was not correct, that is why I have only added information on several pages so far, but I have read hundreds. You all also had few edits when you began. Most Wikipedia readers do not edit.
The content I added is not my own research and it is that what has been removed. There are several threads about this in the Talk section that I did not made that are being ignored. I made a thread there that you can check if you want to read the background. The current version of the page is the official blurb. The truth is available everywhere else. I hope that someday Wikipedia reflects it as well.
I remark once again as it is needed, that this is not about me and I find offensive the negative attitude and irrational reactions of some users here, when all I want is this page to be right which is the main goal of Wikipedia. I am listening to all reasonable users, so I kindly request that the rest stop mentioning me unless it is to help me. I do not need more useless and offensive remarks. I will not mention anyone else, but I hope that they improve their attitude towards me and other users, as I see that their attitude have been disapproved elsewhere, unless they want Wikipedia to become a toxic forum.
Thank you to all the worthy users that have explained and replied to me respectfully, thank you kindly, and thank you to all the users that help other users, have a positive and respectful attitude, because their real goal is to improve Wikipedia and nothing else. That is how it should be. Thank you and please do not mention me again because there is no need to, unless is to help me editing and adding information or finding appropriate sources and how to use them. Fixfxx (talk) 13:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I'll attempt to correct a misconception you seem to have here. Again, I am expressing no opinion on whether your additions are valid or not.
You are incorrect that Wikipedia should "reflect" the "truth [...] available everywhere else", or that, similarly, "the main goal of Wikipedia" is "to be right." Per NOTTRUTH, "Wikipedia values accuracy, but it requires verifiability. Wikipedia does not try to impose "the truth" on its readers, and does not ask that they trust something just because they read it in Wikipedia." Now, granted, the above is an essay (albeit one that I think is generally agreed-upon), but the following, from PROOF, is policy. "Content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it."
In basic words, Wikipedia's principal goal is not to portray "the truth" (whatever that may be), but rather what reliable sources have to say about the subject. Stating you want Wikipedia to reflect "the truth" doesn't seem, to me, to illustrate a correct reading of policy.
If I may make a suggestion, perhaps try editing in other areas of Wikipedia, at least temporarily - plenty of other pages are in need of improvement, and this way you can hone your understanding of policy in a less contentious way. LaughingManiac (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your message. I got the adjective "right" from a policy that says "Wikipedia must get the article right", but of course there is much more to consider and I understand what you mean. Fixfxx (talk) 12:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Firefangledfeathers @Lavalizard101 I do not approve the negative attitude and offensive remarks by any user, as can be seen on this thread, some of them with warnings from other experienced users on other threads and topics. I would appreciate if you do not do the same. My goal has been improving the article since the beginning and I have been listening and replying to every reasonable user. Tagging my username repeatedly not to help but to make even more negative remarks is not necessary so, once again, stop doing that. Thank you. Fixfxx (talk) 12:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither I nor Lavalizard101 tagged your username. Our remarks are negative because your conduct has been problematic. Your choice to take offense at the negativity, instead of taking the feedback, is part of the problem here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, you were talking about me, but you have not read the comments. The only problematic conduct here is users like you that only post offensive remarks about a single person and do not care about the conversation nor the topic.
My goal has been improving the article since the beginning. I have thanked many users that were helpful already, because my goal is improving the article, but they have shared their experience about editing and I have thanked them already.
My attitude is positive. Your input focused on me is not constructive, so I ask you once again to stop it. No need to keep repeating things about myself. Thank you. Fixfxx (talk) 12:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a section about your conduct. We're going to be talking about your conduct, not blueberries, the War of 1812, or our favorite performances of Mahler's 9th. And the fact that you continue to take shots at people only reinforces why we're discussing your conduct. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CoffeeCrumbs A section that you created where your conduct is inappropriate, your attitude is negative and your comments have been useless and toxic so far, and I am not repeating that over and over, I am only asking you to stop, unless you want me to make a section a section about your conduct. My attitude is positive and I have thanked all the users that have been respectful and helpful; not your case. Thank you. Fixfxx (talk) 14:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Shahray (talk·contribs) was blocked on 13 October for 24 hours and again on 18 October for 1 week due to continued edit warring. In their unblock requests (none of which were accepted), they did not indicate any understanding for their block. For example, they wrote: I haven't got any explanation about why one small revert from me is considered "disruptive", "damaging" or "edit-warring" and requires a block.[60]
Despite this, there has been no improvement in their behavior (if anything, it has gone the other way) since the block expired on 25 October. They made edits to Kievan Rus', which I reverted with explanation before they restored this again, saying "You are confused". I reverted again and asked them to start a discussion on the talk page. Rather than starting a discussion on the talk page, they replied to me in a completely different discussion at Talk:History of Ukraine telling me: I won't create hundreds of talk pages just because you always disagree with me for precisely no reason.[61] I told them this was a misuse of the talk page. I also noted that they had already started a discussion about similar changes (as an IP) before and there was no consensus for this. The same IP had previously left me a message on my talk page asking why I reverted their edits (made by Shahray), before they self-reverted and wrote the same message as Shahray.[62] I continued the discussion there, but Shahray's response was This is not a discussion done by me and why should I care?.[63]
They also made an edit to Old East Slavic that I reverted because there was already plenty of discussion about this on the talk page with clear consensus against such edits, but they restored their edit saying in the edit summary that this was "unrelated".[64]
I also asked an admin for advice at User talk:Asilvering#Question (more diffs there) because I found it impossible to discuss edits with Shahray without them accusing me of editing in bad faith but they decided to reply there and they wrote that I should stop complaining to other editors like a child.[65] This was also after I told them that I did not wish to discuss with them further due to previous comments they made to me such as this, even though I clearly explained why I opposed their changes. Mellk (talk) 22:06, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They also made an edit to Old East Slavic that I reverted because there was already plenty of discussion about this on the talk page with clear consensus against such edits I havent looked at other edits but this particular edit was legitimate. The discussion was opened on a talk page Talk:Old East Slavic#Old Ukrainian where you haven't responded but have proceed with removal, anyway. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is consensus against such edits (that you had previously made), as this was discussed at Talk:Old_East_Slavic/Archive_2#Old_Ukrainian_2024 and in previous discussions. You attempted to include this and there was consensus against this change. You decided to start a new discussion today without any new arguments. Mellk (talk) 22:43, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... where we see sourced opinions removed [66] because "I still think that a whole paragraph cited to one source is too much". That's not a valid argument for removal of an academic opinion in a field. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There you just rejected and undoed opinions sourced to academic researchers one after another without offering an improvement: Yes, except this is not an accurate summary of his findings. You are not telling where, in your opinion, it is not accurate, nor offering a better version.This is not how collaboration is supposed to be. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:12, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I still think that a whole paragraph cited to one source is too much" -- this is what another editor wrote. Multiple editor opposed your changes and you are still trying to make this discussion about this. Mellk (talk) 23:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should we take your approach and return edits, since there is also @Shahray now opposing your removal. Should we also remember that there were other editors in previous discussions supporting changes.Probably not, because this would lead to the Tyranny of the majority. Instead, we should not be calling to "there is more of us therefore we are right", but base our arguments on reliable sources and Wikipedia rules. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This editor @Mellk was already formally warned by other administrator to not make unreasonable reverts and be responsive [67].
After a few responses on the talk page, they refused to give any further details and dropped out of conversation [68], considering my request to simply not waste time of other editors because of their own poor understanding of the subject as a personal insult (rather than maybe improving upon their knowledge), use what they wrote higher as an evidence I guess.
I tried to continue the conversation and asked about what they don't have concerns with for example [69], they haven't given me any response, and instead they moved to complain to other administrator.
Also, I have added changes in Old East Slavic page according to the sources, yet they reverted them with a summary "see talk page", where there's just only one completely unrelated topic. Other editor was confused about why they deleted my sourced edit as well [70]. Yet here they act as if their revert was justified, furthermore they made another revert [71], despite there being obvious concern from two editors, and didn't go to the talk page.
So as you can see they don't care about the attitude they've been warned about, they continue to make more unreasonable reverts and be unresponsive on the talk page.
From my side, I wasn't reverting them. Initial concerns behind my blocks was edit warring, and I wasn't reverting this user recently, so it's unclear about what "behaviour" are they talking about, or why did they make this report in first place. Shahray (talk) 22:47, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another recent revert from Mellk [72], with no summary they removed Principality of Moscow and replaced it with Russia, which is anachronistic term for that time period.
Mellk once again makes unreasonable reverts [73]. First their summary of reverting me was "WP:GEOLINK". I solved the issue with removal of a reference in second word. But then they reverted me again with a summary "Not an improvement". What this supposed to mean is unknown. Furthermore instead of explaining what they did, they continue to concentrate on personal side as you can see below. I think this is just disruptive editing, they slow down the process of implementing changes with nonsensical summaries and personal assaults, expecting to block me. Shahray (talk) 09:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And they are still edit warring now. The personal attacks were already a step too far, but this is getting ridiculous now. Mellk (talk) 06:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was not edit warring, I followed 1 revert rule everywhere respectively. I told the admin to look at Mellk's yet again unresponsive behaviour and unreasonable reverts, which they have been already formally warned about. I also addressed them how you told Mellk to go to a notice board with no evidence of my guilt [74] and then ignored my comment, telling to "use it as evidence" [75] (???).
Bear in mind that as always, reverting isn't a right so you can easily be unacceptably edit warring even if complying with 1RR or whatever. Also with highly contentious articles where it's likely something has been discussed before, it often makes sense to check out the talk page and archives and see if something has been discussed before. If it has, while WP:consensus can change, it would often be better to at least start a discussion before making edits rather than trying a WP:bold edit. This is especially the case if something has been discussed multiple times or had significant backing or support last time it was discussed. In fact in such cases it might even be best just to assume it's unlikely consensus has changed and so not start a new discussion let alone trying to make a change. And even if you do feel it's worth starting a new discussion, you should generally mention or even link to previous discussions and explain why you feel there should be a new consensus. Also while there's too much personalisation from all sides in the article talk page discussions to me, you do seem to be worse at it. Notably with your child comment which okay wasn't on an article talk page but was still a clear personal attack. I think all of you need to concentrate on the content issues in the article talk page. If you can't come to consensus by yourselves, use some form of WP:dispute resolution to try and get more people involved. Importantly, concentrate on what reliable sources say not your personal view or interpretation of history or whatever. Nil Einne (talk) 07:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While "childish" might have been personal, I think that's how you can describe this behavior. I haven't made personal attacks on the talk page, Mellk dropped out of discussion, yet continues to persist on deleting my changes.
I tried to continue discussion and told them to just let my changes be viewed by other editors [76], yet they haven't answered at all.
Above they have continued the personal attacks and they are still making unsourced POV changes like this. The issue of POV editing was raised before. In addition, they are claiming that they are being "deliberately targeted". I don't think there is any clearer IDHT than this. Mellk (talk) 02:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Believing that you have a valid point does not confer the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told otherwiseShahray (talk) 05:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mellk just told me here [82] there's no consensus about the fact that "Russia" didn't exist during Middle ages.
They implemented a change without consensus once again [83], and in noticeboard they wrote "This is false".
Below you can see they are continuing personal assaults in my side instead of solving the dispute on the talk page. I remind you they were formally warned to be responsive. Shahray (talk) 05:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here they removed all references to Russians, including removing the sentence "Russians were also hired as mercenaries" despite this being sourced. So this also shows they are here for WP:RGW. Mellk (talk) 05:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is WP:ONUS. They once again insist on mentioning "Russia" in the middle ages, despite the clear consensus in historiography there was no "russia" at the time. What's worse is that they don't want to solve the disputes themselves and instead focus on personal assaults like getting me banned, use all their comments above as evidence. They were already formally warned for that disruptive behavior. Shahray (talk) 05:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here they removed all references to Russians, including removing the sentence "Russians were also hired as mercenaries" despite this being sourced I checked the source and I can't find anything regarding "Russians were also hired as mercenaries" there. Please provide the quote. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 07:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. But the timing is a mess, the book talks about The army of the Second Bulgarian Empire was not, of course solely Cuman. The new state controlled large areas held by pronoia cavalry and other troop. Mercenaries were alo recruited, including Russians, unlike the wiki article which says In the 1350s. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 07:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is unclear what is meant by "Russians" in 14th century. WP:ONUS, and I don't think anachronisms should be included, what do you think? It would be proper to move discussion to the talk page. Shahray (talk) 08:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This has been in the article since at least 2015. You also cannot overrule what the sources say and dictate to others on what is an anachronism when you were earlier writing about 'supreme Ukrainian rulers' of Kievan Rus.[85] The issue here is that your editing is purely disruptive. Mellk (talk) 08:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mellk interrupts the process of editing in the article Name of Rus'[86], they accused me that I "didn't address the issue", although I did as you can see in history of changes. I told them that other editor can easily revert me if they want, but they didn't listened and continue to revert me, and then wrote "edit war". It looks like WP:Hounding or provocation to be honest, can you do something about them already? Shahray (talk) 16:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor reverted you and you proceeded to make three reverts without bothering to start a discussion about this. This article is on my watchlist and I have made plenty of edits before, so this accusation of hounding is baseless. @Asilvering: given their admission of meatpuppetry below and the blatant edit warring now, is a block warranted now? Mellk (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then other editor can easily revert me again, or not if they won't see any issue.
Clearly other editors had issues with them as well like NLeeuw said, but now their behavior is just provocative. I don't have issues if I'm being reverted or proved wrong, I even self reverted in Kievan Rus' [87], but Mellk now just interrupts other editing when other user hasn't responded yet, instead they think they can respond from their side. Shahray (talk) 16:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shahray: You should have opened a discussion on the article talk page immediately instead of edit warring at the first place. By venturing to the talk page, you might also have noticed that the lead was discussed very recently and made to more closely conform to MOS:LEAD. This discussion involved Mellk, so your point about hounding is moot. The bit about Vikings which you used to justify your edit was added by an editor who is now banned, and is not a great example to follow. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for response. I will open discussion then on the talk page. Still it was weird to see Mellk interrupting when you can also revert me. Shahray (talk) 16:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't want to heave too readily onto the pile given they've only reverted once, but I can't discern a difference in behavior between that detailed here and that over at Christianization of Kievan Rus'. Maybe this is petty of me, but "I'm just sorting the list by alphabetical order" is one of the surest signs of tendentious editing I generally see—statistically speaking, you'll get to use the alphabet as a fig leaf for your otherwise-inexplicable sorting in roughly 50% of situations. Remsense ‥ 论05:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hi, I saw that this ANI was going on, and I'd like to point out that User:Shahray = 46.200.75.110. diffdiff. Shahray addressed me as if we interacted before on my talk page, but the previous message under that heading was by 46.200.75.110. Not sure how helpful that is, but I think it contributes to the information above about this user's disruptive behaviour. As far as I know, Shahray is being very WP:POV-pushy and prone to edit-warring. Even as this ANI is taking place, Shahray is edit-warring at Kievan Rus' with multiple other editors over the past several days. Although there may be some legitimate content issues, Shahray was not providing constructive solutions (at least that I could see). I got tired of trying to reason with Shahray, and decided to stop the discussion and disengage, because it was getting nowhere. I'm not involved in the edit-war, as I don't think I could do anything to make Shahray stop and behave in accordance with our conduct and content policies & guidelines. Seems to me Shahray is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopaedia, but to push their own POV and to disrupt all sorts of processes and protocols in order to make their opinion stick in the mainspace. We can't keep that up forever if the situation does not improve.
A word of caution; I understand the frustations some other users have voiced here over Mellk; I've had my disagreements with him as well. I think Mellk should be reminded to be careful in observing our policies and guidelines, and prioritise discussing issues on talk pages and tagging the user whose edits he disagrees with, instead of reverting the other user's edits. This can often help prevent conflicts (especially in the Eastern Europe content area). On the other hand, I know that Mellk is acting in good faith, and I have worked with him before in solving several long-standing disputes, and that is valuable for our community. I would ask the other participants here to take these things into account. Hopefully this contributes to a solution. NLeeuw (talk) 22:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nederlandse Leeuw, okay, while I acknowledge that it could have been done from my account (by other person I may know), but it wasn't directly done by me. Regarding myself, I'm trying to be more constructive about the whole topic, I don't concern myself with fringe ideas.
So you can view my changes and note if anything is wrong with them instead, as I already done similar requests to other editors [88]. It would be much more helpful than just unrelated to me accuses. I don't think there is any legitimate content issues, but in some parts I've expanded the content for specification. I wasn't edit warring with other editors, I initially reverted Mellk once, then made compromise with Mellk's position [89] (as it seems they only opposed the mention of Rus' land in the talk page for some reason). If that doesn't helps, I can self-revert, no problem.
Mellk's summaries for their reverts are often pretty vague and lack explanation, and it's hardly any better on the talk page, as they quickly drop out of discussion. Shahray (talk) 23:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Mellk. I think that evidence is as good as any to confirm that Shahray = 46.200.75.110. I find Shahray's denials to be unconvincing. Shahray also doesn't seem to understand that with legitimate content issues, I might theoretically agree with some of the points they were making previously, if only expressed in a clear way while offering a constructive way forward. If Shahray now thinks I don't think there is any legitimate content issues, I am wondering whether I wasted my time in trying to understand the points they raised on the Kievan Rus' talk page in the first place.
It also shows Shahray's apparent obsession with the same topic, namely ethnonymy and toponymy in content areas of Kievan Rus', Ukraine, Russia etc. In other words, what we name people and territories is Shahray's only interest. Shahray seems to treat Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX for their POV of what we should call things, and to think it's okay to unilaterally and repeatedly change texts of how we name things without consensus. This is quite concerning, and frankly, frustrating and tiresome.
The first remarks made in this ANI illustrate this well: Shahray was blocked on 13 October for 24 hours and again on 18 October for 1 week due to continued edit warring. In their unblock requests (none of which were accepted), they did not indicate any understanding for their block. People who are either incapable or unwilling to understand the rules and to abide by them, and instead repeatedly disrupt the project, will eventually exhaust the chances the community is willing to give them to show that they have improved their conduct and have learnt from the sanctions imposed upon them for having failed to do so previously. I recommend an even longer block this time, and if the situation still does not improve, we may have to say goodbye to Shahray, as their activities are more unhelpful than helpful for the project so far. I'm trying to be fair and balanced; everyone deserves a second or even a third or fourth chance, depending on the circumstances. But eventually the chances run out. NLeeuw (talk) 16:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to dedicate time to find more solid sources. There are deficiencies in articles and over-representation of a traditional Russian POV, but a decent amount of work should be done to overcome it. See my user page for some info on where academic sources could be found. I suggest to concentrate on one subject first, for example on under-representation of Old Ukrainian in articles. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Old Ukrainian, it depends on how often English-speaking scholars use this term, and I don't see that being the case.
@Nederlandse Leeuw, you can instead look at my edit and see if there's anything wrong with sources or wording, and point it out on the talk page, if you want to help. Now, in my opinion you're too concentrated on personal sides, I don't have any issues with getting reverted if there is objective reason, but I could have been too fast with reverting Mellk there. Shahray (talk) 17:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shahray topic-banned.Shahray, please do feel free to appeal this (not sarcasm, I promise); I think this discussion has gone as far as it can go, here. Sorry to those involved that this took me so long - I was really reluctant to make a second block in the same case. AE admins can take it from here. Or they can come back and trout me, whatever works. -- asilvering (talk) 19:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fair and balanced solution for now. Shahray gets the opportunity to make valuable contributions to other topic areas that they presumably do not have such a strong emotional investment in as to complicate cooperation with fellow editors. This may demonstrate that they are willing to build an encyclopaedia beyond a single issue. Kievan Rus' is already a highly contentious article / topic area as it is; every week or so there is another discussion about toponymy and ethnonymy (and the article title, of course, despite WP:KYIV/WP:KIEV and the big talk page banner we placed there). There is already a war on in real life; let's not have a virtual one here as well. ManyAreasExpert has given a good recommendation for the way forward. NLeeuw (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both users may have violated 3RR by making 5 reverts over the last 24 hours. This article's history is a bit of a mess, but this edit war started when Inherli restored an older version of the article. Inherli has never used a talk page before, and is now (after writing one edit summary) simply reverting EarthDude's reverts without even explaining their own reverts. EarthDude's edit summaries and messages at Inherli's talk page indicate that they believe they're reverting vandalism. I believe we need an admin to deal with this issue. Nythar (💬-🍀) 13:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting the page to a months old version, as Inherli did, disrupted countless recent edits by many editors to bring the article to meet Wikipedia's standards of quality, which it previously did not meet.
Furthermore, I tried to get Inherli to talk about the specific reasons for the edits they were making, and suggested a discussion to constructively try and improve the page, but they ignored it and continue reverting the page.
If this is not the definition of vandalism, I don't know what is. I've given them the series of escalating vandalism warnings that's supposed to be given, but Inherli nonetheless continue to ignore them and persist with their vandalism.
Not only that, he is doing it to other pages that I edited specifically reverting my edits without reason, I feel like he is gonna keep doing this and I don’t think a block on one page will do enough, he should be blocked from the site temporarily instead. Teotzin190 (talk) 10:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits were reverted because you are adding arbitrary casualty figures, and your account is new, you're not a credible editor and apparently don't even understand the concept of vandalism. The recent changes at List of wars by death toll are also arbitrary and lack consensus, but you probably don't even understand the concept of consensus either. Inherli (talk) 10:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through the edits which you reverted, and they're not arbitrary at all. They're backed by El siglo de la Integración, which is considered to be a reliable source. Your recent actions seem to stem from the fact that @Teotzin190 reverted the List of wars by death toll back to its stable and consensus built version, and since you've been blocked from meddling with the page further, you're angry. The reverts you made against @Teotzin190 this time were also not explained, against consensus, and hypocritically arbitrary. This kind of retaliatory behaviour gives reason to believe that your reverts are not in good faith. EarthDude (talk) 11:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with a siteblock. Their frequent reverts with minimal explanation/discussion beyond this forum are completely unhelpful, and I think it's fair to say that they have no intention of stopping. Enough is enough. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 13:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked @Inherli from the page for a week for edit-warring and a failure to communicate. @EarthDude's behavior has also been non-3RR-exempt edit-warring, but as they've been communicating here I am not going to block as it doesn't seem necessary to prevent disruption, so long as they do not revert again. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:03, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Inherli, even after receiving multiple warnings and even getting blocked from the first page listed, continues to edit war and reverted a bunch of my edits to pages he could edit after I brought back a stable version of the List of wars by death toll. He removed a bunch of cited information by credible sources without providing an edit summary. He doesn't speak in any of the discussion pages either. Me and two other users agree that he should be blocked from editing site wide rather than just List of wars by death toll, and it doesnt seem like he will stop. Not only that, he tried to discredit my edits because I am a relatively new user compared to him and he made false accusations about the sources not being credible even though they are widely used and accepted. Teotzin190 (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Singleton4321 (talk·contribs), who was blocked from editing Oliver James (psychologist) following a previous ANI report (see link), has engaged in WP:IDNHT fights on their talk page with other editors reeking of WP:TRUTH, WP:FRINGE and WP:NPA, not to mention the same behavior that got them banned there in the first place. The difference being they blame everyone but themselves for their predicament and prefers doing so despite advice by editors on how to appeal otherwise and believe that falsely and maliciously accusing editors they disagree with of engaging in a collaborative conspiracy does not count as WP:NPA. Borgenland (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still say this is an imposter bent on making the article subject look like an inept self-aggrandizer. The world-renowned, universally feted, incomparably accomplished expert and best-selling author he keeps telling us he is wouldn't act this way. EEng05:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the last half-year or or so, User:QuantumFoam66 has been making numerous problematic CfD nominations of categories. While initially given the benefit of the doubt, it has become clear that they refuse to get the point and have either removed people's posts from their talkpage or not responded to concerns at all. They were warned numerous times about this type of behavior, including by an admin, in no uncertain terms, and that they should at least ask for assistance if they are unsure of Wikipedia's category naming policy, but they have ignored any warnings and taken it upon themselves to be a one-person category crusader, indicating they are not here to collaborate even if they are here to "build" an encyclopedia. While many of their nominations were successful and I even agreed with, many others waste hours of editors' time and energy.
In addition to this, there has been some instances of unexplained content removal. Overall I think that there should at least be a topic ban from editing or nominating Categories at all, so that they can focus on content creation rather than disrupting the backend of Wikipedia, though the unwillingness to respond at all to complaints suggests larger issues with being able to ever coexist with other editors.
Lol, yeah, the username had me confused. Come to think of it, that would likely be an accidental forgery so I would suggest she tweaks it somehow. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there. I need to address something. It is wrong to nominate categories or other pages for deletion or merging just because I do not agree with them. I have to be more concerned with non-defining traits than things I do not feel comfortable with. I understand how much bad karma I gave myself over all this, and I promise it will never happen again. Also, are trying to "topic ban" from categories and nominations? Because I am legitimately trying perk up at this point. We all learn from our mistakes after all. There actually isn't much left for me to do with adding/removing categories though.. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 01:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking, we all make mistakes sometimes. But when editors repeatedly keep making the same mistakes, without interest in learning from them or changing their ways, that's when we have a problem. I'm not saying you are, or are not, in violation of this, merely letting you know. Sergecross73msg me01:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't trying to imply that any individual thing, taken on its own, was disruptive. What is disruptive is continuing to do the same thing over numerous months without taking a step back and learning first. Especially when you're basically putting most of your time into categories. People expect a high level of accuracy or at least trying to learn from your mistakes. I get that it's meant in good faith, since some of your nominations have indeed been correct, but going to ANI has been a last resort here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
QuantumFoam, its not about bad karma. Its about how much time you've wasted of other peoples. And frankly, given your response here, I don't think you understand the scope of the problem. If you were trying to learn from your mistakes, you'd engage with the comments on your talk page and try to understand how to address the concerns raised. It's your lack of responsiveness. SMasonGarrison04:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This editor has made about 40 edits adding weights (e.g. "200 grams") to bird articles. The additions are always unsourced (example) and frequently have "chatbot-speak" (example). They haven't responded to any of the warnings I left on their talk page, and continue to make another edit every 1–2 minutes. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked the bird weight IP for 72 hours for persistently adding unreferenced bird weight content. If the behavior persists after three days has passed, we can consider other options to prevent the disruption. Cullen328 (talk) 04:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on the severity, persistent BLP violations or rapid widespread insertions are usually disruptive enough to be reported there. Getting back to this specific case, given the transparentgaming of AC and their failure to WP:COMMUNICATE, they should at the very least be blocked from mainspace until they engage with community concerns. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 06:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The network/kid's show space has a lot of these types of 'corporate name mix' vandals, so this has to be a sock of one of them, but which one I'm not sure just on a quick read. Nate•(chatter)17:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FromCzech(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) - I am writing to formally complain about user FromCzech's recent actions, which appear to be retaliatory and disruptive, following my proposal to move Lokotrans Aréna under the title Mladá Boleslav Municipal Stadium and opening this topic for discussion. After initiating this move, FromCzech—a Czech editor with no previous interest in Polish stadiums—entered the last article I edited, Białystok Municipal Stadium, and unilaterally changed its title to Stadion Miejski (Białystok). Subsequently, they began editing it to reflect their preferred version, despite no prior engagement with Polish stadium topics. FromCzech has cited WP:RMUM as justification for the move. However, RMUM guidelines state: If you disagree with a prior bold move, and the new title has not been in place for a long time, you may revert the move yourself. If you cannot revert the move for technical reasons, then you may request a technical move. The current title has been in place since May 25, 2024—long enough to establish consistency and stability. This recent unilateral move and editing style appear to be in poor faith, seeming less about constructive editing and more about escalating conflict over naming conventions. Such conduct undermines collaborative principles and detracts from Wikipedia’s commitment to fair editorial practices. I request that action be taken to address this behavior and review the recent move for compliance with Wikipedia's standards on etiquette and editorial integrity. Paradygmaty (talk) 07:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to emphasize that my expectation is for an administrator to restore the article title to what it was as of this morning (Białystok Municipal Stadium). The previous title had been stable and well-established, and I believe reverting to it would reflect Wikipedia’s principles of consistency and proper editorial process. Paradygmaty (talk) 07:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Jéské Couriano; my concern here is less about the title itself and more about FromCzech’s retaliatory and disruptive behavior, which I believe warrants an administrative review. Paradygmaty (talk) 07:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the affected user feels that this is a personal attack, then I apologize, it was not intended that way. With his link in RM, the user drew attention to an article where the name change was achieved without a proper discussion in less than a year, so I restored the original name. I did not expect such an aggressive reaction, I hope that I have the right to edit articles from other countries than I come from and concerning other interests than my own. FromCzech (talk) 08:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current title has been in place since May 25, 2024, and the previous title was there since the inception of the article in 2020 until your page move on May 25. WP:EDITCON does not really apply here on the new title as the number of edits between May 25 till now is limited. I would view the previous title as the last stable one. Please open an Requested Move discussion instead. – robertsky (talk) 11:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about WP:UE? Białystok Municipal Stadium goes for Stadion Miejski in Białystok. As a Polish editor, I believe I have a deeper understanding of the cultural and linguistic context surrounding Polish stadiums. For this reason, it’s important that any changes to established names involve input from those who regularly work on these topics. Paradygmaty (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Paradygmaty, you can make that argument in a Requested Move discussion. Except for editing restrictions, editors can edit any article unless they are topic banned just like your edits aren't limited to articles on Polish subjects. LizRead!Talk!00:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on my past years of spam-fighting, this guy will be back with another account unless his domain is blacklisted. Blacklist any associated domains, too.
A. B., it would probably be best to report this at the appropriate page regarding the blacklist. I don't think any action will be taken regarding this proposal on ANI. I know that I don't know how to add URLs to the blacklist and I don't think most editors or admins do either. LizRead!Talk!03:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You’ll be more amused than this person when they realize their site’s blacklisted.
I don’t know if Google still does this, but back in the day, Google reportedly consulted our blacklist when deciding whether to de-index a site for link-spamming. That would really, really hurt.
They’re lucky they only spammed our wiki (I checked). If they’d spammed just one other WMF site they’d be globally blacklisted at Meta. That’s 700+ WMF wikis plus most other non-WMF MediaWiki sites by default.
Don’t block spammers, just blacklist them (assuming they’ve gotten multiple warnings). If you block them they’ll just return with a different account; instead watch their account for other spam domains. Blacklisting is more effective and really gets attention.
I blacklisted 100s, maybe 1000s, of domains as an admin here and on Meta before my 9-year hiatus. I’d also block any other of their domains I could find. I usually gave 3-4 warnings before this. Blacklisting is potentially so consequential I didn’t do it cavalierly. It can be a lot of real money if other sites use what we've done when compiling their own blacklists.
Paid editing is a bigger problem now. After several warnings, I’d blacklist any of those domains, too, and monitor the paid editor’s future edits for more blacklisting.
Love the talk page comment "Let the corporations that step on the skulls of the oppressed masses pay through teeth for the right beat the largest drum." And unsourced.[108]Doug Wellertalk12:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at this thinking it might have been a different LTA, but it appears to be Canoe1967, who appears to have been socking under various accounts recently, some of which have been blocked for various crypto trolling. I'll raise a proforma SPI to record my findings and issue a few more blocks. GirthSummit (blether)12:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Roberto221 has implicitly threatened to contact my employer.
On a number of occasions, he has uploaded non-free depictions of coats of arms of Roman Catholic bishops using, in my estimation, improper licensing - free versions may be made, and there are indeed thousands of them made by various Wikipedia heralds; moreover, he uploads them using {{Non-free seal}} which concerns government entities. I have, as such, requested speedy deletion on a number of these uploads that seems to be improperly licensed, most recently File:Coat of Arms of Kevin Thomas Kenney(Saint Paul and Minneapolis).jpg. In response to my most recent request, Roberto221 stated "Who is your bishop, I'd like to have a word with him.." (cf. revision). I am a Catholic priest and this implicit threat to contact my bishop, an attempt to disrupt my employment based on good-faith efforts, is very worrisome. I would like it addressed in whatever manner is deemed appropriate.
I generally agree that Roberto221's implied threat to contact an employer was uncivil and unnecessarily escalatory, particularly given that it was over good-faith speedy tagging of likely copyvios. I think a simple warning to avoid similar comments is in order. Since no effort appears to have been made to release private information, I do not believe additional action beyond that is necessary. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be good form for Roberto221 to retract the threat to contact a bishop. While not exactly the same as a legal threat, it has a lot in common with one in terms of its chilling effect on editing, and should be considered unwelcome for the same reasons. Certainly, it should be clear that any attempt to double down or act on this threat is grounds for an indefinite block: Wikipedia disputes are resolved on Wikipedia, not through threats of offline discipline. signed, Rosguilltalk19:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the comments here all day, no one had posted a warning to editor Roberto221's user talk page so I have done so. Discussion at ANI isn't effective if no action is taken to inform editors that behavior is unacceptable. LizRead!Talk!00:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reverend, Once again you have failed to grasp the concept of non-free. It was uploaded as a non-free file with its use limited to ONLY one page as any other non-free file. If you keep persisting on these attacks, then I will have no recourse but to bring this up with the editors/admins. Who is your bishop, I'd like to have a word with him..
Regardless of the situation with the coat of arms, this was a completely asinine and unnecessarily belligerent escalation, and should not be done under any circumstances. It is fine (and desirable) to escalate a dispute to other editors, or to a noticeboard such as this one; it is absolutely not permissable to escalate them irl. Editors here are free to speak the truth, and to edit without partiality, on the basis of pseudonymity -- this is an obvious threat to carry out WP:OUTING. On the basis that there may have been a simple lack of understanding of the seriousness of the policies involved here, I am giving them a single warning -- anything like this in the future will result in a block. jp×g🗯️00:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I encourage all sockpuppets to confess at any administrative noticeboard. Patrolling administrators will be happy to block you lickety split. Cullen328 (talk) 06:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[113][114] Requests to both editors on their individual TPs to strike their comments as uncivil/personal attack.
Since the request Great Mercian has continued to edit but has neither struck the comment nor otherwise responded.
[115] Rc2barrington responded at their TP: There has been some evidence-backed allegations made that other editors have ignored evidence and have engaged in disruptive editing, against Wikipedia rules. [emphasis in original]
[116] Rc2barrington was advised at their TP that the appropriate place to raise an issue was ANI. The initial request was repeated. They were also advised of WP:GSRUSUKR. Neither action has been taken by Rc2barrington.
Cinderella157, so the personal attack is saying an editor(s) is dragging out a discussion? Were there other edits? Maybe it's the time I've spent on ANI over the years but that seems pretty mild. I'm not sure it warrants a visit to ANI. What resolution were you seeking here? LizRead!Talk!04:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is an aspersion of bad faith editing made even more explicit by Rc2barrington in a CTOP/GS area where higher expectations of conduct are expected. There discussions involve many editors in respect to adding North Korea in the infobox and more specifically when we should do this. The pressure to do this now is being pushed by many non-ECP editors or editors that have limited experience. It comes down to what NEWSORG sources are actually saying v what some editors want/see them to say. Listing a nation as a belligerent is an exception claim and "supported by" is deprecated except where there is a strong affirmative consensus (RfC). It is like there is a competition to add NK and the issue is causing disruption. Editors are starting to see this as a them against us battle. The fall of Bakhmut created a similarly hostile editing environment. These are not the only two instances I could raise but others are generally by drive by IPs. They will likely get worse. An admin striking these with an appropriate comment that the page is being watched (and doing so) will have some positive effect. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be little doubt among reliable sources that North Korean troops are now in the Kursk region near Ukraine. I do not want to intervene directly in the content dispute but it seems to me that describing the North Koreans as "belligerents" at this time is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence. They could be there for mutual training or to poke the nose of Russia's many opponents. A geopolitical warning, as it were, and preparation for elite North Korean troops to operate outside their largely closed society. If reliable sources in days and weeks to come report that North Korean troops are actively attacking Ukraine, and inflicting and suffering casualties, then obviously all previous bets are off. Until then, I believe that policy requires a cautious and conservative description of North Korean involvement in that horrible and bloody war. Cullen328 (talk) 06:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen328, you have effectively summarised the views of experienced editors but the TP (and at Russo-Ukraine War) is being bombarded to change this now. And the aspersions against those opposing a change now for the reasoning you give are starting too. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)But, Cullen328, do you think this complaint calls for admin action? It sounds like the whole talk page discussion is potentially divisive and that goes beyond two isolated comments by these two editors. If similar comments (or worse) are being made by other editors, I don't know that these two editors should be sanctioned. Maybe the talk page should be protected for a while if there are problematic drive-by comments. LizRead!Talk!06:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, I am not recommending any use of the administrative toolkit at this moment in time. I will probably be awake for another hour or so and then will need seven to eight hours of sleep until my California morning. Maybe when I wake up, the North Koreans will be engaged in full scale combat in Ukraine. Maybe not, I hope. My goal at the moment is to discourage editors from getting "too far in front of their skis" about what reliable sources are saying at the particular time that I make this comment. Cullen328 (talk) 07:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that at the same talk page, a user is pushing for adding conspiracy theories to the article. May be someone with the knowledge of American conspiracy theorists and the sources they normally use might want to have a look. Ymblanter (talk) 09:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I want to address the ongoing discussion about adding North Korea to the infobox for the Russian Invasion of Ukraine. It’s clear from both the talk page and reliable sources that a strong consensus has emerged to list North Korea in the 'supported by' section. Numerous editors have provided evidence-based arguments in favor of this, backed by statements from multiple intelligence sources. Despite this, repeated reversions and resistance from a few editors have delayed progress and complicated what should be a straightforward update based on evidence.
I’d like to emphasize that ignoring well-supported information doesn’t align with Wikipedia’s commitment to accurate, up-to-date content. At this point, the continued pushback feels less about policy and more about individual resistance. I would appreciate a moderator’s help in ensuring that this evidence-based consensus is respected and that editors who aim to maintain Wikipedia’s accuracy are not unnecessarily stalled or undermined.
I was the editor who requested that earlier intervention. I was hoping to head-off such problems (ASP/PA) swiftly. I was in the process of writing a comment to Rc2barrington at the talk, but checking their talk page on a hunch discovered this. Briefly, GreatMercian's [i]t's people like you ... is a comment on contributor regardless of what follows. In a fraught discussion it is inadvisable to start a comment with this. The evidence-backed – rather evidence-free accusations – of ignoring evidence and disruptive editing is Rc2barrington copying aspersions cast by Scu ba, the editor involved in the aforementioned earlier similar incident. These may appear mild, but this is a contentious topic area and the long-term editors there are regularly fielding drive-by accusations: of being propagandists, pushing Putin's or Zelenskyy's narrative, being overtly pro-Ukraine, hiding the truthTM, etc, etc. We tend to ignore or archive (rather delete as NOTFORUM) those comments. Finally, as an aside, if only the majority of participants had as calm and cool-headed assessment as Cullen328, we'd have a better article and fewer debates. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I made that comment because I was just so sick and tired of stuff like this. There are actual news reports of North Korean troops inside Ukraine now, but apparently we have to get a consensus now instead of just putting it on the article like we've been able to do with the timeline articles. I haven't been as active on the 2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine articles as I used to be (mainly because it's too depressing now) so this is kind of a shock. It baffles me as to how that discussion is still open. I won't be striking my comment as another user's argument (and quite frankly, I don't care to look up who) relies on it. It's 3am for me now so I'll be going. I don't really want any more to do with this. Great Mercian (talk) 03:06, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Great Mercian. And yes, I endorse this comment. I have called multiple times for moderator intervention, but no, I won't mind if this is taken up and this page is protected to extended-confirmed, but this needs to be resolved, somehow. Rc2barrington (talk) 03:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say, Great Mercian does seem to have a tendency to make personal attacks against other editors during discussions. While not in the same topic area, here's another hotbed (different CTOP) where they did so [118][119]. Nil Einne (talk) 10:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The editor @Trulyy has modified a closed discussion on Talk:Tony Hinchcliffe in order to directly accuse me of bad faith edits. This editor, and others, has taken issue with my cautioning of other editors to remain neutral in their point of view when writing content for the article. Rob Roilen (talk) 13:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Without going deeper into what is getting to be a fairly messy content dispute, this at least is accurate: Trulyy modified a hatted discussion by adding an extra edit that was unsigned that was a comment purely about Rob Roilen some nine hours after it was closed. They should knock it off.
What I am also concerned about is that Trulyy has apparently gotten in the habit of mislabeling substantial edits as "minor," frequently when it's in a heated conversation involving ongoing political topics. This was labeled minor, as was a substantial edit about Ken Paxton's edits in a capital punishment article [120], adding a sentence describing a murder as an example of missing white woman syndrome [121], adding new content discussing Rich Lowry's use of a racial slur [122], adding new content quoting a Jack Posobiec comment and describing it as a thread of violence [123], and so on. While it's not worth more than a trout the first time, I'd remind Trulyy that WP:MINOR is only to be used on superficial changes to spelling, grammar, or structure, or blatant vandalism (or the result of a rollback) that nobody could reasonably argue with. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thank you for your contribution. I cleared up my reasoning for making the aforementioned comment a couple minutes ago. In regards to why it was purely about that user, it was because he was the dissenting user who did not understand what everyone else in the thread seemed to understand.
The article was, from all times I observed it, written from a neutral point of view, using objective language. Just because it was regarding negative actions, such as making jokes about racial stereotypes, does not mean it was edited in a negative tone. From what I gather you understand that, but I am letting you know just to clear up some of Rob's concerns. After reading the article, the reader was given the opportunity to make their own conclusions, not opinions given to them by the editor. As one user put it:
Buddy, you're trying to whitewash the article. NPOV doesn't mean "the comedian who was racist should have his page scrubbed clean, otherwise it's not neutral".
In regards to labeling substantial edits as minor, I apologize for doing so, I have not read up on all of wikipedia's rules in a while and was not completely familiar with what constituted a minor edit by wikipedia's standards, so thank you for informing me so I can do better. Trulyy (talk) 16:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I was just talking about the two issues (the one brought up and the one I saw). That whole talk page could definitely use a lower temperature, but I didn't mean to convey the idea that I thought that was your fault; it was simply meant as a general observation. If you will just leave hatted conversations be and be careful with that minor edit checkbox, that's certainly enough for me. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Thank you for your concern. I am not used to editing talk pages, this is maybe the third time I've edited a talk page, and as the thread I was trying to reply to was at the bottom, I did not take the time to scroll to the top to see the discussion was locked. Furthermore, when trying to post my reply in the locked discussion, I got an unclear error rather than an explanation of why I couldn't post, so I assumed it would be fine for me to edit it directly.
I'm regards to 'accusing you of bad faith edits', I don't recall doing such a thing, but what I do know is you repeatedly tried to edit a withstanding edit because you didn't feel the source was reliable, when it is listed as one of wikipedia's reliable sources. You were presented by several users with references explaining that your opinion on what a reliable source was does not trump wikipedia's lasting standards, and if you disagree with that to bring it up in the appropriate area, not in an edit war on a random page. Nonetheless, you continued to delete other information because you thought the sources unreliable, even though they are approved and acclaimed sources.
No one took issue with your notices. Several times you tried to bring up completely irrelevant arguments such as argument from authority when nothing remotely resembled such a thing.
As for disrespect and assuming bad faith, you started, from the get-go, doing that as seen below:
"What's happening right now is an insult to encyclopedic writing. The page cannot be edited except by editors with special privileges, and the only edits being made are meant to portray Tony negatively? What a joke. All credibility lost. You should be ashamed of yourselves for actively contributing to the degradation of open information sharing. This is not unbiased, neutral, accurate, factual writing. And to make it so much worse, you are literally preventing anyone who isn't in the Special Club from editing what boils down to opinions portrayed as fact. What leverage do the unprivileged editors have here? Who are you held accountable to? Yourselves? You don't see how this is dangerous? You don't think this makes it fair game for others to do the same to you?"
Furthermore, your inability to assume good faith and engage in a civilized manner with other editors can be observed in the following thread:
collapsing long, undifferentiated copy-paste
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The reason that the article is locked due to arbitration enforcement by the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. It is also because of multiple unsourced additions to the article and additions of contentious topics without a reliable source. There is no way an article could be “biased” because any article needs a reliable, secondary, and independent source to talk about it and the editor adds information from that article and puts it in there. If you think that it is an issue, you can go to the arbitration committee directly. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥17:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"There is no way an article could be “biased” because any article needs a reliable, secondary, and independent source"
Do you not see how problematic this is? When the mainstream sources Wikipedia deems as "reliable" regularly publish sensational, outright false information portrayed as fact, these sources are no longer reliable by definition.
Like I said, this is just going to end up in a loop where privileged Wikipedia users block anyone else from making edits while pointing to The Rules and shrugging. Absolutely zero accountability. Rob Roilen (talk) 17:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you have an issue with it, you can start a thread at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Telling me anything isn’t gonna get you anywhere because I don’t care about arguing about the reliability of sources. “Privileged” editors are editors who were chosen by the community to bring out their best of their ability to uphold the policies and guidelines that were made and written by the community themselves. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥17:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I don’t care about arguing about the reliability of sources" - @Cowboygilbert
@Rob Roilen, It’s because I trust editors who have spent time and time again trying to find the reliability of sources and the effort that they have taken to try to find it. I trust editors like I trust others in my life. If you want to continue to argue with me, I will simply just ignore you. I don’t care about arguing, I care about talking, if I have an editor coming to me to talk about the reliability than I would give them the policies and information that other editors in the community have written and produced to be able to teach the future of editors. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥17:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the left tries to use jokes made by a comedian as sort of political weapon totally ignoring its context and the largely racially mixed crowd they have been made infront Harris and her cronies in the media must be in deep trouble. 80.131.53.87(talk) 18:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The context is the subject of the article was at a political rally and was making racist, misogynistic comments. There is no way for his comments to be taken out of context. Trulyy (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And you have not, so far, provided any proof that the comments were indeed "racist" or "misogynistic". If you don't like them personally, that's fine and your right. But there is a distinct difference between "jokes dealing with race and women" and "actual racism and misogyny". Rob Roilen(talk) 18:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What proof do I need to provide? My edits and others have provided proof of such. It literally fits the definition. Making fun of a certain race in a derogatory manner is textbook racism. Trulyy (talk) 18:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think? Cowboygilbert clearly agrees with wikipedia's reliable sources and does not feel like arguing with someone who will not change their opinion... Trulyy (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but your opinion on what is a reliable source does not trump wikipedia standards when editing wikipedia. If you have a problem with a source you deem unreliable you can bring it up with an administrator, but just because you feel a source is unreliable does not change wikipedia decision. Trulyy (talk) 18:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am unclear as to which part of the long response isn't true. My best assumption is that you are referring to Rob Roilen's disregard for reliable sources as outlined in the relavent policies and guidelines. As was a major aspect of the conversation, myself and other users explained multiple times. that removing other's content on the basis of sources should only be done if the source is not designated reliable by wikipedia
or if it has been resolved through another remedy.
To clear things up in brief, Rob Roilen thought that he had
personal liberty to remove standing content based on his personal opinion of sources rather than longstanding
wikipedia descions.
I told him he is free to edit without using sources he doesn't like, so long as he is using other credible sources.
As was demonstrated in his comments against established and credible sources, For example:
"mainstream sources Wikipedia deems as "reliable" regularly publish sensational, outright false information portrayed as fact, these sources are no longer reliable by definition.
Rather than resolve it in accordance with wikipedia's policies, he has decided to remove content with sources he doesn't like, and, when being told explicitly that is not how to judge sources, instead of acknowledging that fact, continuing to come after other editors. Trulyy (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify regarding bad faith edits as I am rereading the thread, I did not accuse you of making bad faith edits, I accused you of targeting other users accusing them of bad faith edits, which, please see your below quote:
"You should be ashamed of yourselves for actively contributing to the degradation of open information sharing. This is not unbiased, neutral, accurate, factual writing. And to make it so much worse, you are literally preventing anyone who isn't in the Special Club from editing what boils down to opinions portrayed as fact."
The above example is textbook assuming bad faith, and such behavior discourages well-intentioned users from editing the wiki and contributing to the platform. I did not accuse you of anything I have not proven with wikipedia's definitions. Trulyy (talk) 16:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Needless to say, for a new, well-intentioned editor trying to contribute to freedom of information to be attacked by an editor both insulting, belittling, shaming, and harrasing them for editing an article in a factual, unbiased manner that they didn't like will deter other editors and scare away current ones. Trulyy (talk) 17:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both Trulyy's and Rob Roilen's posts on that page are unhelpful. Trulyy blundered in modifying a closed discussion, but at least it was their only edit and they undid it as soon as it was brought up here. Rob, meanwhile, is a single-purpose account needlessly ratcheting up the WP:BATTLEGROUND vibe of that page (and continuing to add more heat than light by skipping anything like conversation and escalating to this noticeboard). FWIW. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 18:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I made every effort to civilly explain my and others intentions, but at no point were any of my points taken into consideration. I feel Rob is not interested in the benefit of the platform, rather trying to punish those whose edits he disagrees with. He had many better, quicker, and more efficient ways to resolve this, but instead chose to try and come after me more than he already has. Trulyy (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As credit to my assumption, his topic was not constructive whatsoever, especially not to the standard of others, and he devoted only one sentence to the actual issue he reported, thus showing he was picking something against the guidelines, which was an honest mistake, and using it as an opportunity to make the above post and try to come after me. He made no indication he wanted a resolution, an understanding, or anything. I have edited on Wikipedia for a year and have devoted dozens of hours to the platform. This is my only dispute that I have gotten into that has lasted more than three messages and wasn't resolved in a satisfactory manner. Trulyy (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a "single-purpose account" and I certainly attempted to converse with other editors before bringing this to the noticeboard.
I am genuinely troubled by the effort other editors are willing to put into discrediting my input. I'm not sure how to more clearly state my mission here; I am fully, 100%, without a doubt committed to maintaining Wikipedia's integrity and accuracy. That is explicitly why I have continuously cautioned other editors from A) injecting their own personal opinions into articles, B) allowing their own personal opinions to interfere with their objective assessment of a source's reliability, and C) simply claiming a source is reliable because "it's on the list of reliable sources" or "I've always trusted ____". In the context of writing an encyclopedia, these are completely inappropriate. Rob Roilen (talk) 21:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have not continuously cautioned other editors, as more than 50% of your edits are on that talk page alone.
As myself and other editors have told you many times, when it comes to editing wikipedia, claiming a source is reliable because it's on Wikipedia's list of reliable sources is the polar opposite of 'completely innapropriate'. Trulyy (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While there are many sources that Wikipedia may generally consider reliable, "reliable" should not mean "beyond scrutiny." "Reliability" should still be determined with care. Relying on a source just because it’s generally considered reputable can unintentionally skew neutrality, especially when sources on contentious topics may display implicit biases. Encouraging balanced assessments of sources is consistent with Wikipedia’s standards of neutrality and due weight. Rob Roilen (talk) 22:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand where you are coming from. In the context of that article, what are some sources you would consider reliable? Trulyy (talk) 22:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the "2024 Trump rally at Madison Square Garden" article, Rob Roilen has been relentlessly making changes to the article (including removing sources for reasons that from my understanding are not Wikipedia's rules for what makes a source valid). He also pushing for the article's removal due to bias. Broadly, his argument is that including reactions to the event that made comparisons to Hitler and Nazism is "sensationalizing", "biased", or invalid due to the outlet or sources having consistent past articles criticizing Trump (implying that a source that has consistent rhetoric is not valid). There are three main things in his arguments that make me believe this person is acting in bad faith.
1. Instead of using the rules of the site as a justification for edits and accusations of bias, Rob Roilen is using his own standards for what constitutes neutrality. After it was explained to him that a completely neutral tone is not possible when the content of the article is not neutral (aka, False Balance), he ignored this and continued to state that the article is not "neutral". I explained to him that the neutral tone he wants is not possible, in the same way that an unbiased tone isn't possible for an article covering a topic like slavery. The other side can not be portrayed as equal in validity.
2. As well, he consistently justifies his reasoning as being because "the page should be written as an encyclopedia", and his specific use of "an encyclopedia" is (in my opinion) a deliberate way of separating the discussion from Wikipedia's rules, and pushing for what he thinks is valid based on what he expects from an encyclopedia (these are his words). The only time he has said "Wikipedia" is when he is criticizing the rules and standards of the website itself.
3. The edits he is making (including removing the introduction section summarizing the issues and rhetoric Trump used, as well as the overall reaction) are fundamentally changing the purpose of the article and what warranted its creation, and I believe this is motivated by a desire to see the page removed. Articles on specific campaign events are not created unless it was notable, had a strong and widespread reaction, or directly caused a significant event, otherwise there is no real reason to create an article on a specific rally. By removing criticisms towards the event and continuously pushing a False Balance, Rob Roilen is misleading readers and trying to make the article less factual for the sake of being unbiased. 64.228.236.176 (talk) 02:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
64.228.236.176, as it says on many places on this page, you have to inform an editor when you start a discussion on them on a noticeboard or mention them in a serious way. They should be encouraged to participate here. Please do this now. LizRead!Talk!02:59, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've stated my case in multiple threads now, including another ANI, so this is starting to feel like harassment from a handful of editors who would like to see my editing privileges limited, but just to have it here:
"NPOV...means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." (emphasis added)
It also says:
"This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." (emphasis added)
I see on my talk page I've been accused by this IP user of being "manipulative" for posting these policy excerpts.
While there are many sources that Wikipedia may generally consider reliable, "reliable" should not mean "beyond scrutiny." "Reliability" should still be determined with care. Relying on a source just because it’s generally considered reputable can unintentionally skew neutrality, especially when sources on contentious topics may display implicit biases. Encouraging balanced assessments of sources is consistent with Wikipedia’s standards of neutrality and due weight.
I believe very strongly that Wikipedia's foundational principle of neutrality should take precedence over merely reflecting sources' biases. This principle isn’t about echoing a source’s viewpoint but rather about integrating diverse perspectives in a way that represents the topic fairly, accurately, and without leaning towards a single viewpoint.By reflecting all sources—both their strengths and inherent biases—with balanced skepticism, Wikipedia avoids taking implicit stances and maintains a neutral, trustworthy stance across contentious subjects. Rob Roilen (talk) 04:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this is also a good place to mention that the above user @Great Mercian recently said to me "The more I look into it, I'm more convinced you're either not real or just a troll" and even "I'm half convinced you're a Republican sleeper agent." Rob Roilen (talk) 04:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't necessarily think Rob Roilen is a Trump supporter or even Republican, though he could be (he has stated he is not Republican and I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt). I think the more likely reason is that the user is a fan of Tony Hitchcliffe's comedy and doesn't like that his page is connected to an event widely viewed negatively. That may be presumptive but based on how this began with the Tony article, I think it's likely that this is a motivator. Note: this is just an observation, I do not think this motivation is disqualifying, had Rob Roilen acted appropriatley his edits may have been acceptable. The user's own words and actions are the main thing that I think are worth scrutinizing, not his political views, which I am not comfortable assuming. 64.228.236.176 (talk) 14:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding personal attacks, refer to the lightest example, but most convinient for me, of what Rob said prior to a single interaction with any editors:
"What's happening right now is an insult to encyclopedic writing. The page cannot be edited except by editors with special privileges, and the only edits being made are meant to portray Tony negatively? What a joke. All credibility lost.
You should be ashamed of yourselves for actively contributing to the degradation of open information sharing. This is not unbiased, neutral, accurate, factual writing. And to make it so much worse, you are literally preventing anyone who isn't in the Special Club from editing what boils down to opinions portrayed as fact.
What leverage do the unprivileged editors have here? Who are you held accountable to? Yourselves? You don't see how this is dangerous? You don't think this makes it fair game for others to do the same to you?"
I agree that his behavior is incendiary and unacceptable. But there isn't a "but they did something wrong too!" exception to WP:PA, much less doubling down on them on the noticeboard. It's contrary to policy regardless. Just10A (talk) 17:06, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rob Roilen as you seem to have used original research to challenge the acceptability of reliable sources, and have cited WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS as an acceptable source, I suggest your arguments are better suited for noticeboards rather than within an article that you adamantly seek to delete. soibangla (talk) 04:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assume Rob Roilen is pointing to your temporary ban from editing one particular article focused on Trump's assassination attempt. I do not see how this is relevant here, since this is not a discussion on soibangla or this different article. 64.228.236.176 (talk) 04:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that will be done. Rob has been rebuked by dozens of editors within the last two days, has made personal attacks, been shown wikipedia policy and ignored it because he doesn't like it. Escalated issues needlessly instead of trying to get them resolved, and violated many of wikipedia's policies. Trulyy (talk) 16:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find it extraordinarily strange that I'm the one being accused of "ignoring Wikipedia policy" when there are multiple examples of me directly referencing and quoting said policy in an attempt to get other editors to actually follow it. You do understand that it's possible to be wrong about something even when you're in a room full of people who agree with you, right? Rob Roilen (talk) 19:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The manipulativeness was what you left out and what you emphasized. First, you emphasized "editorial bias" while completely ignoring "as far as possible", which is clearly an important point of nuance. You have not been able to prove that the article and sources used are properly sourced bias, which as I explained, is acceptable. What you have engaged in is editorial bias, by definition. Your interpretation is also manipulative:
"This principle isn’t about echoing a source’s viewpoint but rather about integrating diverse perspectives in a way that represents the topic fairly, accurately, and without leaning towards a single viewpoint." This is factually untrue. I have shown you repeated proof that this is not realistic in all scenarious, and the site's rules reflect this. For example, an article on evolution cannot be accurate if it doesn't lean towards the viewpoint that evolution is true. By this extreme logic, you would have to present the Creationist perspective equally. 64.228.236.176 (talk) 04:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I second this for the article Tony Hinchcliffe. He showed blatant disregard for wikipedia's guidelines, attacked other editors, and then reported me to the notice board, although everyone else in that thread and the talk page thread all sided with me. He has been downright nasty to myself and others. Trulyy (talk) 16:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer to another editors opinion on a thread regarding my mistake that Rob escalated:
well now the problematic matter appears to be that Rob Roilen has cast aspersions on others who have disagreed with their adamance in deleting the articlc, including suggesting that an editor's Talk page be examined by administrators for some sort of suspected malfeasance soibangla (talk) 06:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a sec. An IP who's just joined the 'pedia about two days ago, participating only at the aforementioned page. Now making an ANI report??? GoodDay (talk) 05:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GoodDay, I'm not sure why this surprises you, IP accounts file complaints at ANI all of the time. Most IP accounts have addresses that are dynamic and change regularly so this editor probably edited with other addresses in the past. I do not think they are an editor who is contributing logged out if that is what concerns you. LizRead!Talk!05:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IP editors are perfectly entitled to contribute as 64.228.236.176 has at length on the article Talk. allegations have been suggested by two editors that 64.228.236.176 was recently banned but no concrete evidence has been presented. incidentally, aspersions have also been cast upon me, which might be considered sanctionable. soibangla (talk) 05:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you maybe argue with the points being raised before going with an ad hom? Like most regular users of Wikipedia, I have simply not made edits or engaged in discussions, until this particular article's vote for deletion caught my attention. I disagree with this deletion, so here we are.
Rob Roilen has also only started being active the last couple days, roughly 99% of his edits are on this article and the one on Tony Hitchcliffe (apologies if the name is botched). This is not one of the reasons I am criticizing him, his longevity is not an important factor to me. I am criticizing his arguments, edits, and overall conduct in this situation. 64.228.236.176 (talk) 05:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't understand the question, which put my hackles up: of course it's important for our purposes who the identity of editors are in the terms we have been discussing. Remsense ‥ 论05:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
64.228.236.176, if you want a better response to your complaint, it is best to include "diffs" or links to specific edits that you find problematic and that concern you. Typically a report comes with 3-7 diffs so that editors reviewing it can see if there is a problem that needs to be addressed. Right now, this complaint is just editors bickering with each other. To take any action, you have to include evidence of misconduct that goes beyond a narrative complaint. I tell this to many editors new to filing complaints at ANI so this is not me taking a side, just informing you what is generally needed for any action to happen. There are situations where an admin will investigate a situation themselves but it helps the filer to point out what behavior they see as problematic. LizRead!Talk!05:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
well now the problematic matter appears to be that Rob Roilen has cast aspersions on others who have disagreed with their adamance in deleting the articlc, including suggesting that an editor's Talk page be examined by administrators for some sort of suspected malfeasance soibangla (talk) 06:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the input. I may need some time to put all the citations together (and I am not super familiar with formatting so this will require more research) but that seems doable. I didn't think this discussion would take up this much of my time but I am invested at this point. 64.228.236.176 (talk) 07:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My comment remains the same. Without diffs/evidence, I doubt any action will be taken because it looks like a disagreement over content or just two editors who don't get along. You don't need a lot of diffs, like I said, a half dozen examples can be persuasive (or not, it depends on what you choose to highlight). I recommend that this doesn't devolve into bickering between editors or someone will just close this discussion. LizRead!Talk!08:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've made this a subthread of the earlier one. While the earlier thread was started by Rob Roilen, as often happens with these sort of threads, Rob Roilen's own behaviour was also being discussed and it concerned the same set or articles and issues. Splitting the discussion is unlikely to be helpful. Nil Einne (talk) 09:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the general issue, I have to say from what I've seen that Rob Roilen is still fairly unfamiliar with and having trouble accepting our sourcing requirements and other fundamentals of editing here. While we were all new once, I'm not convinced these articles especially so close to the US election is a good place for them to be learning. They've already been given a recent American politics CTOP alert so IMO barring considerable improvement it's worth an admin considering if it might be productive to force them to learn the basics somewhere else or at least sometime after the election if they want to stay in recent American politics articles. Nil Einne (talk) 09:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rob's primary objective at the Tony Hinchcliffe article seems to be removing the "racist" label on a "they're just jokes" basis. That he is arguing to exclude "mainstream media" underscores misunderstanding how Wikipedia works. Various examples of needless fighting and policy issues, all from Talk:Tony Hinchcliffe:
Oh I see, so we're just going to do that thing where we get stuck in a loop where you claim that mainstream media articles are "reliable"
Why is your sense of urgency suddenly gone? Someone was so eager to call Tony "racist" and lock down the editing of the page for a month, but when people push back we're just going to run out the clock?
It could even be argued that these statements about Tony are libelous.
Ah yes, step in to seriously limit who can freely edit information but then refuse to participate in the ongoing discussion. How diplomatic
None of it is helpful. Lest we think Rob is the only one, or that he's escalating in a vacuum, there are several users making wildly unhelpful comments on that talk page, so I sort of get Rob's strong response in places. The problem is none of his comments seem to move discussion forward, and it's an account focused on this topic. FWIW. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 12:21, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd appreciate if editors would stop implying that I'm only here to edit a single topic, since this appears to be an effort to discredit my input. Is my input only valid if I've edited a certain number of pages? What's the threshold?
To contextualize the quotes above, it should be noted that they are from when the Tony Hinchcliffe article was being aggressively edited to portray Tony in an objectively negative light directly after the Madison Square Garden rally. Saying that my comments did not move the discussion forward fails to take into account that the article is currently much more tonally neutral than it was before I happened to show up.
I also find it deeply troubling that other editors who have expressed personal disagreements with my tone are literally calling for me to be "forced" to follow the rules in a way they subjectively approve of. Please tell me I'm not the only person here who sees the very real issue with that. Rob Roilen (talk) 12:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The context for "single-purpose account" is WP:SPA FYI. fails to take into account that the article is currently much more tonally neutral - even if we say you were right on the content issues, being right doesn't discount the negative effect of a flurry of unnecessarily escalating comments with no basis in wikipolicy. I don't have anything else to add, though. If you don't want to be seen as an "SPA", find some good sources to summarize to improve a totally unrelated article. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 13:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rob Roilen: To give an example of why your approach is harmful, consider this edit [124]. The edit itself was productive, AFAICT, neither source used in our article describes what Cardone said as misogynistic. Your edit summary was so unhelpful however that it would have been better to not use an edit summary. AFAICT, no one has argued the comment is inherently misogynistic on the talk page. But even if they had, it would be irrelevant. What matters is whether sources widely call what Cardone said as misogynistic not whether it's "inherently misogynistic" (whatever on earth that means) nor whether an editor feels it is or isn't misogynistic. I actually nearly reverted you because I thought it was more WP:OR from you but decided to check the sources just to make sure and found that you were in fact correctly reverting some other editor's OR but with an edit summary that made it seemed like you were the one doing the OR. It's easily possible barring the edit history being further annotated that some other editor might come to the same conclusion as me but not check the sources and so revert you. Working in a collaborative environment means it's incredibly unhelpful to make editors think your edit was improper by using an edit summary which suggest that. But further, it's extremely unclear that you even understand why your edit was productive. If you don't this means you could have easily made the mistake of removing something which was in fact widely supported by secondary sources based on your own interpretation/OR; or in other words the fact you happened to be right in that edit is a happy accident as much as anything. Nil Einne (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At this point I have no idea how to more clearly explain that a handful of blatantly biased sources does not qualify as "widely reported", and how even if something is "widely reported", if it completely flies in the face of the basic definition of words, it is not accurate enough to use as source material in an encyclopedia. Rob Roilen (talk) 20:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AFAICT, no one has every said 'a handful of blatantly biased sources' qualifies 'as "widely reported"'. But as for your second part well that's the problem. If you're not willing to accept the basics of how Wikipedia works then you shouldn't be editing here at all and you definitely shouldn't be editing a hot button CTOP article. Since multiple editors have tried to explain to you how Wikipedia works and you're still either not understanding it or not willing to accept it, it's getting to the point where there's no point trying further. Nil Einne (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So to clarify, you believe it is perfectly acceptable for Wikipedia to use blatantly impartial journalism as sources while simultaneously holding neutrality as a foundational principle? Rob Roilen (talk) 21:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you mean "partial", but either way it matters little.
Per BIASED (which is a guideline), "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. [...] Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering."
If you have a problem with sources considered reliable, rather than contentiously push changes based on your personal assessment that X or Y source is too "biased" to be usable, you should take it up at the RSN. Over there is where said assessment concerning the sources' bias will matter. You may even find that other editors agree with you; many sources, after all, have had their agreed-upon reliability debated, or even changed, during Wikipedia's history. During content discussion, however, your subjective opinion does not trump community consensus around the usability of sources.
Yes, I did mean to say "blatantly partial journalism", thank you for the catch.
But again, I don't know why I need to clarify this, and this is not my personal opinion, but editors of an encyclopedia should be informed and intelligent enough to be able to determine themselves whether or not the sources available to them are appropriate for the given topic, especially when contentious, and regardless of whether or not Wikipedia has their name in green or red on the perennial sources list. A formal debate over the reliability of a source does not need to be opened every time an editor points out inappropriate bias in commentary from a source typically viewed as reliable.
"editors of an encyclopedia should be informed and intelligent enough to be able to determine themselves whether or not the sources available to them are appropriate for the given topic"
Editors are free to hold whatever subjective opinion they have on the appropriateness of sources. But the active use, or avoidance, of said sources is decided using consensus as opposed to that opinion.
"A formal debate over the reliability of a source does not need to be opened every time an editor points out inappropriate bias in commentary from a source typically viewed as reliable."
Perhaps not, but you specifically stated that these sources were "blatantly partial", with the basic contention that this makes them unusable for this topic. That's your opinion. It's a fine opinion to have, and one that you could well defend at RSN. It's also not something which trumps community consensus on the subject.
This will be my last message here, as I am uninterested in a debate, being uninvolved in the content dispute itself. I am merely reminding you of the policies in place at this encyclopedia. Of course, you are free to ignore this reminder, and keep BLUDGEONING that your personal opinion on what constitutes reliable sources trumps community consensus. LaughingManiac (talk) 23:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you are entitled to your own opinion. But I've seen you have run-ins with this editor so to be persuasive, you'd have to present a diff or two of conduct that violates Wikipedia's policies and guidelines which I haven't seen yet. I see some worrisome commentary on their judging the reliability of sources but without evidence of improper actions, it's just talk. LizRead!Talk!03:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The IP 196.191.240.46(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) appears to be adding copyright violations to Kembata Zone and after checking with Earwig's I have tagged the page for revdel accordingly. The user has also engaged in other disruptive editing on that page. I was considering reporting to AIV but it isn't obvious vandalism or spam (from what I could see) so I decided to be cautious and report here instead. Did I do the right thing or should I have taken a different approach? Thanks, Fathoms Below(talk)14:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will somebody please have a look at the accounts Aguahrz(utcmlbpd) (oldest) and Ajohn77(utcmlbpd)? Socking or meat, Ajohn77 has repeatedly tried to move the page User:Aguahrz, a hoax about "UTEA officially United Territories of East Africa is a country located in Eastern Africa" (permalink) to draft space. They have remained unresponsive on their talk page. SamSailor17:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also have observed this behavior but avoided touching it with a ten foot stick (other than warning) i saw really nothing but socking and attempts at exporting an unfinished mos violation riddled article and i think the person behind said account doesn’t really know how to use Wikipedia I don’t see much harm as of today i say just let them do it till something block worthy is done •Cyberwolf•talk?19:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Elijah certainly has created articles that are notable, and I would be wrong to not mention that, but too many times they have been warned about their article creation, or their articles have been deleted, with no change in behavior. I think some sort of sanction might be useful in this case to prevent this from continuing to occur. Esolo5002 (talk) 20:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've also noticed this as well. It almost feels like he's creating them just to claim "First!" Here he made an article about retaliatory strikes against Iran that didn't even happen until nine days later. Procyon117 (talk) 13:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If Elijah was actually doing due diligence on articles (Confirm there isn't another article, check notability, actually add sufficient sourcing and content), we wouldn't be here. He does not, and nearly all of his articles are one sentence each, way less than anyone would expect. When repeated consistently, this shows a problem.
Note that I have past strong opinions on Elijah and saw this primarily thanks to the ping. I respect his mainspace contributions (as someone who has not contributed much there myself recently), but they are not supposed to be a substitute for due diligence. Soni (talk) 04:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the “offending” content on reflection and decided that my other statements stood on their own merits. I was not attempting to “blank it”, but to return the discussion to the deletion of the article, rather than what was believed to be (and I strongly dispute the accusation) a personal attack.
There is no "correct" way, it shouldn't have been said in the first place. I can say some extremely deplorable things, and taking it back/deleting it won't make it any better. SMGchat20:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a note on my talk page about altering/deleting the comments of others, as it can be interpreted as disruptive editing, yet that is precisely what you have done yourself on that same page by changing the remark to “personal attack removed, and you are STILL complaining about it over on the deletion discussion page as well. Steven Britton (talk) 21:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may not agree with my opinion, and that’s perfectly fine.
However you do not have a monopoly on what gets to be determined as a personal attack. I do not have a monopoly on it either, for that matter.
I responded as I initially did because I was trying to get across to you why I said what I said, and why it was not intended as a personal attack. I maintain that position. I also still appreciate you adding the proposed for deletion tag to the page.
As the person who was the subject of the alleged personal attacks, I feel like I have an obligation to weigh in. I'm going to WP:AGF: I don't think that Scbritton was trying to attack me necessarily, I think the comments were just in poor taste. The claim was that me being queer could lead to the "perception" of bias by people unfamiliar with me or my views. This is correct, even if it's completely irrelevant because that bias doesn't actually exist. I think the comments made by Scbritton were just an attempt to point out a perceived potential issue with the article in the deletion discussion, even if they were wrong and misguided. Di (they-them) (talk) 22:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’ll also note this, directed at me: ” Okay this is getting ridiculous. I went in with the intention to removed the statement, but you took it upon yourself to alter my statements, replacing them with “personal attack removed”, and, then, when I removed everything associated with the comment you didn’t like, you went and filed a complaint over on the admin page, and you are STILL going on about it here.” I’m on mobile, so I can’t fetch the revision, but it’s on the AfD. SMGchat22:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've just spent a little time digging around here, and what I've found is that Steven seems to spend the majority of his time on WP arguing that we shouldn't call people or groups "far-right" no matter how obviously they are exactly that, and that he was blocked before for edit warring at the Proud Boys article for pretty much this exact reason, and that block was extended to an indef with talk page revoked for their behavior during the block, and was only unblocked after a discussion here [127]. I'm getting the impression that this user is here for WP:RGW reasons. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today23:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think an inexperienced user may be forgiven for not immediately understanding the Wikipedian practice that, in an argument, someone (not a person who's in charge of that discussion in particular, just a random person) can arbitrarily decide that your comment breaks WP:TPG or WP:NPA and remove it, but also you aren't allowed to remove the subsequent things, e.g. a bunch of people calling it insensitive and offensive et cetera. Generally I prefer to use {{hat}} unless the thing is so obviously obscene as to be dishonorable to leave up in any form (e.g. crude sexual insults or curse words) jp×g🗯️00:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry for not reading the relevant guideline and for blanking more text than necessary. My intention was to suppress uncivil comments, but I overdid it. Xacaranda (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Scbritton, I do not think that it is quite yet time to move on. What you did is pick up the fact that an editor prefers to be referred to my singular they pronouns, and then you inferred that the editor therefore seems to have an ideology incompatible with editing neutrally about Donald Trump. That is logically flawed, and use of the singular they goes back to the 14th century and is an entirely legitimate way to conceal aspects of one's identity, and the right to anonymity is an important value among Wikipedians. I recommend that you read A brief history of 'singular they' published by the Oxford English Dictionary .
Think about it: which ideologies render a person unable to edit neutrally? Both monarchists and Marxists can edit neutrally. Both Sourthern Baptists and atheists can edit neutrally. Both American patriots and Italian patriots can edit neutrally. Both Baby Boomers and Gen Z editors can edit neutrally. Our policy No personal attacks rules out derogatory phrases based on race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, religious or political beliefs, disability, ethnicity, nationality, etc. directed against another editor. The policy says using political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing, is also forbidden. Editors are allowed to have personal political POV, as long as it does not negatively affect their editing and discussions
The policy advises us As a matter of polite and effective discourse, arguments should not be personalized; that is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people. The policy also says Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. So, I would like to warn you to follow that policy closely and refrain from personalizing content disagreements that way. Cullen328 (talk) 00:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and indeffed per NOTHERE/RGW. A quick review of their edits makes it pretty plain that they're here to right the great wrong of everything that is wrong with Wikipedia: a far-left bias of its editor base, selective, yet restrictive material sourcing to bolster that particular point of view, and locking articles and ganging up on editors to work around the rules of edit-warring.ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very persistent unregistered vandal whose edits usually contain dubious or fake information, always unsourced: [128][129][130]. And it goes on for many years: similar edits from the "neighboring" /64-ranges can be traced back to the mid-2015. The vandal is also active in Ukrainian Wikipedia and Russian Wikipedia (already been blocked in Russian Wikipedia many times; as you can see, a recent one-year block wasn't enough there). I think it would be good to impose a global block (I suggest a 2-3-year term or even more), but I'm unable to properly file a global block request due to a semi-protection on the Steward requests page on Meta. Could you please block this range locally or make a global block request? 213.87.90.88 (talk) 02:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, @Ohnoitsjamie already blocked this IP range on the 26th (presumably when he saw the log or the report).
About the global block thing, IPs can request global (b)locks in the talk page of Steward requests (there's an edit request button in the edit notice).
Only three editor-generated reports that haven't been actioned, the rest have been reviewed. I'll take a look at the couple outstanding.-- Ponyobons mots22:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not 100% sure if this belongs here or at AIV, but: I was at RCP when I reverted an edit by User:Miyanky445 which was unsourced and seemed POV. I left a notice and then, when checking the user's contribution history, I noticed that it was made exclusively of reverted edits of the same kind and seems to be realted to an ethnic group. I left a custom messege on user's talk page to which has not been responded to but then noticed that the user was reverting my reverts. Rather than start an edit war I'm brining it here but user appears to be either POV or wp:NOTHERE. --Lenny Marks (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked x 72 hrs for disruptive editing. I came very close to indeffing them based on their history. If this resumes, I think that would be the next step. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a user on Wikipedia by the name of Dragon5556 who went on my personal page and vandalised it (Swearing and removing my personal content). They have also been vandalising Wikipedia by editing Rugby League pages with information which is not true. Is there anything that can be done about this?. Sully198787 (talk) 07:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. This looks like a straightforward "I'm angry at you 'cause you reverted my edits" case. I think a simple explanation of why we shouldn't add speculation (i.e. predicting the future) to pages would be useful. Also, Sully isn't reverting you because they think you're "not good enough", they were protecting the page from info and content which could potentially be incorrect or misleading to readers. A♭m(Ring!)(Notes)09:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked. Johnuniq's comment above was appropriate at the time, but now it's starting to look like Dragon5556 may have come down with ANI flu immediately after their edits to Sully198787's userpage. Surely Sully shouldn't have to wait for them to recover, or indeed have to open another report once this one has slid off into the archives. Therefore, I have blocked Dragon5556 for two weeks for harassment and personal attacks. If that block cures them, they can appeal the block in the usual way, or indeed, if this thread is still live, write comments and ask to have them moved here. Bishonen | tålk19:59, 31 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Burned Toast has some particularly disruptive userboxes - ones that say This is user is an Antisemite. and This is user is aristocratic and looks down to the resentful masses. - on their user page, among others, that flagrantly violate WP:UBCR #2 as well as WP:HID, and may warrant attention from the community. I'm surprised that these haven't been detected or reported at ANI before. I'd normally discuss issues with userboxes with the editor on their talk page, but in this case I find the UBX disruptive enough to escalate directly to ANI. JavaHurricane12:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only partially related, but when @Catfurball: attempted to remove a non-userpage category from their page, they were reverted with the edit summary "don't touch my shit". Diff is here. SMGchat13:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed them and told the user not to restore them (sorry Rick, I only noticed your comment had been added when I came to post back here). Up to them now, but if they reappear it will be the last time. Black Kite (talk)13:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Abishe is a prolific article creator (some 2,000 articles, some 100 deleted ones) who has been autopatrolled since 2018. I noticed them in August 2024, when I posted on their talk page about the convoluted language in their articles (I had sent a few to draftspace as well), and about Close paraphrasing and copyvio issues.
The problems remain the same though, a few days ago I listed Taifa-1 at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2024 October 28, and when I look at something like Freedom Way from 29 October, you get things like "It was reported that Blessing Uzzi had befriended Afolabi Olalekan, and both of them knew each other for quite a while. They eventually became very closely attached to each other, making a formidable bond, and it all happened within a duration of at least three to four years," to say that they have been friends for 4 years.
Word salad: "Variety gave a critical review insisting that the screenplay of Blessing Uzzi was reminiscing of the storytelling pattern of prominent Iranian filmmaker Asghar Farhadi, recalling the down memory lane memories of the latter's masterpiece films as they often touch upon the elevation of the storyline which was often decided on a particular incident being unfolded in a vital point as the catalyst that would determine the proceedings and trigger the flow of the film right through to the end of the climax, as the sequence of events are often portrayed as a result of that incident."
When looking at some recent creations while compiling this report, I came across Bayilvan Ranganathan, which seems to have very serious BLP issues. The section "He also endured in controversies as reports surfaced about him working as a broker by forcefully pulling young female actresses to act in blue films and in films with a huge component dedicated to adultery content. He was reportedly using his political influence to make and milk cash cows by targeting women actresses who were deemed as vulnerable due to various reasons such as desperate situation in terms of proving a point to establish themselves and to survive in the film industry" is sourced to this and this, but if Google translate is to be trusted then neither of them even remotely supports these allegations (I haven't removed them for now, but if confirmed then the section needs to go of course).
Comment I understand the constructive criticism on my work and I admit that I use lot of references by taking inspiration from existing websites. I admit my loopholes where my wordplay is put under a scanner. I really believe the way I write the articles, it is also as a result of my habit pertaining to the over consumption of reading articles in newspapers and internet where certain authors use catchy words and more technical English terms and jargons. I have exposed myself to read a plethora of articles written by various authors and I have also adapted the same language usage. For example, I can recall a Cricinfoarticle written by Sashank Kishore about an upcoming South African cricketer Nandre Burger which depicted his cricket trajectory in a phrase as serendipitous and unexpected path to cricket. I incorporated the word serendipitous actually to elaborate how the career trajectory of Sri Lankan radio announcer and television personality B. H. Abdul Hameed changed in a serendipitous manner with the paragraph as follows.
Hameed made his entry as a child artist, albeit in a serendipitous manner by replacing child artist Marikkar S. Ramdas who was supposed to take part in the Siruvar Malar program, but the latter was absent due to sickness on an eventful day.
I actually made lot of efforts and research before writing a lengthy content article for B. H. Abdul Hameed because the subject matter in consideration was deleted on previous occasions citing notability issues. Hence, such concerns also prompted me to elevate my wordplay. I do agree with the BLP concerns raised about the paragraphs that I included in Bayilvan Ranganathan and I will guarantee to ensure a neutral point of view by removing certain sentences which sound like scathing attack. I admit of using very detailed comprehensive analysis when trying to explain a situation in Wikipedia articles like the one mentioned by @Fram: in Freedom Way. The use of complex wordings by me in the recent articles actually speak volume about my passion for reading newspapers, articles and it highlights about my thought process on how to create articles to elevate the status of them to B or C classes. I always push myself to grab more general knowledge by actively contributing to Wikipedia by focusing on several topics ranging from sports, cinema, education, technology, science, entertainment, etc.
Variety gave a critical review insisting that the screenplay of Blessing Uzzi was reminiscing of the storytelling pattern of prominent Iranian filmmaker Asghar Farhadi, recalling the down memory lane memories of the latter's masterpiece films as they often touch upon the elevation of the storyline which was often decided on a particular incident being unfolded in a vital point as the catalyst that would determine the proceedings and trigger the flow of the film right through to the end of the climax, as the sequence of events are often portrayed as a result of that incident.
I write paragraphs like the ones mentioned above by cutting and chopping wordings after reading primary sources like Variety. Unfortunately I just did not really find out a way to write a section of my own for the Kenyan operational satellite Taifa-1, because the citation that I added in the article had advanced phrases and wordings which I felt I may not be able to change the wordings and I added some adjectives to exaggerate the content for my understanding.
Other thing I want to point out that I was keen on moving 2024 Asian Netball Championships in the ITN in main page. So I tried to expand the article to at least C class but I found little help in terms of obtaining high quality sources, mainly due to the fact that the 2024 Asian Netball Championships did not receive wider coverage and probably Indian sources ignored it. To add insult to injury, there were only a handful of news about Indian officials rejecting Pakistan visas to prevent Pakistan netball team from touring India for the competition. It was evident how Indian media chose to ignore such sporting events despite it being held in India. Hence, fellow Wikipedia editors insisted not to proceed with the proposal to add 2024 Asian Netball Championships to ITN section, citing lack of coverage as prime reason and also my article still remained relatively short. I do agree my writing was not upto the standards mainly due to lack of quality references. This was similar to my ambitious efforts to push 2018 Blind Cricket World Cup in ITN, but only to be politely rejected by other Wikipedians due to lack of coverage and due to tournament final being played in empty stands despite archrivals India-Pakistan playing the final. Hence, I find hopeless and sometimes it makes me to go to the extent of expanding the article depth by describing certain incidents by including a lot of adjectives, wordings to give a reasonable outlook to give an article to have a feeling similar to a lucrative attire or ornament.
I understand that autopatrolled rights given to certain Wikipedia editors is similar to the context of a public limited company listed under a stock exchange so that public scrutiny is ensured. A public limited company can issue shares to general public as long as it is listed in the stock exchange and if the company is delisted, the company's ability to issue shares will be restricted. The autopatrolled rights given me the license to fire on all cylinders so I elevate the content in articles in different patterns, but I guarantee I intentionally do not spread misinformation by adding hoaxes. It's actually to do with my writing pattern that I often exaggerate and use many words to describe a situation. I apologise for my style of writing and I do not endorse my act to be justified. It's just my opinion on how I usually go about my business in creating articles. Abishe (talk) 14:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How that metaphor about limited companies is supposed to apply to autopatrolled rights is anyone's guess. There is no feasible way that not having the right can impede your productivity; that would only be the case if you are using it to avoid necessary scrutiny that would cause you to have to rework or refine the stuff - in which case it definitely should not have been published without such scrutiny. The right's only function is to make the job easier for reviewers, it is not a perk. As always in such cases, I support removal of autopatrolled on demonstration of any reasonable need for a second eye on an editor's output. That should not be a big deal, and the best reponse would IMHO be "Sure, no problem". Fighting for retaining the right always strikes me as indicating that an editor is holding it for the wrong reasons. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. For the purposes of review by non-admins: the removed and revdelled content said in the lead that the subject was accused of unethical and possibly illegal conduct. No source was presented, and no body content supported it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Skets33 has continued to make disruptive edits on the Tikar people article, despite several warnings. They have failed to include reliable sources. In the rare event that Skets33 does include a source, the source (such as this one) does not make any of the claims that Skets33 includes in their edits. I noticed that this is a common theme across their edits on the Fula people, Hausa people, Bamileke people, and Kanuri people pages.
A comment was left on Skets33's user talk page on July 31, 2024 to inform them of Wikipedia's rules. The comment was ignored.
I looked at all the diffs you have provided. This looks to me very much like a content dispute and a slow motion edit war between the two of you over what the primary subject of the article should be. You should both be discussing this on the talk page, and engaging in dispute resolution if that doesn't go anywhere. Please also note that it is literally impossible for only one person to edit war, it takes a minimum of two, and everyone who engages in it is equally wrong regardless of the correctness of their editorial position. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today18:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to call the attention of the community to what I see as routinely bad judgement at AfD procedures by User:Mushy Yank. At a current procedure Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fahad Shaikh, the problem is illustrated. In this case we have a BLP article largely written by the subject. At the AfD, we have a new contributor User:Gul Butt and Mushy Yank asserting keep, as in In the list mentioned in the Television section, 11 of his dramas are notable enough to have a separate Wiki Page. In many, he is in the lead role. Still not met NACTOR?(diff) andHe does seem to meet WP:NACTOR fairly with multiple significant roles (including more than 10 lead roles [I would not call this "a few"]) in notable productions.(diff).
This wouldn't be a problem as a one-off, but nominator User:Saqib points out Mushy Yank does this all the time: You should have realized by now (and there are more examples like this such as this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this etc) that simply stating that the subject has roles in a TV series is not enough to keep the BLP. You need to establish how they meet NACTOR.(diff).
One of your two diffs is the keep vote of another editor, not of Mushy Yank, so it doesn't seem relevant for this discussion. Mushy Yank provided sources in his keep vote, so I don't see any issue with the vote as such (even if the article would be deleted, being "wrong" at an AfD is not disruptive if, like here, it is supported by at least a plausible reasoning). The subject seems clearly notable, and is the kind of national "star" the tabloid press features again and again[143]. Considering that many (most) sources probably aren't in English (or in Latin script), I would need good evidence that his roles are not major roles before considering deletion. So what's the problem with that AfD? Not Mushy Yank, as far as I can see. Fram (talk) 14:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve cited only a few AFDs where both Mushy Yank and I participated, but there are many more where their keep argument is simply that an actor meets NACTOR just because they have some roles in TV series or films. And when they're challenged, they get irritated and accuse others of making ad hominem attacks and this is not an isolated incident. They mostly contribute to actor/TV/film-related AFDs, an area heavily infested by sock farms and UPEs and several SPAs tend to vote keep based on weak arguments. Their keep votes often shift the AFD outcomes from delete to non-consensus, which is problematic. I suggest Mushy Yank be warned against throwing around weak keep votes. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate their willingness to save articles, but their arguments are sometimes incomplete or not well-supported. For instance, in a recent AfD, they posted a ‘Keep’ vote, stating: Keep: as a very anticipated film, as existing coverage shows; or redirect to Hanu-Man#Future until consensus is to revert and expand, if other users think it’s better. Absolutely opposed to deletion. Does being a highly anticipated film alone make it notable? Additionally, without providing any sources, the film is currently receiving coverage only because of its first look. Should we really keep the article without significant coverage (SIGCOV) sources and without meeting the NFILM criteria? GrabUp - Talk15:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, there may well be issues with their AfDs in general, I just don't understand why it was brought here with the example of an AfD where they did provide sources to support their claim, and where it seems that the main issue is the other side, delete voters not looking for sources and at the same time being unnecessary confrontational and personalizing the debate. And when the OP then added a quote from a different keep voter to their case about Mushy Yank, it looked more like an attempt to silence an opponent at an AfD than as a real issue (that quote has since been struck). I still don't get why this AfD is a problem worth of an ANI visit. Fram (talk) 15:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my example of this particular process, I said the problem was illustrated. I wouldn't normally bring someone to ANI for bad judgement. Then I provided another editor's quote which contained a number of ten wikilinks (example 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) which proved my point (routinely bad judgement at AfD procedures. This is not MY cherry picked sample, but my quote of User:Saqib's on this thread (I linked the diffs). If you click on the diffs and do a quick count you'll see my reason for posting this report. You'll noticed I've bolded some of them. Those are bad faith comments aimed at another editor. This is repeated bad behavior. 4/10. Before I cherry pick diffs myself, did we look at AfD stats? In the last 500 procedures, 267 Keep !votes and 174 Redirect !votes. 2 deletes. Two out of 500.BusterD (talk) 01:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they seem entirely normal. Nobody is required to post a certain percentage of "keep" votes or "delete" votes in order to participate at AfD. Personally, I only vote when I think something is worth keeping. The deletions usually take care of themselves. Toughpigs (talk) 01:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a frequent closer of AFD discussions, I see more of the opposite, editors who have never voted to Keep an article. I'm thinking of one extremely regular AFD participant whom I've never seen argue to Keep an article but their opinion is valued and I can't imagine them being brought to ANI because of their overly rigorous interpretation of Wikipedia's policies on notability. We have inclusionists and deletionists but this differing philosophy isn't grounds for a trip to ANI. If a voting record is now the grounds for an ANI complaint, I can suggest dozens of similar voting patterns among our regulars who veer strongly towards one end of the Keep-Delete spectrum. And I'd also point out the high number of arguments to Redirect an article from Mushy Yank when they don't believe an article should be Kept. LizRead!Talk!02:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am one of those editors who would fall in that category (majority delete votes). I think why the keep votes being mentioned here seems strange as opposed to delete votes is because pages recommended for deletion seem to be deleted more than kept. That is why they are brought there in the first place as an editor has likely done their diligence and believes they should be deleted. Yes, there are exceptions but I am talking about what generally happens. Now, if we had an "articles for keep" discussion I think the votes would turn opposite of editor's patterns and an editor voting delete in the majority of those discussions would not seem normal. I realize that is a strange comparison, but I vote keep hundreds of times by viewing and not taking pages to AfD (as I feel they meet notability) before I actually recommend one for deletion. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And for the record, I am not saying it's wrong for someone to vote keep in the majority of discussions. Just explaining why it may not seem normal for the keep votes, while those voting delete the majority of the time may seem normal. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BusterD, they're certainly not normal numbers, but that in itself isn't an issue, since there's no way to avoid selection bias when looking at someone's AfD vote habits. I presume that Mushy Yank only ever joins a discussion when they think they can vote against deletion - nothing wrong with picking your battles. -- asilvering (talk) 03:17, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BusterD wrote: bad faith comments aimed at another editor. This is repeated bad behavior. Mushy wrote (just to pick one of your bolded selections at random): I might not reply here any further, should you, as I expect, not find the sources to your liking for one reason or another. How is that bad faith? Certainly no less bad faith than what Saqib said (triggered a reply from Mushy in one of your examples): You often claim that the actor has significant roles, but you never provide evidence. At worst, these are quite mild, civil expressions of frustration between editors whose frequent disagreements at AfD have led them to make probably reasonable assumptions about the other's thought process. Per WP:AGF, good faith is about assuming our fellow editors are working to improve the encyclopedia. Frankly, suggesting that an AfD count with too few delete !votes is somehow abnormal or an expression of "bad behavior" itself seems like a failure to assume that Mushy's intent is to improve the project. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:17, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mushy Yank and I often engage in the same discussions and we rarely agree; Mushy appears to be more of an inclusionist than I am and to interpret the guidelines of WP:CREATIVE more loosely than most other AfD regulars. However, I don't think this approach is outside the realm of reasonable participation. I went through several recent examples and found several (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Manorathangal, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernst Hannawald, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DemoCrisis) where Mushy offered sources with a "keep" !vote that convinced me. Mushy also regularly proposes (and accepts) redirection as an AtD (see here, here, here). There are others where I definitely disagree with Mushy's sources or interpretation (see here, here, here, here, here), but Mushy generally brings sources and offers analysis based on policy. There are of course some weakly argued "keep" !votes (example here) but I don't think it rises to the level of warranting administrative action or correction. As for the AfD that triggered this, I think Saqib's tone is sharp but I don't think either party is engaging in ad hominem attacks. Saqib did inaccurately summarize Mushy's "keep" rationale as simply stating that the subject has roles in a TV series when Mushy's rationale did in fact explain how, to their mind, the criteria at WP:NACTOR applied, and one can forgive Mushy for being annoyed by this, but the tone remains quite civil. (Again, can't say I agree with Mushy's !vote, but I see no behavioral issue here -- certainly none that warrants the opening of an ANI thread.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My hands are not the cleanest in regards to exchanges with Mushy Yank, but here I am. I’ve had very unhelpful exchanges with user but nothing that can’t be tolerated (and I am sure vice versa). Despite the contention I don’t think I have perceived anything that would rise to misconduct or a personal attack. As such, I don’t believe ANI is the best place to address things.
With that in mind, since we are here, there are a few things about the deletion discussions that I think stand out which could be discussed, if not here then another venue. These things may be more of a policy or guideline misinterpretation than user conduct (and I am including myself in the statement about misunderstandings and/or conduct).
The first is BusterD’s comments about the !votes based on having leading roles. I think there is confusion in the discussions amongh users as Mushy Yanks cites having leading roles as establishing notability despite NACTOR saying “may be considered notable.” Despite having leading roles, the person still needs to meet NBASIC. So, either Mushy Yank misunderstands the guideline, I misunderstand the guideline, or there needs to be clarification as to the guideline. If having leading roles means the person is inherently notable, I would change my !vote to keep in a lot of discussions.
The second is AfD discussions on lists where Mushy Yank cites WP:LISTPURP or WP:SPLITLIST as keep rationale. Those are not notability guidelines. So again, it is either their misunderstand of NLIST or mine, but I believe NLIST is set out to establish that the list is notable as a group, not as navigation ("Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group"). Clarification on this would be useful as well.
The last is just the bolding of the actual vote with regards to keep, delete, merge, or redirect. An example is this vote for redirect which if you read closer, appears to me to be a keep !vote. Redirects and merges are alternatives to deletion so believe the keep or delete vote should be stated first with the ATD to follow. The exception obviously is this redirect vote which is the only option presented in the vote.
To summarize the WALLOFTEXT, I think we are dealing with a misinterpretation on editors' part rather than any misconduct which would be actionable at ANI. I believe clarification on at least the first two points may save us time arguing in AfD discussions on the future --CNMall41 (talk) 23:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems this was escalated rather quickly (no talk page notice?) and there's more than one party tangoing. I see difference in philosophy far more than unacceptable behaviour warranting sanction. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User was notified. I checked the talk page and was going to notify (I thought the same as you at first) but see they removed the notification. I agree about the philosophy and behavior assessment which I tried to point out above. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @CNMall41 - thanks for the correction, I should have searched the history. I do feel in a situation like this a personal comment via a talk page message (rather than templating) would have been more appropriate at this stage than bringing here. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 05:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No biggie. In fact, I had half a message typed out on user's talk page before I thought of checking the history so its common. And I agree about the personal message. Cheers!--CNMall41 (talk) 05:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since creating their account in 2021, AndriesvN(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) has spent the last 3 years rewriting Christian theology articles into argumentative essays reflecting their own point of view, rather than scholarly consensus on the topic, often citing a self published amateur website "revelationbyjesuschrist.com". I think this makes them an unambiguous net negative for the encylopedia. When confronted about this, they have referred to reverts of their edits as sabotage and saying that the only reason that people oppose their edits is because they are disastrous for [their] theology. [144]. They've previously been taken to ANI before (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1165#User:AndriesVN), but the result was inconclusive. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the above posts, I am proposing that AndriesvN be topic banned from Christian theology, broadly construed. I think this a basic minimum and I wouldn't oppose an indef block. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've demonstrated in the past that whether or not his sources themselves (outside his personal blog, which he regularly cites and copies from verbatim despite repeated policy violation notices on the matter) have merit, he's liable to grossly misrepresent the arguments and base information therein. The reality that he may be providing valuable information (or at least, information not worthy of deletion) mingled together with his argumentation makes mass contribution reversion untenable and article renovation difficult, but I nevertheless opine his demonstrable willingness to distort sources ensures that his contributions are overall a net negative. Arsenic-03 (talk) 19:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest an indef seems they're mostly here to promote their personal blog website, which is not a reliable source. I notice the majority of their edits are sourced to it, which is just their own opinion and views and in no means a reliable third party source. They're not interested in editing anything else, just basically in proselytizing and explaining why their fringe worldview is right. They've had policies and guidelines explained to them many times, and they've clearly demonstrated they have zero intention of following them. I don't think they can be productive here. (Oh and blacklist their blog at the same time.)Canterbury Tailtalk20:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I'm surprised he got in a comment in the previous ANI egregious enough to be revdel'd, and is still here. No prejudice against an indef, myself. Ravenswing 20:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
non-admin comment There's a comment on the user in question's talk page that seems a bit concerning: You'll find it here. It reads, "Combined with the miracles that we are surrounded with, such as the miracle of sight, it allows me tolook forward to my death.". Could be emo stuff, but really not the stuff you wanna see on Wikipedia. Is this just some Heaven's Gate cult-esque morbidity or whatever? Is this just emo? Is this an actual concern? BarntToust21:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support topic ban. I would AGF past a full NOTHERE, but they're really not getting the point of WP regarding sourcing. I can't see that revelationbyjesuschrist.com has any place here on WP, and certainly not when it's added by its author. If it's backed up by so much research, This article quotes from the world-class specialists in the fourth-century Arian Controversy., then why not quote those as RS instead?
I agree that the editing is disruptive, and if unchecked then a block would be necessary. I have offered to help them get their head around what we do here - I don't know whether that will help, but if they are willing to engage then we might get somewhere. If they don't respond to my offer, I don't object to the apparent consensus for an indefinite block/TBAN. GirthSummit (blether)00:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Topic Ban - I think a topic ban at least is a must given their conduct in this area. I could go either way on an indef; they don't seem to be particularly collaborative, obviously a major issue, but they also may be more amenable to the opinions of others in a topic that isn't so important to them. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IZAK responded by initiating a request for a disputed technical move: For over two decades on WP all articles about Jews in countries and in other areas, whether from ten, or a hundred, or a thousand years ago, has been titled as "History of the Jews in ____", see over 150 examples of this in Category:Jewish history by country (as well as in Category: Jewish history by city etc etc.) The only times that an article is reduced to the topic of a type of Jew is when writing about sub-groups within Jews themselves, such as Ashkenazi Jews, Sephardic Jews, Mizrahi Jews, which has nothing to do with the countries they are in per se. These articles record the Jewish history of Jews, all kinds of Jews, in any country or region regardless of how long those Jews have existed or been recorded there or what types of Jews they are, whether "imported" or "home-grown" it makes no difference, they are part of the "History of the Jews in ____" series of articles on WP. See Talk:Jews in Madagascar#Requested move 31 May 2024where @Zanahary: made up a new set of "criteria" and moved the article/s without major WP:CONSENSUS from other editors, based on all sorts of unfounded and fanciful reasons such as "conciseness" and "Jews as foreigners" that undermined the original connection of these articles to the main scholarly subject of Jewish history. IZAK also responded at Jfdwolff’s Talk: These articles "History of the Jews in ____" have been around for over 20 years on WP without any problems until you arbitrarily decided to come along with the wrong reasons
I asked him on his Talk page to please be civil, not cast aspersions, and to keep in mind that he’d enacted a move against prior consensus, and all I’d done was follow WP:RMUM and apparently not shared his view. I also asked him to strike the aspersions at the move request, as they’re irrelevant aside from being uncivil. He responded both at his Talk and at the request, for some reason, casting more aspersions and baselessly accusing me of POV-pushing and manipulating consensus (by “taking advantage”) with the goal of imposing my "POV" across all of the Jewish history articles. I asked him again to strike the aspersions from his request, and he declined, also accusing me of WP:OWN attitudes]] and of keeping an unbending hold on the titles of these articles that got [IZAK] thinking whether [I] would stop with these 3 and that [I] maybe had plans for the whole series of hundreds of articles titled "History of the Jews in ____"
Aside from knowingly moving against consensus, this is a crazy level of conspiratorial aspersiveness for me to deal with, all for the crime of following move procedures while not sharing IZAK’s view.
Oy vey, guys. You're both clearly well-meaning, passionate good faith contributors trying to improve the articles on Jewish history on Wikipedia. We could really use you both and for both of you to spend your energies on productive matters and not bickering. Can't you both figure out how to empathize with each other, apologize, find a way to meet in the middle and compromise and move on? IZAK, for starters, I think Zanahary is right that you're defending this a bit strongly. I know you feel protective over these articles, but Zanahary is not trying to delete them. He just wanted a more concise naming convention. Yes, one that is inconsistent with other articles. But we can discuss the relative merits without making it personal, right? Andre🚐04:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The user has been rapidly gaining edits, with the first 10 edits being useless edits to user page with barely any changes, and the last 100 rapidly triggering edit filters with meaningless additions to user page as well. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 03:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I've started working on Wikipedia recently and I intend to do it due to my interest with respect to what's happening around the world. But recently an editor User:Saqib had an allegation on me that I'm getting paid for it which makes no sense at all, cause he doesn't even have any evidence. What should I do to counter the matter? Reshmaaaa (talk) 05:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These notifications are pretty straight-forward and occur if there is speculation that an editor has a conflict-of-interest. I wouldn't take it personally and don't edit in any promotional way. By the way, thank you for notifying Saqib about this posting, most new editors aren't aware that this is a mandatory step. LizRead!Talk!05:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Liz, thank you for your kind words. I'll try to give my best here and make it a better place. It's just that tag meant vague to me so I was concerned. Now that you've given me clarity, I'll discard my concerns regarding it.Reshmaaaa (talk) 06:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Reshmaaaa, that article has been targetted by a lot of sockpuppets in the past, so coming out so strongly in favour of it in an AfD discussion is the kind of thing that will raise some people's eyebrows. If you're not operating multiple accounts or editing with an undisclosed conflict of interest you don't have anything to worry about, but until you're a more established editor here, if you take interest in topics that have been spammed a lot you'll probably keep getting this kind of question occasionally. It's really annoying, but people will stop eventually. -- asilvering (talk) 07:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions! As a neutral third party, I would like to provide context I've been able to gather from contributions and past discussions, and also to offer my input on the matter.
Aaand we're already starting off with an AfD discussion for an article that's already been deleted yesterday, which makes it that much harder to know what actually happened. The article in question is Woh Aik Pal, which appears to be a Pakistani drama show. It has had two AfDs before. The first one was an uncontested soft delete. The second one was a bit of a mess. Reshmaaaa's contribution to the second AfD begins here.
@Saqib delivered the COI template to Reshmaaaa's talk page 38 minutes before the article in question was deleted. I'm pinging @Just Step Sideways as the editor who deleted the page. If you are able to provide any further insight into this conversation by sharing deleted diffs or your own opinion, that would be greatly appreciated. Sirocco745 (talk) 05:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I apologize for the inconvenience caused, I meant no disrespect. Since I've just started I had no such experience in dealing articles with WP:sockpuppetry. Now that @Liz and @Asilvering clarified, I got it. Let me know if I can be of any help to you. Reshmaaaa (talk) 09:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
Comment: Hi, I saw that this ANI was going on, and I'd like to point out that User:Shahray = 46.200.75.110. diff diff. Shahray addressed me as if we interacted before on my talk page, but the previous message under that heading was by 46.200.75.110. Not sure how helpful that is, but I think it contributes to the information above about this user's disruptive behaviour. As far as I know, Shahray is being very WP:POV-pushy and prone to edit-warring. Even as this ANI is taking place, Shahray is edit-warring at Kievan Rus' with multiple other editors over the past several days. Although there may be some legitimate content issues, Shahray was not providing constructive solutions (at least that I could see). I got tired of trying to reason with Shahray, and decided to stop the discussion and disengage, because it was getting nowhere. I'm not involved in the edit-war, as I don't think I could do anything to make Shahray stop and behave in accordance with our conduct and content policies & guidelines. Seems to me Shahray is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopaedia, but to push their own POV and to disrupt all sorts of processes and protocols in order to make their opinion stick in the mainspace. We can't keep that up forever if the situation does not improve.
Blocked x 72 hrs for disruptive editing. I came very close to indeffing them based on their history. If this resumes, I think that would be the next step. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Done. For the purposes of review by non-admins: the removed and revdelled content said in the lead that the subject was accused of unethical and possibly illegal conduct. No source was presented, and no body content supported it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
![[106]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Trump_DOJ_BTC_chart2024_Q3Q4.jpg&oldid=1253594504){kind=link}
![[107]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Bitcoin_weeney_pack_Oct_27_2024.jpeg&oldid=1253690179){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}