Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Wikihounding report

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The diffs bear out Panamitsu's explanation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Repeated WP:GS/AA violations

On June 13, I informed User:Göycen about the WP:GS/AA extended confirmed restriction and explained what it meant.[3]

Göycen still made several POV pushing edits in Armenia-Azerbaijan articles after the warning.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10]

On June 17, Rosguill gave Göycen another contentious topics warning.[11]

More reverting and POV pushing in AA articles after second warning.[12][13][14] KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@KhndzorUtoghI have not been warned by you. that was a mistake as you wrote on the page Talk:Caucasian_dragon_carpets. I have not changed anything on the pages, only reverted the changes from the block-evading sockpuppet IP address, by going through 100s of edits on my free time as stated on each edit did not reverted changes by other users or bots. Everything can be traced.

As an extended confirmed user and a person who is more informed about Armenian topics than I am, you have the right to revert my changes instead of creating a complaint. I also told Rosguill that I have not made any political changes. Every edit I made was from the same user, who is well known for changing sources according to his gut feeling. Göycen (talk) 22:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Your examples are unfortunately cherry-picked. I suggest you compare them with the changes made by the IP address. There are obvious instances of vandalism that I have reverted in some of your examples. Göycen (talk) 22:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• So, given that the edits since the CTOPS warning appear to have been limited to reverting an IP that was itself violating GS/AA, I'm a bit disinclined to sanction. That having been said, Göycen, GS/AA (and all other topic restrictions) are broadly construed--they are not limited to "political" edits. You are expected to stay away from topics relating to Armenia or Azerbaijan entirely until you are extended-confirmed. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  I understand. In case of future IP edits, I will let @KhndzorUtogh and others know to either revert the changes or review them until I receive my extended confirmation. Göycen (talk) 22:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  Is Goycen WP:GAMING the rules by making over a hundred useless article move edits in the past day to reach 500 edits, then going straight to reverting AA articles again? Göycen used the same "misspelled"/"misundertandings" edit summary for all of these moves, a lot of which were counterproductive (there was only one article called Gerdibi so it did not need to be moved to Gerdibi, Aladağ). KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, that is clear GAMING, and many (potentially even all?) of the page moves are clearly in contradiction to our article title policies. EC status revoked indefinitely as an arbitration enforcement action, appealable no sooner than 3 months. I would add that correcting any erroneous page moves will be considered favorably on appeal. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  I have been reviewing many of Göycen's edits and they aren't constructive to say the least. From unexplained removal of sourced content, removing relevant hyperlinks, and POV pushing by removing anything referencing "Armenia" or "Armenians" on several articles. This is quite concerning. I believe stricter action is required at this point. Archives908 (talk) 23:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  Hey, according to Wikipedia guidelines, I have the right to make those edits. Since the person who was writing had a POV, it is normal for you to see those words. By "Goycen's edits," you most likely mean my reverts of a banned (evaded many times) sockpuppetted source, which, according to this topic, have to be reverted. What you are doing by reverting my changes without changing anything inside is simply saying that the above-mentioned IP address had the right to do all he wanted. Göycen (talk) 23:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  Could you please go through edits of @‎Augmented Seventh, because today he also rightfully reverted same person. You might wanna take your stricker action against him as well, instead not doing anything to obviously proarmenian pov pushing ip adresses edits in last 6 months. it is really easy to write WP:GS/AA. I am wondering what were you guys doing last 6 months.

  my only obviously sided edit was on borchaly sultanate page which i did not reverted because i know where i was wrong. for the future edits i took always third opinion. Göycen (talk) 23:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  For the record, it is not a requirement to remove the edits of a banned sockpuppet. Sometimes, those people actually added useful, sourced info. What the editors you're complaining about have done is effectively endorsed the edits as valid information. Your next step is to go to the article Talk pages to dispute the information, not to clamor for other editors to be punished. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note that this may be at least partially related to #Reverting pages to vandalized version, Pov pushing Archives908, below. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  That looks like a WP:WITCHHUNT. None of those Archives908 edits can be considered vandalism. And Goycen made that section after HandThatFeeds explained that reverting sockpuppet edits isn't a requirement. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  Anyone who checks your edits and compares them with mine over the last few days can see who is witch-hunting. As a person who is closely watching my edits, you probably know what I have been doing better than anyone. You have been talking only about me for the past seven days.

  I would appreciate it if you could check the message where you first "warned" me. Look at the edit you referred to there. You accused me of someone else's edit and started your story with that. Göycen (talk) 22:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  And here you appear with your magic wand and revert to vandalised version of banned ip adress. Göycen (talk) 22:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  If you still don't realize that you were warned for WP:GS/AA, twice, got revoked of EC for gaming it, and are now intentionally omitting full context for an article entirely unrelated to my point about WP:WITCHHUNT reporting users for "vandalism" (despite the comment to you by HandThatFeeds), then it's just incompetence on your part. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  I do not think @HandThatFeeds talked directly about this case, he did a general statement. which you can see even in quora.

  edits that i gave as an example was after HandThatFeeds's text. Please check the timeline. Göycen (talk) 22:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Göycen I was trying to be polite. And you'll note I said, directly to you, Your next step is to go to the article Talk pages to dispute the information, not to clamor for other editors to be punished. You need to discuss these edits and gain consensus, rather than continue removing them yourself. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  You do not need to be polite. In Turkish we have saying "One fool threw a stone into a well, and forty wise men couldn't get it out." I have already talked to banned person and several times detected misuse and temperament of sources by same person. According to WP:GS/AA those edits should be reverted. Without checking my edits and talks please do not comment on this issue. I am not asking you to punish anyone just be fair and tell the truth. You can see above who clamor. Göycen (talk) 12:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  Your combative attitude is not helping. You'll either discuss the edits in the future or be blocked. That's it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  Please block me, but write your causes extensively. Göycen (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  This editor would rather be blocked then cooperate and seek consensus with others...not a good sign. I'm sure we'll be back at ANI if sanctions aren't applied here. Archives908 (talk) 23:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the commentary, I am writing to talk pages. Göycen (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  So the Admins are aware- Göycen is now pinging me on several Armenia-Azerbaijan related articles claiming my restorative edits were "obviously pov pushing" and is "demanding" that their edits be reinstated (see: [15]). This is poor behavior and a poor attempt to discuss civilly and is yet another indicator that the editor fails to comprehend basic wiki tenants, despite being warned. Archives908 (talk) 23:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks KhndzorUtogh! What is abundantly clear is that Göycen isn't here to genuinely WP:BUILD this encyclopedia. From POV pushing, unexplained removal of content, unexplained additions of unsourced material, ignoring warnings from multiple editors, and now the witch hunt launched against myself, it is evident that this user isn't adhering to Wiki ethos. Hopeful that Admins will take appropriate action. Archives908 (talk) 22:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  Good luck guys. All my logs are there, have nothing to hide. :) Göycen (talk) 22:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC).

Reverting pages to vandalized version, Pov pushing Archives908

(Note:This is at least partially related to #Repeated WP:GS/AA violations, above. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC))

Thanks for linking- this is clearly a retaliatory move by the user after my participation in the conversation brought against them. Archives908 (talk) 20:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Dear @Archives908 My questions are clear; we are talking about actions. Please do not take this personally, and there is no need to change the direction of the discussion.

Do you know what stable version means? Göycen (talk) 21:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi, When a page vandalized, most natural thing to do is to revert latest stable version, but there is something else going here.

I would like to bring to your attention some recent edits made by Archives908. This user has been reverting my edits, which were reverts of vandalism by an IP address. For example, what is the reason for this revert? There is no source or explanation provided edit. In the page history, until the vandalism by the IP address, there was no mention of Armenians. Now, this editor is adding unsourced content to Wikipedia. Why does the definition have a POV, when it is an obvious case of POV pushing?

Additionally, this person reverts my vandalism-reverts again. They delete Azerbaijani information, which existed from the beginning, and the person is Azerbaijani, ironically. They revert to the obviously vandalized version. Here again they remove sourced content and add back unsourced IP vandalism which I reverted. Can you please check this?

Here is an example of section blanking which i reverted before.

Here is another one. What is the source and reason for adding the Armenian writing? This person's(the ip adress that i reverted) favorite act of vandalism is to go and change alphabets, which I have reverted many times. They add not only Armenian but also Azerbaijani, Polish, etc. According to their rationale, if a nationality has a name (they added an Armenian there), they should introduce the writing system as well.--Göycen (talk) 18:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

You do not appear to have attempted to discuss these concerns with them, can you try doing that first? – 2804:F1...87:A818 (talk) 18:20, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi, you probably forgot to login. Göycen (talk) 18:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

When here according to the description, WP:RS is required (which is totally normal to ask for), how come this page does not require it and is simply reverted? Asking for a source is normal, but when it comes to POV, it is not. Göycen (talk) 18:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Göycen, your extended confirmed status was removed, I'm not sure that you should be making any edits in this subject area or you could be sanctioned. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Dear Liz, I have not done any edits after removal. Göycen (talk) 10:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Göycen, since you are no longer extended confirmed, you are not permitted to participate in "internal project discussions" related to the Armenia/Azerbaijan topic area. For specifics, please re-read WP:GS/AA. Since this is an internal project discussion, you should not participate here any further. If you have questions about this, you are welcome to ask them at my user talk page or yours. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• I blocked Göycen for 48 hours and topic banned them indefinitely from the GS/AA topic area. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Firefangledfeathers, this edit is a violation of the topic-ban, no? Also, your block was for 24 hours, not 48. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

    Yes, and thank you. I have blocked for a week, and I have some logs to correct. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

User:DTParker1000's tendentious editing of Rio Grande 223

ArbCom may be the only dispute resolution forum in Wikipedia in which the boomerang principle does not apply, in which the editor who files a bad complaint will not have their own conduct scrutinized. This is about an editor who is disruptively filing Requests for Arbitration concerning a historic train.

• DTParker1000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rio Grande 223 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The problem seems to have started on 27 February 2024 when DTParker1000 expanded the article on Rio Grande 223, and included material about the historical importance of railroads in the American West in the nineteenth century. Other editors, including User:Xboxtravis7992, removed much of this material as being off-topic. In my opinion, it was information that should be in the encyclopedia, and probably is in the encyclopedia (but I did not research whether it was), but was off-topic for the article. Xboxtravis7992 then filed a DRN request on 11 March 2024: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_242#Rio_Grande_223. . I declined it, but said that another request could be filed in 48 hours. Then there was edit-warring, and DTParker1000 was partially blocked from the article in question, indefinitely. They requested unblock, which was declined. JTParker1000 then filed a Request for Arbitration on 19 March 2024, [[16]], and the request was declined by ArbCom on 20 March 2024. JTParker1000 then filed a DRN request on 7 April 2024: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_244#Rio_Grande_223. I closed that request as vexatious litigation. JTParker1000 has now filed a second Request for Arbitration, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Rio_Grande_223, with no mention of the first request, and an otherwise fragmentary record of previous dispute resolution.

ArbCom traditionally does not sanction editors for filing stupid, frivolous, or vexatious cases, so I am asking the community to take action against a disruptive editor and vexatious litigant. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

This guy is an absolute menace. He can't be reasoned with - I would know, because I'm among the many who tried. He continues to labor under the mindset that if he appeals high enough, surely someone will intervene in his favor, which is nonsense since the matter is a content dispute, and every other editor who has weighed in disagrees with him. That he continues to waste everyone's time in this manner rather than doing literally anything else shows he is not compatible with Wikipedia, because he cannot work with other people. Take a look at the giant wall of WP:IDHT he wrote at Talk:Rio Grande 223/Archive 1. He needs an indef. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Other than in regards to this incident, DTParker1000 has never been blocked. Their one block is a partial block for the article in question. While their edit count is low, they've been on the project for 14 years. Longevity does not confer special treatment, but I think it's a bit of a leap to go from a partial block to a sitewide block without a final warning. I've given them the final warning, but they've not edited since. I think it's sufficient to leave it at that. If they persist in their behavior, myself or another administrator will likely indef them until they agree to drop the stick and move on. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

We can wait and see for the moment, but I'm very skeptical we will see any change in behavior. If this continues any further, I think an indef will become the only option. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that an indef is the only option. It might or might not be the best option, but a topic ban from discussing Rio Grande 223 anywhere on Wikipedia (excluding replies to explicit questions about it in discussions about their conduct) with enforcement by the usual method of escalating blocks is at the very least an option and one I think worthy of consideration. Thryduulf (talk) 20:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I've asked them on their talk page if they would agree to voluntary tban, but upon looking further it seems clear that they often make a few edits and then go inactive for a few months. That being the case, I think an involuntary topic ban is the appropriate sanction. If they break it, blocks will follow. It looks like their edits outside of this one area are fine, they just need to drop the stick on this issue. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

The RfAr is on its way to being declined, but I agree with JSS that stopping editing for a few weeks isn't enough to assume the editor has moved on, given they frequently come back to the topic. I support a topic ban on this basis. Daniel (talk) 22:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for DTParker1000

Based on the discussion above, at the arbcom case request and previous times this has been brought up, I think a formal topic ban is in order:

DTParker1000 is indefinitely topic banned from Rio Grande 223. This applies everywhere on Wikipedia and explicitly includes all dispute resolution venues but excludes minimal mentions when required for context in discussions of their (DTParker1000's) conduct and appeals of this topic ban.

This ban may be enforced by escalating blocks. It may be appealed after six months of active editing since enactment or the most recent unsuccessful appeal.

The intent of "six months of active editing" is so that extended absences don't count towards the six months, it is not a requirement for six consecutive months of active editing. Thryduulf (talk) 14:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support - I would probably support a broader topic ban, but that is not the proposal here. Two almost identical ArbCom cases in three months is too much, and is evidence of not here to be constructive. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - As I understand the six-month rule, an appeal is permitted after six months of non-consecutive active editing, but lurking for six months and then appealing is not permitted (and not permitting it is the purpose of the restriction). Robert McClenon (talk) 17:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  Almost exactly - not permitting lurking then appealing is the purpose of the specific restriction rather than the standard appeal after 6 months, as their contribution history shows long periods of inactivity are not uncommon (and it should be stressed that this is perfectly acceptable). The purpose of a restriction on when appeals are allowed is the same as usual - preventing knee-jerk appeals and increasing the likelihood of well-considered appeals. Thryduulf (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support This user clearly needs to stop obsessing over this topic. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 17:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from Rio Grande 223. We cannot turn every article about an individual locomotive into a treatise about the history of railroading. Cullen328 (talk) 23:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support They need to find something else to edit. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support as the bare minimum and their last chance to do something productive on this website. Their previous behavior simply cannot continue. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support as per my comment in the above sub-section on 22 June. Daniel (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perhaps the most concise (but still lengthy) example of OS's support for a poor quality source is that following this edit[17] (and others similar edits made to a number of articles). The relevant edit summaries have a link to a review that is totally scathing. I received thanks from at least one other editor for drawing this to their attention. OS's reaction includes this[18] with Shaffer being reinstated as a source with the edit summary ...one review doesn't invalidate an RS.... If you read the review at [19] you will see that this is not some bad write-up on trip advisor.

The edit that reinstated the Shaffer reference also reinstated Hourani's Arab Seafaring. In another testing interaction with OS[20], we discover that they ...do not have access to that book. Reading further on that talk page post, you will see that I finally realised that not only was Hourani a dated source, but the book makes no mention whatsoever of junk rig. This suggests to me that OS has never even read Hourani.

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

This is all coupled with an unhelpfully argumentative style, as can be found on any of the talk pages linked above. One in particular I find memorable:[21]. OS wanted an example of the sailing rig labelled "A" in [22]. The photo found on Commons is actually of the one labelled "B". To be fair, we were all at the mercy of Commons taking any picture that you can upload without breaching copyright, with any unverified caption you wish to use. But I think Commons's failing on verification allows us to do some WP:OR on the matter. There are ample videos(e.g.[23] which I have not watched to the end, but shows rig "B" being rigged) and pictures from Madagascar (a holiday destination for many at various times) that tell us exactly how the "old photo" rig works. There was never a word of thanks for finding the appropriate picture that is now in the article[24], which is very different from its predecessor[25]. Without the abrasive attitude, this would have been an engaging exercise in working out the correct content to put in Wikipedia. (OK, I appreciate that for those who do not have an interest in sailing rigs, this is a bit like reading the telephone directory!)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• It is exactly the point that there is a severe shortage of editors with interest/expertise in the early pre-history of seafaring. As an academic subject, it is full of uncertainty over what happened in ISEA which seems to cause some of the difficulties with OS.
• There is only a small body of editors who cover the translocation of plants and animals by humans (and almost invariably as a by-product of an interest of the biology of that species). I have directly contacted such an editor (a highly experienced one) regarding the arrival of the banana in Africa (the apparent trigger subject to all this) who encouraged me to make edits with the more guarded language that I feel is needed (based on a review paper on the subject), as well as saying that they had "noticed some likely Austronesian POV'pushing". I am reluctant to drag others into the sort of dispute that you get when involved with OS – so picking the right course of action is not easy. The Austronesian POV pushing is something that I would agree with (though it had not occurred to me to use that term). I note that OS has never used the paper titled Pre-Austronesian dispersal of banana cultivars West from New Guinea: linguistic relics from Eastern Indonesia[26]. It is a mainstream paper by leading researchers in the field. It is relevant not only to Banana but also to early seafaring as it demonstrates maritime mobility in ISEA before the Austronesians – a concept that is likely to be a trigger for an OS rant.
• OS's behaviour is another matter. I think it is clearly demonstrable that they are careless with whether or not a citation actually supports article text (a small number of examples already given above). They take the view that a research paper (so, a primary source) is perfectly permissible to use as a source – not understanding that a review paper is better, nor understanding that their interpretation (WP:OR) of a research paper might differ from that of a review paper in a peer reviewed journal or a book by an academic publisher. (See one of their later points on Talk:Austronesian peoples, the paragraph starting "No. You're still not a peer reviewer...." This short para goes through many edits to reach the final version, so giving a diff would be meaningless.)
• Removal of a maintenance tag without addressing the issue[27]. (More detail on this issue is at [28]) This demonstrates OS's obstinacy over problem references that they like. The reference is all about the sequencing of chicken DNA. The historical content of the articlepaper is already shown to have a problem (recycling a Wikipedia error) so OS uses the paper to support a slightly different fact (trade links to India) in this edit. So what is arguably a reference-in-passing takes a different fact from the same sentence as the one with the recycled Wikipedia error. There are plenty of other potential sources for the trade links to India, but the obstinacy of RS has apparently led them to stick with a problem reference.
• A look at [29] gives some insight to the problem (search for the word "despise"). That is why we have a rather intractable problem here. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 23:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Pre-Austronesian dispersal of banana cultivars West from New Guinea: linguistic relics from Eastern Indonesia[30] <- This paper talks about the possible early Holocene pre-Austronesian (i.e.~pre-2500 BCE) spread of domesticated bananas from New Guinea to Eastern Indonesia based on linguistics, a distance of only a few short island hops. I HAVE read that paper before. The fact that you think that paper proves your point that Papuans were expert seafarers who sailed all the way to Africa and Austronesians didn't carry bananas in their migrations is infuriating beyond words for me. They also wrote this paper which you clearly haven't read. Providing more context on banana movements from BOTH pre- and post-Austronesian contact. In both cases, they make it clear they only have possible (linguistic) evidence for the movement of bananas from New Guinea to eastern Indonesia. The rest are just their own hypothesis. It doesn't contradict anything we have in our articles or anything that I have written. There is no claim anywhere in the Austronesian or the Banana articles that Austronesians domesticated the banana. Papuans did. But Austronesians carried it further onwards, both eastwards to Polynesia, and westward to mainland Asia and Africa, proven to various levels by linguistic, chronological, genetic, and archaeological evidence of all the other papers you didn't read.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've had enough of this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pointless edit-war potentially breaking guidelines

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

---

Doing some routine typos-fixing and formatting via AWB, I happened to edit Guardian angel, and Skyerise is quite-stubbornly edit-warring about it. We had a talk at User talk:Est. 2021#Removing spaces from citation templates, yet he went on reverting the page three times - then ironically noticing me about the three-revert rule at User talk:Est. 2021#June 2024. Whether I'm wrong or right, we clearly need some external action. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 11:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: Right after this, the aforementioned user started reinstating typos on other pages too, e.g. Yaldabaoth and Yamantaka. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 11:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Ahem, Est. 2021, there were two instances of "'s" here, where you replaced a curly with a straight quote. Spaces are not typos. You are wrong. Drmies (talk) 21:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

My revert is not pointless and has already been explained to the above editor, who is unecessarily removing all spaces from citation templates. Not all editors use visual editors. Those of us who don't rely on spaces to make the templates more easily readable and editable. This is an abuse of editing tools by the above editor. If they want to fix typos, there is nothing wrong with that, but removing spaces from citation templates with an edit summary of "fixing typos" is intentionally deceptive. Editor also doesn't seem to understand that their disruptive edits are violating policy to force the implementation of a (questionable) guideline, which are optional and may be ignored when there is a valid reason to do so per WP:IAR, which is itself policy. The edits disimprove the articles for those of us who edit wikicode directly, and the OP should desist. Skyerise (talk) 11:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

@Skyerise: I always edit via wikitext, never been a visual editor, so I don't get what you're talking about. Looks like this issue doesn't rely on the editing tool, and maybe that's what I didn't manage to better explain to you. We clearly need a third-party POV. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 01:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos is a really long page (500,000+ bytes), can you quote the relevant passage and/or guideline on that page that states the white space in citation templates is a typo? Thanks. And for the record, I also agree you shouldn't be doing this with AWB. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Question: is the removal of spaces within the citation templates something that's specified in Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos, or something that Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) chose to do themselves? Mackensen (talk) 11:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Good question. AWB didn't used to do this, but it's possible that such functionality was added recently. If so, it should be removed because it makes problems for editors who edit wikicode directly. Also, users using such tools still need to listen to feedback about their edits. The fact that a tool is doing this don't justify the change. Skyerise (talk) 11:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Bots/Dictionary#Cosmetic edit specifically identifies citation templates without whitespace as "editor-hostile wikitext", which is to say that bots can be banned for doing this, and editing with AWB is largely subject to the same rules as editing by bot (or "in a bot-like manner"). Also, point 4 of the WP:AWBRULES says not to use AWB to make mass edits which have no effect on the rendered article. To put it more succinctly, Est. 2021: please stop doing this now. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  To be fair to Est. 2021, their edit to Guardian angel did have effects on the rendered article. I haven't evaluate other edits. Still, I land in the same place as Ivanvector, and I insist that Est stop the whitespace editing. In general, I'd say BRD is pretty much a must when using AWB, consider AWBRULES 3. I'm disappointed to see Est edit warring, and I hope we don't see it again. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Ivanvector and Firefangledfeathers: Yeah, I automatically skip pages only requiring minor changes (as spaced could be), filtering the ones that include renown typos, so all those edits did have effects on the rendered article. For sure, the pages I edited because of major typos (automatically detected by AWB) also got superfluous spaces reduced, but that's something that I, as a wikitext editor, never had problems with. But since this broader talk suggests that not all wikitext editor are used to edit references without them, I'll get sure to set an explicit exception for them as soon as I re-login and refresh my default ABW settings. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 01:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

And just to save everyone a round-trip, let me clarify why I asked. If this is something that AWB added on purpose, then we should probably have a discussion about that. I prefer spaces myself in citation templates, and I wouldn't expect AWB to enforce one style over another. If AWB is doing this by accident, then it's a bug. If Est. 2021 is doing this themselves, then I agree with everyone else: don't do that, and definitely don't edit-war over it. I'm not aware of any guideline that speaks to spaces in template formatting. Mackensen (talk) 12:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I hope this is a bug with AWB, but it absolutely shouldn't be doing that. The no-spaces variant is much harder to read & parse in the source editor for no good reason, and helps readers not at all. Until the bug is fixed, editors using AWB shouldn't try to force through such changes. SnowFire (talk) 12:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I asked at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser#Removing spaces in citations. Testing indicates that this is not part of AWB's built-in functionality. NebY (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay so all this spaces items is just the editor enforcing their own personal preferences on pages. Well the edit summaries aren't indicating that so they're being disruptive at this point. Canterbury Tail talk 15:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I checked out a few pages with AWB as well and can confirm I wasn't having this issue. This was my edit to Guardian angel with AWB, so definitely something specific to how @Est. 2021 has things configured. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• To add to this discussion I just reverted this edit. The edit summary was massively misleading, it didn't just change a date format twice, but also replaced all non-breaking spaces with a template, made references harder to read and padded all headers with spaces. Editors are responsible for all edits conducted, even if the tool is making other items, and misleading edit summaries indicate that the editor is not actually paying attention to the changes that are being made. Not a single one of the hundreds of changes was fixing a typo. Canterbury Tail talk 14:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  I also noticed the adding of white space to section headings, seen here [31], [32], [33]. They argue here in this edit summary that the white spaces in citation templates is "superfluous page weight", but yet add that superfluous page weight in the section headings. I'm not seeing any justification for removing the white spaces in citations or adding white spaces in the section headings. We need a commitment from Est. 2021 that they will stop these unnecessary edits. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Isaidnoway: Yes, the adding of spaces to section heading is a minor change I explicitly personally set to make them more identifiable and readable, as a wikitext editor. But as all minor changes, it's only performed if (unrelated) major changes are required. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 01:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Est. 2021: - So are you going to stop adding the white spaces to section headings, since it is your personal preference, and not a MOS guideline? Isaidnoway (talk) 01:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  I think the big thing at the end of the day is these edits are, pretty much in their entirety, pointless. Pointless at best, and disruptively deceptive at worst. Canterbury Tail talk 15:20, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed, and there appears to be consensus in this thread that Est.2021 should stop using AWB for these edits, so a commitment, and acknowledgement from them would be appreciated. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Isaidnoway: For sure, I stopped as soon the edit-war started, before opening this topic, and as I just wrote above I will get sure to refresh my settings and add an explicit exception to avoid further issues for less-used editors. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 01:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  Based on XTools, it looks like this was the second time they've ever used AWB on articles. It looks like they made 356 edits with it pages in main space today, again, based off Xtools only. I don't love the immediate doubling down on their changes, but let's see what they have to say. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Isaidnoway and Hey man im josh: Yes, this was the second time ever I used that. I got sure every edit included major typos, yet as a wikitext-used editor I didn't mind about the aggregated minor changes lifting the superfluous spaces. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 01:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Est. 2021: I don't know what you've done, but this isn't a default setting on AWB. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

As a longtime user of AWB, it's obvious to me that changes above and beyond AWB's typo fixes and general fixes is happening here. There are user-created find/replace rules being executed. Sometimes these are useful for addressing additional issues but if you're making a change that other editors object to, you either convince them it's justified, or cease using that find/replace rule. But a lot of the changes I'm seeing referred to in this discussion seem problematic for other editors (changing how citations are internally formatted) or otherwise cosmetic with no benefit to readers. I have had my own issues with using AWB in the past, and I've learned the hard way to be more conservative and be ready to justify any change I save. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 18:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Est. 2021, you dropped this bomb here--you can't walk away from it. You said it yourself, action, whether you're right or wrong. It sucks to be wrong but I think that is the consensus here. Drmies (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies: "Bomb"? "Sucks?" As far as I know, we're all adults, so there's no need for immature scenic language. Furthermore, please, don't be sorry. Third-part ruling is literally all I needed and asked for. Thanks, have a good day. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 01:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

So are you going to revert and fix the thousands of edits you made that altered articles to your own personal preference that were not covered in any way by the edit descriptions and that people have been saying should not have been made? Canterbury Tail talk 02:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Thousands? Why not millions? C'mon, what's with these made-up numbers? I came here asking for third-party ideas about these little-known guidelines and which one we had to apply, but now, as I can see both here and on my talkpage, this thread became a joke for some of you, and to be honest I'm currently not able to determine who's being serious and who's having fun, so here's what I'm gonna do: logout and go to sleep. Have a good day, or night, based on where you live. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 02:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes. You may have made around 300+ submits, but that consisted of many thousands of changes. This is not a made up number, it's evident for all to see. No one is joking here. As above the consensus is these were not useful and in fact were unhelpful, and in some cases hostile to other editors, and are considered disruptive. You brought this here and brought your edits to everyone's attention, you can't just turn your back on it now and pretend it isn't the mess you created. I'm asking what you're going to do about it to take responsibility for all the disruption you have caused, or shall we just rollback all your changes and continue discussing this? Do you even understand the content of your edits and why people are discussing them here? Canterbury Tail talk 02:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

You've had every opportunity to defend yourself and these edits, and tell us what policy and/or guideline you were relying on to make these changes, but so far, you have been unable and/or refused to quote the policy/guideline. And when Skyerise rightfully brought this matter to your attention on your talk page, you are the one who escalated this matter by stating their rollback of your unnecessary edits were a clear violation of the guidelines about typos and formatting operated via WP:AWB/T, and it will be reverted, and edit-warred your preferred version back into the article. And then you escalated it even further by bringing the matter to ANI where your edits were rightfully scrutinized, and the consensus here is to stop making these edits, so in hopes of de-escalation, are you going to acknowledge the feedback you have received here and stop making these type of unnecessary edits and not edit-war if they are reverted, otherwise, a formal proposal may be on the table. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@Isaidnoway: I already answered about this yesterday, already acknowledged the feedback and already stopped them before even starting this thread, so I couldn't care less about these frustration rants and Skyerise's repeated threats of blocks on my talkpage. You can stay sure I will ignore any further pointless comment from whoever keeps ignoring the statements I already made above, so don't expect me to answer again here unless there's something worth keep talking about. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 11:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

You have not answered above questions about how you are going to fix the problem. Please revert all those edits which remain unreverted. Skyerise (talk) 11:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Your lackluster responses here and on your talk page to genuine concerns raised about your editing behavior makes me wonder if you are capable of collaborating productively with other editors in the future if a dispute arises, especially, as in this case, it was of your own making. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Everyone here is being serious; nobody is joking. It's time to stop trying to deflect and acknowledge that removing spaces from templates is not a default setting in AWB, that you added that behavior, that there is no guideline that requires it (quite the opposite), that you just made up your claim that it is guideline-supported, that your edit summaries did not disclose it was being done, and therefore it is you who violated multiple content and behavior guidelines with these pointless changes. Skyerise (talk) 10:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Can you be trusted with AWB? You used it to apply your own non-standard formatting rules with misleading edit summaries, when reverted you edit-warred then opened this thread describing your actions as routine typos-fixing and formatting but the other editor as quite-stubbornly edit-warring, and today you have responded to concerns with scorn (in this thread couldn't care less about these frustration rants and will ignore any further pointless comment; on your talk page to Drmies Do your homeworks and be more mature[34] and to Tamfang let me know when you grow up[35]) but have still not repaired the damage you did or given us any confidence that you will no longer use AWB to apply your own rules. NebY (talk) 13:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@NebY: The comments of mine you cite literally came after repeated immature answers I got both here and on my talkpage, like B.S., Haha, saving me the trouble!, drop the bomb, it sucks, whatever floats your boat, I am amused, so I keep that POV. Despite this, I answered all questions here at 01:09, 22 June 2024, explaining my edits, acknowledging the feedback and assuring I would have resetted my settings in accordance. Yet I kept receiving requests for the same acknowledgements and promises again and again, in addition to comments about thousands of AWB edits of mine (later reworded despite words matter), which were actually 3 hundreds of edits (since it was just the second time ever I used AWB to more-easily fix something here) which Skyerise had already started reverting before – and went on reverting during – this discussion, so I don't get what thousands of live edits are contested. Quite surely in good-faith Isaidnoway, whom I had already answered to, also re-asked me to assure I would have not edit-warred about those revert, and indeed I had stopped both AWB and the edit-war right when the Guardian angel issue happened, nor I reverted any other rollback on any other page that Skyerise performed before and during this discussion. I really don't know what else do you want me to say, other than what I think about all of this, or about the not-much-mature comments I got trying to have constructive third-part ideas and knowledge – whether I was wrong or right – about what guideline we actually had to apply there. I got the answers I asked for and explicitly said yesterday I welcomed them and I that I would have made sure to fix my settings. That's all. Feel free to take measures against me if you really think my goal is to damage this encyclopedia and anything we created with shared effort and dedication. Greetings, Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 18:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• @Est. 2021:, is there a reason you decided to ignore the Manual of Style and impose your own preferences on the article layout as per this edit? You claim these are "fixes" when in fact they're just your personal preferences. In here I can count you ignoring WP:NOTBROKEN, MOS:FOOTERS, you changed direct links to the "annotated link" template to be "anl" which is just a redirect back to the "annotated link" template, you modified the cite template from "language" to the alias "lang", I could go on. It seems you're not taking people's feedback into account at all here and you're just changing articles to be what you want them to be. As far as I'm aware you didn't use any semi-automated tooling, but instead made these alterations directly, but they're still disruptive. Do you understand this? I've reverted it due to this disruption as I'm not going to go through and pick out the actual edits among your disruption. Canterbury Tail talk 12:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  I think one could reasonably argue they were the first major contributor to the article Śuri with the expansion seen here, where the lang= was first used in the citation templates and the furth reading and ext links were made into sub-sections. And then in this April 2024 AWB edit, the AWB changed the lang= to language= in the citation templates, and changed the Ext links section and Furth reading section per MOS:FOOTER, to separate stand alone sections, and changed the anl to annotated link. And now presumably not liking the changes from the AWB edit from April, they changed the citations, the footers and the annotated link back to their original version. But when they used AWB to change the established citation style in Guardian angel, and it was brought to their attention not to do that, they balked, got pissy about it, reverted and edit-warred over it, and brought it to ANI. So on the one hand, they apparently don't like AWB changing their citations in Śuri, but had no problem whatsoever using AWB to change the citations in Guardian angel, and in multiple other articles. Seriously, you can't make this shit up. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Isaidnoway and Canterbury Tail: Sorry for that, I just expanded the article in my sandbox and then pasted it to the main page, so I used "lang" instead of "language" just our of habit. I now restored the infos and references that I expanded avoiding that, and changed section heading Bibliography to Sources. Hope it's better now. [36] Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 20:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Proposal

Since Est. 2021 refuses to acknowledge their edits were problematic, and still don't actually appear to understand why they were (and I'm dubious as to if they actually understand the content of their edits) and refuse to take responsibility for their actions I propose the following.

• All their AWB related edits are rolled back. People can reimplement the "typo" fixes if needed but all the other contents are disruptive
• Est. 2021 is banned from using AWB or any other semi-automation tool as they clearly cannot be trusted with it and show a lack of understanding how they work and refuse to take responsibility for the edits.

Any other actions can be determined by the community, but it's clear from the above they don't care about the results of their edits and are unwilling to take responsibility for them. At this point I'm actually questioning their competence to edit here and ability to communicate with other editors. Canterbury Tail talk 13:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that Est. 2021 has been granted template editing permssions. I propose this be revoked per the criteria at Wikipedia:Template_editor#Criteria for revocation. Skyerise (talk) 15:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Support. As a bystander, I'm also unimpressed with them characterizing my preferred form of speech as immature scenic language, the concerns of other editors as a joke, and generally dismissive tone. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Support The responses to inquiries above are very concerning, and it seems Est is not going to take criticism seriously. This is probably the least restrictive sanction that could be applied here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• @EducatedRedneck and HandThatFeeds: I don't know if I'm expected to comment on this kind of things. I obviously don't agree, I'm quite sure I answered all questions above, but I totally respect this proposal and your votes; as I also stated above, feel free to take any necessary measure if you think my goal is to damage this project. Have a good day. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 18:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  Well, given feel free to take any necessary measure, I'd say that's a tacit agreement to Canterbury Tail's proposal. That said, this dismissive response makes me wonder how long it'll be before Est. demonstrates they are WP:NOTHERE. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  Actually at this point, reading through their subsequent comments, I'm leaning more to an indef CIR and NOTHERE block. They still don't see anything wrong with anything they have done which is incredibly troublesome. It's one thing to make a mistake and acknowledge they made a mistake and learn from it, it's another to be this dismissive of the entire thing. Honestly Est. 2001 doesn't seem to care in any way, which means they are not learning, not acknowledging and doesn't give confidence for the future. No I'm not interested in "they must be punished", but the complete apparent lack of understanding, and with no inclination of any desire to understand, plus the fact they still cannot see that they made thousands of disruptive changes doesn't give me any kind of confidence. Canterbury Tail talk 20:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  Re not learning, I suppose I should mention a similar incident in June last year, when Est. 2021 made systematic changes to 15-20 articles and two editors reverted some. Then too, Est. 2021 reinstated their edits and launched a thread seeking action against one editor, me, that time at WP:AN User:NebY (edit-war and vandalism), later retitling it as Sabine deities / User:NebY (edit-war, potential vandalism). Then too, several experienced editors told Est. 2021 they shouldn't edit-war to reimpose their changes or make such accusations. They also said it was the wrong venue and that Est. 2021 should discuss the content issue elsewhere, but at first Est. 2021 disagreed, so the thread dragged on. Eventually discussion was moved to a project talk-page, consensus was clear that Est. 2021's edits were inappropriate and I reverted them; Est. 2021 was clearly not going to do that. It's a bit disturbing that a year on, they've dragged another editor to WP:ANI for reverting some of another set of bad systematic changes, and it's not gone much better. NebY (talk) 02:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  Est. 2021, speaking as a passer-by with no real interest in the substance of this dispute: you seem very dismissive of the comments of other editors here. That is, a significant fraction of your comments avoid engaging with what the other person feels is important, and instead doing things like explaining why you won't respond or doing this "I respect your right to do what you want" thing. Obviously you are free to behave however you want, including not to answer questions you feel you've answered before or to otherwise be dismissive of other editors. However, it seems possible that you are not acting this way intentionally, and may not be fully aware of the way others perceive your comments. I encourage you to adjust your rhetorical mode to something that might be less aggravating to other people. --JBL (talk) 21:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Support In addition, I don't think Est. 2021 should be trusted with the template-editor flag. Miniapolis 23:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

It seems that was temporary and has lapsed.[37] NebY (talk) 02:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Support mass rollback and tool ban. We shouldn't ask anyone to spend time separating the minor good from the significantly bad, and even after so much discussion, Est. 2021 aims to carry on using AWB with their additional non-standard settings, but now with an exception on top of them. They've given us no reason to expect that this won't create other problems; we're fortunate that Skyerise spotted this problem just six hours after Est. 2021 started. I too lack confidence that Est. 2021 can work on the encyclopedia collaboratively without causing disruption and costing volunteer time. NebY (talk) 02:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't have any additional non-standard settings except for section heading formatting with spaces, that is literally how all notice subst-ed templates format it. By the way, I literally stated multiple times above I welcomed this feedback and would have resetted and fixed my settings accordingly, so whatever, feel free to go on. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 04:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Are you going to continue to use AWB for "section heading formatting with spaces" in articles that don't have spaces in the section headings? Isaidnoway (talk) 09:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Proposal 2 (Withdrawn)

In light of their continued (now non-automated) disruption as detailed above in ignoring the MOS and guidelines and altering articles to purely their own layout preference (changing direct links to redirects, changing proper template parameters to aliases etc.) I now move for an indef Wp:CIR, WP:NOTHERE, WP:IDHT block. It seems Est. 2001 has no interest in listening to the actual content of the community's feedback and just wants to rearrange articles to fit their personal preferences. (plus the denial of altering any AWB settings to implement their preferences despite evidence that's not possible otherwise.) Canterbury Tail talk 12:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• I commented on this above and already tried to fix that, sorry for the inconvenience. Have a good day, Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 20:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  Just don't use AWB, or any other automated tool, unless you are taking full reponsibility for your edits. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  Okay I can accept this, the explanation seems quite reasonable to me. I'll withdraw this. Canterbury Tail talk 22:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Riposte97: time sink

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

---

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

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

Also relevant:

Current RSN sections

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

Recent archived RSN post

• Archive 437: Using Spiked Online regarding genocide of First Nations [38]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requested rewrite of narrative starts here

@Liz: Ok. It is all very complicated and rather inexplicable though, but here is my best attempt to summarize. Please bear in mind that I got instablocked the first time I tried to explain this, which may explain a certain reticence and tendency to be oblique. Please ask me a question if I am not explaining this well. I am nervous because I am being brave and stupid and trying to explain this again even though this editor is trying to intimidate me. (talk page of the Kamploops article)[39][40][41][42][43][44]typo fix included for completeness

Someone quoted Canadian Indian residential school gravesites to me.[45] It had not said that when I was working on it at the time the gravesites were found.[46] On investigation I discovered, among other things, that this editor was reverting to support the insertion into the lead of a statement sourced to spiked.com [47][48][49](similiar previous edit) that insinuates[50] that this recent national tragedy in Canada is a hoax, a la Sandy Hook, ie that those are not really graves, or they are empty.[51] Or something. [52][53][54] This is wrong on so many levels[55] that it is hard to know where to begin,[56] but another editor started the now-archived thread at RSN, where multiple editors participated, which started with parsing whether or not the source was better than the Daily Mail.[57]

I need to say that literally hundreds of RS are available,([58][59]]) and at least 30 pages of results at Google Scholar.[60] I reviewed the first three pages and posted the urls in the current RSN thread titled #Tne Pope and the Canadian House of Commons with a convenient subheader for easy finding. There appears to be a profound unfamiliarity with these events outside of Canada,(waves hand) and that post was an attempt to begin a discussion to change the apparently hard-wired resistance to using the word "genocide" on Wikipedia.(waves hand) So there are many more sources than that to support the history of residential schools; [61][62] those are just the ones that call it a genocide. Anyway multiple editors tried to talk to the editor and Ivanvector in particular began to edit the article.[63] or perhaps already was.

I realized that despite the changes to the lede nobody had been updating the article and I began doing that for the various schools where underground radar was being used, or had been used, or where its use is being discussed. I also found some egregious misrepresentations of fact, which are mentioned toward the end of the archived RSN thread.[64][65]. I do not know who was responsible for that; I just now found this tho of Riposte97 removing material with gold star sources while claiming it was unsourced. I have not yet run Wikiblame. Riposte97 objected to something I had done in the article and Pbritti pinged me at 20:16. By 22:37 I was abusing relevance tags and separately refusing to engage in a talk page discussion Another user appeared on my page to demand that I explain myself. I was busy researching one of the schools where much was being made of a first excavation not finding bodies.[66] I want to avoid relitigating what followed because I think that it may be better suited to another venue, but I went to bed a few minutes little later after doing some other routine updates and woke up blocked. There was an ANI thread. I was blocked and could not speak.

That is not the point however; the point is that while [67] I was blocked for a week that article was completely re-written[68][69] to heavily insinuate wrongdoing by the Tkʼemlúps te Secwépemc, on whose land the graves are. Much cited material removed here.A huge table disappears here. @David Eppstein: called a source used at the Kamloops article a dishonest hit piece, attempting to cast the fact that a project of this size typically takes some time to get going as if it were a scam merely because they were allocated money, haven't produced immediate results, and won't talk to the hit-piece-writers. (see Western Standard thread)

Other editors protested the rewrite.[70][71][72][73][This thread removes material cited to the TRC with an edit summary of "added citation" Diffs in the AE thread about this editor document three different editors protesting [74],[75] (note date), [76], [77], [78], [79] (see p.39 for example), [80], [81], [82], [83][84][85],[86], [87], [88][89], [90], [91], [92] {{refn|[93],[94] (note date), [95], [96], [97], [98] (see p.39 for example), [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104],[105], [106], [107], [108], [109], [110], [111] as the editor claimed to have policy and consensus on his side. If anyone is wondering, I posted them there in an effort to support a complaint by another editor about this editor's behaviour at Hunter Biden laptop controversy, but apparently Things Do Not Work That Way. But since we are discussing that AE thread, it also documents Ivanvector giving this editor a warning,[after being reverted by Ivanvector informal of course since Ivanvector had been editing the article and was therefore involved.

That is a roadmap, maybe? The three current RSN threads are each for a source used at the Kamloops article, which was recently edit-protected, so that may help. @Fluorescent Jellyfish:, one of the recently-involved editors, says that they are a subject matter expert and and posted an explanation to the talk page of the Kamloops article why they think these sources are disinformation.[112]and was argued with and politely reminded Riposte97 of WP:ONUS] and was argued with some more. Having removed these sources from associated articles way too many times, I believe they are correct. And that is why I am trying to bring eyes to this even though, let's face it, this post is not recommended behaviour for an editor who was recently blocked for stating what is conventional wisdom in Canadian discourse and in the academic field, and warned not to do that again lest they be indeffed. But that there is not what this post is about.[113]]

This post is about some dubious something or other being perpetuated[114] using Wikipedia despite the best efforts of bog standard editors to prevent that.

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

PS: It seems important to point out [115] that the allied denialist Fraser Institute is currently the number one hit for the string "kamloops Indian residential school graves"

References

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

Request for admin help here: someone please refactor this section

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

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

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

Discussion reprise

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

SME COMMENT

Hi,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For instance, he reverted my edit, saying:

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

I replied:

--> as it states in the page you linked about Wikipedia's guidelines for determining reliable sources, sources such as newspapers (which Western Standard would be counted as) have certain caveats relating to reliability. The page states that news reporting from "well established outlets" can often be considered reliable for statements of fact - Western Standard is not well-established; it was 're-established' in 2019 (see it's own About page: [116]) by disgraced right-wing politician Derek Hildebrandt, having originally been established in 2004 by extreme-far-right figure Ezra Levant.[117]

But far, far more than not being well-established - it is a far-right[118] misinformation outlet.[119] It frequently publishes racist, transphobic, and homophobic stories (and has repeatedly had to retract stories, along with failing various fact checks by media-observers). It has also been a key player in spreading Covid-denial and anti-vaxx disinformation.[120] It is a promulgator of far-right conspiracy theories.

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

"Organizations that exhibited high levels of bias, frequently skewed or misrepresented facts, did not use reputable sources, and engaged in promoting conspiracies or misinformation were categorized as fringe. Here we included Fox News, Western Standard, Rebel News, Sun News, and talk radio as fringe news outlets."[121]

Additionally, just for a quick example:

"The Western Standard, a conservative publication based in Calgary, amplified in early July a conspiracy theory that claimed fires were being deliberately set at farms around the world to make populations more dependent on governments."[122]

"[E]xtremists from the far-right of the political spectrum, including the Canadian Yellow Vest movement and the Canadian chapter of the Islamophobic and anti-immigrant Soldiers of Odin. Their narratives are laundered and amplified by a well-established alternative media ecosystem, including outlets such as Rebel News, Western Standard, True North, and the Postmillennial."[123]

In fact, in its previous iteration, the Western Standard was charged with two counts of hate speech![124]

And, lol, just two days ago, "[Derek] Fildebrandt, 38, who is now the publisher of the Western Standard news website, faces four charges of uttering threats to cause death or bodily harm, according to court documents."[125]

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

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

Discussion continued, but he refused to accept my changes.

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

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

For instance this article describes him as:

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

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

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

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

More discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sticking my head in the door.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Topic Ban proposal

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  
  

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

  
  

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

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

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

My child

Cool it. You have no right to talk down.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[126][127]

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

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

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

• Support - David Eppstein clearly laid out the issues with this user above, and I agree. This is a polite POV-pusher, who is quite happy to support sources that promote genocide denial. This topic ban is the least we can do to deter them, while I would personally support a WP:NOTHERE block. I don't like people who push this nonsense, and believe they have a chilling effect on other editors. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban for Riposte97. I believe the crux here is Riposte97 being topic-banned for using a poor source, Western Standard, at Kamloops Indian Residential School and this is the particular article in question. While Western Standard may be considered a poor source generally, but I don't see it at WP:RSP and I can't find anything in that particular article that seems obviously false. Moreover the main claim, that no human remains have been found at Kamloops site, is clearly true. Compare that to reliable sources like the NY Times [128] and CNN [129] that reported or suggested back in 2021 that the remains of 215 bodies had been found, when that was clearly not the case. All we know for sure is that a radar survey has detected anomalies in the ground that could be burials or could be a lot of other things. This whole thing really has been something of a scandal. The National Post and Spiked have reported on this: [130], [131],[132]. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  See the issue that brought me here is this,

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

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

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

  Also the latter part of my edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Like this

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

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

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

Reversion/undoing others contributions by frequently citing unreliability

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

Already reliability of Western Standard is going at RSN under the section Western Standard as a source for Canadian residential schools when Western Standard was quoted as citation [133]

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

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

See the Diffs to reverting [134] [135]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me make my stand clear to everyone reading this.

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

Link to its diff [136]

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

Which user TarnishedPath entirely(both the former and latter part) undid my revision accusing me by saying "Unreliable source which pushes misinformation and denialism". Link to it [137]

Which I in turn undid saying "Denialism or not, if it reported and made headlines, it is included here. How come latter part a Denialism. The spokesperson s and community s statement?" Link to it [138] See the citation (The Catholic Register) I gave to the latter part wasn't in question at RSN or at the article's talk page even at that period of time.

Again user TarnishedPath undid my contribution entirely(including the former and latter parts) saying “Consensus has not been obtained for this edit. Obtain consensus in talk.” at the time 13:38, 26 June 2024. Link to its diff [139]

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

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

And went on to my next edit removing all the lines related to Western Standard, ie., the former part and edited in the latter part adding some more details from its citation as its reliability wasn't in question in the article's talk page back then. Link to my edit. [140]

The latter part was like this in my edit

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

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

Version of article's talk page before that time. Link [141]

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

This contribution of mine was also reverted this time by user Elinruby saying “take it to RSN. Reliability of that source is unclear in this context”. The time stamp:- Revision as of 14:50, 26 June 2024 . Its link [142]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disruption by Kirkukturk3

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

---

Kirkukturk3 believes they are exempt from adding RS when asked to do so at Turkmeneli. There has been a talk page discussion of no use and continues to POV-push[143]. Other pages are being edited disruptively as well. They have moreover made personal attacks[144]. Semsûrî (talk) 11:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

First of all, your claims of "disruptive edits" is about the Anthem and Map which both are already existing material.

You're clearly trying to insist your ideas on being on the page which many others have tried to correct but you kept reverting.

This includes Mandali where you have repeatedly tried to remove the mention of Iraqi turkmens. Kirkukturk3 (talk) 12:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Also I don't believe I'm exempt from adding RS, it's just extremely unnecessary to source an Anthem let alone an already sourced Map. Kirkukturk3 (talk) 12:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

You have now added a reference that does not state what you are claiming which is also problematic. Semsûrî (talk) 12:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Do you mean https://kirkuknow.com/en/news/66104? The same source confirms the existence of the Anthem which you have been denying [145] Kirkukturk3 (talk) 12:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the news article that does not even mention Turkmeneli but only that there is an unnamed Turkmen anthem. Semsûrî (talk) 13:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

The name of the Anthem is Turkmen anthem/Turkmeneli Anthem and the source clearly mentions its existence.

Also how is it "unrelated" because it doesn't mention Turkmeneli? It mentions the Anthem and I added it as a reference for the Anthem, not the entirety turkmeneli page. Kirkukturk3 (talk) 13:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Also there are many reverts you have done which confirms that I'm not "POV-pushing"

[146] [147] [148] These prove that you're just Reverting based on how you view it, Turkmeneli is a Cultural Region not a Historical one, the region encompasses the lands that turkmens inhabit in minorities and majorities rather than being "Historically dominant" in it (this doesn't make sense since if that was the case than Mosul vilayet will be the boundaries)

The source also used for the "Historically dominant" part is about life in the Kurdistan region, which discludes turkmeneli.

Also you have done other disruptive edits against turkmens in

[149] and [150]. Kirkukturk3 (talk) 13:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

It's clear you haven't read OR or RS. Semsûrî (talk) 13:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

None of them apply to this discussion, OR does is about original work while RS is about sourcing.

If you're talking about the historically dominant part, No sources states it.

[151] states that it's a cultural region comprising of the villages and cities that turkmens inhabit.

And Others indirectly mention it [152][153].

So, where is the source for the historically dominant part? Kirkukturk3 (talk) 13:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

[154] could work too but it's a direct copy of one of the sources mentioned above. Kirkukturk3 (talk) 13:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

You are wasting my time — please read Wikipedia:Competence is required as well. The reference you are searching for (Strakes) was right there after the statement.[155] You cannot just remove information you don't like. I'm done debating with you. Semsûrî (talk) 13:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller First of all I'm not editing any of my responses

Second of all the Martial scienctist warning was about me adding a new data for the population without knowing how to source in infoboxes

You're making a big fuzz about the "tou" incident, what's wrong with correcting? You've also mentioned that you don't know another about the topic in the recent discussion between you and Semsûrî in your talk page

Also I did not state the source was entirely wrong as you just said, I stated it was a correction and you told me that I'm trying to claim "expertise" in the topic although I never said it. Kirkukturk3 (talk) 13:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I didn't tell you, I asked you: 'Are you claiming expertise in Neanderthal DNA? Doug Weller (A/CU/OS) talk 2:16 pm, 3 May 2024, Friday (1 month, 20 days ago) (UTC+1)Reply

Nope ^^^ its just that the east asians survey wasnt accurate as i did my research on it so i mistook it for west asians."

On my talk page I wrote "I really don’t know about Google maps etc. someone should go to rsn, and they won’t."

A correction (not needed anyway), would be "I think you meant to write "you" when you wrote "tou." Doug Weller talk 14:04, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

It's a simple correction, that's how I correct.

"I think you meant to write you" just sounds like someone trying to act smart, sorry if there is any misunderstanding. Kirkukturk3 (talk) 14:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I struck the bit about editing your responses. It was probably just rapid editing that caused the edit conflicts. Doug Weller talk 14:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I just said that there are multiple sources mentioning my point while your point? Barely any source states it's a historical region used to define the areas that turkmens historically dominanted.

I'm also done debating with you as I showed my points and proved myself. Kirkukturk3 (talk) 13:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

And also one last thing, the strakes books abstract doesn't even mention it let alone mention the boundaries of Turkmeneli. Kirkukturk3 (talk) 14:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

We can include copyright infringement as well now.[156] Semsûrî (talk) 11:03, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

KirkukNow is a copyright-free site. Kirkuk☆ (Selaj/konuş) 11:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

You're just trying to block instead of "finding disruption by kirkukturk3" now.

KirkukNow does not contain copyrighted material even searching via the copyright system [157] searching it here will not show any results, KirkukNow only claims that the journalists can't report to any other news sources only.

Also if I'm the one being disruptive here, then explain this [158] Kirkuk☆ (Selaj/konuş) 11:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

@Kirkukturk3 When I look at Kirkuknow[159] I see "KIRKUKNOW ©Copyright 2021

All rights reserved" Doug Weller talk 14:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes for the journalist part, many journalists tend to post their story on other medias so KirkukNow assures that the story won't be posted on other medias, overall most of their articles texts are copyright-free expect for the quotes and the journalists POV.

Semsûrî did focus on that part but poorly. Kirkuk☆ (Selaj/konuş) 15:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Editor has now been blocked due to disruption, so discussion can be closed. Semsûrî (talk) 14:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

First, @Kirkukturk3: please stop editing your responses, I keep trying to post and it creates edit conflicts..

See all of User talk:Kirkukturk3#June 2024.

They refuse to go to WP:RSN, replying that "I don't need a specific source for the Anthem and Map since they're already existing medias that can be searched, the Map as shown below is clearly how the article states the boundaries of Turkmeneli, the same type of border is also used by many.

Also the person that you're clearly defending is pro-kurdish and have made many disruptive edits trying to disclude the Iraqi turkmens from pages like mendeli. They're already existing stuff and not self-made material. Kirkukturk3 (talk) 7:35 pm, Yesterday (UTC+1) ".

Their response to my 3RR warning was to say "this issue has been solved". In between they mocked a typo of mine (yes, I make too many typos, my Parkinson's has made me clumsy).

User:Materialscientist warned them in October about the need for sources.

And I'd forgotten about User talk:Kirkukturk3#May 2024 when I told them they'd changed correctly sourced text. They replied: " correction needs to be sourced? Its obviously referring to West asians but poorly. Mistaking the inhabitants of the Near East(West Asia/Middle East) and calling them "East Asians" is very wrong due to the distance of those two areas. Please click on those links because its obvious that you arent knowledgeable enough of these two areas and assume my correction as "unsourced". Kirkukturk3 (talk) 10:37 am, 3 May 2024, Friday (1 month, 20 days ago) (UTC+1)" See the rest - they told me the source was wrong.

In the current dispute where I was telling them about policy they also told me I didn't know enough: "It looks like "tou" don't know alot about this topic. Kirkukturk3 (talk) 7:27 pm, Yesterday (UTC+1)" The "tou" refers to my typo for "you" earlier. Sorry, I kept adding the above and getting edit conflicts and when I succeeded forgot to sign! Doug Weller talk 13:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

The editor continues to add unsourced information[160]. Semsûrî (talk) 10:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

If it was majority Kurdish, it wouldn't be "unsourced" according to your edits on mandali. Kirkuk☆ (Selaj/konuş) 10:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

More personal attacks and stealth canvassing[161] Semsûrî (talk) 15:37, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

There is no "personal attacks" or "stealth canvassing" there.

I'm discussing the matter and how to solve it with another editor.

You're right here watching everything I do on Wikipedia even spying on discussions that you have no involvement in,if this message counts as a personal attack then your edits on mandali and daquq count too. Kirkuk☆ (Selaj/konuş) 15:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

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

WacoBell, Chronic Disruptive Edits (WP:CIR)

User is a previously banned long term disruptive editor who will make a wide variety of alterations to articles without presenting sources to support edits [162],[163],[164]. Also clearly engaging in similar disruptive behaviour while logged out [165][166].

Their disruptive behaviour has been going on for some months under multiple account names (see previous report in January for context).

Despite repeated warnings this behaviour continues over and over again. Effectively this user demonstrates a clear competency problem that they simply refuse to improve. Request ban as a result. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

You are required to notify any editors you start a discussion about. I have notified WacoBell for you, but please keep this in mind for the future. GrayStorm^{(Complaints Dept.|My Contribs.)} 19:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I hadn't forgotten to do so, my attention was momentarily required IRL and when I came back to attach it I saw that you had done so. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Combine the cited behavior -- the Vice edit shows a complete disregard for any basics of how Wikipedia works -- the unmentioned constant abuse of the minor edit tag (basically every edit for the last month), the willful vandalism of the ANI thread discussing their actions, and their history, I don't know how a mere warning would be sufficient at this point. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Almost every mainspace edit they've made since April 2023 has been reverted. That's really concerning. I think WacoBell's intentions are good but competence is required. Schazjmd (talk) 20:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

sir, not to be rude, but that’s the whole point of all my edits. WacoBell (talk) 22:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm trying hard to parse (understand) that statement from WacoBell. It seems to me that WacoBell is saying they are being deliberately disruptive. I cannot find any other viable interpretation. --Yamla (talk) 23:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

@Yamla I think they're trying to say their edits are done with good intentions (which I'd strenuously argue given how they've reacted to this ANI) but the fact it's so hard to parse what they're saying just adds to the main problem which is that they simply don't have the competence to make positive contributions to Wikipedia. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

kindly remove my name from this. i had sources, new articles have been added to the vice media website, if i was wrong, people were free to revert the article, good night. WacoBell (talk) 20:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

You didn't provide any sources, as is blatantly demonstrated in the diffs I've evidenced, and you just deleted this thread in a fit to hide your actions, further demonstrating your wilful disregard for this site's policies. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

The “sockpuppetry” business is completely out of context, number one, if you look at previous explanations and submissions of appeals, it was unintentional, and I acknowledged my mistake, which is why I’m able to write here right now. On another note, sure I can’t remove this. But anything involving MY ACCOUNT is inactive and should be deleted, I’m removing anything from the Sirhewlett account, I don’t use it anymore, I don’t need this. I won’t remove this, these things become inactive after some time and later deleted, but if it’s from my old account, I’m deleting it. It’s my account, and nobody else’s. WacoBell (talk) 22:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

There's no excuse for blanking this ANI post twice, or for trying to delete the contents of a sockpuppet investigation simply because you don't like it. You've been caught repeatedly editing while logged out with no good reason which is also highly frowned upon.

I have no doubt, just like the last time you "retired" you're only saying so to avoid a ban and will no doubt continue your past behaviour of refusing to follow policy. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

actually sir, I can’t remember the password to this account when I need to edit certain things. WacoBell (talk) 22:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

and on the contrary, i guarantee you will never hear anything from me again. i deeply apologize for the inconvenience . WacoBell (talk) 22:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Convenience links:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1146#User:WacoBell, chronic disruptive editing
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sirhewlett

DMacks (talk) 21:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@Yamla thanks for undoing their blanking of this report, they've done it twice now[167][168], and just blanked their sockpuppet history too[169]. Think this alone demonstrates the need for a total ban. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked by Spicy for continued disruptive editing, even after guaranteeing here that we'd never hear from them again. --Yamla (talk) 19:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

SurrealDB speedy deleted after significant changes

Hello, I am the author of SurrealDB which was recently deleted after an AfD. I was able to undelete the page and draftify it for the purposes of improving the article and moving it to mainspace after the database had received enough notability.

Interestingly, shortly after the article was deleted, the company raised $20m USD after another investment round, alongside the launch of their "Cloud" beta announcement. Plus I found a number of new sources further establishing notability.

I don't blame anyone, because it was recreated quickly after the AfD so I can understand why it might appear as circumventing the AfD process - however my intention was not to do that, and I believe the article would now survive an AfD since the article had undergone more significant changes, and addition of new sources.

I would like to have this article undergo a new AfD instead of speedy deletion. Mr Vili talk 10:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

This is not the proper forum for this request. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:07, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

My apologies Mr Vili talk 11:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I restored it to draft for you to work on, however it should now go through WP:AFC. Black Kite (talk) 11:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@Black Kite I can't seem to find it, can you link? Mr Vili talk 11:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, to clarify, I believe you undeleted it after it was moved to mainspace by another user, but then after making improvements to the page, I believe I moved it to mainspace again, and was deleted by another admin (I believe incorrectly) under WP:G4 Mr Vili talk 11:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I also believe WP:G4 was not properly used here, as the article was significantly changed from the version deleted through AFD. I've restored the article and moved it to Draft:SurrealDB again. As previously advised, please submit this article through the AFC process; if it's recreated in mainspace again without being approved by an independent AFC reviewer, it most likely will be deleted again. I have protected both pages only to save the admin work if you bypass this process again. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Ivanvector Mr Vili talk 23:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Can I ask on what grounds Mr vili considered it in any way appropriate to remove multiple sections of comment from the draft talk page, without archiving: [170] AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Looks to me like they copied the source table from the AFD, and overwrote the existing discussions by accident. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

My ability to AGF with regards to this particular contributor is somewhat strained. An 'accident' that removes significant negative feedback from contributors seems a little too convenient to me. At least it does, after taking into consideration some of the other problematic behaviour I've seen. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Again, I did not delete it, I have never even seen any of that content until the talk page was undeleted for the 2nd time. Mr Vili talk 08:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore, the source table was not copied from the AfD. [171] The source table there (created by another AfD participant) was entirely different, and demonstrated how the sources then being cited were in no way sufficient to demonstrate notability. There are a few sources cited in both tables, though now with Mr Vili's positive spin, rather than the original critique. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd also like to see what people here think of this comment by Mr Vili on the draft talk page: [172] Little room for AGF there... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

There’s no way there’s no COI. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

It's possibly a case of very enthusiastic advocacy, but when I last ran into the SurrealDB article in January I had serious doubts too. I don't know. StereoFolic (talk) 02:06, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

@StereoFolic that claim was based on the growth in GitHub stars, which I had no issue removing. It is true I am enthusiastic about SurrealDB. There is no COI Mr Vili talk 08:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

It is true you deleted that after some back-and-forth on the talk page, however I was disappointed to you see you make that exact same claim during the AfD discussion when I thought we had reached an understanding that the claim was from an unreliable source (a reprinted press release) and not a meaningful metric for determining notability. Honestly, noticing you repeating that claim is the only reason I still follow this dispute (that and you keep on recreating the page so it keeps on showing up in my watchlist). Given your activity on other pages makes it clear you are not a WP:SPA, I am inclined to believe you have no COI, but please try to understand why everyone is so skeptical. StereoFolic (talk) 11:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

If you look at our interaction history, its constantly you arguing and criticising every action I take. You are acting against the interests of the encyclopedia. Please find something new to do @AndyTheGrump. Mr Vili talk 23:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Doubling down, I see. As for the interests of the encyclopaedia, we can talk about that if you like. Starting with your persistent use of it to promote imaginary countries , and your inability to understand Wikipedia sourcing policy. Do you really think that if you keep citing it often enough [173][174] people will think that a website (lightsquare.org) run by the 'Government of Lumina' (see [175]) is a reliable source for anything but complete bullshit? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I did not overwrite the discussions, they were not recovered when the page was undeleted by an administrator, the talk page I created was initially empty Mr Vili talk 23:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

The diff says otherwise. [176] AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I am claiming the page was empty when I created it, perhaps an administrator forgot to undelete it so I am not sure. Mr Vili talk 08:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

For further evidence of problematic editing by Mr Vili, see Claude-3.5, created by him today. And then compare the claim in the lede "It is the first model to surpass GPT-4o in a majority of benchmarks, making it the current leading state-of-the-art general model" with what the sources cited ([177][178][179]) actually say. The article is entirely promotional, regurgitating the developer company's claims as fact, and as far as I can see, utterly redundant, since we already have an article on Claude (language model). AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump The claim is entirely credible. Please find any source that claims otherwise.

We also have GPT-3.5 GPT-3 GPT-4 GPT-4o and so on. Clearly documenting the world's leading AI models is a very important topic. Mr Vili talk 08:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't <redacted> if you think the claim is 'credible.' You cannot use sources that state that the developer claims something for a statement in Wikipedia's voice that asserts that the claims are true. Never. Not ever. Not under any circumstances. We do not lie about what sources say. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but please mind the tone. StereoFolic (talk) 11:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Redacted... AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument here.Procyon117 (talk) 02:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Yet another garbage article from Mr Vili: Safe Superintelligence Inc. This is nothing more than a glorified press release. Someone is starting a company. That's all it tells us. Not the slightest claim to notability. Nothing. At this juncture I am beginning to suspect that Mr Vili is tying to provoke people, trying to make some sort of point. If it isn't that, it is gross incompetence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, he didn’t create that one, but just added one line of text and a “source” to it. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with this thread, but i created the page. If you're unsure about the notability of my garbage, take it to AfD. NotAGenious (talk) 15:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for misattributing the article to Mr Vili, though my comments about the 'article' stand. We seem to have a serious problem with regard to notability criteria and sourcing requirements being ignored for IT companies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I beleive the notability comes from the founder, Ilya Sutskever, whom has been key person to the progression of AI over the past 10 years. It is still early tho and nothing but announcement about the founding and a plan has come out. TagKnife (talk) 17:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

No, notability cannot be derived that way. That is just absurd. We don't create a new article for everything an 'notable' person does. Not remotely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

An administrator seriously needs to look at @AndyTheGrump who appears to have a personal quarrel with me on every single article that I am involved in, it's getting tiring now. Mr vili talk 19:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that's right, I take issue with contributors who treat article space as their own personal blog, which they fill with bullshit about imaginary countries, and promotional articles for software companies. And then cite bullshit sources from said imaginary countries as sources to promote the companies. [180] There are also some fairly obvious WP:CoI concerns involved, though policy might possibly preclude them being discussed here. They aren't that hard to find. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

It might help if the article was written in English rather than marketing-bollocks-speak. I have removed one glaring example from the draft, but more remain. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note I have blocked Mr vili (talk · contribs) indefinitely for continual tendentious and promotional editing both prior to and following their previous indefinite block. I also have WP:COI concerns but this block is not based upon or reliant on on those. Abecedare (talk) 03:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Abecedare, I haven't looked into the block rationale but this indefinite block seems to come out of nowhere. No one was recommending that action here. It's just a surprise conclusion to this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Liz: Indeed the block is not in response to (or a determination of consensus of) the above discussion, which I became aware of pretty late in the process of examining the user's edits.

  I came across Mr vili at this RSN discussion, where I responded believing that they were a new user unfamiliar with wikiledia's policies and processes. It was only a few hours back, when I started looking at their editing history in detail (incl. deleted edits), along with that of their sock HeliosSunGod (talk · contribs) and their sock/meat Renaissance_domenic (talk · contribs) did I realize that this was an experienced editor consistently ignoring all the feedback they had received and making promotional edits based on iffy sources, initially in the area of microstates and following their topic-ban from that area, in the AI/software-related topic area. In this process of researching these topics, I also came across indications that the editor has undisclosed real-life links to the entities that they and their sock/meat accounts have been promoting. If the block is disputed by the editor I can go into specific details of the evidence of the promotional and tendentious editing on-wiki and, if needed, share the evidence behind the suspected COI with arbcom. Abecedare (talk) 06:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  • I also came across indications that the editor has undisclosed real-life links
  • I can [...] if needed, share the evidence behind the suspected COI with arbcom

  If the block is not based upon or reliant on your WP:COI concerns, why are these indications relevant and why would you need to share evidence with the Arbitration Committee? Is there some reason to think the original block reason wouldn't hold up? (I don't think there is any reason to think that, but I'm not sure why else community members would need to see evidence for behavior apparently explicitly unrelated to the block.) Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  If/when the user tries to appeal the block, the additional evidence of COI could be enough for elevation to a functionary block, which has a different appeals process. JoelleJay (talk) 21:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Hydrangeans: IMO the evidence for promotional and tendentious editing is sufficient to justify the block. But I also wanted to acknowledge the existence of evidence indicating COI, some of which is off-wiki and cannot be shared with the community but can be shared with arbcom if needed. It's possible though that I am missing the gist of your question because that's just me repeating myself with some words emphasized; if that's the case please feel free to use my talkpage for further clarification. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 21:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

XfD

The draft has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:SurrealDB. Interested editors are invited to participate. TarnishedPath^talk 06:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to indefinite block of User:AndyTheGrump

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

---

I would like to propose that AndyTheGrump be indefinitely blocked due to repeated harassment and incivility towards members that never seems to stop.

AndyTheGrump has been repeatedly injecting himself into almost every single article I am drafting or involved with, vandalising draft articles, and attempting to sway opinions of reviewers into the negative, he's used slurs not only with me, but many other users, constantly acting counter-productively.

Diffs

• "Fuck off you little grifter"
• [181] - falsely accusing me of creating an article, as an attack on discussion about an entirely different page to attempt to sway people's opinions
• [182] - "I don't give a flying fuck"

Diffs with other users

While AndyTheGrump certainly seems to have a personal quarrel with me, it also extends to many other users:

• [183] with @Loytra
• [184] with @Antny08

Previous proposed blocks

However, this is not the first time that a user has proposed blocking AndyTheGrump. Please see:

• proposed block for incivility
• proposed indefinite block for incivility

These were some I only found from few minutes of crawling.

Summary

It clearly appears this is a behavior of AndyTheGrump that is clearly never going to go away. He will counter as he always does with some non-sense argument that just tries to deflect by attacking me, instead of addressing his own behavior. I'm sure many other users here have probably had similar experiences Mr vili talk 20:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

It should be noted here that this is a continuation of a discussion above. [185] Evidently though Mr Vili would prefer to start the discussion all over again, where previous comments concerning his own behaviour and lack of understanding of core policies are provided, from multiple contributors. This attempt to avoid scrutiny of previous negative comment appears to be Mr Vili's standard MO when he attracts attention. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I am not engaging with you anymore Andy. I am happy to respond to any other editors who raise constructive criticisms, you on the other hand are pure negativity and have no desire to be here to build an encyclopedia. This issue has nothing to do with that, it is about your incivility and personal attacks towards other editors Mr vili talk 20:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

The issue has anything to do with anything anyone sees relevant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Support as per above. Mr vili talk 20:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - a site is not warranted for the linked diffs EvergreenFir (talk) 20:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - per EvergreenFir. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
• Comment Mr vili, there is a suggestion in the thread up the page that you have an undisclosed COI for the pages you are editing. Can you confirm or deny any such COI please? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  COI denied Mr vili talk 20:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I should probably clarify that the COI concerns I was referring to were in regard to Mr Vili's broader editing history, rather than specifically to the draft being discussed in the ANI thread above. Policy probably precludes them being discussed here, though they aren't that hard to find. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

So, thanks Mr Vili, for confirming no COI on the current articles. Do you have an undisclosed COI on any other articles you have been editing? Under this name or under the name of User:Renaissance domenic? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Nope none, not sure about Renaissance Domenic, that was a friend/coworker I edited with in the past who no longer contributes to Wikipedia Mr vili talk 21:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose This seems to stem from issues with Mr vili's understanding of reliable sources and notability, as well as a seeming misunderstanding of the purpose of Wikipedia. I would also note that linking Antny08 is a poor example, you might have wanted to look into the details of that before including it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I do support the 31h block, Andy (as ever) could do with being slightly less grumpy. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - Indef based on this -- not close. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• I've blocked AtG for 31 hours for "Fuck off, you crooked little grifter". ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  Endorse this. An indef would've been silly and Vili's behavior hasn't been great either, but obvious PA is obvious. The Kip ^(contribs) 21:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• Absolutely oppose. When someone tells you to stop posting on their talk page, you stop posting on their talk page. Continued posting constitutes harassment. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 23:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Support — Verbal harrassment and blatant incivility should not be tolerated on Wikipedia. Am quite surprised a sitewide block hasn't already been implemented tbh. I see no reason why this behaviour would suddenly cease after the 31 hours is up. Loytra (talk) 10:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I oppose an indef-block as a ridiculous overreaction, but will note here Andy has been given a 31-hour block for the obvious personal attacks linked from the beginning of this thread, and that in my opinion this is condign given the previous consensae (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1157#A_refusal_to_permit_evidence_to_be_discussed_in_a_Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know_thread_requesting_such_evidence., Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1156#BLP_issues_with_Andrew_Tate_DYK_hook) where everyone agreed that next time for sure there would be some consequence. jp×g🗯️ 21:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose indefinite block while encouraging Andy to study less grumpy synonyms during the remainder of his 31 hour block. Cullen328 (talk) 21:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
• Comment I agree that Australia is an entirely fictional country, fwiw. Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Having lived here for 3 decades, I can confirm you are completely and unequivocally correct. Marsupials that bounce around? Silly. Daniel (talk) 23:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

    Visited there three times. Pretty certain they were dreams. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

    Southern New Hampshire U. Apologizes for Professor Who Said Australia Is ‘Not a Country’. EEng 01:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support current 31-hour block for blatant and inexcusible incivility in first diff. Block lengths should escalate for future offenses of similar severity, but we're not at the point of an indef yet. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed, 31-hour block is good. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 01:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: When I see an editor's name in the headline here and my first thought is "this again", that's usually a sign that the editor in question is asking for a heavier touch. I agree that there is nothing to indef here, but given that others have raised the exact same sort of incivility before, I would extend the block to a week. At some point, some learning is needed. BD2412 T 01:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - I expect I'll get some "fuck off is never okay replies" but honestly I feel it was deserved and warranted in this case > Andy removes crap from the article and instead of being thanked for their edits, he gets a message saying "stop vandalising the article" .... I mean if that's the thanks you're gonna get for helping to improve the encyclopedia then I'd be inclined to say fuck off too in response to that warning. Meh should be unblocked as time served imho. –Davey2010^Talk 01:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, this seems like an unnecessary escalation. Andy is on thinner ice than he may realize given his previous civility issues, but at the moment this seems to have been resolved. Alternatively, I would support BD2412's proposal to increase the block. Or I'd support an indef that would be lifted as soon as he guarantees that we will not have to worry about incivility from him any further, with the understanding that any further problems will result in removal from the project. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose I'd also be inclined to tell someone to fuck off if they templated me for vandalism in bad faith, noting that one of the accounts he did that to has been indeffed as a vandalism only account. The diffs provided really do not make a case for an indefinite block of Andy. TarnishedPath^talk 02:03, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: OP blocked. I've blocked Mr vili for 31 hours for personal attacks. Please see my block notice for diffs. Bishonen | tålk 02:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC).

• Further note: OP indeffed for their COI editing tendentious and promotional editing (see above). LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 04:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• It is an indef block, but you are misrepresenting it. Both in the section you link to and the block message say I also have WP:COI concerns but this block is not based upon or relianton on those RudolfRed (talk) 04:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Fixed. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 04:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose No-brainer. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. I swear, AndyTheGrump is reaching HistoryofIran levels of being sent to ANI by newer users over the weirdest things. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• LilianaUwU, in that case Andy may need a separate noticeboard to himself, perhaps on the lines of the Clueless complaints about Sitush noticeboard (now deleted, so only admins can view it) that was created for Sitush at a time when caste promoters were bulking up ANI with Sitush "reports". Maybe that would work for Andy, and for HistoryofIran. Bishonen | tålk 10:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC).

• I just work on the basis that *any* new account complaining about HistoryofIran at a dramaboard doesn't have a case. I haven't been proved wrong yet. Black Kite (talk) 12:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Yikes. I take my eyes off a draft for one week and it ends up here. Is this something something that happens with AI stuff? Do we need something along the lines of GS/CRYPTO for this topic? I don't know if I'm qualified to advise on this kind of thing, I don't edit on controversial topics that often but maybe it's best for everyone to just disengage from the topic for a month or so and let things cool down? Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:32, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Note to User:AndyTheGrump

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

---

You just got a 31-hour block that could have been 72 hours. You were right about the substance, but civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia. Some time, you are likely to make a personal attack against a promotional editor or other editor who is not here to improve the encyclopedia in a dispute that has to be resolved by ArbCom rather than by the community. ArbCom will review the facts, and review the history, and will see an editor who has been almost unblockable for ten years, and will review the history in more depth, and will ban the promotional editors, and will decide that you should be banned for persistent disregard of civility. So learn a lesson in time, before a dispute that you are in, and are right about, goes to ArbCom. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Time to Close?

There are two sets of issues here, conduct issues and content issues. The conduct issues have been dealt with by indefinitely blocking the proponent, and by not indefinitely blocking ATG. The content issues are being discussed at the MFD. Should this be closed? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Are you asking for someone else to close your post-close conversation with yourself...? JoelleJay (talk) 06:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

No, I think Robert McClenon is referring to the entire (superordinate) section, titled "SurrealDB speedy deleted after significant changes" of which the closed "Proposal to indefinite block of User:AndyTheGrump" is one of several subsections (others being the two I presume you meant by "your post-close conversation with yourself", for example). ---Sluzzelin talk 02:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Should this level 2 section be closed? If there is no other recommendation for administrative action, then this level 2 WP:ANI section is finished and can be closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:34, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

It would auto archive. If we all stopped saying there is nothing more to do. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

User: Kelvintjy

Hello

This user seems to have difficulties with WP rules.

• on the page Soka Gakkai Italian Buddhist Institute, he keeps misquoting a source that is famous for being doubtful as "the highest profile lobbying and information group for controversial religions" (here). Strange fact : in 2016 he nominated the page for deletion..
• user is constantly removing modifications on pages related to a buddhist cult called Soka Gakkai, and his interventions are always made to work towards a laudative appreciation of this cult, without any consideration for the controversies attached to it, and without considering NPOV.
• user never answers any request or question about his modifications.
• user might be a member of this organization and edit on WP with a NPOV.

Raoul mishima (talk) 00:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

You are required to notify any editors you start a discussion about. I have done so for you here, but please keep this in mind moving forward. GrayStorm^{(Complaints Dept.|My Contribs.)} 01:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I had only just revert the article that is well source. It is Raoul mishima who are pushing through with is own agenda and made the multiple edit with his own interpretation in all the article he made. I just restore the articles which a lot of user had previously disscuss. Kelvintjy (talk) 01:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

thorny problem, eh?

it's possible that both sides of this slow rolling edit war have valid points, and it's possible both sides are including edits that stray from being good faith.

regardless,this will not be resolved through edits, as both detractors and supporters are passionate about their position.

reading over the recent edits, of which i was a participant, it looks like the L Ron Hubbard discussions from a decade ago.

I'm just going to continue to look for obvious vandalism and factual inaccuracies, as i think the current versions are reasonably accurate, outside of the editing back and forth.

have a wiki day, Augmented Seventh (talk) 14:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

It is undoubtedly true that "both sides" have valid points...but there's a fundamental disconnect here between Raoul (who seems to be the lone dissenter pushing a POV which views SGI negatively) and literal hordes of SGI members who keep a tight ship on all the pages mentioned. Raoul clearly has a bone to pick with SGI in any case.

The pages, unfortunately, are not very accurate. As other editors have noted, they are full of laudatory prose and contain very little discussion about the more controversial topics that surround SGI, especially in Japanese-language media. I've added some of this, but it's outweighed by paragraph upon paragraph about various SGI front groups and pointless trivia. wound theology◈ 11:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Extended content

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  I welcomed feedback from others

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Other physics editors and I have been cleaning up after Drbogdan's "today, scientists reported"-style edits for years. Here's an example from 2019, where (frankly nonsensical) text was added to Bell test based on press-release-level coverage [186]. It took a while for that to get removed [187], because little blue clicky numbers make text look respectable. Here's an example from December of that year at Casimir effect [188]. We had to waste time going through a whole AfD for a page that should never have been made in the first place. Is it the worst thing we have to deal with while maintaining science articles? No, but it is exasperating. XOR'easter (talk) 18:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where Are We?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please explain what you mean by "progress"? How does one make "progress" when the filing editor, Warrenmck, a user with 994 edits stretching back to their first edit a year ago, on 8 March 2023, has made a series of bizarre claims against Drbogdan, a user with 90,324 edits stretching back to 2008 (although he didn't start editing until 2010?) and who has maintained a good record for 14 years?[189] Perhaps Warren's inexperience explains why he thinks Drbogdan isn't allowed to post photos of his hikes on Commons, or why Warren strangely keeps citing the WP:PROSELINE essay, which has zero rationale for any kind of proposed sanctions here. Notice, I am not calling for WP:CIR against Warren here, unlike his calls against DrBogdan for "violating" proseline; no such violation exists, my dude. Drbogdan has spent 14 years building Wikipedia. Your newest false claims about "AfDs" above (you keep making these absurd allegations, without end) is belied by 81.4% of Drbogdan’s main space articles, currently live. Of his 90k lifetime edits, 67.4% are to mainspace. He has contributed content to more than two dozen articles which either became featured articles after his edits or were already featured. If his edits were as problematic as you say, we would know. It is safe to say, his edits are sound based on the total lack of complaints. Furthermore, I continue to find it odd and unprecedented that Warren, a user with little experience and few edits, made his way to ANI, happens to cite the IP in his complaint, who just so happens to be calling for an "indef" for Drbogdan based on almost no actual demonstrable problem. This has all the hallmarks of a content dispute, not a conduct dispute. As I've shown above, Drbogdan has edited harmoniously for 14 years. Yes, Drbogdan made a controversial decision to use Wikipedia as a webhost for his dissertation and to link to comments he made on the NYT, but that is being rectified by the community at the MfD. Other than that, there is nothing else that needs to be done. Therefore, I move to close this discussion. Viriditas (talk) 01:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

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

One again, you have tried to change the subject to me instead of focusing on the topic. And once again, you have misinterpreted what was said, as nothing I discussed implied "socking". I do want to point out, that in addition to the multiple misinterpretations of yours I've highlighted in this discussion (and I'm still not calling for WP:CIR), you also made similar misinterpretations on Drbogdan's talk page. This is a pattern. For example, in this edit, you accused Drbogdan of changing your words on his talk page and you threatened him with this very ANI. You wrote, "stop editing my words, that's inappropriate and I've been trying to engage with you on this productively. If you insist on changing my own words to suit you I'm going to WP:ANI this situation." So it appears you started this very ANI based on your own misinterpretation of WP:RTP, which Drbogdan has famously been doing to his talk page from the very beginning. Your misinterpretation extended to your edit summary, where you wrote "Inappropriate editing of a talk page comment per both WP:SUPERHAT and WP:TPO"[190], which I will remind you yet again, is 100% false. This is a pattern from you. Viriditas (talk) 22:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The heading is part of the comment. Refactoring always preserves the original editor's meaning and intent. Changing the heading is the opposite of preserving meaning. Under "Concerns", that guideline writes, Be aware that not every editor will agree with your refactoring or even of the refactoring concept in general. Provide links to the original, uncut version, so others can check your changes, and if necessary go back to the original to clarify what an author actually said. This combination of refactoring and archiving will often prevent complaints that information was lost. Make it explicit that you have refactored something so no one is misled into thinking this was the original talk page. Changing another editor's words and collapsing the meat of their comment [191] does none of that. XOR'easter (talk) 22:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

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

My mention of "making progress" was in reference to my earlier comment [192], which I think is clear enough. I do not believe that any of the claims made against Drbogdan are "bizarre". Nor does pointing to Drbogdan's long history of editing make much of a point when the persistence of bad editing habits over multiple years affecting many articles is exactly the problem under discussion. XOR'easter (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Filemovers – WP:CIR issues

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

---

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

I think many of Filemovers' contributions are not constructive (but still good-faith). Examples include overlinking (e.g. [193] [194] [195]), mistaken typo fixes (e.g. [196] [197]), adding nonsensical categories (e.g. [198] [199] [200]), unsubstantiated reverts (e.g. [201] [202] [203]), using misleading edit descriptions (e.g. [204] [205] [206] [207]) and miscellaneous disruptive edits. I would say about half of his edits are constructive and half revert-worthy. He already has some warnings on their user-talk page.

–Janhrach (talk) 08:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Looks like they belong to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Farhan Rana Rajpoot. Blocked, lock requested. --Blablubbs (talk) 11:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing and POV pushing about the origin of Nsibidi script

CHI-Research, also editing logged out as 2603:7000:cd02:666c:c52f:1112:a1a5:3829 or 2603:7000:cd02:666c:3c71:7b63:1b6f:7da3, is aggressively pushing their OR theory about the origin of the Nsibidi script at Igbo people, Ekoi people, and Nsibidi. I tried to reason with them (User talk:CHI-Research#June 2024), but they've now stopped to argue at all, instead repeatedly pushing their POV and OR theory for which no evidence other than a misrepresented 1909 paper seems to exist. Disruptive edits include: [208], [209], [210], [211], [212], [213], [214], [215], [216], [217]. I'm at my wit's end here and suggest them to be topic-banned from the three mentioned articles. Gawaon (talk) 12:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

GAWAON, started vandalizing my contributions from JUNE 19, 2024 through June 20, 2024 and has continued same till today (i)2600:1700:CED:5000:BD64:2E4:9540:57BB (ii) Gawaon talk contribs‎ 143,535 bytes −840‎ "Reverted 5 edits by CHI-Research (talk): Information from 1909 is likely outdated and can't be used to falsify a newer source from 2004. If you want to make this claim, you need a newer academic source confirming it undo thank"

Gawaon is adamantly spreading misleading information, based on conjectures published in folklores and non peer-reviews papers about the origin of Nsibidi script, while completely ignoring a peer-reviewed paper by Macgegor in 1909.

All POV and OR theory being recently pushed to bamboozle unsuspecting readers about the truth. The one question they fear is to provide photos and archeological evidences to support any claims made by "scholars" they reference. None. The "scholars claim that colonial officers found variety of Nsibidi script among Ejagham people but the officers did not provide photos or artefacts of the varieties being claimed, to enable comparison. The officers made the claim after the peer-reviewed paper by Macgregor in 1909. Macgregor's paper showed photos and artefacts and interviews. Thus, photos have been invented by then. Why did the "colonial officers" not document the varieties in form of photos and artefacts? The other lies being spread was that the Nsibidi script spread through migration, which contradicts the consensus among scholars and locals that Nsibidi spread by way of Ekpe society across the Cross River region.

Their only argument to counter all the contradictions, lack of photos, artefacts and peer-reviewed papers among those they cite, is that the "scholars" published their work more recently. Is that how we determine the origin of a writing system if those "scholars provide zero photos, artefacts, or peer-reviewed archeological papers to support their claims?

What is going on is that people have not being paying attention to the harm being done by people who push lies wittingly or unwittingly. Yet, no matter how long lies fly truth overtakes it in the long last. This has to stop. If they have photos, artefacts to support their "colonial officers" hypothesis or the "migration" hypothesis, I will be the first to spread the news. In absence of that, the only known peer-reviewed paper on the origin of the Nsibidi script was published in 1909. Age does not nullify its value in the face of unsubstantiated claims being pushed around today.

Therefore, I suggest that this user be topic-banned from deleting contributions of others at Igbo, Ekoi, and Nsibidi. CHI-Research (talk) 14:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I have combined the related reports.EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Love a Francis E. Dec–inflected grammatology dispute at ANI where Francis didn't inform the person he wants banned about the discussion like is required. I've done so. Remsense诉 15:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

CHI-Research, your complaint submission lacks WP:Diffs and comes off as a retaliatory filing. Know that there's no first mover advantage for ANI. Also note that, even if you're right, edit warring (the phrase "incorrectly attributed to" is reinserted multiple times in Gawoan's diffs) is a good way to get blocked and let the other person have the last word.

Gawoan is also correct in that Wikipedia is not concerned with WP:THETRUTH. Wikipedia cares only about what reliable sources say. And yes, WP:AGE MATTERS. Put another way, if all recent reliable sources said gravity pulled objects sideways, that's what Wikipedia would report.

Finally, this noticeboard does not care about who's right about the content. That's a matter for the article talk page. It does care about behavioral issues, such as not following policies and guidelines. As an example, note that what Gawoan did was WP:NOTVAND, and claiming it was constitutes a personal attack, which is forbidden. Gawoan, I also notice you left a vandalism warning for CHI-Research. I'd suggest a disruptive editing warning would have been more appropriate.

I'd like to give CHI-Research a chance to onboard this feedback before jumping to any sanctions. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip regarding the warning notes, I'll keep it in mind. Fortunately my experience with disruptive or vandalizing editors has been fairly limited so far, and I'm still struggling a bit with finding the best options in the Twinkle dialogue. Gawaon (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Meanwhile the disruptive editing continues, see the five latest edits to Igbo people. Gawaon (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing to my attention the use of "...incorectly attributed...."

Still on my incident report: GAWAON continues to remove my contribution, latest being today, June 25, 2024. Prior to adding my contribution, Macgregor's paper on the origin of Nsibidi was not cited or discussed. When I added it, with a highlight of key points, GAWAON removed my contribution. Could you please address this point. Thank you. CHI-Research (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Actually the paper is now mentioned in the Igbo people article, including the origin claim, thanks to my synthesis edit: 'though in the 1900s J. K. Macgregor recorded a "native tradition" attributing it to the Uguakima or Uyanga section of the Igbo.' That seems entirely sufficient for that article where the Nsibidi script was always mentioned in just a single sentence before you came and had to add your POV theory there. As for the paragraph you insist on re-inserting, none of it is sourced and, of course, it can't be sourced since there are no reliable sources confirming your claims. Hence it doesn't belong in that article nor, indeed, in any article. Gawaon (talk) 13:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

The sources have been entered since you like repetition of citations. Also, you went at length to write your submission but expect a sentence of my source? Then you actually deleted my submission without permission and wrote a incoherent sentence apparently to block readers from getting the substance of my source. Is this consistent with Wikipedia policy especially in the backdrop of you stating that I added a phrase "incorrectly attribute, but you completely deleted my sentences and a meaningless sentence? CHI-Research (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Reliable source policy for historical subjects at Wikipedia:

The issue regarding the origin of Nsibidi is a historical or archeological subject. Wikipedia pay credence to older sources in topics like this one.

If 100 authors published papers and books in 2020 and attributed the origin of Nsibidi to a group, without providing photos, artefacts, or going through a peer-reviewed process among archeologists/historians, such 100 sources would be unreliable or accorded less credence versus a peer-reviewed paper from 1909 showing photos, artefacts and interviews.

Could you comment on this point against your previous post that AGE MATTERS. Thank you. CHI-Research (talk) 13:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Is my filing really retaliatory? No. The fact that GAWAON first filed the incident report did not make my response to the report retaliatory. I mere shared my side of the matter. Is sharing my side of the matter make it retaliatory, per Wikipedia policy? Could you please clarify what retaliatory policy entails? Thank you. CHI-Research (talk) 13:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Notice GAWAON now acknowledging the deletion of my post but justify it by stating that my source has been added by GAWAON. So GAWAON effectively now create sentences for GAWAON and all others. Is that a Wikipedia policy that one user can delete others' contribution or reword other's contributions? CHI-Research (talk) 14:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

You, on the other hand, have now managed to produce three "cite errors" in a single article. Congratulations! Gawaon (talk) 15:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Not a big deal as that can always happen and, as in this case, get corrected. CHI-Research (talk) 16:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I would like to bring to your attention that GAWAON has continued to vandalize my contribution. Today, a contribution I made was deleted by GAWAON and and replaced with new meaningless sentence. Notice how much GAWAON added but argue that a sentence is enough to present the source which was omitted before I saw the omission about a week ago. GAWAON clearly would do anything to block the source and content from readers.

Can a user block others from adding a reliable source, delete others' submission based on the source, and add their own meaningless sentence, even as they write at length about their preferred source(s)? Tank you. CHI-Research (talk) 16:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I had (once more) deleted your unsourced POV paragraph today, but I had written the attempted synthesis sentence earlier than that. You have meanwhile (accidentally, I supposed) managed to mangle the quotations I had added to the references out of the citations and into the main text, which of course makes the result meaningless/unreadable. Gawaon (talk) 16:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Again, the sources are added and I hope the vandalism stops. Allow others to contribute based on reliable sources.

You now refer to colonial officers as "investigators" to create an impression that they were researchers? Readers are still waiting for photos, artefacts and peer-reviewed publication of their findings, because Slogar only stated what they said.

I did not change your submission, just checked and noticed that the citations are positioned to the specific locations appropriate to individual points that you submitted. You can arrange your sources as you want. CHI-Research (talk) 16:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Sure you changed the existing citations and the only sources you added are the 1909 paper (your only source of truth, which was already present anyway) and two that currently don't work (due to your messing it up once more) but are supposedly meant to point to articles that, according to you, are wrong. What you would actually need are sources for your claims, not against them.

And frankly, based on your edit history to Igbo people today (three cite errors added and later fixed, three other citations mangled so badly that the "cite book" is now visible in the footnote and the quote block has become a part of the main text) I now feel inclined to suggest blocking you for technical incompetence alone. Gawaon (talk) 17:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

My claim is backed up by Macgregor with photos, artefacts and interviews as far back as 1909.

You claims are based on Carlson (migration) and Slobar (colonial officers), without any photos, artefacts and peer-reviewed evidences of the claims.

The above information has to co-exist in the page for it is pertinent. CHI-Research (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Check my submission again. I do not point to articles that are wrong, but merely add sources to highlight the sources of your 'Ejagham migration' and 'colonial officers' hypotheses of the origin of Nsibidi.

Again, neither source provides photos, artefacts, and peer-reviewed evidences to back up the claim.

Your claims and sources and the Macgregor's paper have to co-exist in the page and readers should understand what all that entails.

You should be championing transparency in showcasing all sources. Yet, that is far from what is going. You use 5o sentences for your sources and a sentence for the source you considered as old enough to omit completely. Still this is history and archeology where old is supreme, per Wikipedia Reliable source policy. CHI-Research (talk) 18:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay, let's try this one more time. CHI-Research: First, please stop trying to say why your content is right here. ANI is not the forum for content disputes. I suspect that you feeling correct on content is making it hard for you to see how you've lapsed in conduct. See my original comment regarding edit warring.

You'll also note I didn't say your filing was retaliatory, only that it comes off as such. Your further comments here and on your talk page also make me worry that you're treating Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. We're all on the same side here: the side of improving the encyclopedia.

I understand that you believe you're right. There is a way to argue that. That way is not to edit war and accuse other editors of vandalism (of which reverting your edits does not qualify). The way is to discuss on the talk page. If you and Gawaon cannot come to a consensus between the two of you, explore WP:3O. If that does not work, try an WP:RFC. And no matter what, abide by whatever consensus is reached. I strongly recommend you the policy on edit warring; it covers this better than I can. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I am not removing or editing GAWAON's submission. Rather, I am making my submission. My last submission yesterday was reversed by GAWAON on the basis that it did not add sources. Today, I added sources. I hope that this resolves it. If not, I will explore WP:3O.as recommended.

Thank you for your feedback. CHI-Research (talk) 18:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Outstanding; that sounds like the exact right thing to do: try to address the concerns raised, and if they persist, use dispute resolution like 3O. I hope this means neither of you two have to waste any more time here at ANI! EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. CHI-Research (talk) 18:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay, let's take it to the talk page and, if that doesn't help, to WP:3O. I'm willing to adhere to the outcome of that process. CHI-Research, are you too? Gawaon (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Yesterday, you stated that you reversed my contribution because it did not have sources. Today, I added sources and you reversed it again because...? CHI-Research (talk) 19:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

• See this section I just seeded at Talk:Igbo people. Discussion over article content can continue there and, hopefully, there will be no further edit-warring that would necessitate sanctions. Abecedare (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

References

Australian railroad IP yet again

Our friend the Australian railroad IP is back at it again with block evasion, both on IPs and a new account. User:EspeeRailfan02 started editing on the 22nd and their first action was to request the undeletion of an article created by this sockmaster. This user has otherwise shown the same obsession with rebuilt Southern Pacific locomotives as the IP. They've also been using IPs to edit, including User:202.45.119.165 which was active yesterday. The socking is blatant at Southern Pacific 7399, where the registered account made a bunch of edits to the article 6 hours after the IP did. They also helpfully posted on my talk page as User:59.102.3.140. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

This is a cross-wiki block evasion issue. I've blocked EspeeRailfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and EspeeRailfan02 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (and a number of the previous IPs) on Commons, and all have been active on Wikidata as well. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I the Australian Railroad IP had attempted to reconcile with the community but you all kept blocking me. 202.45.119.134 (talk) 03:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it’s because all these people must really hate Australians or maybe because they are very spiteful to Australians 202.45.119.134 (talk) 03:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

There's plenty of Australians around. Unlike you, the vast majority of us don't refbomb articles to make the subjects appear like they're more notable than they are. TarnishedPath^talk 15:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

*breathes in* I am. Inevitable. 202.45.119.134 (talk) 03:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello there. This message is in response to this post you made on my talk page in December 2023. I know this is a bit of a late response (6 months), but since you are still around, wanting to and trying to contribute again only to find your next IP addresses and user accounts blocked, I just wanted to say an important message which hopefully helps you out here.

You, as a person, are prohibited by word from editing Wikipedia, by community consensus. The blocks placed on IP addresses and accounts you use are there to enforce that prohibition.

This means, you should not use new IP addresses or create new accounts to continue editing, until you successfully appeal this community ban formed at AN/I in Dec 2023.

So here's what I would do instead. Wait at least six months without making any edits to Wikipedia. Not even on AN/I or user talk pages. In that time, have a good, careful, close read through that original discussion that led to the block. Find out what you did wrong, and think about how you'll change the way you edit on Wikipedia, such that those concerns raised on that thread are addressed and you don't get blocked like that again.

Then, after those 6+ months of no editing have gone by, start a new thread here on AN/I, linking to the original community ban thread, explaining that you want that editing prohibition removed because you understand this, understand that, and [insert convincing explanation for why the block should be removed]. Once again, no editing articles while the block remains (otherwise it will count negatively towards your ban appeal).

If, at the time of appeal, your current IP address is blocked, then you will need to use the {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} template on your user talk page, to start the request. Replace "Your reason here" with what you would have written on AN/I if your IP address wasn't blocked, and at the top of that unblock request, add "can someone please copy the following to AN/I as I am blocked from editing?" or similar.

You will be allowed to edit Wikipedia again once that ban appeal reaches a consensus in favour of the ban removal by the editors participating in it.

I hope you will find this information useful, I am happy to support such a community ban appeal in the future if you explain well enough how you'll change your way of editing to resolve the complaints that other editors have made on that original thread, as well as if you follow the two other points made here (no editing while block remains, six months of no edits before making appeal). :)

Regards, — AP 499D25 (talk) 08:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

The IP has been given a 1 month block, but the registered accounts still need looking at. Happy to post at the existing SPI for this sockmaster if that would be more appropriate. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

@Trainsandotherthings, regardless the outcome here I'd still post at the existing SPI so there is a record. TarnishedPath^talk 15:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked both accounts for ban evasion. Would encourage listing at SPI per TP above. Daniel (talk) 23:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I listed both accounts and another IP at SPI yesterday, though the SPI is mostly just for the record now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

No cooperation, no good faith

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

also remove my appeal for discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Insults / Bullying

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Complaint Against Administrator Doug Weller

I am filing a complaint against Administrator Doug Weller for biased and unprofessional behavior regarding my edits and those of my friend, Kirkukturk3. Below are the key issues and supporting evidence:

1. Biased Review Request by Semsûrî (21 June 2024)

Semsûrî requested Doug Weller to review Kirkukturk3's edits, likely influencing Weller's impartiality. This private request suggests collusion and bias ([link to message](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doug_Weller&diff=prev&oldid=1230247330)).

2. Unwarranted 3RR Warnings (21 June 2024)

Doug Weller issued 3RR warnings based on Semsûrî's biased request. His comment about my friend Kirkukturk3's "lack of understanding and competence" was dismissive and unprofessional ([link to warning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NICTON_t#c-Doug_Weller-20240624190200-Doug_Weller-20240624173900)).

3. Groundless Proxying Accusation (24 June 2024)

Doug Weller assumed without evidence that I would collaborate with Kirkukturk3, issuing a baseless warning for proxying. This accusatory tone is unacceptable ([link to warning](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NICTON_t&diff=prev&oldid=1230776034)).

Request for Action

Given these clear instances of bias and unprofessional conduct, I request the following:

1. Immediate Review by Another Administrator: To ensure impartiality and address the apparent bias.

2. Formal Warning and Retraining for Doug Weller: To enforce standards of professionalism and impartiality.

Despite attempting to resolve this matter directly with Doug Weller, the issue remains unresolved. Immediate action is necessary to maintain Wikipedia's integrity.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this serious matter.

-- ~~~~ NICTON t (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

You should withdraw this complaint, posthaste, before you join your friend in being indefinitely blocked. Grandpallama (talk) 20:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern and intention to help, Grandpallama. I appreciate your advice. However, I believe my report is well-documented and addresses serious issues that need to be reviewed. I hope this can be evaluated fairly and impartially. NICTON t (talk) 20:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Also i dont think even 1% i have made any single big or small mistake that may led to indefinite ban on my account. NICTON t (talk) 20:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

First of all, Wikipedia editors are volunteers, not professionals. Secondly, you really think some sort of sanction would be appropriate for warnings and tone? Dumuzid (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

In order:

1. "Private request"? If it's on Wikipedia, it's de facto not private. It's far from uncommon for users to directly ask administrators to use their tools on their talk page, especially if the admin is familiar with the situation or sockfarm.
2. This is the "Find out" phase of "fool around and find out". There is less tolerance for chicanery in a contentious topic, and you're demonstrating precisely why editors in such topics are on shorter leashes.
3. Doug Weller is right here. Proxying for (editing on behalf of) a blocked editor isn't allowed.

—Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 20:47, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Im not claiming that proxying is good or any such thing , im claiming that I didn’t even do any change then i got my first warning on this platform for some thing I didn’t even do . If talking to a person is considered proxying?

im totally okay for being banned for proxying if i did it , but why abusing his powers to claim i proxy for another user , and go further on insulting the user . NICTON t (talk) 21:06, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Groundless Proxying Accusation , basically means abusing power to make a favor to another user on sending a warning without any evidence or any action from my side of proxying. NICTON t (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Can I ask a question? if you get, like, 4 people saying you're wrong, and 0 people saying you're right, will you actually abide by that? Or will you just say that all 4 people just don't understand, or are Doug's friends, or are part of the Cabal, or are secret bigots, and keep arguing? The answer kind of affects my next actions here. People do not have a right to be timesinks. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

@NICTON t: Nothing Doug Weller has done has, so far as I can see, come close to implicating his administrator tools, especially given there is a contentious topic in play where administrators have somewhat more latitude to act. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 21:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh… so why did I receive the warning? NICTON t (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Because the conversation at User_talk:NICTON_t#Kurdish Vandalism implies that editing behavior might be in violation of WP:Proxying so Doug Weller was warning you (and providing that link so that you could learn more). Anyone reading your statement to another editor who is now blocked might be concerned about proxy editing: "Hey there partner! Just checking in about 8 hours after our last convo. If creating a TG account are not possible at the moment, we can use other DM chatting platforms such as instagram , facebook messenger or anything that suits you , I'm so invested in this topic , and i'm so ready to arrange something to make our changes on Turkmeneli or other pages to be accepted by admins ." Schazjmd (talk) 21:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• I've indeffed NICTON t.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  Tried to warn them. Grandpallama (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  For what? Doug-liker myself, btw. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• Could ChatGPT, or whatever was used in the OP's first 2 posts, really not even figure out how to do Wikipedia's markup for links? – 2804:F1...13:F724 (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think ChatGPT is capable of doing those yet, fortunately. AI generated requests are pain in the ass acrosss the internet anyways... ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 23:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  @AlphaBetaGamma, you should try out ChatGpt 4o. Please make sure you use that version. it can browse the internet and obtain updated data on, well, almost anything. so that is important to note. Sm8900 (talk) 01:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  Well, are administrators having to go through the extra steps of running AI scanner for every block appeal for AI content? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 01:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  To be fair, I didn't use an AI scanner, I simply looked at:

  - the way their request was presented and phrased, contrasted with the other messages after the first 2 where the style is completely different;

  - looked for 'weird things' in the text:

  - - the Markdown style links being one - chat AIs are usually trained to generate Markdown so the website can show formatted answers;

  - - the signature of the first post is another, it has <nowiki>-- ~~~~</nowiki> written just before it - that makes me think they copy and pasted it from somewhere and the create topic feature 'helpfully' converted it for them so it would show as text, and maybe autosigned. – 2804:F1...13:F724 (talk) 03:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  It can. But you have to give it examples in your prompt, the same as when you ask it to do any other type of markup work. 2600:1700:F990:C190:595D:5E36:9A3C:3A84 (talk) 02:27, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Repeatedly adding "Syed Noor Ali Shah" to pages without sources; misleading edit summaries

Inayatullah168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has, despite repeated warnings, kept on adding and readding Syed Noor Ali Shah to various pages, without any explanation. Also, all edit summaries are Fixed typo or Added links, regardless of what the actual edit is. See talk page for warnings and list of user edits for edit summaries. For examples of adding Syed Noor Ali Shah, see Special:Diff/1228704311 Special:Diff/1229041069 Special:Diff/1229160233 Special:Diff/1230727060 .

I think this is WP:CIR (suspect a language barrier is also involved), though WP:IDHT may be part of the problem. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I know this might be insufficient but I gave them a page block for a week where they were edit warring. If this behavior spreads to other pages, more might need to be done. That name is so familiar, I could have sworn there was an AFD on this article subject but when I looked for variations of this name in main and Draft space, I couldn't find anything. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you also p-block them from Taru Jabba? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to see how they react to this first block before extending it. But I understand your request for it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

They're still inserting it: diff. 78.149.135.163 (talk) 21:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

need article to be protected

a notable historical era overview article was just deleted blanked in this edit. can you please restore the article and then lock the article? --Sm8900 (talk) Sm8900 (talk) 23:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I've notified the editor who made that edit of this discussion for you. Schazjmd (talk) 23:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok Sm8900 (talk) 00:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

The article lacks sources and this has been pointed out clearly on the talkpage for close to a year. Article has been thoroughly tagged without any attempt to address the issue. Sm8900 has also been questioned by at least one other user and is simply refusing to provide any sources.

The request is spurious. Peter ^Isotalo 00:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

there is no basis for deleting an entire stable article, without any community consensus or discussion. Sm8900 (talk) 00:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

As much as the amount of tags are concerning, I don't think blanking it and redirecting (BLAR) is going to solve much, causing some sourced stuff to be voided along with unsourced ones... ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 01:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to join the discussion here: talk:late modern period. Peter ^Isotalo 01:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

with all respect, one can't invite people to a talk page for an article which has already been deleted, especially if your edit was the deletion, actually. Sm8900 (talk) 01:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

For crying out loud, use the talkpage. AN/I is not the place for you to resolve disagreements with other editors. Peter ^Isotalo 01:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

@Sm8900The page is NOT deleted: It's just blanked and redirected to a different article, and pretty much anyone can restore the last version with a click, although it is strongly discouraged you do so right now as this is a ongoing dispute. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 01:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

ok, so then my concern and my point is that one editor blanked the page, without any consensus to do so. and also, isn't that equivalent to deleting the article, for all practical purposes? Sm8900 (talk) 01:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

by the way the article does have numerous sources. you can view the sources in the most recent version of the article, which, again, was deleted by one editor without a community consensus. Sm8900 (talk) 01:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Sm8900, redirecting is not deleting. Redirecting is not blanking. A bold edit to redirect a poor quality article does not require advance consensus. Do you understand these basic definitions and distinctions and principles? Cullen328 (talk) 03:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but how is deleting the entire content of an article any different than deleting this article itself? Perhaps I'm not perceiving this clearly in the way you refer to above. Sm8900 (talk) 11:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Sm8900 The difference is laid out here. Lectonar (talk) 13:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

@Lectonar, ok i will review that, and I accept your guidance and input on that. and of course I will fully accept whatever ruling and conclusions may be reached here. and let me just say that i do not perceive any issues personally with the editor who made this edit. i thought blanking a page required a clear consensus. if i am incorrect, then i will fully admit that.

as full disclosure and transparency, let me just say that if and when the discussion here concludes, i may still express disagreement at the article talk page over this issue. thanks.

let me also say, i still maintain that blanking a page should not be able to be done, especially a history article that provides a general overview for a broad era, without any community consensus at all, as occurred here. i appreciate the chance to discuss this here. Sm8900 (talk) 14:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

This page here is for "...is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems." We do not have one of these. As has been pointed out (correctly) by others, blanking and redirecting is not against the rules. I would follow the invitation by User:Peter Isotalo and use talk:late modern period to hash things out. Lectonar (talk) 14:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

i fully agree there is no behavioral problem here at all, in regards to any editors . re the urgent nature, i sincerely thought we needed admin help,,to uphold the requirement for some minimal community discussion and consensus. if i was incorrect, i will be mindful of that. thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 14:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Ban for User:John315, chronic Disruptive Editing that's continued post final warning

John315 (talk · contribs)

As shown on talk page user has been repeatedly warned over their behaviour, in particular with regards to disruptively editing plot summaries. User shows tendency to politely acquiesce to opposition in the moment but will return days later to re-add removed material.

In March the user repeatedly re-inserted material on Dune: Part Two despite opposition, attempting to justify it on non-policy grounds such as that removal was "destroying people's work" [218][219][220][221][222]

This behaviour has been repeated recently on the article Civil War (film) despite opposition, examples being trivial details about characters trying on clothes[223][224][225], and a potentially confusing to the reader rhetorical quote [226][227][228].

User was given a final warning by @Soetermans: on 19 June for their behaviour[229], yet has continued behaviour regardless [230].

Request ban given user's refusal to change behaviour that shows clear signs of civil POV-pushing. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

This is absurd and reflects "Rambling Rambler"'s irrational animus towards me, for, e.g., simply correcting their his/her/their blatant errors. First off, this current "dispute" could've been handled on the Talk page of the Civil Wars film (2024) article, which apparently triggered this ridiculous request for a "ban". (If adminstrators are really needed: why not, say, just a warning from administrators, rather than a ban -- even though I did nothing wrong, at least today (or, I'd argue, at any other time)?) ...Rambling Rambler himself has a history of being warned about abuses, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rambling_Rambler. And today's matter, mislabeled by Rambling Rambler as "a potentially confusing to the reader rhetorical quote", involves his repeatedly putting up an unsupported assertion, which I have to correct time and again by using actual fact. See my commentary on my Civil War correction/edit of today, "Only 2 relatively minor changes: first, "Hongkongese" instead of 'Hongkonger' (someone else did this orginally [sic]); and, 'to which Lee responds, "What do you think?"', instead of 'to which Lee responds in the affirmative', which is not supported by the film. Thanks." So my """crime""" is correcting Rambling Rambler's repeated falsehood, for which he should be thanking me. If Wikipedia starts punishing truth-tellers, it may as well go out of business. All that said, I should be asking for a ban on Rambling Rambler, but am not going to do so, out of mercy. However, her/his/their destructive animus and love of inaccuracy is getting tiresome -- and now burdening you too. Thank you. John315 (talk) 01:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Based on this report, I oppose an outright ban as too harsh. I think all editors involved in these kind of content disputes should be reminded of WP:BRD (use the talk page, discuss, establish a consensus), other avenues to consider would be WP:DRN, WP:3O, and as a last resort WP:RFC. If the community is really adamant about sanctions, then consider a WP:1RR, which if breached, could result in escalating blocks. I just don't think the default sanction should be ban them. Isaidnoway (talk) 03:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Isaidnoway, but there shouldn't be any sanction, I believe, especially since my latest "offense" has been catching Rambling Rambler ("Rambler") inserting the same falsehood into the Civil War film article over and over again, and my replacing it with facts. The Civil War article currently says, "Jessie asks if Lee would photograph Jessie being killed, to which Lee responds in the affirmative." This is false, even if it's Rambler's preferred interpretation. What the film actually shows Lee saying is, "What do you think?" This is an easily provable fact, as one can find on the Internet from that quote being cited multiple times. For me to correct Rambler's error, and then have her/him/them ASK *ME* TO BE PUNISHED FOR CORRECTING *THEIR* ERROR, is so obscene as to defy description. -- If you want to sanction anybody, sanction Rambler. Rambler was already forced to apologize for their errant behavior, see their Talk page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rambling_Rambler, February 2024, where Rambler apologizes to Pbritti for doing something wrong. (Pbritti said to Rambler, "Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Plot armor, you may be blocked from editing. [etc.]") Rambler is now a repeat offender in terms of bad behavior, if we recognize that my version of Civil War, above, is factual, and Rambler's is fictitious. Rambler should apologize to me, and the administrators, for the baseless and ugly attempt to get me banned for correcting Rambler's repetitive falsehoods. John315 (talk) 04:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Right, I'll add WP:RGW to the list of issues regarding your behaviour too based on these responses. If you want to talk about Pbritti's message on my page, I merged a page following an AfD for Keep not realising that wasn't acceptable, they undid it the merge and informed me of my error for which I apologised for the mistake and then didn't repeat it.[231]

You meanwhile just endlessly force your version as "the truth", regardless of how many other editors tell you to stop. That's not acceptable. Rambling Rambler (talk) 09:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Take it to the talk page and discuss it there and get consensus for your edits, just because you believe you are right, and that other editors are wrong, doesn't give you a free pass to edit-war. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good on the whole, though if something is an obvious, provable error, I may have thought Talk was less necessary, or not necessary at all. (If someone says 2 + 2 = 5, do I really need consensus to correct that? And see my upcoming comments) However, at least when dealing with Rambler, it may be prudent to do that, whether it's fair to me or not. ...Too, I have never deliberately edit-warred, for reasons including being a busy person who wishes to avoid wars (this current noticeboard dispute is taking much of my time!). John315 (talk) 10:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

@Isaidnoway I'm requesting a ban because I believe it's gone way past a simple content issue and is happening across many articles they edit. User will pretend to take note of said policies but will then continue their slow POV-push.

For example they were given the final warning on 19th June where they said they'd take the matter to talk page in the future[232].

On June 20 they then acknowledge needing to go to talk in an edit summary while adding an invisible comment[233].

On Jun 24 they just re-insert their edits that've been disputed by several people back into the page claiming they're "minor" having never gone to the talk page [234]

They did the same thing on Dune Part Two, they'd pretend to take notice, they'd be told to go to Talk, and then they'll just wait a couple of days and once again re-insert all their changes. Rambling Rambler (talk) 09:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like you two can't get along, maybe a WP:IBAN might be appropriate. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

@Isaidnoway I'm obviously just using my interactions as the prime example here but as can be shown by the series of warnings about this topic on their talk page and their own edit summary, they've been getting into this same sort dispute across a whole series of articles, most recently examples being:

House of the Dragon, where they restored because of copyediting "wiping out other people's valuable work" [235]

Dune Messiah, where they had an "allergic reaction" to someone else removing trivial details [236] Rambling Rambler (talk) 09:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Once again, thanks to Isaidnoway for at least recognizing that any sanction should be moderate (and that a sanction should also be on Rambler!), though I'm concerned that even a WP:IBAN could be gamed. E.g., someone could rush to make a huge number of changes on an article before the other person, even changes with errors (like some errors I've flagged), and the second person can't do anything about it! And again, I feel I deserve no sanction, especially noting the following. ...Rambler has now complained about an "invisible comment". This may be deranged. The "invisible comment", I believe, is that I *restored the word-counter on Civil War*. For doing the community the favor of showing how many words the article has, so that editors wouldn't go over 700 words in the Plot, Rambler wants me sanctioned for restoring the word-counter! That is insane. As for House of the Dragon and Dune Messiah, those edits are being resolved peacefully. (E.g., in House of the Dragon, I restored the material from a huge cut; people have now reinstated some of their cuts, but not all of them, so the consensus process is working.) ...If you look at my personal Talk page, much of it looks like an angry vendetta by Rambler against me. -- Finally for this comment: I repeat, Rambler is a self-admitted abuser of the Wikipedia process, cf. the dispute with Pbritti. And last but not least: Rambler has not admitted the errors I flagged, about "Hongkonger/ese" and saying, "Jessie asks if Lee would photograph Jessie being killed, to which Lee responds in the affirmative." If Rambler can't even admit their errors and apologize to me, and to administrators for dragging them into all this, I see this as a problem. To try to ban me for exposing Rambler's own errors, is arguably a reason to ban Rambler themselves, even though I'm not currently asking for that. (Rambler may have even done other undesirable things, but this comment is long enough for now.) John315 (talk) 10:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Rambler is a self-admitted abuser of the Wikipedia process, cf. the dispute with Pbritti.

Rambler wants me sanctioned for restoring the word-counter

Rambler may have even done other undesirable things

With the clear WP:TENDENTIOUS behaviour in these walls of texts all you're repeatedly doing is demonstrating just why I believe a ban is warranted at this point and brought your behaviour up at ANI. Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Generally, when few editors or admins have joined in a discussion on a noticeboard, it's because the case is less than convincing or it looks like a run-of-the-mill content dispute or interpersonal squabble that can be resolved through talk page discussions or a dispute resolution process. I bet every editor here has other editors they don't care for, don't get along with or has disagreements with. Most of us resolve this by just keeping our distance from those editors. We all do this.

IBans sound like a solution but many admins do not like to impose them because then it just invites more trips to ANI where one editor claims another editor has violated their IBan because they, say, edited an article that the other editor once edited. IBans can invite more noticeboard discussions about one or the other editor violating the ban so it doesn't resolve disputes, they can enflame them or become a game of "Gotcha!". It would be better if you two could do what the rest of us do and just maintain a respectful distance from each other, don't poke each other, antagonize each other or try to get the other editor sanctioned. Would that be possible? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

@Liz, I'd say the WP:RGW walls of text above demonstrate that is unlikely to happen given they have deemed their edits to be necessary to establish "the truth", so I'm sure their edit-warring that has been opposed by multiple editors will no doubt continue after a few days. If any potential remedy was available I'd say I'd be happy to settle for an article ban on Civil War (film) for John315 given that's where their behaviour has been most problematic and see where it goes from there. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for my late reply, busy days. I think a (topic) ban is not necessary I do think John315 is (was?) trying to improve the article. And a final warning was issued for edit warring and pushing their revision, I can't say I consider this edit to be crossing a line. That being said, John315, you have had several messages and warnings about film plot sections. Please try to follow the WP:BRD cycle, use talk pages and try to reach WP:CONSENSUS. Not following, please notify me if my reply is required. Kind regards and happy editing. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 19:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

My "I think so" above was to Liz, about trying to maintain a respectful distance, etc. Thanks to Soetermans for his commentary, and for noting that my corrective post he cited, was not crossing a line. I agree that talk pages (if needed) and consensus are good. Happy editing to you too. ...As for the article ban, it is indeed unnecessary. Ironically, I may not edit the Civil War article as much as I want to, anyway, since I may run into Rambler in doing so. What is sad is that the errors he/she/they kept putting back there, may now be perpetual, if I don't revert them. Maybe someone else will deal with them. John315 (talk) 22:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

What is preventing you from opening a talk page discussion about this content dispute? You say (if needed) above, well guess what, it is needed if you want to establish a consensus to change it to your proposed content. And then you boldly claim if I don't revert them, keep on reverting without discussing and more than likely you will get pblocked from that article. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

"if I don't revert them" was meant as, "I myself don't plan to revert them." As for the Talk pages "if needed", I meant generally, i.e., for other articles besides Civil War, if simpler forms of consensus don't work. Now that you mention it, though, I suppose I could even discuss Civil War on its Talk page with a certain editor there -- if he/she/they are amenable. John315 (talk) 23:27, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

This is the heart of the issue @Isaidnoway, as I've shown in diffs they've openly stated they know they have to take this to the talk page of the relevant article but they just won't.

I'm of the firm belief that it's more than likely within days of this thread going quiet they'll be back again on the article for Civil War (film) once again just re-inserting what they deem to be "the truth" regardless of it having been opposed for weeks on end at this point. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

No, I shall not revert the things about "Hongkonger/ese" or "Jessie asks if Lee would photograph Jessie being killed, to which Lee responds in the affirmative.", unless we discuss it on the Talk page of Civil War. I'd prefer you revert them yourself, or that you give me permission to do it, but if not, the Civil War Talk page awaits. John315 (talk) 23:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

And what is stopping you from opening a discussion on the talk page? It's called collaboration, keeping an open mind to proposed content, assuming good faith, you guys should try it. And I'm also of the firm belief that if John315 does re-insert, you'll just revert it and complain some more. Isaidnoway (talk) 01:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I think so. More later, I'm eating lunch. John315 (talk) 20:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Concerns about Monopoly in contentious topics page(Caste page)

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Hi @Abecedare.

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

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

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

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

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

Single-edit IPs vandalizing Ashley Gjøvik page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HoodGoose WP:NOTHERE

In April 2024 I added some information at World Socialist Web Site. The article was filled with self-citations (using the WSWS to talk about the WSWS, specially in the criticism section). I removed some of this self-cited information and tagged the rest with Template:Better source needed. HoodGoose (talk · contribs) didn't like this and proceeded to remove some of the information I added, appropriately cited to secondary sources one of which was the chapter of a book, and reinstated previously deleted (by another user) information cited to WSWS to rebut criticism to the website [237]. HoodGoose claimed that "Contrary to the person who removed this section, it isn’t wrong to include sources from what this wiki entry is about in regards to such matters" [238]. Absolutely not true. We do not cite something to talk about itself in a criticism section for evident reasons. I reverted HoodGoose [239] [240] explaining we cannot cite a website to talk about itself and that deleting appropriate sourcing is vandalism, which prompted me to leave an automated warning on their talk page [241].

HoodGoose really didn't like this [242] and proceeded to delete all warnings on their talk page [243] [244] [245]. The second diff included the removal of my automated warning and adding "Waaah waaah waaah" next to my signature [246], a lame personal attack. They then proceeded to remove information cited to secondary sources they didn't like calling it vandalism [247]. They once again added self-cited information again claiming to revert vandalism [248], and also removed the Better source needed and Citation needed templates [249].

This user does not understand Wikipedia's sourcing policy and is not here to edit collaboratively with other users but to push a POV and remove all criticism to the WSWS. Super Ψ Dro 12:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Did you put stuff back on that user's talk page they didn't want? You should probably revert before someone notices. Artisnal Pretzel Creator (talk) 05:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

HoodGoose refactored one of Super Dromaeosaurus' comments. I'm unclear whether the best course of action would have been to restore as Super Dromeaosaurus has done or just removing the refactored comment. In terms of the report itself it seems incredibly stale, given the last diff presented is from 30 May 2024, one day shy of four weeks ago. Is this problematic behaviour still occurring? Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 05:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Removal of criticism section on 9 June 2022, again on 10 November 2022, again on 18 February 2023, attempt to rebut criticism through self-citations on 1 February 2024, removal of sourced information and replacement by self-citations on 1 May 2024, again on 30 May 2024. It is long-term. Super Ψ Dro 09:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

New user Oros timis cristian ioan changing dates

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

---

Over the past day this new editor has been changing dates of birth/death on various film industry biographical articles. A couple that I spot-checked and reverted are verifiably wrong - indeed this set of changes not only changed a year away from that in the NYT obituary but also changed the publication date within the reference. Others involve pre-existing paywalled refs which are more awkward to verify, but it appears to me that the editor's changes are likely unsafe across the board and should be reverted. AllyD (talk) 12:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Indeffed.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Sekret (band)

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

---

Hi there! Can I have a little bit of help with Sekret (band) which is being hijacked (in slow motion) from being about a Russian pop group into being about an Indian record label? The accounts in question are SMENTERTAINMENT01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (which is probably also a WP:UAA violation) and KashabMaji (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who appears to be the same person. I don't want to stumble into 3RR territory as an IP editor and I've already reverted twice. 92.6.27.15 (talk) 20:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I've taken the minimal step possible, and page-blocked them both from that page to stop the immediate disruption. I'm about to leave, but my first impression is both accounts should probably be blocked indef for shady bad faith page hijacking, COI, likely paid editing, etc. See also all their other edits. Seems pretty unlikely this is a good faith error.--Floquenbeam (talk) 20:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the immediate action, FB! 92.6.27.15 (talk) 20:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Looks like both accounts have now been blocked (by others) sitewide and indef. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

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

User:鸡景行 and suspected hoax article

User:鸡景行 created No.3 Middle School Of Lingshan, which is being discussed as a suspected hoax at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No.3 Middle School Of Lingshan.

The user was blocked on the Chinese Wikipedia for "純粹破壞：屢次增加沒有來源的不實資料：見用戶提報。製造不實資訊：靈山縣靈城第三中學。並非在此建設百科全書。"

This is translated to "Pure destruction: repeatedly adding false information without sources: see user reports. Producing false information: Lingcheng No. 3 Middle School in Lingshan County. This is not the place to build an encyclopedia."

In these edits, User:鸡景行 gave a barnstar to User:折毛, who was blocked on the Chinese Wikipedia for the hoaxes described in Zhemao hoaxes. User:折毛 was the subject of this declined arbitration case request in 2022 and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1102#An urgent report about a user:折毛's hoaxes.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No.3 Middle School Of Lingshan has more background including a Google Translate of the Chinese Wikipedia discussion. User:鸡景行 is not currently blocked. I am bringing this to the community to review whether they should be blocked. Cunard (talk) 11:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Actually the reason is "Vandalism-only account, Not here to build an encyclopedia". Allervous (talk) 12:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked 鸡景行 for their misconduct on the English Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 17:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Addition of unsourced content after final warning

CleoSanJames (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Persistent disruptive editing/addition of unsourced content, continued after final warning, hasn't responded to warnings. Examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4, has also added what appears to be nonsense to articles: 1, 2. Waxworker (talk) 11:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

GA-banned user violating topic ban

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

---

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

In May 2020, the user Happypillsjr was topic-banned from nominating and reviewing articles at GAN at WP:AN. They have since renamed to SunriseInBrooklyn, but I can't find any evidence that their topic ban was ever lifted (they also used a sock to nominate an article in 2021). They currently have two articles (#1, #2) nominated at GAN.

If I am correct that the topic ban was never lifted, this is an obvious violation that can be acted upon by administrators (also pinging Barkeep49 who closed that AN discussion). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't suppose you asked them about it before coming here? Floquenbeam (talk) 15:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

not necessarily picking on you; I just think maybe we should be more strict about accepting reports here before other communication has been tried. You are certainly not the only one. Floquenbeam (talk) 15:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

It is currently listed as an active topic ban at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions under the previous username. If it's never been lifted, the new name should be used, if it has been lifted, it should be removed from the list. Floquenbeam (talk) 15:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

One nomination was already under review. I didn't want to unnecessarily waste my and the reviewer's time, especially as I had already noted their use of LLMs at the review. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Barkeep49,AirshipJungleman29,Floquenbeam I highly understand for raising these concerns. I've carefully reviewed the issue regarding my past actions. Yes, regarding the topic ban from May 2020, I admit I was formerly known as Happypillsjr. I acknowledge its seriousness and have made every effort to comply strictly. I want to clarify that I have not knowingly violated this ban or used any sockpuppets for editing purposes since then. If there's evidence suggesting otherwise, I would really appreciate this further clarification and the opportunity to address kinds of misunderstandings. Moving forward, I am really dedicated to strictly following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I deeply apologize for any confusion or inconvenience my actions may have caused and am willing to discuss this matter further to achieve clarity and resolve any issues. Sunrise In Brooklyn ✉ 16:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

The issue is, you're not allowed to do something, and yet you did it. It's not quite confusion and inconvenience, it's that you've ignored an active topic ban. It looks like you removed the request for one of the GA reviews, I assume because you remembered this? Is the reason you didn't remove the other because it is already being reviewed? If you don't want to be subjected to this topic ban, you need to successfully request that it be removed, not just ignore it. So (1) for SiB, do you want to request that the TBan be removed now, or do you want to wait and gather your thoughts? And (2) for other people: does it make sense to cancel the other GA review (and waste User:Mike Christie's time)? And (3) for other people: rewarn, or sanction? For me, to some extent, rewarn or sanction depends on whether SiB is continuing the same problems that caused the topic ban. I've gone ahead and updated WP:Editing restrictions. Floquenbeam (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and fail the GA. I'd rather not G7 it because there are questionable sources and whoever wants to work on the article in the future might benefit from seeing the questions I asked. Sunrise In Brooklyn doesn't show any signs of being able to resolve the questions I raised, and since they are topic banned anyway I don't see a point in keeping the review open. Thank you to AirshipJungleman29 for spotting this and saving me a bit of time and effort. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I have been aware of the seriousness of adhering to Wikipedia's policies, including respecting topic bans. Regarding my removal of one of the GA review requests, I been acknowledge that my actions may have been seen as ignoring the topic ban. It was obvious not my intention to violate any restrictions. As for the other GA review, I left it untouched because it was already underway, and I didn't want to interfere once it had been started. I shouldve resolve this matter: first, to request the removal of the topic ban promptly. Second, defer to your judgment regarding the ongoing GA review and apologize for any inconvenience to User:Mike Christie and lastly, to be open to discussing any necessary rewarning or sanctions based on my conduct and ensuring I do not repeat the mistakes that led to the topic ban. All I expect to is please guide me on the appropriate steps to request the removal of the topic ban and any additional actions required to address this issue. Sunrise In Brooklyn ✉ 17:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I could be wrong but I suspect that SunriseInBrooklyn used ChatGPT or some similar AI program to compose their replies. In any case, when they wrote I acknowledge its seriousness and have made every effort to comply strictly. I want to clarify that I have not knowingly violated this ban or used any sockpuppets for editing purposes since then. that is difficult to accept as the truth, unless the topic ban was actually lifted. If the topic ban is in effect, the editor violated it. Perhaps claiming that they forgot after four years might have some plausibility, but claiming diligence where it does not exist is troubling to me. Cullen328 (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

(rather inexplicably, SiB just started the following thread at AN. I'm combining it back here. -Floquenbeam (talk) 17:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC))

I am writing to discuss some concerns that have been raised regarding my editing history on Wikipedia. Specifically, there have been references to past incidents involving a topic ban and allegations of using a sockpuppet to nominate an article in 2021. I want to address these issues directly and clarify my understanding of the situation. I acknowledge the seriousness of the topic ban imposed in May 2020 and have made every effort to comply strictly with it. Regarding the claim about using a sockpuppet, I want to clarify that I have not engaged in such behavior knowingly or intentionally. Moving forward, I am willing to committed to upholding Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I am open to discussing these matters further to provide any necessary explanations or evidence to resolve any these misunderstandings. I would appreciate any guidance and assistance in reviewing these concerns. Sunrise In Brooklyn ✉ 17:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Why are you opening this thread here? We are currently discussing this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#GA-banned user violating topic ban. To my knowledge no one is accusing you of sock-puppetry, just violating a topic ban. Maybe that accusation is elsewhere? In any case, I recommend an uninvolved admin move this back to the other discussion at ANI, no sense in having it in two places. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, this seems like it is a ChatGPT or similar response. Please use your own words. It appears this also happened at the GA review. I am starting to think we may need to block you sitewide, if we have to put up with meaningless poorly organized AI crap. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

(end of copied section)

Noting here that I've told SiB that I will block them from editing if they continue to use ChapGPT (or whatever) to compose pointless, content-free replies. SiB needs to take GREAT CARE in their next posts, they are quite close to a sitewide block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

You know what? I cant take it anymore. I feel like my communication skills is being insulted. I may have using AI or whatever websites on whatever reasons I have always aimed to contribute valuable content to. I apologized for whatever incident that I caused and all it need to be done. I am only a one human being who makes honest mistakes and learn and grow from these incidents. I wish it is best for me to step back at this time but i would retire. Sunrise In Brooklyn ✉ 17:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Assessing your English language competency is not an insult, SunriseInBrooklyn. It is necessary to evaluate this situation. You now admit that you lied to us about your use of AI. I believe that you also lied in the past when you said that English is your native language. I recommend that you stop lying, and consider editing the Wikipedia version in your native language. Cullen328 (talk) 18:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

It is not necessary to evaluate my proficiency in English. Regardless,my usage of AI and the fact that English is my first language, I have not lied. You are not the right person to make these accusations. Instead than focusing on the content and making unfounded accusations, please keep your assaults personal. Provide me for a respectful and helpful response if you really have any specific worries regarding what I have contributed. Sunrise In Brooklyn ✉ 18:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

"Instead than focusing on the content and making unfounded accusations, please keep your assaults personal." Well I think that cinches it. Canterbury Tail talk 18:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

SunriseInBrooklyn, you are not competent to write acceptable English language prose for an encyclopedia. Your last two garbled responses prove it. Cullen328 (talk) 18:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I recognize your concern. I make an effort to add accurate and comprehensible stuff to Wikipedia. I would appreciate specific suggestions or examples of how I could do better than that. Sunrise In Brooklyn ✉ 19:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

@SunriseInBrooklyn, you've already been given the advice you seek: do not use any AI to compose anything you post to wikipedia, in discussions or otherwise. Further, contribute on the wikipedia that is in your native language, not the English Wikipedia. If English really is your first language, I'm afraid you're headed for a WP:CIR block and there is no suggestion that will meaningfully help you. -- asilvering (talk) 19:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Then will take that WP:CIR block then. I will eventually retire. Sunrise In Brooklyn ✉ 20:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Since you say so, I'll implement it now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Not targeted, but I hope everyone who comments on CIR incidents and blocks reads: functionally, a comment about a CIR block can range from “I’m sorry, but your apparent ability with writing in English is not up to Wikipedia’s standard, and your contributions generate unnecessary cleanup work for other editors. I encourage you to try editing on your native language’s Wikipedia” to “WTF are you trying to say? You sound drunk. Where are you from actually?” There is no reason to write comments that fall anywhere along that spectrum but at the first pole.

I understand there’s an issue with AI here, but on the English ability issue alone I think there’s a moral mandate to handle it gently. It doesn’t get in the way (you can still place the block), it may even help (maybe they’ll tell you their native language and quit arguing), and facing harsh words about one’s language skills is needlessly humiliating. We can come up with better words to describe ESL writing (even when it’s confusing to the point of being frustrating to try and decipher) than “garbled”. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

@Zanahary They can appeal any time when they needed, however, at least two sysop have confirmed this block is legit. Not only about CIR, but repeatedly in violation of editing restriction can extent to full site block. A little bit durnk is Okay but do not edit when you drink a lot. -Lemonaka 02:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I’m not contesting the block, only addressing the language used to refer to poor English writing. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

There is a moral mandate to handle it as gently as possible, but generally speaking, when someone's using AI to make nonsense explanations or outright lies about it, it gets a little trickier to avoid being blunt. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

That's not the case, Zanahary: their reliance on AI indicates that their lack of proficiency in English is such that nuance would be misplaced. Indeeed, even the bluntest comments so far seem to have made only the slightest impact. I agree that there's no nice way of introducing CIR, but it's there for a purpose. Tell the truth , shame the divil, sure. ——Serial Number 54129 12:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Requesting revdel for BLP issues

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

---

For these two [250] [251] diffs; note the addition to the end of the lede in the first diff and compare with the edit summary. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 21:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done, as a tool of first resort. If this content can be reliably sourced then the revisions can be undeleted. – bradv 21:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I checked the specific allegations briefly via Google upon seeing them; I see nothing. I expect that this is a classic OR BLP violation. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 21:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Rameshmedias COI

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

Rameshmedias has exclusively edited Ramesh Srinivasan, doing so on four occasions: May 18, June 6 (revdelled for copyvio), June 24, and June 26. On June 7, they were warned by 1AmNobody24 about conflicts of interest, and on June 24, they were blocked by David Gerard for exclusively-promotional editing. (The talkpage notice says "indefinitely", but the block log shows a duration of only 24 hours.) Since then, they have not responded to anything on their talk page, or disclosed a conflict of interest. Instead, within a day of the block expiring, they continued to edit Ramesh Srinivasan in a promotional manner. For instance, in this edit, they replaced the lead:

Ramesh Srinivasan (born 1976) is a professor of Information Studies.

with the lead:

Ramesh Srinivasan (born 1976) is a scholar, author, and thought leader who explores the wide-ranging impacts of technology on society and our planet.

Clearly, a 24-hour block was ineffective. I think they should be indefinitely blocked, or at least partially blocked from editing Ramesh Srinivasan. jlwoodwa (talk) 01:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Since they've not responded to the talk page messages I recommend blocking (or p-blocking) them until they communicate. Nobody (talk) 05:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

yeah, that was meant to be an indefinite block, not 24 hour. But they were able to respond and have chosen not to. I've now made it indefinite - David Gerard (talk) 08:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Pincrete's bad faith contribution to Move request discussion.

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

---

This post is regarding User:Pincrete's contributions to several ongoing discussions on Talk:Srebrenica Massacre, including [a preliminary discussion to form consensus for a move request], [the move request itself], and [a parallel request for comment to help reach a consensus on the move request]. In each of these conversations, Pincrete's behavior is not of an editor who is attempting to reach consensus, but a bureaucrat who has learned to 'weaponize the judiciary' to reach his own goal and discourage others from contributing. He was particularly frustrating to deal with throughout the conversation, regularly mischaracterizing what I said, taking things out of context, and sidestepping requests to work towards a consensus.

Pincrete's behavior is in line with that of an editor who is currently content with the current name of the article. He believes that the onus is *solely* on those who want a move request to succeed to prove that for it to succeed. Generally speaking, this is true, but many move requests have been able to proceed in a productive direction where, after a conversation, editors recognize the current article name is unsatisfactory, and proceed from that basis. However, Pincrete's contributions to the move request conversation are with the deliberate end of creating an impression no consensus can be formed, and thus allowing the current article title to be maintained. i.e. this approach allows for a case where the current article title may be without merit or not satisfy current Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but cannot be changed. Pincrete's contributions succeed in maintaining the status quo while maintaining a guise of neutrality.

The following are only a few examples of his behavior and are not meant to be exhaustive. I have pared it down to only a few examples in the interest of time.

1. "Article titles are based on WP:COMMONNAME, that is the name the reader is most likely to use. What courts say or what the UN says is recorded within the article, but has no bearing on the title chosen." - Pincrete, [from the preliminary conversation]

This is a rather clever framing of the conversation on Pincrete's part, and he has perservered with this approach both prior to the move request and during the move request itself. It allows the conversation to be framed as 'Wikipedia does not take orders from the UN', which is strictly true, but the idea that the terminology used by courts and international organization – reputable sources, by Wikipedia's own standards, whose use of language would very well help influence the most common name for an event – would "have no bearing on the title chosen" is clearly contradicts with the guidelines listed in WP:COMMONNAME. This point was made several times in the move request conversation, but Pincrete would always return to it, and also suggest those comments attacking the legitimacy of the UN and/or its procedures are "valid points". Pincrete regularly violates WP:ICANTHEARYOU by refusing to recognize that his interpretation of WP:COMMONNAME did not align with what the policy itself said. He deliberately refused to have a conversation about the difference in interpretation.

2. "If you don't want to know how to affect the change you want to see, at least don't 'shoot the messenger'! [...] Personally I don't care that much what the title is as long as the article records as accurately as possible what happened and as long as the name is the one most readers are likely to recognise." - Pincrete, [from the preliminary conversation]

Pincrete regularly frames the conversation as if he is a neutral, unbiased editor, who "[doesn't care] that much" what the title is. Given that Pincrete has over 60 signed posts on the talk page regarding a potential title change, the claim that he doesn't care bears scrutiny. This is generally Pincrete's approach in the conversation however. Whatever his apparent claim to neutrality is, his initial objection to a move request being submitted at all was obvious, as he only raised policy as objections, and did nothing to contribute to the conversation insofar as finding evidence that the WP:COMMONNAME had changed. In fact, once an editor did find evidence clearly demonstrating the WP:COMMONNAME had changed, he claimed that "have waited until there was some evidence being offered to cast a vote" and proceeded to reframe the evidence as presented as actually agreeing with his interpretation. He now provided an idiosyncratic, unwritten interpretation of WP:COMMONNAME that created an additional burden – that a common name has to be a common name for an extended period of time (which goes undefined by him) before it could actually be accepted. When it was pointed out that this would contradict how WP:COMMONNAME has more actively be recognized on other articles, such as Willis Tower and Washington Commanders, he now made a moral argument; "Are either of you seriously comparing the changing of the name of a sports team or a commercial building to one of the most murderous events in post-WWII history?". This is, of course, at odds with his objection to the move being a disagreement with "a'moral' reasons, (eg the title has to condemn unequivocally in order to silence any deniers", which is reframing the argument as had been presented.

Actually, the full context of that quote is opposing on the basis of objecting to "I have waited until there was some evidence being offered to cast a vote, as opposed to what I would call 'official' reasons (UN resolutions and the like) or 'moral' reasons, (eg the title has to condemn unequivocally in order to silence any deniers)." As I wrote above, Pincrete disingenuously reframed the conversation to implying naming the article to match the WP:COMMONNAME would actually incorrectly make Wikipedia beholden to UN resolutions, and here now we have discussed how Pincrete shifts from making moral arguments to objecting to moral arguments as it suited him. In other words, Pincrete's conversational approach regularly violates WP:STRAWMAN.

3. "That isn't how it works. The proposers of a change need to make an effective case for any change, the default is no change since we assume the stable position has/had consensus and does not need detailed defending."

I'd encourage you to do a ctrl+F to that section and read on. Pincrete 'reveals his hand' in the conversation, as he seems to believe that he has done enough damage to successfully prevent the move request from proceeding. From reasserting his individual opinion of where WP:ONUS is, even though it has been a point of conversation throughout the move request that his interpretation is idiosyncratic, to mischaracterizing his early contributions in the conversation "I have sometimes, as I did this time, told people who wanted to make a change, what they must do" when he in fact did no such thing and actually refused to contribute to starting the request or collecting information, and then feigning that their "only regret [is] that participation was not more widespread and more 'evidence-based'", which is in conflict with the fact that almost all of the sourced statements and hard numbers quoted in the move request conversation were for the support side, Pincrete ignores the conversation as has been had to reinforce his own conversation – again, violating WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Finally, and most crucially, Pincrete blatantly takes something I said and drops an entire section of something I said to twist it to support his narrative. Where I originally said "I've suggested the best approach for a contentious article title such as this one is to exclusively apply policy and guidelines in any decision and actively discuss based solely on those policies and guidelines, unless someone can make a very strong and compelling argument to do anything else. I don't think either side – oppose or support – has done that.", Pincrete drops an entire section to turn it into "the best approach for a contentious article title such as this one is to exclusively apply policy and guidelines … I don't think either side – oppose or support – has done that." and suggest I too am suggesting a consensus cannot be formed. That he apologizes for this is disingenuous when I have been regularly flagging throughout our conversation that I object to his constantly reframing the conversation to suit him by twisting things I've said to mean something else entirely. Because he was able to repeatedly do it without any administrator intervention, he kept going until it was too obvious. His behavior is that of someone who is testing the limits.

4. "There is a place called WP:ANI which you are free to take any proof you have about bad faith behaviour (hint, you don't have any).", ""Assuming good faith is not optional. [...] Is that your idea of asking someone to "justify or elaborate" their viewpoint"? It isn't going to work well for you if it is."

Once again, Pincrete weaponizes policies to intimidate other editors into non-participation to get the outcome he wants. I thank Pincrete for mentioning WP:ANI, even though his intention was to intimidate and/or taunt, but the fact is there is enough evidence here, for those with the time to read through the talk page, of bad faith behavior on his part. Likewise, playing the victim role when being asked to justify or elaborate their viewpoint is simply hiding behind WP:AGF far beyond the limits of reasonability. Regularly quoting others out of context is a violation of WP:WIKIBULLYING, and apologizing only being asked to stop multiple times, but not retracting any of the comments in which others are quoted out of context, is hardly an apology at all. It's also substantially less meaningful to submit an apology after successfully derailing the conversation several times and creating an incredibly frustrating experience for all editors.

Pincrete also continues, at the end, to take less of a conversational tone and more of a debate tactic, that any disagreement with him must be for a motive. This is despite the fact that rather early on, he left a comment on my talk page and I left a very thoughtful comment explaining that accusations of motive for his action on my part would cross a line. i.e. as I wrote on June 10; "Whether you have a bias or not, I do not have enough information to determine, and to accuse you of motive without information is not going to get me very far." which is entirely true. So whatever Pincrete's motives for being willing and highly motivated to argue for the status quo might be, I have not actually implied any motive, despite his claim "I don't consider people speculating about what kind of Serb apologist I am, or what kind of bad faith actor(as you did)". I consistently described, as I have described here, that Pincrete used a serious of disingenuous debate tactics to disrupt a conversation with the apparent end goal of impeding a conversation by which a consensus could be formed.

Other editors on and leading up to the move request have brought questions, evidence, sources, news articles, information, and spoke directly to Wikipedia guidelines and policy when attempting to have a conversation to reach consensus on a move request. Pincrete feigned impartiality, but obstructed both prior to and during the entire conversation, with idiosyncratic interpretations of policies that go unexplained and unelaborated on. When questioned, he immediately played a victim role. The only point Pincrete might have is that, as he quoted so often, that a policy of Wikipedia is that "Assuming good faith is not optional." However, Pincrete has learned to abuse this principle and cast aspersions on others. Indeed, if he wishes to hide behind WP:AGF, any of us could've taken the same tactic as him, and countered with WP:AAGF. Instead, we tried to have a conversation, and were met with bad faith conversation in kind. --AVNOJ1989 (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

My gosh, AVNOJ1989, are you incapable of being concise? I could say WP:TLDR but I actually wasted my time reading every wordy word of it. This is a routine content dispute and you have failed to make the case that administrators need to take action against Pincrete. Assume good faith is a behavioral guideline. Please read it. To be concise, administrators do not adjudicate content disputes. End of story. Cullen328 (talk) 02:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I can be concise. Pincrete is abusing WP:AGF to intimidate and bully other editors, and used strawman arguments to derail a move request conversation. Examples provided above. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 03:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Any opinions on the issue at hand aside - my god, man, this clocks in at just a hair under 2,000 words. Very few people will read that in full. There has to be a more concise way to make your point/accusation. The Kip ^(contribs) 05:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes I am in online conversations on niche topics that are popular with a younger crowd, and when I have more complicated things I wish to express or discuss, I will often write a post out in full and then paste it into ChatGPT, with a direction to, for example, "please simplify this to a fifth grade reading level". I find this works quite well for those in the 18-24 demographic; you would be surprised that there is an obvious difference in reception when you try and have it write for a "college graduate" or a "high school student", despite the demographic. I am not sure how old you are, but if you are finding it too difficult to read the above, you might find this tip useful. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 05:44, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Just curious, but what is the purpose of your account? 20 of your 140 edits have been in main article space while 52 have been at Talk:Srebrenica massacre and around 100 in Talk space in general. Are these talk space conversations here to make the encyclopedia better?  Augu  Maugu ♨ 05:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I primarily have an account so that when I am reading the site I can use a preferred theme. Occasionally I have noticed some small parts of articles I thought I might as well edit while I am logged in, or participate in talk pages of articles regarding aspects of the articles themselves that I have questions regarding. Regarding the Talk page, my question was a fairly simple one, "Why is this the current title of the article, when Wikipedia policies and guidelines would direct it to be something else?", and the apparent answer matches with a general pessimism I've seen with other people who occasionally refer to Wikipedia for contentious topics such as this one. I'm not one to automatically write something off, so I thought I'd get more involved. I'm aware WP:BOLD more typically means to encourage editors to participate in articles proper, but since one of my first edits on this site was an article rename that was immediately reverted, I thought I'd follow the proper convention. That there have been ~70 edits is well outside what I was expecting to have to do to get a satisfactory response to the question. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 05:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Wow hahahaha I think those saying your comment is too long ought to be more polite, but this talking-down is way wrong. If I were you I'd strike.
Anyways, here's a bouillon paste version (none of this is in my voice, and I of course encourage any admins interested in evaluating the situation to read the original complaint in full):

In the discussions for moving Srebrenica massacre to Srebrenica genocide (in light of a UN designation of a day of commemoration for the "1995 Genocide in Srebrenica", Pincrete is arguing abusively.

He argues WP:COMMONNAME, stating that the UN's designation doesn't compel Wikipedia to retitle, but this argument ignores the content of that policy, which would place import in the language used by the UN and similarly reliable, prominent organizations and sources, since they in turn shape common use. Pincrete has persisted in making this argument even though it's been dismantled.

Pincrete is pretending to have no preference and to be unbiased in the matter. He's made 60 comments, so clearly he cares, and he has made no effort to gather evidence for the matter of the event's common name. He argues that the common name policy requires that a common name be the common name for an undefined extended period of time. In making reference to 'official' and 'moral' arguments opposing his own, he is strawmanning.

Pincrete asserts that the responsibility for making a case for change lies solely with the proposers, mischaracterizing his own contributions and ignoring the evidence provided by others. He repeatedly reframes comments to fit his narrative, including selectively quoting me to imply I support his view that consensus cannot be formed, which is a deliberate misrepresentation.

Pincrete's invocation of ANI is an attempt at intimidation. His invocation of AGF is an attempt at playing the victim.

Pincrete has feigned impartiality, distorted policies in bizarre and unexplained ways to suit his argument, and casts aspersions of bad faith.

My take: not substantive at all, and it also doesn't matter. If you don't think someone's argument is logical, address their argument. If you don't think an editor is being consistently logical, that doesn't matter—arguments win; editors don't. Also, Pincrete's take on common name, which relies on an undefined time-horizon, is just as good as AVNOJ1989's, which relies on a specific time-horizon. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

This is a waste of time. Someone disagreeing in their evaluation of applicability of WP:COMMONNAME to a specific article is a content dispute, not a behavioral one, let alone an "urgent incident or chronic, intractable behavioral problem." The filer ought to drop the stick immediately or have their stick taken away in this topic area. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

If anything, this should boomerang. AVNOJ has been making baseless and hostile accusations against Pincrete since AVNOJ's second and third comments at Srebrenica massacre (Special:Diff/1226634732 and Special:Diff/1226851174) - including in response to a comment where Pincrete (correctly) suggests that a WP:RM discussion would be necessary to rename the article. Separately, between this, Tamil genocide, and Gaza genocide, it may be ripe for a site-wide RFC on what the term "genocide" means and when it can be used in wiki-voice. But this would be the wrong forum for that. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I object to the implication the accusations are baseless, when the diff you link to has me explaining exactly what my concern is. I'd also ask you to articulate what exactly about the accusation is 'hostile' – rather, it directly explaining the issue with their behavior. Per WP:AGF; "editors should remember to not disregard patterns of harmful editing, nor should they overlook obvious attempts to deceive, vandalize, or push a biased agenda". AVNOJ1989 (talk) 03:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it is self-evident why I would think starting a discussion with Here, you are feigning neutrality with the guise of bureaucratically-minded diligence, but all your posts are throwing up roadblocks. and You keep claiming neutrality, but have taken time out of your day several times to respond to posts citing policies as a reason why the name cannot easily be changed. (in the context of Pincrete correctly saying that a WP:RM discussion is needed for a contentious move) is excessive hostility from AVNOJ1989. When your discussion starts with accusations of "feigning neutrality", it is clear this is combative behavior. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd agree you with you if that's where the discussion started, but it isn't. The full quote is "As I mentioned above, it seems bizarre to cite a common name policy to defend the continued naming of an article by something other than its current common name. Here, you are feigning neutrality with the guise of bureaucratically-minded diligence, but all your posts are throwing up roadblocks."" (talk) 03:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

AVNOJ1989, I see no evidence that Pincrete has been more disruptive and tendentious than you have been. You cannot get your way in a routine content dispute by dragging a good faith editor to ANI just because you disagree ad nauseum. Cullen328 (talk) 04:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

You are incorrectly assuming that I'm "trying to get my way" in a dispute, but that's not what I'm doing at all. Do you have any reason to assume anything other than good faith in my action here? Pincrete has been a long time editor of this site and contributed to a number of conversations. If this is their behaviour in one conversation, then an administrator should take it upon themselves to investigate their contributions and editing behavior overall. Although I've not recently edited any article itself, someone's tagged my User talk page with a "contentious article" infobox, and one of the points in the infobox is that editors "should refrain from gaming the system". You already indicated above that you found it quite difficult to read through 9 or 10 sectioned paragraphs of text so I would suggest someone else would necessarily have to look into this, but the premise that the editor in question has not been any more disruptive or tendentious than I have been incorrectly implies I've been more disruptive or tendentious – which I reject, but for the sake of argument, let's go with it. When you have a contributor who is this involved in Wikipedia (almost 50k edits), who will contribute over 60 POV-pushing edits to the talk page of an article they claim to not care much about, then that should raise some flags.

What I see in your comments here is a situation that creates exactly the sort of behaviors that Pincrete exhibits. Your lack of initiative in looking into this, and vaguely citing WP:AGF even though, again, WP:AGF indicates that "should remember to not disregard patterns of harmful editing, nor should they overlook obvious attempts to deceive, vandalize, or push a biased agenda" is mirrored in Pincrete's behavior.

One of the downfalls of making explicit rules and guidelines is that once the explicit "rules of the game" are spelled out, some will immediately look to identify the loopholes in them, or get an idea of where the boundaries are and how much they can 'get away with'. Wikipedia itself is actively aware of this, and there is some policy which escapes me but says policies can be ignored if it results in a better outcome. I'm not even arguing for that here, but what I am going to say is that someone who is very much in the "end user"/audience of Wikipedia, and has been for a long time, the reliability of this site for contentious topics has become increasingly questionable over the last few years, and my active participation in this move request has made obvious some things I only vaguely suspected (but some friends insisted on). Editors have learned to game the system, and are counting on people like yourself who will dismiss those who take the time to write their concerns in full. Since you were blithely dismissive of my post as something you had to "waste your time" reading, that gives a green light to editors to continue to game the system. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 04:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

AVNOJ1989, I neither said nor implied that it was "difficult" to read what you wrote, although I remain convinced that you used at least five times more words than necessary. More like a time waster. And after reading all that and your following responses, I am also unconvinced that you have provided persuasive evidence that there is anything for administrators to do here. So, not "blithely dismissive" but rather utterly unconvinced that there is any misconduct in what you describe so serious that requires an administrator to use their tools. I am an adminstrator and this noticeboard is a place for situations that are so severe that administrators ought to use their tools to intervene. I do not think that any administrator is going to step into the dispute about whether "massacre" or "genocide" is the best term to use. Administrators do not intervene in content disputes. When you reach out to administrators, you need to make a convincing case that administrative action is required. You haven't convinced me but I am only one of several hundred active administrators. Perhaps other administrators will conclude that I am a dullard and reject my analysis. We will see. Cullen328 (talk) 06:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Cullen, again, I am not "trying to get my way" in a dispute, so my submission here is not a request for an administrator to step into the dispute about whether "massacre" or "genocide" is the best term to use. I am requesting an administrator to step into the move request to stop it from being regularly derailed, because it has been unable to have any productive conversation reach consensus. An editor that strongly prefers the current title – for whatever reason – has recognized that they do not need to defend the merits of the current title, they can instead sabotage any attempt to create consensus to support or reject a move, but to do so on the basis of Wikipedia policy and to be able to speak to how it adheres to those policies for whatever the outcome, and there has been no remedy for this throughout the conversation. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 07:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

IMO, there is nothing to respond to here. AVNOJ1989 seemed to act on the premise from the beginning that anyone who a). did not immediately agree with him about what COMMONNAME was (the 'bizarre to defend' comment above only makes sense if you assume the new COMMONNAME is treated as being already proven, which it clearly wasn't) b.) did not prove to AVNOJ1989's satisfaction that the long-term status quo was correct must necessarily be acting in bad-faith, and very possibly had sinister or 'Serb-denialist' motives. According to AVNOJ1989, I should have been busy finding proof to support a change which I felt was at least unnecessary, and very possibly not in accord with WP policies. Proofs that AVNOJ1989 did nothing at all to assemble despite insisting the title change was absolutely necessary and supported by COMMONNAME. I attempted to set out repeatedly what the 'movers' needed to prove in order to facilitate their change and to 'kill' invalid arguments. This waste of space ANI is the silliest manifestation of 'agree with me or you are (by definition) acting in bad faith'.

Early in the naming dispute, I attempted to take the interaction between AVNOJ1989 and I off the article talk page I did this precisely so that the the move discussion should not be impeded by unnecessary 'to and fro' between individual editors. AVNOJ1989 responded by a rambling speculation as to what kind of bad-faith actor I really was, whether a denialist or simply a bureaucratic pedant. I may have been jaded during the move discussion, (being accused, as I was several times, of being a Serb-apologist, does not put one in a good mood) but made a point of apologising for any error on my part, AVNOJ1989 appears to think that WP:AGF is optional and is a one-way street, we must all dance to the tune he has dictated or we aren't acting in good faith and/or must have sinister intent.Pincrete (talk) 05:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

"This waste of space ANI is the silliest manifestation of 'agree with me or you are (by definition) acting in bad faith'." This ANI is a consequence of you repeatedly derailing an attempt to have a conversation to form a consensus surrounding the article name. I proposed creating a consensus around a rationale for whatever the final article name would be, that a clear rationale could be created that spoke to how the title adhered to the policies and guidelines that the site sets out for article names – primarily, WP:PTOPIC and (as another user put forth) WP:TITLE.

You regularly rejected that and then engaged in, as discussed above, WP:ICANTHEARYOU and WP:STRAWMAN. As you clearly stated and reiterated several times – that in the event consensus for a move request could not be created, the move request should fail. It is obvious from your repeated derailing contributions that you sought to create a scenario where a consensus would be impossible to create. You are gaming the system, in violation of the guidance given to editors when editing or contributing to talk pages of contentious topics. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 05:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree on both counts. AVNOJ1989 was losing an argument about presenting a contentious topic a certain way, and they responded by picking fights and trying to get the other person in trouble. An AE action would be appropriate here, but a standard topic ban would do as well if they're not willing to drop it. I also agree that we need to have a sitewide discussion about "massacre", "genocide", and any similar terms, and I encourage anyone to open up that discussion at the Village Pump if they have an idea of where the starting point should be. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

""a standard topic ban would do as well if they're not willing to drop it". I'm very happy to drop it. In a conversation I've had with a friend offline they've clearly won the argument about whether WP is a lost cause or not, but we agreed it wasn't easy to point to the Talk page of the Srebrenica genocide for a third party to review and understand the issue because of how messily formatted the page got. The conversation here is proceeding rather well – editors and administrators alike are openly volunteering a lack of ability to read, never mind be able to identify and respond to successful POV-pushing from a sophisticated actor. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 06:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

If your reading of this situation is that everyone but you is totally blind to a brazen manipulator of reality, either you're wrong, or Wikipedia is indeed so hopeless as far as you're concerned that you may as well quit engaging us. As someone who's gotten pissed about content disputes and what I perceived to be bad-faith actors and bullies on WP, I encourage you to just go find something non-contentious to write about. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. (Mind you, even for less contentious topics, it is still preferable to contribute time elsewhere. Even for those topics Wikipedia's policies have been weaponized by those editors who could not go along to get along with actual community consensus on topic-specific fan Wikis. This site has existed for so long that its policies, guidelines, and enforcement have worked as a a sort of 'selective pressure' to retain not so much the best and most dedicated editors, but a number of sophisticated (and, tbh, unsophisticated) bullies and bad-faith actors. There is absolutely no hope even for the non-contentious topics if something which is clearly a sensitive topic that merits time, attention, and consideration, is met with "tl;dr" from a number of senior editors.) AVNOJ1989 (talk) 06:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

It's a good theory, but you wouldn't know—your only engagements on Wikipedia have been a contentious content dispute and a blistering ANI complaint. Write an article about a bug, or something, and see if you like it. My first article after my first content dispute was masonjoany. Nothing about that made me angry. If you can't find anything to sufficiently engage you on Wikipedia other than contentious content disputes and ANI, then your proposed selective pressure will have worked, and you'll leave the project, which is better off with more articles about bugs and shit and with fewer ANI slapfights. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

"Your only engagements on Wikipedia have been a contentious content dispute and a blistering ANI complaint." is incorrect. Those interested can refer to my entire history of edits on this site at this link [[252]], which includes, for example, a nomination to delete an article on my part, which failed, and went unchallenged, as editors there revised an article to meet the notability criteria for article inclusion, and could clearly speak to why the article should remain in a manner which was consistent with the site overall. In the case of the title of the Srebrenica genocide article, currently "Srebrenica massacre", editors were not able to speak to how the current title was correct according to Wikipedia guidelines and policies, and when less active editors / non-editors enquired or actively suggested a move request, were met with open hostility rather than any attempt to explain how the title satisfied any WP policy or guideline. Over 200 posts later, there is still not a clear answer on why the title does not satisfy any WP policy or guideline.

I am not really sure what Zanahary is getting at here. My suspicion is that, when taken with a question above regarding what the "purpose of my account is", there might be an attempt to define me as a "single-purpose account", which per WP:SPA would create a situation to if not entirely dismiss the concerns I have raised, then at least frame it in a way that would make it easier to assert bias on my part. As I said above. Here I a curious reader who sought an answer to (what I assumed would be a fairly simple) question and got an entirely different answer in return. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 07:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who asked the question about your account's purpose—that was AuguMaugu—but you're probably right that I have nefarious intentions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 07:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Considering how grossly you just mischaracterized my history as an editor, you're either malevolent, or incompetent. I erred towards the more flattering one. Sorry. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 07:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

In the case of the title of the Srebrenica genocide article, currently "Srebrenica massacre", editors were not able to speak to how the current title was correct according to Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Actually it largely isn't up to 'defenders' of the 'status quo' to 'prove' its 'correctness', BUT dozenss of times the argument was made that long-term COMMONNAME was 'massacre'. I agree that it is now a fine judgement as to what very recent usage favours, but the idea that the policy justification wasn't (tediously, repeatedly) made is 'for the birds'. The fact that you don't agree with that argument, does not mean it was not made. Pincrete (talk) 07:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but this isn't some "very recent" case. In looking to find the policy justification you claim was ever made and I doubted, I double-checked the talk page archives, and found a post saying "All the indications are that more people refer to 'Sreb massacre' than 'Sreb Genocide', though the second is becoming more common." and this was all the way back in 2015. And guess who said this? You did! So for almost the past decade you have been feigning reasonable apathy by repeatedly conceding that 'Srebrenica genocide' actually already is the more common term in use, thus satisfying WP:COMMONNAME but constantly move goalposts to oppose any move.

My problem with your argument isn't that it wasn't made, it's that it actively self-contradicts itself and is part of a pattern of harmful editing and an obvious attempt to push a biased agenda. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

My problem with your argument isn't that it wasn't made, it's that it actively self-contradicts itself This is patent nonsense, I was correct in my assessment in 2015 that 'massacre' was more common, but becoming less so. That trend has obviously continued such that it is now a fine judgement as to which is now used more often in new sources, but 'massacre' is the longer term commonly used name, so IMO should stay. You are free to disagree with my assessment, and to try to persuade others to do so, but not free to think that my view is borne of dishonest/sinister/manipulative motives or that I should be punished for coming to that view.

I've never 'feigned apathy' or indifference, I have my own opinion, though have sometimes become fed-up and annoyed at IPs and editors periodically 'parachuting in' to sanctimoniously criticise/damn anyone who does not immediately applaud, embrace and endorse the most recent use of the 'genocide' word - such as the UN's recent use, but I would always agree to look at any reasonably coherent presentation of any new evidence that COMMONNAME had changed. If convinced, I would support such a change. It is now a close call IMO. The title matters, but I was interested in this topic before anyone knew what to call it and am still of the opinion that what WP says about the event is considerably more important than the title. Pincrete (talk) 10:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

"I was interested in this topic before anyone knew what to call it" so thank goodness for Wikipedia that you appeared to spearhead your own opinion on what the title should be, and now are operating on a premise of what the title should be. As discussed in examples above, you certainly feigned apathy/indifference, so your claim otherwise is demonstrably untrue. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 16:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

What sort of discussion would that be? Do you find that our current naming policies aren't good enough? The way I see it, charged labels including "massacre" and "genocide" should never be based on NDESC and must be COMMONNAMEs. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately many do not see it that way, given this, the examples provided by Walsh90210, and other similar instances I've encountered. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You are gaming the system, in violation of the guidance given to editors or else of course I genuinely believe that the COMMONNAME hasn't changed sufficiently to justify a name change, and those who want such a change have largely not even attempted to prove it has. They have prefered from the beginning to rely on accusations of bad faith or sinister motives to anyone who doesn't 'dance to our tune'. No surely not, too hard to even imagine that anyone could sincerely hold such an opinion! What's the catch? What's in it for them?.

"This waste of space ANI is the silliest manifestation of 'agree with me or you are (by definition) acting in bad faith'." By doubling down here, you appear to be determined to prove me right about that. If I were half as Machievellian as you seem to think me, I'd be overjoyed at that.Pincrete (talk) 06:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

You are doing it again. You might have some cute snide response to part of what I just said but you conveniently ignore an entire section; "You regularly rejected that and then engaged in, as discussed above, WP:ICANTHEARYOU and WP:STRAWMAN. As you clearly stated and reiterated several times – that in the event consensus for a move request could not be created, the move request should fail. It is obvious from your repeated derailing contributions that you sought to create a scenario where a consensus would be impossible to create. and then, yes, "You are gaming the system, in violation of the guidance given to editors when editing or contributing to talk pages of contentious topics." But if you're going to try and 'restart' the conversation in response to something I just said, you had better take the entire quote. I am not continuing on with you until you acknowledge your bad faith argument tactics and the fact they clearly align with your intention of sabotaging any attempt to form consensus because it would allow you to argue WP:ONUS not met and the status quo would prevail. Your motive for preferring the status quo is not relevant, but it is still bias and so your editing behavior is pushing POV. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 07:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

As well, "and those who want such a change have largely not even attempted to prove it has" is blatantly untrue. The only relevant comments in the move request with sources are those demonstrating that Srebrenica genocide currently meets the WP guidelines for an article name. You are lying right now. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 07:11, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

There's an expression, which you - unwisely - seem determined to ignore.

I am not continuing on with you until you acknowledge your bad faith argument tactics and the fact they clearly align with your intention of sabotaging any attempt to form consensus. You are going to have a long wait, since, impossible as it may seem to be to you, there were no 'bad faith arguments' and no 'tactics' of any kind on my part. In so far as I had any 'tactic', it was to allow the name-changers to destroy their own case, which they largely did at the first hurdle by ascribing (often conradictory) sinister motives to 'opposers' and making shape-shifting spurious arguments. I make no apology for saying that I saw no need or justification for any name change, ( WP has ocassionally been known to get a few things right). But I would have been even happier if a wider 'informed' discussion had taken place about the name, whatever the outcome, which is why I initially 'held back' at casting any 'vote' in the discussion. But me tending to think there were more important issues of clarity and coherence within the article, rather than the title, isn't something I intend to apologise for.

You are lying right now. is a direct personal attack, apart from being fairly stupid in absolute terms, and doubly so in the context of an ANI, in which you accuse me of being a sinister, Machievellian manipulator and I say that you are not able to differentiate sinister motives from legitimate disagreement and that you needlessly personalise discussion. I have no idea, (nor do I wish to know) when I supposedly 'lied', but your inability to distinguish disagreement from being knowingly false speaks volumes about your unfitness or unreadiness to edit in a contentious topic area. WP:CIR Pincrete (talk) 08:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

AVNOJ1989, do you see anyone agreeing with you here? So far a half dozen editors, including at least one administrator and several veterans, think that you don't have a case. We don't weigh ANI complaints by volume, but on merit. You're certainly aces high on walls of text, but you haven't established the latter. Drop the stick, would you please. You'd do better off by making substantive edits to articles, rather than bludgeoning talk pages and notice boards. Ravenswing 10:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I make no apology for apparently overestimating the reading level of some editors, but claiming I'm bludgeoning you because you have neither the interest or patience to consider what has been brought forth does not immediately follow. Even if you and some others think I have not formulate a case according to the usual conventions of ANI, when the editor in question is misquoting me and lying even right now, then the onus is on Wikipedia administrators to look into, regardless of how some of you have decided to interpret it. When the general public accuses a police officer of corruption and provides examples, it is not immediately thrown out because the public has not made an argument in the usual styling of the legal system. The system takes it upon itself to investigate it, if it wishes to maintain its integrity and reputation. Otherwise, regardless of whatever internal policies are in place, the general public will lose confidence in that system.

What you have even right above is Pincrete demonstrating once again mischaracterizing the conversation, while simultaneously describing his own tactic. "In so far as I had any 'tactic', it was to allow the name-changers to destroy their own case" is not how to go about creating a consensus conversation, but as I discussed above, weaponizing the judiciary to shut other editors out of the process. His assertion that "which they largely did at the first hurdle by ascribing (often conradictory) sinister motives to 'opposers' and making shape-shifting spurious arguments" is untrue, and his obnoxiously linking to the irony article over and over – [there is no irony here, sorry, but another Greek concept comes to mind] – can hardly be characterized as bad faith. Here too, he cannot even speak like a normal person. If someone accuses me of lying, I restate what was said and why I believe it was true. That is how a normal person has a normal conversation. Pincrete instead "I can't even" and once again makes vague appeal to Wikipedia principles, and this behavior is clearly encouraged by this website because it goes unchecked here. It is like someone speeding and then citing "per traffic law" and acting like the case should automatically be thrown out as it has no merit.

If "half dozen editors, including at least one administrator and several veterans, think that [I] don't have a case", then I won't take it personally. But that I haven't made the case is different from there being no case at all. If none of you will take it upon yourselves to look into the decade+ of unconstructive talk page contributions from this user, then it speaks volumes about the why and how of someone successfully gaming the system in contentious topics for years at a time. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 15:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Potential legal threat and TPA revoking required on Martinnewbold

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

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

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

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

Chronic BLP violations on Philippine subjects

Rajomae (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a history of making unsourced and serious BLP violations on prominent figures in Philippine politics and has resorted to WP:IDNHT in one warning. Borgenland (talk) 10:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Blocked. Almost all of that account's edits met revdel criteria so I took care of that too. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Rocinante108 legal threats

Please see here. Rocinante108 appears to have a COI with Chris Hosea and has reacted very poorly to me pointing out that the page is written in a promotional tone. I've tried to drop the issue and point them towards people who can help them better, but they will not let it go. I didn't want to escalate the issue to this forum, but their legal threats leave me no choice. :Jay8g [V•T•E] 17:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Blocked until the user retracts their legal threats. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Good block. But if they do retract their legal threat, this still seems like the kind of person who is incapable of collaborative editing. I've left a clear and concise warning on their talk page. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Over at User talk:Rocinante108, they claim to have retracted their legal threats but actually seem to be doubling down. I will not be engaging any further with this person. :Jay8g [V•T•E] 20:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I have revoked Rocinante108's talk page access for repeating the legal threats. Cullen328 (talk) 23:37, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Vulcan

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

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

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

How to request a rollback of JojoeditsWiki

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

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

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

Turkish IP address

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

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

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

Continuous disruptive editing

Benstark2024 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Persistent disruptive editing of unsourced content and addition of unreliable source since June 11, 2024, continued after final warning and hasn't responded to warnings. Examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3,4,5. Examples of adding or replacing figures with unreliable source: 6,7

Loibird90 (talk) 9:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

@Loibird90: Where's the final warning you mentioned? City of Silver 03:28, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I did leave a message on their user page about adding a reliable source first before making any changes on the page, which the user admitted they could not find any but still continued replacing the figure on the page since June 11, 2024. Since the activity kept going, I added a message again refraining from making any more changes and for them to stop replacing the source with a link of a facebook post. Loibird90 (talk) 04:32, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I know. I read those messages before I asked you where the final warning was. I'm also wondering about your claim that User:Benstark2024 "hasn't responded to warnings" because from the looks of it, they've replied to you on their talk page four different times. (They also asked you about a source getting rejected by a filter but you ignored that question.)

This isn't to say they're right. I don't think they are. But I'm not sure you're right, either. Going on that conversation, it looks like you're both adding/changing box office figures based on your own calculations and currency conversions, which is not a good approach per the original research policy. City of Silver 06:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Kaalakaa on Islam-related topics

Kaalakaa recently asserted that Muslims can't be reliable sources on Islam because they all supposedly have a conflict of interest. And this is not the first time they've categorically rejected Muslims as RS.[253][254] Such a position has been roundly rejected by other contributors in that discussion. Even worse is that they seem to attack the perceived religious beliefs of wikipedia editors. For example, when Hemiauchenia says: "I think Kaalakaa has been established to be in the minority in pretty much every discussion of this issue." Kaalakaa responds with "This article is about the Islamic prophet, so it is only natural that the talk page is crowded with Muslims." They have also been accused of POV-pushing on the Muhammad article.[255][256]

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

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

• Here I quote my statement that VR appears to be referring to above [257] [258]:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The issue, if I am not mistaken, began when the new editor, @QctheCat, wanted to state as a fact in wikivoice that "Banu Qurayza violated the treaty with Muhammad" using those sources. However, several other secondary sources doubt that Banu Qurayza violated the treaty or even participated in a treaty with Muhammad. A primary source also reports that Banu Qurayza denied having a treaty with Muhammad (Tabari, vol.8 pg.15). That was why, I believed that because the authors of the books are Muslims, it had led them to present the claim from Muhammad and Islamic sources that "Banu Qurayza violated the treaty" as a fact. Nevertheless, I did not outright reject the inclusion of the statement, but said that it needed to be attributed to Muhammad or Islamic sources if included [259]. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 07:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Whitewashing and continuous removal of sources

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