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)
You're right, there's a tremendous number of edits invoked by Dominic3203 on other's userspace pages. I see a few other third-party uses, but it's very sporadic, 1 or 2 edits, unlike what Dominic3203 did. One problem is that Dominic3203 has a pattern of editing for a few days or as much as a week or two, then going away for a month or two, so the user may literally be not here to answer your query. — rsjaffe🗣️19:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I must be old OLD school because I don't understand how an editor "runs" a bot but it leaves no trace in their own contributions. He otherwise doesn't look like a very active editor. LizRead!Talk!20:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: I guess because he's using the toolforge expand citation bot so the bot runs on a page but it handily tells us who ran it on the edit description. I think that's why because its the bot making the edit but the bot also points out who's responsible for it.
@Rsjaffe: I had considered that but given he has edited (and run the bot) after I left him a message, I felt concerned that it best to report here because it feels annoying at best and disruptive at worst to be doing things like that in people's userspaces. The C of E God Save the King! (talk)20:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying it's your responsibility to do so, but just FYI, for a low drama way to stop this, you can put {{bots|deny=Citation bot}} on your drafts. I agree it's sort of uncool what they're doing, in a hard to define way. Not saying this is necessary at this point, but out of curiosity, is there actually a way to prevent someone from doing this? It's not on-wiki, so a block doesn't work. I don't know that there is a Citation Bot blacklist. Finally, not as an accusation but as a genuine question, did the Citation Bot run actually harm anything? Floquenbeam (talk) 20:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose not in terms of damage because its easy to just revert it but when its every single draft page page, its more of an irritant and very discourteous to be doing it without asking. I didn't know about the tag but it seems odd because no one expects to have someone to do this. The C of E God Save the King! (talk)22:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edits of my sandbox pages make no harm to anyone, but the excessive use of the bot on non-productive means which effectlively slows down the bot used for legitimate purposes of expanding citations on the main namespace - that is a point of concern. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:36, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any excessive use of Citation bot without double checking the results afterwards is cause for concern as well. I don't understand why Citation bot runs in namespaces other than 0 at all, and editors should not be modifying pages in the userspace of another editor without good reason (copyvio, povforks, blpvio, impersonation, etc are all good reasons; "a script might think it can improve citation metadata" is not). imho Folly Mox (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was looking at Citation Bot's edits in User and Draft space and it's not limited to this editor, apparently many editors do this. Now that I've seen experienced editors setting up bot runs, I don't think this editor should be penalized. It's unusual given their level of experience but it's done by other editors. LizRead!Talk!07:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm not mistaken, you do need to be unblocked to Oauth for the bot to run. However, I am not saying this user needs a block for this, as it is basically harmlessly eccentric. Andre🚐07:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrevan: I wasn't angling for a block for him at all. Just really wanted him to know that that sort of eccentric behaviour is not appropriate for Wikipedia and can be a little disruptive. I was hoping if the admins could impress that on him (as indeed consensus seems to say) and maybe find a way to stop it being used on userspaces without permission (albeit I know that last one might not be technically possible). The C of E God Save the King! (talk)18:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz, OAuth was implemented for the bot such that edits did appear assigned to the editor, but there were immediate complaints about that behavior, so it was changed to the current behavior. I would have preferred otherwise, but so it goes. A consensus could conceivably come to another arrangement, but that's a discussion for another page and time for what seems like a minor annoyance... IznoPublic (talk) 05:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dominic3203 has returned to running Citation bot on userspace drafts without having shown the courtesy of stopping by this ANI thread. These drafts are submitted to AFC, so that part isn't a huge deal, but Dominic3203 is 💯 not checking anything his Citation bot runs are publishing.
1 doesn't fix obvious miscapitalisation, author name misparameterised in title, or unrecognised language in citation altered
2 pointlessly changes a malformatted wikilink into an information-free {{cite web}}
3 fails to fix middle initials misparameterised as surnames, location misparameterised as publisher, or incorrect allcaps in citations altered
4 alters a duplicated citation twice in the same exact ways, without just naming and reusing it
All of these are from today. In none of these cases has Dominic3203 actually come back to any of the pages he is blindly shooting Citation bot at and actually fixed any of the genuine issues with the citations there. This type of editing is not at all helpful, and I think I'd like Dominic3203 to comment here before continuing this unreviewed bot action. Folly Mox (talk) 00:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings everyone, I am the main protagonist Dominic3203. Thank you for your time and interest to leaving a plentiful amount of comments. I have only one problem in mind, as if this tool is supposed to be used worldwide, isn't it awkward to have no 'Do's & Don'ts' anywhere, but instead blaming the user not following the so-called 'code of conduct'? I would like to hear your thoughts, thank you. Dominic3203 (talk) 13:49, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dominic3203: It's simple. Please do not use it on other people's userspaces or their drafts without asking them. It should be self-evident that you don't use it there because its incredibly uncivil because the majority of articles that are in draft in userspaces is because they aren't ready to have any bot run on them. Please undertake that you will not do this again. The C of E God Save the King! (talk)08:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dominic3203, thanks for responding here.The very first words at User:Citation bot read: Editors who activate this bot should carefully check the results to make sure that they are as expected. Personally, that's all I'm asking: Check the results of your bot runs. Click through to each article edited. Look for errors Citation bot failed to correct in the citations it edited, and check for errors it introduced. Fix these. That is responsible tool usage.If you don't have time to check 775 edits, limit yourself to running Citation bot against smaller categories where you'll realistically have the time and energy to check its results.It's unfair to those of us who manually clean up after Citation bot and other citation tools when the people who use the tools in very high volumes don't assist in the cleanup of their own actions. Folly Mox (talk) 11:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An editor posted the following to my talk page a few minutes ago. They claim to not want to be noticed by the user they were reporting in case of reprisals, so I doubt that they would actually bring it here if I advised them to do that, and specifically asked for me to remove their talk page post if I took any action on it — but since I'm in the middle of other things and don't want to get involved in something that isn't my circus or my monkeys, I'm simply reposting it here verbatim for somebody to address or ignore as you wish. Bearcat (talk) 16:27, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I ran into this edit on the Islam wikipage. I checked that specific user's history and they've vandalised a Jewish page too. They've been IP blocked before but appealed that it's an error. They mention on their talk page that they used to have a Wiki account with over 500 edits, but I can only extrapolate the meaning of that. So far they don't stick around, they hit & run and move on until boredom strikes and vandalise another page. I don't want to reach out to them incase I land on their radar and so by deferring to you, I'm hoping I can maintain a degree of separation.
Feel free to ask me any questions. But before you decide to take an action, like speaking to anyone else about this, can you please delete this talk entry? Don't archive it, just edit > backspace > save.
The edit to World Zionist Organization seems like a "poorly considered but not necessarily vandalism" type of edit. The edit to Islam, on the other hand, is basically hate speech, but all they got on their talk pages was an NPOV notice, which I do not think is sufficient. So, let's be real clear here: @Hadjnix: if you make even one more edit like that, you can and should expect to be blocked for it. This is an encyclopedia, not a place for you to display your personal prejudice. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today20:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bumping a thread on a regular discussion board or forum usually moves the thread to the top of the page. But, ActivelyDisinterested, posting again to an ANI discussion has no effect except for delaying an archiving of this discussion and since you just posted a comment on this thread yesterday, it will have little effect. If this thread is archived with no action, you can "unarchive" it and repost but right now, you just have to wait and see if anyone else responds to this discussion. LizRead!Talk!00:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware, but it's a slightly annoying thing that might get an admins attention to someone posting Islam also justifies pedophilia, child marriage, rape and radical extremism to the Islam article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°00:43, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yeah i'm honestly not sure how this isn't an open-and-shut case of hate speech. it should merit some kind of block at the very least. ... sawyer * he/they * talk11:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, especially since Hadjnix's only response here was to double down with:
Considering it vandalism is extremistic as Islam is the grass hiding the snake of ISIS.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dear Wikipedia Administrators,
I would like to bring to your attention the disruptive editing behaviour of the user "Ratnahastin" on the AajTak channel's Wikipedia page. The user has been repeatedly making edits suggesting that AajTak operates under the influence of the BJP, which is factually incorrect and misleading.
Despite previous attempts to revert these edits and maintain neutrality on the page, "Ratnahastin" continues to reintroduce this unfounded claim, which is compromising the integrity and neutrality of the article.
These actions are in violation of Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy, and the repeated additions of misinformation are causing confusion for readers. I request that the user be warned or blocked from making further disruptive edits and that the page be protected from further vandalism.
Please take the necessary action to maintain the accuracy and neutrality of this article.
All editors are expected to cite sources upon editing. It is clear that Aaj Tak is a BJP mouthpiece. Did some search on the web. Sources: 1Ahri Boy (talk) 06:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the citation provided above not being added to that passage, as that is seemingly their objection? Also, they ought to be informed of WP:3RR / WP:EW before blocks concerning these to come into effect. Ahri Boy, you cite it here but not in the article? I'm at a loss. But I will be p-blocking them from the article nonetheless; still, it's puzzling. El_C17:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See the sentences such as "condemned for being partial and supporting the ideology of the ruling government of BJP" and "Aaj Tak was fined ₹1 lakh and asked to broadcast apologies for fake news regarding Sushant Singh Rajput." Ratnahastin(talk)17:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
76.88.55.135: recent MoS + warning disregard and en masse grammar edits
The IP user 76.88.55.135 first began their grammar editing spree in April this year, had a few sporadic months, and they've been churning out these kinds of edits since September. I think they're doing their best to be constructive, but the quantity and speed at which they're churning these edits out is honestly quite disruptive and disturbing. Their contributions page says they've made almost 500 edits in the past 24 hours, and I am half jokingly starting to question if they're okay.
Regardless, down to the meat and potatoes of this matter. Their most recent editing spree has been an en masse removal of the "the" from any instance they could find of the sentence chunk "the Scripps Institution of Oceanography". If it were spelled Scripp's or Scripps', with an apostrophe, then they would be correct in changing the grammar. However, this isn't the case. While the matter is muddied by the fact that the Scripps Institiution of Oceanography is part of the University of California San Diego (and therefore might fall under WP:THEUNI), I brought the issue to ANI because the IP user has neglected the style consistency guidelines and failed to seek consensus before changing every single instance of the sentence chunk mentioned above to their preferred version.
I understand that providing diffs in the form of links is preferrable, but the IP user has made so many so quickly that it would simply be more efficient for me to just show this:
The IP user has edited approximately 400+ articles that so much as mention the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Despite having been warned in the past by other users, and most recently by @Dr vulpes and myself, the IP user has disregarded these warnings, blanked their talk page, and continued their edits. Diffs will now be provided.
[9]: IP user's edit summary admitting they used a bot to do all the edits, despite them previously telling me they did all the edits manually
[10]: continued insistence of their preferred version
I would like to make a note for any admins that review this: I believe that the IP user's behaviour, while definitely disruptive, was not out of ill will. They have made multiple good contributions to articles in the past, but the use of a bot to enact en masse changes without seeking community consensus or even asking for discussion sticks out as blatant disregard, not ignorance. Nuking all of their edits is not really a viable option, they have almost 2300 edits on their IP address at the time of writing. Sirocco745 (talk) 07:04, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am the IP editor. I just like a clear talk page. I thought I read I can do with it what I want. I am a constructive editor that acts like a WikiGnome, just fixing links and grammar. If there was an issue, I apologize.
I searched the term I wanted to change and it was less than a 500 count page of instances so I just changed it manually. If you all think I was in the wrong, go ahead and revert those edits regarding the subject. I thought I was right considering the organization themselves uses no "the", as well as a large amount of media. Is there a specific manual of style guideline to refer to? 76.88.55.135 (talk) 07:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see, that was me replying to a revert by a spam bot that I am not affiliated with. Did you even check that before accusing me? Everyone of my edits are in good faith and made myself. 76.88.55.135 (talk) 07:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bottom line, revert the edits regarding this subject if they were wrong to make. I don't know how to do something that complicated to be frank. I appreciate the fact you all are trying to help improve Wikipedia, so I don't take any of this negatively. Have a good discussion. 76.88.55.135 (talk) 07:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't doubt that your edits were in good faith, it's just that while you were making your edits, you literally averaged 2-4 edits per minute for almost four hours. I (wrongly) assumed that no one would use four hours of their time to just... do that manually. Sirocco745 (talk) 07:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The specific guidelines I was referring to are WP:THEUNI, which talks about when and where using "the" is appropriate when addressing a university, and MOS:VAR, which is the first section of the Manual of Style main page and states, verbatim, "When either of two styles is acceptable it is generally considered inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change[...] Edit-warring over style, or enforcing optional style in a bot-like fashion without prior consensus, is never acceptable."
I apologize if I overreacted by bringing this to ANI, but there was no real evidence to the contrary that you were listening to the warnings Dr vulpes or I gave you or that this pattern would stop. Sirocco745 (talk) 07:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I get you're just helping, and my bad for the policy break. I am done editing on that subject. I guess the admins will decide whether or not there need to be reverts on it. I myself don't hold a strong conviction on either side after seeing the discussion. 76.88.55.135 (talk) 07:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies as well, it was not my intent to come off as authoritarian or "OBJECTION!"-like. I'm still getting used to the odd formal-informal style of Wikipedia discussions. Feels like you're writing an email to your boss but your boss is also your friend, if that makes sense. Sirocco745 (talk) 07:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Make an account and join us! You clearly care enough to do these small edits and I know that your contributions will be important and valued! We all make mistakes I know I have but we're a really welcoming community and I hope that I see more of your work going forward. If you ever need help or have questions feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Dr vulpes(Talk)08:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you can make all that effort, go through this "scolding", calmly accept it, and say afterwards you don't hold a strong conviction on either side, you are my hero! I agree with the good editors above: SIGN THIS IP EDITOR UP! We need more wikipedians just like them. BusterD (talk) 15:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This editors actions in blanking their talk page so that others had to work to understand the issues and the failure to correct themselves the Scripps Institution of Oceanography episode suggests a problem deserving administrator action. There is a bot at work and attempted cover up ChaseKiwi (talk) 19:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not use a bot. I literally just edited a lot for a few hours last night. I won't blank my talk page anymore, I thought that was allowed. 76.88.55.135 (talk) 19:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If so you could have started reverting your edits by now of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at your previous rate to show good faith instead of leaving others to clean up after you. You have been able to blank your talk page, which is allowed as its acknowledgement that you have read the page on several occasions since issue was brought to your notice. ChaseKiwi (talk) 19:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am waiting on an admin to reverse those edits if they were wrong to make, as they would have the tools/know-how to do so much quicker than myself.
I do not use a bot, and would like to see some proof that I do if you still insist I do. I don't even know how to use a bot.
I do think it is an interesting conversation on a nuanced topic, do the Clippers play at "the Intuit Dome" because it sounds better? It rolls of the tongue, but official media from the Clippers themselves and informed journalists omit the "the". How about the former Staples Center? Was it the Staple Center? Or just Staples Center? Did we remove the "the" when it changed to Crypto.com Arena? Where do we gain a consensus on grammar style?
Same with Sphere in Las Vegas, many people say "the Sphere". I understand each case has unique characteristics, such as the type of organization. 76.88.55.135 (talk) 19:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my edits on the subject were reverted. I guess that's fair since I should have discussed them in the first place beforehand. Though I do wonder if the edits were the better style regardless and should be restored after discussion? If it was "Scripps Center" and they themselves didn't use "the" as well as the media, but someone thought "the Scripps Center" was better, would it be? I guess the grammar of "(x) Institution of (x)" makes it sound too off not to include "the" beforehand? Oh well, i'm done on the subject. Goodbye. 76.88.55.135 (talk) 05:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What they seem to have been doing is loading multiple articles at once and changing them one by one. Since the change is mostly identical each time, they can just Ctrl + F to the proper section, click edit on that section so it loads less text, remove a single word and the space, and save. Plus since they pre-loaded the articles, they can quickly move onto the next article.
WP:THEUNI is only about how to title an article. It is not about whether to use articles in running text, the problem here. I would have thought that text like This guideline is about naming conventions for Wikipedia articles, and discusses use of "The", "A", and "An" at the start of an article title. and The preceding websites include title phrases "The University of X", but in running text, they refer to themselves as "the University of X". would have given this editor a clue: you should use "the" in running text for universities named like this. This guideline cannot be a valid justification for changing the text of articles, only for their titles. Any change using it to justify the incorrect removal of definite articles should be reverted, and if the editor will not stop doing it they should be blocked. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that WP:THEUNI certainly is only meant to apply to titles and that this IP editor's approach is disruptive, but Scripps is an interesting case and is often referred to as such. This is true for the various institutes and orgs named Scripps. Including the is not clearly right or wrong. When either style is reasonable, mass edits are unjustified. This editor should register an account, stop the mass edits, engage on Talk pages if they have a strong case for common or otherwise preferred styling of the name in running text, and just accept it and move on if they can't build consensus. -- MYCETEAE 🍄🟫— talk06:37, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Dustfreeworld and CIR
The aforementioned username:
believes that others linking policies to them is vandalism,
It’s also weird how Dustfreeworld blanked both their user page and talk page wanting some privacy for forthcoming edits as if they knew the dispute currently on the talk page would happen.
A comment on my talk page has been linked above. I have a very different interpretation of the comment, and I suggest disregarding this IP's claim that it's a sign of Wikipedia:Ownership of content.
I also respect and admire people who can correct their mistakes, and especially the editors who can publicly admit that they've changed their minds instead of doubling down on their original mistakes. For example, the alleged "ES" isn't an WP:ES, so maybe you'd like to go correct your error. (It's an HTML comment.) While we're on the subject of that point, I'll add that I was raised to believe that telling someone to shut up is not a polite way to communicate a wish for a conversation to end, but it's not actually a WP:Personal attack, and I suspect that quite a number of editors cheerfully use that phrase without thinking themselves to be behaving rudely, much less violating our Wikipedia:Civility policy. If it were, we'd have a bigger problem, because that phrase appears in significantly more than 10,000 discussions on wiki.
The only edits from this IP address are to post this here. I wonder which content dispute this logged-out editor is trying to gain an advantage in? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:23, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this IP is also me the OP, I should have clarified it but I didn't know that the IP would change. I did not care about the "shut up" in the HTML or the ES, or anywhere in general (hence I didn't bring up https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asian_News_International&diff=prev&oldid=1252101002), but rather the content that follows in the ES only. Especially the harassment accusation through the "forgetful" link. However what I would like to bring up in that diff I just posted is the editor's unwillingness to discuss their edits. Dustfreeworld states that BOLD is a lie to children, but it isn't if one is willing to explain your edits instead of where I quote "throw uppercase" to editors who then revert. During a content dispute with another editor who reminded the user of importance of discussion through BRD, the response completely ignored the point https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_Venezuelan_presidential_election&diff=prev&oldid=1239933205 showing how the editor is incompetent to judge when using BRD-is-optional arguments are appropriate.
You seem to be claiming that a note posted by this editor, on their User: page, that doesn't mention you or anything about you, is a message to you. I think that's unreasonable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since I really want to get my point across that the ES was targeted towards a specific editor, I’ll clarify. The ES was They want you to shut up. Whether it’s about war, about suicide, about PRESERVE, maybe even racism/inclusion, whatever. They want you to shut up. So you should. How forgetful I am. and I’ll focus on the bolded parts of this.
Firstly, They. The editor is clearly referencing someone/a group of people.
Thridly, the racism/inclusion. I’ve also bolded the maybe as I was unable to find an occurrence of this, so I’m guessing that the editor was presumptive about the intentions of Karnataka.
I'm not sure what an unrelated comment on my talk page has anything to do with the editor in question, and have purposely stayed uninvolved in this conversation due to my recent interaction with them. I would like to clarify, though, that in my diff'd comment, I was not telling John M Wolfson to shut up, I was acknowledging his "sit in the corner away from the mop" statement. That being said, regarding the WP:OWN complaint, I would like to point out this edit, including the statement "Your comment makes me wonder when have you put the ANI article on your watchlist. I didn’t remember inviting you to watch and then revert my edits there. I didn’t invite you to come to my talk to waste my time either."... - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would an admin or experienced user please assess if this report above violates WP:A/I/PIA (by mentioning 2 diffs from discussions about the topic)?
Additionally, I would very much like to know how you, IP, came across these interactions, seeing as you have not clarified who you are and I do not see any obvious related edits in your /40 and /32 ranges (the /64 range is empty, but that's common).
Some editors feel strongly about Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars, and our WP:UPPERCASE jargon (please click that link if you've never read that page) can be off-putting. We use it as a way of signalling that I'm in the in-group (and probably you're an outsider), as a way to avoid thinking and explaining clearly, and as a way of trying to "win" disputes. I wouldn't call it vandalism myself, because I have a pretty narrow understanding of that word, but if it's upsetting, even if you believe it "shouldn't" be upsetting, then it's best to find a different way to say what you mean.
I don't know if you're familiar with Postel's law, but following the general principle on wiki is helpful: Editors who want to communicate successfully should avoid communication styles that are objected to often enough that you wouldn't be surprised if someone complained (e.g., no profanity, not because we have a firm rule against it, but because you have real things to communicate, and you don't need your real point ignored while we have yet another discussion about whether profanity is always a blockable offense or only sometimes a blockable offense. [It's the latter, by the way]), and if someone indicates a less common but still workable communication preference, then respect that as much as feasible (e.g., to the extent that you remember this preference and have functional alternatives). If you happened to become aware of someone's dislike for the WP:UPPERCASE style of communication, then it'd be nice if you could avoid that. But, of course, if you don't know that, or if you happen to forget, then that needs to be okay, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The difference here is that Dustfreeworld’s handling is highly hypocritical. You will find WP links in almost every one of the Dustfreeworld’s talk page messages and many of ES, so how is it vandalism when it’s done only towards Dustfreeworld? As Dustfreeworld is consistently using WP links, surely they are actively indicating that the best way to communicate with them is also with WP links.
That was my understanding also. Considering how many WP shortcuts Dustfreeworld throws around, in almost every message they post, I assumed that they were part of said 'in crowd' and responded in kind. - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2A02:6B67, I regret that I must apparently be the one to break the unfortunate news to you, but: humans are not perfect. And Wikipedia editors are humans.
Complaining about ordinary human beings – with their ordinary human frailties, faults, and self-contradictions – is not the intended purpose of this noticeboard. Admins have no tools to make humans be perfect, and if we banned everyone who made an occasional mistake, or who discovered that they didn't like a particular behavior once the shoe is on the other foot, there would be nobody left to write articles.
Hello! I am here because I was pinged by the OP. I am not experienced enough to sling around a lot of WP:(whatever) policy quotations, but did want to leave my opinion here.
The editor mentioned by the OP has already received a broad ban from editing medical topics, which is clear evidence of prior repeated problem behavior. They came to my notice because of the Joss paper article, which had some errors in correctly paraphrasing at least one source (primary, actually,) as well as blank section headings and references which strongly implied significant health issues existed, etc., without proper sources or even any actual text at all. After some back-and-forth reversions, I discovered the medical topic ban and reminded the editor thereof. In the process, I came across numerous edits and talk page postings that persist in the same pattern of incorrectly citing policy and using dozens of allcap WP: links to basically smother disagreement.
Succinctly, the editor in question has a history of tendentious editing - just looking at the Joss paper editing and the username shows a likely problem with NPOV. There is a further unwillingness to engage properly in generating consensus; accurate complaints about problem behaviors/edits are met with hundreds of words quoting dozens of often inapplicable policies, or with "I don't have time for this," instead of reasonable replies.
Wikipedia has a lot of rules, for reasons, but I am a firm believer that if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, full genome sequencing may be unnecessary in determining which of the Anseriformes it is. This is clearly a problem editor.
I was going to link to a diff of the ~15:00UTC OCT 20 post by @Adolphus79 on the problem editor's talk page, but it's now in a purple box of some sort that I am too inexperienced to manipulate properly; I agree with it wholeheartedly. Hiobazard (talk) 16:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hi, I'm here because I was invited on my talk page. I don't have a good history with Dustfreeworld - we had some issues in multiple articles and I essentially wrote what I wanted to say to him in a long reply. I've attached the last edit made to the discussion before I removed it from my talk page Special:Diff/1244386082 and even though I was quite harsh I didn't know how to counter the WP:PA, WP:HOUND and the repetitive WP:PRESERVE argument that Dustfreeworld sent to me (and he was not using properly - see also links instead of content) to the point where I had to use shortcuts which is something I rarely do. — Karnataka17:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the OP is someone with whom I have content dispute recently, thought that they have lost, holding a grudge, and post as IP in order to evade boomerang. They also hope that pinging others (who also have content disputes with me before) to this discussion can increase their chance of “winning”. There are much representations in the diffs they posted, many of them are either aged or tangentially-related. They posted those diffs in the hope that they can get rid of another editor by sheer weight of numbers, especially where said diffs involving other editors (aside from Adolphus79) were only about content dispute discussions that had either died or already been resolved. There are too many misrepresentations that would need much efforts to debunk. Anyway please see the new section below. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:51, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I may quote myself: 'or with "I don't have time for this," instead of reasonable replies.' The lack of self-awareness here seems profound. Hiobazard (talk) 13:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comment, @Hiobazard. FYI, almost all the 16 diffs posted by the IP are misrepresentations that are either cherry picked or quoted out of context, in the hope that they can get rid of another editor by sheer weight of numbers; not to mention the 20 links to policies and essays with untrue claims that Adolphus79 posted on my talk page. Even if I can find the time to respond to all the 36 instances, I’m afraid that I don’t know how to, because most are misrepresentations that are not talking about what the issues really are (e.g., it’s like someone pointing at a dog and asks you do you like cats). If someone is determined, it won't be too difficult to cherry pick 16 diffs out of an editor's thousands of edits.
I have never heard that “don’t have time” is something that the community disallow voluntary editors to say. I have heard that wasting the community’s time *is* a problem. If I may ask, how many times are you going to quote yourself? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dustfreeworld I have been following this thread and I think that it s unreasonable to complain about the links to policies and essays that @Adolphus79 when you use them a lot too for example with my edits and WP:PRESERVE. you didn't care about my response and linked another essay Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read at special:diff/1244269909 where the second paragraph in that essay says "It can be misused as a tactic to thwart collaborative editing", which is exactly what you did by not even responding to my point - that sometimes revert/removal is the only option. I also did my job and did inform you of the removals at Talk pages, but you chose not to rea-dd the images or dispute the removal and accused me of trying to "WIN"? — Karnataka16:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) After 4 days, you haven't had time to make a single comment regarding the content of the original report against you, but have had enough time to file two additional retaliatory "reports" attacking me? - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, OP again. I pinged every user who I planned to add a diff from and adding a talk page notice to Karnataka (as I had to describe a dispute regarding you and them to WAID), including SandyGeorgia and WAID who you supposedly have good relations with so they can all see the ANI. I recognise that you don't know them, but you also supposedly have a few supporters https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dustfreeworld&diff=prev&oldid=1252453886 in which several users who have a high edit count are mentioned. Unlike described below, I am not using a VPN and even though I seem to have multiple VPNs they are all from the same area. I will continue to keep who I am ambiguous. 2A02:6B67:D622:5E00:19A5:EA39:9B52:10CC (talk) 13:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t know why you are pinging so many people here. Sometimes you implied that I was having disputes with some editors, and then later you said I have “good relations” with some of them. I hope your pings have nothing to do with this (quote: “When notifying other editors of discussions ... don't preselect recipients according to their established opinions.”). I don’t know why “my relations with other editors” are relevant to this discussion (unless people are trying to telll those who disagree with your untrue claims, or those who agree with my edits, not to post here). I’ll never be able to know your relations with other editors, as you are not disclosing who you are. Again, people who are seeing this please also see the new section below. Thanks and regards, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RE to the IP's I will continue to keep who I am ambiguous
Which of the legitimate uses of sock accounts (in this case IPs) are you operating under?
It certainly seems hard to scrutinize your edits, as is expected when you comment on this board, when you have hidden your edits by editing while logged out - there's certainly good reasons for us wanting to be sure that you are not also involved in any of these or related discussions as another IP range or account.
I declare it's not me, I don't know squat about domains or proxies or VPNs or whatever, which is why I always edit logged in cuz I'm stuck on the same redneck POS DSL I've been using since 2009... also, I know how to spell 'behavior' and 'apologize'... (haha) - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UOWN indicates a user may delete anything they want from their userpage.
I have had encounters with DustFreeworld previously as well. I believe their edits are, for the most part, those of an advocacy group rather than encyclopaedic. It's quite obvious they're here on a focused mission to bring their advocacy against pollution into Wikipedia. Many of their edits are not encyclopaedic and are akin to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS or WP:SOAPBOXing. They put the same content in many articles, use live articles as sandboxes and drafts, spam their images that fail MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, add irrelevant content and twist the narrative to push for their clean air advocacy. It's an admirable advocacy, don't get me wrong, but it's not encyclopaedia building. Canterbury Tailtalk18:40, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OP here. Thanks for your input, I’d really appreciate it if you could also include some diffs so we can all see the nature of the edits by the editor. I included diffs from the other editors above in my original post but I didn’t come across this scenario, although the username Dustfreeworld does paint a picture for a start. 2A02:6B67:D622:5E00:A16E:DF9E:D908:F02F (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Adolphus79
On 20 Oct, at the end of a content dispute, Adolphus79 posted a comment on my talk with twenty Wikipedia UPPERCASE policies shortcut
All these refute the above accusations and explain why I removed their problematic posts (which were posted after the discussion was closed) on my talk. There are probably more diffs, but I think the ones we have now are enough for a boomerang possible sanctions.
--Dustfreeworld (talk) 20:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC); --Dustfreeworld (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please kindly note my use of words “it *seems* to me”. While I’m won’t oppose a checkuser procedure, I’m not sure if it can identity all users who are using VPN, proxies, etc. Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 21:04, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, “Please kindly note my use of words ‘it *seems* to me’”. Having doubts doesn’t mean PA (as you have linked to). Please AGF. That said, I won’t mind if you change the word boomerang into “sanction”. Thanks and regards, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 21:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, I'm gonna let your completely unfounded statement of "I think the ones we have now are enough for a boomerang" stand fully on it's own, especially after our recent interaction, I'm done... checkuser, please! - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hope “your completely unfounded statement” isn’t an accusation against me. I hope the diffs I posted above can be looked into by ... someone (checkuser or whatever?) too. Thanks and regards, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 21:24, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to make this clear, if I was going to report Dustfreeworld, I would have reported them, myself, immediately after our conversation on their talk page. And I would have reported only our interaction, I wouldn't have needed any other evidence from their past transgressions. I am (mostly) proud of my edit history, and would also want those edits to count towards my account. The fact that Dustfreeworld refused to comment on a single aspect of the report though, deciding instead to single me out and openly attack me without a single piece of evidence, says volumes about their behavior in regard to the original report. - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence of what? That I used UPPERCASE just like you do? Or that I lost my cool? I've already apologized for saying a bad word (which, BTW, is mentioned 10 times on AN/I right at this moment outside of this thread), after you had tried to bully me for 2 days straight. Or do you want me to apologize for removing a message from my own talk page that was obviously left in bad faith considering your two edits on either side of that one being continuing to bully and attack me on your talk page? - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DFW, I think this post does you a disservice. It seems to support the above assertions that you cite and misapply policy you don't understand. I'm not sure what policy you're alleging was violated with your first diff, as WP:UPPERCASE is an essay, not a guideline. The second diff does indeed show some profanity... which is not inherently forbidden, and is CERTAINLY not vandalism. The third diff is the closest to what you say, but I can't say I blame Adolphus for getting heated. It's not great, but it's not the smoking gun you seem to think. The last diff is something that, again, would be better to avoid, but really doesn't seem something that would warrant sanctions, especially as it was removing a message form their own talk page.
The above thread also doesn't impress. "it seems to me" is not a get out of jail free card to imply whatever you like. If we're in a content dispute, and I said, "Oh man, there's this really bad editor I've had a dispute with. Their username starts with D, but that's all I'll say", you'd be right to accuse me of WP:NPA even though I didn't explicitly say it. You often tell people to WP:AGF, but per WP:PACT, that has limits. Also, note that checkusers don't connect accounts with IPs, and even if they did, WP:CHECKME explicitly forbids it. EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If ever asked, I would have happily apologized for the naughty word, but it was not directed at the editor themselves, and its nothing worse that you hear on broadcast TV anymore. @Dustfreeworld, I'm sorry that I was so weary of our conversation that I said a naughty word in my final message to you. - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CIR and User:Adolphus79
Misunderstood WP:NBASIC, which is a section of Wikipedia:Notability (people), and wrongly think that it’s used to decide article content (while in fact it’s used to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dustfreeworld&diff=prev&oldid=1252136646 (and failed to admit that they are wrong even after the policy has been clearly explained to them “You are citing WP:NBASIC, which is a section of WP:Notability (people), but have you read the very first part of it? On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article.”)
After other’s patient explanation, they continue to misinterpret policies such as WP:N, saying that it’s used to determine “how the person is notable enough for inclusion”, while the guideline actually says, “The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic may have its own article”. Instead of admitting their mistakes, they chose to post warning template and more Uppercase, etc. on my talk page later on
jlwoodwa, please kindly note that the page you linked to (WP:LISTPEOPLE) is a section of the page Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. At the top of the page it says, “Stand-alone lists (also referred to as list articles) are articles composed of one or more embedded lists, or series of items formatted into a list.” I think that guideline is for stand-alone “list articles” only (but not the article in question which also has other content). Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 08:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:LISTBIO, which applies policies like WP:DUE to embedded lists. I don't see any discussion on the talk page making a case that it's due weight, and it's up to you to convince others it should be there, not them to convince you it shouldn't. But we're getting into the weeds here. I think it's clear that Adolphus, whether mistaken or correct, had reasonable cause for their interpretation. Even if mistaken, I don't know of any policy that requires someone to admit that they are wrong. Rather, an essay seems to suggest the opposite. It's okay to have been mistaken, and laudable to learn from it and become more correct in the future. I suggest you drop what looks like a retaliatory filing; I think it is only working against you at this point. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If Dustfreeworld had simply provided additional sources that showed the person in question was in fact notable for inclusion in a "notable person" section, anything other than "he died", with barely a mention of his name in a news article about someone else, I would have happily rescinded my opposition. Instead, they told me to find more sources to prove their point, that ONUS didn't apply to them, and tried to bully me to get their way (WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM trumps all P&G, WP:NOBLANK says I can't revert their changes, etc.). I never implied UNDUE, never said "he can't be included", I only tried to point out that Dustfreeworld was adding a "notable persons" section with a single occupant, without providing any signs of what the person was "notable" for (other than "he died"). I was genuinely hoping that Dustfreeworld would find the additional information, come back and add the individual again with some source that showed he was an award-winning journalist, that he had published a book, anything that showed a hint of passing notability concerns; instead, I had WP shortcuts thrown at me that Dustfreeworld obviously hadn't read before citing, was bullied, and continue to have attacks lobbed at me even now. All because I asked for more than "he is notable because he died". - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ervin111899 has apparently been warned [11][12][13][14][15]. They have responded to several of these warnings, re-iterating Wikipedia's copyright policy and assuring that they understand it, and that they will follow it. (See [16] and [17], for example).
Today, on the article TV Patrol, they added this edit, containing material almost directly lifted from [19] as you can see here .For convenience, I have bolded the overlapping words:
"Following this election's campaign handle Bayan Mo iPatrol Mo, this endeavor encourages Filipinos to guard our votes and serve as responsible citizen journalists who are able to report any election–related cases such as vote buying. Similarly, STI's year-round campaign dubbed as Citizen STI, which is the institution's commitment to mold individuals to become catalysts of positive change, perfectly coincides with ABS-CBN's endeavor."
"Following this election's campaign handle Bayan Mo iPatrol Mo, this endeavor encourages Filipinos to guard our votes and serve as responsible citizen journalists who are able to report any election–related cases such as vote buying. Similarly, STI's year-round campaign dubbed as Citizen STI, which is the institution's commitment to mold individuals to become catalysts of positive change, perfectly coincides with ABS-CBN's endeavor."
I am sorry for copying and pasting from other websites. It is not intentional. Starting this time, I will now write on my own. Thank you. Ervin111899 (talk) 05:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ervin111899 Why should the community believe you? You said you've understood this before "If I am editing Wikipedia, much better I will not edit pages involving copying from anything anymore as it is a violation of copyright rules or property rights of owners of anything that I find online, in books, in magazines, in newspapers, or any other media." ([20])- and you said this in late July 2024. What's changed now? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 05:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to the 2 instances cited in the original post above where the user said that they understand the relevant policy and will comply with it...
The second instance is, for the most part, directly copied and pasted from the standard notice given to users in relation to copyvio. The first one is, at best, heavily paraphrased from a similar source.
To respond with further copy/pasting when asked to abide by COPYVIO is clearly absurd and indicates that the user has, at best, serious WP:CIR issues. Axad12 (talk) 07:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Copying text requires a conscious decision to highlight a block of text and then click "copy". Pasting text requires placing the cursor where the editor wants that text to go, and clicking "paste". Or the equivalents. These actions cannot possibly be unintentional, and repeated violations of copyright law are taken very seriously on Wikipedia. Accordingly, I have indefinitely blocked Ervin111899. Cullen328 (talk) 07:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I was just looking at the user's talk page and found the following rather amusing example:
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Cartoon Network, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. The Grand Delusion(Send a message) 15:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes. I must not add or change content like what I did at Cartoon Network, without citing a reliable source. I will review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you and you're welcome. Ervin111899 (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC).
And then later in the same thread, after a similar example:
Do you just repeat people's messages back to them? Trivialist (talk) 22:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Trivialist that I just repeat people's messages back to them. I will now change my comment. Thank you and you're welcome. Ervin111899 (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
This edit saying they'll just bump over to tl.wiki makes me think that we need to warn them so they don't return to being a new headache there. Also with the 'fan HR' trash on the TV Patrol article (which is about 70% tracking the month-by-month clock-in status of the show's anchors as every article about a Filipino TV show seems to be), what they added shouldn't have even been added in the first place. Nate•(chatter)22:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MrSchimpf The exchange underneath the declined block review request is fascinating, in that post much every single comment is made up of copied text from the one above it.
It reads like a really confusing game of Telephone.
If they were a troll, they were in it for the long haul and I'm kinda of impressed by their tenacity - they were clearly dedicated to WP for whatever reason, so it's a pity their behaviour never changed. Blue-Sonnet (talk) 23:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Possible copyright violations
March8613 (talk·contribs) has been uploading redone versions of company logos to retailer articles such as Media Play and claiming said logos as their own uncopyrighted work (most of them don't fall under text-only logos not unique enough to be copyrighted). I strongly suspect this is someone in good faith who doesn't understand copyright, and their edits should be dealt with accordingly. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?)21:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'd like to know what I can do to fix this issue. I'm new here and will like to know what I can change. Any recommendations? I uploaded them under that category as I saw some listed that way in the past. I can delete any that I shouldn't have uploaded. I have been stuck as I don't know how copyright works for companies that no longer exist. I don't want to get in trouble or anything and am nervous that I may have done something wrong. Many of these logos I created myself by looking through old newspapers. March8613 (talk) 01:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@March8613: Even if a company is defunct, another company may still hold the rights to their logo. For instance, the Perry Drug Stores logo is likely still owned by Rite Aid to prevent someone from opening up another store with that name and logo. Some of the logos that consist entirely of text (for example, the logo of Family Fare) are fine, as they do not consist of any uniquely copyright-able element. Those should be tagged as {{pd-textlogo}} or something similar. If there's a symbol of some sort in it, then it might be copyrighted and you should go with {{non-free logo}}. I admit I don't know everything about this myself, which is why I brought it here so others can help me figure it out. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?)02:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really appreciate it. I'll fix these asap as I don't want to get into any trouble or anything. I LOVE retail history a lot and I think went too fast. Malls are a huge hobby of mine. March8613 (talk) 02:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
March8613, definitely love your enthusiasm, but walk before running—many logos are complex enough to be copyrighted, so you can't just start calling them all PD! You'd need to understand how the threshold of originality works, and why that particular logo didn't meet it. On the other hand, a logo like Wikipedia's own (the puzzle globe) is creative and complex enough to be copyrightable, so you can't just go around putting {{pd-textlogo}} on logos unless you really know how to tell whether it's appropriate in that case. (And to complicate things further, the rules are different in different jurisdictions, too.) If you're not sure, you're probably best off asking at the media copyright questions noticeboard; a lot of editors who are pretty familiar with how copyright applies to Wikipedia hang around there and can help. You'll probably start picking it up as you go along and as those questions get answered. Copyright is a pretty complex beast, so don't be in too much of a hurry and don't hesitate to ask about something you're not certain of. SeraphimbladeTalk to me20:05, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editor continues to add unreferenced content to BLP articles despite multiple warnings. Editor has only made edits to mainspace and draftspace, so may be unaware. --Hipal (talk) 23:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hipal, if you want any action to be taken here, you need to provide "diffs" or examples of the behavior you find troubling. Without these, there is nothing here to respond to. LizRead!Talk!23:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps as background, this user has made more than 1200 edits since February 2022 & after looking at a dozen of their edits at random I can't see a single source in all that time. They've submitted a draft article in July (Draft:BoAt) that was rejected for lack of sources - the editor did go back to it after rejection (so presumably saw the reason?) when they changed a tiny bit of an infobox then never came back.
I can't see any engagement in any talk pages, only mainspace edits for Indian politicians, celebrities and businesses.
For context, there are almost thirty unheeded warnings in their Talk for lack of sources, incorrect/broken disambiguation links & various infobox issues going back as far as March 2022, only one month after they started. Blue-Sonnet (talk) 00:47, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like they're editing through a browser on mobile. I do the same quite often and I tend to miss some notifs until I log in on a PC. I think it's that you don't get told that you have a new notif so you have to actively look for it. I don't remember if edits to my TP are affected by that. Might it be a case of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU? QwertyForest (talk) 07:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Page protection is not nearly as important of an issue as the edits from this newbie editor. Please look at their talk page as well as to the promotional material they have consistently been adding to that page, both as Editorialph (talk·contribs) and as various IPs before that. I'm done with that issue--is up to others to clean that page from now on. 50.81.237.112 (talk) 14:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who are now really fool who was trying stop someone from editing from the website that anyone can edit? Lol 🤣 and by the way a website that is known from academic institution a not reliable source 🤣 Editorialph (talk) 01:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question about Wikipedia rules
Hello. I need advice from the administrator, I usually edit the Russian-language Wikipedia, so I am not so well versed in the rules of conduct in the English-language Wikipedia. One of the users HistoryofIran, who adds sources to articles without citations (and as I discovered, incorrectly interprets sources) refuses to provide citations and threatens to contact the administration against me. In the Russian-language Wikipedia, if you add a source without a citation (and if this source is not on the Internet with free access), then at the first request you are obliged to provide a quote. The editor not only refuses to provide citations, but also deleted my request from his discussion page, and in the description of his edit he also insulted me:
The only thing you can "expect" out of me is a report straight to WP:ANI. The nerve you have to constantly "expect" stuff out of folk because you don't agree with WP:RS.
I don't really care about his insults, I just want to understand if he has the right not to cooperate with me? And if he refuses to provide quotes for the sources he cites, can these sources be removed from the article? Rs4815 (talk) 19:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By all means, please provide diffs for your claims. I already have diffs at the ready. You have tried to overemphasize Armenian stuff and underemphasize non-Armenian stuff several times now. WP:OUCH:
Replaces a sourced map in the FA Parthian Empire with a unsourced one because they don't want to see Armenia included in it [25]
I still don't fully know what you were even trying to do here, it barely made sense, as the info had nothing to do with each other. It seems like an attempt at opposing Shahbazi's statement that the legendary figure Tigranes was most likely based on a Persian hyparch of the same name. [26]. Which I also noted here [27]
Altered sourced info at Sames II Theosebes Dikaios[28], removed the link to "Iranian peoples", putting your opinion above that of several WP:RS with your comment "Iranian was the founder of the Orontid dynasty, who lived 200+ years before Sames".
Completely removed Persian as a language at Commagene, despite the citation literally saying that it was spoken by them at least before the end of the kingdom [29]
I was actually pondering about that myself earlier. I would personally say no (but I'm not too sure), but if it is, Rs4814 is not even allowed to edit those articles per WP:GS/AA, having under 500 edits. HistoryofIran (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's far enough removed to even come under "broadly construed". It might be convenient to prevent Rs4815 from editing these articles under the rules for contentious topics, but I don't think it would be wise. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are trying to change the topic of the discussion. If you want to discuss the articles you mentioned above, create a separate topic. We are currently discussing your attempts to distort information from sources from the article about Commagene and your refusal to cooperate on the topic of quotations to sources that you yourself added. --Rs4815 (talk) 07:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rs4815, yes, please provide diffs. Your comment implies that the Russian Wikipedia does not allow references to sources that are not on the Internet with free access. I do not know if that is the case there, but this is the English Wikipedia, and we have our own policies and guidelines. It is perfectly acceptable to cite offline reliable sources here, or sources behind paywalls, as long as complete bibliographical details about the sources are provided. Just so you know, HistoryofIran is a well-respected editor here on English Wikipedia who does a great job pushing back against ethnonationalist POV pushing, so you need to furnish convincing evidence of your extraordinary claims against that editor. Cullen328 (talk) 20:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, you misunderstood me, Russian Wikipedia allows you to refer to sources that are not freely available on the Internet, but in controversial situations, you can request a specific quote from this source, which is referenced by the participant who added the source. There is even a special template "request quotation", which can be substituted for the desired source in the text of the article. There is something similar here in the English Wikipedia:
This is used to request a direct quote from the cited source, so that it may be verified that the source can verify the statement or that the editor has interpreted the source correctly. This is particularly helpful for: *sources that are not available online
As for the diffs, I provided them on his talk page when he tried to distort the meaning of the source information twice, but he removed them. The particular source says:
Although all of the rulers became increasingly Hellenised after the first few generations - is is unlikely that any of them spoke Persian in the end - they retained considerable Iranian sentiment and character, particularly in the field of religion.
At first he tried to refer to this source to present everything as if "Persian was the native language of Commagene"[30], then, when his distortion was revealed for the first time[31], he continued to insist that Persian was "the language of the ruling dynasty"[32], while the source itself claims the opposite, that the ruling dynasty very quickly stopped speaking Persian. Only after my intervention was he forced to present the information correctly[33] (with this edit he literally admitted that he was wrong! It took him 4 and a half years to do this) while threatening me that he would ask the administration to block me[34].
Also in the article there is a claim that the ruling dynasty (a Hellenistic dynasty descended from Armenian kings and ruling in a country with an ethnic Syrian population) were an "Iranian dynasty" (a political term), to support this claim the editor cited many different sources, but only some of them call the dynasty Iranian, many call it a "dynasty of Iranian origin" (in the ethnic sense) or just say something like "King Antiochus claimed descent from the Persian royal dynasty of the Achaemenids through his great-great-great ... great-great grandmother". This is not the same as calling the dynasty Iranian. I told the user that I was going to check each source separately (on the talk page of the article) and that some of them are not available online, so I will need quotes[35], to which he again threatened to contact the administration[36] and deleted my request from his talk page.
"HistoryofIran is a well-respected editor here on English Wikipedia" just because he is a well known editor does not mean he always does everything right, please consider this issue without prejudice --Rs4815 (talk) 07:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At first he tried to refer to this source to present everything as if "Persian was the native language of Commagene"
Doing your best to cast WP:ASPERSIONS I see. "Native" was meant to refer as the native language of the dynasty. However, I realized that could be misrepresented as the language of the population, thus I later changed it.
he continued to insist that Persian was "the language of the ruling dynasty"[9], while the source itself claims the opposite, that the ruling dynasty very quickly stopped speaking Persian. Only after my intervention was he forced to present the information correctly
Wrong again. This is what the full quote in that citation says "Commagene was the only one of those neo-Persian kingdoms whose royal family bore mainly Hellenistic names, despite their claims to Iranian aristocratic descent, whereas both the Pontic and Cappadocian royal families retained Iranian names throughout. Although all of them became increasingly Hellenised after the first few generations - it is unlikely that any of them spoke Persian in the end - they retained considerable Iranian sentiment and character, particularly in the field of religion." In other words, they spoke Persian at least until the end. Yet, you completely removed Persian [37], because you want to underemphasize non-Armenian stuff. I did add "early" after reverting you [38], however, that's vague and I really shouldn't have added it. I only did it in the hopes of ceasing your WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. I will not give in to that again. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
However, I realized that could be misrepresented as the language of the population, thus I later changed it. no you did not. Another user changed it[39]. If it were up to you, it would still be written there that Persian was the native language of the kingdom.
In other words, they spoke Persian at least until the end, My English is not as good as yours, but even I can understand the meaning of the phrase "first few generations". The kingdom lasted for 235 years and was ruled by 9 kings. Only the first few kings of Commagene may have spoken Persian. --Rs4815 (talk) 16:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ops, I thought I did it. Regardless, that was what I meant when adding “native”. Whether you believe it or not, thats of no importance to me considering the diffs that demonstrate your disruptive editing, which you’re yet to address. It says that the first few generations became Hellenized, not stopped speaking Persian. And even if youre actually right, you removed Persian as a whole, which you’re still yet to address. HistoryofIran (talk) 18:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also in the article there is a claim that the ruling dynasty (a Hellenistic dynasty descended from Armenian kings and ruling in a country with an ethnic Syrian population) were an "Iranian dynasty" (a political term)
You're even further proving my point that you want overemphasize Armenian stuff and underemphasize non-Armenian stuff. By all means, cite all those quotes of those sources that you don't agree with, it will be a even more glorious WP:OUCH. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While we wait for Rs4815 to finally post evidence of me adding sources "without citations" and "incorrectly interpreting sources"/"distort information", I have found even more diffs of their WP:TENDENTIOUS editing:
Removed sourced info about the Iranian origin of Mithrenes[40]
Did you just brought diffs from 2016-2017? I understand that you really want to change the topic of this request, but citing diffs from 8 years ago is certainly an interesting strategy. --Rs4815 (talk) 16:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you miss the part where I said “These diffs are quite old, but that's because Rs4815 rarely edits, so it's the best we have. Though clearly they haven't changed their ways.”? How about you at least show regret for these disruptive edits? Some are more recent than others. And you’re yet to show any proof of your allegations towards me, only engaging in WP:ASPERSIONS. In the meanwhile, I dont see the harm in exposing you, i.e. WP:OUCH. HistoryofIran (talk) 18:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Asilvering, thanks for clarification. I hope HistoryofIran will stop threatening to block me and throw insults again when I start asking for quotes from sources (that are not freely available online) he has provided in the article (I plan to start making edits in November, so he has plenty of time to provide quotes). Can you please clarify if the editor refuses to provide quotes (to sources he himself added), can these sources be removed from the article? --Rs4815 (talk) 16:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about you stop your WP:TENDENTIOUS editing first? You’re clearly not doing it for this project as per the diffs listed here. Would appreciate if an admin will take a look at the diffs I listed. Rs4815 has literally been doing this for YEARS. HistoryofIran (talk) 18:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dipesh's edit is pretty good actually, except for the first change. Maybe it's an issue with varieties of English (I'm a Brit) but I have never known anyone who is not involved in marketing to use language like "works in the vertical of". Phil Bridger (talk) 20:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Phil Bridger, speaking as an American, this is not an ENGVAR issue. In my opinion, "works in the vertical of" is bullshit marketing jargon. I do not think that it is specific to India. Cullen328 (talk) 20:47, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would someone please be able to take another look at @Mohitprajapat1082? Their only main space edit was an attempt to add a Linkedin for the cofounder [1] after a failed AFC for an apparently promotional article for another business [2]?
They've not been active for a couple of days so it might not be worth doing anything, but it still looks kinda suss to my (admittedly inexperienced) eyes... The other two don't really stand out, but this one doesn't look right to me. Blue-Sonnet (talk) 02:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mohitprajapat1082 created an account two days ago, made 6 edits, only one to main space and 5 to their sandbox. To my eyes, they haven't shown enough disruptive conduct to warrant a sanction. They are simply behaving like a new user who is not yet familar with our policies and guidelines. It would be a better use of your time to help instruct them about improper external links. LizRead!Talk!02:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These anons keep adding maintenance tags (specifically {{cleanup rewrite}}, {{copyedit}}, {{more citations needed}} and {{unreliable sources}}, enabling the pattern to be identified). They were asked to stop, but they seem to continue. Some of their other edits are also disruptive. Both IPs are from Indonesia, it seems.
In addition User:2001:448A:1020:3F01:112C:511D:68E2:1BFA was adding the same tags to a number of articles that seemed related only by the fact that I had edited them all recently, while clearing the backlog at Wikipedia:Database reports/Pages containing too many maintenance templates. I could find no explanation for this pattern. To demonstrate the number of articles affected by this editor's tagging, the total number of articles listed at that maintenance page rose from 318 in early September (or late August, I can't remember), to over 380 the next time the report was updated. Most of these articles were topics related to the Filipino television/media industry, or to other topics related to the Philippines or media in other Asian countries. In only very few of them were the issues suggested by those tags even relevant to the article.
Use specific tags (find them here). {{cleanup rewrite}} and {{copyedit}} are about as general as you can get, and in most cases, they weren't the problem with the articles you tagged. Better would be {{fanpov}} or {{tone}} for the Filipino celebrities, {{original research}} for the media organisations.
Identify the problem. When you add a very general tag, at least say in the edit summary or on the talk page where/what the problem is. Just adding a copyedit tag on a very long article doesn't help. Every article on wikipedia could use copyediting, probably. And you were adding {rewrite} on articles that were actually pretty good, the work of hundreds of editors over years. It makes it look like you had not even read them. Jdcooper (talk) 09:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a link to a list of active admin. Maybe reach out to one if it's not addressed in the next day or two. DN (talk) 22:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've applied a short range block to 2001:448A:1000::/40 for the continued disruptive editing despite multiple warnings. If the IP range continues the behavior after the block expires, I'd recommend applying a longer block as the logical next step in order to try and stop the disruption. I haven't yet looked into any of the evidence regarding the user accounts listed here, but I can certainly do so if needed. Since the 36.76.6.183 IP hasn't edited since October 15 (one week ago), I elected to hold off for now. If they begin editing disruptively again, let me know. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)00:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As shown on their talk page, Lovemuhcko (who began editing in 2019 and became more active in 2023) has recently showed issues with IDHT and competence:
Moving an unfinished stubby draft to mainspace: [42]
While they are sometimes good at giving me ideas on what articles to create, they have still continued their disruptive behavior despite being warned that this could get them blocked, so I'm concerned they're WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE with this project. ミラP@Miraclepine01:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So I not edits for in the future and I will limit these edits anymore and please not been blocked or banned to edits and still continue to editing will to limited from now. Lovemuhcko (talk) 02:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lovemuhcko: I don't think promising to restrict your edits is enough here. The general issue here is that you've repeatedly ignored people's concerns about your editing, so there's a substantial chance that it might later spill over to other areas on this project, leaving us with more work to clean up afterwards. ミラP@Miraclepine02:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I remember this editor. My first encounter to them was on April 2023 when they removed the Stub tag on Madoka Asahina article without an explanation. I restored the tag, explaining that the article was currently assessed as Stub, and warned them on their talk page. Since then, I restored the Stub tags that they removed from other articles, to the point I got exhausted and just removed those articles from my watchlist or just started ignoring them even if I know what they did was wrong. It seems that their editing involving Stub tag removal doesn't stop, with recent being this week. I hope this ANI will get the editor's attention: they can expand the Stub articles instead before removing the template. Centcom08 (talk) 08:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alisa Xayalith talk page argument
There is a rather angry discussion taking place between me and User:Revirvlkodlaku at the Talk:Alisa Xayalith page. I rarely ever use these means in my 22 years at Wikipedia, but in this case I felt it necessary. The issue is the use of New Zealand versus New Zealander. I am willing to admit I may be wrong and stopped reverting, he is not willing to admit the same.
Sorry to do this, we hqve a vandal with 50 vandalism edits and counting. Would anyone be able to take a look at the AIV noticeboard please? Thank you! Knitsey (talk) 08:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A wp:spa whose sole purpose here seems to be to push ther paper in a haughty, aggressive, and confrontational way [[43]], demanding that if we do not read it we can't reject it (ignoring issues of wp:rs). This has included accusations of trolling [[44]] and is just a tike sink.
My purpose is not to "push my paper in a haughty, aggressive and confrontational way". My purpose is solely to ask whether it is Wikipedia's policy to permit edits of pages when new evidence becomes available, and providing the evidence, but everyone simply ignores it, which is frustrating. The insults and threats don't help either.
A question more than one user has answered (with links to policies) with your response being "Have you read my paper, if not do not comment". We can't "correct information" from 100's of experts based on one expert's paper. Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Our standard for "misinformation correction" is pretty high. See WP:RGW. We can only record the righting of great wrongs that have been done elsewhere. We can't right the great wrongs ourselves. Unfortunately, with the vast amount of material that is published in the world, a single paper is not good enough. What we need are independent evaluations that say, "oh, yeah, that's a good point." or whatever. Try to get those types of sources written about your paper and then we can start to write copy about it here at Wikipedia! jps (talk) 15:20, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be sure, Wikipedia rules allow you to suggest edits on the talkpage. That's perfectly fine. You might also read this essay for other advice that is not required but tends to, when followed, lead to more positive outcomes in my experience. jps (talk) 15:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the essay and other advice. I'll flag it in my emails. No intention of meatpuppeting by the way. I have little enough respect for academics as it is, without sinking to their level.
Garethfloydmorgan was notified on their Talk page about conflicts of interest (here) and contentious topics (here), both of which they blanked here. They were also warned about making personal attacks here. At this discussion they have written the following about other editors: A person who can evaluate content without even reading it. You must be very special...Any editors out there able to read? (here); I think you have some serious issues, Bon. (here); Are you, in fact, simply a Troll? (here); Anyone here who can read? Anyone? (here); Are you seriously an editor here? (here). There are probably a few more, similar comments that I missed. A brief timeout might be appropriate before things get really out of hand. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot You'll remember that the Michelson-Morley experiment overturned the expert opinions of every single physicist on the planet,.and I think you'll find that my (major) experimental breakthrough does the same for human evolution[45], which I think pretty much says it all. EEng04:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect, but have not done the hard work to confirm, that the culture in other venues where AAH/AAT is discussed is extremely caustic. This would go a long way towards explaining the often strangely combative approaches seen in the archives of the Aquatic ape hypothesis talkpage. For my part, I think that our new user's replies to me have been banking towards the baseline culturally appropriate approach required at this website. jps (talk) 18:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Informing you of the consequences of ongoing misconduct is not a threat, Garethfloydmorgan. Nobody should insult you and you should not try to push other people around. You need to comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, including its behavioral guidelines, if you want to contribute to the #7 website in the world. This is a collaborative project so please try to act that way. Cullen328 (talk) 21:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Number six website in the world is Twitter, so get over yourself.
"which I think pretty much says it all." -- Insulting.
"Fringe theories often bring out the worst in some people." -- Double insult.
"Informing you of the consequences of ongoing misconduct is not a threat" -- Threatening.
"you should not try to push other people around.." Accusation.
We're not accusing you of trying to push others around, we are stating plainly that this is what you are doing. Unfortunately, just as you have such a right, others are perfectly entitled to draw conclusions about your conduct: you are overly defensive and seem increasingly unlikely to be able to collaborate with others. That you think Multiple unsolicited critical comments amounts to bullying alone makes this clear, I'm afraid. It's not all about you. Remsense ‥ 论07:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Kulasperes's unreferenced edits and inappropriate behavior
Recently, this user has been making unreferenced edits.[46][47] When they were warned in their user page about it, they made these comments[48]. The editor called me "Uguk" - from Google translation means "stupid" in English. They also told me to speak in Tagalog language, and called me "Hotweak". Last August 2024, they made this comment in my talkpage.[49]. "Kaltukan kita dyan" means smack me in my head.Hotwiki (talk) 15:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My attorneys have already begun the paperwork to serve Wikemedia for his slander. I’m sure y’all will retaliate against me and ban just like you removed my pages and claimed I’m associated with the companies- when I’m not. Slander is not only against Wikimedia Rules - it’s against the law. Pacificgov (talk) 15:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the editor's previous history (for example, a fair number of edit summaries that are beyond the pale), I'd be hesitant to unblock even if the LTs are withdrawn. --SarekOfVulcan (talk)18:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Avrand6
Avrand6 (talk·contribs) and I have had an unnecessarily confrontational dispute several days ago concerning the articles War of 1812 and War of the Sixth Coalition—I will admit that I wish my own conduct had been calmer and more immediately helpful, though my initial less-than-helpfulness does not excuse their deliberate malfeasance later while I attempted to be as clear as possible. I feel it's no longer a content dispute, and has to be treated as a conduct problem.
Their preferred versions of both articles are not supported by reliable sources, and I have explained WP:BURDEN to them multiple times,[50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57] and each time they insist that some "consensus" needs to be established first to remove the offending material—when any glance at policy indicates that the opposite is true. I feel I have adequately pointed out and explained policy to them, but my attempts have gone unacknowledged or worked around, e.g. via their fabricating a reference claimed to verify their statements, that they copied directly from Napoleonic Wars[58]—they openly admit they did not check that the book in question actually verified their statement, though I did, and it does not—but they unilaterally consider it to be a "viable minimum stopgap" regardless.
While I reverted them multiple times, I did not violate 3RR—but they reported me to the 3RR noticeboard regardless, citing my null edit notifying other editors of the situation as one of my reverts. After this report was closed, I thought they had moved on. They have now reappeared to restore their unsubstantiated, preferred version of War of the Sixth Coalition again.[59][60] I did not want to bring this here or cause any more disruption about this, but I don't feel there's anything left for me to do. Remsense ‥ 论17:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I have explained in the previous report, User:Remsense has only been reverting to meet their own historical biases, without any concern for either fact, source, or consensus. Their new instance to reopen this issue is unfortunately unsurprising. I opened discussions on talk pages about both the War of 1812 and War of the Sixth Coalition (and advertised those on several wiki projects in order to get more opinions), while maintaining the WP:StatusQuo as consensus was reached. Despite this, and even adding a reliable source that supported the claim as an interim measure at the request of the user "Remsense" (which was used on several other articles as well), they have been nothing but hostile and acted in bad faith multiple times during the wait for consensus. On the War of 1812 article, enough people have weighed in that consensus can now be said to have been reached, and I have acknowledged that the position counter to mine was the majority opinion with cordiality and good faith. However, no consensus has yet been reached on the War of Sixth Coalition article, yet Remsense continues to engage in this unproductive behavior. I have tried to maintain a cordial tone throughout this experience, despite him lying about me "falsifying a source" and initially belittling me as well. I did report them previously (the first time I've ever reported a user on Wikipedia) because I felt it was warranted, I assumed it was a 3RR violation, and only after they cut off dialogue and threatened to report me. In my frank opinion, Remsense seems like a user who would rather attempt to bully less seasoned users into accepting their historical biases then reaching a consensus (the standard way to resolve a disagreement on here). I could see many new users unfamiliar or intimated by the site being bullied away by the heavy-handed and unkind approach of a user like Remsense, whether they were in the right or the wrong, and I simply find this attitude and approach unhelpful and toxic. I hate to vent, but I have been disgusted with how Remsense has attempted to handle this situation, in contrary of established norms, and I find it dispiriting. (Even the little things, like wiping anythhing from his talk page he doesn't like, while completely kosher, seems to have bad intentions.) I'm unsure what the solution to a situation such as this is, I have tried to give this user their space for the last few days, but they are still belligerent.
TLDR: They're in the wrong about WP:StatusQuo, they seems loathe to wait for a consensus, they've lied about a source because it contradicts their worldview, they've engaged in edit warring, and they have a very bad attitude (certainly not a crime lol, but I don't like it.) AvRand (talk) 20:20, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They have now decided they have sources to verify the same material they lied about having verified before. I am pre-emptively objecting to its re-addition to the article before they post the sources on the talk page to establish consensus first, per WP:BURDEN. They have exhausted my assumption of good faith, and I have no reason to trust that they are doing what they claim to be doing. Remsense ‥ 论21:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Avrand6, it looks like you've misinterpreted "status quo"? Your edit on War of the Sixth Coalition is the one that introduces the disputed change, so the status quo is this [61], not your edit. Status quo isn't "what it said a month ago, before I made my edits", it's "the edit that was there before the dispute began". It's perfectly fine to pop up a month later and say "hang on a minute, someone introduced an error back here", but that doesn't retroactively make the start of the dispute go back to September. -- asilvering (talk) 22:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
asilvering To clarify, so I understand what your saying correctly here, the status quo isn't what was often there for years, it only goes back like a month? Like there's a time limit? I wasn't aware of the offending edit a month or so ago because the pages weren't on my watchlist. Or are you saying that when I attempted to revert it to it's former state (after noticing it), that the status quo counts as when I first noticed the change? I'm sorry for confusion, I assumed status quo came from longevity of inclusion in an article, not recency, and since the offending alterations were recent, that they did not count as the status quo. AvRand (talk) 17:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When we're talking about "status quo" when it comes to edit wars, we mean the last stable revision - the one before the first disputed edit in the edit war. Yours is the first disputed edit in that edit war. In this case you want to change a relatively recent edit to the article, so I can see why you think status quo is earlier (I think a not-insignificant number of editors would agree with you). But E4t5s.new, who made that edit a month before you noticed it, isn't taking part in this dispute, and it looks like no one objected to the change. Now, maybe no one objected to the change because someone else edited the article a few hours later to fix a lint error and so they didn't notice it. But it's also possible that everyone saw it, thought "oh, thank goodness, what an improvement," and said nothing. Now that you've noticed it, made your edit, and been reverted, the dispute has begun. It looks like there are presently multiple editors who agree with Remsense, so that suggests to me that this is probably a part of the article that ought to change. It also looks like it's spun out into a wider debate about what we mean when we say someone is a "co-belligerent". That won't be easy to untangle until everyone manages to work together.
@Remsense (I hope you don't mind me saying this), my impression of you is that you're normally quite patient and helpful and I don't know what went wrong here. It looks like you dug in way too early, before trying to really hear AvRand's explanation of the matter, and now you've both gotten too frustrated with each other to be able to solve this amicably. I think you've both misjudged each other, and I hope you can do your best to wipe the slate clean and get on with it. It does look like the discussion on the talk page might be about to come to a conclusion. If it doesn't, I'd be happy to show up (admin hat off) as a neutral party to try to mediate. -- asilvering (talk) 20:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I regret my initial lack of helpfulness in explaining my first reversions, but since then I have been very clear what the issues are and what policy says about this, and I don't really have anything else to say since those very clear remarks are simply repeatedly ignored. Remsense ‥ 论23:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Once you've convinced someone you're an asshole fucking with them personally, it's hard to convince them of anything else, no matter how right you are or how much patience you manage to summon up. -- asilvering (talk) 23:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that's true and I poisoned the well with my initial reverts (I posted on their talk page with these explaining the need for discussion before replacement, just to be clear): I've struggled here, but I really don't think I could've done much meaningfully differently without the services of a time machine. To be clear, I of course don't want any sanctions on Avrand6 if they learn from their mistakes here. However, if we're examining conduct I'm at a loss for what I should've done differently at each juncture; that's not rhetorical, I would genuinely appreciate any advice like I said in the 3RR report reply. Remsense ‥ 论23:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I don't think anyone really needs to dwell on how this went down. Hindsight is 20/20, etc etc. If everyone involved can salvage enough AGF to make it through to the end of the discussion on the talk page, that's the best way forward (imo). If that's too hard - no judgement, this looks really frustrating - I'm happy to stand in between both "sides" and try to help everyone limp to the finish line. Sometimes things go wrong and there's no great lesson to be learned; the only thing to do is try to fix them. -- asilvering (talk) 00:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's how it goes! I said my assumption of good faith was exhausted before, but I suppose it would've been prudent as always to make clear that it can easily be reestablished. Remsense ‥ 论00:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[63] (reverting to this edit, claiming it need valid reason)
"I need a source that would suggest that Khereids were Turkic" (article literally states It is unclear whether the Keraites should be classified as Turkic or Mongol in origin. The names and titles of early Keraite leaders suggest that they were speakers of Turkic languages,)
I was mistaken, so I erased the said message. I was not politically targeted. To answer your claims, I have added the source for the Bashkurd spelling. You have also removed the assumed flag of Keraites (which you should not have done without editorial consensus) You have also labelled the last version of the Keraites page as “pre-edit war” which is not true. I have then reverted the page to the version before my first edit. You reverted it too. Vofa (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am editing this Keraites page, etc. for years, this was added later by whom idk, and there is no single indication that this is a tamga of the Keraites, so there is no reason for a consensus. And the page initially had Turco-Mongol lead, which was changed later. Beshogur (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you prove that it was that way before?[when?] You can see that the version before my edits was “Mongols|Mongol]] or Turkic” regarding their possible linguistic groups. Historians cannot tell which group they belonged to. You should not assume that they had a Turco-Mongol lead, which would not add up with the tradition itself, and would disagree with a set of historians and sources. As the Keraites arose in 10-11th centuries. You must back up the erasure of the supposed flag of the ethnic group. I need you to present sources for the assumption that Mongolic peoples had a tamga. You may be mistaking the unrelated Kerei clan in Kazakhstan with the Keraites. Vofa (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bashkurd (Beshgurd) is a historical ethnonym for the Bashkir/Bashkort people widely used in historical sources by a variety of European and Russian ethnologists up until today. I am here to make an encyclopaedia. I have provided a source for that spelling in English. It should stay up. Furthermore, I understood that edit-warring is not allowed on Wikipedia. I remember it was 3 reverts per user (not sure about specifics) I will not edit-war again and will talk to my mentor if I have any issues. Regarding Kazakhs, I have resolved the dispute. I believe the page should be protected. As for Keraites and Bashkirs I have recognised my mistakes and believe I have the right way of solving the dispute(s). I do recognise that the flag is attributed to a Kazakh tribe, not to Keraites. Vofa (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s called cherry picking and would mean that every editor involved in previous disputes on the topic may have wasted their time. I will wait for you to answer to this.
I'm not going to take any admin actions here, since Vofa contacted me ([68], [69]) before this AN thread was opened (I am not sure why this is here and not at ANI?), but it's my position that WP:NOTHERE is an absurd thing to say about this editor, who is making perfectly normal new-user edits and being reverted with unhelpful edit summaries like rv great improvement[70]. Vofa is clearly edit-warring (see the back-and-forths at Bashkirs and Keraites), but it takes at least two to edit war, and the only talk page discussion I've seen so far is Talk:Bashkirs#Bashkurd, which was opened by Vofa. There has been, as far as I can tell, no attempt by OP to resolve this in any way other than a template notice and then a post here almost immediately thereafter. Communication and assumptions of good faith are sorely, sorely lacking here. -- asilvering (talk) 20:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering: sorry, my mistake, I was going to place this to ANI.
I still don't get what am I supposed to discuss about "Bashkurd" spelling. There is literally 0 of this spelling variant in the article. I don't get his purpose here. We can put 100s of spellings for every ethnonym.
Also this user, after all this discussion, still removed "Turkic" stuff from the lead from Keraites article. Also same thing applies for Turkiishh (talk·contribs), but doing the opposite.
This user is not the first one to call me something like politically motivated editor so I have been dealing these for years. Can you please tell me how this edit shouldn't be reverted? The article literally states they're likely of Turkic origin. Most of his edits is this way. Beshogur (talk) 21:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So this user always removes some source or his edits are always correct, but according to him, we're supposed to discuss whether he adds/remove anything. Beshogur (talk) 21:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't get his purpose here, the most useful thing you can do is to give an explanatory edit summary when reverting, and recommend that the editor who made a confusing edit talk about it on the talk page. "rv great improvement" is not that. Regarding "politically motivated", it's extremely common for people to believe that wikipedians are engaged in some form of political censorship. That editors who are reverted without much discussion or rationale conclude that we're trying to hide some truth or whatever is pretty understandable, given the circumstances. As experienced wikipedians, it's our obligation to assume good faith when dealing with other editors who don't yet understand community norms - that means accepting that the editor made those edits in an attempt to improve the encyclopedia (whether they did improve it or not), and respond to them with that in mind. If you don't have the patience to deal with some particular incident, I recommend referring the newbie in question to WP:TEA, which is frequented by editors, including admins, who are used to dealing with confused newbies. -- asilvering (talk) 22:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also this is getting ridivulous. This user should stop complaining about me on administrators articles. Another example of his behavior. Beshogur (talk) 08:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dispute was attempted to be resolved under user:Vice Regent talk page topic "Putting in American financial support for Israel in the very first paragraph of the lead".
User thought either as a joke or to make a point of pinging multiple editors across from the talk page of one article to the talk page of another article without their consent. Misquoted my words in their topic request and cited me as a reference for their topic.
Instead of engaging on that new unrelated article talk page, requested on user's talk page that they either remove the topic and apologize to those they pinged without consent or if their topic is sincere to alter it (removing the pinged people) and apologize to them.
Conveniently, this veteran editor can seem to remember WP and norms when asked to correct something they did which is normally against norms. Most upsetting is even if that editor fully believes that removing or altering that topic would now be inappropriate, they still have not apologized to those they pinged without consent. RCSCott91 (talk) 21:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CFAYour right, that wording sucks. When is it okay to bring a discussion from one article to another and attempt to include people who haven't shown any interest that they wish to be part of that discussion, including linking to part of the first discussion but misquoting it. RCSCott91 (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier: made a tongue-in-cheek comparison, Can I write in the Israel lead that it has extensive financial and military backing from the USA? And how the Israeli government contains extreme right wing elements and that Israeli settlers and illegal settlements and settlement organizations have been sanctioned by multiple countries? Etcetera. That will get consensus, right?
RCSCott91 replied, Possibly, get some sources together and go to the Israeli talk page. I'm not saying that exact wording would be agreed specifically because the USA normally gives around 3-4 billion and Israel spends 27-28 billion on military spending itself. So the word "extenstive" is doing a lot of work. But ~10% is ~10%.
Vice regent then opened a discussion at Talk:Israel, linking to that exchange, asking Would it be appropriate to put in American financial backing for Israel over the years in the very first paragraph of the lead? and pinging RCSCott91, Selfstudier, ABHammad, Eladkarmel, Czello, Galamore, and האופה (some, but not all, participants at the Hezbollah discussion).
RCSCott91 went to User talk:Vice regent and asked for the Israeli talk page post to be removed. They did not reach agreement.
4. You're right, I missed Makeandtoss and Raskolnikov.Rev. That was an honest mistake.
5. As I explained, I can't remove a discussion once others have responded to it. I am really not seeing any issues here. This is a content disagreement that should be resolved on article talk pages.VR(Please ping on reply)23:37, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regentHow often do you, a 17 year editor, take a discussion from one article to another unrelated article, misquote someone who was responding by ping to someone else's obviously hyperbolic statement and not even brings sources as the response said?
You were so keen on that topic, even supporting your mistake stating that policy doesn't allow you to amend what you've done. Yet, I came to your talk page after people had already responded to your topic, which you didn't even attempt to defend.
And all this time, if policy, which you can quote like the rules lawyer at a game of table top DnD was the only thing binding you from fixing your "honest mistake", Why have you not yet to apologized?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article is subject to the WP:contentious topics restrictions. The remedy instructions at the top of the article's talk page explicitly state that blocks can be dispensed by any uninvolved admin even for a first offense violation. Scu ba has engaged in personal attacks and casting of aspersions at the talk page. I informed Scu ba that engaging in such conduct could result in immediate sanction. They have decided to double down with additional aspersions. I request a temporary page block in line with the remedy instructions. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I called out disruptive editing - No, you asserted that editors that hold an opposing viewpoint to yourself are disruptive. Your words were ... and still some disruptive editors .... You didn't mention any editing at all. Similarly, you paraphrased those editors in such a fashion that it is immediately obvious who they are. You don't want to name them? I will: Slatersteven, FlemmischNietszche, Cinderella157, and myself. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr rnddude, you've said that Scuba is engaging in bad faith, which is hardly better than @Scu ba saying other editors have been "disruptive" (I might call it worse, but I haven't looked at anything beyond these diffs). This is obviously not block-worthy stuff. The two of you can simply apologize and get back to editing. -- asilvering (talk) 22:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No I did not, asilvering. I said: [y]our aspersion about editors who hold disagreement with you being disruptive is in bad faith. That is not the same as what you are claiming I said. I never said anything about their engagement in the discussion. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with apologizing, I'm starting to see where the other editors are coming from regarding the troops not being on the front yet. Scuba01:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it - I haven't been involved at all in this, but this appears to be a content dispute ongoing here over what exactly is required for North Korea to be added as a belligerent, and Mr rnddude is taking a fairly restrictive position on this. The complaint is about aspersions being cast, and scanning the page I see people making reference to other commenters being "brazen", and a vague wave in the other direction.
Other than just admonishing all involved to turn down the temperature a notch, I don't see a need for action at this point. FOARP (talk) 08:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a content discussion, which is perfectly fine. I have a position in it, as do about a dozen other editors. My original post is about specifically calling other participants 'disruptive editors' or engaging in 'disruptive editing' for holding a different position. My response to Haha169 was testy, and that is duly noted. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Scu ba: I am an uninvolved administrator who will issue a topic ban if there is any repeat of the belligerent comments mentioned here. You are welcome to discuss what reliable sources have said, and to discuss the requirements for the relevant infobox field. However, using debating tactics to prod opponents is not acceptable in a contentious topic. Johnuniq (talk) 09:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that this was a first offense, I think this clear warning is sufficient. I loathe having my comments dominate a thread, so I'll refrain from commenting further unless pinged. I withdraw my proposal / request for a temporary page block. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As one of the involved (who was not told about this, I was just involved in another report above and saw this) I do not see a direct violation, but I do see a clear attempt to disparage anothers POV. So no actual violation, just skirting what is acceptable. Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Users User:Ybsone and User:Mr.choppers are engaged in stalker-esque behaviour ever since I had edited Lancia automobile pages. The latter user has been clearly following me around on Wikipedia based on edit history as seen here [1]. It is evident that the said user never made any edits to the graphing calculator page and is clearly doing policing ever since the admins did not give the desired outcome on WP:AN3. Such toxic behaviour by these two editors such as not engaging in a talk page discussion which they have so posted on the talk page here [2] along with their collective inability to engage in the talk page discussions on the contentious articles' talkpages as well as enforcing their edits just because they are "a decade old" is highly discouraging to anyone making contributions on the platform. I request the admins to take action on this matter, especially when I have stopped editing those automotive articles in the first place. This is not the first time these users especially User:Ybsone have engaged in such practices. Past evidents indicate complaints from other users as well as seen here [3] for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.29.234.202 (talk) 06:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wish there was a nice way to tell new editors "you are not being stalked. no one cares about who you are per se; instead, someone saw one of your flawed edits and decided they need to check in on the others because some in all likelihood have similar problems." sometimes we're wrong or rash doing that, and unfortunately it's not the most fun you can have to be on the receiving side of that while trying to learn—but we're not stalking, we're prospecting. Remsense ‥ 论06:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, many edit summaries I'm reading scrolling down your contributions are borderline uncivil to over the line—the fact that it's pretty constant is a bigger problem. What's more, I only see four edits of yours in Talk namespace—this would indicate to me that you are at a bare minimum equally responsible in collective inability to engage in the talk page discussions on the contentious articles' talkpagesRemsense ‥ 论07:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also please see how many edits and talks it took to make you comprehend your original research error Centro Stile Alfa Romeo under Walter de Silva was responsible for the completion of the detail work and the design of the interiors, as Pininfarina's proposal was not accepted. claiming that Enrico Fumia was the designer of the interior, when you simply substituted Pininfarina for Enrico Fumia, not knowing how many more people worked there, and who was actually responsible for said interior proposal. You just don't want to listen to people smarter than you. When you buy yourself Mr Gianluca Cavalca book on GTV/Spider "Alfa Romeo GTV e Spider. Più Alfa che mai" see the special acknowledgement to me, Yaroslav Bozhdynsky, automotive historian and an expert on GTV/Spider, page 193. YBSOne (talk) 07:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your frustration here given the endless back and forth here and lack of tact on the IP's part, but You just don't want to listen to people smarter than you. is not really appropriate: not to insert myself into this, but I didn't need that to intuit the experience and competency gaps here. Remsense ‥ 论07:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right, I didn't phrase it to sound as I wanted, and a bit of frustration seeped in. I apologize to the IP editor. YBSOne (talk) 07:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not only that but the behaviour this user is also borderline appalling in some matters. I don't understand how they expect new people to act "civil" while acting in an uncivil and hostile manner themselves. Clearly seeing the history of this user specifically, they have not learnt from their mistakes as a results of multiple ANI discussions brought against them. 223.29.234.202 (talk) 08:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"results of multiple ANI discussions" could you provide those results? Or want to keep guessing the outcome based on the title alone? YBSOne (talk) 08:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend dropping this point: it in itself is not compelling to other editors who have experience with variables of ANI. Three reports in a vacuum can be the mark of a hero. Remsense ‥ 论08:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and read the most frequent "bringer of ANIs" and get back to me. Just like here and just like the one I posted before, people who can't listen to their own faults bring the ANIs the most. YBSOne (talk) 08:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have bought one ANI against you due to your behavioral issues and the stalking trends seen with you and the other user, while you brought 2 discussions concerning me on two separate noticeboards. Your apology above after being told by another user of fixing your own faults shows where the problem lies. 223.29.234.202 (talk) 08:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"you brought 2 discussions concerning me on two separate noticeboards" I have started only one ANI/Edit warring. Show me the other one. YBSOne (talk) 08:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit history is visible to others. It is not private information. It's not fun, but you should focus on addressing why others are concerned enough with your editing to feel the need to check your contribution history. Remsense ‥ 论08:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see any reason other than holding a grudge against me by following me to a topic which clearly does not fall under this user's interests. They wanted me to back off from editing their beloved Lancia pages, I have done that. But I think this stalking was unwarranted. 223.29.234.202 (talk) 08:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
People care about maintaining the encyclopedia in toto—I often catch one edit that seems wrong on a page on my watchlist, and then I take a look at their edit history to see if they've made similar mistakes on pages I wouldn't otherwise see. That's not stalking, that is competent stewardship. Remsense ‥ 论00:02, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look how many edits and reverts it took to defend a position that you could clearly see from the timeline template. You have made an assumption that just because something became a "flagship" through the absence of a more luxurious and larger car then it is a clear successor to the last flagship, no matter what market niche it was on. Glad you didn't discover the Lancia Ypsilon is currently a "flagship" and therefore a successor to Lancia Aurelia, right?. See how many times people added Alfa 159 or even Giulia as a successor to 166, just because 159 became defacto a flagship, due to absence of E-segment successor. This is false and needed to be shown. You will always find sources that claim what you want to find, and I quote: "Alfa 4C is basically an 8C without 4 cylinders"... YBSOne (talk) 07:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And because of that I have to sort through your edits, and majority of them are not only fine, but very enriching. I will focus on the factual stuff, just because this is my expertise. YBSOne (talk) 07:50, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am having trouble understanding why the OP/IP is discussing a Japanese digital watch on the talk page of an article about an Italian car that ceased production over 55 years ago. Cullen328 (talk) 07:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect they tried to make a point on similarity of faulty infobox information. But at the same time safeguarding any attempt to add more information to make it more informative on the "just because I don't see the reason" grounds. YBSOne (talk) 08:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because the main reason given by the user was that the edit was a "decade old" and "no one had any problem with it". Its clearly a case of failing to see issue with the content as on the article of the said digital watch where equally hostile behaviour was seen. 223.29.234.202 (talk) 08:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand how frustrating being the recipient could seem. It takes two to tango, though, so here is my suggestion: as has been outlined to you multiple times, both parties are equally free to be the first in taking their conflict from edit summaries onto the talk page. I think if you tried to adopt the WP:BRD cycle for yourself, no matter how annoyed or right you are about it—things would suddenly get a lot easier for you, because a lot of this mutual resentment would dissolve. As someone who tries too often, it's a lot easier to have discussions with someone you're not on edge with about the possibility of reverting you again. Leave the article to one side and talk until everyone's on the same page—that's how this could work. I think it's incontrovertible that you specifically could do a lot more to avoid edit warring, even including reverts that aren't yours. Remsense ‥ 论08:14, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be easy if this user specifically refrains from opening up ANIs and posting messages on different admin noticeboards for every little conflict as seen here [4]223.29.234.202 (talk) 08:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its clear that an editor having 10+ years of experience still decides to act childish rather than accepting that their vile behaviour is the main problem at hand. 223.29.234.202 (talk) 08:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When it takes you 2 days of back and forth to drive your factual argment home, the other side will always say they were hounded. YBSOne (talk) 08:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have not mentioned the reasons as to why you are reverting the edit and explaining the reason in detail after multiple reverts have happened. The main problem lies there. Your edit summaries are very vague at this point. 223.29.234.202 (talk) 08:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that I am newbie here and I am still learning the ropes about the rules in place here. But aren't these rules supposed to be equal for both existing and new comers around here? If that is the case, what have these users done to follow act according to the said rules while having 10+ years of experience on the site with one of the users also laying claim to "veteran editor" status? 223.29.234.202 (talk) 08:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actions are per Remsense and others; yes, I fell that this editor is generally uncivil and on the careless side. Which is why I checked what they got up to at Graphing calculator. I have no opinion on the photos they chose, the only thing I did was update an alt description of an image they swapped, as it was no longer correct. If anything, I was supporting their edits. I wish IP had put in a tenth of the effort they've displayed here at ANI in discussing the changes they wanted to see, instead of rejecting efforts to talk. Anyhow, I see the ip just got a 31 hour block. Mr.choppers | ✎ 12:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also support their editing, as am to lazy and busy to do most of that work, and to such great level, but cannot let go when I see factual inaccuracies that are inevitable, especially on more obscure topics. YBSOne (talk) 13:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editor in question has been blocked and article is now in main space. If action is needed re: article's merit or TParis' conduct, this thread is not the venue for either. StarMississippi17:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@RangersRus: For the record, you're wrong here. Shuah Khan is definitely notable and that article should be published. I am reviewing it and then moving it to article space. What is wrong with you?--v/r - TP13:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TParis: My reason was with notability but this is something where a civilized discussion could have been initiated by the creator and we could have come to suitable conclusion. This is not the approach the creator of the article took and had uncivilized language towards me and another reviewer who declined the draft before me. RangersRus (talk) 14:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No ego here. You have moved the article to space and as administrator you have the right to do so and I do not want to debate on it any further. RangersRus (talk) 14:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The idea of telling someone to grow thicker skin while insulting them at the same time is ... novel. I commend RangersRus for resisting telling you to go forth and multiply. Black Kite (talk)14:51, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing someone with 30,000 edits and a 14 year old account asking someone "What is wrong with you" telling them to "grow thick skin" and insulting their ego is pretty crazy. TheWikiToby (talk) 15:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of that is an insult. An insult is "You're trash" or "You're a piece of shit". Seeing someone reject an article at AFC that is clearly ready for mainspace earns a "What is wrong with you?" The "what is wrong with you" part could be they know nothing about computer science. Getting a user blocked when they are understadably upset that their clearly notable subject of their article gets declined earns a "grow thick skin". We used to value things like don't bite the newcomers. I guess now we coddle egos over improving the project.--v/r - TP16:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(There is also the matter of spamming 17(?) editors talk pages)
At what point is enough, enough? Regardless of the rights or wrongs of the rejection, anyone who reacts like that isn't an asset to the project. RangersRus was correct in reporting the editor. Knitsey (talk) 16:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how asking "what is wrong with you" and telling someone to grow thick skin could in anyway not be considered WP:UNCIVIL and an insult. And no! You would absolutely not ask "what is wrong with you" to someone with no computer knowledge! Literally the question is asking what is wrong' with you. It is inherently a personal attack. TheWikiToby (talk) 16:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At this point it may be necessary to review your competence as an administrator. Your failure to identify the personal attacks in those diffs is staggering. 173.22.12.194 (talk) 16:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reported user dropped the r slur multiple times. Nobody here needs to suffer being called slurs. This isn't ego coddling. If you want to defend the use of slurs you should consider whether this is the project for you. 104.182.104.10 (talk) 17:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Bold, or disruptive?
I am having a lot of trouble determining if Closed Limelike Curves (talk·contribs) is editing voting articles boldly or disruptively. For example, they rewrote Primary election so that it referred to partisan primary elections, and then moved the article in mid-September, changing primary election to a disambig page, which triggered a fair number of semi-automatic updates. After I moved it back to the original title a week ago, he held a short discussion involving two (I think) other editors and declared there was consensus to move it back to his preferred title.
Over at Instant-runoff voting, there was a similar problem. He tried to start a discussion at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, but there seemed to be broad agreement that there was not a content dispute, but rather a problem with CLC's editing methods.
CLC is not a newbie - they've been editing like this for some time. Their request for Page Mover in August was denied because of too many reversals.
Given the long-term disruption that this has involved, the time sink this has produced for multiple other editors, and the distortion of the neutrality of our voting articles, my suggestion would be to push them to edit some other topic that might be less fraught for them than voting. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CLC is not a newbie
Worth noting I've only been making substantial edits for under a year, so I'm still pretty new.
Involved editor here. Can you restore the deleted disambiguation to draftspace or userspace? I thought I remembered it having multiple editors, and that seems relevant to this thread. Regardless of how this thread goes, I'd also like to try to find those semi-automated edits again because they seemed to have a significant number of errors. McYeee (talk) 06:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sarwan Ali Palijo
Since September 2023, Sarwan Ali Palijo has been a redirect to the film Chhalawa. The article was – and is – a failure at GNG/SNG, and the sources provided are Not Good. Tetokir(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) hijacked the redirect and created an article for the actor. I reverted and dropped them a {{uw-hijack}} so they could see the articles for creation process links. They reverted back to their preferred version. I took it back to the redirect, and was reverted again.
There's also another cycle of that with a different editor, but they were just a new user randomly reverting IP edits, a fairly standard part of the new-user learning curve. Nevertheless, that puts me at three reverts, so obviously I'm done.
Comment This is not an ANI issue at all; this needs to be taken to WP:AFD to form a definitive consensus. We wouldn't usually support an actor being redirected to their main film in the first place, so everything here has been out of process. Nate•(chatter)22:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I restored the redirect and extended confirmed protected it. There is no evidence whatsoever that this actor is notable. In my opinion, AfD would be a waste of time. Cullen328 (talk) 23:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just add that if anyone wants to try to prove the actor is notable, they're welcome to create that draft and try to get it through AfC. -- asilvering (talk) 23:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While the words appear in scholarly literature, they do not appear to be much studied as generalized phenomena in the sense of, say, Eurocentrism or Anglocentrism. Top results suggest they're mainly used in a descriptive sense, as in 'Foucault may be guilty of a certain amount of Gallocentrism' (i. e. his citations are over-focused on France), etc. More troubling, of course, is the uncritical use of language model-generated text without an attempt to verify whether the sources exist (many of which don't). An explanation and commitment do seem in order. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 01:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My bad for not thoroughly searching the archives, but looking at that thread the issue seems unresolved. They did not make a clear commitment to avoid LLM use, and two people voted to indef him but the thread was archived without closure. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that previous thread makes clear the issue is unresolved and not only acute but also chronic, since Jeaucques Quœure received feedback about LLM use but persisted without changing tack. In fact, Jeaucques Quœure has moreover escalated from editing existing articles to creating new articles. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:02, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the poster of that thread, I was a bit confused by the lack of response, but didn't think much more about it. Now, I would support an INDEF. Remsense ‥ 论02:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have speedily closed both of these nominations as hoaxes. Additionally, someone noted that "Jeaucques" is not a standard spelling of the name, and would be pronounced more like "joke". Using my extremely high IQ, I was able to combine this with "quœure" and get "joker", indicating that this user is a troll and should probably be indeffed. jp×g🗯️10:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Going to push back on this one and play joker's advocate: this could 100% be the derivation of their name, but that in itself wouldn't imply any intent to disrupt or bad faith whatsoever—I don't even think it does that given their behavior here. Remsense ‥ 论10:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree that an interlanguage pun in the username is weak evidence of malicious intent. It's in the realm of possibility that it's a troll's joke to themselves, but it's a leap to get there when it could also just be a well-meaning user's joke to themselves. If my username were Jester, I'd hope that wouldn't be considered evidence of being a troll.More important is whether or not Jeaucques Quœure can recognize the issue here as the community has identified it and commit to not creating articles with hoax content using LLM generators. Since sanctioning is preventative rather than punitive, there's no strict need to demonstrate malice when there's other evidence the behavior is likely to continue (the failure to respond previously and now). While it would be unfortunate to lose a potentially well-meaning user to an indefinite block, I think it's necessary if Jeaucques Quœure does not provide a resolution. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 10:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The username is very weak evidence in its own right, but the previous ANI thread had them doing basically the same thing, with several people supporting an indef on that basis. I am in favor of us having lots of patience for people who are editing in good faith, but adding hoaxes over and over is simply not compatible with good-faith contributions. jp×g🗯️12:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Lightburst's editing at RfA, EfA, and beyond
I hate to be the third person to take Lightburst (talk) here in, like, a week, but I was pinged as a monitor to an EfA he commented on, and at this point, his track record of disruptive editing at RfA and EfA (and outside of it!) is getting difficult to ignore. Here's some examples, all from less than a year ago:
/Red-tailed hawk: Lightburst reverted an admin in order to restore a personal attack so offensive it had to be oversighted later. WP:DE.
/Fathoms Below: Lightburst accused the candidate of "groveling to get the bit", which is clearly false to anyone reading with a shred of AGF. WP:ASPERSION, WP:AGF. (They did strike those comments after I had a conversation with them offwiki.)
/Sdkb: Lightburst reverted a 'crat in order to keep an aspersion of an oppose vote, and accused the 'crat of "tampering". He then opposed while openly admitting that he had no issue with the candidate. WP:POINT, WP:NPA.
He actually threatened to do the same at my second RfA a few months before.
After that, Lightburst was taken to ANI purely for /Sdkb. No action was taken, which worked so well that all of this happened after:
/Elli: Lightburst accused the candidate of supporting off-wiki harassment without evidence, which I removed (1234). They also asked two inappropriate questions of Elli, which I deleted, but they reverted, so RoySmith deleted again. WP:ASPERSION, WP:DE.
/HouseBlaster: Lightburst opposed by twisting a diff of the candidate interacting with a new user so far out of context that there's no possible way it was a good-faith reading. WP:AGF.
/Robert McClenon: Lightburst saidMy impression is that RM has a high opinion of their own opinion. No evidence provided. WP:ASPERSION.
/Queen of Hearts: Lightburst accused the candidate of "attention-seeking" behavior for doing entirely normal things. WP:NPA.
And for some bonus PAs they've made, from August 2023 to present:
Special:Diff/1251536783: Sirfurboy is misleading you because you landed on their side when you supervoted the close.
This AE-logged warning for "discussion style" in BLP and GENSEX (declaring women[] do not have testicles was a fun one to deal with)
I've said it before in an unrelated ANI thread about him, and I'll say it again here: I respect Lightburst for sticking his guns, for expressing strong opinions on RfA. But this is a pretty clear history of aspersions and disruption, and I think Lightburst's participation at RfA and EfA and particular has been pockmarked with a ton of problems. I didn't take action at /Queen of Hearts when I was pinged as a monitor, since I feel like the appropriate remedy here would be above my pay grade given my administrative history with Lightburst at AE and RfA. Out of an abundance of caution, I'm bringing it here for discussion. (A previous discussion proposed a CBAN for WPO-related conduct; I don't think that's necessary here.) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, it seems highly likely that the recent ArbCom case request re: Wikipediocracy is going to have a large part of its scope centre around Lightburst's conduct. Though I think this would be great evidence to bring if/when such case gets accepted, it's unlikely another trip to ANI is going to lead to anything. The "dick list" is what got them brought here the last time and what should have been a quick indef ultimately turned into why there's a case request at ArbCom right now. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)02:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are some intimations at that case request that the scope may pertain to Lightburst while being broader than just Lightburst. In any case, I don't think an Arbitration Committee case prevents the community from taking action here any more than the community taking action here necessarily prevents an Arbitration Committee case from happening. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 04:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I continue to strongly support a community ban of this individual. I've only ever experienced disruption and lack of productivity from them, and the constant AN/I threads are proof of that. Acalamari02:48, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes, I had no idea about the transphobia! The battleground mentality is bad enough, but outright bigotry and hatred? Lock up and throw away the key on this user. Acalamari03:27, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've opposed a Lightburst cban twice, to my recollection, and the one last week was a thin WP:ROPE that I felt necessary given the circumstances. I was not aware of a few past incidents on this list. Between this and their continued behavior since recovering from ANI flu, I support a community ban for Lightburst. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support a community ban. In addition to everything outlined above (and some other stuff that hasn't been mentioned yet and I'm not going to bother reiterating), their statement at ARCA as of this timestamp gives me little confidence that their public participation in an ArbCom case would be at all useful. I don't enjoy supporting CBANs, but I'm even less fond of the disruption that's been caused by this person. — Callitropsis🌲[talk·contribs]03:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support CBAN. We've been trolled enough. Lightburst's commentary at RfA is almost always in the worst faith possible; the phrasing of his opposition to QoH was unreasonable. Frankly, we should have hit the indef button a long time ago, but the second-best time to plant a tree is today, so. ♠PMC♠ (talk)03:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support CBAN and a topic ban from RfA. The constant aspersions towards other editors, PAG violations, and personal attacks needs to stop. The out of the blue accusations that QoH was being overly dramatic is the final straw, as it were. They also, falsely, stated that she voted to sanction me in every proposal- and, when pointed out that this was not true (a less charitable person may call it a lie), failed to apologize or strike their comment. Instead, they doubled down and insisted on calling them relevant concerns. It's exhausting. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 04:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support CBAN. Hopefully I can say this without being branded part of a lynch mob, but yes: Lightburst's long-term pattern of problematic behavior, which the extensive lists here capture only a fraction of, is simply not something I think the community should continue to put up with. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not to say that blatant transphobia as Lightburst has shown isn't again policy, just that we should be careful with citing essays as policy instead of the actual policies they interpret. wound theology◈06:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(We should be careful, and there's no reason to think they weren't here? It is really not problematic at all to cite essays in situations like these: there is a big banner at the top of each essay that explains what that means and how it relates to site policy.)Remsense ‥ 论07:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Essays, in short, should not be cited as policy -- simply because they are not. While there are banners at the top of each essay, as you say, there is a not-insignificant portion of people who do not click on links and assume the WP namespace implies authority.wound theology◈14:07, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editors can cite anything they want when explaining their behavior. Though the essay no queerphobia is not a policy, it is descriptive of our culture here. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:07, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can we just slow down this discussion a bit? This is a severe sanction and shouldn't be open and closed in a matter of hours. Can we have this discussion open at least 48 hours? It should probably also be brought up as a side note at the arbitration case request so that editors there are aware of this discussion. LizRead!Talk!05:20, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, has anybody pushed for a close yet? I'm also not sure I see the connection to the pending arbitration request. This thread appears to be about Lightburst's treatment of other editors, with a strong focus on his treatment of them during RfAs. I don't understand what that has to do with external sites. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 05:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, no one has pushed for a close but I've been here for 11 years, spent many of my early years at ANI and when there is a tidal wave of support for an action like this discussion so far, there is an impetus to bring it to a close as a SNOW close in order not to be a pile-on. But there is a rule to keep these discussion open for at least 24 hours and I was suggesting longer. LizRead!Talk!07:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I get the intent here, but in this case given the frequency with which Lightburst appears here, we've all had more than sufficient time to address their various conduct issues across multiple forums. I think the speed with which your seeing this consensus form is reflective of the complete lack of patience the community has left for their antics. ⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!16:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any way we can see the original context for the “women don’t have testicles” comments? I see that’s raising a lot of hairs and I think it’s important we understand how and why it was said. ꧁Zanahary꧂05:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The material is still publicly available- it wasn't revdelled if that's what you're referring to. But the full sentence From my reading of this hook it seems both gratuitous and biologically incorrect; I may be questioned for saying this but women do not have testicles (found here), which appears to be in reference to Wikipedia following reliable sources and using she/her pronouns to discuss the article's subject. He also tries to diagnose the article subject (I am no expert, but the person must have suffered from Gender dysphoria; that does not appear anywhere in the article), and call her a career criminal (which, without any sources backing him up, appears to be a double-dose of WP:BLP issues). GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 05:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link! It’s possible that LB may have thought that one does not transition, for the purposes of prose with gendered third-person pronouns, until they’ve changed their genitalia, and that thus using "her" was inappropriate before the testicles were removed. It’s wrong as far as wikipedia’s style and the generally accepted standards of style go, but the grammar and language used to refer to transgender persons is something people learn about, often beginning with strange ideas.
If LB was not suggesting a linguistic standard issue and was instead just injecting their own belief against reliable sources, that’s wrong because editor POV should never be factored, but I don’t think they should be punished for the belief itself, which is what the tone of some of the above comments seems to be. So, the worst reading of that particular comment is that LB 1) believes that persons with testicles cannot be women, and 2) tried to wave away the standards in reliable sources because of their own beliefs. The first point is really not problematic; the latter is a problem. I support a topic ban from GENSEX and RFAs, oppose cban. ꧁Zanahary꧂06:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I believe Lightburst's statement that they were expecting somebody to call them transphobic([78]) is evidence of the latter. I don't know about anybody else, but when I'm talking about linguistics, grammar, or the MOS, I try to avoid making statements I believe others will perceive as bigoted. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 07:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lightburst's continued participation at Wikipedia is clearly a net-negative. The individual issues are minor, but they demonstrate an inability to stay out of drama, whether by commenting and opposing at RfA for reasons they can expect to be controversial, continually challenging discussion closes that don't go their way, and most recently posting not-so-subtle insults on their userpage. The first two are fine in the abstract, though Lightburst's behavior in particular has been problematic. While it's often good to have dissenting voices to point out things at RfA that others may have missed, Lightburst's standards and method for evaluating candidates clearly is not within community norms and just makes things much less pleasant. Challenging discussion closes isn't disruptive either, of course, though doing so at Talk:Mamie Lake (Wisconsin)#Merge Proposal (pl) demonstrates a severe lack of judgement. The third, of course, is just flat-out disallowed, and leads me to believe that Lightburst does not care how much drama they cause, most likely because it hasn't led to significant sanctions for them in the past. Well, enough is enough. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support indefinite ban. This should have happened immediately when a sock puppet was identified and blocked and it was revealed that this sock was used to commit multiple instances of voting fraud at AfD and RFA. Perhaps it was an oversight. In any event: enough already. Carrite (talk) 06:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Almost every single time I have encountered Lightburst, it has been due to them going far out of their way to mess with people, for no conceivable reason other than the thrill of the hunt. Sure, any of the RfA comments on their own are at least remotely within the bounds of something a reasonable person might think -- but they do this over and over and over, each time coming up with some completely new outrageous contortion (that they've never mentioned before and never mention again). It would be one thing if they actually had a consistent set of principles that caused them to come into conflict with others, but it is obvious to me that they do not; they're just throwing crap at the wall to see what sticks. Similary, the sockpuppet thing is just absurd. It feels like every week Lightburst ends up here for doing some new, utterly pointless thing that accomplishes nothing other than causing extreme discomfort for other people. What was the point of the "list of dicks"? It doesn't make any sense. And there's no point in coming up with some enumerated list of things Lightburst isn't allowed to do. The issue is not that they simply don't understand that doing these things is asinine and causes disruption. That said, it is quite regrettable that there is a website where a couple of stupid assholes have gone digging around to find his real name, and that people have gleefully cackled the rudest sorts of remarks there. But this does not mean that you can just do any crap whatsoever onwiki. jp×g🗯️07:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support CBAN. I hope that the disruption at QoH EFA can be collapsed or move to the talk page, as this kind of attack in highly improper (I've offered to nom, so involved). Enough is enough. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
support: HouseBlaster, Elli, & jpxg put it well enough. the QoH thing is just especially ridiculous because as anyone who knows her knows, she's about as uncontroversial as it gets and unfailingly kind - what's his damage?? ... sawyer * he/they * talk08:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
LightBurst has apparently been an active editor since 2019, and decided to commence collating Richards on 17 October 2024. To me, this by itself betrays an unacceptable disconnect in priorities with the community, well after the point where one could be unaware of that fact. The only reason that wouldn't warrant a block or ban in itself is because there's only been a few days in which they've not apologized or made any reflective remarks to speak of. Unfortunately, to my significant surprise there appears to be more than that one piece of inculpatory evidence. Support CBAN – this would've put me in the stark minority of that proposal, but I admit I cannot see how. Remsense ‥ 论08:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support indef CBAN - I opposed this very sanction last week, despite this evidence of other past distruption also being mentioned [79]. But I was very clear in my comment that I believed apologies were due. The AN/I thread I started was caused by this experienced editor disruptively reverting a properly and independently closed discussion, and rather than saying sorry and moving on, it descended into aspersions and name calling, including aspersions against the closer of the discussion even after the decision was endorsed, and then led to another thread over petulant name calling. It seems that the close call in those threads were not enough (and AN/I flu seems to have prevented Lightburst from actually addressing and apologising for anything there). Now we have yet more doubling down and aspersions that have once again brought Lightburst here. In the light of all the other evidence, it would be indefensible to allow Lightburst to continue editing without requiring he address the multiple and persistent issues in a community review. Therefore an indefinite ban is, sadly, necessary. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:35, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have indefinitely blocked Lightburst as a normal adminstative action because of the evidence of disruption presented here and at other recent conversations. I note that a respected administrator Liz believes that the community ban discussion should continue for at least 48 hours. So, this is not a community ban yet at this point but things seem to be trending in that direction. I will be going to sleep shortly and if any other adminstrator concludes that I have overstepped, please feel free to reverse my block. I will check in again in the morning, California time. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 09:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support it's been clear for some months now that Lightburst is essentially trolling. I don't know when he decided that disruption for disruption's sake was a good way to go—perhaps after Moneytrees report, when he seems to have felt victimised by the community?—but if you're going to wage a guerilla war against the community this is the only place it is going to end up. Shame about the userpage images, though. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support CBAN - A dozen incidents ago, some sock tried to take lightburst to ANI for exactly this RFA behaviour. Nothing happened, but I saved a link because of how clearly the disruptive pattern was evident even then. The Moneytrees report should have been enough, and Lightburst's rebuttal was even more damning. If this were a newcomer, they'd be permabanned at least 50 times by now. Soni (talk) 10:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I believe I supported a Cban last time based on that evidence; since then, however, LB retired. My support for a community ban is resurgent on the grounds that anyone who comes out of retirement explicitly to attack other editors is not just a recividist but demonstrates an an incorrigible refusal to change. A reed that does not bend is likely to break. SerialNumber5412910:21, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At some point, someone could write a tragic black dramedy about a bright-eyed inclusionist contrarian setting out on a Wikipedian adventure. He enjoys creating and improving articles and saving articles from being deleted. He gets into some disputes, falls down, gets back up, falls down again, receives some insults/attacks, and slowly sets down a self-destructive spiral. The star is a frustrating character that you can't help but feel for, but he just keeps making things worse for himself unnecessarily. You might find yourself watching through cracks in your fingers, yelling at the screen as he does something which you know will just get him in trouble and make the harassment he receives worse. He airs grievances counterproductively, digs in at the wrong times, breaks norms when dealing with conflict, appears to just want to troll sometimes, and otherwise can't seem to help getting people mad at him. Like that "The List of Richards" episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm, but fewer fun tuba songs and more angry guitars. ...At this point, I cannot imagine this experience is enjoyable for LB; I hope you'll find another intellectual stimulating but more peaceful activity in its stead for now. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 12:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SupportWP:CBAN. Additionally I also support a WP:TBAN from GENSEX and RFA, broadly construed. While there are many apt statements in this discussion, Alalch E. and Mztourist put it best that LB should have been banned based on Moneytrees' report. It saddens me that this has taken up so much community time to deal with this troll. We all could have spent that time doing more productive things. TarnishedPathtalk12:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I didn't participate in the last thread at all although I was deeply concerned about Lightburst's personal attacks and was in fact much more supportive of sanctions against them than the other editor who was sanctioned. Still I saw merit in just putting it down to a one time error and hoping they'd improve. It's clear from the evidence that not only have they not improved but they've been at this for a long time. So it doesn't seem they're likely to improve and a community ban is well justified. Nil Einne (talk) 13:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: to clarify I mean an indef cban. I'd also support an indefinite. I'm not so sure about gensex though. I'm not opposed but while I would have supported at the time, it's not clear to me if that particular behaviour has repeated since the warning and while what happened combined with Lightburst's general poor regard for the community's concerns doesn't fill me with confidence, the lack of anything since means I can't support. Nil Einne (talk) 14:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, reluctantly (CBan, block I support with no reservations) as I was opposed, including JSS? proposal in recent weeks. Lightburst, this is no boogieman's fault. This is your own undoing and I have no idea what you were trying to accomplish. StarMississippi13:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support CBAN, sometimes a forced break is the only remedy. This is one of those cases, and it's clear LB doesn't care about the project anymore, because he knows this kind of consistent and continued disruptive behavior will eventually lead to this exact outcome.Isaidnoway(talk)13:49, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support against the backdrop of everything else that's already going on, engaging in further disruptive behavior at EfA was a really poor decision. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the myriad problems listed above. I would ask the community, however, that in the event that the Wikipediocracy case is accepted, that the block not be implemented until after the case so long as Lightburst only communicates relevant information about the arbitration case, on the relevant arbitration pages, and doesn't directly interact with other editors. I believe bending over backwards to make sure an arbitration case -- especially one that will likely be controversial and involve many long-time editors -- is fair and run with as much regularity as possible is of great value to the community. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support My involvement in the recent Lightburst threads involving WPO harassment and canvassing about individual article discussions was solely about that issue (and ongoing issues of it against many other editors recently and long into the past). So not about this editor's character and conduct themselves. In fact, I was unaware of all the RfA issues that have been ongoing in the past year or the AE warning. In light of that, it does seem like their conduct as of late especially has just been to be disruptive in such discussions for no apparent reason. I see no other option than to support. SilverserenC15:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not allowed to edit ANI now, but I see the discussion and I understand my colleagues loss of patience. Just a note to say, for some reason, Leeky has been accusing me of Gensex violations since I was warned. I messaged Tamzin this year (nothing remotely gensex) and Leeky came to ANI and voted to Cban me mentioning Gensex. In the case of my message on the QOH RfA discussion, it was not remotely Gensex related. (As I said I do not even edit Gensex subjects) I looked at cQOH'sontributions and I pointed out some curious actions that looked like drama seeking. Leeky editorialized at this ANI saying: QOH was "doing entirely normal things". That is why we vote, we interpret things differently - I did not think it was normal. I see my comment there was erased now but I still struggle to see what was wrong it.
Finally these past few weeks I have been taken to ANI three times and Arbcom once. One ANI was for when I reverted a merge. After that ANI closed I posted scrambled words on my user page about WPO members who had been trolling me for a long time - and targeted that article. When that ANI closed I was taken to Arbcom where I admitted to my disruption and asked for an investigation into WPO members. Then I made one edit to the QOH RfA discussion and was swiftly taken to ANI again. Let the record show that a person cannot survive three ANIs with Cban requests, and an Arbcom case in such a short time. I saw in the ANI someone said, "Some people we just cannot work with". That deeply hurts, but it is profound, simple, and clearly stated. I have enjoyed growing and editing here. I learned much and I hope I was able to contribute some good. I have no hard feelings. Can I ask for courtesy blanking at the conclusion? I would appreciate it. Lightburst (talk) 15:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Support CBAN or siteban. For over the past year and a half, I've seen them berate others over the most minute things. Then they want to make dramatizations about candidates (maybe out of spite?). They are no longer here to build an encyclopedia. Conyo14 (talk) 16:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support CBAN - I was unaware of the depths of Lightburst's disruption, and now that I am I cannot support anything less than a ban. I just hope this doesn't distract from the larger issue at hand. - ZLEAT\C16:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support CBAN and TBAN from the GENSEX area at a minimum. I wasn't going to pile on to this, until I saw Lightburst's response (linked by HouseBlaster above). It doesn't give me any confidence that they actually understand why their behavior has driven the community to this point, and doesn't show the level of actual contrition and acceptance of responsibility I want to see to avoid a CBAN. ⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!16:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should probably be noted that Marine 69-71 is an admin. If I wasn't otherwise occupied, I'd bring this repeated defiance of core Wikipedia policy to ArbCom, with the proposal that Marine 69-71 be desysopped. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting here that the autographs page doesn't qualify for speedy deletion, as the csd that corresponds to NOTWEBHOST is U5, which only applies to those with few or no contributions outside of userspace. That being said, I'm looking into the process of starting an MFD. I do agree that it is a NOTWEBHOST violation. GrayStorm(Complaints Dept.|My Contribs.)03:43, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was surprised this editor is an admin as I haven't run into them in standard admin areas of work. They haven't used the tools in a long time. LizRead!Talk!04:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An administrator with eighty thousand edits over the course of twenty years is using his sandbox to host a couple text files? Why are you going through his userspace to harass this guy? This is completely ridiculous. jp×g🗯️06:48, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there's anything here that is actually disruptive to the functioning of the project, it is people who have a bizarre obsession with prowling other people's userspace to find "incorrect" things and delete them. Since this has literally zero bearing on the functioning of Wikipedia, my only possible conclusion is that there is some kind of jouissance derived from the act of destroying a thing that someone else cares about. Who gives a damn? Do you have any sense of scale whatsoever? This is 34 kilobytes. Do you have any idea how much it costs to host 34 kilobytes? It is not even really possible to measure the cost of hosting an amount of data this small. jp×g🗯️06:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read any of what I wrote? We have literally millions of words of policy. Why does this matter? What bad thing happens from him having this page in his userspace? Why does it need to go away? "Mztourist personally thinks it is fun to delete things" is not a valid reason for it to go away. jp×g🗯️07:27, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's trivial. But NOTWEBHOST is a policy. Unless you are suggesting that we make exceptions to policy for veteran editors? And an admin should definitely know better. More to the point, you're not addressing the elephant in the room - that Marine69-71 used his admin tools to protect a page to prevent it being going through a deletion process - with the protection summary "persistent vandalism" no less. Black Kite (talk)07:33, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a "suggestion", it's a policy... and, specifically, one considered important enough to be one of the five that override everything else.
If nobody can be bothered to articulate a reason why doing something improves the project, it should not be done. jp×g🗯️08:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JPxG, if you wish to propose a modification to WP:NOTWEBHOST, you are free to do so. Meanwhile it is policy, for contributors with eighty thousand edits, as with eight, since Wikipedia doesn't currently hand out perks for contribution history. As for the price of storing data, I've never seen any suggestion that the policy was based around this. I rather had the impression that it was more to do with the obvious difficulties in allowing a multitude of off-topic and un-watched pages to exist in the background. There are a great deal of ways such a facility can potentially be misused, possibly even to the extent of putting the project at legal risk. Content that has 'zero bearing on the functioning of Wikipedia' can be stored elsewhere, since, as you note, the cost of storing 34 KB is negligible. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well, I think it's cool, and I have learned more about the editor by reading it. I feel like, knowing more about him, it is easier to work in a collegial environment with him. This makes it directly relevant to the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. Does every userpage need to have a 27B/6 statement of basic human empathy at the top, to explain the purpose of human interaction, so as to deter roaming people whose hobby is nominating things for deletion? jp×g🗯️07:35, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how an egocentric autographs page: "Famous People Who Have Had The Honor Of Meeting "The Marine" on top of a very lengthy User page and a page about himself Tony Santiago makes you "feel like, knowing more about him, it is easier to work in a collegial environment with him. This makes it directly relevant to the collaborative nature of Wikipedia." nor is that a policy based justification. Mztourist (talk) 07:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, to be clear, your rationale for why this should be deleted is that you personally consider the editor to be egocentric? Or is this simply an irrelevant insult? jp×g🗯️09:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, my rationale is that WP:NOTWEBHOST is a policy that applies to everyone. I don't need to provide any further justification. You are also ignoring the fact that he repeatedly reinstated information that was deleted in a deletion discussion, together with other abuses of Admin privileges that have been identified. Mztourist (talk) 10:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what this has to do with the topic, but please feel free to let me know what terminology you'd prefer I use to describe a person who joined a discord, scraped hundreds of my posts to figure out where my family vacation was, and then posted their findings in a public message board thread (since "some crazy guy" is out). jp×g🗯️15:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not insulting you, I am asking whether you have read the page, because you are making inaccurate claims about what it says.
Here is what it says:
Wikipedians have individual user pages, but they should be used primarily to present information relevant to work on the encyclopedia. Limited autobiographical information is allowed, but user pages do not serve as personal webpages, blogs, or repositories for large amounts of material irrelevant to collaborating on Wikipedia.
It does not say that people are not allowed to host personal content in their userspace. In fact, it specifically says that they are, and links to WP:UPYES, an extremely long page detailing what types of things. jp×g🗯️15:43, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have not made any inaccurate claims about what NOTWEBHOST says, so you clearly were and continue to insult me. Marine 69-71 already has a very lengthy userpage (largest I can recall) and his own WP page, so he already has or exceeds the allowance for limited autobiographical information. The autographs page and his The Marine and the Girl Next Door clearly serve as personal webpages or blogs (so size is irrelevant). Those pages do not present any information relevant to work on the encyclopedia and are not covered by WP:UPYES. Mztourist (talk) 16:27, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know how to explain this in a clearer way: the words "large" and "any" have different meanings. Terms like "limited" are subjective -- the policy does not give a rigid black-and-white definition for every single scenario. The policy only says that editors should discuss the issue; it does not demand that they reach your specific conclusion. jp×g🗯️17:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to propose an amendment to WP:NOTWEBHOST policy on that basis, do so. Meanwhile, what we appear to have learned most about this editor is that he appears not to think policies apply to him. A poor characteristic in an admin. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding both 'empathy' and WP:NOTWEBHOST policy, JPxG might do well to take a look at the bottom of this 'Wall of Honor' formerly found in Marine 69-71's user space. [86] Evidently, misuse of user space (amongst other things) has been an issue for some time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what kind of personal dispute you have with this guy that causes you to have thirteen-year-old diffs of him being rude to someone in his sandbox laying around, but it does not really seem relevant to whether it is administrator misconduct for him to have a user page listing all the famous people he's met. jp×g🗯️09:57, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It shows a long history of unfitness to be an Admin. Again you are solely focussing on the autographs, while ignoring the repeated restoration of deleted content. Mztourist (talk) 10:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This entire dispute is petty and pointless. NOTWEBHOST doesn't need to be so strictly enforced against long-time editors. However, Marine 69-71 doesn't seem to use the admin tools much and their usage in many cases seems iffy (e.g. an unnecessary full-protection); I suggest they resign the tools unless they can commit to reading up on current community norms before taking any more admin actions (otherwise, they will likely lose the tools if this goes to ArbCom). Elli (talk | contribs) 07:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is reinstating content after a closed deletion discussion "petty and pointless"? I certainly agree that they should resign their Admin tools or be desysopped. Mztourist (talk) 07:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does this really rise to abuse of admin tools that calls for an arbitration case? We're talking about a couple of User pages. I'd feel differently if they were active as an admin and not following guidelines but this really seems like a marginal case. If brought to ARBCOM, I think they would decline a case based on the information presented here. I'm not saying that this isn't violating policy but I think it's important to keep things in perspective. LizRead!Talk!07:27, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this necessarily warrants an ArbCom case and I certainly won't be filing one, but take a look at their protection logs and you'll see what I mean: the few actions they take are often outside of community standards. Given how little they use the tools, this doesn't cause a high amount of harm, but also given that, it would be better if they just resigned the tools. Elli (talk | contribs) 07:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've repaired the link above to User talk:Marine 69-71/Archive 52#Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:Marine 69-71/Archive 49, and I stand by what I said there. I'm not so concerned about the autographs page as the recreation - again! - of the juvenile superhero fanfiction that was deleted by community consensus at MFD. When new users behave the way Marine 69-71 has, we block them.I won't say implementing community consensus is job 1 for admins, but it's at least job 3 or 4, and we've desysopped admins who use their extra permissions (in this case viewdeleted and protection) in direct defiance of consensus. Rama springs immediately to mind, and that despite Rama ultimately being right on the underlying issue, a mitigating factor not present here. —Cryptic07:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, from his talk page I see Andy leading off with You are clearly entirely unsuited to be an administrator, and seem to be treating Wikipedia as your own personal plaything, and a few other people saying things to the effect that the page is inappropriate, to which he says "Ok, you all make sense and therefore the content involved has been removed".
For the record --it is somewhat confusing because of the dates being a couple days ago -- these talk page comments are actually from October 2023, not 2024. jp×g🗯️10:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I made the dates very clear in my opening statement, there is no confusion as to what was done and said on what dates. Mztourist (talk) 10:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After Marine 69-71 recreated the MfD-deleted fanfic page and was talked to and it was deleted again, he hasn't done such a thing again has he? Edit: he has. Due to this alone, I generally support the idea that this editor should not be an administrator anymore.—Alalch E.12:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never saw the fanfic but since people are calling it a fanfic does this mean it was based on the characters of DC or otherwise someone else's copyright IP? If so, there seems to be an obvious problem no one seems to have raised before namely WP:copyvio. As explained at Legal issues with fan fiction, the legality of fan fiction is complicated and often untested. Importantly, the fact that this work is clearly non commercial doesn't mean it's okay especially if it's no a parody or criticism. Also by releasing it here as their own work, Marine 69-71 has claimed that it's available under the GFDL and Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 Licence both of which allow commercial use which seems to clearly be not the case.
There are plenty of sites which chose to host fanfics either under an expansive but often untested definition of fair use or under the assumption copyright holders won't sue them if they are willing to take down works on request given the controversy this will likely ensue. I'd note that most of them are also explicit that content hosted on them are derivatives works which cannot be reproduced commercially. Importantly en.wikipedia is not one such site and WP:NOTWEBHOST etc makes it clear we're not in this line of hosting content. We do have provisions for fair use under NFCC etc, but these aren't intended for editors making fanfics. Notably, we explicit do not care if we're never going to be sued over something.
This doesn't apply to anything else discussed, but since editors still seem to be suggesting that even the fanfic was okay and some even seem to be suggesting that reproducing the fanfic after the deletion was okay because it's not causing harm but they seem to have missed an obvious harm. (While I support deletion of them all, I looked at them and there doesn't seem any clear other problem with them. I did wonder about BLP but frankly the autograph stuff is so innocuous it seems a stretch to me.)
P.S. Having found a copy on the internet archive it is what I thought although perhaps more innocuous considering it was mostly just a bunch of lists. Still this doesn't rule out it violating DC or whoever's copyright and with no reason to keep it we shouldn't be hosting such things considering the risks that it is a copyright violation. Significantly, it doesn't seem to me to be the sort of thing which could be defended as a parody or criticism.
I'd add that even if an editor is able to make a convincing argument that the fanfic is not a copyvio, this still highlights the problems with these sort of things just like when I evaluated the autographs page for BLP-vios. Editors should not have to evaluate if these pages which aren't part of improving wikipedia violate any of our core policies and pillars because they should not exist. The fact that one or more editor needs to spend time considering such things is evidence of harm to the community from hosting such things. Editors who want to host them are free to do so on the myriad of other sites which do allow hosting such things and where violation of their policies or ToS/ToU is hopefully being evaluated either by paid staff or at least volunteer moderators who have signed up for that sort of thing which no one here did. I mean if some editor defending such works is able to demonstrate they have sufficient experience with BLP, copyvio, NPA etc etc and is going to volunteer to evaluate all such things as required perhaps we could discuss changing policy. But so far this hasn't happened and the fact I was the first one I'm aware of to raise copyvio concerns suggests to me that we don't have such an editor. Nil Einne (talk) 15:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They're in Mztourist's first paragraph above, but to save you the trouble of picking out the right links, the first recreation a year ago is still visible in page history here and was essentially identical to the sandbox deleted at MFD; the part of it recreated a week and a half ago is here (permalink). —Cryptic17:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When new users behave the way Marine 69-71 has, we block them. Yes, we block them for WP:NOTHERE. Marin 69-71 is "here". This board will defend to the death e.g. EEng's right to have a massive unusable userpage filled with NOTWEBHOST stuff (not to mention any other well connected long-term user), but this obscure subpage is over the line? (Sorry to drag you into this, EEng -- not trying to start yet another thread about your page here). To quote myself from the original MfD, why don't people have better things to do than to trawl through other people's user space looking for silliness to waste community time on? Who cares if there's some fluff in there? Nobody will ever see it if they're not looking for makework. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 14:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've never defended to death EEng's crap. I haven't defended it point blank. That said, for all the problem with a lot of what EEng does, I'm not aware they generally have COPYVIO problems so there is an obvious difference between what EEng does and the catalyst for concerns over Marine 69-71. Nil Einne (talk) 14:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm wrong, but personally I don't see that recreating and full protecting something that was MfD'd demonstrates a proper understanding of what admin tools are for, not to mention the clear cut WP:ADMINACCT violation. I find the frequent contrarian attitude of "actually it's the people fixing things who are wrong" rather tiring. And now I'm just spitballing, but I'd also be willing to treat "why are you hunting through people's userspace" as assuming bad faith. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some thoughts, not particularly in priority order:
I do not particularly care about their user page containing some WEBHOSTY stuff even if that's technically a violation. I would advocate IAR in this case, with one exception.
That exception would be the superhero fanfic page, which given what I know of the editor makes me wonder if there's an account compromise issue going on? (Note: to @Nil Einne:'s question, I don't think there's a copyvio issue, from what I saw it was just a massive list of characters.)
The lack of communication raises legitimate WP:ADMINACCT concerns. But would like to hear from Tony here, in this venue, before anyone actions on that.
We do not yet have an admin recall process, and these concerns do not rate an ArbCom case (the main existing method for desysopping), nowhere close. We should not be using this minor issue as a way to backdoor into recalling an admin for lack of activity w/ the tools. We already have a process for that, and if they don't qualify, then they don't qualify. ⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!17:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that recreating and fully protecting the page is clearly unwarranted, and a straightforward misuse of the tools; I don't know what specific response is warranted in this case, but it is not good to have done that.
If this is an isolated hiccup, I would prefer that he put forth some effort to keep up with modern norms. If this is part of a recurring pattern and not a weird isolated hiccup, I would recommend he resign the bit, or prepare for the next one (or perhaps this one) to go to arbitration and end with a desysop. jp×g🗯️17:13, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it occurs to me that this is a very prime example of the kind of thing which WP:XRV was meant to deal with, although I don't really know what XRV would do that ANI couldn't. jp×g🗯️17:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User harassment: Albertatiran
hi. The user @Albertatiran has been reverting my edits regarding the page Ja'far al-Sadiq and multiple people sided with me. I see he was blocked just in May earlier this year for doing the same to another user. Then he threatened on the talk page to "take the issue to ANI" and that if he "gets lucky" he'll "get my account blocked indefinitely." This is a very radical and disrespectful thing to say to anyone and he's basically harassing me at this point in my view to start threats like that because he simply disagrees. My points are solid and sources are solid for what I wrote. I think my edits are fine. They already exist on another wikipedia.org page, Nader Shah and have been accepted there anyways so I'm not even really adding much new info. So to say such extreme things is quite radical. I'll add that the reason i made those simple additions to the Ha'far al-Sadiq page and the Ja'fari School page is because they say nothing about the actual sunni views. They almost exclusively present shia views. So simply adding more info to the Sunni views or simply stating the history of the school using the Encyclopedia iranica (which is actually written by iranians and not sunni scholars anyways) is not in any way controversial, and again this
info already exists on the Nader Shah page anyways and has for a long time. There's no contention here. It just appears to be squelching to me, if I'm not mistaken. DivineReality (talk) 07:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When you bring a complaint to ANI, you have to provide "diffs" or edits that demonstrate the behavior you are talking about. Your narrative statement about the other editor is insufficient. Editors have to be able to investigate this conduct to see whether there is any basis to this complaint. So, please supplement your complaint with some examples of some specific edits that illustrate the problem. And I assume you have already informed Albertatiran of this filing on their User talk page as required with any case on ANI or another noticeboard. If not, please do so. LizRead!Talk!07:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As for me: I request that my edits be considered valid and stay, and that this particular user stop reverting my edits and then going to extremes and possibly harassment on talk pages.
As for me, I am not "edit warring," I change my edits to conform to his requests actually (see page history, I make a change each time I edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ja%27far_al-Sadiq&action=history), then he says other things. It feels more like attempting to squelch me at this point rather than specifically mention my various edits and try to work with me, ending in a personal threat (cited above).
You're both edit warring. I don't see anything which can be called a consensus in that discussion. Yes there might nominally be two other participants but one of them was just created to comment and has done noting else. The other at least is an older account still with only limited editing & with only a single comment I don't think it counts much. In other words, rather than edit warring both of you need to try and somehow get more editor involvement given that it seems you cannot resolve among current participants. And as for threatening to bring you to ANI, well it's an empty threat unless you did something worth sanctioning, in fact if your belief that it's them that is the problem is correct, it's a dumb threat at that. And since you actually brought them to ANI, I don't think them earlier threatening to bring you to ANI could be a problem. Perhaps if there was evidence of them persistently making such empty threats especially to new editors who might not understand it's an empty threat things might be different but otherwise it's just meh IMO. Nil Einne (talk) 10:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm coming here in the aftermath of a complete mess of a thread at VPP on the topic of religious tolerance and WP:FRINGE. I'm acutely aware that this may look like a vindictive ANI because the thread didn't go my way, and that's not my intent. To that effect, I'm not asking for any individual sanctions, I would merely like a statement and warning that calling someone WP:PROFRINGE for policy disagreements counts as WP:ASPERSIONS and isn't okay, and an apology for some of the more explicit accusations. I will also accept evidence that the accusations were grounded in lieu of any apology, because I'm not trying to be unreasonable here. That said, throughout the thread and in the closing of it, things got messy and personal, with editors on the majority side accusing editors on the dissenting side of being WP:NOTHERE (which both I and @SamuelRiv were accused of by @Bon courage) and the entire thread itself stemming from me being butthurt (direct quote) and other wonderful things like:
However, there is a common problem of proselytizers of particular faiths, especially but not exclusively new relgious movements [note to Warrenmck: that phrase is not a proper name and does not take capitals as "New Religious Movements", and your use of that overcapitalization, like much of your general approach here, hints at promotionalism]
(complete aside, but they're actually wrong about the use of capitalization in the field of religious studies, so it's a bit of a weird jump to view that as evidence of promotionalism) and, when asked to explain or strike the promotionalism comment, they decided to double down and accuse me of secretly harbouring fringe beliefs:
One does not get to (in this thread) support actions that would release a flood of fringe nonsense on WP by demonizing fringe-watching editors as a pack of bigots and undercutting the guidelines and processes they rely on, and (in the RfC thread) try to nuke the venue by which the community handles this, yet then claim that one is really an anti-fringe editor simply because there's a diff somewhere of one supporting removal of a fringe thing. Not all fringe material is created equal, and it's common to scoff at various fringe things while believing or being undecided about others.
This is, frankly, beyond exhausting. The actions they're referring to are specifically how I voted in an RfC, where I voted against weakening WP:FRINGE. It is possible to disagree with the status quo without that magically transforming anyone who holds that opinion into a crypto-fringe theorist out to harm wikipedia. A majority of my edits on wikipedia are removing fringe content (see the Shungite article, which I rewrote completely, for example). I've asked for this to be struck and I've asked for these accusations to be backed up and explained, but it's apparently easier to lob accusations and ghost.
Neither I, nor any editor on either side of that whole discussion, should have to put up with personal character attacks for a disagreement of opinion, especially in way that may impact someone's ability to be taken seriously as an editor in the future, which a WP:PROMOTIONAL or WP:PROFRINGE accusation risks.
If my behaviour here is out of line, I am absolutely willing to accept a WP:BOOMERANG. I legitimately just want civility restored and editors to walk back some fairly absurd accusations which have been thrown around pretty wantonly, not just in this thread but going forward in discussions that may come up around contentious topics. If I've played an instrumental role in that loss of civility then I probably deserve some sanctions here too, I know my frustration at the accusations bled through in places I probably should have stepped back from sooner. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ14:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Warrenmck: If you are truly concerned about someone's ability to be taken seriously as an editor, I suggest that you quickly withdraw this complaint. You have already raised this point several times, and because it has a clear (in my opinion) personal tone of re-litigation/sour grapes, it is unlikely to produce an outcome that benefits the project. Referring to your exhaust[ion] and frustration suggests that a much better course of action is to move on. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:33, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relitigation of what? The non-existent previous ANI thread? As far as I know the allegations of aspersions-casting were not discussed in any meaningful way in previous threads. WADroughtOfVowelsP16:35, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No thanks. And like I said, I'm open to a boomerang but I'm not really willing to just accept the accusations that have been routinely thrown at me and other editors. None of us should have to tolerate aspersions and verbal abuse (which was happening) because we disagreed with what ended up being a clear majority consensus. That you see it as sour grapes is fine, there's not much I can do to avoid some editors having that perception, especially to an editor who viewed even raising the RfC as inappropriate in the thread in question.
You have already raised this point several times
No, I haven't. There's a difference between the point being made in the underlying VPP thread, which is already well settled by the community, and the abject abandonment of WP:AGF and WP:ASPERSIONS taken up by some editors in response to an RfC and VPP posting they didn't like. Keep in mind that the accusations and doubling down partially came after the clear result of the RfC.
a much better course of action is to move on.
Of course. But in the same breath an editor doesn't need to, nor do they get to, double down on baseless accusations and expect the other editor move on. You can tell me to move on until the cows come home, but that doesn't change the underlying behaviour that I'm supposed to move on from. An ANI is the appropriate venue, and I shouldn't have to take the high ground: none of us should be accusing other editors baselessly. There's a reason I'm fully willing to have my own imperfect behaviour examined here. The best I can do to make this not look like I'm being vindictive in opening an ANI is ask for no individual, specific sanctions and ask for no policy changes resulting from this. It was very, very clear that people were mapping a policy disagreement to an assumption that someone is actively detrimental to Wikipedia and were acting accordingly. That's not how any of this works, but that's exactly what routine accusations of WP:PROFRINGE, WP:PROMOTIONAL, and WP:NOTHERE are.
Me being on the (overwhelmingly) losing side of a VPP thread does not change the acceptability of any editor's behaviour. And in not asking for specific individual sanctions, but rather an acknowledgement that a specific mode of casting aspersions isn't okay, I'm hoping that I'm making the focus of this ANI crystal clear in that my goal is to avoid editors going around ranting that someone who disagreed with them is WP:PROFRINGE when WP:AGF is right there next to it as far as policies go. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ16:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now, today I found VosleCap's talk page, where Benga502 responded to User:HouseBlaster's arbcom notification with: Okay, he/they. A little further down, there is a warning for VosleCap posting slurs on Benga502's talk page (for which alone VosleCao should have been blocked), and Benga502 tried to goad User:OXYLYPSE into repeating those slurs. Note also the general childish nonsense these two users post at each other on their talk pages. Finally, after I again reverted Benga502 at Gender binary today, the two accounts posted [[Special:PermanentLink/1253366422#user page|childish nonsense]] on my user talk page, only 52 seconds apart. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH)16:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
very popular among transphobes? bro, adult human female is the definition of a woman from the oxford dictionary. is the english language transphobic? are you opposed to grammar? Benga502 (talk) 16:57, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is one dictionary definition, one that is not inherently incompatible with the existence of transgender or non-binary people. Despite this, "adult human female" is a phrase that has become associated with prominent anti-trans figures and views, so you really shouldn't be surprised when you receive pushback for using it in this context. WindTempos(talk • contribs)17:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
just to respond to a couple more of your allegations, saying 'okay, he/they' is an effort to respect your pronouns which are grammatically wrong if you ask me. am i transphobic for being a supporter of correct grammar? in addition, saying 'i suspect they are more than that' is a blatant attempt to 'trigger' others you disagree with. this will not work. i suggest you stop this aggressive and fundamentally unnecessary and unkind practice as it is commonplace in your community and does nothing but frustrate and irritate others that may struggle to agree or at all relate with your point of view, which is controversial in society. the content i removed in Gender binary was a 'source' that claims that the gender binary - which is scientifically proven, there are two factual genders that is not a transphobic statement, it is a fact no matter how much you may disagree with it - supports white supremacy, which very little other sources actually support and in fact i do believe it is completely and fundamentally incorrect and wrong, which is why i cast doubt on it on the article, as the entire basis behind including that text in the article is that it is a sourced critique, not fact. Benga502 (talk) 17:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
also, quick question, your page claims that you are an anarchist. i believe anarchism as an ideology rejects all forms of authority - the wikipedia administrators one could argue are a form of authority, so why is it that you recognize this? Benga502 (talk) 17:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
please have a look at all my contributions before claiming that, i have made numerous constructive, informative and valuable edits. that is frankly misinformation. Benga502 (talk) 17:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
. Myrealnamm (💬pros · 📜cons) 22:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
.png){kind=link}