Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1162

Persistent incivility by EEng

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello, I've been seeking consensus at Talk:Sacred Cod#Good Article reassessment (2) and Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Sacred Cod/2, but user EEng has continued to resort to ad hominem and profanity. I've tried to resolve this with him but it's getting very frustrating. Can somebody take a look here, because I feel like this is a clear violation of WP:UNCIVIL. Cpotisch (talk) 11:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Profanity, is not itself against the rules, and I am not seeing anything actionable, at worst its borderline. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to read closely what EEng has written, particularly because you haven't provided any diffs of the statements you find uncivil. What I did see was a thorough analysis by EEng intermixed with complaints about you expecting others to do your work for you. Some of it, not surprisingly knowing EEng, is acerbic and blunt, but if I were you, I'd try to learn from EEng's experience. Frankly, it looks like you're unhappy that EEng is not impressed with what you've done - and I believe they're not alone.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

EEng’s comments are extremely and unnecessarily uncivil.

Please use a dictionary in the future to learn what things mean without requiring your fellow editors to educate you. Maybe improve your googling skills [15], but honestly, your native shrewdness should have allowed you to work the meaning out for yourself by using what your teacher probably calls "using context clues".

The article body recites that "the State House burned". When you say something "burned", you're saying it was destroyed by fire. I would have thought you'd have known that without having to be told.

First of all, presumably where you say unequivocating, you really mean unequivocal -- you might try looking those up in a dictionary (maybe while you're looking up "to the life").

It's simple. A course on logic might help you.

you may want to review 8th-grade English.

Oh sorry, you're not a high school student? You'll forgive my mistake.

No, smartypants, … You've got a lot to learn, see, and the sooner you start talking less and listening more, the better.

I’m sorry, but what the fuck is this supposed to be? It’s completely bizarre, and obviously unnecessary. Most editors have learned to respond to criticism they find undue without doing a Young Sheldon impression. I don’t see any reason why this bullying (no matter how limp) does not detract from the project—especially considering that any newer editor speaking this way to a veteran would be blocked in thirty seconds. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound chiding, but rather than providing out of context presumed quotes, I highly recommend that you provide diffs, which will enable editors to directly review what EEng might have said. DonIago (talk) 16:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

True. I’m not going to dig for diffs right now, as I’m on mobile, but all of these come from the first discussion linked in the original post. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Doniago what is the point of simultaneously suggesting quotes are taken out of context and requiring diffs? The entire context is provided in the above link, and reading the entire thing is a more useful exercise than trying to boil things down to a single edit.

This is a usual pattern: someone brings up critiques, and rather than just refute them, Eeng decides to raise the temperature of the discussion to 100 degrees by insulting and belittling the other editor. I'm not sure what context would make that better, and I'm not sure how there's any necessity for Weng's response. This is ultimately about a longtime editor who cannot brook any criticism of "their" work without responding in this egregious manner (and it's not just the above editor who's raised it, since the critiques go back to the [GAR] and other uninvolved editors raised other concerns.[1]) We absolutely would block a new editor who tried this. I don't see why Eeng is not held to the same standard as an adult, since he's got no issue critiquing others' maturity. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

We can argue all day long whether the quotes are a breach of our WP:NPA policies, but the reality is that they show a battleground behavior from the editor, which I understand has happened before in this same context, when a different editor raised concerns about that article. This kind of behavior invariably leads to ANI threads being opened, and eventually closed, as enough users find that kind of behavior more amusing than disruptive. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 17:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that we would block a new editor for this, and I challenge anyone to produce three recent examples of any such case that they think is similar. Levivich (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Boner has different meanings, it can mean a cockup, or a cock up. I hope this isn't something that would get me blocked, because its one of EEng's points when he decided the conversation should be about penis for some reason. [2] 107.116.165.78 (talk) 17:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, in the above diff EEng talks about the original poster having an erection in school, and that this is shameful. EEng said he thought they were a kid, then wants to make the conversation erection-centric? This feels gross on many levels. 107.116.165.78 (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

You are correct. I wondered if "boner" has some other meaning I wasn't familiar with. The open comparison to an erection in class makes it clear that, no, EEng is trying to frame content issues as sexual fixations. Weird, wrong, abusive. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I would be inclined to agree that the comments, especially in this diff, are unconstructive and rude. Last I checked, the goal of GAN and GAR is still improving articles collaboratively, and tossing playground-level insults at one another does nothing to achieve that goal. The Morrison Man (talk) 19:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

As EEng's longstanding ANI defense counsel, I must disagree with Cpotisch's claim that I've been seeking consensus, as the edit history shows otherwise:

• Dec 29 tags the article
• New Year's Eve removes almost half the article (from 1800 words to 950 words).
• EEng reverts on Jan 1, with edit summary Take it to the talk page
• Cpotisch makes no other edits to the article before or since [3]
• Despite the invitation in EEng's edit summary, Cpotisch makes no talk page edits to the article at all, until July 20 [4]
• Seven months later, on July 20, with apparently no interaction with the article other than those two edits in December, Cpotisch starts (incorrectly) a GAR at Talk:Sacred Cod#Good Article reassessment (2)
• The next day, July 21, starts a formal GAR at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Sacred Cod/2. Does not notify the article's major contributors, nor the GA nominator, nor the GA reviewer, nor the relevant WikiProjects, as instructed by WP:GAR. However, Cpotisch does notify the editor who opened up the first GAR two years ago, even though that editor hasn't edited in almost a year. (GAR coordinators were also notified.)
• AFAICT, Cpotisch has never nominated an article for GA, never reviewed a GA nom, never participated in a GAR, and never nominated an article for GAR, except this one. It seems this is the one and only time Cpotisch has interacted with GA.
• In sum, Cpotisch made (basically) one edit to an article, then came back 7 months later and launched a GAR, as their first-ever interaction with the GA process, without ever before posting anything on its talk page
• And the substantive GAR complaints: it's not that the article fails verification, contains copyvio, or isn't NPOV... it's all complaints about how this sentence or that sentence is written. Arguably, that's WP:GACRIT#1, but the examples consist of a few phrases from the first few paragraphs. These are minor disagreements over wording, not the kind of thing people go to GAR over.
• The kicker: here is the combined diff showing all changes made between May 2022 (when the last GAR was closed as "keep") and July 2024 (when GAR #2 was opened): the article barely changed. Clearly, Cpotisch was aware of GAR #1 (since they notified the editor who opened it), and yet they opened a second GAR despite there being no substantive change to the article in the interim. There is no argument here for WP:CCC; a second GAR is just a disruptive waste of time in this circumstance.

This isn't "seeking consensus," this is seeking disruption. This is GARing an article in response to having a re-write reverted, and seven months later to boot, without proper notifications, and with no attempt whatsoever at actually achieving consensus.

And -- surprise! -- EEng gets snippy in his responses. I would be snippy if someone did this to an article I had written, and so would you, dear reader. And then Cpotisch goes to ANI with an incivility complaint with no diffs. This isn't trying to reach consensus, this is trying to use Wikipedia's various processes (GAR, ANI) to win a content dispute. Levivich (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

That all seems to be quite a red herring. Maybe they hadn't done much to seek consensus previously. I don't think any of the history you cite explains EEng's angry reaction. And it's more than "snippy", it's ballistic. I don't think WP:CIVIL is the issue either - seems to be more about WP:BATTLE. User:Ɱ (no longer active) seems to have got pretty much the same treatment in the first GAR on the talk page. Having read both the GARs, the level of animosity directed against Ɱ and Cpotisch is baffling and unnecessary. When one reads the two threads, even if one were not to agree with Cpotisch and Ɱ or even think they were a bit dumb, the extent of the anger is inexplicable. (Btw, that first sentence of the article is just awful!) DeCausa (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

In my book, going from a single edit straight to a GAR is much more WP:BATTLE than calling someone "smartypants." Levivich (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

If there was a pattern of disruption by Cpotisch, why didn't Eeng or anyone else take them to a noticeboard or try and engage in another location? Are you really suggesting "the solution to behavior I find disruptive is to launch as many personal attacks as I can until they go away"? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Why? Maybe because they were pissed off. Maybe because you can't take someone to ANI for being wrong, or for nitpicking too much, or for launching a GAR without trying to resolve things on the user talk page first (at least not as a one-time thing). And of course I'm not suggesting that personal attacks are the solution to disruptive behavior, I'm suggesting they're a natural response to disruptive behavior. I'm suggesting don't expect editors to maintain politeness in the face of someone launching a disruptive GAR out of nowhere (especially if it's happened more than once). Levivich (talk) 17:29, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

When the only common factor in a bunch of disputes is the one person behaving "pissed off" regularly, that suggests the problem is the person who has anger issues, rather than the random people coming into contact and receiving the blowback. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

That's one possible interpretation. Another is that it's not random people. A third is that an editor's impatience is not necessarily an issue at all. What I notice about EEng ANI threads is that they are always joined by IPs and new accounts, as is this one. To me, it's plain as day that EEng is targeted by some LTA(s), in a way that most editors are not (notice there has still been edit warring from IPs over the self-referential humor joke since we were here last). That's my interpretation of why he's at ANI twice a year or so. Levivich (talk) 17:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't see an LTA starting this thread, unless you're suggesting the editor with more than 5 years on wiki and thousands of edits is one. Sometimes the simplest answer (that Eeng flies off the handle far more than the average editor) is the one that fits. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:58, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh EEng definitely flies off the handle more than the average editor. I don't think we should sanction him for having less than average patience. Particularly because he is also provoked more than the average editor.

Have you ever had an editor make one drastic rewrite edit on an article you wrote, then post on an admin's UTP about it, then the UTP of an inactive editor who previously took it to GAR, then take it to GAR, without ever having posted on the talk page even once, but falsely claiming that they had, and that you were rude to them? I've never had that happen to me and if it did, I'd be pissed off and would likely use sharp language. Be honest here: wouldn't you, too?

I'm not suggesting OP is an LTA, I'm suggesting OP took a very hostile, uncollegial, and disruptive, battleground approach here, and so they shouldn't complain that they were met with sharp words. "Read a dictionary" and "smartypants" isn't really that bad in context. Levivich (talk) 18:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah no. Concocting an insane retort about me having an erection in school does not merely constitute “impatience”. I’m reviewing my edits to identify what it is that I misremembered as a talk page post, but regardless I have never encountered an editor resort to such bizarre ad hominem. Cpotisch (talk) 18:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully, I am not a new account. I’ve been on Wiki for five (six?) years and have a long history of well-received edits. This is my first GAR so apologies if it’s out of order. That doesn’t make EEng’s response any more justified. And complaining about diffs strikes me as irrelevant; I linked both pages in question (which don’t constitute all that much text), and everything he’s said is still there. Cpotisch (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

It was not out of order. Once you had it on the right page, it was all proper. It's quite common for people to throw the OP under the bus at ANI to bail out their friends. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

What did you mean, in what appears to me to be your first talk page edit, by I think responded to in a fairly hostile manner when I sought out consensus on the talk page? When did you seek out consensus on the talk page and were responded to in a fairly hostile manner, prior to making that edit? Levivich (talk) 18:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

What about calling someone a high schooler and talking about humiliating erections in class? How much of that is permitted before it starts becoming a problem? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I missed a few things:

• The opening paragraph of Cpotisch's (AFAICT) first-ever talk page post:

  I attempted to make these edits and was promptly reverted (and I think responded to in a fairly hostile manner when I sought out consensus on the talk page). These issues persist, and I've found that editors in favor of the current structure of the article are falling back on its Good Article status as a cudgel to push away critics.

  • How is responded to in a fairly hostile manner when I sought out consensus on the talk page possibly an accurate statement, since there were no prior posts on the talk page by Cpotisch? The only way Cpotisch's statements would make sense is if they participated previously.
  • And editors in favor of the current structure of the article are falling back on its Good Article status as a cudgel to push away critics also seems to be totally inaccurate, since there has been no talk page discussion -- literally nobody except EEng posted on the talk page -- since the 2022 GAR. The talk page history shows that in 10 years there has been no talk page discussion except for the 2022 GAR and this 2024 GAR.
• After being reverted in January, posted on Cullen328's talk page (User talk:Cullen328/Archive 100#EEng and Sacred Cod) and was advised to go to the article talk page
• In March, posted at User talk:Ɱ#Sacred Cod (the editor who opened the first GAR)

Levivich (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

It is not important if User:Cpotisch or any other user is an incompetent or bad editor or even a vandal, as it changes nothing about User:EEng's conduct.

Your comments are very Ad hominem. AlexBobCharles (talk) 17:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• Even if he was uncivil, the community has proven time and time again they are incapable of handling behavioral issues related to EEng. If an admin things a warning or block is warranted, then that is certainly within their discretion. Might as well close this down before it spirals out of control like it usually does. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
• EEng's repeated and deliberate use of sexual metaphors on Talk:Sacred Cod is the kind of thing that got The C of E banned from DYK. It's juvenile and non-constructive. More to the point, it's discretionary: EEng chose to do it; nothing about Cpotisch's conduct drew it out. Mackensen (talk) 17:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  This comment is just insane:

  Cpotisch, in the name of Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and all the saints and apostles, do I need to draw you a picture? In the criteria, where the guideline says, "b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation", CLICK THE GODDAM WORDS 'Lead sections' AND SEE WHERE YOU END UP. This, specifically, constitutes a boner in that it's very much like when you got an erection in class and everyone could see it and you were very embarrassed and ashamed, as you should be now.[1] And BTW, criteria is plural -- criteria themselves -- Mr. Writing Expert. You're beginning to look like a WP:CIR case.

  This is baffling and unacceptable. The correct amount of invocation of the shamefulness of erection in content disputes on wiki is zero. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  Looks like standard EEng to me. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Also, I am frankly amused at what EEng has been able to get away with since 2014. His block history is... extensive. I guess his hyperbole is endearing, in a way. The talk and user pages certainly are. In any case,I would agree that he needs to tone it down a bit. I'm also seeing some WP:OWN from him here that needs to be rebuffed. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 19:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Statement partly retracted. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 23:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• If that’s standard, he should be blocked, because nobody needs to put up with boner accusations on Wikipedia. You might find it cute, but this is a totally deranged example of a very harmful phenomenon for editor retention and recruitment, which is long-time editors being bullies—and the community tolerating it, due to the delicious cleverness of “you have a freakin BONER!” ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  I agree. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 21:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• Some background: This isn't the first time EEng has disrupted an article evaluation when he didn't like the direction it was going. EEng is part of a tag-team of editors who filibuster certain good article reassessments for articles they like. The last time this was an issue (which did not include EEng), I made it clear that going forward I would open an ANI discussion whenever someone was harassed for initiating a reassessment. My response was informed by a previous incident where these editors, including EEng, turned a routine evaluation into an uncivil 17,000 word argument. I have never seen a good article reassessment anywhere within an order of magnitude of this, except for the ones where these particular editors barge in. As there seem to be some misrepresentations of how the good article reassessment process works, I'm going to notify the good article nomination talk page so people more active in that area can weigh in should they chose to do so. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  Remember no one cares, so ignore troublemakers Moxy🍁 18:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  • I agree that EEng & others' behavior at the John von Neumann GAR was very poor indeed, and perhaps he should have been sanctioned for it, but for this particular incident it seems Cpotisch has been the "initiator" goading EEng (whether intentionally or not). But even setting that aside... Opening a GAR is fine, disagreeing with EEng is fine, and EEng should been less salty in his replies, but Cpotisch's essential argument has been "EEng, your writing is crap". And this is potentially even a valid GAR complaint (there are GAs with poor prose), but unfortunately, defending against it essentially requires some amount of "no it's not, it's your preference that is crap," even if we imagine a hypothetical perfectly polite EEng. I say this as someone who is not part of the EEng defense tag-team and thinks he probably should have been sanctioned for some of the past shenanigans, but probably not this one, where his replies, while not optimal, are actually on-topic and something of a natural outgrowth of Cpotisch's own critique. SnowFire (talk) 19:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

    “You have a boner” is a necessary negation of prose criticisms? It has nothing to do with content; it’s just an attempt at humiliation. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• Let's make things easy. We know already, of course, that God has a hard-on per a reliable source. There is literally a law—it's even called the Boner Law—for EEng to invoke vis à vis boning, boneur, boneurism, boneristical or embonement when required. Get with the bonergram, people. ——Serial Number 54129 19:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Serial Number 54129: What. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 20:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• First, my first gut reaction was that EEng has put in maybe 1000 times more time and work on this article than Cpotisch. Even considering WP:OWN, that still means something. Cpotisch is being something of a jerk. EEng is being a giant jerk here. I'm more willing than most to look the other way if this was a one-off and there was clear baiting, or if EEng was meeting snark with the same general level of snark, but this does seem to fit a long-term pattern, and EEng escalated things dramatically. AtG was recently blocked by someone for a week for a similar continuation of long-term behavior. I suppose We could do that, with no one unblocking early? I wouldn't support an indef, but also don't support "that's just EEng being EEng". There are simply zero optimal solutions when a productive long-term editor reserves the right to just go off on a hapless editor who made a few mistakes, instead of showing some modicum of grace. We need to do the suboptimal thing and move on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  EEng has put in maybe 1000 times more time and work on this article than Cpotisch.

  That does not and should not matter, @Floquenbeam. It’s not his article, we all put our time in editing for the sake of the good of the project, not for any self interest. There IS an optimal solution here, and that is to castigate both editors (EEng more so than Cpotisch). I’m also seeing comments from other people here saying that this is Cpo’s first segue into GAs and GARing—that again should not matter, and it’s a bit disturbing that EEng seems to be given greater deference purely by virtue of him being an established editor. We all need to be treated equally.

  As I mentioned above, his block history is extensive, and he’s gotten away with more than what any standard or newer editor certainly would’ve I’ve seen people indeffed for a lot less than what EEng has done and been doing. At the very least, a reprimand is in order. It isn’t appropriate to just drop this, as charming as EEng can be. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 20:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  Since this was indented as a reply to me, I'll just say I disagree with a lot of this. I have no desire to try to convince you, but just didn't want my silence to imply to others I've been convinced. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  That’s quite alright, I don’t need convincing nor did my reply intend to convince you— I’m just making what I think to be an obvious point.

  So, as a sysop, do you have a response regarding EEng’s chronic behavior, or will it just be, as one editor put it, the usual "EEng is funny and/or he was provoked"? — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 21:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  What? I already answered this above. Go argue with someone else, please, this is annoying. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  @That Coptic Guy: So, as a participant in this thread, do you have a response regarding Cpotisch's failure to go to the talk page after being reverted, admin shopping, canvassing, falsely claiming to have had a talk page discussion, falsely claiming EEng was hostile in that talk page discussion, and bad GAR, or do you really think that a boner joke is worse than all that? Levivich (talk) 21:29, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  I’ve addressed the talk page misstatement below. Care to be specific and explain how I was “admin shopping”? Cpotisch (talk) 21:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  Of course; I will answer below. Levivich (talk) 21:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Levivich I doubt I or anyone else would have really cared if it stopped at "a boner joke" (to use your expression). It's the repeated usage, culminating in "This, specifically, constitutes a boner in that it's very much like when you got an erection in class and everyone could see it and you were very embarrassed and ashamed, as you should be now. EEng should be embarrassed that he wrote it. You should be embarrassed that you're defending it. Mackensen (talk) 21:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not defending it. But you have not yet commented on the other side of this. I think the other side is significantly worse. Levivich (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  Frankly, I'm waiting to see Cpotisch's reply to your thorough set of questions. Sanctions may well be in order. Even if everything you allege is true it doesn't excuse EEng's behavior. Mackensen (talk) 21:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  Fair enough, Mack. But I'd ask you to consider this: if everything I suspect is true, that means EEng is the victim of a harassment campaign involving multiple accounts, a "set-up", a trap laid over the course of 7 months (or maybe two years). And if that's true, then don't you think that does excuse incivility? I think it excuses an "FU," calling someone stupid in so many words, or similar behavior. I don't like the erection reference, it's crass and makes for an unwelcoming environment for everyone. But if everything I suspect is true, then SFR just blocked the victim of harassment for having a bad reaction to the harassment. And I think that is bad, even worse than crass sexual innuendo on article talk pages. Levivich (talk) 22:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  You absolutely should be disengaging with this thread Levivich, if you're going to continue casting aspersions without evidence. You're seriously suggesting there has been a years-long plot to entrap Eeng with his own bad behavior, which is perhaps the most ludicrous accusation I've seen on ANI in years. The victim is not the guy who cannot hold his tongue at the simplest critiques of articles he's worked on. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 22:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  Excuse me, but I have not cast any aspersions, I have provided evidence. You may not agree with my suspicions or interpretation of the evidence, but I have not made any evidence-free accusations. And I will engage with Mack as I engaged with you, please don't tell me to shut up because you disagree with my conclusions. Levivich (talk) 22:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  Good lord ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  Man, I promise you this isn't a set-up. The whole situation stinks and ANI isn't the point of Wikipedia, but I actually like EEng -- he just needs to engage a bit more politely is all. The boner joke is a symptom of a larger issue. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 23:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I’d just like to say y’all that I apologize for completely misremembering the circumstances of the first round of edits several months ago. I genuinely could have sworn that he and I had gone bat to bat on the talk page back then, but I think I got it confused in my mind with the prior reassessment instead.

Having said all of that, I don’t see how my edits and GAR — as inflammatory or contentious as they may have been - in any way make it acceptable to respond with such bizarre incivility. I would have thought it goes without saying that making up anecdotes about another editor’s erection crosses a line, regardless of any “provocation” (which was unintentional if it occurred).

Even if he had valid reason to be “upset” or “impatient”, he wouldn’t get a free pass for taking the bait. Cpotisch (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

To recap: you made your first edit to this article cutting it down by about half, and were reverted. Your response to this was:

1. Going to an admin's talk page and saying Hello, I was wondering if you could take a look at the behavior of the aforementioned user and the aforementioned article, which they are very active on. The way I see it, any time anyone has any feedback or makes any edits, this user bludgeons their way through, but maybe I'm missing something and it's all fine. "any time anyone has any feedback or makes any edits, this user bludgeons their way through" is a flat untrue statement -- just look at the talk page, that doesn't bear any of that out. And why would you jump straight to asking an admin to review the other editor's behavior, without even trying to actually talk to that editor, or to any editors on that talk page?
2. The admin told you to go to the talk page, and you said you would (However, as I see it, every interaction on the talk page has been shot down in a fairly-uncivil manner so I'm not super eager to face that. Not saying I won't, just saying I haven't rushed to do it yet. -- fully aware you hadn't yet attempted talk page communication, and already making up your mind about the other editor's uncivil manner.
3. But you don't go to the talk page. Instead, almost three months later, you went to the UTP of an inactive editor who previously had the same conflict with EEng that you anticipated having (but had not yet had), and wrote Frankly, I believe that the article is egregiously poorly written and I want to move towards consensus for some wholesale changes, but I could use a second set of eyes here. Why would you need another set of eyes here if you hadn't even tried talk page communication yet?
4. Receiving no response, after almost another four months, you started a GAR which falsely accused the other editor of hostility and falsely said you had previously tried to gain consensus on the talk page. Now you apologize for those false accusations -- that's great, you should also strike them from the page -- but I'm still at a loss as to how this all unfolded.

Tell me: did you previously have an unpleasant encounter with EEng when you had a different username? Because that would explain why you expected hostility at the outset, and why you tried to canvass an admin, and later an editor, and "misremembered" receiving hostility in a talk page discussion that never happened. If this is not the explanation, then what explains your actions?

And in any event, don't you see how this sequence of actions could be seen as harassment? I mean, outright poisoning the well? And thus, why you would receive insults in response to said perceived harassment? Levivich (talk) 21:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

These quotes are personally insulting an editor, regardless of the context. Not needed or useful. An analysis of the context (which I didn't do) might come up with mitigating circumstances which make this minor. It's unrealistic for all discussions to occur on the upper levels of the debate pyramid (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Debate_Pyramid_v2_Detailed_TT_Norms_Bold_Text_Outlined.svg) , but those are at the bottom 1 or 2 levels. EEng might look back on this as a good experience if they just apologized, learned a bit from it and we moved on. North8000 (talk) 20:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I find the comments from EEng to be far in excess of whatever possible provocation that the OP may have provided. Frankly, the erection comments are quite beyond what any editor (male, female, or nonbinary) should have to put up with. I'd be in favor of something, but I fear that the usual "EEng is funny and/or he was provoked" will win out and nothing will be done, again. Ealdgyth (talk) 20:29, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• I'm on IRL deadline right now, so if I may I'd like overnight to post something. Or maybe in the end I'll decide to let the matter speak for itself (for those who read closely enough). Anyway, I'll see y'all tomorrow. EEng 21:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• I have blocked EEng for one week for personal attacks. Even if another editor is misbehaving it does not give someone a free pass to deliberately invoke the imagery of sexual humiliation of another editor. No we don't do that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  • We should add a new section at WP:BILORV titled "Administrator-specific challenges".
    First one in that section: Block EEng for more than a week.
    Bonus: the block sticks to the end. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not going to argue against this block but I kind of feel that when one editor baits another editor into blockable misbehavior, the block should be shared equally by both participants. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  I didn’t bait anyone and EEng has bragged about getting blocked before for the same problems. This didn’t start with me. Cpotisch (talk) 22:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  I feel that people are responsible for their own actions and the "he made me do it" excuse should seen as a confession of guilt, just like it is in the real world. I'd personally be more open to the idea that if someone keeps causing trouble the same way and the same few people always come to defend them at ANI, they should share the block. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed. Regardless of any provocation this kind of behavior is unacceptable. The Morrison Man (talk) 23:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  Thebiguglyalien, are you saying you'd be (more) open to editors being blocked for defending other editors? ---Sluzzelin talk 23:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'm saying that if I had to choose between penalizing the victim or the accomplices, I would choose the accomplices. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  I guess I just can't equal defending an editor, repeatedly or not, to being an accomplice to that editor's behavior. But maybe that's not what you meant. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'm referring to Wikipedia:Tag team, I apologize if I didn't make that clearer before. There are groups where if one editor is reported for causing problems, certain other editors will come to defend them, and then they'll repay the favor when one of the others is reported for causing problems. It's an efficient way to make oneself and one's friends WP:UNBLOCKABLE. But no, I'm not going to campaign to make this a thing; merely pointing it out and contrasting it with David Eppstein's proposal. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  Given that this assumption of bad faith is on ANI, in reply to a comment in which I explicitly did not defend EEng, and by its placement is implicitly casting aspersions on my own behavior, I am going to demand either diffs clearly displaying me performing the behavior you describe or a retraction, please, Thebiguglyalien. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  Late to post here, but Levivich's summary is well-founded in facts, showing Cpotisch to have misremembered and been highly aggressive. Arguing against proposed changes to an article that has passed repeated review is not ownership. In the discussion at Talk:Sacred Cod#Good Article reassessment (2), Cpotisch called EEng on his assumption that Cpotisch's desired level of prose complexity derived from high school English classes, and after Cpotisch took issue with his "profanities", presumably referring to the intensifier "fucking", needled him with the other meaning of "boner". That was uncivil, but Cpotisch's assumption of the superiority of his taste is unwarranted and disrespectful. The oldfashioned WP:BRD applies, and yes, any writer who crafts interesting and well written articles (as this demonstrably is) is going to be annoyed by edits like Cpotisch's and rationales like the misuse of "run-on sentence" to mean "over-long sentence", but I wouldn't have called that a grammatical boner (EEng tends to be pithy and risqué where I instead tend to be prolix and sententious; so I don't have EEng's block log). I'm sorry EEng got blocked again, especially since he had just pointed out he didn't have time for a full defence/rebuttal until later. But he was unnecessarily rude. However, Cpotisch's behaviour has been extremely uncollegial. They should apologise and re-examine their assumptions about style and their approach to being reverted. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  Good block. Disgusting comment on a talk page that is full of EEng being unbecoming towards those with concerns, going back two years. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  23:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not defending EEng, but he's been blocked, and there are diminishing returns to editors piling on. If anyone wants to start a sub-tread about a boomerang, ok, I guess, but otherwise, this discussion should probably be closed. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• EEng uses the word boner in its original sense of an embarrassing mistake. Here is an example on the same talk page, more than two years ago: May 2022 where EEng lists "a few boners" from three sources and explains how the sources make totally incorrect statements. The first use of boner in the current incident was 21 July 2024 where EEng points out to Cpotisch "They're not minor typos; they're vocabulary and grammar boners that show you're not experienced in writing high-quality prose." EEng is later driven to despair when Cpotisch again fails to understand a simple point and repeats an embarrassing mistake. At this point, EEng started extemporizing on the term "boner" leading to the current shock horror. Johnuniq (talk) 10:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  Is that a defense or what are you hoping for? PackMecEng (talk) 13:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  Aaalright. Still started rattling about classroom erections in explicit terms. He’s blocked, what else is there to discuss? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• @Serial Number 54129: - Is there a better reason than the one in your edit summary as to why you reopened this? EEng has already been blocked and I don't see the point of beating a dead horse - the editors involved in the dispute are sorting it out on their talk pages. Furthermore, before calling my close for WP:HAR a false claim, you would've done well to examine the block log, which noted a violation of WP:NPA or WP:HAR. Admittedly, I should have put "or", and the part of my closing statement that included WP:HAR was rightfully deleted. This is getting ridiculous and frankly a waste of people's time. It is time to move on and actually be productive. With that said, this will be the last I'll post as it pertains to this topic. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 14:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  OP hasn't answered my questions yet and TBUA hasn't answered David's, and you're involved and therefore should not close this. Levivich (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  This thread isn't going anywhere and should be closed. EEng can appeal - maybe he has already but I really can't be bothered loading that absurdly long talk page to check. If you feel that strongly about the OP it would be better to open a new thread than creating one of these huge meandering ANI monstrosities. (This one is long enough already). I don't see much would come of it though. DeCausa (talk) 15:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Will somebody uninvolved please close this, as is oft repeated, it is generating more heat than light. EEng was blocked, and I'm not seeing any calls for sanctions against anyone else. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Egregious personal attack, + OWNership/edit warring by Mfc6166

Mfc6166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In the last 5 hours, this user has edit warred at 2024 IndyCar Series to keep their preferred version, in a manner that is showing patterns of being WP:NOTHERE.

[5] Their initial edit to the page was reverted by RegalZ8790 as an unexplained and unnecessary change.

[6] Revert 1, edit summary: no one dares to undo my change, especially you @RegalZ8790, you fucking cunt!!! - Clear WP:OWNership behaviour, demanding that no one revert their revert, and a personal attack that in my opinion is actionable in and of itself.

[7][8] Two more reverts within 5 hours, putting them at the 3RR bright line and rejecting an invitation to start a talk page discussion to seek proper consensus. If the user doesn't immediately apologize for the PA and commit to stop their edit warring behaviour, then I believe they need a time out for at least a week to help understand and prevent further abuse. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  13:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I apologize to the behalf of @RegalZ8790 for calling a slur, attacking them personally, and vandalizing + making it as an OWNership. Mfc6166 (talk) 14:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you understand why this edit summary is not acceptable? Canterbury Tail talk 14:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

No sir/ma'am. Mfc6166 (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I've indeffed Mfc6166 for that egregious NPA violation. When coupled with the ownership issues and edit warring, we don't need this kind of behavior here, especially given they don't see anything wrong with it, per above. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I was going to get to that myself, seems like some kid with an account. Thanks for doing that. Canterbury Tail talk 17:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Editor 103.200.35.4 on the page A2Z (TV channel)

This editor 103.200.35.4 on the page A2Z (TV channel) is disruptively restoring his edits claiming that A2Z is the replacement of S+A which in fact its not. Just see the history of the page, I cannot paste here the link of his edits since there are numerous of edits. 120.29.79.79 (talk) 06:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Level III warning issued. Re-report or ping me if this resumes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Legal threats (again)

I posted a little while ago about REPAIR FACTS (talk · contribs) making legal threats, and they were duly blocked. I also said at the time that I thought the same person might have been editing while logged out at 148.76.78.162 (talk · contribs). Well, it is the same person, and now they're issuing legal threats as the IP. --AntiDionysius (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I thought the previous discussion had been archived. Apologies for duplicating. AntiDionysius (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

It was accidently archived by me, but unarchived quickly. GrayStorm^{(Complaints Dept.|My Contribs.)} 18:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Blocked the IP for 72 hours. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! AntiDionysius (talk) 18:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah hence the notification. I thought I was losing my mind. AntiDionysius (talk) 18:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Long term vandal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Most of Sarmathianpilled (talk · contribs) edits are vandalism despite several warnings such as calling a murderer a hero and anti-semitic attacks on people they don't like with false summaries and showing no sign of stopping 2001:8003:3FB4:CF00:61A2:EF47:953:9B18 (talk) 09:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The antisemitism alone should get an indef. — Czello ^(music) 09:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. It's WP:NOTHERE behavior. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 10:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This was a bad close, but fortunately the user has been indef'd anyway. — Czello ^(music) 20:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk: Yasuke has on-going issues

I recently closed an RfC on Yasuke and feel like the situation at Talk: Yasuke is deteoriating once again as more WP:SPA's are arriving to argue about the subject. There is a not insignificant amount of WP:SOAPBOXING occurring as well as some vaguely nationalist rhetoric where editors are proclaiming that Wikipedia is being governed by black supremacy and DEI as well as considerable activity taking place offsite on a Wikitionary Talk Page where aspersions are being cast on other editors involved in the dispute such as outright accusing others editors of lying and conspiring at fabricating historical truth as well as what appears to be attempts to Status Quo Stonewall as noted here where they begin discussing how to circumvent the RfC consensus before the RfC was even closed when they saw that the votes weren't going in their favor as well as WP:Tagteaming seen here. Because of all of these many preceived issues, I think some admin attention is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrhns (talk • contribs) 18:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

From skimming the talk page - this is popular as he appears in a video game? Secretlondon (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The current focus is because he will appear as one of the two main characters in the upcoming Assassin's Creed Shadows, which has attracted controversy in some parts of the internet. --Aquillion (talk) 19:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Surprised Assassin's Creed Shadows havent needed protection yet Trade (talk) 22:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Last edit 30 June? Secretlondon (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Correct. He was semi-recently announced to be in the upcoming Assassin's Creed game. Chrhns (talk) 19:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I am on mobile device so forgive the poor formatting and lack of tagging. If I recall correctly the main person who's behavior crosses into WP:SOAPBOX and WP:OR is Shinjitsunotsuikyu who declares that what's going on is Western imperialistic revisions on Japanese culture/history, due to the questionable nature (in Shinjitsunotsuikyu's opinion) of the sources used. I would like to point out that the the majority of the editors involved in the discussion are posting on good faith, and now that the RfC is closed the article currently matches what was determined in the RfC (i.e., The article refers to Yasuke as a samurai.) For anyone reading this, please do not conflate this behavior with the behavior, content, and opinions of the other editors including but not limited to Eirikr and Hexentante. If there is further discussion or disagreements about the RfC I believe there is a proper appeal process as Chrhrns outlined on that Talk page. I will say that the Eirikr and Hexentante, when explaining their positions, have needed to put up with several editors accusing their behavior as wrongful, staunch, original research with little engagement besides these accusations, despite the many attempts by Eirikr and Hexentante to explain otherwise. However the Rfc summary by Chrhrns is fair and I do not take offense to it, as it explains both sides pretty neutrally. This is a very terse summary of my perspective of the Talk page. Lastly, regarding the discussion of whether sources are unreliable (not other topics such as Yasuke's height and sword), I believe most of the discussion conforms to WP:RSCONTEXT and WP:CONTEXTFACTS, not WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS, which is why the discussions were ongoing and did not halt. Green Caffeine (talk) 19:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

By the way, I generally dislike accusing others of wrongful behavior withoit backup and I'm typing this all very fast and perhaps brazenly. If you are not referring to Shinjitsunotsuikyu then please read my comment with that in mind. Green Caffeine (talk) 19:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Re: Soapboxing, I was mostly referring to that particular editor doing it repetitiously after having been warned about it, but also instances which seem to have occurred sporadically on both sides of the debate. Chrhns (talk) 19:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

To be sure my position is clear for other readers, I amend the language of my post dated 19:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC) to say "For anyone reading this, please do not conflate the disruptive and soapbox behavior with the behavior, content, and opinions of the other editors including but not limited to User:Eirikr and User:Hexenakte. That is to say, those 2 individuals have not been disruptive. The reason the conversations about whether the sources are unreliable have not concluded is due to WP:RSCONTEXT and WP:CONTEXTFACTS and other parts of WP:RELIABLE, not the so-called original research or synthesis.

Also, taking a step back, the fact that there are many editors involved with this situation should be a sign that the situation is not as black-and-white as people may think. It's a serious indicator that ongoing discussion was warranted, not to be shut down on presumptions of bad faith.

Still on a mobile device so forgive any improper formatting. Green Caffeine (talk) 00:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

This is not a complicated issue at all. Refusing to drop the stick and the constant original research is against the spirit of a Wikipedia, and makes them very disruptive. Reliable sources refer to him as a samurai. A few editors attempting to engage in WP:OR because they don't like the conclusions of reliable sources, strikes me as agenda pushing that goes against the spirit of an encyclopedia.

Normally I would hesitate to use that word, but off-site discussions between Eirikr and Hexenakte demonstrate that they both had intent to circumvent the RFC process even before it concluded. Symphony Regalia (talk) 11:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

You keep repeating the same things over and over with no explanation or reasoning, and you just ignored my last message. This is the third time you have ignored us in a row. This shows you are being disruptive with WP:ICANTHEARYOU and your continuance of bad faith assumption towards us despite us being as transparent as possible about it. Hexenakte (talk) 13:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Please see WP:DEADHORSE. Symphony Regalia (talk) 20:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh my god this nonsense again. How about we just block many of these accounts as WP:NOTHERE. CycoMa1 (talk) 19:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

For example, look at Shinjitsunotsuikyu's edit history. They have been here since June and have only contributed on the talk page for Yasuke.CycoMa1 (talk) 19:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Not sure about Wikitionary's policies.CycoMa1 (talk) 19:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

This is the same case for EgiptiajHieroglifoj, 80.106.161.157, 81.223.103.71, Theozilla, and so many other users.CycoMa1 (talk) 19:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Just noting that looking at Theozilla's contribution page, while his recent activity is nothing but Yasuke, he has engaged in content outside of it in the past. Chrhns (talk) 21:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Since the Wiktionary talk page is mine, I feel compelled to comment.

• Re: "accusing others editors of lying and conspiring at fabricating historical truth":

I never outright accuse. I state what it looks like. This is in the context of the other editor refusing to engage in my attempts at conversing with them on Talk:Yasuke about the quality of the tertiary and quaternary sources they reference, and the inappropriateness of using "wikivoice" to state certain details as objective fact, rather than giving those details properly cited as the opinions of the secondary-source authors.

When that editor then edits the Yasuke article to add a detail ("as a samurai") with citations, and those citations do not say anything about that detail, I can only see two logical ways of viewing such a change: incompetence (the editor not noticing that the cited references do not corroborate their point, or not understanding why this is a problem), or intent (the editor noticing that the cited references disagree, and not caring).

• Re: "what appears to be attempts to Status Quo Stonewall as noted here where they begin discussing how to circumvent the RfC consensus before the RfC was even closed when they saw that the votes weren't going in their favor":

You ascribe a lot of bad faith to my actions. The RFC itself was carried out in a very poor manner. The putative point of an RFC is discussion to arrive at consensus: instead, what we had was many people posting a vote, minimal commentary as to why, and in apparent ignorance of past discussions about many of the sources. This was more of a mobbing than a discussion. I was very concerned that this was producing a consensus born of ignorance.

Note too my wording there (emphasis added): "If you have any clear idea on who of the admins to involve in this, to prevent a popularity vote from dictating the article content in contravention of any sane survey of the actual sources, by all means please reach out." My concern is that most of the voters were ignoring past discussions about sources, and often even ignoring attempts to discuss the sources directly with them. I had no intention of "circumventing the RFC consensus": I was hoping to get an admin involved to bring the RFC back on track, to actually get people to discuss.

@Chrhns, through all of this, you have not done anything to talk with me directly.

To then cast aspersions, as you have amply above, is inappropriate. Even more so for an admin.

Please do better. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

As I have said to the other editor when I saw your Wikitionary talk page. I am not, nor have I ever purported or represented myself to be, an admin.. The issues on your Wikitionary talk page are numerous and involving far more users than simply yourself. While there are some links which have not formatted properly, the "lying" was supposed to direct to a post by an IP Address that outright accuses others of lying. As for the source the user cited, the link to the edit you provided directs to the Encyclopedia Britannica article which states "He was the first known foreigner to achieve samurai status". The Smithsonian also calls Yasuke a samurai, as does the time magazine that is sources. You are still accusing the editor of fabrication (and now incompetence) for reasons that elude me. As for the rest of the discussion, I am not here to argue with you, or anyone. I am merely notifying the admins of what appears to be many issues occurring surrounding this article's talk page. When you are discussing finding an admin because you do not like the way an RfC is going, and you are doing it surreptitiously on your Wikitionary talk page, it looks bad. Chrhns (talk) 19:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying your status as non-admin, and I apologize for my mistake. Thank you too for clarifying the "lying" comment, that seemed odd and I noticed the link didn't work.

Re: Britannica, I already laid out why that is a problematic reference in the thread at Talk:Yasuke#Problematic_sources_in_recent_edit_re-introducing_the_troublesome_"samurai"_title, which points have not been refuted to my knowledge.

Re: Smithsonian, TIME, CNN, BBC, etc, these are all tertiary or even quaternary references, which all depend on Lockley's book for any description of Yasuke as a samurai. I'd be happy to post a through analysis of these sources, which I'd already begun drafting a few days ago.

Re: my own view of the other editor's actions as incompetence or intent, I posted my reasoning above. If an editor writes "this is a fact^{ref 1, ref 2}", then I (and I suspect most readers) will take that to mean that "fact" is supported by "ref 1" and "ref 2". If I go and read "ref 1" and "ref 2" and neither say "fact", what else am I supposed to think but that the editor who wrote that is either writing incompetently in not noticing that the references do not support their point, or writing intentionally and misrepresenting the sources? Serious question: if you have a third option for what is going on, please present your thoughts. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 20:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Forgot a point.

Re: "When you are discussing finding an admin because you do not like the way an RfC is going, and you are doing it surreptitiously on your Wikitionary talk page, it looks bad."

I see your point about appearing bad. However, I have had (and have) no ill intent. The thread itself is not hidden, and indeed anyone seeking to converse with me directly at w:User_talk:Eirikr will see my comment there directing anyone to wikt:User_talk:Eirikr.

Specifically about "because you do not like the way an RfC is going", my concern was not that I "didn't like the way it was going", but much more seriously, because it appeared to be an abuse of process. RFCs are supposed to be about discussion and reaching consensus. What happened instead was a popularity vote, with most participants apparently ignorant of, and some even seemingly hostile to, any serious discussion of the sources. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 20:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

To your point about RfC, it has been explained multiple times that an RfC specifically calls in outside, uninvolved people to render a comment (hence "Request for Comment"), there is no obligation to engage in protracted debate of the subject matter at hand. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Responding to an RfC. Specifically, the RfC format used was "Separate votes from discussion" which does carry the notation ((emphasis mine)):

This format encourages respondents to "vote" without engaging in a discussion, sharing alternatives, or developing compromises

While I understand in hindsight that this format seems inadequate, it should he been brought up in the 30+ days the RfC was extant. In short, your complaint about what happened on the RfC is less an "abuse of the process" and more "it did exactly what it was formatted to do". Chrhns (talk) 20:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• I think the "vote" format was inappropriate for the issues with the Yasuke article, but even then, it was not carried out correctly. Even more so if we read more of that same sectionfrom Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Example_formatting#Separate_votes_from_discussion:

Separate votes from discussion If you expect a lot of responses, consider creating a subsection, after your signature, called (for example) "Survey," where people can support or oppose, and a second sub-section called (for example) "Threaded discussion," where people can discuss the issues in depth. You can ask people not to add threaded replies to the survey section, but you can't require people to follow your advice. Editors are permitted to freely refuse your request.

This format encourages respondents to "vote" without engaging in a discussion, sharing alternatives, or developing compromises. It is most suitable for questions with clear yes/no or support/oppose answers, such as "Shall we adopt this policy?". Avoid this style for questions with multiple possible answers, such as "What kinds of images would be suitable for this article?" or "What should the first sentence say?" This style is used for RfCs that attract a lot of responses, but is probably overkill for most RfCs.

The RFC section itself should have explicitly included room for discussion, and the survey should have been in addition to that — if at all, since, as the guideline says, "Avoid this style for questions with multiple possible answers".

An RFC that consists only of a "Survey" section is improperly implemented, per the guidelines. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Adding onto this really quickly, Eirikr and I have given many of the other editors who oppose our arguments multiple chances as a way of giving a fair chance to present their cases as to why these sources are reliable or to at least acknowledge the many apparent issues these sources have, and multiple times, with the exception of a few editors - who then agreed with our concerns even after initially opposing - have they refused to do either. We have implored them multiple times and every time they get ignored (WP:CANTHEARYOU) or brushed off as "editors aren't allowed to analyze sources and their citations" (contrary to WP:REPUTABLE, WP:SOURCEDEF, and WP:CONTEXTFACTS which allows editors to consider the content itself as a factor of reliability and individually pick certain claims as reliable while dismissing others as unreliable in determination of, most easily, whether it is properly cited and if those citations state the facts they claimed).

We do not intend to circumvent anything, however I did not believe that RfC that was just closed was the right method to handle this complex issue. The Japanese language is highly contextual and its written form relies on the context of the conversation, as this can affect the meanings of those words, especially more so when you factor that kanji symbols can often have multiple different pronunciations that are not anywhere close to each other (for example, 米 can mean rice, meter, or USA (kome/yone (archaic), maitre, or bei respectively)). Simply put, editors who make it to out to be black and white without considering the complexity of the language nor the issues of the secondary sources provided, it makes for a very muddy battle. With the way the RfC was going, majority of the Yes votes did not acknowledge these issues, and some outright did not explain their reasoning at all. We cannot have a productive discussion if half of the discussion consists of ignoring each side's point and bad faith accusations. The number of times I have been accused of OR (which initially I did do, I apologized for it due to the fact I am new to Wikipedia as an editor and was not aware, which I have corrected this) even after explaining and providing multiple secondary sources is innumerable. It was an extremely hostile environment for both Eirikr and I, which felt like we were talking to a brick wall.

The main reason for my collaboration with Eirikr is because I recognized his proficiency in Japanese etymology - which he has a long history of on Wikipedia just by looking at his Wiktionary talk page - and believed he was the right person to discuss with in terms of the issue at hand relating to a specified quote in the Shincho Koki that was missing, supposedly from the public eye. Eirikr and I have both made sure to be as thorough as possible, considering all possible avenues before making any decisions on what to do with the quote. The user talk page is public for everyone to see, we have nothing to hide, and we have encouraged participation from other users who have joined in. It would have been preferable to acknowledge the discussion with us directly before making these claims, however this has been resolved as Chrhns understands we mean no ill intent, and I hope other editors who are reading this realizes that as well.

I have made it clear multiple times throughout the talk page, I have been wrong on certain points and apologized for making them. I also made the mistake of assuming Chrhns was an admin, I have apologized this to him and made sure to remove any mention of it. I am very willing to accept the responsibility of my actions, because I am not here to push any view or any agenda. I simply want to present what is verifiable in accordance with the privilege of editors being able to do basic verification on these secondary sources. I have advocated for a positive claim of making Yasuke be referred to as someone who was retained as an attendant, as this was properly cited by some of the secondary sources in the talk page, and it is much easier to prove someone is an attendant by way of noted role and if they are in a lord's service, than it is to claim someone is a samurai, which is an extremely privileged class that was not the default of the Japanese people nor those under a lord's service as the noted existence of the ashigaru that were levied under a lord were named as specifically non-samurai, and Toyotomi Hideyoshi was a prime example of this as was explained in the talk page.

I do not care whether Yasuke was actually a samurai or not, that is not the reason for my involvement in the talk page. I am not looking to reduce Yasuke to less than what he actually was, as some people such as Shinjitsunotsuikyu wanted him to be referred to as a slave, this requires cited reliable sources just as much as the samurai claim does. I am not against Yasuke being stated as a samurai if there were proper citations of him being one. If there was actual proper citation of the samurai claim in these secondary sources, we would not be having this conversation, however that issue still remains and it cannot be ignored.

I will be back to add more to this discussion as I am very busy in my life and I wrote this up really quickly to add to the current claims that Eirikr and I were trying to circumvent the RfC process, accusing others, and tagteaming (which was later cleared up with Chrhns in my user talk page, he was extremely courteous and understanding which I highly appreciate even after my initial mistake). Hexenakte (talk) 20:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I am fluent in Japanese and it is not a complex issue. Reliable sources refer to him as a samurai. Editors attempting to engage in WP:OR because they don't like the conclusions of reliable sources, strikes me as agenda pushing that goes against the spirit of an encyclopedia. Symphony Regalia (talk) 21:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I have not seen reliable sources that state he was a samurai (unambiguously, with either backing from primary sources or a reasoned argument backed from primary sources), in either language 英語であれ日本語であれ / be it in English or Japanese.

Even so, for purposes of our article, I think it would be great if we could say "According to [sources], Yasuke was a samurai". Any statement of Yasuke as a samurai, as objective fact, without citations, is what I have a problem with. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

There are many reliable sources stating it and broadly speaking, it is not the role of us individual editors to "have" or "not have" problems. The RfC already covers this in detail. Symphony Regalia (talk) 05:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

"There are many reliable sources stating it"

Do you have any sources stating this? You have made this same claim, and related claims (such as that the Lockley / Girard book is peer reviewed), several times, but you have not provided any sources. Do you have any?

"it is not the role of us individual editors to "have" or "not have" problems."

My issue is with how we (Wikipedia editors) are wording the article at [[Yasuke]]. This is very much within the purview of "us individual editors". ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Please refer to the consensus summary I provided above, as well as the other comments in this thread.

> "My issue is with how we (Wikipedia editors) are wording the article at Yasuke. This is very much within the purview of "us individual editors""

It is important that we follow the sources and the academic consensus. Symphony Regalia (talk) 21:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

For the record, @Symphony Regaliais a user who has been trying to change the Japanese Yasuke Wiki page and in fact has been accused of using multiple proxies and accounts to push forward his agenda of making Yasuke a samurai, which has failed:

https://ja.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%8E%E3%83%BC%E3%83%88:%E5%BC%A5%E5%8A%A9

He has constantly accused users of being “right-wing nationalists” in an attempt to belittle their contributions and inquiries to discussion. His “fluency” in Japanese is highly dubious, as it is unnatural and very Google-translate type of structure. He also continues to copy-paste others’ sentences, especially mine as an attempt to retort. 天罰れい子 (talk) 05:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I've actually had to point out on numerous occasions his claims of him "speaking Japanese" despite not posting a single quote or source text in Japanese and demonstrating his case. Even ignoring that, I have had to ask, again, numerous times to explain why he believes Lockley is reliable or why this is not problematic, and every single time this request gets ignored. It is clear that he is not here to have a productive conversation on the reliability of Lockley and intends on disrupting the discussion, and I've tried my best on that, so I think the only matter for him is a topic ban. Hexenakte (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I am fluent in Japanese and I've repeatedly referenced 新辞林's definition of 侍 (帯刀し，武芸をもって主君に仕えた者。武士。 ) to support the conclusions that subject matter experts and reliable sources have drawn in regard to Yasuke being a samurai.

Lockley is reliable because it is his field of expertise, and because his works have been peer-reviewed by other historians and subject matter experts who support the claims in them. I've explained this multiple times (and am indeed happy to do so anytime), however you should be aware that your refusal to drop the stock is not indicative of you being "ignored" by anyone.

Rather, it is indictive of a disruptive editing pattern on your behalf that you've been repeatedly been warned about, where you beat a dead horse and refuse to drop the stick on topics where there is already a clear consensus. I think the next step for you is a topic ban. Symphony Regalia (talk) 16:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Could you name historians who peer-reviewed Lockley's books? Thibaut (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Lockley's works have been collectively reviewed by historians and subject matter experts (not all of his works are books). As for the published book, it was reviewed by R.W. Purdy who ultimately did not contest any of the relevant claims. Symphony Regalia (talk) 16:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

We have talked extensively about Purdy's review. You appear to be ignoring the issues that Purdy points out.

Purdy explicitly characterized the Lockley / Girard book African Samurai as "popular history and historical fiction" (link here, requires a Taylor & Francis login or access via the Wikipedia Library).

Can you give us any other historians that back up your claim that Lockley's works are correct?

You also state:

"Lockley is reliable because it is his field of expertise, [...]"

You appear to be ignorant of the fact that his Japanese book 「信長と弥助 本能寺を生き延びた黒人侍」 includes the usual brief biography of the author, which points out that Lockley's area of research is language learning — not history. See also the 著者について ("about the author") section in the Amazon.co.jp listing for the book (emphasis mine):

日本大学法学部専任講師。研究分野は言語学習。担当教科は歴史で、特に国際的視野に立った日本史を扱う。同時に日本やアジアの歴史に関する多くの研究も行なっており、弥助についての論文も発表している。本書『信長と弥助』は初の著作にあたる。イギリス出身、日本在住。

研究分野は言語学習。 (Kenkyū bun'ya wa gengo gakushū., "Area of research is language learning.")

Granted, he teaches history classes at Nihon University. However, the focus of these classes is language learning. Here's his brief class description from the listing on the Nihon-U website (emphasis mine):

Welcome to Nihon University College of Law. Congratulations on your entry. My classes are content-based English classes with a focus on the international history and culture of Japan, containing themes and stories of people from history to help you improve your English and learn content at the same time. I also hold a zeminar [sic] class in the final two undergraduate years. I hope you will have a stimulating and informative four years in our College.

(Note: "zeminar" appears to be either a typo, or a strange back-translation of the Japanese term ゼミナール (zemināru), a borrowing from English German "Seminar".)

Here is an earlier paper by Lockley in 2011 about language learning: "Pre-university experience of ICT and Self-Access Learning in Japan". In the bio blurb at the bottom of that paper, Lockley's educational background is more clearly presented. History is not mentioned.

Thomas Lockley lectures in international communication at Kanda University of International Studies in Chiba Japan. He has worked in Japanese education for five years and also taught French, German and Japanese for four years in UK secondary and primary schools. His research and teaching interests include secondary education, motivation and self-perception.

(As a side-note, I find it interesting how difficult it is to find anything about Lockley's bona fide credentials on the English-language side of the web.)

----

We all learn new and different things over time. That said, it is clear that Lockley's own educational background is not in the field of history: to the best of my Google-fu, he has not earned a degree in history, and thus has not been trained in how to research historical texts, how to interpret texts in their contemporary contexts, how to write in ways that build on historical texts to the author's own inferences and conclusions. I suspect that his different background may underlie much of this (now very public and international) controversy. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Purdy's review has indeed been talked about extensively, and you seem to be ignoring that he was overall supportive of the relevant claims in them, and did not contend with the claim that Yasuke is a samurai. Additionally, concerning Lockley: "担当教科は歴史で、特に国際的視野に立った日本史を扱う" ("the subject he presides over is history, particularly Japanese history from an international perspective"). Lastly, I am not seeing the controversy and I am not interested in the endless rehashing of these discussions. Symphony Regalia (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

This is the first time you have actually acknowledged my questions. I have asked you multiple times and only now you answer, so thank you for that, but do not claim I am disrupting when I am not the one refusing to answer questions.

I am fluent in Japanese and I've repeatedly referenced 新辞林's definition of 侍 (帯刀し，武芸をもって主君に仕えた者。武士。 ) to support the conclusions that matter experts and reliable sources have drawn in regards to Yasuke being a samurai.

Please link the dictionary source. Eirikr and I have been using Kotobank and they do not describe the same as what you are describing as shown here:[9]

Source text of item 1: 武芸をもって貴族や武家に仕えた者の称。平安中期ごろから宮中や院を警固する者をいうようになり、鎌倉・室町時代には（庶民）と区別される上級武士をさした。江戸時代になって幕府の旗本、諸藩の中小姓以上の称となり、また、士農工商のうちの士身分をいう通称ともなった。武士。

Machine translated (@Eirikr can provide a more accurate translation): A name for a person who served a noble or samurai family with martial arts. From around the mid-Heian period, it came to refer to those who guarded the imperial court and temples, and in the Kamakura and Muromachi periods, it referred to high-ranking bushi who were distinguished from the Bonge (commoners). In the Edo period, it became the hatamoto of the shogunate, a name for the middle and higher page names of various domains, and also became a common name for the samurai class among the samurai, agriculture, industry, and commerce. Bushi.

And below it even covers the term Saburai in item 1 below:

Source text: ㋒武家に仕える者。家の子。武士。さむらい。

Machine translated: A person who serves a samurai family. child of the house. Bushi. Samurai.

If we look at 武家 directly, we can see that it can refer to "Samurai family" or "Samurai class". Looking at 家, it can mean "family; household", and/or "lineage; family name". We know that the term saburai is the historical pronunciation of the term Samurai during the Sengoku period as evidenced by the Vocabulario da Lingoa de Iapam on page 426:[10]

Source text: Saburai: Fidalgo, i, bomem bonrado

Machine translated: Saburai: Nobleman, i, honorable man (I need a check on this one from someone who speaks Portuguese as I am not confident in the spelling)

In any case, Kotobank and the Nippo Jisho (Japanese-Portuguese dictionary) reinforces the idea of nobility within the samurai class, as well as several secondary sources I have posted before in a comprehensive analysis.

Lockley is reliable because it is his field of expertise, and because his works have been peer-reviewed by other historians and subject matter experts who support the claims in them. I've explained this multiple times (and am indeed happy to do so anytime), however you should be aware that your refusal to drop the stock is not indicative of you being "ignored" by anyone.

...

Rather, it is indictive of a disruptive editing pattern on your behalf that you've been repeatedly been warned about, where you beat a dead horse and refuse to drop the stick on topics where there is already a clear consensus. I think the next step for you is a topic ban.

I do not recall a peer review other than Purdy on Lockley's work. As far as I am aware, books do not get peer reviewed, so you need to cite your sources on this. According to Purdy, Lockley's book is full of uncited creative embellishments and is considered historical fiction of popular history, even saying that it is not academic.

Also, I ask that you cease the hostility as you have on numerous occasions pointed here accused both Eirikr and I of without ever explaining why or even acknowledging. This is in fact the first time you have actually acknowledged me since I said I would suggest a topic ban, and you are trying to send multiple replies in quick succession as I am typing this out, presumably to make it appear as if I am ignoring you. Asking for a question or clarification is not beating with a stick, you should not be surprised when you get the same question when you have made zero attempt to responding.

The only person being disruptive is you, because I have always been open to responding to your claims and criticisms, yet I do not see the same being delivered by you. I have given you multiple chances to prove yourself and you have ignored me every single time and continued accusations. You have made zero attempt to make any claims on the Japanese translations of Lockley's work that I have repeatedly asked you to do. If anything, it looks like you are using the "I am Japanese" to establish yourself as an ambiguous authority on the matter without ever elaborating your position to dismiss all opposition, and it makes your arguments look in bad faith as a result. Hexenakte (talk) 17:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@天罰れい子 is a user on the Japanese wikipedia using multiple accounts to post very inflammatory racist and nationalistic content. I am fluent in Japanese and his posts are largely machine translated. He is obsessed with attempting to deny that Yasuke is a samurai and has failed in his attempts to do so.

I've largely stayed away from it but apparently due to that failure he is now attempting to harass and stalk me cross-wiki. Symphony Regalia (talk) 15:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I am going to ask once again, can you actually prove what you are saying? Can you not throw baseless accusations or claims and when confronted about it, actually acknowledge it? I have gone on record multiple times trying to ask why you believe Lockley's translations or claims are accurate, since you claim to be fluent in Japanese. Surely you can explain why as you are claiming to be fluent in both languages.

If you ignore this again I am going to suggest a topic ban on you for disruptive behavior WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Seriously, answer the questions we ask you. Hexenakte (talk) 16:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I've answered this here, as I've done in the past, and as many other editors have given you in response to your questions which are very similar. I will kindly ask you to stop the harrassment. This refusal to WP:DROPTHESTICK is indicative of a longstanding disruptive editing pattern on your behalf, that has been called out by multiple editors here. Not to mention the off-site canvassing and WP:NOTHERE-style original research. I am ready to suggest a topic ban for you if this does not improve. Symphony Regalia (talk) 16:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

"as I've done in the past"

This is the first time you have responded with any references. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I concur, see for example [11][12][13][14][15]. Thibaut (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Of these 5 diffs, 3 of those diffs are from Eirikr, who has been engaged in disruptive WP:BLUDGEONING and refusal to WP:DROPTHESTICK behavior for over a month now, and the other two have been answered by me in other edits. Symphony Regalia (talk) 21:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

You have sent 7 replies in the span of an hour, with none of them adding anything new and only a regurgitation of the same accusations you've been saying all this time, which falls under WP:BLUDGEONING:

[Bludgeoning] is where someone attempts to force their point of view through a very high number of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own. Typically, this means making the same argument over and over and to different people in the same discussion or across related discussions. [...] This behavior and conduct is undesirable, considered a form of disruptive editing, and is usually seen and reported as such when observed by other editors who are involved in the same discussion.

Only when you are presented with talks of a topic ban, you have slightly changed your tone in your more recent posts, but then decided to gaslight as if you have always been saying this, when you have indeed not as shown by the reference links posted by @Thibaut120094 above. At this point I do not know what other option to pursue other than a topic ban since you have not shown interest nor desire to actual productive discussion and only seek to accuse others of doing the same thing you are doing. Hexenakte (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think something fundamental you are misunderstanding is that ANI is not the appropriate place for you to force people into debating secondary sources with you, especially debates that have already been concluded with clear consensus. It is for discussing behavior not sources, and in particular your behavior as the initial report concerns you and Eirikr. The initial report has nothing to do with how credible you think certain sources are and I am not interested in having that discussion with you. I was not involved in previous discussions and I am brief to respect the already established consensus.

I am not a frequent editor. You've continuously WP:HOUNDED me for additional replies and I genuinely am assuming good faith on your behalf (despite the relevant information being available in the RfC as I've previously pointed out), so I provided them and now you are claiming that they are "regurgitation". I hope you can see how this is disruptive and a clear case of WP:BLUDGEONING, where you harass someone if they do not wish to reply to you, and then force them into an endless debate if they do. I was not involved in the earlier discussions but I imagine this is precisely the kind of repeat behavior from you and Eirikir that led to the initial report.

I do not have an exact count of your high comment volume on the talk page and in the other discussions, but by a rough estimation across all of the relevant discussions it perhaps a staggering 150 comments. Just you and Eirikr alone have quite possibly left about 300 comments collectively in these discussions. As other editors have pointed out concerning your refusal to WP:DROPTHESTICK and severe WP:BLUDGEONING:

One editor[16]:

re Eirikr's the other editor refusing to engage in my attempts at conversing with them on Talk:Yasuke about the quality of the tertiary and quaternary sources they reference. Eirikr made 88 edits to Talk: Yasuke adding 115 kB of text and Hexenakte made 111 edits adding 188 kB. They argued that Britannica, Smithsonians Magazine, BBC, TIME, CNN, France Info, Lockley's book and Lopez-Vera's book are not WP:RS because of their content: these sources directly claim that Yasuke was a samurai, which is incompatible with Hexenakte's and Eirikr's original research. There is not one single reliable source denying that Yasuke was a samurai, apart from the 300 kB of ruminations Eirikr and Hexenakte have posted on that talk page. This runs contrary to core policies and is disruptive as WP:BLUDGEON. Eirikr is not entitled to have me or others "engaged in their attempts at conversing" - they should have dropped the stick weeks ago. I don't know if there's an issue of bad faith or competence but I'm sure it's disruptive and should stop.

Another editor[17]:

I see the usual suspects from the talk page are bringing their walls of text over here as well. I will keep things short and to the point (as best as one can with this subject matter). Per the RfC that was closed, there are numerous sources, including a number of academic ones I've previously presented over there, that discuss the subject's history and how he was given the title of samurai. There are no reliable sources that argue otherwise. Meanwhile, you've got editors like Hexenakte and Eirikr that have made massive threads all across the talk page trying to put in their own WP:OR interpretation of said sources, claiming that the sources aren't reliable because they translated the Japanese wrong or didn't show the primary sources they were using, ect. I've tried to explain to them time and again that editors aren't allowed to be sources and claim their interpretation is the factual one, especially if they don't even have a single reliable source backing their claims. My statements in that regard have fallen on deaf ears time and time again with both of said editors (and they are likely to reply to my comment here with yet another wall of text arguing the same points again).

The quote from WP:BLUDGEON is quite relevant here.

[Bludgeoning] is where someone attempts to force their point of view through a very high number of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own. Typically, this means making the same argument over and over and to different people in the same discussion or across related discussions. [...] This behavior and conduct is undesirable, considered a form of disruptive editing, and is usually seen and reported as such when observed by other editors who are involved in the same discussion.

This is precisely what you and Eirikr have done despite constant warnings. Not to mention that this doesn't even touch upon the off-site canvassing, which appears to be you and Eirikr discussing how to bypass the RfC before it even closed.

Given that you appear to be a SPA as well, at this point I think a topic ban or even a WP:NOTHERE block suggestion would be appropriate, but I'll let others discuss that. Symphony Regalia (talk) 20:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

It is not. Anything I've referenced is in the RfC for anyone's perusal, and/or has been already extensively covered in the relevant discussions, including this page itself (Britannica, Smithsonians Magazine, BBC, TIME, CNN, France Info, Lockley's book and Lopez-Vera's book).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning Symphony Regalia (talk) 21:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

It doesn’t take more than a quick look over at the Japanese talk page:

https://ja.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%8E%E3%83%BC%E3%83%88:%E5%BC%A5%E5%8A%A9

to see that @Symphony Regalia has been similarly disruptive and accused of using multiple proxy accounts, including a high likelihood of being the user やまとぉ due to having the same exact defensive dialogue, replying on the other’s replies, and baseless claims without providing proper sources. Furthermore, this account also copy-pastes retorts from other users as deflection to their accusations. 天罰れい子 (talk) 21:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I will kindly ask you to stop the unfounded WP:HARASSMENT. Symphony Regalia (talk) 21:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

It would be prudent of you to not deflect the accusation back at your accuser, especially when @天罰れい子 is justified in saying so, in regards to the state that ja:弥助 was in and that you also attempted to insinuate that @Eirikr is @天罰れい子.

Ever since your initial edit of ja:弥助 on the 2nd of July, it was followed by concerted efforts by three accounts all made in the span of 3 days, as well as several IP addresses over the course of days to push for the same edit. Your edit was rejected on grounds that the BBC source you provided did not mention the word 護衛. In response to that, on the 4th of July, you accused the Japanese editors of prejudice, racism and of all things, vandalism, instead of talking things out in the Talk page.

Prior to your initial edit, you also did not engage with said editors before pushing for said edit, this is one of several points that I want people to take note of as I delve further.

On the 6th of July, you gave your reasoning, however you presented it as "Sources described him as", "According to sources", "Several experts and historians describe him as", you were then pressed for your citations, as well as in your Talk page, but you did not provide any, a behavioural point that I'm sure several editors here are familiar by now.

When a comment was highlighting the possibility of Symphonia Regalia, やまとぉ and Asakasarin violating WP:SOCK, the やまとぉ account in turn, twisted the accusation around and accused the other Japanese editors of the same. This includes @天罰れい子's comment, directed at Symphony Regalia about not using socks and IPs and instead use their main account, which was then copy-pasted and twisted by the やまとぉ account, accusing @天罰れい子 of being ぼーしー, this copypasted response is repeated in the Talk page as many as 13 times and to several other editors who were against the edits. The reason I bring up the やまとぉ account is that like SR, it doesn't provide citations to its arguments, just the same vague "According to", "Historians claim" talking points and that SR also twists accusations back at their accusers, see here and here.

On to the 2 block logs on the Japanese side I would like to discuss, in 2023, when the user Masatami left a message in your Talk page about not adding JPOV/NPOV tags to articles without prior discussion, you chose to blank it out to avoid showing misdoing (another point to take note of), you were then given a temperament warning for that by Mt.Asahidake, which you promptly blanked again, citing vandalism, more or less the same as your English Talk page but it's "harassment" instead. Prior to the page blank, you copy pasted the same warning directed at you, twisted and sent it to Masatami, and shortly after, doing the same to Mt.Asahidake, which landed you that block.

In 2018, you renamed the ja:南京事件 page to 南京虐殺事件 and like your most recent edits in the Japanese side, it was also done without discussion. When the user Pinkpastel dropped 2 warnings on your Talk page, you blanked it and then copied the message and pasted it on Pinkpastel's page to use it against them, and as before, netting you that block. Given that you made comments like this, it would seems like you still have some lingering vendetta over being blocked.

Given the context and past behaviour, I find it very difficult that you would operate in good faith. I would also like to bring attention to this previous incident, I believe User talk:12.75.41.40 is a sock of SR, given the following circumstances.

1. the blanking of pages to hide misdoings after being warned by @DarmaniLink
2. making claims without providing source" .
3. SR's copypasted @DarmaniLink's comment which was also blanked, they repurposed the comment and used it against @DarmaniLink, before adding another another link in the comment. That link was a comment in response to the IP above, which is questionable as to why SR chose that specific comment to be included later on.

14.192.213.32 (talk) 09:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Given the context above as well as the behavior shown throughout this talk page as well as the RSN page and the Yasuke talk page, the only appropriate option is to suggest a topic ban for @Symphony Regalia from anything on Yasuke, as it is clear there is demonstration of bad faith arguments and methods of vandalism in order to derail productive discussion over the issues at hand. Thank you for documenting Regalia's consistent disruptive behavior. Hexenakte (talk) 15:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree with this. Admittedly I'm an involved editor, but I did not notice anything inappropriate from Symphony Regalia. On the contrary, they've made good contributions both to the talk page and to article namespace, where they've helped to uphold policy and build good content. I haven't delved into the bunch of harsh accusations levelled against them (including sockpuppetry, if I'm not mistaken) but those based on their behaviour on the Japanese Wikipedia are ludicrous, completely out of scope here, and should have not been posted. It's hard not to develop a battlefield mentality on such a heated topic, perhaps somewhere SR could have done better, but overall they behaved professionally. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

He has done nothing to contribute to actual discussion to this issue, has not posted a single citation when asked, and completely ignores all opposition and dismisses it as ambiguous authority on the subject matter for "being Japanese and fluent in the Japanese language". He also consistently accuses others of doing the exact same thing he has done, and this history of his past behavior only reinforces that idea. Many editors such as myself have given him multiple chances to prove his arguments and provide citations for his claims, and he hasn't done that once and has attempted to gaslight that he did. I have spoken with many editors here who oppose my arguments and have actually contributed to discussion, whereas he has not, so it has nothing to do with battlefield mentality.

Please link the posts where he has actively contributed to discussion and not have been disruptive, because I am very confused why there is defense being provided to Regalia when he hasn't shown any interest in the issues at hand and continues to be disruptive and hostile. Hexenakte (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@Gitz6666 — Just here on EN WP, by my count, @Symphony Regalia (SR) has made 21 statements about sources being reliable, or correct, or demonstrating academic consensus, but gave no specific sources, and ignored repeated requests by multiple editors that SR provide any such sources, as detailed earlier above by @Thibaut.

This is not appropriate behavior for any editor.

Details:

SR's contributions to Talk:Yasuke, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on the subject of Yasuke, that do not include any references.

• Talk:Yasuke: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]
• WP:ANI: [27], [28], [29], [30]
• WP:RSN: [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38]

SR's contributions to these pages, that do include references.

• WP:ANI: [39] -- First time that Symphony Regalia has provided any specific reference, in mentioning that they have "repeatedly referenced 新辞林's definition of 侍 (帯刀し，武芸をもって主君に仕えた者。武士。 ) to support the conclusions that matter experts and reliable sources have drawn in regards to Yasuke being a samurai." The 新辞林 here is Shinjirin (Google results), a Japanese dictionary published by Sanseido. Last edition came out in 1999, and this title is no longer available on Sanseido's website (see the lack of hits for that title here). Considering the brevity of this dictionary's entry for 侍 (samurai) and the paucity of information provided, as compared to the pages of detail given in the Nihon Kokugo Daijiten entry here at Kotobank, it is clear that the Shinjirin entry is abridged and minimal at best, and it should not be used as the basis of any nuanced discussion about what "samurai" means historically.

This post also makes additional unsupported claims that "Lockley is reliable".

So far as I have seen, they have still not posted any reference explicitly backing up their contention that Lockley's works are reliable. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I am assuming good faith in you, but I must remind you to understand no other editor has an obligation to re-prove things to you that have already been discussed to death[40]. Indeed, I have made 9 talk edits, and you have made over 100 as mentioned by another editor, refusing to WP:DROPTHESTICK and continuously sealioning anyone and everyone for more "evidence". With all due respect, you do not seem to be aware of how disruptive your WP:BLUDGEON behavior is, and this exactly why the initial report here was filed about you, which is about your conduct[41]. The first few of mine were responding to someone who was raving about "black supremacy" and "DEI"[42], and the others here state my references directly ("Lopez, Smithsonian, Time, BBC, and Britannica are all considered reliable as well") and/or refer to the RfC outcome. When I say that Lockley is reliable, I am referring to the fact that his work is peer-reviewed by Purdy and trusted by major publications such as BBC, Time, the Smithsonian, and Britannica. Previous discussions make this abundantly clear[43]. You have already been rebuked on this by dozens of editors and yet for two months now from what I can see, you still refuse to WP:DROPTHESTICK.

The fact that Eirikr and Hexenakte still do not seem to understand that ANI is not for content debates, and that indeed there is no good reason for you to continuously rehash and WP:BLUGDEON everywhere you possibly can on a topic that has already been discussed to death, is precisely the problem. I am intentionally brief as I am respecting established consensus.

By my count you alone have left 150-200 comments on this topic, most of them bludgeoning other editors. As you mentioned by another editor :

Eirikr made 88 edits to Talk: Yasuke adding 115 kB of text and Hexenakte made 111 edits adding 188 kB. They argued that Britannica, Smithsonians Magazine, BBC, TIME, CNN, France Info, Lockley's book and Lopez-Vera's book are not WP:RS because of their content: these sources directly claim that Yasuke was a samurai, which is incompatible with Hexenakte's and Eirikr's original research. There is not one single reliable source denying that Yasuke was a samurai, apart from the 300 kB of ruminations Eirikr and Hexenakte have posted on that talk page. This runs contrary to core policies and is disruptive as WP:BLUDGEON. Eirikr is not entitled to have me or others "engaged in their attempts at conversing" - they should have dropped the stick weeks ago. I don't know if there's an issue of bad faith or competence but I'm sure it's disruptive and should stop.

Symphony Regalia (talk) 11:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@14.192.213.32 is a proxy IP. This is likely the same user (@天罰れい子, @Pobble1717) who is harassing me and making random things up because they dislike my opinion. Symphony Regalia (talk) 21:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for providing a comprehensive evidence of @Symphony Regalia’s disruptive behavior and constantly making outlandish claims without proof or source. This is the exact same disruptive behavior I noticed across both EN and JP Wiki Talk pages and simply wished it to point it out. 天罰れい子 (talk) 22:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I will also add that the user in question posted on my talk page with these accusations against Symphony Regalia [Here] stating: "There is also a user called Symphony Regalia who has been trolling the Japanese talk page, being exposed as using multiple proxy accounts to try and promote the viewpoint of Yasuke = 侍 with no credible sources other than Lockley (which itself is seen as uncredible to the Japanese editors). The same user is also on the EN talk page promoting the same viewpoint, by the way." Relm (talk) 21:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Based on the user's other comments on this page[44] he appears to be someone who signed up to target perceived enemies.

When blatantly false information about a country’s history is unjustly propagated as truth overseas, then you are going to have people who are upset and wish to bring attention to the inconsistencies and lies being spread around. In fact, this topic has been trending in Japan lately and is garnering serious scrutiny and backlash due to historical revisionism by Wikipedia (trending on X which is the main outlet for popular Japanese discourse).

Symphony Regalia (talk) 22:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

• I see the usual suspects from the talk page are bringing their walls of text over here as well. I will keep things short and to the point (as best as one can with this subject matter). Per the RfC that was closed, there are numerous sources, including a number of academic ones I've previously presented over there, that discuss the subject's history and how he was given the title of samurai. There are no reliable sources that argue otherwise.

Meanwhile, you've got editors like Hexenakte and Eirikr that have made massive threads all across the talk page trying to put in their own WP:OR interpretation of said sources, claiming that the sources aren't reliable because they translated the Japanese wrong or didn't show the primary sources they were using, ect. I've tried to explain to them time and again that editors aren't allowed to be sources and claim their interpretation is the factual one, especially if they don't even have a single reliable source backing their claims. My statements in that regard have fallen on deaf ears time and time again with both of said editors (and they are likely to reply to my comment here with yet another wall of text arguing the same points again). Silverseren^C 21:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

"I see the usual suspects from the talk page are bringing their walls of text over here as well."

Continuing your disparaging ad hominems, I see. Please keep your comments to a discussion of the issues, not the people. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

This page is specifically for dealing with the people, not the content. Your behavior is what's under scrutiny. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Ad hominem is never appropriate. As described on the policy page: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

(uninvolved non-admin comment) It is not considered a personal attack to point out that ANI is about behaviour not content. Neither is it a personal attack to point out walls of text. Lavalizard101 (talk) 19:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I take issue with @HandThatFeeds characterizing this page as "dealing with the people, not the content" — in the context of their post as a reply to my post above, this seems exactly backwards from the guidance at WP:No personal attacks. I honestly struggle to see how @Silver seren's comment is not disparaging, something specifically prohibited by WP:No personal attacks.

In addition, they mischaracterize (or at a minimum, misunderstand) my efforts at due diligence in evaluating sources as somehow WP:Original research -- things like digging into cases where a source says "this is a fact^{ref 1, ref 2}", reading "ref 1" and "ref 2", finding that neither "ref 1" nor "ref 2" state "fact", and then posting on the Talk page that the source itself is misrepresenting its own sources: and not as a matter of my own personal opinion. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 22:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of your "issue" with my characterization, the page explicitly states at the top: This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. (emphasis mine)

Taking issue with your editing behavior is not a violation of WP:NPA. Frankly, I think you need to follow the law of holes at this point. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Taking into consideration of the fact that the person who made this topic in the first place has long since understood that we had no ill intent and clarified that he was moving the RfC issue to be resolved by dispute, this was not made to be a punitive measure, but rather to move a very complex issue to dispute resolution where it belonged. Acting like we are engaging in bad faith behavior despite the repeated clarifications in this topic that we aren't is an issue. Hexenakte (talk) 22:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi, so sorry for the confusion. This is not the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard I was suggesting you take the argument to. Rather, this is the Admin Notice Board, where conduct issues are reported. Due to the various problems associated and happening on the talkpage, I thought it prudent to make a report here. Sorry for any confusion I caused you. Chrhns (talk) 11:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

"Per the RfC that was closed, there are numerous sources, including a number of academic ones I've previously presented over there, that discuss the subject's history and how he was given the title of samurai."

One source in particular contains fabrications: Manatsha's "Historicising Japan-Africa Relations" (available here via ResearchGate).

Multiple editors, myself included, described at Talk:Yasuke#Samurai status (among other places) that this reference has serious problems, and is not reliable.

You continued to claim it as a "reliable source", more than once, without addressing any of our concerns.

I put it to you that our descriptions of the issues with this paper, valid and easily confirmable issues, are met with your own stonewalling. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I've never even discussed that source before anyways, so I don't know why you're bringing it up in response to me. I brought up completely different sources. Silverseren^C 22:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, you are correct, upon review of the many threads, I see that it was Loki and Gitz that kept bringing that one up. I believe my confusion comes from your repeated insistence that sources given were reliable (albeit without listing that specific paper). I did ask you about reliable sources a couple times, including mention of this Manatsha paper, and you did not respond. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 22:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Could this be a WP:CIR issue?CycoMa1 (talk) 21:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't even know at this point. That talk page is a mess. Just like what Talk:Sweet Baby Inc. was like before it was semi-protected. Silverseren^C 22:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

100% yes.

I will also say that extended-confirmed protection for the talk page would solve 90% of the issues. Loki (talk) 01:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

This is exactly the problem I was talking about. Just as I stated above, I acknowledged the initial OR I did and apologized for it, multiple times, just above if you even read what I posted. Please stop disparaging us with these accusations, especially Eirikr who did not do any OR, and I already accepted responsibility for that matter and have corrected it months ago. Hexenakte (talk) 21:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• While I haven't read the RFC or brushed up on this issue, I find it odd that this brand new user was the one to close what was evidently a contentious RFC. Aside from a few edits setting up a Wiki Ed course that doesn't seem to have actually happened and updating their userpage, the closer's first substantive edits were to find WP:RFCLOSE, mark it as {{Doing}}, and then close the RFC 6 minutes later. There was roughly an hour between their first edit and the RFC close, the account has never edited mainspace or anything outside of this RFC, and appears to know a lot about the more intricate parts of Wikipedia for someone who has never been a Wikipedia editor. It might be worth taking a second look at this RFC. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@The Wordsmith I cannot find a way to reply to you, so I just figured I'd shoot off an explanation. I was added to Wikipedia as part of a University course I took years ago. We could edit Wikipedia articles, or we could write book reviews. While we familiarized ourselves with the Wikipedia process, I disagreed with my professor's request that we should be improving articles that were related to authors associated with our university (by way of her inviting them to speak, or by way of them serving on faculty). I familiarized myself with Wikipedia's policies as best that I could before I opted out of doing Wikipedia work and instead did book reviews. I saw that anyone could close RfCs and I thought that it would be a neat usage of my time since I'm between semesters and was bored, so after I read the RfC Closure Requests section I logged in to my account, edited my Wikipedia page, and went to work. It seemed to me that the closure would be easy, since there were a large number of 'yes' votes. As I explained in my rationale, "yes, but as a minority" view was argued to be inappropriately editorializing the subject since there weren't any sources that contradicted the statement. As for the closure "six minutes later", that's because I found the format for closing, typed out my rationale/summarization/assesment in a text document, dropped the {doing}, posted the closure, and then posted the {done}. I did not realize that I needed to have a substantial history of actively editing Wikipedia to close an RfC and figured it didn't get much more "uninvolved" than someone who hasn't edited anything. So, my apologies. I was just interested in the closure process because summarizing and assesing arguments falls within my skillset and I do not have a desire to actively edit articles. I didn't realize that this would be disallowed or problematic, and I'll stop doing so going forward. Chrhns (talk) 21:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

As for the statement "appears to know a lot about the more intricate parts of Wikipedia", I'm unsure as to what "intricate" parts of Wikipedia you are referring here? My statement that DRN might be more appropriate for the issue was derived from reading Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests/Guide which states

For complex content-related issues between two or more editors, you may bring your dispute to the informal dispute resolution noticeboard. This is a good place to bring your dispute if you don't know what the next step should be

and

For simple content-related issues where concise proposals have been made on the talk page, you may bring your dispute to the informal requests for comment to have the broader community look at the dispute and make suggestions.

.

I found the Reliable Source Noticeboard and when looking about the policies on reliable sources, and the rest I learned just from reading through policies before I set out on doing anything, and the other RfC about tornadoes sounded more complicated than what was presented as a "yes" or "no" RfC. Chrhns (talk) 21:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

No apologies are needed, but thank you for the explanation nonetheless. I'm absolutely not saying you weren't allowed to close the RFC or that you did a bad job at it (I haven't read the whole thing) Just that closing an RFC is difficult, so experienced editors should review it to make sure it complies with our policies and guidelines. New editors must be treated with respect, but they may be subject to more scrutiny in the early stages of their editing as other editors attempt to assess how well they adhere to Wikipedia standards. Closing discussions is allowed, but per WP:NAC they're generally left for administrators or experienced editors, especially the discussions that are likely to be controversial. Getting involved with Wikipedia and learning our policies is a great thing and I hope you continue. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah! I see. Apologies again. Reading that essay, I see where I have erred. Thank you! Chrhns (talk) 22:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I do not really see an issues with the talk page. That said I will add that I am fluent in Japanese and this is not a complex issue. Reliable sources refer to him as a samurai. A few editors attempting to engage in WP:OR because they don't like the conclusions of reliable sources, strikes me as personal agenda pushing that goes against the spirit of an encyclopedia. In any case the RFC had a very clear consensus.

I also agree that the off-site discussions between Eirikr and Hexenakte strike me as calculating how to influence the article and bypass the outcome. Symphony Regalia (talk) 22:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Granted what it might have looked like, do you accept my explanations above?

@Symphony Regalia — Also, could you respond to my earlier response to your very-similar post further above in this same thread? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} ‑‑  22:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I find it concerning how you continue to accuse us of conspiracy for seemingly no reason, even after much has been said that we did not have any ill intent. I really should not have to repeat myself on this matter, but the entire point of that wiktionary page was to do further research on a missing quote that is supposedly hidden from the public eye. Yes, we did talk about the issue at hand with the RfC and recognized that it was merely a popularity contest with no attempt to look into the secondary sources themselves. That is why we are here to do a dispute resolution as this is a very complex issue. I am trying to be as honest as I possibly can here, and no matter how much I try to be transparent I am always accused of something and I still fail to see why.

Another thing is you insist that this is not a complex issue because you are fluent in Japanese and you deem it so. Yet you haven't demonstrated it once since the 3 or 4 times you mentioned it. You have not provided any dictionary entries for your point and you have not written in Japanese once. You are essentially saying "I am right and you are wrong" without further explanation, and when you are asked, you completely ignore it, just as you did above.

If it isn't already apparent by now, this is a recurring pattern among those still pushing for these secondary sources. There is no argument being presented against our concerns, much less being at least acknowledged. Somehow those interpreting that the very basics of verification of these sources that anyone is capable of doing is bludgeoning the process, and then refusing to engage on those grounds, despite it being very prevalent among several editors in the talk page, not just Eirikr and I. This is not to mention the multiple hostile accusations on this section alone.

I know you do not agree with us, but I really have to point to WP:CIVIL. It is very difficult to have a meaningful conversation if half of this discussion is filled with hostility, and the fact I have to mention this several times is problematic. Hexenakte (talk) 02:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, given they left comments like Special:Diff/1232446414 on the RSN thread, I'm ready to recommend a topic ban.

They've been asked to improve their behavior if they wish to continue participating and have not, if anything, have gotten worse.

So, now comes the next step. DarmaniLink (talk) 05:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

You conveniently left out the reply to that from another editor, debunking your absurd claim.

DarmaniLink, who complains that Symphony Regalia is casting aspersions by mentioning the "anti-woke", "anti-dei", right-wing assault on the Yasuke article, began their first comment on the Yasuke talk page with Descendent of an (actual) samurai of the saeki clan, with a preserved 15th century land grant document in my family's possession here. Another editor complained about black supremacy and DEI propaganda. Personally I don't care about their motives, whether they are right-wing nationalists or passionate amateur historians and samurai enthusiasts - I'm not interested in their agenda, but I'm interested in their sources. Unfortunately those opposing Yasuke's status as a samurai have not provided sources contradicting Encyclopaedia Britannica, Smithsonian Magazine, TIME, BBC, or the research of Lockley and Lopez-Vera.

You've demonstrated consistent bias and I think a topic ban would perhaps be appropriate for you. Please cease the harassment. Symphony Regalia (talk) 04:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't know why I'm still sticking around, but I can send you a picture of the document if you want proof. I have samurai heritage going back to the 15th century when some distant ancestor was granted land by Mori Motonari. Accusing others of lying, as well as harassment is a personal attack. DarmaniLink (talk) 14:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Three points:

1. re Eirikr's the other editor refusing to engage in my attempts at conversing with them on Talk:Yasuke about the quality of the tertiary and quaternary sources they reference. Eirikr made 88 edits to Talk: Yasuke adding 115 kB of text and Hexenakte made 111 edits adding 188 kB. They argued that Britannica, Smithsonians Magazine, BBC, TIME, CNN, France Info, Lockley's book [45] and Lopez-Vera's book [46] are not WP:RS because of their content: these sources directly claim that Yasuke was a samurai, which is incompatible with Hexenakte's and Eirikr's original research. There is not one single reliable source denying that Yasuke was a samurai, apart from the 300 kB of ruminations Eirikr and Hexenakte have posted on that talk page. This runs contrary to core policies and is disruptive as WP:BLUDGEON. Eirikr is not entitled to have me or others "engaged in their attempts at conversing" - they should have dropped the stick weeks ago. I don't know if there's an issue of bad faith or competence but I'm sure it's disruptive and should stop.
2. re When that editor then edits the Yasuke article to add a detail ("as a samurai") with citations, and those citations do not say anything about that detail. Again, I don’t know if that's bad faith or lack of competence but this edit of mine replaces "retainer" with "samurai", which is directly supported by all cited sources, and modifies one sentence, As a samurai, he was granted a servant, a house and stipend, which is supported by the quoted source, CNN, stating "Today, Yasuke’s legacy as the world’s first African samurai is well known in Japan (...) Nobunaga soon made him a samurai – even providing him with his own servant, house and stipend, according to Jesuit records".
3. Chrhns' closure was flawless, and I support any measures necessary to make that talk page workable and policy-compliant.

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I wanted to point out that Eirikr misinterpreted my edit, as this conversation on Wikidictionary makes clear. This does not directly affect the question of Eirikr's ability to interpret 16th and 17th century Japanese and Portuguese sources, which I am not in a position to evaluate. However, most of the editors who !voted in the RfC preferred to stick to the numerous reliable secondary sources that suggest that in medieval Japan a man who had a sword, a servant below him, and a lord above him - a lord with whom he had a direct personal relationship - was most likely to be a samurai, that is, a warrior of higher rank and prestige. This was the case, according to sources, even if that man happened to be black and born in Africa. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@Gitz6666 —

• In your point #1 above, you list eight sources. You then claim (emphasis mine): "They [Hexenakte and Eiríkr] argued that [sources] are not WP:RS because of their content: these sources directly claim that Yasuke was a samurai, which is incompatible with Hexenakte's and Eirikr's original research."

I must emphasize, that despite your apparent opinion of my position, I don't care one way or the other whether Yasuke was a samurai. My issue is simple academic integrity and verifiability. I care what reliable, confirmable sources have to say, and I care that our article at [[Yasuke]] accurately and fairly presents what such sources say.

Of your eight sources, the first six of them are tertiary or quaternary references.

• Britannica includes zero sourcing or references, and presents speculation that isn't confirmable anywhere (about Yasuke fighting in several battles). I honestly fail to see how this is a reliable source.
• The next five all depend on the seventh (Lockley) for their statements about Yasuke as a samurai.
• Lockley and López-Vera are secondary sources, and while they lack in-line citations, they at least include bibliographies that list primary sources.

So of those 8, we have only two that are secondary sources. Which anyone would know, if they did their due diligence and read the sources in their entirety.

Two secondary sources is a less compelling picture, and this is a big part of why I continue to oppose writing our article such that it states that Yasuke was a samurai, as an uncited statement of fact (in "wikivoice"): most of the sources brought up at Talk:Yasuke in support of making a "wikivoice" statement are either tertiary and merely repeating the statements of other secondary sources, or they have other issues (like the Manatsha paper).

What I have done in evaluating these eight sources is hardly OR, this is simple due diligence in evaluating sources and the bases for claims made.

• In your point #2 above, I see some confusion. I take issue with this sentence, which you changed to add "as a samurai" that appears underlined here:

Nobunaga was impressed by him and asked Valignano to give him over.<ref name="JapanForum" /> He gave him the Japanese name ''Yasuke'',{{efn|The origin of his name is unknown.}} made him an attendant at his side and enlisted Yasuke into his army as a samurai.<ref name="ExcludedPresence" /><ref name="Hitotsubashi">{{Cite journal |last=Wright |first=David |date=1998 |title=The Use of Race and Racial Perceptions Among Asians and Blacks: The Case of the Japanese and African Americans |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/43294433 |url-status=live |journal=Hitotsubashi Journal of Social Studies |volume=30 |issue=2 |pages=135–152 |issn=0073-280X |jstor=43294433 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230313173327/https://www.jstor.org/stable/43294433 |archive-date=13 March 2023 |access-date=19 May 2024 |quote=In 1581, a Jesuit priest in the city of Kyoto had among his entourage an African}}</ref>

The issue I take is that, as written, the text appears to source the "as a samurai" part to the given references — which themselves make no such statement. Hence my predicament: I do not know if you are mistakenly claiming that these sources support your contention, or if you are intentionally writing so as to make your claim seem as if others are backing it up, even when they do not. Given the way it appears that you are trying to ram through a "wikivoice" statement of samurai-ness, I confess that I have begun to doubt your motives.

• In your point #3 above, I think it's clear from the existence of this very thread that the RFC closure was not "flawless". I do not fault @Chrhns for their good-faith efforts, but the closure was not without its issues.

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

No, sorry, but your point 2 is just wrong: you are falsifying my edit. This is the code of my first edit:

Subsequently, Nobunaga took him into his service and gave him the name Yasuke. As a samurai, he was granted a servant, a house and [[stipend]].<ref>{{Cite web |last=Jozuka |first=Emiko |date=2019-05-20 |title=The legacy of feudal Japan’s African samurai |url=https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/19/asia/black-samurai-yasuke-africa-japan-intl/index.html |access-date=2024-06-27 |website=CNN |language=en}}</ref>

It is identical to the code of my second edit (restoring the first one after the RfC). As you can see, there is a full stop between "...into his army" and "As a samurai". "As a samurai" has a capital "A". The sentance I added is supported by the quoted source CNN. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@Gitz6666, I'm looking right at the wikisource diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&diff=prev&oldid=1231823282

Specifically, the fifth color-coded paragraph down.

The paragraph in question is not the one you quote here. Again, the exact sentence I take issue with is (minus the wikicode bits): "He gave him the Japanese name Yasuke, made him an attendant at his side and enlisted Yasuke into his army as a samurai." ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

You're right. Now I understand what happened. My first edit did not add that "samurai" there. It was added later by another editor here [47]. After the RfC I undid this edit [48] and in doing so I restored that "samurai". I had no recollection of it because I had not included it in the first place. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Excellent, one issue resolved! Thank you for tracking down where that crept in, apparently in this edit by @Natemup.

@Natemup, the sources cited as references for that sentence ("He gave him the Japanese name Yasuke, made him an attendant at his side and enlisted Yasuke into his army as a samurai.") do not support your addition of the "as a samurai" bit on the end. Would you object to removing those three words?

I must log off for now, probably for the next couple days. Here's hoping that we can continue to get this sorted out. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 01:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

It's fine to move them somewhere else, but the body of the article must mention that he's a samurai if we're including it in the lede. natemup (talk) 10:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

i just want to drop, that i heavily pointed out, that one of the mentioned sources, Lockney, heavily evades the term samurai in his own comments and publications to describe Yasuke AND that the same sources about Yasuke's samurai status talk about Yasuke slavery status with zero interest to insert this fact of Yasuke's origin into the article as Original research.

If we allow these sources to "prove" the samurai status of Yasuke, we have to insert into the article, that he had a slavery background in his live. I will add, that in Japan academic papers talk about the view of slavery by Japanese with the example Yasuke. We just ignore these academical talks in the western-centristic views of some people here and silence thereby colonial actions of the Portuguese empire and explicit the Jesuits in Asia for a samurai-demand by few people, who neve rinteracted with the primary sources and rather read news articles about a netflix show.

I even highlighted, that the majority of the "reliable sources" talking about the samurai status of Yasuke were NOT about the historic figure of Yasuke, but about modern cultural media products, who showed Yasuke as a samurai in these shows. The article referring to this samurai-Yasuke in the media and tries to find a historic base to this figure of a samurai-Yasuke.

This doesn't make Yasuke in hisotry to a samurai, this just tells us, that these newsarticles talks about this show with a depicted samurai-yasuke. We have a section about this matter in the article about his cultural depiction. It is not a source for his historic title and lacks in Verifiability!

We lack any kind of primary source, that calls him a samurai. We even lack a primary source, that secures to us, that he was ever freed from slavery before, in or after being in Japan.

And this view is even heavily supported by the main source for Yasuke as a samurai, Lockney, who is evasive to the term and often used the term as a "personal view" about Yasuke in his own publications and comments in newspapers.

For example, the Jesuit records never mentioned Yasuke as a samurai, the Jesuits call him a term, typical used for black slaves or servants in Asia by Jesuits and Portuguese at these times, only call him once by his name, call him a gift given to Nobunaga by them.

The articles use a single sentence in the whole record, about various things given to Yasuke as their CLAIM, that this could mean, that he was made a samurai to justify the depiction of him as a samurai in these modern cultural products. This is not a historic fact about Yasuke or even a statement about the real Yasuk by these news-papers, who wouldn't make original scientific comments about Yasuke in the first place.

--ErikWar19 (talk) 01:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

additional:

According to this academic review (accessible through WP:TWL), Lockley 2019 is a work of popular history. I quote the paragraph most pertinent to the discussion here:

The book is clearly intended as popular history, and, while it might be unfair to judge a book by what is it not, the scarcity of primary sources on Yasuke is compounded by the lack of scholarly citations or other means to document the narrative. The afterward lists chapter-by-chapter “Selected Readings” of primary and secondary sources, but no direct citations. The omission of citations is not necessarily a question a veracity of the scholarship, but the authors frequently go into detail about Yasuke and his personal reactions, like his kidnapping from Africa and his sword fight with a young enemy samurai, with no cited documentation. Likewise, there is no discussion of the evidence that explains how, in just fifteen months, Yasuke and Nobunaga developed such a close relationship. Was it just Yasuke’s height and skin color? Presumably, much of this might come from Fróis or be based on reasonable speculation, but, without specific references, details often seem like creative embellishments, rather than historical narrative.

_dk (talk) 06:06, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

(s. Archiv1; section: Lockley 2016, Lockley 2017, and Lockley 2019?)

is this our "Lockley" Reliable source? --ErikWar19 (talk) 02:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

In 2018 you made 6 edits to userspace. In Novemeber 2020 you blanked your page. Upon returning almost 4 years later you blanked your talk page and an hour later you closed a contentious RfC. You've now gone ahead and made an ANI report over the issue too.

You're quite clearly an WP:SPA yourself. The RfC should be re-opened and closed by someone with experience (no clue whether the close is valid or not but someone with 10 edits should never close an RfC). Traumnovelle (talk) 04:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

There was nothing I saw policy wise that indicated that I shouldn't be doing closures. As I stated above, I simply saw an avenue in which I could use my time to contribute that didn't involve actively editing articles and as the other options were far more complicated than the yes or no question presented, I went with what seemed to be the simplest. I also closed the RfC on Line of Duty today prior to reading I shouldn't be doing RfCs. I blanked my page because it had material from an irrelevant course still on it. I created this ANI not about the RfC but over conduct violations appearing long before I had such as declaring nationalist screeds. I won't be doing any RfCs any more and do not particularly care if the one I did do gets reverted, though I stand by my suggestion that the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard might be more productive. Chrhns (talk) 06:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you did anything wrong, and nobody should be biting you for it. You made a good faith attempt to help out, and that's very much appreciated and welcome here. The only issue is that you started in an area that's very difficult for new editors, difficult even for experienced ones. You also did the right thing by bringing the conduct issue here for discussion. If you have any questions about different ways to participate around Wikipedia, I'd be happy to answer them on my talkpage if you like. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 06:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• As an uninvolved observer, I agree with SilverserenC and Loki that it would be helpful to (semi- or ec-)protect the talk-page for a moderate length of time in order to allow more experienced editors to implement the result of the RfC without constant disruption. (The article itself is already semi-protected.) --JBL (talk) 21:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

  I would support that. I think the talk page does indeed need some kind of protection.CycoMa1 (talk) 22:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

  Support. IPs and new accounts have been flooding the page with baseless, resource-free WP:FORUM comments for days. Needs to stop. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  I agree that EC protection is needed. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks to Daniel Case for protecting the talk-page following a request at RfPP. --JBL (talk) 23:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

This is because so many people here insist on using Lockley as a credible reference for claiming Yasuke as a “samurai” (侍) in the strict sense of a noble (high-ranking) combatant swordsman with more specific requirements such as a surname. In fact there exists no reliable primary resource that Yasuke was a 侍. We have Nobunaga’s diary, Ietada’s diary, and a few Jesuit annual reports of Japan as primary sources for mentioning a person with dark skin under assumed roles like servant, slave, etc. with not a single one using 侍.

I personally do not understand why people insist on using Lockley even after he has been exposed for fabricating the Wiki page, and deleting his social media presence to cover things up. The majority of Japanese people online do not approve of him, and there is an investigation by a member of the National Diet of Japan undergoing. 天罰れい子 (talk) 07:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh good, I was worried there might not be enough disruptive SPAs around. Now we've got obvious WP:BLP violations on ANI. --JBL (talk) 18:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

This thread (and the Ysauke talk page) is like a honeypot. 天罰れい子's comment is not OK. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

When blatantly false information about a country’s history is unjustly propagated as truth overseas, then you are going to have people who are upset and wish to bring attention to the inconsistencies and lies being spread around. In fact, this topic has been trending in Japan lately and is garnering serious scrutiny and backlash due to historical revisionism by Wikipedia (trending on X which is the main outlet for popular Japanese discourse). 天罰れい子 (talk) 04:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

The above diatribe should result in a block for the BLP violating attacks. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I want to ask how it is a BLP violation when it has been confirmed that Lockley has engaged in WP:ACTUALCOI on the Wikipedia website? Please refer to here. What Lockley has done needs to be called into question as he was trying to add his own book to the Wikipedia article, and was even called out on it months before his final edit. Hexenakte (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding WP:COI a little bit. While strongly discouraged, it isn't forbidden, especially not when properly disclosed, which @Tottoritom did in their third edit. The only definitive COI editing was in the deletion discussion, where they again disclosed their COI. Their edits to the Yasuke page were WP:SELFCITE, which is allowed (within reason). Tottoritom doesn't appear to have edit-warred, and no users brought up issues with them on their talk page, with the possible exception of a 2018 COI notice in reference to the Thomas Lockley page and a mention of WP:CITESPAM. After that, the only edit that Tottoritom made was the addition of their book to the pop culture section of the article in January 2019. They have not edited since then. They barely edited before then.

In a very long comment over on RSN you said I believe the best way to handle this situation is call on the man himself, whether it be through Wikipedia or through the Japanese National Diet, or any other official manner really, to explain the decisions he made, because this is extremely dishonest. (emphasis added).

I hope this doesn't come across as accusatory or aggressive, but what are you hoping to make happen here? Are you looking for any actions to be taken on Wikipedia, or was this WP:FORUM posting? CambrianCrab (talk) 18:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

While strongly discouraged, it isn't forbidden, especially not when properly disclosed, which @Tottoritom did in their third edit. The only definitive COI editing was in the deletion discussion, where they again disclosed their COI. Their edits to the Yasuke page were WP:SELFCITE, which is allowed (within reason) [...] the only edit that Tottoritom made was the addition of their book to the pop culture section of the article in January 2019. They have not edited since then.

According to WP:SELFCITE, it states the following:

Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. (Emphasis mine)

The following is the edit that Thomas Lockley made on January 25th, 2019:

The first full length book about Yasuke in English, written by Thomas Lockley and Geoffrey Girard, called "African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, a Legendary Black Warrior in Feudal Japan," will be published in May 2018. (Emphasis mine)

A few things here is that one, he gave the wrong publishing date for his book, which was published on April 30th, 2019. This can be seen as a mistake based off of the phrasing "will be published", so he gets the benefit of the doubt on this. However, even when corrected in a later edit, the book was still kept on the page. The question here is why his book was allowed to stay on the article when it is not released. According to WP:SOURCEDEF, "Some sources, such as unpublished texts and an editor's own personal experience, are prohibited." (Emphasis mine). Like I said, this comes across as an WP:ACTUALCOI as a possible attempt to influence the article with his book or vice versa; Lockley himself should address this and be transparent about this decision, as the earlier COI disclosure was relating to his own personal Wikipedia article, but not the inclusion of his book on the Yasuke article, this decision was never addressed.

Another thing is the phrasing that it was the "first full length book about Yasuke", establishing himself as an authority on the matter before we get a chance to even read his book. Moreover, there is no possible way to see any peer reviews on his book, let alone read the book itself, and it was kept on the article page when it should not have. As I stated before, I cannot know what Lockley's reasoning was as I cannot read his mind, but the way he went about this is that because that was his final edit on Wikipedia, he likely did not feel the need to stay on Wikipedia anymore as he already got his book cited on the article. It comes across as dishonest.

In a very long comment over on RSN you said ["]I believe the best way to handle this situation [']is call on the man himself, whether it be through Wikipedia['] or through the Japanese National Diet, or any other official manner really, to explain the decisions he made, because this is extremely dishonest.["] (emphasis added).

I hope this doesn't come across as accusatory or aggressive, but what are you hoping to make happen here? Are you looking for any actions to be taken on Wikipedia, or was this WP:FORUM posting?

I apologize for the wording on that statement, I do believe Lockley should address this COI in an official manner, I just did not know if it needed to apply to Wikipedia as well. In some shape or form, he should address it, however even then the discussion does belong on Wikipedia since it pertains specifically to COI relating to Wikipedia, even if he himself does not have to appear, so I apologize about the wording, that was my bad.

The main point I'm making here is that we should consider the integrity of Lockley's book as a conflict of interest, again, whether it be to influence the article on Yasuke or to use Yasuke for his book, I am not going to pretend to know what his motivations were, and I am not going to speak on his behalf (hence why he should address it), but it needs to be taken into consideration. Hexenakte (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Please note that I had already warned Hexenakte about WP:BLPTALK violation regarding Lockely on their talk page on 28 June 2024 [49]. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I do not understand how using a peer review contending that Lockley's work is "full of creative embellishments" and is considered historical fiction of popular history, which these are not my words. This was during a time in which most of the opposition against using Lockley's work was being heavily ignored, and since this entire issue is specifically pertaining to his book, it is unreasonable to suggest this is WP:BLPTALK, especially when it is nothing relating to Lockley personally, but rather his work and now currently the issue with his COI on Wikipedia. Again, I have not asserted any claims on his motivations, hence why I said repeatedly he should address this as it comes across as dishonest the way it appears now.

I have been more than willing to do a productive discussion about these issues, but with the constant accusations and hostility, it is extremely difficult to tread that line. I have admitted wrong where I did wrong such as my bad wording above, but my competency on the subject has been demonstrated and speaks for itself. So I ask that you do not continue these accusations and instead ask questions or for clarification as CambrianCrab has done. Hexenakte (talk) 20:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not an "accusation". It's just a warning I gave you because something you wrote struck me as potentially inappropriate. I don't have the time or inclination to re-read your numerous and lengthy comments on that talk page to find out what prompted me to warn you about WP:BLP. So I'm not accusing you of anything, I'm just saying that I warned you. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

(note that is also a response to [50] and [51]) Hexenakte I see that you're a new user. My suggestion for you would be to back away from this topic and get more experience with Wikipedia through topics you don’t really care much about. You don’t have as strong of an understanding of Wikipedia policy yet, which is to be expected when you’ve only been around for a few months, but I think that’s really contributing to your frustration here.

I understand why you want answers from Lockley and why you feel like Symphony’s behavior over on ja.wiki should be discussed here, but that just isn’t how Wikipedia works. Administrative actions are exclusively preventative, not punitive (WP:NOPUNISH), so someone who hasn't edited in 5+ years just isn't a concern. We don’t need, or really even want, an explanation from him about his motives. That just isn’t how Wikipedia works.

In terms of Symphony, I really don’t see anything substantial or actionable in the accusations, but regardless, accusations about socking belong in an WP:SPI, not here. Repeatedly accusing people here instead of opening an SPI is sometimes considered a WP:PA. Repeatedly accusing people of trying to gaslight is, to my knowledge, pretty much always considered a WP:PA and a failure to WP:AGF.

I’m going to take a step back now in the hopes that one of the admins JBL pinged can start clearing things up here. In the meantime, I strongly suggest that you find some new subjects to edit in, and consider retracting some of your recent statements. CambrianCrab (talk) 17:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure if you looked at the diff links or post links or just any of Regalia's comments in general, but he has been nothing but accusatory and I and many other editors have been extremely patient with him over the past month or so, but he simply has not done anything to actually provide any discussion on the matter. Every single time, he has accused and attacked several editors of the exact same thing he is doing.

Also there have been several subtopics opened up about other editors and their behavior in this talk page and action being taken (such as @Shinjitsunotsuikyu), there is no reason to suggest that the same could not be applied to Symphony Regalia. I have not directly suggested anything about Sockpuppeting, but rather his accusatory, disruptive and hostile behavior. Please do not misinterpret this as a personal attack, because I have been extremely patient with him and continuously assumed good faith up until now, which I had to open up a subtopic about him below to suggest a topic ban on him.

I may be a new editor, but I have been able to adapt quickly to Wikipedia policy to the best of my ability. Also consider that I have been following this topic for well over 2 months now and have been one of the more involved editors in this issue, competency has been demonstrated on the topic. If you have any questions about my statements please ask before making accusations, the behavior of Regalia is well documented here and mirrors Shinjitsunotsuikyu's problematic behavior.

Also just to be clear, I have noted your respectful behavior and it is appreciated, you have done your due diligence, I just expect the same expectation to mine. Hexenakte (talk) 17:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@Favonian, Drmies, and Daniel Case: Apologies but as this issue is buried in the middle of a disaster thread, and as you all have acted recently in an administrative capacity to deal with problems at Talk:Yasuke, could one of you please look at the portion of this discussion from the last two days (beginning with this comment) and assess whether any action is needed here? Thanks and sorry again. --JBL (talk) 21:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I would like to second this ping. Protecting Talk:Yasuke has helped a lot but clearly did not completely solve the issue, as it's spilled over into this thread and also into the discussion at WP:RSN about Thomas Lockley. Loki (talk) 02:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if it's time to drag this to AN for a formal discussion about issuing general sanctions on the topic of Yasuke writ large. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I would like to note for the admins that as part of the discussion at the WP:RSN for Lockley, it was suggested that since the definition of Samurai being used by users in OR to apply to Yasuke conflicted with the Samurai page's definition that the matter should instead be prioritized there. Myself and others suggested this assuming good faith but, much like this incident noticeboard's remarks about canvasing, the same thing has occurred again irt the half dozen recent threads on Talk:Samurai where the Yasuke controversy has spilled over to.

[Here] on the same wiktionary as the last report it can clearly be seen that @Hexenakte and @Eirikr were attempting to quote farm a definition of Samurai to suit their purpose, and then when presented evidence by another user showing an entire list of sources the two thought could support their view were instead stating the definition they are trying to disprove - the focus was merely shifted to whether they could still cite an offhanded quote by a scholar which could be read as supporting their preferred definition over an entire laundry list of published works of that same author reinforcing the definition on Samurai. Relm (talk) 21:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

[Here] on the same wiktionary as the last report it can clearly be seen that @Hexenakte and @Eirikr were attempting to quote farm a definition of Samurai to suit their purpose, and then when presented evidence by another user showing an entire list of sources the two thought could support their view were instead stating the definition they are trying to disprove - the focus was merely shifted to whether they could still cite an offhanded quote by a scholar which could be read as supporting their preferred definition over an entire laundry list of published works of that same author reinforcing the definition on Samurai.

I would not pin intent where it is not due, we were not "quote [farming]" a definition of Samurai to "suit [our] purpose". There was a clear disconnect from the scholar's use of the term from his personal website and the book he wrote for Osprey, which was pointed out as not necessarily academic by the user you mentioned. He was extremely helpful in discerning this, as we were trying to find reliable sources to help solve this issue. To suggest we are doing this for a "preferred definition over an entire laundry list of published works" is dishonest, and you should retract this accusation. There was no bibliography listed in either his personal website nor the Osprey books mentioned, so it cannot be reliably verified, this is the same problem we had with Lockley and the aforementioned "laundry list of published works".

As noted in the user talk page, the definition of Samurai used by Bryant changed as time went on, only taking on the form of nobility on his personal website as noted by his Modes of Address article. To use these sources when the information written in them is not peer reviewed nor has the proper citations to attribute where he got the information from would be dishonest, we simply cannot use them. @Eirikr and I have done more than enough due diligence to show good faith arguments and transparency, we were not attempting to hide anything, in fact this was pointed out in the past prior; it's a collaboration effort to properly verify a definition for Samurai as supported by secondary academic sources where their citations are verifiable. You are welcome to join in that conversation anytime, to suggest we were doing anything with ill intent is dishonest, and it would have been preferable if you were up front with us or asked us instead of making these accusatory remarks.

I am very disappointed since we were discussing in good faith prior in this talk page, I don't understand why you did this 180 out of nowhere. Hexenakte (talk) 22:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully, I am pointing it out as behavior that is not suitable for an encyclopedia. What I am pointing out is that the information, which was more than just the Osprey book, when it did not agree with the definition that was forwarded on the Samurai talk page (as per the title of that section on the wiktionary) was discarded. What raised my eyebrow was that there was no reflection acknowledging that these sources are opposed and what that means, but rather to keep going so that a source which did agree with y'all's PoV on the matter could be reached. This is not a bad faith accusation, it is pointing out that as per the title of the thread, it was to 'un-muddy' the definition on the Samurai page by finding a source that agrees with the point of view being forwarded there:

1. without regard for the consensus.

2. with no reflection on new sources reaffirming the consensus definition given that a desired definition is already in mind.

I have not 180'd on anything. I am concerned that if you both are able to toss out sources that disagree with your viewpoint as happened on the wiktionary page without reflection, then it means that if you found a source which disagrees with the consensus that it would be dishonest to not mention the many sources which agreed with the consensus in the process of finding the source which didn't. I want to reaffirm to you that this is not an observation made out of malice but one derived from concern that investment in a particular PoV is getting in the way of building an encyclopedia. Relm (talk) 22:55, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Once again, you have the wrong idea. Bryant was not discarded because it didn't fit our definition, it was the lack of citations as well as the fact he was inconsistent with how he defined Samurai. You are still implicating that we intended to only use sources that agree with us, when that is not the case. If you read the topic, you would see that Bryant had no bibliography in the mentioned books nor his website.

If you also read in that same user talk page, you will see both Eirikr and I agree that it does not matter to us personally that Yasuke was a samurai or not, what matters is that its verifiable, and as it stands, it isn't. The reason Bryant confused me is because I was familiar with his personal website, and that website was the most consistent I found out of all his resources, which actually came after his books. But even then, its unusable because there is no bibliography, even though it agrees with our so-called "desired viewpoint". If it weren't for the fact that Bryant is now deceased, we would have asked him personally for academic sources on the matter (since he allowed inquiries when he was still around).

Like I said, if you were just upfront with us both instead of pre-emptively announcing this it would not be an issue, even if you did not intend malice, it is still very disrespectful to us both. I have no desire to hide anything and nor does Eirikr. Hexenakte (talk) 23:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I dispute the characterization, at least of my own efforts. I cannot speak to the motives of other participants, but for my part, I am keen to nail down for my own understanding what solid references can tell us about what "samurai" specifically meant at that time period. I am a word nerd. A look at my Wiktionary edit history should make that plain: wikt:Special:Contributions/Eirikr. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I am going to reply to both of you here now that it's a new day and I feel I can explain myself better.

As per [1] [2] on the Samurai talk page and posts you've generally made across the RSN and Yasuke talk pages you already have your personal definition of Samurai (which goes uncited to RS in these links. In the former link you make clear that you believe that a Samurai "... in historical terms was not simply someone in Japan who was allowed to walk around with a sword, it included specific rights and duties and hereditary status." and in the latter "according to a looser (more recent) definition of samurai as 'a pre-modern Japanese warrior', then Yasuke was a samurai. According to the definition in currency at the time Yasuke was in Japan, as "a member of a hereditary nobility, with specific status, rights, and responsibilities", then no, Yasuke was not a samurai. Any RS that talks about Yasuke as a samurai must be evaluated for how they are defining the term."

You have a definition of Samurai already which disagrees with the definition listed on the Samurai page for Sengoku Jidai. Many of the relevant sources on the page - including all of the ones by Anthony Bryant that were published - explicitly state that your definition does not apply for the Sengoku Jidai and were not formalized until the Edo period. This is why it is concerning to see a topic where 'sources to un-muddy' is a stand in for 'sources which agree with my definition'. When you are entering a topic with the goal of promoting a specific definition, you should already have those sources on hand to justify why that is your definition. If you are running a definition against a tide of current consensus sources, it is even more important to have sources in hand when the claim is made. Hunting for specific sources rather than tackling the breadth of sources goes against what an encyclopedia is for and will just lead to repeating the cavalcade of SPA accounts weighing in, wading through weeks of OR and citation picking, and bludgeoning wall posts. These are not all your doing, and I don't want to attribute malice or anything of the sort to either of you, but it must be explicitly stated that you both are provably working backwards from a definition in a way that is very not in line with building an encyclopedia. Relm (talk) 10:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

The reason for creating the topic was to analyze the sources in which I did not have access to when I made it; there is a reason why I used the word "Possible sources" because I did not fully know if it was going to be reliable or not. It turns out it wasn't, as the anon user who came in had also stated that Bryants Osprey books had reliability issues on Wikipedia in the past, and I have to agree because his works were entirely uncited.

These sources never were suggested to be definitive, it was to investigate it because I was familiar with Bryants website, but not his academic work. I asked to look at these sources because I saw him, an academic scholar, make the claim that Samurai were appointed titles and court ranks on a blog - and even pointed out the opposition to that idea - and wanted to see if he had academic work to back that up. He didnt, and even worse his work was uncited, so he can't be used. I am not sure why you are still implicating intent when you can read the discussion quite clearly that we talked about Bryant's issues and my confusion at the difference between his website and academic work. I am not suggesting to use his books and I am not suggesting to use his website; both have no citations.

Like I said before, the nobility of the samurai is extremely well documented, so it is concerning to see academics in the English field of Japanese history trivialize the matter so much without any citations to back it up. These statements and claims are made unattributed, how can you expect to use them, when many of them cant even agree to use it in the same way? Some, like Lockley, are suggesting that Yasuke was just a warrior and that alone makes him "samurai", while others such as Edugyan suggest that Yasuke was actually part of the samurai class. And this inconsistency is repeated throughout the many secondary sources that were listed in these talk pages with all of them unattributed, they simply are not appropriate to use when dealing with a definition, if I may even suggest they are unaware of these facts. You are well aware that Toyotomi Hideyoshi was specifically claimed to be an ashigaru and not a samurai under his initial service with Nobunaga by scholars (I had made a post covering this here and this is reflected in his Wikipedia page), this already contradicts what Lockley is claiming. If there is truly no difference between ashigaru and samurai, there is no reason to make such a distinction, however its been long held that there is; to suggest that any warrior is considered a samurai during the Sengoku period is ignoring other figures such as Hideyoshi who were specifically noted to not be a samurai at first when he was under service.

Simply put, a comprehensive academic study on the samurai and its relationship with nobility with satisfiable attribution and citations for claims made is necessary for this, especially when the topic is extremely muddy, and we will continue looking for them, very likely on the JP side. There is nothing wrong with this stance, and I don't know why you are suggesting it is. Hexenakte (talk) 14:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not saying there was malicious intent, I am saying that - similar to the matter of Yasuke - you both have a point of view already, and instead of citing sources for that view you both are working backwards from your own definition. You are saying the current Wikipedia article is incorrect without sources already in hand to contest it. If you don't have sources available to support your position, then whatever you are arguing is OR and irrelevant for the purposes of Wikipedia relative to the rest of the sources. Continuously posting new OR does not help, it just textwalls discussions on how Wikipedia should handle the sources that are being used or under review in an increasingly unreadable text log of OR that - whether it pans out correct or not - has no merit by Wikipedia standards until these have sources cited alongside them. Whats wrong with your approach is that you're failing to honestly engage the body of literature by dismissing the status quo as wrong without sources ready to demonstrate this. Relm (talk) 15:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

If you don't have sources available to support your position, then whatever you are arguing is OR and irrelevant for the purposes of Wikipedia relative to the rest of the sources. Continuously posting new OR does not help, it just textwalls discussions on how Wikipedia should handle the sources that are being used or under review in an increasingly unreadable text log of OR that - whether it pans out correct or not - has no merit by Wikipedia standards until these have sources cited alongside them. Whats wrong with your approach is that you're failing to honestly engage the body of literature by dismissing the status quo as wrong without sources ready to demonstrate this.

Please show me where I have committed OR in that diff link I provided, or in regards to Lockley and his use of sources, because I cited a plethora of secondary sources on the matter. According to WP:NOTOR:

At times, sources provide conflicting facts and opinions. Comparing and contrasting these conflicts is not generally classed as original research (as the nature of the conflict can be referenced to sources meeting WP:VERIFY), but synthesis or unsupported conclusions based on those conflicts must not appear in an article. These source conflicts fall into two broad categories: factual and summation.

A factual conflict arises when reliable sources present facts that appear to contradict each other. As an example, one source may claim a town had a population of 5,000 in 1990, whereas another claims a population of 7,000 in the same year.

According to WP:NOTSYNTH:

A talk page is the right place to claim that something in an article is SYNTH. The policy does not forbid inferences on talk pages that would be SYNTH if made in an article.

I have not once made any suggestion to add any of the information I have written throughout these talk pages on the article, I have done all of this constrained within the talk pages, the entire point of me presenting these arguments and sources is to show the conflicts in Lockley's work and other academic sources as well as showing that the issue is not as simple as it is made to be, and that it cannot just be reduced to a loose definition, because this would make Wikipedia internally inconsistent (see Toyotomi Hideyoshi, Ashigaru). I have never suggested using these sources nor "my viewpoint" in the article. Please consider I have done the necessary due diligence to keep this constrained on the talk page where it belongs. The only additions I would make are academic sources that meet the satisfactory requirement of verifiable citations of their claims in regards to Yasuke and/or the definition of Samurai; this shouldn't be a controversial stance. Please explain to me how this is against Wikipedia policy or what Eirikr and I are doing wrong.

Keep in mind that the definition of Samurai and Yasuke's samurai-ness may be an interconnected issue, but not necessarily the same subject matter, especially when we are talking about looking for secondary sources that go into a more in-depth analysis of what a samurai is. That specific topic was not specifically about Yasuke, and was treated separately from it. As far as what we have demonstrated on Yasuke himself, we have demonstrated more than enough that all we are doing is doing basic verification of the academic sources provided, and as pointed above, this is not OR. The citations are extremely important here especially where there is a clear conflict in their terms. Hexenakte (talk) 16:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Very bluntly the issue is that you do not have a source, which is why it is OR and Synth. You are misunderstanding both selections for NOTOR and misquoting the NOTSYNTH one entirely.

The quote from NOTOR begins "At times, sources provide conflicting facts and opinions." abd continues "A factual conflict arises when reliable sources present facts that appear to contradict each other." Both of these statements are predicated on already having two sources in conflict, which is not the case here. Additionally you are misquoting the NOTSYNTH - it is saying that the talk page is the place to point out synthesis that is occuring on an article, not that synthesis is okay to do (unsourced) on a talk thread. Synthesis is trying to remedy a gap or minor discrepancy between reliable sources through a user's OR or conjecture, the second half of your selection is ignoring this section of the next paragraph which is directly attributable to the situation: "Of course, these are arguments about what the sources and policy say, or what will or won't improve an article, not arguments about the substantive issues themselves. As the talk page guidelines say, "Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their personal point of view about a controversial issue. They are a forum to discuss how the points of view of reliable sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral." Here you are arguing your personal point of view without sources to back it up. Lockley is not cited on the Samurai page for anything aside from attribution of the claim of Yasuke being a Samurai. This when combined with a definition in an interview being "loose" and "modern" in words you've used to describe it in other comments would be justifiable synthesis if you were on the talk page discussing how to rectify this disagreement between Lockley and the Samurai page's definition if they were truly in need of rectifying, but you are instead promoting the idea that all of the sources involved are wrong, and that you just need to find sources that affirm the true position. This is not synethsis, this is OR. Relm (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi, it me, ya girl, the IP Address. Just want to hop in right quick re:stated that Bryants Osprey books had reliability issues on Wikipedia in the past No I didn't, I did not say that his books had reliability issues. I said Osprey books (as in books from the publisher) were a mixed-bag of reliability according to the RSN on Wikipedia, as per here, which says Osprey is a bit of a mixed bag, but they're generally okay (at least for European military history). Usable, but should be replaced with better sources if possible. I also even said that Just because he doesn't use in-text citations doesn't automatically make him unreliable (though I feel like you might make a different argument). 172.90.69.231 (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

initial report is SPA

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I feel like pointing out that User:Chrhns's first edit to wikipedia was to close the RfC on Yasuke will shorten further discussion significantly. JackTheSecond (talk) 22:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

That isn't even accurate? You know we all can look at edit histories, right? Silverseren^C 22:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

To be strictly fair, my first edit outside of my own page was the RfC closure. I am not denying this. Chrhns (talk) 22:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

You are correct. It has already been pointed out that this was the first thing I have done, and I have offered an explanation (and apology) here. In short, I thought doing RfC closures would be helpful and a way I could contribute my time since I do not wish to actively edit articles, and the other RfC about "tornadoes" seemed a lot more complicated to me. Any other action I have taken in regard to the Yasuke content was directing people to more appropriate venues (such as starting a reliable source noticeboard discussion on the contentious source instead of constantly arguing about it on the talk page). Arguably, the Single Purpose of my account was to participate in my course requirement. I brought the talk page up to the Admin board because there seemed to be a lot happening in the discussion, such as proclaiming that Wikipedia is conducting "black supremacy", a bunch of nationalist rhetoric about how Western sources are colonizing history, and various accusations of editors lying. Chrhns (talk) 22:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not even your first edit anyways and you already explained yourself above when this was asked. It's clear JackTheSecond didn't even read the discussion. Silverseren^C 22:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Eh, I saw an SPA account complaining about SPAs. The close is well-argued, and their reasoning above sound. @Chrhns Sorry about the aspersions. JackTheSecond (talk) 23:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I made the closure request, and specifically requested an experienced closer, mainly because of the SPA issues the OP has brought up. That being said, I also think that the close was surprisingly good for a very new editor who's never even participated in an RFC before.

Despite this, I wouldn't be opposed to an admins reclosing it, if it's felt like that's necessary. But I would suggest that it'd be so hard to reach any other conclusion that it might not be worth bothering. Loki (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Shinjitsunotsuikyu (talk · contribs)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Soo are we gonna do anything about this guy or do we have to wait for him to go on another rant about "wokeism"?--Trade (talk) 00:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Wasn't there already such a case at the same time this Wakanda-scholar called everyone a racist? --ErikWar19 (talk) 02:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Who? Trade (talk) 15:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

User:WakandaScholar (not the same person btw). Thibaut (talk) 15:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that User:WakandaScholar trolled and harassed users on the JP version of the talk page (here) Relm (talk) 05:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

A comment like this:

“The historical Japanese records and Jesuit records say that Yasuke was GIVE by Jesuit to Nobunaga. People who get treated like a property in human trafficking are slaves.

So Yasuke was a slave. There is no confusion on this.

As a Japanese, I feel a great threat to our culture and history by foreigners who try to falsify our culture and history for the benefits of their interests.

And now someone just edited the content to Yasuke "as a samurai" and put a semi-lock until November when the AC Shadows releases.

Wikipedia is now a tool of black supremacy and DEI propaganda.

We need to stop any attempt for history falsification.”

should be a sign this user isn’t gonna be very useful to the project. Their edit comments alone are just disruptive and wastes productive editors time. I believe a block is warranted.CycoMa1 (talk) 03:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Blocked Shinjitsunotsuikyu from Talk:Yasuke and Yasuke. Feel free to change that in any way. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 11:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ErikWar19 (talk · contribs)

SPA on the Yasuke talk page (with an incursion into the article on former video game executive Mark Kern) who's been bludgeoning to the point of disruption. Recently they repeatedly pushed the view/taunt that Yasuke was actually a slave without providing RSes and/or misrepresenting the sources. Even if Yasuke was a slave of the Portuguese jesuits, that's irrelevant because the contentious point is his status when he was at Nobunaga's service, so all this is pointless waste of time that comes across as deliberate provocation. E.g. slave and/or something else than a samurai, the National Diet Library (NDL) of Japan, who is calling these black people in Japan, like Yasuke, servants and slaves, just one of hundreds of other non-samurai warriors, gunners, entertainers, servants in Japan, Mitsuhide killed captured samurai, but he didn't killed Yasuke and called him an animal and not Japanese, Leupp, who clearly calls Yasuke a slave, is surely not a reliable source, except that we use Leupp already (pointless sarcasm, irrelevant), Yasuke was such a slave-servant already, it was standard praxis in India and Japan for Portuguese to have black slave-servants ... But surely Yasuke is the sole exception without any source proving this unique anomaly in thousands of similar African slaves. This is either WP:CIR or WP:BATTLE, but either way it doesn't help. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I want to start in this matter, that to falsely accuse someone of bludgeoning is considered uncivil, and should be avoided.

Gitz just dislikes, that i write on the talk page in favour for Eiríkr, when Gitz accused @Eirikr to force their point of view through a very high number of comments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yasuke#c-Gitz6666-20240627225700-Silver_seren-20240627224200

He just believes to be successful in my regard now here with clearly stating the accuse of Bludgeoning, because i am a young contributor to Wikipedia.

I highlighted quite often, that his claimed reliable sources are not reliable, that he ignores month of discussion about these sources and continuously ignores the arguments and discussion points of other editors in the talk page in the area, that looked to me as WP:ICANTHEARYOU WP:DR and WP:OWN. I will add to this claim this specific comments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yasuke#c-Gitz6666-20240628212500-ErikWar19-20240628211100

with his accusation, that i would translate my comments to english, that he couldn't understand me and that he is in general not interested in discussing about sources reliability on this talk page to other editors questioning his sources.

But in recent days there were finally some form of logic reaching him about the questionable source of Lockley and the Britannica article, so as a rather new contributor i presumed good faith for Gitz and didn't pushed these questionable presumptions on my side about his contributions, as i am not so perfectly adept to the rules in Wikipedia and may mishandled the situation myself as i don't want to allege incompetence.

---

To prove the point, that Yasuke would actual be a slave, i provided reliable sources on countless occasions, but Gitzs just dislikes to interact with these sources in any manner in the same manner, that he doesn't want to speak about the reliability of sources in general over the last weeks, like this attempt of @Hexenakte https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yasuke#c-Hexenakte-20240628162500-Gitz6666-20240628160200, that got completely ignored, just as one of many examples.

A) One of my sources is simply a source repeatability linked and used by Gitz's itself. https://time.com/6039381/yasuke-black-samurai-true-story/ IN this news-article Lockney himself calls Yasuke a slave and openly talks about this narrative around the figure of Yasuke by Others.

B)

A different reliable source would be the National Diet Library (NDL) of Japan, who is calling black people in Japan in these times in general, this includes Yasuke, servants and slaves.

https://www.ndl.go.jp/kaleido/

And i even provided the official English translation: https://www.ndl.go.jp/kaleido/e/entry/14/2.html to make it possible to check into the facts, that a major Japanese institution talks in these areas of time about the first black people in Japan about the terminology of slaves or servants.

C)

Than i quoted the work: Japan's Minorities. The Illusion of Homogeneity by J.G. Russel, 2009

We hear once again of Yasuke and the services he and other black people did under Nobunaga. Not as a samurai, but "as soldiers, gunners, drummers and entertainers." And i highlighted, that Russel points for this statement at the works of Fujita 1987 and Leupp 1995.

Fujita is Fujita Satoru, a Japanese historian, who writes specific about terminologies of titles in the era of Yasuke's time in Japan and i highlighted, that this may be a reliable source about his samurai status or rather a different view of his status by Japanese scholars, rather than to trust recent western news-articles.

D)

At least i quoted:

Interracial Intimacy in Japan, Western Men and Japanese Women, 1543-1900 by Gary P. Leupp, 2003

"In 1581, a mob in Kyoto broke down the door of a Jesuit residence in their eagerness to see an African slave, who had been born in Mozambique and brought to Japan by the missionary Alessandro Valignano. Several people were injured. Apparently embarrassed about the incident, the warlord Oda Nobunaga himself summoned the man, inspected his person carefully to ensure that his color was genuine, presented him with a gift of money, and then took him into his own service. <Yasuke>, as Nobunaga named him, subsequently accompanied his lord in battle. After the latter was trapped by Akechi Mitsuhide and forced to commit suicide in 1582, Yasuke was captured but released. (This was, after all, not his quarrel: <He is not Japanese,> noted Akechi)"

Because i already experienced Gitz and Others to simply call a source unreliable to be able to ignore it, (he does it here again to explicit ignore D) as a source to be discussed on the talk page) i added to it, that we already uses Leupp extensively in the article as a reliable source. So yea, we have reliable sources calling Yasuke a slave, while not mentioning this fact in any form in the article.

In all honesty, i rather presume, that it is disliked, that i give actual reliable sources for Yasuke to be a slave in a scope, that it could become the majority view in contrast to the notion, that he may be a samurai, claimed by the Spanish historian Jonathan Lopez-Vera. Gitz just dislikes this possibility.

For this reason, i pointed for example at Tetsuo Owada a famous Japanese historian about Hideyoshi and Nobunaga, used by Wikipedia extensively in the articles of these people, who is talking about the term samurai and the strong difficulties and reactions of others against Hideyoshi and other Japanese retainers of Nobunaga to become a samurai and the motivation of Nobunaga to dilute this title with Hideyoshi in contrast to the claim of Yasuke's samurai-status, that is not mentioned once by Owada and didn't created similar form of reactions at these times in any primary sources.

I want to add, that i had an extensive and long discussion with Eiríkr about the matter of primary sources not mentioning any form of rank given to Yasuke by the Japanese, while the Portuguese Jesuits were visiting Japan to achieve a form of legality in Japan and should have been keen on this prospect, that foreigners may get a title in Japan by a higher lord. In contrast to this important matter, the Jesuits just call Yasuke by the term, typical used for black slaves in their colonies in India over his whole service for Nobunaga and even after Nobunaga's death. I provided sources for these claims in the former sections, Gitz just ignores these areas and thereby presumes me to just state random things without sources. He could read about it, but rather he presumed Bludgeon and/or ignores me and my sources.

---

My clear interest on this talk page, prior to Gitz appearance on this talk page and always not hidden, is to highlight, that A) the sources about his samurai status are spare compared to other terminology used to describe Yasuke, even the slave-term has more reliable sources behind its back. and B) Yasuke is, not disputed by any source, a victim of Portuguese slavery and this matter is not mentioned in the article.

So, did i start a edit-war about the terminology of samurai on the page itself? No. I know about WP:CIR and i feel insecure about my ability to contribute to the article in major areas, as it would need major changes to the article to add this major part of Yasuke's live in this article about him on the top summary of his article and in the section of his Early live and about the section about him being a samurai. I know about my lack of competence and thereby i restrict myself to minor edits in actual articles. Even my contribution to Mark Kern was minimal about sourcing.

So i am only able to highlight the situation of the sources and bring attention to these sources onto the talk-page, that contradicts views and opinions of other editors of the page. This may creates problems with these specific editors, when we have an editor pushing for a specific claims, who is simply not true. This is most likely the case by most of these linked comments. Most of my comments in this regard were directed to the claim of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yasuke#c-Symphony_Regalia-20240709060200-Eirikr-20240708235200 @Symphony Regalia, that claims a clear academic consensus, that Yasuke was a samurai and that Lockley's work is reliable against the opinions on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1232447992#Reliability_of_Thomas_Lockley

and with contributions on this page and in similar regard on the talk page Yasuke is like:

"Thomas Lockley is reliable. There are editors pushing personal/political agendas via original research over published peer reviewed sourcing. Mainly the "anti-woke", "anti-dei", right-wing culture war crowd. These people are starting from the conclusion they want, and then working backwards to attempt to discredit any published sourcing that contradicts it."

And i will leave than this paragraph: They always have to have the last word and may ignore any evidence that is counter to their point of view. It is most common with someone who feels they have a stake in the outcome, that they own the subject matter, or are here to right great wrongs. from WP:BLUDGEON so in a form of self-critic i will presume, that some of my comments may act in a form to Proof by assertion and will attempt to limit my comments, i didn't bludgeoning, i face comments, who are rather bludgeoning on the talk page and here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Symphony_Regalia-20240705042700-DarmaniLink-20240704051100

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yasuke#c-Symphony_Regalia-20240702165200-Shinjitsunotsuikyu-20240628163700

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yasuke#c-Symphony_Regalia-20240702165800-Shinjitsunotsuikyu-20240628165000

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yasuke#c-Symphony_Regalia-20240709063400-MWFwiki-20240708143100

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yasuke#c-Symphony_Regalia-20240706042100-12.75.41.40-20240704060300

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yasuke#c-Symphony_Regalia-20240702165500-Shinjitsunotsuikyu-20240629120200

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yasuke#c-Symphony_Regalia-20240708035200-217.178.103.145-20240703014800 ErikWar19 (talk) 01:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

ah last sentence should be i face comments from editors, who are rather bludgeoning on the talk page and here. ErikWar19 (talk) 01:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

oh and this may be interesting too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive269#h-Symphony_Regalia-2020-07-26T03:05:00.000Z

-- ErikWar19 (talk) 02:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Symphony Regali used multiple accounts, and obsessively edited the page of Yasuke in Japanese Wikipedia.

He claims that ethnicity is not important in wikipedia edits, but he falsely identifies himself as Japanese in an attempt to gain an advantage in the debate. Pobble1717 (talk) 07:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: this user is a SPA and likely the same user as the one here. Symphony Regalia (talk) 16:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Just in terms of word choice and grammar patterns, I do not think that @ErikWar19 and @天罰れい子 are the same person.

Moreover, looking at the contribution history of both accounts, they have edited more than just content about Yasuke. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I was referring to @Pobble1717 and @天罰れい子. Symphony Regalia (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I checked the first source you mentioned, of which you claim "IN this news-article Lockney himself calls Yasuke a slave". What I see when I search for the word "slave" in that article is "Some have said that Yasuke was a slave, and Lockley acknowledges the theory but disagrees. “Personally I don’t think he was a slave in any sense of the word, I think he was a free actor,” Lockley said. Given that blatant misrepresentation of the source, I'm not interested in spending time looking at any of your other claims. CodeTalker (talk) 03:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

And it goes on.

The author speculates that given the circumstances of how the African man arrived at his employment with Valignano, it’s possible that Yasuke was enslaved as a child and taken from Africa to India. There, Lockley said the man could have been a military slave or an indentured soldier, but he “probably got his freedom before meeting Valignano.” ErikWar19 (talk) 06:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Two points:

• ErikWar19 says i am a young contributor to Wikipedia and i am not so perfectly adept to the rules in Wikipedia, and yet in 2017 they were indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry on de.wiki [52]. I doubt they are a new user, WP:BITE doesn't apply - also digging out Symphony Regalia's Tban from GENSEX (which is irrelevant here) while pretending not to know hot to post a link on a talk page is not the behaviour of a newcomer.
• As already explained in my OP and also on the Yasuke talk page (here), the point at issue is not whether Yasuke was a slave/servant when he was in the service of the Portoguese Jesuits. Either out of bad faith or incompetence, ErikWar19 insists that being a slave of the Jesuits prevents Yasuke from becoming a samurai of Oda Nobunaga.

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

the block at this time was on the German site, was in 2017 and my sole contribution to Wikipedia was to post one comment on https://www.fr.de/politik/steckt-hinter-afd-freund-lukati-11059673.html this issue on the German site Wikipedia:Schiedsgericht, so the German Arbitration Committee, about the potential misuse of Wikipedia for activities of a party, that is suspected to be extrem right wing in Germany.

It was kinda a big thing, i think 6 of the 10 members of the Arbitration Committee retired around that time from their membership, some in clear protest. After creating my account and posting my negative opinion about this user, i was blocked for sockpuppery, as i didn't contributed to Wikipedia in any other form. So i suspect, that the block was reasonable. At these times it happend, that people created such new accounts to contribute in such a manner and i was suspected to be such a case. I didn't had an interest to contribute to Wikipedia at these time, so i only noticed the block years later and didn't appeal to it.

---

I succeeded once to post a link with a number.....but i didn't figured out, how to replace the number with a word, like "here" or "BBC" and it broke the link, so i tend to just copy paste the link directly into the text. I don't want to break the link.

---

digging up Symphony's ban: i can read his talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Symphony_Regalia#c-GorillaWarfare-2020-07-26T03:07:00.000Z-Notice_of_Arbitration_Enforcement_noticeboard_discussion

---

well the thing is, Gitz, the article of Yasuke didn't clearly mentioned his clear slavery background and his presumed slavery-status for the Portuguese in his early live or about his service for the Portuguese. I point at this problem of this specific area of the article, explicit with the samurai status of him, as it is less secured by reliable sources.

I dont insist, that being a slave of the Jesuits prevents Yasuke to becoming later a samurai of Nobunaga. It is simply possible to highlight, that he was a slave, that got his samurai status by Nobunaga into the article. i wrote even about benefits about this concept on the talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yasuke/Archive_2#c-ErikWar19-20240619224500-EgiptiajHieroglifoj-20240619222200

[...] the Japanese side, mainly Oda, may had a different view on slavery compared to Yasuke's Portuguese owners and may even gave Yasuke various things to allow him to distance himself from them. But we can't talk about this interesting clash of different cultures by Yasuke's live in Japan, if we hide his clear slavery-background in the article.

---

I just want to highlight the amount of WP:OWN about this article, to guard the term samurai to such an intensity, that just to point out contradictions with other core elements of Yasuke's live on the talk page of article will lead to this stuff here.

It should be allowed to point out, that i call the reliable sources about him becoming a samurai a potential minority view in contrast to the possibility, that Nobunaga used Yasuke in the same regards Portuguese nobility used slaves as personal servants in their colonies. This would make his gifts and salary to Yasuke just attempts of Nobunaga to make his servant to an samurai or/and to free him from his slavery status. An attempt, that didn't succeeded as he was returned to the Portuguese after Nobunaga's death. -- ErikWar19 (talk) 00:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Likewise when the sources for section B were posted on the Talk page for Yasuke I noted that they actually stated the opposite: that Yasuke was a 'African Priest' who was 'highly appreciated' and then it listed an example of Africans serving in combat at the Battle of Okitanawate. The rest of the page is about the Edo period onward, which is irrelevant to the discussion of Yasuke. That comment and where they cited these same sources is here: (here) Relm (talk) 14:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

B states on a sidenote:

"African people are believed to have first visited Japan during the Sengoku period as servants or slaves of European ships from Portugal and Spain." And they state, that Nobunaga appreciated him, because of his strenght, looks and demeanour.

the translation as a African priest seem to be a mistranslation by the English translation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yasuke#c-Eirikr-20240710175000-Relmcheatham-20240710133100

the original calls him https://www.ndl.go.jp/kaleido/entry/14/2.html 黒坊主 and this would mean a black monk, monks can't become samurai, they had Sōhei, so i presume, that the original meaning is a young black man, but thx for highlighting this translation problem. ErikWar19 (talk) 01:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

so i presume

That statement sums up the problem here. You're inserting WP:OR into your reasoning and then working backwards to try and find ways to force that viewpoint into the article. Combined with your WP:BLUDGEON method of discussion, it has become disruptive. If you don't step away from the article yourself, I expect you're going to wind up with a topic ban, if not a block. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Serious question: what OR do you see in @ErikWar19's statement just before yours, here? 黒坊主 is 黒 (kuro, "black") + 坊主 (bōzu, "Buddhist monk; acolyte; boy, young man").

@ErikWar19 links above to an article in Japanese posted on the National Diet Library website. The English translation provided on that same website at https://www.ndl.go.jp/kaleido/e/entry/14/2.html translates 黒坊主 as "a black priest". I explained over here why that is a mistranslation that is using an incorrect rendering in English of the Japanese word 坊主 (bōzu). ErikWar19's comment above points out correctly that 坊主 (bōzu), as in "Buddhist monks", were a different social category than "samurai", and that the Japanese term 黒坊主 must be correctly rendered in English as "young black man" if there is to be any possibility of Yasuke being a samurai.

I don't see ErikWar19 "working backwards to try and find ways to force that viewpoint into the article", but then, I also see the source text in Japanese, I know how translation works (and doesn't), and I recognize where the English target text strays from the source.

(I make no comment about bludgeoning, or other possible instances of OR: I just don't see any OR in ErikWar19's post just above.) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

The entire final paragraph of ErikWar's comment is unambiguous OR. --JBL (talk) 18:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Could you expand on that? Serious request, as I don't understand your point of view. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 01:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Setting aside that this forum is not for content discussion, the translation as a African priest seem to be a mistranslation by the English translation ... the original calls him ... 黒坊主 and this would mean a black monk, monks can't become samurai, they had Sōhei, so i presume, that the original meaning is a young black man is entirely individual analysis by ErikWar. This is precisely the kind of thing that is prohibited from being put into Wikipedia articles by WP:OR.
I don't care very much about the underlying issue here (which, from what I can tell, involves a bunch of people on the internet being very angry about there being a black character in a videogame, or something similarly gross and inane), but what I can tell is that there are huge ongoing discussions in which people arguing one point of view have produced a variety of scholarly or para-scholarly sources that agree with each other on the point in contention, and people on the other side have produced a bunch of individual research and some links to things like twitter and reddit. En.wp policies are extremely clear about which side gets to win an argument under those conditions. --JBL (talk) 17:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The extent to which the sources presented are scholarly, para-scholarly or non-scholarly has been a point of contention during this dispute. Somewhere in the mess that is the RSN discussion, I am hopeful that a consensus on that question might emerge.

Through the various Talk page & noticeboard discussions, vague assertions about sources which do not specify the exact sources or which inaccurately describe sources have been made. This has not been helpful to uninvolved editors attempting to understand the dispute and provide input; and it would be better if it were to stop.

NOTE: To be clear, I do not in any way suggest that the preceding comment is an example of this issue.

Concur that Twitter, Reddit and the like are best left out, and that it would be better if the original research were also to stop; but note a difference in policy between research for the purpose of determining aspects such as source reliability and original research as the basis for article content. Rotary Engine ^talk 12:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Difficult to see anything in this section aside from a clear confirmation of the complaint at the beginning. ErikWar19 hasn't edited for a couple of days, but if they continue in this vein I would support a partial block from the page. --JBL (talk) 00:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd also support a page block, but a topic ban might be more appropriate given that the bludgeoning and incivility and such seems to be carrying over to noticeboards. CambrianCrab (talk) 23:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I consider this a friendly amendment. --JBL (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Support as well. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

A block is clearly warranted here.CycoMa1 (talk) 12:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Symphony Regalia (talk · contribs)

The behavior of the user @Symphony Regalia in this talk page as well as Talk:Yasuke and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reliability_of_Thomas_Lockley has proven to be disruptive with no intention of providing good faith discussion about the issues with the Yasuke article or the reliability discussion on Lockley. Throughout all three talk pages, he has consistently accused others of being disruptive without providing diff links or any citations for his claims, as well as trying to dismiss all opposition by establishing himself as an ambiguous authority of him "being Japanese and fluent in the Japanese language" without ever providing any explanation as to why said translations are accurate or inaccurate, or any reputable dictionary such as Kotobank, or even speaking in Japanese himself - Except for this sole post, as he was threatened with a topic ban if he didn't explain his case.[53] When pressed with questions of where he got his information from, or what citations he has, he completely ignores it,[54] or more recently he starts gaslighting that he has always done it.[55] When I confronted him again over this - as well as him sending a very high volume of comments in a short amount of time - he ignores it.[56] This post here also demonstrates Regalia's past controversies, where he has a history of disruptive editing and dishonest methods on Wikipedia. Me and several other editors have given Regalia multiple chances to explain himself and give him the benefit of the doubt on the validity of his arguments, however in the light of the mentioned issues, it is best that Regalia receives a topic ban from this discussion page as well as the other 2 aforementioned pages, as it is clear he has zero interest in providing good faith discussion. Hexenakte (talk) 16:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Don't have much to add so I will summarize what I mentioned above. Also Hexenakte has already been rebuked for this report twice [57] [58].

1. Hexenakte does not seem to understand that ANI is not the appropriate place for him to force people into debating secondary sources or his original research with him, especially debates that have already been concluded with clear consensus. It is for discussing behavior not sources, and in particular his behavior as the initial report concerns the disruptive refusal to WP:DROPTHESTICK and the WP:BLUDGEONING by him and Eirikr, as well as the off-site WP:TAGTEAMING present here. The initial report has nothing to do with how credible he thinks certain sources are and I am not interested in having that discussion with him. I was not involved in the original discussions and I am brief to respect the already established consensus.

2. Hexenakte engages in a pattern of behavior where he WP:BADGERS people if they do not wish to debate his original research well past expiration, and then dismisses the responses he gets or accuses them of "regurgitation" if the response does not satisfy him, forcing an endless debate. I was not involved in the earlier discussions but I imagine this is precisely the kind of repeat behavior from him and Eirikir that led to the initial report.

3. I do not have an exact count of Hexenakte's high comment volume on the talk page and in the other discussions, but by a rough estimation across all of the relevant discussions it perhaps a staggering 150 comments. Just Hexenakte and Eirikr alone have quite possibly left about 300 comments collectively in these discussions. As other editors have pointed out:

One editor[59]:

re Eirikr's the other editor refusing to engage in my attempts at conversing with them on Talk:Yasuke about the quality of the tertiary and quaternary sources they reference. Eirikr made 88 edits to Talk: Yasuke adding 115 kB of text and Hexenakte made 111 edits adding 188 kB. They argued that Britannica, Smithsonians Magazine, BBC, TIME, CNN, France Info, Lockley's book and Lopez-Vera's book are not WP:RS because of their content: these sources directly claim that Yasuke was a samurai, which is incompatible with Hexenakte's and Eirikr's original research. There is not one single reliable source denying that Yasuke was a samurai, apart from the 300 kB of ruminations Eirikr and Hexenakte have posted on that talk page. This runs contrary to core policies and is disruptive as WP:BLUDGEON. Eirikr is not entitled to have me or others "engaged in their attempts at conversing" - they should have dropped the stick weeks ago. I don't know if there's an issue of bad faith or competence but I'm sure it's disruptive and should stop.

Another editor[60]:

I see the usual suspects from the talk page are bringing their walls of text over here as well. I will keep things short and to the point (as best as one can with this subject matter). Per the RfC that was closed, there are numerous sources, including a number of academic ones I've previously presented over there, that discuss the subject's history and how he was given the title of samurai. There are no reliable sources that argue otherwise. Meanwhile, you've got editors like Hexenakte and Eirikr that have made massive threads all across the talk page trying to put in their own WP:OR interpretation of said sources, claiming that the sources aren't reliable because they translated the Japanese wrong or didn't show the primary sources they were using, ect. I've tried to explain to them time and again that editors aren't allowed to be sources and claim their interpretation is the factual one, especially if they don't even have a single reliable source backing their claims. My statements in that regard have fallen on deaf ears time and time again with both of said editors (and they are likely to reply to my comment here with yet another wall of text arguing the same points again).

The quote from WP:BLUDGEON is quite relevant here.

[Bludgeoning] is where someone attempts to force their point of view through a very high number of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own. Typically, this means making the same argument over and over and to different people in the same discussion or across related discussions. [...] This behavior and conduct is undesirable, considered a form of disruptive editing, and is usually seen and reported as such when observed by other editors who are involved in the same discussion.

This is precisely what Hexanakte and Eirkr have done despite constant warnings. We are now even seeing BLP violations from Hexanakte[61]. This is looking like a WP:BOOMERANG situation. Given that Hexentate appears to be a SPA as well, and together with the off-site tagteaming mentioned above, at this point I think even a WP:NOTHERE block would be appropriate. Symphony Regalia (talk) 21:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

RSN discussion off the rails

The discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reliability_of_Thomas_Lockley has been going in circles for a while, but comments like this one are crossing the line into BLP-violating attacks on Lockley. The discussion badly needs a firm hand from an admin, or perhaps it just needs to be closed. - MrOllie (talk) 17:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The irony is that, it appears at the time Yasuke lived, the definition of samurai was very loose, yet the arguments seem to revolve around more definitive distinctions that are, for this discussion, anachronistic. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Concur that the various discussions (by editors on both sides of this dispute) of the historical definitions of "侍" have been an unwelcome (disruptive?) distraction. Going back to historical definitions of a foreign language term to justify inclusion of content is exactly the sort of original research that WP:NOR seeks to prevent. Rotary Engine ^talk 12:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh you mean the statement, that at these times the term samurai was used more loosely. This is correct. Strangely this leave out some of the content of these statements. Often they were used with the example of Hideyoshi, a Japanese commoner, who became a retainer and than after years of service under multiple military campaigns got the samurai title under Nobunaga, that was heavily discussed by people at this time as a controversial step of Nobunaga. Multiple historians wrote actual books about Hideyoshi and Nobunaga and about this specific case as controversial and unique for these times.

Lockley on the other hand, defines every peasant, who got raised by a lord as an ashigaru (militia) already a low-ranked samurai. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#c-Gitz6666-20240709150100-Reliability_of_Thomas_Lockley

Lockley is using a significant different samurai-term than used in most other publications. -- ErikWar19 (talk) 20:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I contributed quite a lot to the discussion on the RSN until a few days ago. I have stopped contributing due to seeing examples of harassment towards Lockley, online users on various websites who argue that Yasuke was a Samurai for any reasons, and some of the off site discussion regarding the wikipedia discussion that made me worried about receiving messages about this for the next year or two. The discussion in many cases has become a forum for constant updates with little regard for Wikipedia policy or building an encyclopedia rather than forwarding a specific point of view. Every week one or two SPA accounts have entered into the situation and each contributed increasingly circular text walls which make the topic unapproachable, unproductive, and toxic. I am in favor of admins stepping in to resolve the issues. Relm (talk) 21:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Should it be noted that the editor you're linking to, 天罰れい子, is yet another WP:SPA made earlier this month and who immediately started editing the Yasuke page and little else. Just a blatant WP:NOTHERE example. Silverseren^C 21:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree they are clearly WP:NOTHERE.CycoMa1 (talk) 22:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

For the record, I have not edited the Yasuke Wiki page, only contributed to the Talk page. When it became semi-protected, I started editing elsewhere on stuff I know to build authorization to post on the Talk page again. I do not have or use other accounts or proxies.

It has been alarming to me that Lockley continues to be credited as a “reliable source” on the English Wiki page despite recent news about him on Japanese news. This is a sentiment that is shared among the Japanese online community too, that there is potentially historical revisionism going on overseas due to the machinations of Lockley. 天罰れい子 (talk) 22:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Again, you are attributing malice to him, which is something that may result in you being blocked from editing Wikipedia. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

If it is malice to point out the reasons why Lockley’s claims are unreliable along with numerous stances including a historian who has debunked Lockley’s claims, and why the EN Wiki Page of Yasuke continues to insist an authoritative stance of “Yasuke was a Samurai” rather than speculative, then I will no longer contribute to this discussion. I do not wish to keep going around in circles for something that has been kept in bad faith because of numerous agendas in lieu of primary historical facts. 天罰れい子 (talk) 23:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I might be wrong about the point that @HandThatFeeds is making (and if so, please correct me), but as I understand it, they are stating that it is incorrect to attribute motive of any sort to Lockley's actions, as you did earlier with your word choice in stating "due to the machinations of Lockley". The word "machinations" here implies willful intent to deceive on Lockley's part, and the objective truth is that we have no means of knowing that, unless Lockley comes right out and says that he's been trying to deceive.

We can objectively say that Lockley's actions (note: "actions", not "machinations") have attracted a lot of attention, and we can objectively say that there is a member of the Japanese House of Councillors who is publicly calling for some kind of government action in response. But we cannot say anything about Lockley's reasons, unless we have Lockley's own words giving those reasons.

Assigning intent where there is no objective evidence is similar to misattributing what sources say. We should not be doing either. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Eirikr for your clarification, and I do apologize for my intrusive language earlier. However, it is hard for me to believe that Lockley does not have willful intent to deceive given his deeds exposed, from creating the Yasuke wiki page and citing himself; to using different wording between the EN and JP versions of his Yasuke book, to lying about other people fact-checking his book when it did not happen; to lying about his lack of involvement with Ubisoft which propagates the Yasuke samurai claim as historical fact; to claiming consensus "commonly held by Japanese historians" in the Britannica article he wrote himself without source or citations for that; and when he in fact has been the recent subject of much backlash from the country itself. This can all be searched up and without knowing Japanese.

The actions of this person do not strike me as faithful or in good will in any way and I will stand by that. If it is wrong to point these things out, and so many EN-speakers here choose one this agenda-riddled perspective over primary historical facts, then I refuse to participate in this agenda-riddled discussion. 天罰れい子 (talk) 17:53, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

^ --- This comment is exactly the kind of WP:BLP violation we need to stop. MrOllie (talk) 18:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

So, doubling down on the WP:ABF and WP:BLP violations. I think this person needs blocked as WP:NOTHERE. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Just for a clarification, Thomas Lockley didn't create the Wikipedia article on Yasuke. The oldest edit is from an ip address in 2005 and the article consistently called Yasuke a samurai until it was randomly removed by an IP address with no comment or discussion. This was stuff I had looked at during the RfC close. Also considering as all you have done is participate in discussion and editing Yasuke on the Japanese wiki and admittedly only edited other content to get access to the Yasuke talk page again here, you pretty much stated you are a WP:SPA Chrhns (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• Is there a contentious topic or general sanctions designation that the Yasuke topic might fall under? If not, should the community consider imposing one? That might be one way to get some control over the disruption in this area. Pinguinn 🐧 12:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  BLP would suffice for some of the comments above; and for the comment I removed from Talk:Yasuke earlier today. It would be good to not have the heat of partisans attacking authors. Rotary Engine ^talk 12:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  Hence why I asked earlier if Yasuke, writ large, should be put under community-authorised general sanctions. The alternative is someone drags this to ArbCom and, given what's going on here, ArbCom would not just declare a contentious topic but also go scorched-earth as they did back in GG. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 15:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  Wouldn't it fall under the Gamergate sanctions? Since this is one of several topics, including Sweet Baby Inc., that were targeted by Gamergaters for featuring women, minorities, and LGBT+ characters. Silverseren^C 17:58, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  Minorities do not fall under GS sanctions; it's specifically Gender-related disputes or controversies and it's been that way since GG closed. This would need to be its own general sanctions/contentious topic regime. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed. An ArbCom case would likely have a long list of parties, take a lot of time, and cause a lot of grief for all involved. It would definitely be good to try sanctions and they can probably be targeted pretty narrowly on Yasuke. Even if imposing sanctions can't prevent an ArbCom case at least it will show them that the community attempted to resolve the issue themselves. Pinguinn 🐧 22:07, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  I also agree—probably an ECR restriction rather than the full GS set—made at WP:VPR per WP:GS#Community sanctions. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:37, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

AfD discussion

Administrative input at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Lockley (2nd nomination) is requested. I've just redacted, but not removed, a !vote per WP:BLP. Rotary Engine ^talk 03:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/178.138.193.125

LTA, revdel needed. Frost 07:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Blocked, revdelling edits as appropriate. Utterly deranged that they are typing the word... with an asterisk. Like what? Why are you censoring the word in your graphically offensive vandalism? Must be some TikTok thing. jp×g🗯️ 07:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I was bypassing the edit filter you absolute buffoon @JPxG: 178.138.193.101 (talk) 07:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I see -- my mistake. Well, at any rate, I still think you should stop doing it. jp×g🗯️ 08:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

BLP vandalism at MrBeast

I applied for page protection on the grounds that @Gen. Rhett keeps selectively removing information from an article to say that a BLP subject (whom he misgendered in the edit summary) is a groomer when the source cited says the opposite and the previous article text followed that source.[62] He does this despite not providing any citation or source. I was told at page protection to issue a BLP warning and take it to ANI if he continues.[63] He has simply begun reverting the text to include a BLP violation.[64] So now I’m here. Don’t like being here twice so close together but, I was advised as such. Snokalok (talk) 06:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

• I have revision-deleted their edits and partial-blocked them from the article. Black Kite (talk) 09:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Murder victim "deserved it"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Quevtidextirious (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be an account primarily here for disruption (see [65]), but I don't believe this is the sort of thing that needs the standard escalating four warnings process. Egsan Bacon (talk) 14:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

•  Indeffed Clearly NOTHERE. Side note; this is the sort of thing that could probably be reported to AIV as naked vandalism. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:51, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Prince Gharios El Chemor of Ghassan Al-Numan VIII

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Marked for deletion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Prince_Gharios_El_Chemor_of_Ghassan_Al-Numan_VIII

This is an on-going attack on the person of Prince Gharios El Chemor that has spilt over into Wikipedia due to Frank Parlato Jr and others in Spain and Italy because Prince Gharios publicly called out someone using a fake Italian princly title and giving out knighthoods. Prince Gharios was backedup publicly by credible authoriies, such as the ICOC and other Italian scholars. The reasons given for deleting the entry are unfounded and do not apply the standars with equity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xianboyd (talk • contribs) 21:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

This is not the avenue to debate whether an article should be kept. That is at the AfD. Discuss it there. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The Afd is a total trainwreck. Sockpuppetry and/or external canvassing seems self evident. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, I've never heard of this guy, and the sources seem not to have heard of him either. His Excellency, President for Life Field Marshal Dr. Sir jp×g🗯️, Esq. 09:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Was just going to create a thread on this issue, ironically because of people like Xianboyd. There has been massive disruption of this AfD by SPAs and IPs as previously said by Andy. Would appreciate this AfD being cleaned up and perhaps having some level of protection applied to prevent further disruption. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that AfD is a mess. In addition to the OP, 2 accounts in particular, one with 42 total edits the other with 139 total edits (plus assorted new SPAs and IPs) have been bombarding it with the WP:TRUTH. It was unreadable (not that there was anything worth reading from them) until someone hatted the worst of their bludgeoning. Unfortunately, Daniel Case turned down Hemiauchenia's protection request at RPPI. They've all simultaneously gone quiet in the last 8 hours - probably they're all on the same time zone. Might start again when they wake up. Maybe some blocks for disruption if no protection? DeCausa (talk) 07:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

While there are evidently some serious issues re: the SPAs that are arguing against deletion, I don't think that justifies the apparent outing that has occurred both here [66] and here [67]. Axad12 (talk) 08:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Probably unnecessary. Discounting the obvious sockpuppet SPA, it's heading for a SNOW delete anyway. Ravenswing , Basileus and Autokrator of the Romans 08:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

On this issue, perhaps this is a bit too revealing of my parochial plebeian democracy leanings, but it's my sincere hope that some day we can respond with this same sort of bemused indifference to every random bloke who claims that being descended from some other bloke a thousand years ago means he gets to wear cool hats and live in a fancy palace for free and not pay taxes, as is currently the case in some several dozen-odd countries (although I would also accept if everyone got to wear cool hats and live in a fancy palace for free and not pay taxes, if possible). jp×g🗯️ 10:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

The whole point is that the person was featured on- at least - 20 independent media outlets in - at least 12 different countries- and received officially by heads of state and religion. For those who don’t understand international law (apparently all of you) that’s legal recognition! (See Montevideo convention) Anyway, he’s undoubtedly notable, there’s no question about it. The problem is that some of you have decided - without any knowledge of the subject- and without having the minimum decency of checking the presented sources, to delete the page. Your so-called judgement is pure emotional ignorance. My whole point in saying all of this is that you’re all wasting everyone’s time with this stupid discussion. Go ahead and delete the page! You decided that anyways no matter what is presented and proven. I don’t know you but a lot of people have other better things to do than to debate with nihilistic Wikipedia collaborators. MasterKamalKhan (talk) 16:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

What part of "This is not the place to discuss the deletion of this page" did you not understand? RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

All of it, I presume. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Enough already

If you read what I wrote, clearly you didn’t, you understand the point I’m making. There’s no debate about a subject when there’s nihilism and denial. All of you are doing is just wasting everyone’s time! If you want to delete a page, go and delete it! Don’t pretend you’re being democratic or fair, because this process is as fair as elections in North Korea. MasterKamalKhan (talk) 17:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC) Using the “tactic” you’re using can “destroy” anything purely based on your own imagination. I can say someone with a doctorate from Harvard is illiterate! I can claim this person bought his degree and even if Harvard confirms his degree I can say he cheated on the exams. It’s endless! That’s exactly what you’re doing not only about this page but about all deletions! Again this present discussion is equally useless! Again, wasting everyone’s time! But I’m sure you have time to waste. I don’t. MasterKamalKhan (talk) 17:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC) With all due respect, you might have expertise on many different areas but none that voted for the deletion has any knowledge about the subject. Beyond clear by your comments, your understanding of royalty comes from tabloids and Disney films. How can you be qualified “decide” if a page is deleted or not when actual world experts and authorities have the complete opposite opinion? Sorry but it’s beyond preposterous! Again, if the deletion is based on “how you feel about the subject” don’t open a debate, just go ahead and do it! MasterKamalKhan (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Toolroom for more Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'm thinking there's a large slice of WP:MEAT there rather than pure sockage. There's a post earlier in this thread which suggests at least 2 different people IRL. DeCausa (talk) 18:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I would agree that its likely a mix of meat and sock puppetry... But Leo0274 and Xianboyd at least appear more socky than meaty... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

• See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Leo0274. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  Given that this thread was opened by Xianboyd, I wonder if there's any chance of a boomerang sanction being implemented against that account, e.g. for NOTHERE and/or PROMO? The user's main activity this year has been spamming references to Prince Gharios to other articles (e.g. [68], [69]), adding barely sourced and promo material to the article for Obeng II (e.g.[70] [71]) where he appears to have a plausible COI, and trying to implement an article about Christian Boyd [72]. Axad12 (talk) 05:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

  See also the AfD for Obeng II, here: [73]. Axad12 (talk) 05:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

  For clarity, when I said 'this thread was opened by Xianboyd' I meant of course this whole ANI thread, not the sockpuppet investigation noted directly above by Malcolmxl5. Axad12 (talk) 11:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

• There are now three sockpuppet investigations for the same group of editors: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xianboyd, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Leo0274 and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Toolroom. Should be merged.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2024 Saurya Airlines Canadair crash

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• BasketballDog21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a 1-week old account, took it upon themselves to create a duplicate page of 2024 Saurya Airlines CRJ-200 crash and move it into said page without consensus based on personal assumptions and has been engaging in WP:IDNHT reversion to impose their preferences despite a previous warning summary. Borgenland (talk) 12:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'm correct though, sadly you are to busy just trying to attack me for whatever reason, like I said I made a mistake of duplicating instead of moving, i'm still experienced and made a clean article with no grammatical errors. BasketballDog21 (talk) 12:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  Indeed. So clean one reference is missing. Which did not occur in the original article you gutted for your personal page. Furthermore, your article is full off WP:COMMENTARY that is undue for a current event, not to mention your glaring linkrotting refs. Borgenland (talk) 12:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  WikicleanerMan is fixing it. You don't need to attack me man i'm a nice guy in real life BasketballDog21 (talk) 12:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  Update: BasketballDog21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made 5 reverts on the same page, 2 more than the maximum allowed in 24 hours as experienced editors will know. Borgenland (talk) 12:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  Update: BasketballDog21 has made 8 reverts on the article. Borgenland (talk) 13:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  Per WP:3RR, it doesn't matter who is right, unless you have been reverting vandalism, you have broken 3RR by reverting seven(!) times on the same article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  You guys are doing it too right? This doesn't make sense BasketballDog21 (talk) 12:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  I miscounted on my part. But at the end of the day, your WP:CIR and unwillingness to seek WP:CONSENSUS in the spirit of WP:IDNHT simply justifies why you have been reported. And don't forget, your willingness to ignore standard procedures shows in you making the greatest number of reverts. No amount of gas lighting and appeals to moral equivalency will obfuscate your edit history. Borgenland (talk) 12:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  At the end of the day its just an article of the same thing and Canadair is the right one. Arguing about this more just seems silly BasketballDog21 (talk) 12:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  I think you Canadair to the community's rules and stop edit warring against consensus. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:00, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)I have restored the old article. The new article is not just a duplicate of the topic, it is an unattributed WP:COPYVIO of the original article. The new article title seems a plausible redirect, so any relevant changes should be merged into the original article and the page should be redirected. CMD (talk) 13:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  And we're on 8RR. CMD (talk) 13:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  Blocked for 72 hours for edit warring. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  Darn you @ScottishFinnishRadish: I was just clicking on the block items when your block turned up. Stop being so efficient :) Canterbury Tail talk 13:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  That's why they call me the fastest root in the West. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  Couldn't find which diff to thank so I'm putting it here. Borgenland (talk) 13:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  Update: DangerousBanana made this WP:NOTHERE summary in a [[74]] of the page. Given how immediate this is and how heated the article was, I would like to request an SPI. Borgenland (talk) 13:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

• (EC)Note, I just indef blocked DangerousBanana (talk · contribs) for reinstating and personal attacks on this edit. Seems like a foot covering that was idle under the bed. Canterbury Tail talk 13:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  Second note: I don't know if they're a sock or not, but considering they've started throwing around racial slurs their talk access has gone bye bye. I actually don't understand why this is causing so much heat, is it just the "got in first" mentality? Canterbury Tail talk 13:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  It felt socky when I was looking at it initially, but I have no idea who the master would be. I'm sure there are at least a few that hang out in the aircraft crash topic area. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

• (double edit conflict) I was going to say, when I examined 2022 China Naval Air Force crash, an article that BasketballDog21 created, a CNN reference looks out of place. I looked at the CNN article and found it to be reporting an American fighter jet crash that is completely unrelated to the Chinese maritime patrol aircraft. I don't doubt that the incident did occur based on other, reliable sources I found online. I want to AGF and thinks it's a misplaced reference by BasketballDog21. But more eyes are needed to see if using wrong references are common occurrences in his other edits. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 13:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
• Does anyone else agree that this is all socks of banned user TyHaliburtn (talk · contribs)? Canterbury Tail talk 13:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  That seems correct, yeah. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  Wanna do the honours of updating your block on the Basketball account? Canterbury Tail talk 13:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

• Also we may need to protect some of the pages (like the redirect) do some history cleanup etc. I'd love to help more but I'm about to pick my parents up from Narita. Oh and it looks likely we need a CheckUser scan. Have a good one. Canterbury Tail talk 13:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

• Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Action per this protection request, enacted while unaware of this incidents report (which I've yet to review). El_C ^{(+peer pressure blue)} 14:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User Deleting Historical Information

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I want to report @Bgsu98 for repeatedly deleting historical score and repertoire information from several drum and bugle corps wikis. When I addressed it and reverted, they claimed that this is the standard which presumably is just made up by this user. I was able to fix the Skyliners Drum and Bugle Corps but other groups such as the Hawthorne Caballeros Drum and Bugle Corps, Reading Buccaneers Drum and Bugle Corps, and Connecticut Hurricanes Drum and Bugle Corps have all had edits made since so I would have to manually type everything back out for them. Competitive drum and bugle corps has existed for decades prior to the 1970s and all of the mentioned groups have published information from then. I cannot be certain but I am assuming that this user's decision to pick 1972 as a starting point is related to the formation of Drum Corps International, which none of these organizations were members of until 2024 and it was not the only competitive circuit so should not be used as a "standard" for when information cuts off. Odysseymsc (talk) 14:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

But you didn't give them a chance to reply to your note (diff), instead going immediately the reporting route — what is up with that? You also didn't notify them of this complaint on their talk page (which is requiered, a ping is not enough). Anyway, at its face, this looks like a premature report of a content dispute, with insufficient efforts undertaken to resolve the dispute normally (WP:DR). El_C 14:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, you didn't "fix" Skyliners Drum and Bugle Corps, you just copied a huge chunk of unsourced material back into it. Also, since your edit-summary says "the administration of the organization is maintaining this page" (which is presumably you), you have a WP:COI and shouldn't really be editing it at all. Black Kite (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Meanwhile, Hawthorne Caballeros Drum and Bugle Corps is one massive copyvio and I've blanked it and sent it to the copyright investigations page. Black Kite (talk) 17:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Now fixed and appropriately revision-deleted. Black Kite (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Any administrator should feel free to shut this nonsense down. Odysseymsc was inappropriately trying to assert ownership over the Skyliners Drum and Bugle Corps article, as Black Kite observed. This is a content dispute, but as all of these former DCA drum corps are now part of DCI, these articles will all be formatted to match the format of the DCI articles. Several of us (as in, I am not making any decisions "unilaterally" as I've been accused) worked very hard to bring a sense of uniformity to these articles a few years ago. Any concerns should be addressed on the article's talk page or the Drum Corps WikiProject page. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please remove vandalism / attack / accusations

If possible, please remove vandalism / attack / accusations made by 2409:4063:ae81:99d5:8e6:f858:49a5:f307 at, 24. jul. 2024, 08:41, 08:42, 08:43 on my discussion page. I do not know what the person or bot is talking about. --Glenn (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Done. In the future, feel free to remove those kinds of messages and report the problem editor/IP to WP:AIV. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 15:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

This is a LTA. Feel free to drop a line on my talk page if you have any more problems. AIV works as well. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks --Glenn (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Ambeskine

Promptly after their 48 hour block for edit-warring expired, they are back to continue with similar changes on more articles [75], [76], arguing after warning of their disruption and creation of an offensive userbox User:Ambeskine/woman. It appears this user is clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Raladic (talk • contribs)

I've blocked them indef per WP:HID. Definitely not here, either. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 00:12, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Multiple WP:NPA violations from user

The user @Cenbutz1 has broken the WP:NPA policy two-three times that I have counted now as of writing this, including:

Here, where they replied to a user on their talk page with a brief "smartass".

Here, where this user stated "You Americans always with your annoying [...] is the very first president who [...] and so on."

And maybe even here, where this user states "What do you want from me?" (Although I'm not exactly sure if this is a WP:NPA violation or just being aggressive.)

Also apologies if this is formatted incorrectly or a bad WP:ANI, I've never done this before.

Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 01:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Likely trolling... I do think their comment on Talk:Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election is silly/trolling but what they replied to another user on their talk page violates WP:NPA. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 02:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

“Smartass” was 5.5 month ago. The other two comments aren’t really personal attacks, and one was last year. I’m having a hard time seeing this as ANI worthy. Cenbutz1, pleaee don’t call people a smartass. Floquenbeam (talk) 02:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

67.0.224.219 at Talk:Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign

Two dozen posts, forumy, disruptive, soapboxing, deleting other editor. [77] O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Gave them a time out. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 14:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Personal attack on Talk:Gino Jennings and edit warring

A certain user, Joefromrandb has been disruptive against other editors and I, and it has led to them verbatim telling me, "go fuck yourself." They would rather edit war instead of discussing their desired changes against the majority of other contributors (myself included), and throw profane slurs. How shall this be handled? - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 14:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Joefromrandb, don't tell editors to go fuck themselves.

TheLionHasSeen, read WP:BLP. This diff does not look good. The source you cited for fundamentalist doesn't use that label, and a campus newspaper for a community college isn't the kind of source we used for contentious information in BLPs. This source you added to support the First Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Inc. grew through Jennings emphasizing and teaching doctrines of inner and outward holiness, Jesus' name-only baptism, baptism with the Holy Spirit alongside required evidence of glossolalia, and an embrace of nontrinitarianism—teachings common among Oneness Pentecostals and others descending from the Holiness movement doesn't mention Jesus' name-only baptism or glossolalia, and the source itself is a Catholic advocacy organization, not suitable for a BLP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for helping me understand. I try my best to be a suitable editor here, but I guess I need to have better understanding sometimes. Sorry! - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 14:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, what shall be done as drafted edits, because quite obviously that edit which has been placed as the status quo against other contributors and I is full of grammatical errors. May someone please correct those errors? Thanks. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 14:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

The grammar issues can be fixed without using poor sources to attach labels to a BLP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

That's fine. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I forgot to add, I was also called a "dumbass" in their edit summaries by their contributions. I just noticed that. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 15:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

They're calling themselves a dumbass, noting the irony of their errors despite being a copy editor. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, that makes me feel less attacked. Thank you. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 15:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Noting that I full protected the article for a week while assessing the situation. While ScottishFinnishRadish said most of what I wanted to say, I'd like to reiterate to Joefromrandb that being right is not a reason to be uncivil to other editors. In the future, if you ever find yourself wanting to tell others to "fuck themselves", consider taking a break and returning to reply at a later point in time.

@TheLionHasSeen: Next time someone undo your edit invoking WP:BLP, you should discuss with them on the talk page instead of starting an edit war. If you feel that more eyes are needed, you can always call for uninvolved editors at noticeboards such as WP:BLPN. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 15:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Isabelle Belato. Thank you for your wisdom. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

@User: ScottishFinnishRadish: Your rebuke for saying "go fuck yourself" I accept, and readily acknowledge that that I let my irritation get the better of me. It's at that point, however, where you lose me. It was not I who made these edits for which you're apparently chastising me, rather I reverted them. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Look at who I'm pinging when talking about that edit. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:23, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Noted, and I stand corrected. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

ARBPIA 1RR

u:Qplb191 refuses to follow 1RR in ARBPIA, in spite of being warned about it and the lack of consensus for the changes they've been making. See User_talk:Qplb191#1RR_violation. Reverts: [78] [79]. Alaexis_¿question? 21:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Not seeing how this is related to the Israeli - Arab conflict? What we have here is two relatively inexperienced editors that need to work it out on the talk page.... Nothing actionable here except for guidance on how to resolve disputes. Not seeing how this post helps the problem whatsoever. Moxy🍁 21:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello, there was a discussion on the talk page about adding a section on culture to the lead, many users, including me, objected to the current version and despite this there was an insistence on adding it even though there were reservations about the proposed version. I sought to achieve a broad consensus regarding the proposed version and to take into consideration the suggestions of the editors such as @Makeandtoss. Qplb191 (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. You're right, it's not directly related to the conflict. Alaexis_¿question? 07:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@Alaexis: Re your edit, I don't think the text in question is longstanding content. CMD (talk) 08:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, probably my mistake was due to a similar sentence being in the beginning of the Demographics section for a long time. I'll add a comment at the talk page. Alaexis_¿question? 08:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! Alaexis_¿question? 08:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

All of Israel (the modern state) and all of Palestine (the modern state) are part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, broadly construed. That's why those two articles are tagged as under ARBPIA. (This could have been posted at AE.) Levivich (talk) 18:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Still edit warring: Special:Diff/1236078657, Special:Diff/1236239487/1236270907, Special:Diff/1236418157, Special:Diff/1236621589. Also appears to be WP:1AM on the talk page. Levivich (talk) 17:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I already pblocked for a week. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Rasnaboy

Hello Admins, User:Rasnaboy suddendly removing WP:Discrimination project from the talk page of Talk:Narendra Modi. I asked him to first discuss this matter on talk page and reach consesus on this matter. Let other editors give their point of view then he can remove it. But he seems to be in no mood telling some sock has added. Then he has again added [80] WP India project at Talk:God in Hinduism talk page. I reverted that edit explained him India is a secular state as per Constitution of India (Source). Moreover, christians are in majority in over 150 countries and muslims are in majority over 50 countries does that mean we have to add all individual WP Country projects to Christain & Islamic related articles. There are over 200 million muslims & over 20 milllion christians too live in India. They way WP India project is being added to Hinduism-related articles it seems India's Constitution declates it being a Hindu state. Hence, I urge admins to take this matter seriously. Thanks--2409:40E0:4:BB81:EC0C:96B8:6002:2F12 (talk) 12:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I've informed Rasna about the incident. Ahri Boy (talk) 13:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

India’s constitution has no bearing on the relevance of WP India to Hinduism-related articles. To me it seems relevant, since Hinduism originated in India and India is majority-Hindu. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I do wanna point something out.

The article on the country of Israel (yes I know many countries don’t recognize Israel) is placed in WikiProject Judaism.

Also can somebody link to any policy pages on inclusion to WikiProjects.CycoMa1 (talk) 18:49, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Also the article on Utah is on WP:LDSM.CycoMa1 (talk) 18:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I can’t also say too much on WikiProject Discrimination to be honest here. Because I’m not too familiar with Narendra Modi.

Anyway I think I have said everything I needed to say here.CycoMa1 (talk) 18:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Personally attacked again

Since last year I have been the target of (sometimes carefully hedged) accusations and smears from an editor who disagrees with me.

16:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC) Calling me "continual and deliberate false accusations" [81]

04:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC) Suggesting that I'm trying to use the "big lie technique, in the hope that Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth" [82]

10:26, 8 October 2023 (UTC) "adding misinformation" [83]

Suggesting that I'm being paid by a Chinese company to edit on their behalf

10:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC) "Given the influence and the large amount of $ the Sing! China incident involved, it won’t surprise me if it turns out that someone is paid to edit in their voice" [84]

21:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC) "That sea lion and their bait are really disgusting" [85] "I hope you are paid, and well-paid. Otherwise it doesn’t worth the time and effort you’ve devoted." [86]

Their behavior is unwarranted and needs to stop. Vacosea (talk) 04:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

This is the third time since September last year. Whenever I said the truth, pointing out your mistakes / stating the fact that you attacked me, or you can’t win the discussion [87], you bring me to ANI. [88][89]. You did not succeed the last two times, and now you continue. When will all these end? Is there really no consequence for you to spread misinformation about me for so long (over nine months)? Is it the “norms” here that people who are more gentle and don’t like collecting diffs and filing at ANI deemed to WikiBullying/harassment? [90]

This is tiring. I’ll just copy and paste here my final comment (at ANI) in the last complaint you filed against me:

I don’t think people will be interested in the 24 diffs you posted above (most of which were months ago, back in 2023).

Perhaps I shouldn’t have tried to make peace with you. I’m too forgetful, and forget how good you are at misleading people with unrelated diffs, links and sources. Maybe you would like to post all the diffs at one time, like this.

It seems to me that your main purpose is not trying to improve the article. Rather, you are using aged or tangentially-related diffs in the hope that you can get rid of another editor by sheer weight of numbers, especially where said diffs have been raised at previous ANIs that ended without the desired ban. I won’t comment on the issue of the former admin you mentioned, as I know nothing about that. However, I don’t think ANI is only moderated by one admin. Again, digging up old non-issue issues is a waste of community’s time and is exhausting other editors. Not to mention the untrue claims / potential WP:PA that are made. I don’t think I’ll take the bait this time. You can go on with your diffs.

I would say this kind of interaction is just exhausting. I really don’t think I have the time and energy to deal with the bait anymore. This is sapping up the community’s time. But I know you will never stop until there’s a boomerang.

Again, you can go on with your diffs. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 10:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@Dustfreeworld If you believe Vacosea is trying to get you into trouble to win an argument, why are you giving them so much ammunition? The "sea lion and their bait are disgusting" comment really sounds like you're calling Vacosea disgusting, which is a clear personal attack. Similarly, the "big lie technique" comment is hard to see as anything other than calling Vacosea a liar, which also seems like a WP:PA. Your accusations of paid editing might have merit, but the place to do that is WP:COIN, not an article talk page. And your comment telling Vacosea that you consider their accusations libelous, despite having cautioned Vacosea against using the term "defemation" for the same reason.

If, as you say, interacting with this person is exhausting, then perhaps moving to another area of the encyclopedia would be better for you. As valuable as your contributions are, that part of Wikipedia will survive if you need to move on, and the project will be all the better for retaining your time in an area that doesn't exhaust you instead of burning you out on this one. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

In reply to the accusations (of which 4 out of 5 happened more than 9 months ago)

Hi there. Most of the diffs cited above were months ago, and I think I’ve responded to them (multiple times?) at different venues already. And now, you are asking me to respond to those again, one by one. Can you see how exhausting it is??

Not to mention that, ANI is a high traffic venue, making untrue claims against someone (in this case: me) can do much more harm to them (e.g., to their reputation) than doing that on talk pages. And this just happens again and again.

Filing a case for them is easy. And it’s a great way to harm others without any consequences (I’m not commenting on the other cases here, but just this particular one that I know so well. I believe many cases are legitimate). All they need to do is just start a discussion like this, and then those who see their comment will just help them keep the ball rolling. Even if I reply to your concern above, you and others (who maybe relatively new to what had happened before) or maybe them, will continue to respond and again, I’ll need to answer one by one. This is the third time it’s happening in this venue, not including talk pages. If memory serves, the first ANI I mentioned above had lasted for months (with dozens of irrelevant diffs they posted). Isn’t that tiring? Issues like this are exactly what drive good editors away. Further, all these and the stress that brings can drive people crazy I would say, especially when occurs repeatedly.

They are the one who made untrue claims, but they don’t need to reply or worry about that at all, just because the victim is not interested in filing compliant, and also, is now busy defending themselves …

Anyway, I’ll response to some of the newer claims now. I’m not sure if there’s any language barrier. For me, the word “disgusting” is just similar to “annoying”, “discouraging”, etc. it’s just a word used to describe my feelings and I don’t think it’s “attack”, and it’s used to describe my feelings towards the sealioning behaviour:

”Sealioning (also sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassmentthat consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity ("I'm just trying to have a debate"), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter.[1][2][3][4] It may take the form of "incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate",[5] and has been likened to a denial-of-service attack targeted at human beings.[6] The term originated with a 2014 strip ...”

If I was wrong and that word does mean attack and shouldn’t be used, I’ll retract that, with apologies. As for “moving to another area of the encyclopaedia”, do you mean I should quit editing an article of my choice, and which I’m the main contributor of, just because I have been trying hard to protect the page from misinformation (which results in untrue claims / PA / case against me)? It shouldn’t be how things work ...

I think I’ve written long enough and hope that I can just stop here. Regards, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC); --Dustfreeworld (talk) 12:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

It does sound exhausting. That's why I'm hoping we can find a solution that works for you. The issue is what an uninvolved editor can be expected to do. If editor A accuses editor B, and B does not refute the accusations, it seems likely that uninvolved editors would conclude editor B is at fault. If you don't have the mental energy to defend yourself and provide diffs of Vacosea's bad behavior, then it seems likely that you'll be sanctioned by the community sooner or later. This is why I suggested abandoning the article you helped create, because the alternative could be a forced abandonment of all articles. Just trust that someone else will step in and defend against misinformation, even if you move to different articles.

Of course, if you CAN muster the energy to provide diffs, that could end things differently.

I see where you were coming from re "disgusting", but I would avoid characterizing other editors that way in the future; if someone called me or my behavior disgusting, I would certainly be upset! In any case, I hope we can solve this in a way that you don't have to deal with ANI again; I can imagine how stressful it'd be to get dragged here, and I rather suspect you have better things to do than come back here again. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

EducatedRedneck, I agree with most of what you said. However, it’s probably not as simple as “providing diff”. Actually diffs have been provided before many times already. If people (who are capable, which may also mean knowing the language) are willing to (take the risk and) spend the time to look into the issue, they can do so by viewing the article talk page, previous ANIs, etc., even if there’s no diff. Btw, sometimes sealioning behaviours are just so obvious that we probably won’t need more diffs.

“Just trust that someone else will step in and defend against misinformation” probably won’t work. As far as I know, some mistakes *can* stay in articles for months and even years, without anyone correcting them (e.g.,[91] ). --Dustfreeworld (talk) 17:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC); --Dustfreeworld (talk) 07:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

For the record, I was willing to work it out with them again at the first ANI before the personal attacks began [92]. They later crossed out comparing me to Joseph Goebbels but everything else remained as stated. To date they have not specified what they mean when accusing me of spreading misinformation or making untrue claims. Vacosea (talk) 20:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

FYI, I’m not sure I understand what you mean. It seems to me that you / your diff. have mixed up with the timeline. Further, the issues that being asked for specification had been specified in various venues multiple times (1st ANI, 2nd ANI, multiple threads on article’s talk page, the RFC you started, etc.) already but people are still “pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity”. [93] And, the above comment does have untrue claims as well.

For the record, they have started an (IMO unnecessary) RFC on the article talk page on 9 July while this ANI discussion is going on, which is a second one after another “dead” RFC they started last October (not about the same issue, but again an unnecessary time sink IMO). --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Please self-revert your changes to my comments [94]. Vacosea (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Vacosea! That’s a careless mistake I made. What happened was, I noticed I wrongly typed “HK” while I should have type “Wuhan” the first time. Then when I tried to fix it, I tried to use the “Find in page” option of the browser to locate it. Then due to misclick some text was deleted (not just in your comment, but in my comment as well). I’m sorry about that, I hate making mistakes, it’s corrected now and thanks for pointing it out. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 08:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Incivility of User:Fa30sp and continued disruptive editing against consensus

The user in question has repeatedly made inappropriate remarks or engaged in inappropriate conduct in their edits and their edit summaries towards multiple people and refuses to discuss the consensus on the matter of what edition of the tournament is to take place. Relevant diffs are as follows:

In edit summaries: [95] [96]

On my talk page: [97]

In the previous discussion on WT:FOOTY: [98] [99] [100]

Additionally, they appear to be engaging in the very same types of edits on 2029 FIFA Club World Cup that got them banned from editing 2025 FIFA Club World Cup. The content issue that recently reach a consensus aside, this is an inappropriate way to treat other editors. I have tried dealing with them civilly, and I am done trying at this point. Jay eyem (talk) 04:26, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Stop lying bro hahahaha there is no consensus at all at this matter!

Also, I couldn't discuss because I'm blocked editing at 2025 FIFA Club World Cup, so I was silenced and could no longer express my opinion! Not even on the talk page!

Finally, I didn't even know about that discussion open up at WikiProject Football, otherwise for sure I would be there before! Because my goal is to make Wikipedia better and gain more reliability!

But, the matter is that you are going against FIFA, the entity that rules football in the world, since they are treating that tournament as the 1st edition of a NEW FIFA Club World Cup, as we can see many times at FIFA's website and social media, being the most recent post about that here: https://www.instagram.com/p/C9ehOK8oXrT/ Fa30sp (talk) 04:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

While this is a content dispute outside of ANI's purview, a basic fact about Wikipedia is that we're not bound to parrot an organization's marketing hype. With that, reading the talk page, you were not blocked to censor you. You were blocked because you were bludgeoning the conversation and insulting your fellow editors. (We are also, your apparent inability to post without using the term notwithstanding, not your 'bros'.) Ravenswing 06:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

A basic fact is that this is not a marketing hype, this is how FIFA treats the NEW tournament, while FIFA Intercontinental Cup is the successor of the old FIFA Club World Championship/Cup (2000-23) with the same format, the fact indeed! With that, I'm censored! And yes, I was censored because I was bludgeoning the conversation while not agreeing with another editor!

Also, bro is a slang bro hahahahaha! Fa30sp (talk) 07:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked I have indefinitely blocked Fa30sp after seeing the issue on WT:FOOTY. Quite apart from the above issues, they were doing exactly the same thing on 2029 FIFA Club World Cup that got them pblocked from 2025 FIFA Club World Cup. For someone with only 72 edits, they have wasted far too much of everyone's time here already. Black Kite (talk) 08:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Disruption by SPA editor

Bobsource123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an SPA editor. Of their 35 contributions, 33 have been to Þorgrímur Þráinsson. Their additions look to have been largely unproblematic. Unfortunately, they have repeatedly removed a Template:POV tag added by @Buidhe: in November 2019 without explaining why: June 2022, October 2022, August 2023, June 2024, June 2024, July 2024. They have avoided responding to messages left on their Talk page and instead blanked their entire Talk page today: [101]. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Today, they removed the ANI notice from their Talk page which means they've seen it. Still, they again removed the tag and they also removed the short description while they were at it. I would consider this "chronic, intractable behavioral problems". Robby.is.on (talk) 22:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I think you should've tried more dispute resolution before bringing it to ANI .

Also the article talk page has no section about NPOV,(which the NPOV template documentation says is needed) and a quick read doesnt make it seem it has WP:NPOV issues . AlexBobCharles (talk) 08:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

InterComMan

InterComMan insists on making incorrect edits to various telecommunications related articles (most specifically to Vodafone Group articles), where he removes the legal names of companies (here), misuses the Company type field in the Infobox (here) and edits logos incorrectly, clearly ignoring the logo edit history (here), these aren't all the issues, they were just the ones that came to mind.

The main problem is though, that he won't take any advice on these matters and correct them, he just baits people into edit wars which I will admit, I unfortunately fell for. Hope this can be addressed. Professional Adriazeri (talk) 16:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Yup a WP:NOTHERE troll.CycoMa1 (talk) 17:37, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like trolling. ICM is WP:NOTHERE to build. Ahri Boy (talk) 17:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

@Ahri Boy who is WP:NOTHERE? Me or @Adriazeri? InterComMan (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

It's you ICM. Ahri Boy (talk) 17:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

why am I WP:NOTHERE? Can u watch pls all my contributions on Wiki? InterComMan (talk) 18:10, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide us diffs showing that you have made useful contributions to this site?CycoMa1 (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

for example:

• on spusu I added Switzerland;
• on Gruppo API I updated the lagal name, the references and I added the brand IP Gruppo API;
• I created the EuroSpin page;
• I moved and updated Altergaz to Eni Gas & Power France;
• so more...

InterComMan (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

What about Wind Tre where you keep reverting my edits which fixed some pretty obvious problems (here). FASTWEB where you appear to have just decided the Infobox guidelines don’t apply, Wind (Italy) where you’ve done much the same, Vodafone Czech Republic where again you were edit war baiting, and Telecom where you were also edit war baiting, especially blatant as there was literally nothing to argue about there (diff). Professional Adriazeri (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Adding to my previous reply, you've just recently reverted the Vodafone logo to an old version which was decided as being unfit to use, when I then reverted back to the suitable version, you undid that.

I'd make the assumption that you're just looking to pick fights. Professional Adriazeri (talk) 20:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

• I've protected Vodafone for a week since both the OP and InterComMan have broken 3RR on it and the alternative was to block them both, which I was sorely tempted to do. Black Kite (talk) 19:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

  The problem is though, that when that page protection expires, it won't address the fact that InterComMan baits for an edit war and ignores the discussion I try to start on the appropriate talk page. (22:35)
  Edit (23:51): Obviously I do appologise for engaging in an edit war. I do think it's important to consider the long term though. Professional Adriazeri (talk) 22:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

  I have watchlisted that page. If they start again, they'll just get blocked. Black Kite (talk) 08:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you. Would you also possibly be able to revert and protect File:Vodafone 2017 logo.svg as he's doing a similar edit-war bait thing there, you can check on the revision history that it had been the way it was before for 6 years. Adriazeri (talk) 18:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

  I didn't started edit wars, you did. Surely as soon as the protection expires on Vodafone, you will run to restore your version. InterComMan (talk) 10:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

• I've just given InterComMan a warning for willfully ignoring the instructions on infoboxes even after having had them pointed out to them. I will block them if they continue to willfully make edits against infobox instructions and guidelines. Canterbury Tail talk 12:21, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Request for 6-month Israel-Arab conflict topic ban to be overturned

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Overview:

20 days ago, I received the following topic ban:

"You are topic banned from the Arab/Israel conflict, broadly construed, for six months"

I was also banned for one week from editing Wikipedia, which has by now expired.

I am appealing for the topic ban to be lifted.

My perspective:

I created the 2024 Ohio State University pro-Palestinian campus protests article from the ground up, as I have extensive knowledge on the subject and aimed to contribute positively to Wikipedia by doing so. However, I lost access to the article after it was upgraded to extended-protected status. When my appeal for extended-protected permissions was rejected, I resorted to requesting edits on the article's talk page.

Initially, a helpful user implemented my suggested edits, but subsequent requests went unanswered for weeks. I then reached out to the user who previously assisted me and posted blurbs on relevant WikiProject pages. Eventually, I connected with @Adolphus79, who showed interest in the article after we interacted on the Ohio State University page.

We had a discussion on the article's talk page regarding the use of Instagram as a source. I argued that announcements from protest organizers on Instagram should be considered reliable if their authenticity is clear. After presenting a detailed argument and citing specific Wikipedia guidelines, Adolphus79 did not respond to my argument.

Adolphus79 began removing substantial amounts of information from the article based on his stance that Instagram is never a suitable source. I tried to engage in further discussion, providing additional evidence and sources, but my comments were subsequently ignored.

He then marked many of my article talk page suggestions as "not done" in a tone which I (erroneously) perceived as condescending. He did not implement any of my requested changes, except the removal of an unnecessary period. Information on the article, such as "students criticized the sniper," was removed, even though I attempted to engage in discussion surrounding why I believe this, and other similar examples, were verifiably true.

Feeling increasingly frustrated and ignored, I inadvertently violated Wikipedia's canvassing and "assume good faith" policies by presenting my concerns in an emotionally charged and unbiased manner on WikiProject pages. This led to my six-month topic ban and a week-long general ban 20 days ago, during which I've had time to reflect on my actions.

What I did wrong:

• I engaged in canvassing.
• I assumed bad faith by @Adolphus79.
• I got too emotionally attached to this article, seeing it as "my own" article rather than something managed collectively by the community.
• I tried to rush advocating for changes, rather than taking my time advocating for changes to be implemented.
• And overall, I was emotional and unobjective.

Punishment:

• The week long ban was reasonable.
• A two-week long topic ban is reasonable.
• However, a six-month topic ban from editing the Arab/Israel conflict is something I would like to appeal.

I have had enough time at this point to reflect on my actions and acknowledge/learn from my mistakes. I am very sorry for violating Wikipedia's policies. And @Adolphus79 specifically, I am very sorry for assuming bad faith.

If I make the same mistakes as I made last time in the future, then please sanction this account more severely (maybe a 6-month general ban, or something along these lines, would be appropriate).

But I respectfully ask that I be given a second chance before such a severe punishment as a six-month topic ban is handed out. If this could be lifted, I would be extremely grateful and will be much more careful in the future to adhere to Wikipedia's high standards for editing. I have been keeping close tabs on the pro-Palestine campus protests, and I believe I would make a great volunteer to maintain the 2024 Ohio State University pro-Palestinian campus protests article and keep it up-to-date, all while being a better editor than I was before the ban gave me time to reflect by adhering to Wikipedia's policies. I would also like to have a more collaborative relationship with @Adolphus79 in the future since he is one of the main editors maintaining the articles on which I've primarily been focusing.

I'm of course open to any discussion. Thank you.

Onlineone22 (talk) 20:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I think a six-month topic ban was more than reasonable given your continuous WP:OWN of the article and lack of WP:AGF. The responses of Adolphus79 [102] and ScottishFinishRadish [103] when you requested the topic ban be reconsidered are still as valid now as they were two weeks ago and on point.

You now admit you sort of acted incorrectly, but only very grudgingly since the admission comes with more justifications and accusations, and only so long as there are no meaningful consequences to doing so. A two-week topic ban would clearly have been extremely insufficient; waiting out the clock apparently did little to get you to drop the stick, and since you are not EC, and have made no edits since to become so, you wouldn't have been able to post anything to that topic in those two weeks anyway (and still cannot now, even if the topic ban were lifted). A two-week topic ban would have had no more effect than a site ban starting in the year 2200.

I would urge the community to not accept any more appeals at AN/ANI on this issue and to toll the six-month topic ban (in the event that get EC). CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

> You now admit you sort of acted incorrectly, but only very grudgingly since the admission comes with more justifications and accusations, and only so long as there are no meaningful consequences to doing so.

> waiting out the clock apparently did little to get you to drop the stick

> responses [...] when you requested the topic ban be reconsidered are still as valid now as they were two weeks ago

I'm sorry but I genuinely don't know what you mean by a lot of this. In what way does my admission come with more justifications and accusations? In what way are there no meaningful consequences to me making an admission? The ban did little to get me to drop what stick—the stick of trying to appeal the topic ban? Why is that a "stick"? To what specific points in the responses of those two users are you referring?

Onlineone22 (talk) 22:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, why is it that you are only interested in editing about this one single event? 90(ish)% of your edits have been on this one page, or on other articles (or talk pages) related to OSU, adding (sometimes inappropriate) information about this one event. You have made no effort to even try to work on any other articles (unrelated to this event), and you are trying so hard to get the t-ban dropped to edit these few articles related to this one event. A t-ban doesn't mean you can't edit other stuff, there's a whole universe of other articles that need help, need expanded, copyedited, created even! You should be using this time to edit other articles to show that you understand resources better, that you can interact civilly with other editors, that you aren't only here for one reason. - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:16, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for stopping by!

The reason why 90% of my edits on this account are on that one page is because my main account, @Gabetucker2 (I just saw your question on my talk page, hopefully this answers your question), reveals personal information in the username of that account. I have safety concerns when it comes to editing topics relating to the OSU protests using my real name since many people I know have been doxxed after their identities were tracked down by counter-protesters (e.g., on canarymission.org). I created this alternative account to make edits that can't be traced back to my identity as easily by using an anonymous username. If you take a look at my main account, you will see that I've edited a broad range of topics unrelated to Palestine including ACT-R, lion lights, National Taiwan University Hospital, and more.

I hope that proves that I've edited a range of topics outside of Palestine. But even so, I'll admit I have a personal interest in the article because no one else on Wikipedia is adding anything to it, despite the fact that there's a lot of stuff going on that's been widely reported on, so I wanted to take advantage of the fact I'm know pretty knowledgeable on the topic to make this information more easily accessible to people seeking to learn more. There's not really a source outside of Wikipedia that gives an overview of what's gone on with the protests, so I think Wiki offers a really unique opportunity to give a credible overview of the events that occurred. That's why I've been pretty devoted to trying to get so much information added that wasn't there previously (although of course I acknowledge I need to slow down and go about it more systematically, which you correctly criticized).

Just as a side note, I certainly don't want to sock-puppet two accounts, but I also don't want it to be easy for people to discover my real identity through this account. So if you have any concerns or ideas for how to address this topic, I'm definitely open to further discussion on my talk page.

Onlineone22 (talk) 22:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

So you've been evading the t-ban this entire time with your sock?!?!? - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think I've edited anything relating to the Arab-Israel conflict on my main account since the t-ban, no? I've been focusing on other articles on my main account since then. Onlineone22 (talk) 22:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Your week site ban expired nearly two weeks ago. However much your topic ban enjoined you from making edits regarding the Arab/Israeli conflict, what prevented you from making constructive edits on any other topic? Lack of experience with Wikipedia policies and practices is the chief reason we limit new editors who are not yet extended-confirmed from fraught topic areas. Get that experience in less fraught topic areas, then we'll talk. Ravenswing 22:27, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey, I just responded to @Adolphus79 where I explain how and why this is my alt account. My main account, @Gabetucker2, which is over a year old, has made many edits since my topic ban and account suspension on this account.

Onlineone22 (talk) 22:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Soibangla

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

They have made many attempts to deny the fact that Trump was hit with a bullet in the assassination attempt, and when they were confronted with various sources that prove that he was shot, they went to their talk page and tried to undermine the credibility of the sources by saying that no primary sources said that Trump was shot (an unnecessarily claimed requirement). The only “evidence” pointing to Trump not being hit with a bullet, one FBI director, was contradicted by many sources, including a statement by Trump’s physician. soibangla’s talk page in general also seems to show many edits of hard-left bias, which is a clear violation of Wikipedia’s neutrality policy. As such, action should be taken against this user to prevent their misinformation from spreading. LordOfWalruses (talk) 21:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Let's see.

1. You failed to notify User:Soibangla, as was required for you to do when making this post. I've now done so.
2. ANI is not for content disputes, which this seems to largely be.
3. WP:NPOV doesn't apply to user pages, or non-article pages in general. You would know this if you actually read the first sentence of the policy you're citing.
4. "I apologize for the personal attacks, however..." is never something anyone wants to hear, and rarely instils confidence that you actually care about anything but being called out for categorically unacceptable conduct.
5. ...Especially when you continue to make personal attacks in this very filing. I would worry about your own conduct before this person's, frankly.

Remsense诉 21:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, it's interesting to see this attack by LordOfWalruses just 12 minutes after I warned them about personal attacks such as "Now get off this site and go to Reddit to cry about the editors “biased” towards conspiracy theorists like you." on Soibangla's page. They have not replied there, instead calling Soibangla "a far-left conspiracy theorist" here on ANI, so I guess it didn't impress them much. (Addition: in fact now they have replied to me.) I've blocked LordOfWalruses for 48 hours for repeated personal attacks. Thanks for alerting Soibangla, Remsense. Bishonen | tålk 22:04, 25 July 2024 (UTC).

• PS. The PA here on ANI that I referred to was LordOfWalruses original header "soibangla is a far-left conspiracy theorist who should be sanctioned"; The Radish changed it to a neutral header just as I was posting. Bishonen | tålk 22:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC).

  WP:BOOMERANG, They weren't even involved in the discussion. Conyo14 (talk) 22:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

  Already blocked. It's going to be a busy few months. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

  It's been a busy few years. No end in sight either. Ravenswing 23:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Whatever is going on with the OP of this thread, soibangla seems to have been fixated on this teleprompter glass shard theory for a very long time, despite nobody else on that talk page ever seeming to agree that it was plausible (there was a big RfC which they opened, which was almost unanimously in favor of just saying he was 'shot'). @Cullen328: who was involved in a thing just now I see. jp×g🗯️ 23:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

In any case, it seems like it's most recently been resolved in favor of the only tenable position—in their words: all hail RS. Remsense诉 23:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, I was involved at Talk:Attempted assassination of Donald Trump as just another editor, not as an administrator. I opposed using the word "dubious" in the lead to call into question the claim that Trump's ear was grazed by a bullet. I argued that the explanation is plausible but unproven at this time, and that the "dubious-discuss" tag was inappropriate. The matter seems to be resolved at this time and I agree that LordOfWalruses behavior has been inappropriate. Cullen328 (talk) 00:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Republican Party efforts to disrupt the 2024 United States presidential election - IP prod'ing it probably isn't allowed due to ECR rules, but also, this article needs to be reviewed thoroughly for BLP and related reasons. Daniel (talk) 01:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Don't think there's any ECR requirement for that article. AFAICT, no admin has places any such restriction on it and only Wikipedia:Contentious topics/American politics would apply to the entire article, so there's no standard ECR restriction (unlike with Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict). Nil Einne (talk) 02:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks — you are, of course, correct. The article itself causes me great pause about its content, I'd be interested to know if I'm the only one. Daniel (talk) 03:16, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I encourage thorough scrutiny of the article soibangla (talk) 04:42, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it's probably a really good AFD candidate. While the sources are mostly good, the sources don't really connect to the topic of the article; they support a larger argument that you are making rather than making the argument itself. And the few things that are directly on point are generally predictions of what could happen later this year. It's a real WP:COATRACK/WP:SYNTH mess. Though hopefully someone else will nominate it as I try and avoid the mess that is US politics on Wikipedia as a headache I do not need. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

This seems like kind of a redundant article -- either a WP:POVFORK of one article or a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of another. Currently, our articles specifically about Donald Trump's election antics include:

• • 2020 United States presidential election
  • Timeline of the 2020 United States presidential election (November 2020–January 2021)
  • January 6 United States Capitol attack
  • 2020–21 United States election protests
  • 2021 United States Electoral College vote count]
  • 2024 United States presidential election
  • Russian interference in the 2020 United States elections
  • Trump fake electors plot
  • Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election
  • Republican reactions to Donald Trump's claims of 2020 election fraud
  • List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump
  • Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (election obstruction case)
  • Republican efforts to restrict voting following the 2020 presidential election
  • Election denial movement in the United States
  • Republican Party efforts to disrupt the 2024 United States presidential election

The last two of these were created by soibangla. I think that, in general, we have an outrageously excessive amount of coverage of US elections and specifically we have an outrageously excessive amount of coverage of Donald Trump in particular. This list is fifteen articles -- our series on the Gallic Wars in which Caesar conquered the bulk of Western Europe over decades constitutes seventeen! But I don't know that AN/I is necessarily the proper venue for addressing this kind of thing. jp×g🗯️ 19:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328 to be clear, I did not place the "dubious-discuss" tag in the article. soibangla (talk) 02:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Soibangla, I never said or implied that you did. but you defended it repeatedly. Cullen328 (talk) 04:21, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I did not say you did, now you have proposed lead language indicating the "shot" claim is, well ... dubious? soibangla (talk) 04:35, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Soibangla, I did no such thing and I object to your mischaracterizion of my words. Cullen328 (talk) 05:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328 [104] soibangla (talk) 05:35, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

The idea that this statement is supporting the "dubious" wording is itself baffling. Either you're misreading it, or misrepresenting it. Regardless, you should step back and drop the topic. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

soibangla objects to the statement "Trump was shot" (or equivalent), on the grounds that reliable sources are divided and unclear on this subject (about whether he was shot or whether he was instead hit by a piece of shrapnel). Cullen's position in the linked diff is in agreement with soibangla's position. There is some misrepresentation that has taken place in this thread, but it is misrepresentation by others of soibangla's position. 82.194.106.58 (talk) 21:27, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

No. "Dubious" has connotations that a fact is simply untrue. That's very different than what Cullen is saying, and implying otherwise is the misrepresentation. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

If that was the case, then we wouldn't be here. To give context, starting several hours after the shooting on the 13th, soibangla started a discussion claiming that Trump was stuck by glass using Twitter as sources. Of the two sources, one was an Axios reporter who has since deleted their tweet and the other was a NEWSMAX reporter. Discussion follows, but before it concludes, soibangla starts a second discussion seven hours later, this time listing which sources say he was shot and which do not, favoring not by 16-8 when FOXNEWS is included. When one user challenged soibangla's summary of things after soubangla edited the article to state Trump was only injured, it became clear that more reliable sources were saying he was shot rather than injured, including a number of sources that soibangla had claimed were not saying Trump was shot. This led soibangla to instead say that we needed "decisive proof" as law enforcement nor the Secret Service had officially claimed he was shot with a bullet. Discussion continued on without soibangla, as soibangla then started a RfC called "Trump shot in the ear", which was WP:SNOW close as Yes within 24 hours.

Again, if this was all, then we wouldn't be here. Following the RfC, soibangla left the article and did not comment on the shooting anywhere, besides this user talk page discussion. However, following the testimony and interviews of the FBI director, solibangla again suggested Trump was not hit by a bullet and again edited the article due to new information coming to light. I think the best quote for a summary is one from soibangla yesterday: [...] I have been skeptical of what reliable sources have reported here, that he was hit by a bullet despite the total lack of evidence to support it, so I'm not inclined to expect they would now tell us their reporting is was dubious. we, as editors, need to say it's dubious, despite our insistence to rely on what reliable sources say, when evidence has arisen to call it into question. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Super Goku V: right off the bat, soibangla started a discussion claiming that Trump was stuck by glass is flatly false, consequently I will ignore any more of your depictions of events. there sure are lots of people piling on to misrepresent what I said and did. soibangla (talk) 09:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

How can it be false, when I just quoted you twice with your glass comments and when there is a third time on another article where you wanted to know what evidence dismissed the "glass shrapnel story?" --Super Goku V (talk) 09:33, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Both quotes show that soibangla taking the view that trump may have been struck by glass rather than by a bullet, i.e., that the available sources do not provide a basis for definitively rejecting either possibility. This view is consistent with everything soibangla has said in this discussion, and is obviously not the same as the view that trump was struck by glass. --134.147.24.41 (talk) 11:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

+1 soibangla (talk) 11:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

If that is the only issue, then very well. I have amended it. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:34, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I have never advocated any teleprompter glass shard theory. this has never even remotely happened. please waste your time looking for diffs showing I have. or, maybe strike the comment and apologize for smearing me as a wild-eyed conspiracy theorist. then go block yourself. soibangla (talk) 02:33, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I will not apologize, no. I am not particularly invested in what tag is on what sentence in this article (I have not edited that claim in the article ever iirc), but it's unbelievably dishonest of you to say this, and since you have baselessly claimed I made a false accusation, here:

• You opened a section called "reports he was struck by glass, not bullet" on 14 July, in which you posted tweets saying that he was struck by glass and not a bullet.

• Direct quote from you in that section: it has not been confirmed he was struck by a bullet
• Direct quote from you in that section: it has not been described as the bullet that struck Trump, except by some who have erroneously deduced and conflated
• Direct quote from you in that section: there were multiple bullets and there remains no public evidence Trump was struck by any of them
• Direct quote from you in that section: it is one of the bullets and passed by Trump but there is no indication it made contact with him

• You opened a thread on 14 July, called "sources that report he was shot", saying again "The Secret Service and other law enforcement agencies have not yet publicly confirmed that Mr. Trump was shot in the ear".

• Direct quote from you in that section: we know for a fact he was injured, we do not know for a fact he was shot. we should err on the conservative for the time being.
• Direct quote from you in that section: my concern is that some sources may be adding 2 + 2 and getting 3: shooting + blood = shot
• Direct quote from you in that section: let's wait until we have decisive proof. for now, all we know for a fact is that his ear was injured.

• Despite nobody agreeing with your claims in these talk page sections, you proceeded to open an RfC, titled "Trump shot in the ear", in which you again argued that the article shouldn't say he was shot in the ear -- there were 24 RS saying this, and of all thirteen people replying to the RfC, not a single one agreed with your characterization, and it was SNOW closed.

It's one thing to repeatedly advocate, against unanimous consensus, to put biased language about a politician in an article (and it would be far from the first time you've done this). But it is another thing to later say you "never advocated" for it and cast baseless aspersions on anyone who doesn't sit back and let you POV-push. Is there anything else you want to be wildly dishonest about, or is that it? jp×g🗯️ 04:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

You have a long history, well before you became an admin, of misrepresenting my words, commonly in a mocking tone, and I'm fed up with it. Here I said specifically said I have never advocated any teleprompter glass shard theory which you falsely interpret to mean that I claimed to have never advocated anything. There is absolutely nothing untoward about my comments you cite here. That's as far as I can go with this without resorting to personal attacks. soibangla (talk) 05:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

and when you're not busy misrepresenting my words, you're busy ignoring them to pivot to irrelevant diversions. at long last, I have totally lost my ability to AGF in your behavior. I recommend you adjust your attitude toward me. soibangla (talk) 05:27, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

and it would be far from the first time you've done this prove it and ban me. soibangla (talk) 05:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that sealioning is "assuming good faith". You are either lying or concern trolling. The claim is that you aren't technically advocating for the article to say A -- you're simply, for some totally unrelated and non-POV-pushing reason, saying that it could say A, and then spending an entire day posting impossibly far-fetched pedantic about some minor objection (you don't raise these objections to anything else) why it shouldn't say B, and it shouldn't say C, and it shouldn't say D, and it shouldn't say E, et cetera, et cetera.

It is genuinely insulting that you expect people to believe this.

I realize you think your POV is the correct one, but you still have to follow the policies here. You cannot just make articles say stuff by saying the same thing over and over and over and over until everyone gets too frustrated to continue arguing, and leaves you alone to do whatever you want with the page.

I will not ask politely again: please stop doing this. jp×g🗯️ 05:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I did advocate to gain consensus that "shot" was unsupported by evidence, going so far as opening an RfC, and I failed miserably, but I did not advocate what you just claimed I did. and lo and behold, presently the lead does not explicitly say he was "shot," but rather "Trump was wounded in his upper right ear by a bullet or shrapnel." soibangla (talk) 06:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

New York Times today:

The F.B.I. is examining numerous metal fragments found near the stage at a campaign rally in Butler, Pa., to determine whether an assassin’s bullet — or potential debris — grazed former President Donald J. Trump’s head, bloodying his ear, according to the F.B.I. and a federal law enforcement official. Unanswered questions about the object that struck the Republican nominee for president have lingered since the shooting on July 13, with Mr. Trump claiming that he was struck by a bullet — and casting his survival as an act of divine intervention. F.B.I. officials have been more circumspect, citing the need to analyze the evidence before determining what struck Mr. Trump — a bullet, metal shard or something else.[105]

soibangla (talk) 06:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

This discussion is going a little off the rails and probably should return to the talk page from whence it came, or take it to Dispute Resolution. Conyo14 (talk) 06:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I am done here. soibangla (talk) 06:32, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I have never advocated any teleprompter glass shard theory. this has never even remotely happened. please waste your time looking for diffs showing I have.

there are reports he was struck by glass from a shattered teleprompter
— User:soibangla 02:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

not confirmed he was struck by a bullet! may have been shattered glass!
— User:soibangla 02:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

For the record. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Super Goku V: you falsely asserted the first one was me "claiming" that theory was true. the second one was a hastily composed edit summary in a rapidly moving story. in the third one (above), I simply asked another editor how they discovered it was not true. so congratulations, you really got me bigtime. how many hours did you waste for that? haha, smh soibangla (talk) 10:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

To quote yourself from this thread: I have never advocated any teleprompter glass shard theory. The usage of claiming was in a different reply which I have stricken. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:34, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Bishonen or someone, the issue raised by the OP has been resolved and I suggest this thread be closed as it has descended into a free-for-all to bash me. editors are of course welcome to come to my Talk page to bash me. they are also free to file charges against me. soibangla (talk) 09:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

• There does seem to be a serious issue pushing conspiracy theories. Even yesterday it looks like you are trying to say his injuries were not caused by Crooks' gun? And stuff like nothing coming from a Republican-controlled committee should be accepted as true on its face is rather concerning. Maybe a topic ban from America Politics is in order, especially given the combativness above. PackMecEng (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think it's right to characterize soibangla as pushing conspiracy theories, I've been quietly following soibangla's activity on that page since it started. My take is that soibangla has been pointing out that all RSs rather hastily jumped to the conclusion that Trump had been shot before any conclusive evidence that his injury was actually a gunshot wound had been reported. Even now there has not yet been any report by an independent doctor's examination or any completed investigation by a relevant and independent agency on what the exact nature of Trump's injury is. Soibangla never made any assertions that the injury was caused by any particular thing, merely that stating in wikivoice that it had been caused by any particular thing was still premature and subject to change after details are finally released by official independent investigators. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

  Thats kind of the problem. Reliable sources on the topic are not divided. So their questioning them is inappropriate since its from their own original research. It is not our place to question RS in the face of fairly overwhelming uniformity. PackMecEng (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

  I don't see any conspiracy pushing. I see soibangla pointing out that there is much info lacking. Indeed, no medical report, no info from treating doctors, no statement from the Secret Service, Trump resisting an FBI interview. We don't actually have any official statements describing the injury. Most likely Trump was hit by a bullet. But it is not conspiratorial to say it hasn't been confirmed since it hasn't been confirmed. Now, we do what we do, which is document from reliable sources. That's fine. But I think the situation calls for some caution. That's true soon after any major event; but this seems to have an unusual dearth of significant info. I can see the logic behind caution using WikiVoice in such an event prior to the completion of any investigation. I think the call for a TBan is absurd. Keep in mind that we have WP:NODEADLINE. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

  I second what Objective3000 said. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 17:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

  Thirded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SarekOfVulcan (talk • contribs) --19:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

  Fourthed -- it is flatly false that RS have been in uniform agreement on this topic, as evidenced by e.g. this (which might, going forward, lead to a consolidation of RS -- but whose existence also is strong evidence that that uniformity has not already happened). [I am the same person as 134.etc above] 82.194.106.58 (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

• I have topic banned Soibangla from the topic of the attempted assassination of Donald Trump, broadly construed, for 90 days for bludgeoning, NPOV, and disruptive editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

  Good block. Soibangla kept digging themselves deeper with every reply here. Ravenswing 22:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

BTW, for everyone's sake, it's finally official: FBI says Trump was indeed struck by bullet during assassination attempt. It took this long to confirm that fact. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:27, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Binksternet

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

So recently I made a change on the page Blasphemous Rumours / Somebody. I saw that user Binksternet had removed a genre which is reliably source. I reversed this change and left a notice on his talk page about not removing info without an explanation. He deleted this notice and reverted my edit. I, again left a notice on his talk page, this time he falsely accused me of sock puppetry, and again, reverted his edit. He again, deleted my notice and reverted my edit once again. Now, he's accusing me of WP:WAR despite the fact he's the one who made an inaccurate edit. On his most recent reversal of my edit, he claimed the genre source was a "WordPress blog" despite there being no info backing this up linked, or in existence at all. It's clear he's editing to fit his ideology, and his practice of silencing opposition is very dictatorial like. I believe he is a disruptive user that is making Wikipedia a worse place and an investigation into him is sorely needed for the good of this site and it's future. I already left a message about this on his talk page, but really, it's time an administrator gets involved, because he keeps reverting my correct edits to fit his own personal bias. It has to stop. Wikipedia should be all facts, no opinions, but users like Binksternet are getting in the way of this. Please thoroughly look into his account, it seems I'm not the first who've had such experience with Binksternet based on the results you get when looking up his name on Google. Thank you in advance, I strive to make Wikipedia a better and more accurate place, but stuff like this gets in the way of that, so it needs to be stopped, simple as that. Mappy1983 (talk) 03:17, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

He's only reverted twice, as Acroterion said. I saw on Bink's talk page that you were making personal attacks. So basically you're the one who is being disruptive, not him, and thus you need to be blocked. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 03:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@Mappy1983: As I warned you on your talkpage, you're making personal attacks. Binksternet isn't even at the threshold of edit-warring, while you're aggressively arguing about genres. Acroterion (talk) 03:27, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Now blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Acroterion (talk) 03:30, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Murder victim "deserved it"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Quevtidextirious (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be an account primarily here for disruption (see [106]), but I don't believe this is the sort of thing that needs the standard escalating four warnings process. Egsan Bacon (talk) 14:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

•  Indeffed Clearly NOTHERE. Side note; this is the sort of thing that could probably be reported to AIV as naked vandalism. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:51, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

block porn website

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

should to block porn website www.brazzers.com www.stripchat.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peachyo (talk • contribs) 16:05, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@Peachyo: The place to make requests like this is MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist (local) or m:Talk:Spam blacklist (all WMF wikis), not here. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:56, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pervasive, deliberate falsification of sources in hoax articles from COI editor

JoeK2033 (talk · contribs · blocks · count · rollback · admin · logs) is partially-blocked from Draft:James Naleski for persistent promotional editing (see deleted contribs), their block from the page). This draft was previously frequented by blocked socks Jpaul2015, Jpaul03342, and Fancy vibēs. Naleski, according to the draft that JoeK edited, was "the son of Janet Frost, a university professor, and Victor Naleski, an American businessman". Since their November block, they've edited a great number of pages related to Janet Frost, James A. Frost, and the like. However, this is a normal COI case, and does not warrant an AN/I thread. Here I am interested in something quite a bit worse: they wrote two articles about scientific papers in which they substantially, demonstrably falsified sources by getting a LLM to write fake slop and pasting it directly into the edit window.

I have written a detailed explanation of how I know that both of these articles are hoaxes, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biosynthesis of a Biotin Compound Containing ⁷⁵Se -- in addition to the very recognizable GPT style, there are numerous very basic errors that imply the articles were written without actually reading the papers (e.g. confidently claiming that they had used techniques which would have made no sense and appeared nowhere in the paper).

It is my opinion that both of these articles warrant an immediate WP:G3, their author an indefinite block, and the greater Frostosphere a thorough examination for any more hoaxes, but lest I be accused of acting rashly I've chosen to open a thread here first to see if there is any objection. jp×g🗯️ 19:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The problem with G3 deletion is that it is only supposed to be for hoaxes that are obvious, and this one took some investigation to confirm. In this case I don't think it matters much as the AfD is heading for a snow delete (I can't close it as I participated but it might already be ready for that). Indef-blocking and deeper examination of other contributions are appropriate, though. We can't allow editors who deliberately perpetrate non-obvious hoaxes (or who lack the competence to tell that their AI-generated content is a hoax) to continue editing. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

In light of this I have indef-blocked for the hoaxes and persistent COI editing; I'll let the AfDs run out the clock, and we can start going through some of the COI stuff later. If he was willing to slop out two giant articles about dense biochemistry dissertations, I would be willing to bet hard cash that more slop lurked within. jp×g🗯️ 20:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

At a glance, most of the other articles the user created on books or dissertations or papers by James A. Frost seem like the same kind of slop. Sgubaldo (talk) 20:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd have nominated the other ones, but bundling them with the dissertations would've been too much and I didn't want to be excessive on AfD. Sgubaldo (talk) 20:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @XOR'easter: whose comment spurred me to look at the damn dissertation in the first place.

• Life with Elsie is slopped imo. "Frost provides touching descriptions of their children's births and the profound sense of wonder and love accompanying their journey into parenthood" - Huhghaghhguloaglulh.
• James A. Frost: I think https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_A._Frost&oldid=1235767008 might actually be good -- I don't see slop and the references look real. This would of course require someone to actually go through Coldwell-style and check it.
• Janet Frost: Short and concise so I don't see a whole lot of issue here.
• Elsie M. Frost: "passionately advocated for children and education" is sloppish but it's a very short article that sticks to concise biographical details (may have notability concerns).
• The Establishment of the Connecticut State University, 1965-85, Notes and Reminiscences: I rate this one a Slop On Fire! Delves into delving into delving into delves.

jp×g🗯️ 21:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

In that version of James A. Frost, I saw a lot of boilerplate/hype: Frost excelled at the Air Corps School for Administrative Officers, demonstrating strong academic performance and proficiency in military drills, During this time, Dr. Frost implemented significant personnel changes and restructured various programs, etc. I don't trust JoeK2033 to have accurately summarized any of the references; I've no objection to anyone going through them manually and redoing the job properly, of course, but cleaning up after Coldwell taught me the virtue of cutting and reverting without regret. XOR'easter (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

In A History of the United States: The Evolution of a Free People, there's a citation to a 1949 newspaper article attached to a claim about the intricate narrative provided by a book published in 1968. The same newspaper story is cited in the first line of the article on A History of New York State, published in 1967. What a mess. I hope the person who did this has the decency to feel guilty about the cleanup job they've dumped on us. XOR'easter (talk) 21:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, before seeing your comment I was just about to write: Something that stands out to me in both Life with Elsie and The Establishment of the Connecticut State University, 1965-85, Notes and Reminiscences is the use of references that predate the work described by the article to make confident-sounding evaluations of the content and reception of the work itself. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I must say I don't see Janet Frost passing WP:NPROF]. Sgubaldo (talk) 00:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm concerned about GNG on Elsie Frost too. I'll leave it for now but might nominate both soon. Sgubaldo (talk) 01:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

After having a look at the articles again, I've gone ahead and nominated both for deletion. Sgubaldo (talk) 11:18, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

So far:

• A Short History of New York State, deslopped by XOR
• A History of New York State, deslopped by me
• Life On The Upper Susquehanna 1783-1860, deslopped by XOR
• A History of the United States: The Evolution of a Free People, deslopped by me
• New York: The Empire State, deslopped by me jp×g🗯️ 21:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

There's more slop in A History of the United States: The Evolution of a Free People. Only one of the six references given actually post-dates the publication of the book. It's conceivable that the story from late 1967 mentions a book that would come out in 1968 (I don't trust the "January 1" in the infobox, but the year agrees with WorldCat, at least). I can't access newspapers.com at the moment, so I can't check. XOR'easter (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) I don't consider the publication day necessarily a red flag. Just as all horses in the Northern hemisphere are notionally born on January 1, some websites (e.g. Amazon) specify that as the publication day when unknown; it might be a required field chosen from a drop-down list. I've seen duplicate entries where one said January 1, and another something more realistic. Narky Blert (talk) 06:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Well heck, we could just redirect all of the books to the author's article, since it seems unlikely there's much to say about them other than "a normal school textbook for which there may or may not be any real refs beyond them having been published". jp×g🗯️ 22:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

You can see OCR text by following the newspaper.com link even without a subscription, it's always a bit garbled but you can get the general idea. Checking the first couple of references they don't appear to have anything to do with the book. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The same appear to be true of the newspaper links I've randomly checked in the other article, they appear to have random words that link them to the article but are otherwise unrelated. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm just not finding enough to substantiate articles on A History of the United States and New York: The Empire State. They're both multi-author books, but since Frost is the only coauthor to be blue-linked, making those pages into redirects seems OK. So, if someone can check Janet Frost and Elsie M. Frost for verifiability, the rest will probably be resolved when the deletion clocks run out. XOR'easter (talk) 22:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh, there's also a template: {{James A. Frost}}. It looks like nearly everything linked there has been/will soon be eliminated by deletions and redirects. The only article not already gone or already up for deletion is Olivia Dalton, which is tagged for notability concerns. XOR'easter (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I was going to nominate the template once the AfDs/PRODs were done, but I've gone ahead and done it now. Sgubaldo (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

If the Olivia Dalton article survives we could mention that she is a granddaughter of James Frost (who is definitely notable) — see e.g. this obituary – but I'm skeptical of her notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Does the president of a university system count for C6, or is it more an administrative role? I know we typically have the chancellors of the U of California system but is that standard across the board? JoelleJay (talk) 07:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

In the University of California, the chancellor is the head of an individual university while the head of the whole system is the president. In the California State University system, the president is the head of an individual university while the head of the whole system is the chancellor. It's confusing, I know. Anyway, James Frost clearly meets WP:AUTHOR so we don't have to decide whether he also meets WP:PROF#C6. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I was just wondering based on your comments about the obit (since his being president/chancellor of various university systems was what I assumed you were referring to there). JoelleJay (talk) 23:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion; no, I linked the obit only as a reference for his relation to Dalton. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

One wonders if this entire thing was a galaxy-brained 5d chess scheme to build an entire Potemkin village of slop articles in hopes of restoring James Naleski. jp×g🗯️ 16:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I suppose they wanted to create articles on the entire James Frost family (and their academic works where applicable). Still, all of the slop is now gone or in the process of being deleted. Sgubaldo (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

• I've closed the AfD. Star Mississippi 16:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm wondering if it's worth adding an explicit policy against adding AI-generated content. It would be helpful for good-faith editors who are not aware that it's a bad idea. I remember a case from a few months ago, that also ended up here at AN/I, of an editor that was using AI to generate leads for hundreds of articles. He was adamant that this was a positive contribution and only stopped when he got blocked. Of course, this is bad for Wikipedia, and also for the AIs themselves, as they use Wikipedia as training data. Tercer (talk) 08:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Large language models is currently an essay, but it has some arguments that could be used to tweak existing policy. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm surprised it's not an existing policy already; WP:RSPCHATGPT is there, but it's not much. Sgubaldo (talk) 21:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

The idea that it ought to be acceptable to remove content that is identifiably LLM-generated on-sight encountered fierce resistance recently... JoelleJay (talk) 22:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

A very long story and a note to myself to comment it. jp×g🗯️ 01:39, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Ergobus uploading hundreds of images without any license or source information

Ergobus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a new user who has gamed the system to gain autoconfirmed status by waiting 4 days and then making a series of 10 edits to their user page. Since that 10th edit, they have proceeded to upload over 500 images, none of which have any source or licensing information provided. Between myself and ImageTaggingBot, over 100 of the images have been tagged, with corresponding noticed placed on Ergobus's talk page, and yet the uploads continue. I'm reasonably confident that the images are screengrabs from a Plants Vs Zombies game, and thus not free images. I'm not sure what use ENWP would have for 500+ images of a game. Certainly some smaller number may be possible under fair use, but not as many as have been uploaded and continue to be uploaded by this user. I think we may need some kind of block, since it does not appear that this user will respond to talk page notices. Hamtechperson 22:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked them from the file namespace, and will leave a note. The namespace block is indefinite, and if no convincing explanation is forthcoming, I will place a full NOTHERE block. Acroterion (talk) 22:32, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

And now they appear to be constructing a Wikia-style set of game guides. I've increased to a site block. I have to go out for a little while and will consider nuking options unless some explanation is forthcoming. Acroterion (talk) 22:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Mass-creation of unreferenced Plant vs Zombies character articles

Ergobus (talk · contribs) has created a massive amount of game guide-style articles on Plant vs Zombies characters, which look like they've been copy-pasted from some specialist wiki. They're not responsive on their talk page, and the vast majority of these articles (if not all) are likely non-notable and will end up deleted. It's going to be a huge mess to clean them up, and I'm wondering if a mass AfD or a faster process might be warranted. The user is still creating new articles as I'm writing this, and I hope they will stop soon. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Didn't see the previous thread, I've merged this one as a subsection. @Acroterion, the site block appears to not have worked correctly as they are still going on. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I was in a hurry and didn't convert the block correctly. I will consider nuking after I eat dinner. Acroterion (talk) 23:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! No need for a mass AfD then? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby Not likely to be needed. I think Nuking is a near given at this point due to Stary90's comment below. Zinnober9 (talk) 23:21, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Pardon me for randomly joining the discussion, but most of the pages they are making are pasted from the Plants VZ Zombies Wiki on Fandom, that's where the info is coming from. I should also note that they are also pasting templates and categories from the wiki as well onto Wikipedia. ⋆Stary90⋆ (talk) 23:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm nuking it all. Acroterion (talk) 23:23, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Special:Nuke is rebelling, I may have to do it in smaller chunks after dinner. Acroterion (talk) 23:26, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to DanCherek, they're nuked. Acroterion (talk) 00:10, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

OK. ⋆Stary90⋆ (talk) 00:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I deleted the files, thanks to Bbb23 for taking care of the articles! DanCherek (talk) 00:15, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm currently marking the pages for speedy deletion, if that helps, but there's a lot of them. I will start marking the files for deletion also. ⋆Stary90⋆ (talk) 23:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

@Stary90 With Acroterion going to nuke them all, Speedy delete nominating shouldn't be necessary and is extra work for you. Thanks for checking and confirming the copyright violations. Zinnober9 (talk) 23:33, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I regret not seeing this thread earlier! I started tagging their articles like crazy! Thanks to Bbb23 for deleting them all. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:18, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Your welcome. ⋆Stary90⋆ (talk) 23:35, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, they were all copied (presumably automatically) from Fandom. They aren't technically copyright violations because Fandom is licensed under CC-BY-SA. Surprisingly some of the topics may actually be notable enough for separate articles, but copying source code straight from other wikis is obviously not helping. C F A 💬 23:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I could see a "List of Characters of Plants Vs Plants" page existing, and possibly the odd solo page for a major character (think like Mario of Super Mario Bros franchise), but most of these won't qualify for a full article in my opinion. I don't know the exact line to draw on the copyrights vs licensing issue due to my editorial focus on Wikipedia, but copying any text (that isn't a direct quote) in full from another place like Fandom is going to be making editors uncomfortable. And WP:FANDOM was not correctly followed here. Zinnober9 (talk) 00:16, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@CFA: the articles have been deleted, but "licensed under CC-BY-SA" does not mean the contributions were not copyright violations the BY element requires attribution. For another wiki we have no control over, the best solution would generally be to copy the contributor list. However potentially a hyperlink would be enough. Perhaps we can be generous and assume just saying this came from the Plants vs Zombies fandom article XYZ is sufficient with no hyperlink. But at a minimum, you need someway to know there there is a list of contributors somewhere. If the OP was just copying and pasting these with zero indication these came from anywhere else, then this is very likely a copyright violation. Yes this is a copyright violation that can be fixed with editing rather than deletion but it's still a copyright violation until someone adds that required attribution. (Also if it predates 4.0 there's the interesting question over what the lack of a cure provision means even if it is later corrected.) But anyway, I'd add besides violating the copyright of fandom contributors frankly fandom's copyright compliance is likely a lot less than ours. I wouldn't trust random stuff from fandom not to have itself originated from somewhere else e.g some other guide or even official documentation etc. Nil Einne (talk) 10:40, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I have come across many cases where content copied from Fandom is either copied circularly from Wikipedia or blatantly from another source. Most editors tend to agree that a citation is "enough" for CC-BY-SA attribution. What I meant is that the pages did not require deletion because of the copyright violations (they could technically be fixed), but for other reasons instead. C F A 💬 16:00, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Update: All the files they uploaded have been deleted. ⋆Stary90⋆ (talk) 00:05, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I blocked a few more socks. I guess if more show up, you can leave a message on my talk page, and I can look into it deeper. It's probably going to take a bunch of range blocks to stop this nonsense. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Bilseric block evasion: rangeblock(s) needed to protect Tesla RfC

Bilseric was blocked three months ago for personal attacks and disruption at Nikola Tesla topics, then four days later Croatian IP Special:Contributions/95.168.118.16 was blocked as well. The IP admitted to being Bilseric,[107] which led to the IP block. Special:Contributions/95.168.124.21, Special:Contributions/95.168.105.24 and Special:Contributions/95.168.118.1 were blocked two weeks later.

At Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity, a bunch of related Croatian IPs have been disrupting the discussions. One or more rangeblocks would greatly improve the atmosphere there. The disruptive IPs include:

• 5.39.134.145 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 31.217.16.206 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 93.141.183.145 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 95.168.105.14 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 95.168.105.16 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 95.168.105.23 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 95.168.107.4 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 95.168.108.29 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 95.168.116.17 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 95.168.116.19 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 95.168.121.44 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

I'm not sure how wide the rangeblocks would need to be in order to stop Bilseric.

Note that another person in the discussions has used Croatian IPs: Trimpops2 coming from Special:Contributions/89.172.65.187[108] Special:Contributions/78.0.210.168, and Special:Contributions/78.1.202.178.[109] Trimpops2 is probably not related to the Bilseric group. Binksternet (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

AstridMitch.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Since becoming active again on June 18th, this user's entire contribution history consists of using machine-generated AFD votes. Every single one of their contribs is essentially just rehashed from earlier responses and shows no original thought. Consider such gems as

Keep: The subject is notable for her impact on education, and her work has broad and independent coverage. She got the James Bryant Conant Award, a special honor for educators. She designed the BARR model, which the AIR has hailed as successful. This shows her impact on education through successful federal programs and gives hope for future reform in that field. This award and the impact of her work meet WP:ANYBIO and WP:NACADEMIC.

and

Redirect to the article for Karthic's only released film, "Penguin." He's only directed one film. It got mixed reviews and needs more coverage. So, he still needs to meet the notability guidelines for creative professionals. We must redirect the page to keep the relevant information about his directorial role in the film. This placement is better until he releases more work and meets notability standards

Every single vote has this same generic tone that you expect from machine-generated slop. Every single vote references earlier content in the discussion, be it from other voters, or from the nominator. Previous to all this, they've had a slew of drafts that went nowhere, at least one of which was paid and disclosed, others of which are suspicious. I don't know what the point of all this is, but I brought it up on their talk page, and they've continued to vote and haven't responded there. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 23:43, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Table of intervals between edits

Timestamp Difference 2024-07-27T16:20:39 00:13:49 2024-07-26T13:04:45 27:15:54 2024-07-26T12:54:55 00:09:50 2024-07-26T12:36:39 00:18:16 2024-07-23T12:55:40 71:40:59 2024-07-23T12:15:02 00:40:38 2024-07-23T11:51:21 00:23:41 2024-07-23T10:56:21 00:55:00 2024-07-23T10:55:37 00:00:44 2024-07-19T21:22:43 85:32:54 2024-07-18T21:48:37 23:34:06 2024-07-18T21:24:24 00:24:13 2024-07-17T19:50:17 25:34:07 2024-07-17T19:49:44 00:00:33 2024-07-17T18:21:37 01:28:07 2024-07-16T00:12:55 42:08:42 2024-07-15T23:51:34 00:21:21 2024-07-14T12:36:21 35:15:13 2024-07-14T12:24:08 00:12:13 2024-07-12T18:01:01 42:23:07 2024-07-12T17:28:49 00:32:12 2024-07-11T19:14:40 22:14:09 2024-07-11T19:05:33 00:09:07 2024-07-11T18:51:46 00:13:47 2024-07-11T00:20:17 18:31:29 2024-07-10T23:57:26 00:22:51 2024-07-10T18:23:16 05:34:10 2024-06-20T22:18:33 476:04:43 2024-06-20T21:36:14 00:42:19 2024-06-20T21:33:20 00:02:54 2024-06-20T20:53:17 00:40:03 2024-06-20T17:31:45 03:21:32 2024-06-19T19:40:54 21:50:51 2024-06-19T18:53:36 00:47:18 2024-06-19T16:30:12 02:23:24 2024-06-18T23:01:48 17:28:24 2024-06-18T22:36:53 00:24:55 2024-06-18T21:41:54 00:54:59 2024-06-18T21:38:39 00:03:15 2024-06-18T21:37:15 00:01:24 2024-06-18T21:34:24 00:02:51 2024-06-18T21:32:51 00:01:33 2024-06-18T21:30:06 00:02:45 2024-06-18T20:58:28 00:31:38 2024-06-18T18:19:23 02:39:05 2024-06-17T19:11:50 23:07:33 2024-06-01T11:29:16 391:42:34 2024-06-01T11:28:23 00:00:53 2024-06-01T11:24:45 00:03:38 2024-06-01T11:23:12 00:01:33 2024-06-01T11:19:05 00:04:07 2024-06-01T11:15:42 00:03:23 2024-06-01T10:57:37 00:18:05 2024-06-01T08:25:09 02:32:28 2024-06-01T08:23:24 00:01:45 2024-06-01T08:20:47 00:02:37 2024-06-01T08:15:55 00:04:52 2024-06-01T07:46:11 00:29:44 2024-04-30T11:42:47 764:03:24 2024-04-30T11:41:32 00:01:15 2024-04-30T11:38:33 00:02:59 2024-04-30T11:37:57 00:00:36 2024-04-30T11:37:09 00:00:48 2024-04-30T11:33:38 00:03:31 2024-04-30T11:29:16 00:04:22 2024-04-30T11:27:46 00:01:30 2024-04-30T11:25:28 00:02:18 2024-04-30T11:08:29 00:16:59 2024-04-21T18:53:52 208:14:37 2024-04-21T14:40:53 04:12:59 2024-04-21T14:40:00 00:00:53 2024-04-21T14:38:49 00:01:11 2024-04-21T14:37:37 00:01:12 2024-04-21T14:36:25 00:01:12 2024-04-21T14:35:10 00:01:15 2024-04-21T14:33:17 00:01:53 2024-04-20T16:20:02 22:13:15 2024-04-20T16:18:12 00:01:50 2024-04-20T06:28:23 09:49:49 2024-04-20T06:23:00 00:05:23 2024-04-20T06:22:18 00:00:42 2024-04-20T06:18:57 00:03:21 2024-04-20T06:11:13 00:07:44 2024-04-20T05:59:23 00:11:50 2024-04-17T02:57:43 75:01:40 2024-04-17T02:57:13 00:00:30 2024-04-17T02:56:23 00:00:50 2024-04-17T02:55:15 00:01:08 2024-04-15T22:46:12 28:09:03 2024-04-15T22:44:25 00:01:47 2024-04-11T13:43:58 105:00:27

I have taken the liberty of running an interval check on this user's edits -- this usually gives a first approximation for if someone is slopping (or badly half-assing) AfD votes. I do not see anything really hideous here, but someone else should look in more detail. jp×g🗯️ 09:45, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the tallying of this table, but regardless of the frequency of what he's doing, he's still doing it, and it's about as blatant as it gets. I'll give some examples here to try to make it crystal clear:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Champion Pizza - AM's vote:

  Merge: The pizza chain's story fails WP:NORG. Yet, it intertwines with its founder's story. Merging would allow for a complete look at Akdeniz's story, showing his notable impact on the business. It would focus on the narrative where it fits best and avoid making promotional content separate from its context.--AstridMitch (talk) 04:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  This is especially odd, flowery language, talking about stories...until you notice that a couple votes up the page, someone else said, in part "There's a good amount of coverage because it's a good story: ..."
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Invasion of the United States - AM's vote:

  Draftify: This piece has marked content and sourcing issues. Draftifying will allow us to enhance its flow, sources, and quality. It will allow a complete redo of the article. It will help us discern recorded facts from guesses and unrelated topics, including cyber and nuclear attacks. Once these edits are made, the article will be ready for reentry into the main space.--AstridMitch (talk) 06:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  . Besides the really bad chatbot-like tone here, this is rehashing language from the nomination statement: "... speculative ideas about potential invasions, and (until recent edits) covering completely non-related topics such as nuclear and cyberattacks."
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mobile secure gateway - AM's vote:

  Delete: The article fails to establish notability within the computer security field. It lacks sufficient coverage in academic and reliable sources, which is a key condition for inclusion on the platform. This suggests it may be a trademark or a buzzword, not a recognised concept. The creation of the article and related content by a single-purpose account raises doubts about the topic's neutrality and authenticity, as well as its importance and relevance.--AstridMitch (talk) 07:20, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  Immediately after the nomination statement: "The article appears to attempt to launder a trademark and/or rarely used buzzword as a legitimate topic in compute security. The article and inbound links were all created by what appears to be a single purpose account. There are essentially zero academic mentions of this term"

Every single one is like this, and there are dozens more. Can we just nip this one in the bud already? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I must say: "Yet, it intertwines" and "key condition for inclusion on the platform" scream LLM to me. jp×g🗯️ 19:49, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

• Reading the user's AFD !votes in context makes it clear that they are a, probably machine generated, regurgitation of what has already been said with stilted AFD verbiage typical of LLMs (see this, this, this AFD for short example). Given the user's considerable (paid) promotional editing outside these AFDs, for example at Draft:StarApple AI, I am blocking the user. Abecedare (talk) 19:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive sock

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

TheWestIsUkrainianProperty (talk · contribs) was just created to resume the disruptive editing of the now indeffed TheWestBelongsToUkraine (talk · contribs). See for example this edit where they restored the changes of the previous account which completely removes good edits by a veteran editor (that they previously called "vandalism") because they do not like the content. Now they are making POV edits elsewhere such as this with the reason being "fake language". Mellk (talk) 19:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Duck. Quack. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jeaucques Quœure and apparent LLM abuse

Amid what seem to be consistent communication and content issues, @Jeaucques Quœure has twice (to scriptio continua, now to libation) added a block of apparently LLM-generated content that's been reverted for having no sources, which they've immediately readded with an apparently dishonest edit summary claiming they're "adding sources". Remsense诉 07:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I apologise for the inconvenience but the content wasn't LLM-generated rather general information about the subject matter (in scriptio continua & libation) referenced through wikilinks and biblical verses respectively. However they were subsequently referenced to sources later. Jeaucques Quœure (talk) 08:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

BTW, Could you explain why my edit to improve the lede sentence was "useless". FYI ledes of science articles generally start with 'In', e.g, In electromagnetism, In thermodynamics, In molecular biology. Jeaucques Quœure (talk) 08:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I would on the relevant talk page, but it would be wholly irrelevant here. Remsense诉 09:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I looked at their edits and they are clearly AI generated AlexBobCharles (talk) 17:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Yep. Bland bullet points of bullshit, reinserted with an untruthful edit summary. XOR'easter (talk) 18:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't think this is true of most of their edits by edit count, but unfortunately it seemed likely for each substantial addition of theirs that I looked over. Remsense诉 18:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

They also added a block of LLM generated content to the article Inhalation, as well as writing at least one article entirely or almost with the use of an LLM (Artificial intelligence in education). Explodingcreepsr (talk) 05:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

There also seem to be AI generated edits on the articles Marsupium and Anglocentrism. Explodingcreepsr (talk) 18:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support indef block for repeatedly adding low-quality LLM-generated slop to articles and then backfilling with dubious references that were not used as the basis for the added content. This kind of content is a net negative both to the encyclopedic values of our articles and to the time and effort of the good faith editors working hard to keep it out. It needs to stop. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support indef block for the reasons articulated just above. XOR'easter (talk) 19:32, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support. WP:LLM. Northern Moonlight 22:09, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
• I actually would not support an indef at this time, as most of their contributions are constructive. I would just like to see them cease generating prose and then filling in citations later: that is simply an irresponsible and legally dubious way to contribute. The fact that they've denied it and then not commented further when more examples have been demonstrated is unfortunate, though.Remsense诉 23:12, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Hoax airlines and possible sockpuppet

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The user Edenisam (talk · contribs) seems to be creating and inserting several hoax airlines in various articles ([110] [111] [112]). User Lukineş (talk · contribs) was created today and is making the same type of edits with the same probably hoax airline ([113] [114]), including removing templates on Easy Air, so I believe they are a sockpuppet of Edenisam.

Fairly obvious case of WP:NOTHERE, as these edits are the only edits these users have made. AlexandraAVX (talk) 19:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Easy Air (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Edenisam. C F A 💬 19:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Date format (2)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

47.18.63.223 (talk · contribs) is back, our friend from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1160#Date_format and (s)he is still doing the same stuff. Polygnotus (talk) 22:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Firefangledfeathers: who dealt with that IP last time. Polygnotus (talk) 22:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Partial block from mainspace. 3 months. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again, see you in 3 months! Polygnotus (talk) 22:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

‎Repeated WP:GS/AA violations

BaharatlıCheetos2.0'ın devamı (talk · contribs) has violated WP:GS/AA extended confirmed restriction numerous times. They were blocked once already for it by Firefangledfeathers, but they continued doing it after being unblocked [115]: the article is about Armenian genocide perpetrators' party, and BaharatlıCheetos2.0'ın devamı specifically edited/moved the name of the main perpetrator, Tallat Pasha. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment BaharatlıCheetos2.0'ın devamı also seems to be a proponent of the pseudoscientific and ultranationalistic Sun Language Theory. Using questionable sources to pov push the Bronze Age Mesopotamian Gutian people [116] and Turukkaeans [117] as Turks, which is next level ridiculousness. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  Every article they've written also needs a lot of work just to read coherently as well. I've done some work towards that, but I don't have time to fix all of the basic grammatical errors. Insanityclown1 (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  I would support indefinitely blocking the user as WP:NOTHERE for pushing nonsense. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  It's very concerning that BaharatlıCheetos2.0 is ignoring this report. Moreover, there is evidence that suggest they might be the LTA Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Tirgil34 [118] [119]. Also see this embarrassing WP:TENDENTIOUS/WP:OR/WP:SYNTH/source misuse mess clearly created as a way of coping [120], pretty ironic when they are seemingly a proponent of the Sun Language Theory, and they will no doubt try to push more of this nonsense to this site. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment The article Greek War Crimes also was written in what seems to a blatantly nationalistic fashion and pushing a pro Turkish point of view. This is something I have noticed in all of User:BaharatlıCheetos2.0'ın devamı’s edits and needs to be addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insanityclown1 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

IOppose sanction based on evidence presented: in this edit Baharatlı fixed the order of two items in the infobox. They didn't edit any text regarding Armenia, Azerbaijan or any Azeri/Turkish conflicts with Armenians. I don't think this should be counted as violating the topic area and if it did, the place for that discussion is ae not here. (t · c) buidhe 01:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Forgive me for butting in, but wouldn't there be concerns (if not general sanctions) regarding WP:CT/EE? Remsense诉 22:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

• PBlocked: I have blocked BaharatlıCheetos2.0'ın devamı from mainspace for gaming the system (eg at Java War (1741–1743)) to obtain EC status and then immediately jumping to edit contentious EC protected articles. See block notice for details. The community and/or any admin is welcome to extend/modify the sanction in response to the other issues with the user's editing brought up here. Abecedare (talk) 21:32, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

  Really, their extended-confirmed status should be revoked. They didn't gain it properly. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 21:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

  I thought of doing that but while revocation would prevent them from editing EC protected articles, it wouldn't automatically prevent them from violating WP:GS/AA etc, an issue which has already been raised here and which would be even harder to adjudicate for a non-XC user who passes the 30/500 test. And an admin-imposed topic-ban from AA or EE area was not an option because the editor (afaict) had not been notified of the relevant CTOP regimes. So the pblock from mainspace seemed to me to be the best of the available options. Again, no objections to it being modified if anyone can come up with a better solution to deal with the situation. Abecedare (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Persistent ethno-nationalistic disruption

Just had to clean up more nationalistic editing by BaharatlıCheetos2.0'ın devamı [121]. And just before that I nominated a fictional article made by BaharatlıCheetos2.0'ın devamı for deletion [122]. I'll compile a list shortly to show how much of a serious matter this is. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Support sanctions This is a repeat issue with this editor, and I think that the WP:NPOV issues are going to continue unless some sort of administrator action is taken. Insanityclown1 (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

BaharatlıCheetos2.0 has a habit of using very sketchy (not WP:RS) and not accessible (WP:VER issues) citations to push a nationalistic pov.

• Nationalistic editing to claim the Saka as Turks [123]
• Nationalistic editing to claim the Bronze Age Mesopotamian Gutian people [124] and Turukkaeans [125] as Turks
• Nationalistic editing to suggest an Ottoman "victory" at the Battle of Muş [126]
• Fictional event to give another Ottoman "victory" [127], now nominated for deletion by me [128]. I removed all the citations due to WP:RS and WP:VER issues, only to be sneakily (no edit summary, no notification) reverted by BaharatlıCheetos2.0'ın devamı who also removed the deletion template [129] [130] [131]
• When they actually use WP:RS, the information is not supported by it (and no page was even cited in this instance) [132]
• They add "citation needed" template to a infobox whose result is sourced in the article itself [133]. However, the same "rule" does not apply to them, here they are adding unsourced info in another infobox and which was not supported by the article [134]
• Even the Etruscan civilization in ancient Italy (!) have to suffer the nationalistic disruption of BaharatlıCheetos2.0'ın devamı, who also wants them to be Turks [135] [136]. Yes, this might not be a diff from the English wiki, but it says a lot about this user and is just more evidence that they are indeed a proponent of the Sun Language Theory. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from Turkic peoples, broadly construed This user is primarily here to push fringe claims regarding Turkic peoples as demonstrated by HoI's diffs, and as such they are wasting the community's time. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I think Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Turkey largely comes under the scope of my proposed topic ban, but by itself it is too narrow, as some of of their Turkic peoples related disruption does not relate to these countries. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:28, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support topic ban per the above evidence. Pinguinn 🐧 03:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Turkey articles, broadly construed - since this report, the user has made more violations of the WP:GS/AA restriction, in articles covered by it [137], [138]. They also made POV edits in Turkey related articles as shown above. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 04:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I just noticed that the subject of this ANI complaint has updated their user page to say they are working to become an extended confirmed user. Special:Diff/1236829027. This is highly concerning to me considering the history of sanctions regarding content that protected under WP: GS/AA. I would like to get the opinion of @Firefangledfeathers on this matter.Insanityclown1 (talk) 19:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

  That's pretty optimistic of BaharatlıCheetos2.0'ın devamı considering they're on the verge of getting topic banned. And they are still yet to make a single comment in this report, very concerning. HistoryofIran (talk) 20:32, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

  BaharatlıCheetos2.0'ın devamı and another user, Turalhemidli, are complaining about "Armenian Nationalism" in a way that really seems to be downplaying the Armenian Genocide. [[Special:Diff/1236843569]]. Insanityclown1 (talk) 06:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

  I referred the matter here, and I'm unable to give it the time it deserves. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from Turkish, Armenian, Greek history. It seems that User:HistoryofIran was patient enough to present some of the violations and POV-pushing of this specific editor, which I have also come across lately. Based on the activity I've seen so far, I believe that a topic ban from articles related to the history of these nations could be warranted. Piccco (talk) 00:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  User in question has been banned from articlespace in it's entirety. Insanityclown1 (talk) 00:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  Insanityclown1, thank you for letting me know. The truth is I saw the ban a while ago, but I wasn't sure what it meant. Piccco (talk) 00:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Buenos Aires IPs again

• 190.172.88.0/22 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

There's a vandal from Buenos Aires who has been blocked many times for disruption at music articles, and is currently rangeblocked as Special:Contributions/190.172.124.0/22 and Special:Contributions/186.129.0.0/19. This vandal is in the habit of filling the edit summary with pasted text and markup.

The recent IPs are edit-warring and doing the same disruptive genre-warring stuff.[139][140]

I am requesting a rangeblock on Special:Contributions/190.172.88.0/22 at least, which could be widened to the /19 without collateral damage. Binksternet (talk) 20:43, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

190.172.88.0/22 blocked for one year. I’ll have a look at the /19. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

@Binksternet. I’ve now blocked the /16. It’s been blocked twice before with the last block expiring at the end of April whereupon the LTA resumed their disruption. There’s no need now for the /22 block so I’ve undone that one. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

That's the ticket. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 15:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The Dave Plummer Troll is back

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As the edit history of Dave Plummer clearly shows, occasionally the Dave Plummer Troll comes back and tries to portray Plummer as a malware author and convicted criminal.

On Talk:Dave Plummer SaranSDS008 (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log) made the following claim:

"Dave himself in Twitter/X acknowledging the ownership of a scam software he wrote called "Memturbo" which served popup ads, misrepresented functionality of the app and wasn't fully uninstalled from the os (of which he was sued for by washington attorney office on behalf of washington state)"[141]

But the tweet in question, far from acknowledging that MemTurbo did any of those things, directly denies such allegations. Also, he was sued over Registry Cleaner and InternetShield,[142] not MemTurbo.

Lying to us and hoping we won't check the sources given is a standard technique for the Dave Plummer Troll. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 05:04, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I've added 2 citations, which you failed to read, neither notice. Also, i've been adding proper links/references to every single instances i mentioned previously, so not sure where you got that "troll" narrative from. The Citations in the original edit request, which are court documents, which clearly indict Dave Plummer of being guilty for distributing deceptive popups, ads and mislead customers. It was issued by King County court, where the lawsuit took place. As with Sharewareonline LLC, that was also later found to be owned by Dave himself (which i later added by citing proper links for). MemTurbo was indeed distributed via sharewareonline.com (later softwareonline.com), and had misleading descriptions, served ads, and is difficult to uninstall. I cited the MSFN forum, which describes it's nature and the way it was distributed, thus proving it's authenticity. I haven't cited original links for the website, and the software due to it's malicious nature (PUP/Scareware), and it's difficulty in uninstalling the software. Antivirus vendors have also flagged these softwares he distributed long ago. SaranSDS008 (talk) 06:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

You included two citations in your original edit request[143] and haven't edited it since. Neither supports the change from .com to LLC that you requested.

You misleadingly titled one of those citations "Court Lawsuit and Verdict Document on Washington State vs SoftwareOnline LLC issued by King County, WA:" when the actual document was filed against SoftwareOnline.com Inc.

The reason I call you the Dave Plummer Troll is because you posted an edit request for a simple change from SoftwareOnline.com to SoftwareOnline LLC then in the comments started spouting the same acusations using much of the same phrasing that the previous incarnations of the Dave Plummer Troll used, and are now repeating the accusations in your ANI comment above. Plummer's settlement with Washington State is already covered in the article. If you think we can do a better job of covering it, put your suggested changes in an edit request, but be aware that Wikipedia requires reliable, secondary sources. We don't blindly assume that what a prosecutor (or a defense attorney!) claims is true. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 08:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

The sources in question appear to be WP:PRIMARY sources — if we're adding contentious material to a BLP, expectation has to be that the sourcing is excellent to exceptional, and primary sources don't reach that threshold by a country mile for me. Daniel (talk) 09:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I have tried to keep SaranSDS008's assertions about the State of Washingtom settlement here because the WP:DUCK test tells me that this is the same Dave Plummer Troll who has been disrupting that page for years, and to keep the question of SoftwareOnline.com vs SoftwareOnline LLC on the article talk page, but I should mention that I am seeing the same pattern of behavior in both places.

Might I suggest a topic ban from the subject of Dave Plummer? SaranSDS008 is clearly not here to improve that article. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

UPDATE: Well, it looks like they quit again. If the pattern repeats they will show up again months from now with a new account and try again. We might as well close this. Will someone who isn't involved please do the honors? --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 14:35, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Blanes tree

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

See [144] (discussion on these tags), Talk:W. David Marx, and basically all the discussions on [145]. User has had a number of excessively rude outbursts in conversations. They sometimes show remorse, but double down on similar behavior either in parallel or soon after apologizing. Multiple users have suggested that the user take a break from editing or, in my case, writing anything negative sounding, but these suggestions have been rejected. Recommend some kind of block. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 21:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Theobrad has a partial COI disclosure on his userpage and has been exhibiting ownership over W. David Marx.

I only logged on tonight because this little cabal was posting on my talk page about what I should or shouldn't do. And 104.232.119.107 has deliberately esculated disputes when I've suggested we take a break. This user clearly has an anger management problem. I can't even remember how all of this started but they've blown it all way out of proportion. Blanes tree (talk) 22:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Theobrad sexually harassed me with this kiss emoji on the talk page of W. David Marx. This is after I warned them on their talk page over their COI with the BLPs that they've created.Blanes tree (talk) 22:09, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: you're claiming that ending a comment with an emoji is "sexual harassment?" Throw in your claim to be a friend of an author who died 84 years ago (how, by Ouija board?) and it doesn't sound like you have the competence necessary to edit Wikipedia. Ravenswing 23:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Lmao. Having to make drastic claims because you’re cornered and getting what you deserve is the icing on the cake of your behaviour. Theobrad (talk) 08:05, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

The taunting on your part is unnecessary also. Remsense诉 08:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Though I feel the need to respond when someone is making such drastic and exaggerated allegations Theobrad (talk) 08:40, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, well, I have a strong recommendation: don't. Or at least don't if you cannot keep from lashing out. The ability to respond civilly in such situations isn't merely essential on Wikipedia, it's a requirement. Ravenswing 10:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Pretty stupid. Likisa (talk) 12:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Pinging related parties: @Theobrad, @Dclemens1971 @SilkTork 104.232.119.107 (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't even know what this IP is accusing me of anymore. All I did was edit a page that User:safariScribe approved because frankly I have doubts about his judgement at WP:AfCBlanes tree (talk) 22:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

At least I've made some constructive edits.Blanes tree (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

@Blanes tree, if you are learning how to use twinkle, then be very very careful. Why would you be warning editors of paid contributions Special:PermanentLink/1236851898#July 2024 and Special:PermanentLink/1236855350#July 2024? Please stop or you land yourself into a bigger trouble. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Support the block. Despite numerous warnings from other editors on their talk page, Blanes tree has been making disruptive edits and repeatedly engages in WP:HOUNDING anyone who disagrees with them across many articles, including half-a-dozen unrelated editors such as @Zelda Zanders, @Theobrad and myself. See User_talk:Blanes_tree regarding their behavior which they continue to engage in today. Note that this user admitted they are targeting other editors and noted they are aware that their behavior warrants sanctions yet continue regardless.

After reverting edits by Blanes tree on VFS Global, Blanes tree stalked me to The Great Gatsby article where they claimed that their personal friendship with novelist F. Scott Fitzgerald (who died in 1940) supersedes needing to provide any sources and is sufficient to demand a rewrite of the Featured Article. As their Talk Page shows, Blanes tree has been asked by many editors to alter their behavior. After noticing Blanes tree's unwarranted incivility, @Dclemens1971 went to great lengths to ask the user to change their ways and warned there would be repercussions. They refuse to listen. — Flask (talk) 23:21, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Support a block (involved). Here are the issues as I see them:

• Repeated WP:INCIVILITY, on talk pages (sample diff), in edit summaries (diff, diff), and in this very discussion (diff, diff). Has been warned here, here, here, here. (These have not been bite-the-newcomer warnings. There has been an effort to educate.)
• WP:DISRUPTIVE editing. WP:DRIVEBY tagging without leaving explanation, then refusing to answer clearly when users ask him why the tags were placed (diff, diff) or just failing to respond. Additionally, Blanes_tree engages in tendentious or off-topic arguments that distract editors (challenging an accepted citation format, demanding unsourced and NPOV rewrites to the Great Gatsby article), and they throw around accusations of COI without evidence against users with whom they have had conflicts (diff, diff, diff -- the latter of which is also a serious case of WP:BITING a newcomer who is creating quite productively!).
• WP:HOUNDING of several users as described here, here, here.
• Finally, WP:DRAMA, repeatedly urging editors to report them to AN/I (diff, diff), even though the goal of all this talk has not been punitive up to today.

For these reasons (plus WP:CIR) I believe sanctions are in order. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:49, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

We don't need a vote for this, I've seen enough, and have issued an indef block. [146] Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:19, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. What are the full repercussion of this? Theobrad (talk) 20:29, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

For the moment, they cannot edit outside of their own user talk page. They can appeal the block however, if they choose. That's why I made a point of listing several issues and specifiying that any appeal should address all of them. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:12, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I was on the verge of blocking for NotHere, but didn't because I was about to go away for the weekend, and that's not good when you've just made a block. So I'm pleased that 104.232.119.107 raised the issue here, and that Just Step Sideways stepped up (and sideways) to do the right thing. I would not be surprised if Blanes tree is a returning problem editor. SilkTork (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

So you think it’s possible that this isn’t their first time being issued a block, potentially on another account? Theobrad (talk) 16:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Many blocked editors return on other accounts. I feel like it's even the majority of blocked people I see, but I don't deal much with disciplinary stuff or see stats on it 104.232.119.107 (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I understand. Makes sense based on the remorse shown when a prior issue happened and then committing more inappropriate behaviour immediately after. Theobrad (talk) 21:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Not talking about this user specifically, just more in general. I'd stop thinking about this user; there are plenty of neurotic people on Wikipedia, if you get hung up on every one you let them win and it wastes your own time. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed Theobrad (talk) 21:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Also your own comments pushed the border of what's ok; it's possible to call out without taunting. Recommend you be more mindful of how to handle these people. Our goal is to build an encyclopedia, a healthy community is important for that. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 21:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes I understand I went too far. It has been my first time being harassed and although it hasn’t affected me too much, seeing the perpetrator then go and make ridiculous claims pushed me to be taunting. It was unnecessary. Theobrad (talk) 21:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bespeak and undue edits on Sissy hypno

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Bespeak has done tons of undue edits to Sissy hypno, pushing the idea that sissy hypno is an autogynephilia thing (here), and generally making unsourced edits (all of it here). I reverted their edits, but they almost immediately reverted back. Their comments on the talk page are also very concerning, and typical of some LTAs. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 19:58, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I am glad this has been raised, as I've spent quite a bit of time adding citations to material that was already on the article. E.g. I didn't add the info about autogynephilia - this was already in the article, but what I did do was provide credible sources from peer-reviewed papers. User:LilianaUwU came along and deleted ALL OF MY EDITS. If LilianaUwU's talk page was actually editable I would already have issued a vandalism warning to them. I suggest removal of their rollback priviledges given they are abusing them. Bespeak (talk) 20:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

A vandalism warning to me? When you're pushing a POV? You added 9000 bytes pushing the autogynephilia thing, which is double what was already on the page. If that isn't undue, and pushing a POV, then I don't know what is. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 20:10, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

What POV am I supposedly pushing? Some details would be useful here. Bespeak (talk) 21:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Autogynephillia is a discarded hypothesis. Anyone adding it is either working with outdated references, or pushing an agenda. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:32, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't even need to be a hypothesis in the first place to warrant the term. Many people identify as AGP and that is sufficient for the inclusion of the word, especially when there's the potential that the majority of trans people who indulge in sissy hypno are also AGP identifying. Bespeak (talk) 03:09, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I think a majority of trans people indulging in sissy hypno don't use a term Ray Blanchard made up. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 03:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with you, but only because most people are probably unaware of the term. Bespeak (talk) 21:56, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, all terms are made-up. Bespeak (talk) 22:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure that ANI is the most appropriate place to be going into the real meat and potatoes of a thing like this, but is it really a hypothesis that people sometimes find it "teh smexeh" to imagine themselves as the opposite sex? Maybe I am not up to date on the latest five hundred kilobyte memo of what words mean what things this week, but I think that this is just a thing people have been doing for the last bajillion years, and although many consider it strange, there is nothing wrong with it, nor does it really seem like a thing that can be proven true or false. jp×g🗯️ 09:49, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

@JPxG The crux of it is more than that (unfortunately). Basically Blanchard's theory boils down to "there are two types of trans people: the AGP ones and the other ones". In short, there are the "born this way" ones (who are usually interested in having sex with men, as straight women) and the "teh smexeh" ones (who don't follow Blanchard's ideas of what straight women should do). It isn't just some kind of thought exercise about why people ID as transgender, since it has had some real implications when it comes to medical care for trans women. And in Blanchard's case, if you read his work, it's hard to escape the conclusion that he thinks there are two types of trans people, namely: "the ones I find hot" and "the ones I don't find hot, who by the way don't pass as women and are sex pervs". -- asilvering (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Reagrding the "discarded hypnothesis", I have found no evidence anywhere that Blanchard has discarded or withdrawn his assertions. Please point to where you read this. Thank you. Bespeak (talk) 22:22, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

That's ignoring the many unsourced paragraphs you added to the article. It is not constructive to speculate about the benefits of "recovery therapy" for two whole paragraphs without any citations. Beyond the controversy section, there are other, just as unsourced additions like A notable example of sissy hypno content is the "Curse Sissy Addict" file available on Warpmymind.com. This file is designed to create a profound transformation in its listeners. It employs techniques intended to create a strong craving for cock and cum, akin to a drug addiction. I don't need to explain why Wikipedia is not the ideal website for whatever that is supposed to be. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:39, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

You don't need to explain if you don't want to make a point. Bespeak (talk) 03:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I had to manually confirm that this really was in their contribs, because of how gobsmackingly awful it is. But, indeed, they did add this to the article, written in the voice of the encyclopedia. What? Is this a troll? Nobody should ever be adding this garbage to an article. @Bespeak: What is the matter with you? jp×g🗯️ 09:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I have p-blocked them from the article for a week until our encyclopedia's administrators can figure out what the hell is going on. jp×g🗯️ 10:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

While I am here, @LilianaUwU: it may again be condign to note that edit summaries such as "who do you think you are?" are not particularly helpful in situations such as these. jp×g🗯️ 11:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, you are not being WP:CIVIL labelling another editors contribution as "garbage". Secondly, you're not even explaining what your issue with that edit is. Thirdly, that edit was edited shortly after being added, so this edit is not exactly representative of how I left the article. Bespeak (talk) 21:52, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

No, that paragraph stayed exactly in that state until I quoted it from the last pre-revert version. Regarding the "garbage" part, while the term is strong, I don't think a paragraph that reads like an advertisement for a porn file (with, again, zero sources establishing notability or giving secondary commentary) has its place on Wikipedia. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Talking about something does not constitute advertisement. How can examples be given without accusations of advertising? Bespeak (talk) 22:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I have made over a hundred thousand edits to Wikipedia, and this may be the single worst paragraph I have ever seen somebody write in an article. It displays not only a total lack of familiarity with the basic policies that govern the project, but an active enmity towards their general principles. Any edit which adds this paragraph to an article should be summarily reverted. Any editor who persists in adding it should be summarily blocked. It is unbelievably bad in every way: it combines dozens of policy violations in a way that would be impossible to reconcile with even passing knowledge of what the policies in question are. If this is the result of not reading policies and guidelines, it is desperately necessary for its author to do so. If this is the result of having read policies and guidelines, I am at a loss for how any of this could seem appropriate.

If you would like, I can mark up the specific parts that are problematic, but literally every word of the entire passage is problematic:

A notable example of sissy hypno content is the "Curse Sissy Addict" file available on Warpmymind.com. This file is designed to create a profound transformation in its listeners. It employs techniques intended to create a strong craving for cock and cum, akin to a drug addiction

It is obviously understandable that a new editor will start out with some subpar additions, and I do not hold it against anyone for doing so. Everybody makes mistakes and everybody must learn; this is fine. But to continually insist that this is a legitimate thing to put in a Wikipedia article, and keep trying to do so over the objections of literally every other person who has laid eyes on it, is not fine. jp×g🗯️ 22:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your effort in explaining here. I am not aware that most article come under this level of scrutiny regarding providing citations. It's generally when subjects are disputed that citations are required. How is a citation needed for the word "example"? Some things are just so obvious that it is ridiculous to dispute them - are you genuinely disputing whether the example provided was an example? Bespeak (talk) 22:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I think including any citation of an actual source using it as an example would already be an improvement. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I mean, why would any random website be an example of any random thing? Me and the lads made a film in high school that satisfied all ten of von Trier and Vinterberg's criteria; does that make it a "notable example" to list at the Wikipedia article Dogme 95? Obviously not: nobody outside our friends ever saw it, none of us pursued careers in cinema, the sum total of its interplay with the film world is a gigantic zero. There is no credible source that will give our movie as an "example" of Dogme 95; it's not appropriate to describe it as one in the article. jp×g🗯️ 22:52, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Why do you think it not constructive to speculate about the benefits of recovery therapy? Also, I didn't write two paragraphs, I wrote one speculating that it could be beneficial, and the other speculating about the potential harm. (To keep it balanced and therefore NPOV). Where is it written that speculation should not be in articles please? Bespeak (talk) 22:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Where is it written that speculation should not be in articles please? I don't know, Wikipedia:No original research or Wikipedia:Speculation maybe? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

What I added was not original research. It was speculation. And Wikipedia:Speculation specifically refers to speculation about the future, which it was not either. Bespeak (talk) 22:19, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

pardon, but how is unsourced content like

This parallels the broader trends in the adult entertainment industry where niche content gains mainstream traction.

This diverse viewership includes individuals exploring their gender identity and those intrigued by the genre's unique themes.

This genre's role in shaping perceptions of gender and sexuality highlights the intersection of media, identity, and cultural discourse.

This process is similar to how the roles we play or the "masks" we wear in everyday life can blend with our true selves over time.

"providing credible sources from peer-reviewed papers"? all of those sentences are at the ends of paragraphs with no ref, and read like they're LLM-generated, as does much of the prose added, even where it's sourced. the slop that Chaotic Enby points out also reads like LLM, and the uniformly-level-2 title-case section headers are pretty typical of the stuff LLMs produce when asked to write a Wikipedia article. some of those papers you added as sources are credible, but the actual prose content you added is inappropriate, and Ray Blanchard and J. Michael Bailey are very much not reliable sources. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 22:26, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I tend to write in a similar style to ChatGPT - is this supposed to be an issue? If so, how/why? Bespeak (talk) 22:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

What would be a better source about autogynephilia than Blanchard? Bespeak (talk) 22:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on what was inappropriate about what I added please? Bespeak (talk) 22:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

And a look at Bespeak's contributions generally show a fair bit of ungrammatical slop, many of which were promptly reverted by other editors. This is shaping up to be a coin toss between WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR. Ravenswing 02:07, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The ungrammatical slop was my main concern until I saw they were pushing that POV. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Which bits are you referring to for the WP:NOTHERE and the WP:CIR? Bespeak (talk) 03:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Clearly you have a general pattern of disruptive behavior. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 03:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

And you removing all my edits wasn't disruptive at all, I suppose you are claiming? Bespeak (talk) 22:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. You bolded, she reverted, we discuss. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

That isn't a policy nor a guideline. It's an essay. Bespeak (talk) 22:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

An essay documenting a widely-followed practice. I am not saying that BRD is mandatory or a policy, but that it is well-accepted as one possible way to seek consensus, and thus not disruptive. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:48, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

And how about you give some space for Ravenswing to reply to my question. You are being disruptive by cutting in here. Bespeak (talk) 22:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Some tangible examples would have been useful here, otherwise it's just defamation. Bespeak (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Just want to note that I removed this section by Bespeak at WT:DE that they made just before their recent bursts of responses here.

You are welcome to decide if my interpretation of it as trolling (a trolling made very low effort by the use of AI to generate it) is excessive, though I think it's definitely another mark against them. – 2804:F1...6B:BB83 (talk) 22:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay: you do, under certain circumstances, "gotta hand it to them". This is a pretty well-executed troll.

However, trolling is a art, and real art requires real sacrifice; a true artist accepts that laying down a bazinga this obvious involves forfeiting any follow-up attempts at playing it off as an innocent misunderstanding. So long, space cowboy. jp×g🗯️ 23:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

• I've indeffed for trolling and LLM abuse. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bret Hayes WP:NOTHERE

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Bret Hayes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is a new account that appears to be mass-undoing good faith edits at random and giving warnings to each user. They seem to be clearly WP:NOTHERE. Can they be indeff'd and their edits mass reverted? — Czello ^(music) 12:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

He did that to me for expanding an article, I feel like this needs extra opinion. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 12:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Endorsing an indef. Jdcomix (talk) 12:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The user Bret Hayes just reverted some of my work and then issued a final warning, the user is clearly vandalising.ApricotFoot (talk) 12:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Appears to be a repeat of Dr. Chance Padberg (talk · contribs) Celjski Grad (talk) 12:25, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

If it is possible, do you think you could block the IP? This still needs to be proved by a checkuser. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 12:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not an administrator, but I'm sure one will take care of it. Celjski Grad (talk) 12:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I know, just replying for an administrator to see. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 12:32, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Bret Hayes's block edits

Today, I received a block message from the user Bret Hayes on my talk page. I don't know why he did this, considering I expanded the article, I also saw multiple block warnings on multiple users' pages in his contribution history. Do you think the block warning was deserved or he did something wrong? Reaching out for your thoughts. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 12:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Oops, just noticed there was also a discussion at the same time, you can reply in the thread above. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 12:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Delectable1 CIR issues

Delectable1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Reposting after this user came down with a case of AN/I flu until the original post was archived.

This user has a poor grasp of English, yet insists on changing grammar on a wide array of articles. They are also on an apparent mission to go against WP:Red link. They will do things like improperly replace "this" with "the" and "these" with "they", and a favorite error is to needlessly use a person's full name in the body of a biographical article as well as change the proper use of their last name with informal and unencyclopedic use of their first name ([147], [148], among others).

The rest of their edits are littered with grammatical errors, and this bizarre interaction on my talk page speaks for itself. Talk page warnings are blanked and ignored, and their edit summaries are almost always a single-word non-sequitur. They clearly don't have a sufficient grasp of English to make the edits they make, and seem unwilling to acknowledge that.

Here's the most recent gem instance: Meyer was born in Columbia, Kentucky and grew up there and in Greensburg, Kentucky the son of Felicia Carole Ferree"Killy" née Gilliam and Michael Allen Meyer. Not only is the prose horrendous, there's no source to support the change. A block is clearly the only way to end this user's disruption. --Sable232 (talk) 21:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

The changing of "these" to "they" in the diff you linked is this:

−

The active visual warnings are usually in the form of flashing lights. These flash in order to attract the attention of other road users as the ambulance approaches, or to provide warning to motorists approaching a stopped ambulance in a dangerous position on the road.

+

The active visual warnings are usually in the form of flashing lights. They flash in order to attract the attention of other road users as the ambulance approaches, or to provide warning to motorists approaching a stopped ambulance in a dangerous position on the road.

You say these are gems, but it looks like pure coal to me. What in the world are you talking about? This is not "improper" by any means; in fact it looks to me like an obvious improvement to the sentence. jp×g🗯️ 21:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

More coal:

−

Meyer stated the reason he chose to enlist in the military instead of going with his original plan to play [[College football]] was a result of a [[Marine Corps Recruiting Command|Marine Corps recruiter]] taunted him, saying he would never be good enough to become a Marine.

+

Meyer said that the reason he chose to enlist in the military instead of going with his original plan to play [[college football]] was a result of a [[Marine Corps Recruiting Command|Marine Corps recruiter]] taunting him. Meyer walked up to the recruiting sergeant from about an hour's drive away who was sitting in the school's lunchroom and was asked what his plans were after he graduated. Meyer told the sergeant "I'm going to go to college and play college football." The sergeant dared him, saying that he would do the same thing if he was Meyer because there's no way you can become a Marine. After first walking off, Meyer came back five minutes later and told the sergeant, "If you pack up your stuff right now I'll go sign the papers".

It's true that the sentence they've written has some errors, but they are also fixing very bad writing (stilted use of "stated" for no reason, "taunted him" is used incorrectly). jp×g🗯️ 22:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I didn't expect that the sarcastic use of the word "gem" would be troublesome. I've struck and replaced it.

−

In the United States, the cost of an ambulance ride may be paid for from several sources, and this will depend on the local situation type of service being provided, by whom, and to whom.

+

In the United States, the cost of an ambulance ride may be paid for from several sources; that will depend on the local situation type of service being provided, by whom, and to whom.

−

Meyer was born and raised in [[Columbia, Kentucky]], the son of Felicia Carole Ferree "Killy" Gilliam and Michael Allen Meyer.

+

Meyer was born in [[Columbia, Kentucky]] and grew up there and in [[Greensburg, Kentucky]] the son of Felicia Carole Ferree"Killy" née Gilliam and Michael Allen Meyer.

−

His mother was a nurse and his father an architect. His father's stereo and record collection inspired Moakler,

+

Steve Moakler's mother was a nurse and his father an architect. His father's stereo and record collection inspired Steve,

−

Spielberg has three younger sisters: [[Anne Spielberg|Anne]], Sue, and Nancy. In 1952, his family moved to [[Haddon Township, New Jersey]] after his father was hired by [[RCA]]. Spielberg attended Hebrew school from 1953 to 1957, in classes taught by Rabbi [[Albert L. Lewis]].

+

Steven has three younger sisters: [[Anne Spielberg|Anne]], Sue, and Nancy. In 1952, his family moved to [[Haddon Township, New Jersey]] after his father was hired by [[RCA]]. Steven attended Hebrew school from 1953 to 1957, in classes taught by Rabbi [[Albert L. Lewis]].

How are these okay? Yes, you can cherry-pick parts of this user's edits that aren't disruptive, but that doesn't negate the persistent disruption. --Sable232 (talk) 22:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not seeing any problems with the diffs you posted. Maybe a smidge awkward at times, but certainly not indicative of a poor grasp of the english language like you are implying. Insanityclown1 (talk) 22:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

If you are implying they are disruptive, post diffs proving it. No one here is going to do your homework for you. Insanityclown1 (talk) 22:42, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

WTF?! I have the diffs in my original post and the exact quotes above showing exactly where and how the user in question has made the articles in question worse. Where have I asked anyone to "do my homework" for me? --Sable232 (talk) 22:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

And I think your examples completely fail to support your accusations. Insanityclown1 (talk) 22:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Insanityclown1 is seeing because these are generally pretty ugly diffs. Wikipedia would be unreadable if articles were generally written in this manner. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

(But at the same time, this feels like something that should be discussed with the editor, not something that rises to ANI at this point). CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:13, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

The editor is either unwilling or incapable of discussing this. My first interaction was to caution them against deleting valid red links; they immediately removed it and continued on. Their surreal posts on my talk page don't give the impression of someone who's able to understand the issues with their editing. --Sable232 (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't know, these just seem like normal edits to me. Specifically using someone's first name in the section about their other family members is reasonable. The semicolon is reasonable. "Steve Moakler's mother was a nurse" is dumb, but it's not against the rules to occasionally do something dumb. The née thing is dumb if it's not sourced. It is somewhat concerning that in an AN/I thread where you're specifically trying to present examples of somebody's edits being so dumb as to be disruptive, even your carefully-picked examples mostly just show them improving grammar. If there is some issue with their overall pattern of editing, this is probably a worthwhile thing to bring up at the ANI thread, not a bunch of diffs where they are acting normal. jp×g🗯️ 00:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

It’s death by a thousand cuts. Some edits are fine but others are just strange. I too had to revert edits that resulted in sentences such as “Its name is from a town in Massachusetts; early settlers felt that it bore a resemblance to the place in Massachusetts.” and “Later, the Jackie Gleason, a famous comedian, saw him perform”, as well as the aforementioned this vs that, which vs that, and overlinking. Celjski Grad (talk) 11:30, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

References

2601:204:DF00:23E0:D0F0:6379:ABB3:F694

2601:204:DF00:23E0:D0F0:6379:ABB3:F694 (talk · contribs · blocks · count · rollback · admin · logs)

New account, but threats [[149]] are a major problem. Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I had warned them [[150]] after a direct threat to me [[151]]. Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Blocked with no talkpage access. I will also notify WMF Trust and Safety. Acroterion (talk) 16:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Im was also wondering about the IP, sock? Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

They're in another part of the world, though they could be using proxies, or it could be coordinated trolling. I'm watching them. Acroterion (talk) 16:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

'''''

I saw the ipv6 ip on the admin notice boards and thought “let’s see what happens when I edit their talk”. Answer = sock puppet?!!? 😳 82.31.134.7 (talk) 16:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

You have made only 1 edit outside this topic. Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

That’s cuz I’m British innit that’s why I edited mr keir starmers page ladaaa 82.31.134.7 (talk) 16:48, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Also you decide to make an edit on a users talk page for a test? this is wp:nothere, behavior. Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

You should read dis book: how to troll in the wacky way possible

its a good read bruv 82.31.134.7 (talk) 16:49, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

you need to read wp:troll. Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

82.31.134.7 has been blocked. GiantSnowman 16:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks,I had to step away. Any more trolling in relation to this thread should be blocked on sight. Acroterion (talk) 16:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I think with this [[152]] the IP neds a ban. Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC) And this [[153]] tells me a short block is not enough, its just part of the game. Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

ARBPIA tagging needed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Majdal Shams attack needs templating ... This is an admin action right? Iskandar323 (talk) 12:48, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

You can add it, only an admin can remove it. That's my understanding. I've added it. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:56, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for Administrative Assistance with Extended-Confirmed-Protected Edit on Hamis Kiggundu Article

Hello,

I am seeking administrative assistance regarding the article Hamis Kiggundu , which is currently extended-confirmed-protected due to sock puppetry issues. There are two edit requests that were posted on the talk page, but they have not been addressed for a significant period.

The edit requests are documented in detail at the following links:

- Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 June 2024

- Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 June 2024

The requests involve several detailed edits with references and updates to other parts of the article. The specifics of the edits are documented in detail on the talk page and include comprehensive information and citations.

Could an administrator or experienced editor please review the requests and either implement the edits or provide guidance on how to proceed? Your assistance in ensuring the accuracy and completeness of this article would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.239.13.118 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

This is not an ANI issue. The first edit request has been answered and the second is in the queue (like many others). M.Bitton (talk) 22:18, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@M.Bitton Focus has only been put on the minor Honorific part,that was recently Suggested on July 27,2024, which is well understood, the but real requested edits as submitted on June 14th 2024, have been ignored and still pending action 102.86.2.248 (talk) 11:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

There are no pending edit requests there from June 14. --Yamla (talk) 11:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I think they mean the extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 June 2024 is still pending (it is not). -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism, change of birth year

The following edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stewart_Copeland&diff=prev&oldid=1235170802 is a vandalizing change of birth year. I'm not so used to enwp, but consider checking this IP 217.183.113.208 if more of this has been done. / Anhn (talk) 17:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The IP's edits have been handled by a revert so all is good there. They have not edited since then, ten days ago, and we need not take any further action. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your check that there was no more vandalism from this IP. Regards / Anhn (talk) 22:09, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Pedroperezhumberto: long term original research problem

User:Pedroperezhumberto has for an extended period being adding original research to articles. I have left five messages on their talk page over an 11 month period [154], [155], [156], [157] and [158] advising of the need to cite and asking the editor to read WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:VNT. All have fallen on deaf ears, the editor does not reply and just carries on regardless.

Sometimes the issue has been just adding uncited text, other times it has been:

• adding cites that don’t back up what is added
• copying cites from other articles that don’t back up what is added
• changing text to reflect what the editor would like cites to say, rather than what they actually do say

The issue is still occurring, these being examples within the past few days: [159][160][161].

I am not alone in experiencing this problem, a number of editors have had similar problems with this original research as evidenced by notices on their talk page, e.g. [162][163][164]. Pedroperezhumberto is obviously aware of the need to cite, being happy to revert other editors posts as unsourced, but seemingly doesn't feel the policies apply to him.

Whether it is a competency issue or the editor just finding citation policy inconvenient, I am not sure given the reluctance to communicate. Either way, without intervention the disruptive editing will continue. The editor was given warning administrator intervention would be sought. Hsparsity (talk) 00:31, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I can confirm that at least one of the diffs gathered (the one on Sl8) is a clear case of false verification. More troublingly, they've never responded to Hsparsity specifically about citation concerns as far as I can see (outside of edit summaries). I think they should acknowledge that they have been sloppy before and pledge to improve on citing sources. Mach61 00:56, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

User continually recreating salted page at different titles

This is unfortunate, but at this point I think the user has been given ample warning and friendly guidance. After the page for a newly formed American Communist Party was deleted at AfD for lack of any independent coverage, and salted because of persistent recreation, User:Imxxd17 has continually recreated the page at alternative titles. This is despite ample warning and discussion on the user's talk page that doing so could result in a ban, and guidance suggesting they should read up on the notability guidelines.

I'm not sure if there is a solution at this stage other than salting the alternative titles and, unfortunately, some sort of block. Yaksar (let's chat) 01:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Both of their variant titles (American Communist Party (2024), already redeleted once, and Plenary Committee of the American Communist Party, already redeleted twice) are currently sitting in CAT:G4 where they belong. If salting and/or blocking isn't enough, the next step is a request at MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist. —Cryptic 01:13, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

P-blocked by @NinjaRobotPirate. Star Mississippi 02:20, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Might add suspected sockpuppetry to that. MiasmaEternal☎ 03:49, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Now confirmed. MiasmaEternal☎ 22:59, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

They tried some shenanigans at Commons, both accounts are now blocked there. MiasmaEternal☎ 05:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism in SPI and talk pages

Hi,

User HiddenRealHistory19 seems to be WP:Nothere. He is vandalizing HOI's talk page, at Special:Diff/1237310762, as well as a particular SPI page at Special:Diff/1237308785. Thanks for looking into this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insanityclown1 (talk • contribs) 06:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

•  Done. Indefinitely blocked. Whilst it's not vandalism per se we can do without anti-semitic rambling screeds, thanks. Black Kite (talk) 08:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

5.152.72.140 - years of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing

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

This IP (whom I suspect is a sock, haven't looked completely into that yet) has been blocked thrice [165], one of them being under the edit summary "ethno-national advocacy is a concern".

And now they are back to cause more trouble, trying to claim the Diauehi as Georgian by adding them in List of wars involving Georgia (country). The IP very well knows that the ethnicity of the Diauehi is disputed, not only because its mentioned in the article but also because they have in the past tried to make them look as Georgian as possible [166] [167]

When I warned them on their talk page, they started ranting about "fake sources" and "Wikipedia rules" (yet couldn't name a single rule, surprise), as well randomly attacking me "Who are you trying to deceive with your nationalist brain?....But the page is blocked by nationalists like you, who write a thousand nationalist tales on Wikipedia." Which is quite ironic, the article got protected due to a user (blocked sock) acting just like them [168] - possibly the same person?

Also, the vast majority of their edits have been reverted due to being disruptive [169]

In other words, WP:NOTHERE, can the IP please get a even lengthier block this time? (last one was 3 months). --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

More attacks. They seem to have a grudge, this is clearly a sock "It's just that you and others are ridiculous clowns and it's not clear what you're trying to achieve by blocking this page, you don't even have the desire to try to argue on Talk pqge because you're lying clowns" HistoryofIran (talk) 00:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Aaaand they basically admitted to being a sock of CeRcVa13 with a lovely response to me addressing them as CeRcVa13 "Fuck you dirty iranian. :)". HistoryofIran (alk) 00:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for six months for disruptive editing including personal attacks and harassment. It would be an indefinite block if that was allowed by policy. Cullen328 (talk) 05:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen328! HistoryofIran (talk) 12:59, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Magnesium77 harassing Nqr9

In this recent discussion over at WP:NPOVN, Magnesium77 posts several off-wiki threads from Nqr9 where he talks about recent editing of 1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations. Furthermore, on Nqr9's talk page, Magnesium77 has been needling him using information obtained from those off-wiki threads. Can we get some rev-dels and a ban please?

(FWIW I also think posting on reddit about this was non-optimal on Nqr9's part, but not nearly as bad as what Magnesium has been doing.) Loki (talk) 19:10, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

This comment left by Magnesium on Nqr's talk page is particularly concerning:

I’m surprised to see a cancer patient being fixated on denigrating a random Internet stranger over a Wikipedia article about a dead entertainer. Keep it up. Your assumptions and priorities speak for themselves. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 19:25, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

As I explained to Nqr9, I was simply making an observation about his choice to continue engaging in off-wiki harassment and erroneous assumptions about me being a sock puppet. I also encouraged him to put his health first and wished him healing on his cancer journey. Magnesium77 (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

You joined 2 days ago and your first edit was revising a Reddit account. You have not been harassed at all here. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 19:34, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

We can agree to disagree, Fantastic Mr. Fox. As far as I know, I have not bypassed/violated any of Wikipedia’s editing and communication rules. Magnesium77 (talk) 19:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that the editor (on our Talk page conversation) attempted to use the fact that I experienced CSA to make a point against me by falsely claiming that I am defending Jackson. I reiterated my stance on his editing and made it abundantly clear that I believe Jackson’s fixation on children was inappropriate. He also made the same unsubstantiated claims (among others) on his Reddit threads. According to an excerpt from WP:RPA, off-wiki attacks “create doubt about the good faith of an editor's on-wiki actions. Posting personal attacks or defamation off-Wikipedia is harmful to the community and to an editor's relationship with it.” Magnesium77 (talk) 23:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I think you're still failing to get the issue here. You volunteered that information on Wikipedia, so it's fine for Nqr9 to talk about it on Wikipedia. (He also wasn't making a personal attack, just commenting that it seemed odd to him.) But you went out to reddit to collect information about Nqr9 so you could use it in an argument against him. That's the problem. Loki (talk) 23:39, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that he claims I used his cancer diagnosis against him. This is patently false. I was expressing surprise at his non-optimal (your words, not mine) decision to post about this on Reddit and engage in denigration. I have lost family members to cancer, and let me tell you: Engaging in edit warring and off-wiki harassment was not on their to-do list during their cancer journey. That’s why I encouraged him to prioritize health and wished him healing.

Second, I did not “go out to Reddit to collect information” about the editor. He made multiple threads about this matter on a subreddit that we are both members/readers of.

Third, he did not limit his comments about my CSA to Wikipedia. He mentioned them on his third Reddit thread about this matter and repeated his erroneous assertions. Magnesium77 (talk) 00:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah this carry on needs revdeled ASAP, very creepy acts right there stalking someone around the internet. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 19:32, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely no stalking involved. Nqr9 created multiple Reddit threads about this topic. As someone who is subscribed to the subreddit, I simply saw them. Magnesium77 (talk) 19:38, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Iv removed the links pending a revdel LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 19:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

That’s fine. The reason I shared the links was to provide evidence of lack of neutrality, meatpuppetry and off-wiki harassment. If there is a way to do that without including links, I am unaware of it. Magnesium77 (talk) 20:15, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

So you joined specifically to WP:HOUND a Wikipedia editor. WP:NOTHERE block seems necessary. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:30, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely not. I have contributed to two unrelated articles since joining and intend to help edit more articles as time goes on. WP:HOUND entails an aim to cause annoyance, distress, irritation and a desire to seek revenge. Those are not my aims at all. As I stated above, I was providing evidence. If there is a way to do that without sharing links, I would appreciate clarification. Magnesium77 (talk) 20:51, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

The thing you're supposed to do if you suspect offwiki misbehavior is to email WP:ARBCOM. Loki (talk) 23:39, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Loki. I will keep that in mind from now on. Your helpfulness is appreciated. Magnesium77 (talk) 00:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Trying to weasel around this with the classic "but that's not my intention" isn't going to help here. Your actions are the problem. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:26, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Can you kindly point me to where I weaseled around? And may I ask why you are focusing solely on me and not the other editor’s misconduct?

I believe one’s actions ought to align with one’s intents. My actions provided evidence of an editor’s engagement in meatpuppetry and off-wiki harassment. It was a mistaken course of action to share the links in public. I take full responsibility for not knowing better. Now that I do, I will use WP:ARBCOM to send a private email if the misconduct continues. Please take a look at my response to SnowRise’s message. Magnesium77 (talk) 19:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Canvassing, edit warring, doxxing intentions, and Off Wiki-Harassment (by Nqr9)

Note: This subthread was previously lodged as it's own complaint below, by Israell. As it involves the same dispute, parties, and issues, I've consolidated it with this thread to keep discussion in one place. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:37, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Nqr9 has been engaging in edit warring on this page for the past three days. He has been reverted by four different editors, including myself, and has been blocked for 48 hours . The following diffs demonstrate the ongoing edit warring: 1, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1993_Michael_Jackson_sexual_abuse_allegations&diff=prev&oldid=1236729307 2, 3, 4, 5

In addition to edit warring, Nqr9 has been canvassing other editors to join his efforts by campaigning on Reddit: 1, 2, 3. He claims to have an 18-year-old account with 16k edits and is urging other members of this group to create fake accounts to support [him. He and other editors, from this group have also engaged in WP:OWH and the attempted doxxing of Wikipedia editor Truthguardians on their platform 1. This group is known to include white supremacists, pedophile fantasists, and NAMBLA members, and they are operating six websites to propagate their views.

Nqr9 has been sharing talk page discussions and targeting other Wikipedia editors, such as Geogene and MrOllie, through this group [170]. Wikipedia is not a battlefield for spreading propaganda, and the community should not allow one editor to endure harassment simply for participating in improving and editing Wikipedia.

Israell (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:OUTING, unless the user has confirmed on-wiki that they are the same person as the Reddit poster, you should remove this thread and send this report to the arbitration committee by email instead. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, looking at their talk page it seems like that have admitted it,in this section even if the initial mention of it was technically a violation of the outing policy Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:09, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

So... bluntly, no one involved in this dispute is coming off as especially in conformity with our behavioural policies and expectations. I understand why discussion above initially focused concerns on Magnesium, but insofar as Nqr9 seems to have confirmed their connection to the Reddit account, there is unambiguous meatpuppetry being organized here.

However, Israell, I also have serious concerns about the manner in which you chose to re-raise matters here. First, there was no need for a separate thread here, and you must have been aware of the original (at least when you went to place your own notice on Nqr9's page, if not sooner). That's a relatively minor issue, but what is not is implying that Nqr9 is a part of some sort of "white nationalist/pedophile/NAMBLA" cabal. That's particularly egregious when Nqr9's excesses seem to have been driven by a desire to increase awareness of child sex abuse issues, not whitewash them. None of that excuses any of Nqr9's failures to abide by policy, of course (WP:RGW), but it does make your implications appear to be quite confusing, if not outright insincere. These are WP:PA's of the worst sort, and if you don't get a boomerang block, you should consider yourself lucky that the generally low standards of conduct by the various parties to this dispute has given you some cover.

Regarding the remainder of the dispute, and necessary efforts to stop the off-site campaigning, the various personal attacks (which are clearly coming from both sides with abandon), and the general level of disruption here, I think it's best to probably kick this to ArbCom and the non-public evidence volunteer response team, to prevent any further issues with WP:OUTING (which brightline violations or no, is clearly a real issue here). But I'm taking this opportunity to let Nqr9 and Magenesium77 know that neither of you is coming off smelling like roses here (even if I accept Magnesium's dubious claims to be a new editor), and both of you are likely to end up indeffed if you don't make a radical shift in approach (which should start first with a deep effort to better familiarize yourself with this project's policies--content and behavioural). SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:58, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the constructive feedback, SnowRise. I am more than happy to undergo investigation for sock puppetry and dispel his accusation of me being one. I will continue to familiarize myself with Wikipedia’s policies and email WP:ARBCOM (if the off-wiki harassment continues) as Loki suggested. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Magnesium77-20240728002800-LokiTheLiar-20240727233900

As for Israell’s characterization of the subreddit, I have not seen any evidence of NAMBLA members posting there. Sure, there are a few overzealous bad apples. The rest of us simply believe Jackson’s fixation on children was inappropriate. Magnesium77 (talk) 01:44, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing of origins on Alauddin Husain Shah and Hussain Shahi dynasty

The user @Muydivertido: has disruptively edited the page a plethora of times, editing the page of Alauddin Husain Shah's to remove his alleged Afghan origin due to "lies" as shown in some of his revert edit summaries:

[171] [172] [173] [174] [175] [176]

I've warned this individual a plethora of times both in my edit summaries and on their talk page as shown here:

[177] [178]

The ANI notice warning: [179]

There has also been a talk page discussion for this before at Talk:Alauddin Husain Shah where I was personally attacked before; this thread: [180]

To TLDR - this individual disruptively edited the page to edit a sourced origin section and calling it "lies" as the basis of his edit. There is clear behavioral problems here. Noorullah (talk) 01:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I vehemently contest the allegations levelled against me concerning my amendments to the articles in question. It is imperative to elucidate several points that appear to have been either misconstrued or misrepresented. Foremost, my edits were executed in good faith, with the objective of rectifying what I perceive to be erroneous information regarding the figure's purported Afghan origin, as well as excising the chaotic assortment of various writing systems from the lead and infobox, in accordance with the stipulations of WP:INDICSCRIPT. My employment of the term "lies" in the edit summaries was an expression of my exasperation with the persistence of these inaccuracies, not an attempt to disrupt the page or show disrespect to fellow editors.

The sources cited to substantiate the Afghan origin claim fall short of the stringent standards required for such significant assertions on Wikipedia, and my edits sought to reflect this inadequacy. Regarding the warnings issued to me, I acknowledge their receipt but must emphasise that warnings in isolation do not address the fundamental issue: the necessity for accurate and reliable information. To accuse me of "behavioural problems" without a thorough examination of the evidence and sources in question is both unjust and counterproductive. Moreover, I must clarify that I did not engage in any personal attacks against the accuser. Any such attacks by other users should be addressed independently and should not be conflated with my legitimate concerns regarding the accuracy of the content. Muydivertido (talk) 23:05, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Please don't write your response with the Classical and Medieval Latin script template. It can cause readability issues. Especially on main project pages like ANI. Lavalizard101 (talk) 23:28, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I just want to point out that the edit warring has continued on multiple different pages.

List of Pashtun empires and dynasties

Alauddin Husain Shah

Hussain Shahi dynasty

User refuses to use the talk page. This is actively disruptive. Even admits he’s edit warring, justifying it with supposedly keeping “lies” off the platform.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alauddin_Husain_Shah&diff=prev&oldid=1236471904

“I don't want to edit war but Wikipedia should not be a place for lies” Someguywhosbored (talk) 13:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

@Someguywhosbored: I am committed to maintaining the integrity of the information and style of writing on Wikipedia. The persistence of inaccuracies and wrong formatting necessitated my actions of reverting un-constructive edits. I believe that the Wikipedia policy is clear and has a consensus on the issues at hand. Given this clarity, I deemed it more efficient to correct the inaccuracies directly than to take it to the talk pages. Muydivertido (talk) 13:32, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Requesting an administrator to please look at this ASAP, this has been going on for too long now, the user has mass edited the page further only as of this post being added. Pinging some:

@Bbb23 Noorullah (talk) 16:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

“I believe wiki policy is clear”

The policy includes restrictions against edit warring, which you are actively engaged in(lots of disruption). If you have a problem with the sources used, go to the talk page.

Also you’ve just been told by another editor not to use the classical and Medieval Latin script…and yet your still using it. Someguywhosbored (talk) 00:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@Someguywhosbored: I very well understand the policy against edit warring. There was no edit warring in this article until Noor and yourself assertively began adding clear inaccuracies in the page. As long as this discussion takes place and is not resolved, refrain from adding this information and stop edit warring. Also, your claim that I am still using classical and Medieval Latin script is incorrect. I ceased using it immediately after being advised by @Lavalizard101: so any assertion to the contrary is misleading and defamation. Be wary about what you claim as it may lead to you getting blocked if slanderous. Muydivertido (talk) 12:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Someguywhosbored mistook your bizarre use of italics as a continuation of your bizarre use of {{Classical and Medieval Latin}}, and this mistake was not close to "slanderous". Please format future comments without these kinds of flourishes, regular text is fine BugGhost🦗👻 14:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@Bugghost: My use of italics is a stylistic choice to highlight my points clearly and should not have been mistaken for the use of Classical and Medieval Latin script. This mistake by Someguywhosbored was avoidable and has led to unnecessary confusion. I stopped using the Classical and Medieval Latin script as soon as I was advised to, and any suggestion otherwise is unfounded. Someguywhosbored's misinterpretation of this is not my responsibility. Characterizing my formatting as "bizarre" is unproductive. Emphasis through italics is a common practice and should not be misinterpreted or exaggerated into an issue. There is no policy against using italics for emphasis. My statement to Someguywhosbored regarding slander was warranted. Incorrectly accusing me of continuing to use the Classical and Medieval Latin script after I had stopped is a serious claim that can damage my reputation. Such false accusations are indeed slanderous. Let’s focus on addressing the actual content issues and ensuring the accuracy and reliability of the information on Wikipedia, rather than getting sidetracked by stylistic preferences. Muydivertido (talk) 17:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I would like to ping @Sutyarashi: here who I can see has also had problems with this Noor user regarding this same issue. Noor has consistently been edit warring and asserting his POV on these articles despite my willingness to cooperate with him. Muydivertido (talk) 17:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

You aren't willing to cooperate. It is per you on WP:ONUS to take your concerns to the talk page to prove what you're saying is true.

You first removed the sources under the pretext of it being "lies", and then you switched your case to it being "unreliable sources", which you have not argued/explained as to why.

You have been persistently reverted by 2 different editors meaning you're commiting WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Noorullah (talk) 18:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Claiming the accusation is slanderous can be considered a WP:LEGAL threat, and result in you being blocked. I suggest you withdraw that claim.

If you don't want to get sidetracked by stylistic preferences, drop the italics on your entire posts. That's not "highlighting," it's just disruptive. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: I appreciate your concern and your effort to look out for my best interests. In the spirit of magnanimity, I shall acquiesce to your suggestion and withdraw the aforementioned claim of the accusation being slanderous. Yours sincerely, Muydivertido (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Responding to the ping, without going into the specs in last two days both Muydivertido and Noorullah21 have made 5 and 4 reverts respectively at Hussain Shahi dynasty and Alauddin Husain Shah each. It is apparent that both sides are engaged in a continuous cycle of reversion and edit warring since past several days at Hussain Shahi dynasty, Alauddin Husain Shah and List of Pashtun empires and dynasties. I think an edit warring block is appropriate here, especially since none of the editors have even bothered to use talk page to resolve the issue. At the very least, a temporary administrator-access protection seems necessary on these articles until they come to some kind of dispute resolution. Sutyarashi (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Also have given warnings to Muydivertido about WP:ARBIPA restrictions and WP:3RR as they had not been made aware of them yet. Sutyarashi (talk) 19:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

There are certain exceptions to the edit warring rule. In this case, noorullah is reverting a clear case of disruption/vandalism. The other user refuses to explain why he has left “unreliable” tags over certain claims. His edit summaries don’t prove the sources as unreliable either. He’s just shoving tags without any suitable explanation/evidence.

Wikipedia:Vandalism

“Abuse of tags

Bad faith placing of non-content tags… or other tags on pages that do not meet such criteria. This includes baseless removal of policy and related tags.”

Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule

One exemption includes “Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism.”

So Noorullah wasn’t breaking any rules although I’d recommend for him to just wait until an administrator takes action to avoid getting mistakenly tagged for edit warring.

@Noorullah21

maybe you should take this directly to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. You may get a quicker response although I’m not sure if that’s needed at the moment. Someguywhosbored (talk) 20:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Never mind looks like the other user was already blocked Someguywhosbored (talk) 20:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I fully comprehend why those unfamiliar with the topic might feel compelled to issue me a warning. However, is it not profoundly biased to refrain from issuing even a single warning to Noor or temporarily banning him as well? He instigated this situation and is escaping unscathed because a thorough examination of the issue was not conducted. @El C: this is exceedingly disappointing from your side.Muydivertido (talk) 22:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Please take it down a notch, Muydivertido, and reflect from a more detached perspective (that includes reviewing links provided, in the block notice and elsewhere). Because you are well on your way to being blocked from the entire website. Maybe take a breather and attend to something else if you find yourself too invested in the matter. El_C 22:29, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I fully comprehend why those unfamiliar with the topic might feel compelled to issue me a warning.

Assuming you are inherently right and people just don't realize it is a very bad direction to take this argument. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Persisting additions of false information into mainspace

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Danielgachi25 joined Wikipedia about an hour ago and since then has repeatedly added completely false information, mainly non-existent middle names, to the pages of footballers. These are the account's only edits. I left a warning on their talk page, but they have persisted (1, 2). I don't know where this user is getting these names from but for example. the name mentioned here, "Ejdhodghujo", does not return a single result on Google. Anyway, this user is pretty clearly WP:NOTHERE. — ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 11:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Blocked. This could usually just go to WP:AIV, though. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Elli! I wasn't sure if this would be considered obvious enough vandalism to go to AIV but in case I unfortunately end up in this situation again, I'll note for next time. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 15:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Skyerise: Edit Warring, aspersions, incivility, wikistalking

Been 12 years since I've been a serious wikipedia editor (also, full disclosure: this is a public network I'm on so not all constibs are mine), so bear with me. On the 18th I reverted an edit by User:Skyerise I considered undue. She immediately reverted me, telling me to take it to the talk page per WP:BRD, the posted this screed, accusing me of "reverting because I didn't like Alester Crowley", claiming that the fact that Crowley has his own Wikipedia article makes his opinion more due than the subject experts mentioned in the article who don't have articles (I don't think that argument is based on policy *at all*, but I could be wrong), then accusing me of censorship (which is a confusing accusation.

I reverted her back (I admit I shouldn't have done this), reminding her that per BRD that once she has been reverted, discussion is supposed to take place *before* the content is reinserted into the article, and responded on the talk page.

She then reverted me again, and made another hostile post on the talk page, and added a source to the page that was written by notorious neo-Nazi Kerry Bolton (she even linked his name in the source to his page, so she can't claim ignorance here). At this point, I disengaged, but she followed me to an article she had never touched before to revert me there.

Normally I'd bring it to DRN or whatever the current procedure is, but this seems to be a long-time problem with her. She already drove off another editor from the same article for disagreeing with her on the same issue, and has a long history of being brought to this board for similar civility issues: [181], [182], [183], [184]. On top of that, she's been blocked multiple times for personal attacks, edit warring, casting aspersions, and harassment.

She seems to fly off the handle at the drop of a hat whenever she perceives someone as speaking negatively about something she is passionate about, which is a problem considering her passions involve FRINGEy things like magic and the occult. Maybe some form of topic ban is in order, but I don't know how Wikipedia's current block system works.

At this point, I'm washing my hands of this and leaving this thread to editors more experienced in Wikipedia's current procedures, as I have better things to do than argue with such an unpleasant person over a low-traffic article. Happy editing. 208.87.236.180 (talk) 01:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Is this related to the section #Wikihounding by User:Mosi Nuru?

The page tyrannicide, where this happened, seems pretty central (from a quick glance) to that section. – 2804:F1...81:19C4 (talk) 01:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

OP is just upset because I actually have sources which clearly and unambiguously establish the relevance of something they consider WP:FRINGE. Their claims of my being hostile and uncivil on that talk page are overstated. The characterization of my reply as a "screed" seems to be the actual personal attack here. I'd also like to point out that the IP has previously been blocked for LTA, and that the editing-pattern of the IP seems to include questionable edits to LGBT topics, including apparently vandalizing a user's LGBT userbox (see User_talk:Pyxis_Solitary#Fixed userbox). They were recently edit-warring over hatnotes at Witchcraft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - several editors reverted them but I placed the warning message about it on July 5; what were they saying about stalking? Do they have a history of editing tyrannicide? I was there to add something I thought was relevant. I had two sources for that, but that wasn't good enough for the IP. I added four more sources to establish relevance, but instead of critiquing the sources, they bring me here? Say what? Skyerise (talk) 09:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about with that userbox. Per the history, it had said one thing for a whopping eighteen years, prior to having its text and image unilaterally changed to say a completely different thing by a new user in April 2024 -- how could restoring the previous version possibly be "vandalism"? jp×g🗯️ 19:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to address the aspersions cast using an accusation of editing WP:FRINGE articles, which seems to be intended to imply that I believe in, support or am trying to promote these topics. In point of fact, I am a Tibetan Buddhist, not a follower of Crowley. My interest in Western esotericism is specifically about the history of the topic in the 20th-century: this includes things like New Thought, Thelema, Neopaganism, and New Age from an historical perspective. For example, with this series of edits I put the material at tyrannicide - which was all out of order with Roman thought before Greek, early and medieval Christian authors also mixed up time-wise - into correct historical order. I take history seriously, which is why I added topical information about a historical document that is discussed by multiple sources as having influenced the whole Neopaganism and New Age movements. The article discussed ancient pagan views, early and medieval Christian views, but omitted modern pagan views, which are indeed historically relevant. Yet all this historical work is dismissed as "FRINGE" because of topic without taking into account the nature of the changes to the content itself. I did similar work on Witchcraft last year: medieval, early modern, and other periods were jumbled together in a way to support specific arguments rather than presented in the order of historical development. I just hate non-chronological presentation of historical timelines. It confuses the readers. Skyerise (talk) 10:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

omitted modern pagan views, which are indeed historically relevant. To tyrannicide? ^{[citation needed!]} NebY (talk) 14:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

A 1941 document which advocates for the right to commit tyrannicide and which influenced not only modern neopaganism but also the entire New Age movement? I'd say that is significant, and the citations (6 of 'em, 3 for each point) are all in the article and the discussion is on the talk page. Skyerise (talk) 19:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

No, it might be highly relevant to articles on neopaganism and New Age but that doesn't make it WP:DUE for tyranicide. In fact, it looks pretty irreleavnt. DeCausa (talk) 19:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Obviously, I disagree. The section is on political theory; the author is recognized as a political theorist; and the manifesto he authored is credited with influencing a broad range of people in two different but related movements for over 80 years from the writing. I'd note that the New Age movement is even more popular in Latin American countries than it is in English speaking ones, so to omit it would be an example of the systemic bias which exists on Wikipedia in three ways: bias against non-English speaking culture; bias against non-Christian religions; and bias against esotericism as WP:FRINGE. I'll alert the related project of which I've been a member for some time. Skyerise (talk) 20:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

FRINGE content does not become more DUE in articles on non-FRINGE topics just because the content happens to be popular in the global south... We shouldn't cite ayurveda or TCM practitioners as sources on medical ailments because, despite having billions of adherents, they are by consensus pseudoscientific nonsense, not legitimate significant-minority viewpoints, and thus UNDUE for such topics. JoelleJay (talk) 01:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

To quote Jimbo from WP:UNDUE: "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;" besides the prominent originator, Aleister Crowley, his view is directly espoused by Kerry Bolton, prominent Odinist and Neonazi and a prolific writer of books on political theory himself. There's whole list of people notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles who adhere to this view at List of Thelemites. So it doesn't fall into Jimbo's third category of things which should be removed as undue. Skyerise (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

That article is completely unbalanced. Having more on Aleister Crowley than Thomas Aquinas on the topic of tyrannicide is ridiculous. If that's not obvious to you you shouldn't be editing the topic. DeCausa (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

See, that's not how I work. You want I should add more about Aquinas? I already added more about Lincoln and David George. OP IP says there are hundreds of other political theorists who could be added. Ok, name them. If the section were anywhere near comprehensive, what I've added about Crowley would amount to no more than a footnote. Skyerise (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not how you work? It's called WP:DUE and WP:BALASP. It's not optional. DeCausa (talk) 20:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I understand DUE against the context of what the Class-B article would contain. Not against the current C-class or less that exists in that section. Due mean proportional. If something stands out because the other topics have not been expanded in their own robust fulfillment, is that the fault of the addition or the state of the article? Skyerise (talk) 21:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The argument that Crowley "is recognized as a political theorist" who once wrote "Man has the right to kill those who would thwart these rights", and New Age movements are popular in Latin America, therefore failure to feature Crowley at length in our article on tyrannicide is bias against non-English speaking culture; bias against non-Christian religions; and bias against esotericism, does not go an inch towards satisfying WP:DUE. Still, it's understandable you'd abandon the previous argument that we featured Plato, Plato was a pagan, Crowley is a modern pagan, therefore we must feature Crowley. NebY (talk) 21:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

If you think that's my argument, then you misunderstand me. My argument is that the populations that were influenced by Crowley's manifesto, namely adherents of Thelema, modern neopagans and the New Age movement, along with contemporary Australian neonazis and Odinists, make up a significant enough part of the population to warrant inclusion. Skyerise (talk) 22:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:TERTIARY, I'd be interested if you can produce any general tertiary source that even mentions Crowley et al. in its coverage of tyrannicide. DeCausa (talk) 22:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Sure, The Encyclopedia of American Religions, Religious Creeds, Volumes 1-2, J. Gordon Melton (1988): "... Liber Oz ) , which states the basic principles of the thelemic world view . It is used by all branches of the O.T.O. as well as other groups that rely heavily upon the writing of Aleister Crowley . The text of Liber Oz consists of ..." Skyerise (talk) 22:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

No! That's your problem. You're looking at this from the wrong end of the telescope. I said a "general tertiary" text. Obviously stuff from Crowley is going to appear in The Encyclopedia of American Religions. But this is not an article about American Religions. It could have an article about cheese and it may well mention Crowley's treatment of the diary product. But that's nothing to do with what's WP:BALASP for cheese. Would the Encyclopedia of Cheese mention Crowley? Show me a general encyclopedia article on tyrannicide that mentions Crowley. Or even a tertiary work specialising in political theory. DeCausa (talk) 23:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

No! That's your problem. You want to hold Wikipedia back from using newer secondary sources based on the fact the other tertiary sources haven't picked them up yet. The secondary sources delving into Crowley as political theorist date to 2010 and 2014; I don't think ten years is "too soon". There are sources, so it's not OR, and there are good WP:GLOBALIZE reasons for inclusion. While we've been discussing this, I've written entire paragraphs on each of several other authors mentioned in the political theory section, adding both Locke and Rousseau, who were missing. How have you improved the article? Skyerise (talk) 23:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

No, it doesn't interest me. If you can dilute down your New Age content by building up the rest of the article so that it puts it into it's true (and rather small) relevance then that's all to the good. But that's not what you said when you posted "See, that's not how I work." DeCausa (talk) 23:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Actually, that's exactly what I meant when I said that. Skyerise (talk) 23:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Just because tyrranicide is a significant theme in thelemite discourse does not mean thelemite scholarship is a significant theme in tyrranicide discourse. If everyone else is ignoring them then their views are not BALASP. JoelleJay (talk) 01:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd say it is to the extent that that interaction was a great display of exactly the kind of behavior the OP is talking about. Mosi Nuru (talk) 17:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Please inform skyrise next time I already did it for you Maestrofin (talk) 10:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

They actually did, on my IP response page, here. Skyerise (talk) 11:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that the characterizations of my posts on the talk page as "screed", "hostile", etc. are complete mischaracterizations. They are pretty much rational conversation exclusively about the content, the relevant sources, and reasoning for inclusion. The only objection the OP seems to have is that they were well-reasoned enough to support my additions to the article. I mentioned relevant policies without actually accusing the OP of anything! I mean, does the OP wish to state that they actually like Crowley? Skyerise (talk) 11:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

You literally wrote "So it would seem to me that the removal is motivated by dislike for Crowley rather than any valid argument about due weight. In context, the weight is not undue."

There were no mischaracterisations. And I'm pretty neutral on Crowley, leaning towards finding the guy interesting, but that is completely irrelevant here. 208.87.236.180 (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

"So it would seem to me" - that statement is very clearly about my perception, allowing the possibility that I might be wrong, and not an accusation toward the user. Skyerise (talk) 09:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

On the other hand, you wrote "this isn't over." rather than continuing the discussion, which was still open and ongoing. That seemed like a WP:BATTLEGROUND threat to me, which was comfirmed when shortly later you opened this ANI thread. Skyerise (talk) 11:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, before you opened this thread, I reduced the verbosity of the paragraph and posted this on the talk page informing you both of that and that I had requested a third-opinion at WP:3O, which is still open. I think that really refutes your accusations and calls your own actions into question: rather than wait for someone to respond at 3O, you've tried to use ANI to stop me from editing. Very BATTLEGROUNDy, don't you think? Skyerise (talk) 11:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't necessarily wish to butt in here, but Skyerise has been, and continues to be incredibly hostiple to other users. A recent example is in this very discussion

This is a shame, because it does seem that this user is quite dedicated to the project and this topic, however, in my personal opinion: if you are unable to interact with this topic in a manner that prevents you from making aggressive (or passive-aggressive) comments then perhaps you shouldn't be interacting with this topic at all. Just my two cents. Sinerst (talk) 05:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Skyerise Clearly either does not understand and is very stubborn (WP:CIR) , or does understand and does not care . She also show's a lot of WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour . Maybe a topic ban would be appropriate . AlexBobCharles (talk) 08:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

There is also WP:Ownership behavior on Victor Neuburg (poet), (another article with occult content Xxanthippe (talk) 02:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)) Xxanthippe (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC).

@Xxanthippe: How so? Since when has cleaning up an article, posting on the talk page about the changes I made that I thought someone might object to as I made them, with nobody on the talk page objecting to any changes, nobody reverting any edits, etc. How is that "ownership"? I call it improving Wikipedia. You are welcome to provide diffs where I overrode some other editors opinion. But you seem to be grasping at straws here, with no apparent motivation. Skyerise (talk) 23:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

If anything, it is the above editor who shows ownership issues, reverting a simple cleanup of sources, with clear edit summaries as to what I did on each and every edit, and insisting that I explain these edits on the talk page - which I did - and then didn't even have the courtesy to respond to that explanation! When I started, the article was terribly sourced (10,076 bytes: 6 sources with 7 footnotes), when I finished there were 14,160 bytes, 12 sources with 22 footnotes. Meanwhile, what were you, @Xxanthippe:, doing to improve the article? Nothing. Nothing at all. Skyerise (talk) 00:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

My Way or the Highway. It is possible to edit articles on topics that contain fringe material like occultism in a manner that is not abrasive or provocative. User:Guise's very many calm and patient edits of Gilles de Rais are a case in point. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC).

@Xxanthippe: you're putting words in my mouth that I didn't say; I responded to your request (in an edit summary, not even the talk page) "these substantial edits need to be explainedon the talk page": here. An extremely detailed response all about exactly what I did and why. Did you make any further objection? No, you didn't. Am I supposed to stop editing after justifying an edit simply because the other editor fails to respond? Skyerise (talk) 10:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Quick update, she also seems to have followed me to a userbox page to re-vandalise it after I removed some vandalism. Didn't even bother to check the history of the page, just reverted. Pure spite. Luckily User:JPxG stepped in. 208.87.236.180 ([[User talk:208.87.236.180}}|talk]]) 19:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh! and she started editing Transgender rights in Australia after I edited it. 208.87.236.180 (talk) 19:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not all about you, [noname 180]]. Transgender articles of multiple nationalities have been on my watchlist for some time. I've simply not edited the Australian one before. Anyone can check my contributions to verify that I've edited multiple trans rights related articles in the past, long before string-of-numbers showed up. Skyerise (talk) 19:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Off topic but your ip has broken text at the bottom where you sign Maestrofin (talk) 01:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

One of the sources Skyerise thought would be appropriate for the Tyrannicide article was Kerry Bolton's Aleister Crowley As Political Theorist [185]. Maybe she didn't bother reading the book or investigating its author and just added it because the title sounded relevant. Maybe she actually did read it and thought a neo-Nazi white supremacist was a good source for wikipedia. Either way, she should probably not be editing. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 03:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

All I originally wanted to do was to add a see also link to Liber OZ, which Mosi Nuru and 208.87.236.180 kept edit-warring to remove. Since they wouldn't allow the link, I added text with sources to establish the relevance of that connection. When the IP wouldn't accept Pasi's Aleister Crowley and the Temptation of Politics, which is a perfectly fine mainstream-published source for Crowley's political views, I added Bolton to show that the view of Crowley as a political theorist is not confined to the liberal end of the political spectrum, which is a completely reasonable thing to do.

However, I think I've established that a see also link is relevant enough for inclusion, so I've returned it. The 3O opinion came back and said "I see no reason in principle why Crowley should not appear in this section; that is, I see no compelling reason to consider his opinion irrelevant. However, I agree with the removal of this paragraph as it stands, since it appears to be about his stance on rebellion and free will, a much broader topic than tyrannicide alone." I will accept that opinion, but I believe it also supports inclusion of the see also link, which was all I originally wanted to add. I ask the two (?) edit-warriors involved to respect that. Skyerise (talk) 10:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The article history contradicts your claim that Mosi Nuru and 208.87.236.180 kept edit-warring to remove your see-also to Liber Oz. You added it,[186], Mosi Nuru deleted it two day later,[187] and started a talk-page discussion. Three hours later you reinserted the see-also to Liber Oz[188] but made no response on the talk page. Eventually you removed the see-also link yourself. 208.87.236.180 never touched it. The only person who edit-warred over it was you. NebY (talk) 12:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

"which Mosi Nuru and 208.87.236.180 kept edit-warring to remove"

That is a grossly inaccurate summary of the situation, @Skyerise. Moreover, other than one time on my talk page when you asked me for a favor, I have never had an interaction with you where you were not accusing me of bad-faith behavior (bad faith behavior that, in my opinion, you yourself engage in).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mosi_Nuru#See_also_links

Just my two-cents on this ANI: I had my own run with with @Skyerise earlier this month (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikihounding_by_User:Mosi_Nuru) and "Edit Warring, aspersions, incivility, wikistalking" perfectly describes the behavior I observed from @Skyerise then. Mosi Nuru (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

@Mosi Nuru: Yup, and if you look at the posts just below, you will see that I have admitted that I misremembered the editing sequences and that I was wrong in your case, which I also did on that previous ANI thread. But the fact that I was wrong with respect to my interactions with you doesn't mean that the IPs accusations are justified. My interactions with that IP on the talk page are easy to peruse, and contain mentions of various policies and a statement about my own perceptions, but no personal attacks, edit-warring, or stalking have been substantiated by the IP. You'd almost think they are complaining the interaction between you and me, rather than what actually happened in that new talk page section opened after you bowed out. Glad to see you are logged back in and editing again. Thought you'd left. Skyerise (talk) 17:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

@NebY: Ah, my mistake. The IP removed the paragraph, not the see also link. I agree that I misremembered the sequence and that neither Mosi Nuru or the IP edit-warred on this specific article. However, neither did I. Referring to me as an edit-warrior for a single revert in each case to restore removed material, one of which I reverted myself, also seems to be a overstatement of my actions as well, so I will thank you to tone down your rhetoric. I didn't edit war with either of the other editors. The accusations leveled by the IP in the heading of this thread are all bogus. I didn't edit war. The conversation on the talk page is civil, with no aspersions cast, and I haven't "Wikistalked" the IP anywhere, though they did also edit an article already on my watchlist. The only issues were content issues, which they tried to avoid discussing further on the talk page by inappropriately bringing the matter here. It's that simple. Skyerise (talk) 12:59, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not really that simple. Around the same time, you also added Liber Oz to the see-also of Project 2025[189], were also reverted by Mosi Nuru,[190] reinstated it without talk page discussion[191], and after Mosi Nuru removed it again,[192] you reinstated it yet again with the ironic edit summary take it to the talk page[193]. User:Esowteric removed it;[194]; you reinstated it again[195]. Eventually on the talk page, you argued that Project 25 attacks civil rights in general, in much the same was as they were attacked during the lifetime of the author of Liber OZ,[196] one of the worst justifications for a see-also link I've ever seen, and no justification for edit-warring. You then told Mosi Nuru please don't remove the link until you can show a consensus on this talk page for removal,[197] condescended to them and pointed to your edit count - an edit count which indicates that you should know better than to edit-war to insert irrelevant content and disregard WP:ONUS. NebY (talk) 13:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

But that was the topic of another ANI post which resulted in no action, presumably because I removed the link myself just as soon as it became clear that the consensus was against it. I see no justification for any topic ban here, nor even a suggestion as to what topic I should be banned from. I didn't break 3RR, and if I had, I should have been taken to the correct noticeboard, which I wasn't. I always respect consensus when it becomes clear on the talk page; I open a section on the talk page even when other reverting editors don't, even though they should per WP:BRD. BRD isn't a valid excuse for reverting sourced additions to articles or see also links unless one also opens a thread on the talk page, and the article should stay in the state preferred by the editor who opens the talk page post until consensus becomes clear. I suppose others might disagree with that interpretation, but BRD is a non-binding essay in any case. I try to hold myself to my interpretation of it, and I think that's a completely legitimate approach to editing and discussion. Skyerise (talk) 14:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Your comment is contradictory ,as stated by NebY you're the one whos reverting without discussion . Your responses make it seem more like you do not care WP:IDHT AlexBobCharles (talk) 14:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

My primary mistake here is tangling with politically-motivated editors in an area I don't normally edit in (politics). I'd also like to point out that you, AlexBobCharles, seem to have several warnings for disruptive editing on your own talk page. Skyerise (talk) 14:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

This is a WP:PA.

Also most of the warnings there are by angry users in a content dispute AlexBobCharles (talk) 14:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

No, it's not. It's simply an observation about the content of your talk page, just as you are making observations about the content of other talk pages. All of my warnings have also been placed by "angry users in a content dispute". So? As for WP:IDHT, if you will check the edit history of the article in question, you will see that every time I received criticism about the actual content in the article, here or at the article talk page, I edited the content in the article to address that specific criticism. That's hardly an example of IDHT. Skyerise (talk) 14:38, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

You're telling us that see-also links can't be reverted unless one also opens a thread on the talk page (your emphasis). You're saying that also applies to any edits that have a ref. And that the article should stay in the state preferred by the editor who opens the talk page post until consensus becomes clear. Can you point to any Wikipedia policy that justifies any of that? NebY (talk) 15:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:BRD, while not a policy, is interpreted by many editors in just that way. Can you point to any Wikipedia policy that refutes that? The only policy you've cited is WP:ONUS, and that policy clearly states that inclusion is decided by consensus; again, once a consensus becomes clear, I follow it. Nothing in ONUS suggests that a single editor can invoke it to remove the additions of another editor before such a consensus is established; it rather says that an editor should follow the consensus once it is clear. I have. In both cases, I removed the see also link myself, once the consensus became clear, and nothing in the policy requires removal apart from there being a consensus against inclusion. In particular, in the case of Project 2025, I added three links to see also; subsequent talk page discussion resulted in two of them being considered relevant enough for inclusion, with consensus against only one of them, which I removed immediately once that consensus became clear. Skyerise (talk) 16:04, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:BRD does not say edits can't be reverted unless one also opens a thread on the talk page. It does say don't restore your bold edit, don't make a different edit to this part of the page, don't engage in back-and-forth reverting. You breached that at both Tyrannicide and at Project 2025, to repeatedly insert a see-also link that no-one else thinks should be there. WP:BRD does not say the article should stay in the state preferred by the editor who opens the talk page post until consensus becomes clear, and no Wikipedia policy supports that. You are asserting that no-one can revert your edits without talk-page consensus. NebY (talk) 16:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

No, I'm advocating for a level playing field. I'm saying that any reverts which have not transgressed WP:3RR, whether by another editor or myself, are only supportable by consensus, and that establishing which editor is working in good faith can be established by who opens the talk page thread to find that consensus. I admit that I failed my own interpretation at Project 2025 as Mosi Nuru opened that talk page thread, and I should have left the single disputed see also item off until the discussion concluded. I was wrong there. But on Tyrannicide, I fulfilled my responsibility to seek consensus by opening the talk page thread myself when the IP editor who opened this thread wrongly reverted me with only an edit summary rather than a talk page post (and which they admit as having been wrong in their original post that opened this thread: "reverted her back (I admit I shouldn't have done this)"). I effectively reverted the IP only once (while I did revert a second time, I immediately followed that revert up with edits to the content intended to address the IPs stated concerns), and that's not edit-warring. And finally, once again, WP:BRD is neither a policy nor a guideline; it's an essay, and it's well established that no matter how frequently an essay is invoked, it's in no way binding, so your differing interpretation of it is not particularly relevant here. WP:ONUS states that the editor who wants to include something is responsible for showing a consensus for inclusion, which is satisfied by opening a talk page thread to establish that; ONUS does not say that the content must be removed pending the determination of consensus; which makes sense since responders need to be able to judge the relevance and dueness of the content and its particular presentation in context. I not only opened a talk page discussion, I also requested a third opinion from 3O. I think that's enough, given the OP IP has admitted their revert was in the wrong, to show that I am working in good faith. Skyerise (talk) 16:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I admitted my revert was in the wrong for prolonging the edit war. That doesn;t change the fact that the edit I was reverting wasn't *also* in the wrong. You also didn't establish consensus on the talk page. You are not operating in good faith, you instantly assume bad faith in others and launch into accusations. 2600:480A:3A13:8A00:45DF:76BF:84BC:BEAD (talk) 00:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

• 3O from the article here. I didn't realize there was an active ANI thread about this when I gave my 3O. Now that I have noticed it, I feel I ought to comment. I don't at all get the impression from my own experience on the talk page and in the article in question (Tyrannicide) that Skyerise is operating in bad faith or being uncivil. The editors interacting with Skyerise have clearly interpreted the behaviour as uncivil and responded in kind; ideally, Skyerise would have observed that and moderated her approach a bit, but I don't think she's been out of line here. She asked for a 3O and has now opened an RfC for wider consensus, which is what you're supposed to do in this kind of situation. I think Skyerise is wrong, both in her judgement of the content matter and in her initial interpretation of my 3O response, and I also think she's very determined about it. I think she ought to try to find a way of communicating disagreement that other editors, especially new/infrequent editors, don't find so off-putting and combative. But I don't at all think there is any reason to keep this ANI thread open. The content issue can resolve by means of the ongoing RFC. -- asilvering (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  The contend dispute is not the issue here, the consistent pattern of combative behavior is. 2600:480A:3A13:8A00:45DF:76BF:84BC:BEAD (talk) 00:26, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, that's why my comment is about the behaviour and not the content, which, as I said, gets resolved elsewhere. -- asilvering (talk) 04:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

  Based on geolocate, this is not the same individual as 208.87.236.180: they geolocate to opposite sides of the US. However, this latter IP is quite likely banned user Bethsheba Ashe, who got herself banned by saying something so extreme to the admin who stopped by to chat with her about her behaviour that it had to be revdelled. She regularly comments as an IP on threads involving me. Skyerise (talk) 10:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Reporting of a vandalism user

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have encountered a two Wikipedia account users that are only used for vandalism. One is a example of two users that are editing on the article of Khin Nyunt. Their username is 219.75.34.48 and 119.234.69.68. Their edits to the article with the Burmese language script "ခွေး" which means dog in English. Their Wikipedia user account have been only used for vandalism and damage on the articles. They also keep undoing my edits to reverting them and they keep vandalizing. Here's the example of what they did. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Khin_Nyunt&diff=prev&oldid=1237387699 and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Khin_Nyunt&diff=prev&oldid=1236882065

Thank you! KhantWiki (talk) 16:43, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I've temporarily semi-protected the page and blocked 219.75.34.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), the more recent IP vandal. Don't think anything else needs to be done here. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

"Dog" isn't nearly strong enough... that said, good protection and block. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:32, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Transphobe sock

• Truthteller1291 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cas9112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Truthteller1291 has been changing the intro to Cis to something, well, Not Good. Upon reaching 4 warnings, they're now socking as Cas9112 to continue this behaviour. Would someone like to intervene? 81.187.192.168 (talk) 09:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

There should be an essay somewhere (perhaps if it doesn't exist I'll write "Czello's razor") which states that any time a user has "truth" in their name they're probably here for disruptive reasons (and not the truth). — Czello ^(music) 09:07, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Czello See #258 on this list. Black Kite (talk) 09:33, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I habeeb MastCell has you beat by about 11 years. jp×g🗯️ 09:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Badger's Law Rationalwiki has an article on something similar. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm clearly not as original as I thought! — Czello ^(music) 10:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Truth69420 (talk) 05:59, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

@Truth69420: Czello's razor addendum: "... with the notable exception of Truth69420". — Czello ^(music) 07:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Add another sock to this list in the form of Gam2194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) — Czello ^(music) 09:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

• All blocked, article semi-protected. Black Kite (talk) 09:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

  Many thanks to both of you! 81.187.192.168 (talk) 09:16, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

M.Bitton and WP:DRNC

In the article Arabic, there's been a discussion regarding the infobox image back in February—March which ended with no clear decision following the final posting which I made. Recently, per WP:EDITCON, I inserted one of the options being discussed and made another post in support of it in the talk page, further explaining the reasonings behind it, while also stating in the edit summary that if there's any further disagreement concerning it the edit may very well be reverted and the discussion be resumed. M.Bitton comes along and reverts due to "no consensus"; after I undid the revision and referred them to the previous edit summary explaining the former, they instantaneously revert again, this time with "stop edit warring".

I don't know them, their intentions might very well be in the right place, but all they're doing here as I see it falls under WP:DRNC and WP:STONEWALLING. I've told them on the article's talk page, on multiple occasions, that unless they disagree with the edit, have a valid argument for doing so and are willing to participate in the discussion, then all they're doing is "no consensus"-stonewalling. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 13:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I think you've misinterpreted WP:SILENCE at Talk:Arabic and WP:DRNC here--while it's permissible for you to attempt a bold change after an extended stall in discussion, other editors have no obligation to accept your new change. SILENCE is largely about how consensus can emerge from collaborative work in the absence of discussion, and it goes on to explain how this is the weakest form of consensus, which undermines rather than supports the kind of edit you're trying to make here. Meanwhile, DRNC is an essay with rhetorical advice, and most of it is along the lines of "explain what the nature of your disagreement is instead of just saying 'rv no consensus'"; it is not a prohibition from reverting back to status quo in the event of disagreement. M. Bitton is correct that the WP:ONUS is on you to win support for your desired change. Further, I think it's worth noting that the most recent discussion regarding Arabic's infobox image was only 4 months ago, not a very long time in Wikipedia terms, and that you appear to be the only editor supporting the use of the thuluth image at this time, with three other editors opining against it. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I've acknowledged my misinterpretation of WP:SILENCE; however, editors must have a reasoning for not accepting the change or edit, otherwise it would constitute WP:JDLI. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 13:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Their reasoning is the entire course of discussion prior to your edit. Ian and FunLater have expressed clear objections to your change, and it's pretty clear that M.Bitton considers those arguments to be valid. Even if M.Bitton has no personal opinion beyond wanting to see a firmer consensus for the change than you reinstating it past the concerns of two other editors, that's within their rights. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not referring to the stalled discussion, however; I've since raised new points in the latest posting, none of which have been disagreed with nor argued against. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 13:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Strikethrough; FunLater and Austronesier seem to disagree, although they've not clarified exactly why. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 15:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion that they are referring to tells its own story. While having no image is supported by two editors, what the OP is proposing is not supported by anyone else. M.Bitton (talk) 14:01, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Introducing a novel argument (and a rather superficial one at that) for the same edit does not oblige other editors to engage with it. WP:SATISFY applies. If you feel that your arguments aren't getting a fair hearing from the editors currently active at Arabic, you can organize an RfC (although given that there appear to be multiple proposals with no agreement between them, it would be wisest to workshop this RfC with Ian, FunLater, etc. so that it adequately presents the various perspectives from the get-go and doesn't need to be aborted and reinitiated). With FunLater having now expressed their clear and continued disagreement in response to the latest round of editing, I think this issue has run its course at ANI, unless editors wish to bludgeon further. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

"Other editors didn't bludgeon the conversation on the talkpage by continuing to restate their opposition to my edit ad nauseam" is not an argument that supports making the edit. It doesn't have consensus, the onus is on you to establish the consensus for its inclusion, and you were unable to do so on the talkpage. Follow the advice to establish a well-crafted RfC, or else it's time to move on. Grandpallama (talk) 15:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by IP at Venezuelan presidential election

After initial unconstructive edits on May 24 to Talk:Outsider music (diff1, diff2)

50.117.139.153 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)'s first edit today (diff3) to 2024 Venezuelan presidential election (a high profile current event) was followed by:

• unhelpful responses on article talk (diff4, diff5) to a thread involving Magi Merlin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), a sock of Dirceu Mag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• a threatening and borderline legal attack at my talk page, (diff6) and
• more disruptive edits to the election pages. (diff7, diff8)
  Nowhere in the article or on talk has it been stated that there are official results or that results are not disputed; to the contrary, the lead states that both parties claim victory, and both sets of vote tallies are given.

This IP appears to not be here for constructive purposes, and I wonder if @Drmies and Ponyo: also want to look in to the responses to sock Magi Merlin/Dirceu Mag.

Notification: [198] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I also see that Isabelle Belato semi-protected the Venezuela election article [199] while I was composing this report (my submission was delayed by an internet outage). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked them for a month for their perceived legal threat, as well as for their disruptive editing to the article and talk page. I haven't looked to their relation to the aforementioned sock. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 16:02, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, I have nothing to report. Drmies (talk) 16:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Thx; I'll keep an eye on it then. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Simeon Mortensen

Identical vandalism as earlier blocked Bret Hayes (talk · contribs) and Dr. Chance Padberg (talk · contribs), on a new account Simeon Mortensen (talk · contribs) ApricotFoot (talk) 14:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Simeon Mortensen, a ten-minute old account, vandalised my talk page with this warning regarding a non-contentious edit I made. Reporting because I was the victim of a similar case in January. Borgenland (talk) 14:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Blocked as a Bret Hayes duck. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:33, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Aaaand now they’re making legal threats. The Kip ^(contribs) 15:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Where? I wanna see that. This is the first time I've been targeted by a troll and I found this fellow to be quite entertaining. Raskuly (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Where? I wanna see that The legal threat is in the second unblock request.

here Babysharkboss2 was here!! ^{Dr. Wu is NOT a Doctor!} 16:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Anonymous keralite - NOTHERE

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Anonymous keralite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The user is engaged in removal of content, almost all of them in WP:CT/IPA contentious area. Ex., claims that no reliable sources were given [200] despite having multiple sources of the likes from OUP, UCP. I'm not so sure that the user would benefit the project WP:NOTHERE — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 16:04, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I looked at the talk page of their userpage. There are so many warnings since they started editing and it doesn’t seem like they have any intention to improve.

Seems like a WP:NOTHERE to me.CycoMa2 (talk) 16:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:173.72.3.91

User persists in making MOS:OVERLINK edits (diff of recent example), despite multiple warnings at User talk:173.72.3.91. Also appears to be engaging in disruptive edits of WP:CTOP articles. 162 etc. (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1237268662, hmm. – 2804:F1...6B:BB83 (talk) 00:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

i linked where it says UTC above because i before did not know what it meant but it means Coordinated Universal Time which is a global time zone 173.72.3.91 (talk) 02:56, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

The IP seems unable or unwilling to abide by our MOS:OVERLINK guidelines. Even after several warnings on their talk page (which they have seen since they've made comments there), and with this discussion open on ANI, they have continued to make edits like this and this. CodeTalker (talk) 21:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Peter Isotalo: aspersions, misrepresentation, and canvassing

Peter Isotalo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been persistently uncivil at Talk:Human history and related pages:

• In response to me and User:Joe Roe disagreeing with them at this discussion, they have left what one uninvolved editor described as "vague polemics" at four WikiProject talkpages alleging that "several users" are pursuing an "openly disparaging and hostile campaign" against "academic historians" and in favour of fringe theories, making the article "a nadir of problems that English Wikipedia has with writing about history". They refused User:Doug Weller's request to retract these canvassing attempts, saying they didn't have specific individuals in mind, an odd claim considering the number of people in the discussion.
• They have persistently misrepresented comments from myself and others, such as User:Phlsph7 (example), to push their argument that the article is fundamentally flawed: they have misunderstood replies so often that one would be a fool not to think it intentional. Much of this verges on sealioning, as you can see from the talk page. On another page, they characterised an AFD as an attempt to circumvent WP:N (!), which I found rather funny.
• When the misrepresentation failed to have an effect, they issued numerous aspersions: they have accused editors of, inter alia, having "an axe to grind with anyone who supports academic historiography", "overtly engaging in POV:ing the article", trying "to exclude a whole field of academic study", and "effectively shutting down discussion". Joe Roe characterised their communication as an "escalating series of aspersions, personal attacks, and now accusations of a conspiracy". Peter feels these are nothing more than "perceived slights" by people who haven't taken him seriously, when in reality he has consistently taken advantage of the goodwill of other editors to belittle their arguments and dismantle the atmosphere of a previously-collegial talk page.

I would like to see a formal commitment from Peter to improving their behaviour, as they have so far refused to. If that commitment has to come from the sharp end of ANI, so be it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

My purpose for canvassing was to get attention to the talkpage and try to involve other editors. My comments are based on general behavior I've seen for a long time and which isn't limited either to last few weeks or even human history. If it was about just a few specific users, I would be singling out those users, but I think the problem goes beyond this. Peter ^Isotalo 18:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, they were "calls to action" intended to influence editors' opinions before reading the discussion. As explained at WP:CANVASS, that compromises the consensus-making process, and is entirely inappropriate. Please state that you understand the above. Please also comment on the aspersions within the canvassing messages. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any assumption of good faith in your behavior, Airship. The tone of your interaction with me has been consistently unfriendly even to the point that you dug up your own months-old unfriendly commentary and held it against me.[201] Your reaction to my trying to seek input at WP:3O was to remove the request[202] and ignore the issue, including a direct question to you in the GA. Your interaction has been consistently ungenerous.

Whatever you're planning here seems to be purely disciplinary. That's not something that requires my willing participation or consent. If you're interested in non-threatening dialogue, you're welcome to take it up on my talkpage. Peter ^Isotalo 08:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@Peter Isotalo the rule for 3O is " only two editors are involved". Are you really claiming that was true when you asked for a third opinion? Doug Weller talk 10:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I interpreted the issue as primarily being a disagreement primarily between me and Phlsph7 at that point. I also assumed the main the point of seeking a 3O was to try to seek uninvolved input which seemed appropriate. If I was in a position of being a party to a dispute (which Airship was at that point[203]), I would at the very least try to help bring in outside opinions. Peter ^Isotalo 11:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@Peter Isotalo In other words you ignored the instructions and it was properly removed. But with your experience you must know about DNR, RfCs, etc. Or NPOVN. Doug Weller talk 12:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Guess I have the wrong experience then. Peter ^Isotalo 12:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

No Peter, you have been consistently obstructive, and once again you misrepresent events. First, you replied at the GA review clearly ignoring the sources in the comment you were replying to. In response to my suggesting reading it to you again, you made the following aspersions-riddled comment:

"I saw your criticism there and noted you have personal opinions about various sources and discussion among academic historians. I don't know what point you're trying to make other than that you seem to dislike how academic historical research is written and debated among professional historians."

In other words, without explanation or justification, you accuse me of WP:FRINGE POV-pushing. Ungenerous much? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Without getting too far into things just yet, of the 3 points above, the latter 2 lack diffs. Specifically for the accusations of misrepresentation and that of casting aspersions. JackTheSecond (talk) 19:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I have been involved in those talk page discussions and some of Peter's controversial comments were directed at me, so I am not an impartial judge of this situation. With this disclaimer in mind, my impression is that AirshipJungleman29's description is a good summary of what has been happening. Phlsph7 (talk) 20:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Peter is receptive to the issues raised here since the same behavior of misrepresenting other editors continues: [204] and [205]. Their recent comment on this ANI also indicates that they are not receptive. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

This behavior is so unfortunately typical it feels archetypal. Disgruntled editor can't be bothered to be patient or courteous: spams tags, canvasses (always unsuccessfully), and takes productivity to new lows. How can Peter expect anyone to work with him under such circumstances? If they want to actually move forward, they could start by removing their clearly retaliatory tags, acknowledging and apologizing for their behavior, and offering actionable suggestions—not vague accusations. – Aza24 (talk) 20:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• On the merits of the content, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_History#Modernity_articles_are_a_hot_mess. The short version is that periodization is not nearly as important as Peter Isotalo believes it is. He seems to see it as some catastrophic error, but it isn't. The important thing is the content, not the arbitrary divisions. Wikipedia divides up content for all sorts of reasons, including WP:Summary style and WP:SIZE. Or for the human history article example, just for division into reader-useful sections. There is not some ideal, Platonic set of sections / divisions to use that deviation from is terrible. Even if there was, Peter Isotalo routinely refuses to actually give concrete examples of what he does want to replace it. So I strongly disagree with these edits on human history - again, these are Wikipedia section headers, not statements of divine fact. It's not "OR" to subdivide articles.
• On editor behavior, even if we accept for a moment that Peter is in some way correct, he needs to translate his nebulous wishes into concrete proposals, and not tag-bomb everything he doesn't like. If Peter says "hey, here's an alternate periodization scheme, it's supported by historians X, Y, and Z, let's change the articles to use that", then fine, that's something that can be concretely discussed. Instead he's currently simply asserted that "historians" en masse reject the good faith efforts of other editors, even when this doesn't appear to be true. It's not a collegial approach to matters. SnowFire (talk) 20:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with those concerned about this way of working. I have been a watcher for the most part, on several articles. I am seeing the situation spread from being a dysfunctional talk page, to bulk edits on multiple articles, which have a "point making" feel to them. I think other editors have tried hard to work appropriately and discuss things at their own pace, based on their own perceptions of the cases involved. Peter's habit of answering constructive posts with simplistic insults and the rewriting of the opinions of other editors is disruptive. Peter seems to steamroll the valid concerns of others. Of course most experienced Wikipedians will sympathize with Peter's feelings of frustration, which are common in this communal editing environment, but this seems to be the wrong approach. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree with this - this been a pattern for years. Fortunately he only shows up on my watchlist at long intervals, presumably because he's away editing linguistic/maritime/cooking stuff I don't see, but when he turns up on wider history articles a lot of heat and smoke is to be expected, but little light or actual improvement. He has been a good deal ruder than this to me in the past. Johnbod (talk) 14:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Bowing out

This ANI is just a pile-on of bad faith accusations and seems largely retaliatory. I mean, even simply replying to a straight question about why I posted a 3O is being met with distrust and finger-wagging. I'm not interested in being interrogated and I've already made it clear to Airship what I thought about the threat of an ANI before it was posted.[206] Not my circus, not my monkeys.

I'm going to take a break from editing for a week and get back to trying to resolve the disagreements over at human history, hopefully with fresh eyes. It's up to Airship if they want to continue this process or not. Peter ^Isotalo 13:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah, a curious case of ANI flu—how handy!—and with a farewell helping of aspersions to boot. No, I have no control over ANI, sorry to say, but I can propose something, if you don't want to?~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

It is not up to Airship, it is entirely up to you. You have patient and experience editors that are attempting to work with you. Alas, you have managed to make that impressively difficult. Aza24 (talk) 04:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't find much of this constructive, honest or fair. Airship's extremely nasty comment above is indicative of the tone of the process. People seem perfectly okay with ungenerous, disparaging comments when it suits them; plenty of thin-skinned responses from people who don't mind playing rough with others. There's a lot of background of that and I think this includes how quality assurance procedures and promotion processes are handled.

Most of the comments above are as far as I'm concerned one-sided, unduly personal and just plain incorrect. There's little to no attempt at dialogue and open attacks on my honesty. It's the kind of behavior that makes me not want to be part of the community. Peter ^Isotalo 08:59, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

So, rather than reflect on your behavior, you're slinging insults yourself. If you don't want to be part of the community, that's your choice. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:15, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I doubt Peter has thought of contemplating whether "the community [becoming] less friendly, less helpful and a more noticeably hostile to outside perspectives" has anything to do with him. Heigh-ho, now—horse to water and all that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

(Preemptive) background bloat

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There's a big problem with background sections on current events pages containing content unsupported by sources on an event itself, but instead couched in sources predating the event. This is a persistent form of OR that is essentially based on an editor's feels on a topic – rather than with regard to the weight placed on background in actual sources on the topic. Today I've encountered pretty much the perfect example of this phenomena. See this creation on the bombing in Beirut. It's quite incredible: Not only does the background dwarf the content on the event, and not only is the background entirely based on sources not mentioning the event, but it actually precedes the addition of ANY sources on the event whatsoever – so it's not even backfilled onto the page, but front-filled. So, not only do we now have to contend with WP:NEWS run amok, but now it appears current events are being preempted with OR boilerplates of pre-prepared content. I won't even dwell on the blatant POV of the content, because that speaks for itself, and it's not my focus here. My question instead, is simple: is this practice even remotely acceptable? And if it is not, what is to be done about it? Is there a specific guideline on current event background sections? If not, does it need creating? If yes, does it need strengthening and quoting more often? The background bloat situation seems to be getting more and more extreme in this area, as can be seen in the above example, where several hours in the background still dwarfs the actual topic because of this front-loading. Solutions? Iskandar323 (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Particularly for events that are part of a larger story like this one, we need to get editors to back off the idea every single event needs a new article and instead build of an existing event article. At worst, if the new event is notable on its own, then a split is fine, and at that stage we would have a good idea of how much BG material is needed to support that.
But instead across the board we have editors rushing to create these articles which are blatant NOTNEWS and NEVENT problems. Cleaning after them is a mess (look at our COVID articles). We should be more willing as admin to merge them back to the larger topic until we can be certain expanded coverage is appropriate. — Masem (t) 19:44, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree with this as a general problem, though I'm not sure what role we as admins should have dealing with this that other editors don't? This seems to be entirely an editorial thing and not a problem we need to deal with (unless someone keeps editing against consensus, of course). Elli (talk | contribs) 19:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

There's WP:OFFTOPIC, which is a relatively small four-sentence section tucked away in an MOS explanatory essay. At times, I've wished it was expanded and strengthened into its own policy or guideline page because if there's no requirement to use sources that directly address the article topic, then there's no real boundary for what type of content within the RS landscape is and isn't allowed to fill up an article. Left guide (talk) 20:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Well sometimes the background matters a lot. The assassination of Abraham Lincoln could start us off right as the firing pin hits the cartridge in Booth's derringer, but I think it's a much better article for the fact that it goes off about who Booth was, and why he hated Lincoln, and how he got to be such an asshole, and what his plan was, and who he'd planned it with, and why. The "background" section here is twelve paragraphs, then "preparations" (still not the assassination itself) for another four, then the actual section on the assassination starts out with an explanation of why they were at the play and who else they'd invited and been turned down by. Then, only after all of this, does he get shot.

I do see your point, though, and have also seen a few instances of the thing you're talking about.

It is quite possible for a "background" section, especially about a current hot-button political topic, to contain elements of a partisan screed and/or shit-flinging sesh. Dare I say it, this is even a thing I see happen every once in a while. It is pretty simple: you just come up with the nastiest thing possible, with a vague association to the thing, and then start off with that. For example, you could start the body of either US political party's article with "Background (1865-1872): Ku Klux Klan". Or conversely, you could start off the article about [recent depraved act of murder] with "Background (2011-2015): Occupy Wall Street movement which shooter was a part of and to understand why he did this thing you've really got to get to the bottom of what OWS was all about and here's a list of every time someone who was at that protest did something crazy". Et cetera. Not great. I would support there being written (if there isn't already) some clause in a guideline to the effect that we ought to have some kind of vaguely consensus-based process of determination for what goes in a background section, and to avoid having them end up as some guy's personal theory of why you need to understand the history of the computer mouse industry to know why Tony Blair got elected. jp×g🗯️ 00:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive edits by 85.230.77.37

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

85.230.77.37 (talk · contribs) engages in pushing his personal opinions in List of wars involving Sweden and Talk:Rus' people and refuses to engage in a discussion on talk pages. (In Talk:Rus' people they repeatedly add some uncoherent rant without any suggestion on article improvement. Also it appears the 2a00:801:757:8855:488e:1aa1:f5cf:d4c8 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 2A00:801:7AE:B953:B401:96CD:BA77:2C26 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) the same person, beacause all, three IPs take part in same revert wars while ignoring warnings in their user talk pages. - Altenmann >talk 01:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

It's how we roll, Altenmann. Drmies (talk) 01:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Repeated addition of factual errors by 2600:1700:1881:9800::/64

This editor appears to be adding misinformation by claiming that multiple songs on different albums by different bands are covers when they very clearly are not. Of the 10 articles they edited in July, they added misinformation on at least 7 of them. Here are examples ordered from most recent to oldest:

• 30 July edit to Dookie - clearly not a cover
• 30 July edit to Nimrod (album) - clearly not a cover
• 30 July edit to Weezer (Blue Album) - clearly not a cover
• 29 July edit to Goldfinger (album) - clearly not a cover
• 7 July edit to Dookie - same misinformation as above (they reverted their own edit)
• 7 July edit to Koi No Yokan - clearly not a cover, subsequent revert summary included Not a cover version
• 3 July edit to Meteora (album) - unverifiable genre change, warning, and subsequent revert summary included Rv unsupported genre
• 3 July edit to Dummy (album) - clearly not a cover, subsequent revert included reverted fake information
• 2 July edit to Weezer (Blue Album) - same misinformation as above, subsequent revert summary included reverted fake information
• 16 May edits to Nimrod (album) - same misinformation as above

Due to their persistence in adding and reinstating misinformation, ignoring clear edit summaries, and frequent changes to the last part of the IPv6 address, it seems like a block longer than a day or two may be necessary. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 00:47, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I blocked 2600:1700:1881:9800:0:0:0:0/64 for six months. That is a bit aggressive but their contribs show the game has been going on for a long time. Johnuniq (talk) 01:47, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

彁駲's editing pattern

彁駲 (talk · contribs) edited page in a strange way. They first got my caught one their own userpage, User:彁駲, and their username made me suspect they are @User:あすぺるがあすぺしゃりすと. Their further edits are not comply with that LTA.

However, some of their edits made me suspect this one is a sock, for example, their edit on Wikipedia:Signs of sockpuppetry is a little bit similar to ประตู (talk · contribs), and they removed lots of referenced content, with the summary of "removed unneeded stuff", for example Special:Diff/1237525343 or "something too subjective" though with source, for example Special:Diff/1237524155, are these correct? -Lemonaka 09:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the sock puppet accusation both those are good edits. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

What? Why they are good???? At least why they are subjective or unneeded? -Lemonaka 10:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The NASA article is terrible. It's entirely sourced to NASA itself. The philanthropy claim was sourced to a primary source by the same institution she is involved with.

Secondary sources establish due weight, primary sources do not. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Defendant responded on their own talk page. Nothing more can be done right now. -Lemonaka 02:24, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by 78.86.129.73

78.86.129.73 (talk · contribs) keeps making disruptive edits on the page Daniel Cormier by constantly changing his height to random numbers Creatorial (talk) 02:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Thoughts needed: Special:Contributions/78.86.0.0/16 is currently partially blocked from certain pages until 28 February 2026 (by K6ka). That range should be site blocked for a significant period. How long? Johnuniq (talk) 02:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:DanMan3395

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

DanMan3395 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has engaged in disruptive editing of the New Tang Dynasty Television article. After I reverted their edits, they resorted to accusing me of being paid to edit the article. Isi96 (talk) 23:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

You are both edit warring, I've protected the page to stop that, take it up on the talk page. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ckanopueme: 15 year SPA-ish

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Subject editor is bludgeoning DRV for Segun Toyin Dawodu, not taking friendly advice, and looking back on past contributions and talk page, appears to resemble a 15-year SPA with a passionate interest in this article that is sufficiently outside the norm that I'd encourage an UPE investigation. Jclemens (talk) 02:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I just wrote a comment along these lines at the DRV unrelated to the above report, and was coming here to report pretty much the same thing. It is very disruptive at this point, and if I wasn't borderline involved (by virtue of advocating 'endorse deletion') I'd have considered a pblock to allow the DRV to get back on track. Daniel (talk) 02:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

See also User_talk:Doczilla#Deletion_review_for_Segun_Toyin_Dawodu. Daniel (talk) 02:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I took note of this diff while temp-undeleting the talk page. This user is either the subject of the article, or was already behaving enough like the subject would in 2013 that DragonflySixtyseven tagged them as such. —Cryptic 02:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

commons:File:Segund Toyin Dawodu.jpg lists it as Ckanopueme's "own work". Mmmmmm. Daniel (talk) 02:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I asked at the DRV. The subject did not answer the question. Jclemens (talk) 03:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

The evasiveness of the (non-)reply speaks volumes. Absolutely no desire to answer the question. Daniel (talk) 03:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

The image is the same as on the front page of dawodu.com, [207]. Between that and this user's denial that it's his own work, I've tagged it as a speedy at Commons. —Cryptic 01:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I said at the DRV that I haven't reviewed the deleted article in detail and do not have an opinion on the notability of the subject. I do have opinions on a content issue, which I expressed at the DRV, and on a conduct issue. The content issue is that the closer correctly assessed consensus. The conduct issue is that the subject editor is being disruptive, as reported by the nominator, by bludgeoning the DRV. I recommend, at a minimum, a partial block of the subject from the DRV. That's the minimum sanction. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree, we are at the point that (at a minimum) a pblock is required from the DRV page. A full siteblock might also be merited for the UPE/COI general disruption also. Daniel (talk) 03:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, WP:BLUDGEON is an essay, and a pretty anti-intellectual one at that, that could be summarized as "Look, we're volunteers here; I've got two minutes max to consider this matter, I did that and made my decision, and I don't have time or interest to have a big back-and-forth about it". Which is true; we pretty much have to make snap decisions here a lot. I wouldn't make a virtue of this necessity tho, particularly as people can just skip anything they don't want to read last I heard. So I'm not a big fan of the you'll-shut-up-and-like-it approach to dealing with opponents in discussions.

It looks to me that subject might well rate an article, based on there's a full biographical article in an extremely widely-read newspaper, just for starters. Of course an editor is going to get excited when their legit work is deleted for what may be insufficient cause. What do you expect. Do we want editors who don't care about their work. My 2c. Herostratus (talk) 05:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey, if you can intervene as a disinterested party and explain the behavioral issues to this editor, I'm happy. Of course, the response so far is pretty much what I would expect from a dual doctor/lawyer, so I'm not optimistic that you, or anyone, can get this editor to learn how to approach issues productively. Still, if you succeeded? Awesome. Jclemens (talk) 06:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Nah, I don't want to. He should pipe down, but apparently he won't, and it's just something we have to live with I guess.

There's IMO a big difference between rolling your eyes as you skip some screed, or telling a person to please pipe down because they are A) being annoying and B) actually hurting their chances after a certain point, and using FORCE to make them unable to speak in discussing an internal procedure. Topic bans for articles (including their talk pages), that's different, and just below I recommended that for the article for this person. But AfD and DR are discussions about internal procedures. To me that's way different. Herostratus (talk) 07:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Having looked things over, I concur in every respect. Therefore, how about this as a minimal solution? I propose a topic ban from any edits involving Segun Toyin Dawodu, broadly construed. We can see if Ckanopueme has a mind to contribute to Wikipedia in any other way. Ravenswing 05:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes this is the correct solution. (It's kind of moot since the article is gone and is going to stay gone whether it should or not.) Herostratus (talk) 05:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Not all that moot. He can recreate it with a name tweak, and a number of his edits over the years have been inserting his name into other articles. Better to be safe than sorry. Ravenswing 09:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Fair point. Herostratus (talk) 07:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

If this could get 30 seconds of attention from a not-already-involved admin, that would be great, because now I'm being likened to the fucking mafia for trying to describe the concept of duplicate citations. [208] —Cryptic 12:29, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Ckanopueme despite everything, assume good faith and being civil are a must here. Focus on the content and not on the editors here. Being likened to the mafia here is a personal attack. I suggest that striking out the comment and that an apology is in order. – robertsky (talk) 12:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

y'all know what... I am blocking @Ckanopueme for doubling down on WP:NPA for 31 hours. This is not the first instance of making personal attacks. It seems that they do not pay attention to well-meaning warnings. Come back when you are in better frame of mind. The apology is still expected. – robertsky (talk) 12:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I hadn't !voted so I'd have p-blocked from the DRV to allow consensus to form, but I don't want to mess up Robertsky's broader block (which I endorse, but don't think the disruption will stop after 31h. Star Mississippi 13:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  i would endorse a p block too. If only one could layer blocks efficient. – robertsky (talk) 13:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'm beginning to think your way as well. This guy has a serious case of WP:IDHT, from his ongoing remarks at the DRV. Ravenswing 15:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  The ongoing conduct despite various attempts at changing it from a very experienced group of editors and admins, is nothing short of astonishing. Something definitely needs to be done to allow a functional DRV to occur. Daniel (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  Indeed, Ckanopueme's most recent comment on the DRV, accusing User:Uhooep of having created sockpuppets for the purpose of endorsing the close [209], is definitely block-worthy in of itself. Ravenswing 22:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban

It was floated above and received some support, but I'm going to formalise the process here with a subsection to help develop a clearer consensus.

Ckanopueme is topic-banned from any edits involving Segun Toyin Dawodu, broadly construed. This may be appealed to the administrators' noticeboard after 12 months, and once every 6 months after.

This is based on Ravenswing's original proposal above.

• Support as proposer. Daniel (talk) 01:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support Let's give this editor a chance to work on other things, when interactions surrounding this article have not been remotely collegial. Jclemens (talk) 01:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Feels like we're swatting a fly with a sledgehammer, but while this article looks unlikely to ever come back - none of its refs pass the laugh tests for both independence and significant coverage, and the afd pretty much eliminates a WP:NPROF end-run around the GNG - I don't have any confidence the user will just stop putting this name into other articles. —Cryptic 01:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support - If the editor honors this topic-ban, then a partial block from the DRV will not be necessary because the T-ban will cover it (and if not, not). Robert McClenon (talk) 01:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Ckanopueme hasn't edited since they came off block. I see that as a reason why a site ban is not necessary. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support: This is pretty much the chance the editor gets. Next step is a cban. Ravenswing 05:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support - Made absolutely necessary by the editor's behavior. Better to do this cleanly now than messily later. The narrow scope of the topic ban allows the editor to fulfill their stated goal of writing articles about "notable Nigerians," rather than their apparent role as Segun Toyin Dawodu's de facto publicist. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• I would be inclined to just indef Ckanopueme as WP:NOTHERE and skip the topic ban, but if you want to do that first then just I support it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support To prevent more disruption. I'd oppose a Indef per WP:ROPE. Nobody (talk) 06:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
• I'm with Pppery on this. If the bludgeoning on DRV wasn't bad enough, this SPA's responses on their Talk page to well-intentioned attempts to reason with them make it clear they are WP:NOTHERE for anything other than to defend the (autobiographical?) page. Giving them WP:ROPE will just waste more of our time in pointless AfDs and DRVs, since they'll just keep introducing the page under new titles, as they have over the past 15 years. In this case, an indef isn't a sledgehammer to swat a fly. It's topical solution for a single-topic disruption. This SPA clearly doesn't care which other parts of the project they're blocked out of. Owen× ☎ 00:48, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
  • They wouldn't be able to re-introduce the page under new titles given the topic ban is broadly construed. Further, a topic ban will cover them should they resurface with a 'new' account. Daniel (talk) 12:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

    Yes, they won't be able to, in the sense that once the page is created and identified as a recreation, it will be tagged as such and deleted, and the appeal at DRV will be endorsed, hopefully speedily. I'm trying to short-circuit the whole cycle. If we go with an indef, new accounts will be quickly identified as socks, since there's one and only one editor who creates that topic.

    But as Pppery said, if consensus is for a topic ban, I support. My guess is that we'll end up with an indef anyway, but I'm fine with a measured escalation per our common practice. Owen× ☎ 12:57, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Request for Uninvolved Admin

It appears that this topic-ban request has been open for a week and has consensus for a topic ban, and no consensus as to a site ban. Can we have an uninvolved admin to come along and close it, please? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Potential hacking threat

Hi, I witnessed a potential hacking threat by an IP address, who provided a phone number that they likely wanted to get hacked. I undid their edit but thought I'd report it here anyways, wondering what consequence should happen next? Ogundareibrahim123 (talk) 04:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I revision deleted the threat. Cullen328 (talk) 07:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Continued unsourced stub articles by User:Basketballupdatenz

Basketballupdatenz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user continues to create unsourced stub articles despite many talk pages warnings and many of their articles being moved to draft space. They have failed to acknowledge any talk pages comments or adapt their etiquette. DaHuzyBru (talk) 02:23, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Basketballupdatenz from editing article space. They can edit other areas of the encyclopedia, but they must commit to properly referencing their work and using WP:AFC for new articles, in order to be unblocked, as I see it. Cullen328 (talk) 07:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

User:203.30.15.29

IP [210] using the biography of Matthew Nicklin a British High Court judge, along with the talk page of the same article, as a soapbox to rant about an alleged injustice, and violating WP:BLP (amongst other things in the process. Warned, but used that as an excuse for further ranting. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:23, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Blocked them for 31 hours. If they continue with the same editing pattern, feel free to report them at AIV or at my talk page. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 03:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I've rev-deleted their edits as they contained links to the material which was banned (as well as the usual childish racism). Black Kite (talk) 08:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Danjoel99

User is a SPA account/possible sockmaster that has edit warred to put in mostly unsourced (and possible copyright) info at Abdulrahman El Bahnasawy, trying to turn the article into a sort of promo for his release. The edits are almost the exact same as various IP edits and he has targeted the article over a 2 year timespan. The edits come in various shapes and sizes depending on how the article is leaning [211] [212][213].

I would have probably brought this to AIV if the account was younger, but the account is over 2 years old. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 12:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

BTW, Danjoel99 is attempting to drag the content dispute here; I've removed two sections from his post that are solely about content. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:28, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

He failed to ping me as well, which is a straight up WP:CIR issue

There has been a number of SPA accounts that have edited information into the article, often ending up with the tag "Possible BLP issue or vandalism" to the point I ended up reverting article to a version last year and polishing it in order to somewhat make the article WP:NPOV again. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 17:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@Fantastic Mr. Fox - Maybe open a case at WP:SPI also so that a possible long-term abuse record can be catalogued? And a proper investigation by someone with CheckUser privileges could be warranted too if the evidence supports it. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 18:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Possible, I am busy tommorow so if someone wishes to open one before I can they are welcome to do so. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 19:39, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

A brand new account with one edit, MartinLee9998, has appeared on Talk:Abdulrahman El Bahnasawy requesting the same changes to the article as Danjoel99 and, earlier, 76.67.34.229. Celjski Grad (talk) 10:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Abdulrahman El Bahnasawy Wikipedia

Hi,

There are very important sources that needed to be added to the page of Abdulrahman Elbahnasawy and user Fantastic Mr. Fox was always remove it for no good reason that conflicted a big problem in the page. We trust you as responsible administrator to add this information and protect it. Those information are with authenticate resources and follow all Wikipedia rules. Here are the information that needed to be added please:

website = https://bringabdulhome.ca/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danjoel99 (talk • contribs)

We don't cite website homepages by dint of being website homepages, and administrators have no authority to use their powers to dictate content. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@Danjoel99 - This is not the right place to bring up a content dispute. The place to do so is on the article's talk page, or if you have an issue with Fox, sort it out on your respective user talk pages. You are also probably encouraged to respond to the thread above that pertains to your editing and involvement: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Danjoel99 — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 18:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you I put it in the talk page, but I don't know what is next? who will look at it? because the wikipedia for Abdulrahman is locked and no one can edit it except the That Coptic Guy and the administrators. Please advise. Danjoel99 (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Who is “we”? You specifically mentioned “we” in the above post. Is this account being used by multiple people, or by a group hired to edit the article on behalf of someone else? If so then you’re account is in violation of the user policy on site. Please clarify this forthwith. 2600:1011:B134:6C0C:C0D6:CA70:BC0F:2C0F (talk) 12:09, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm one individual who found authentic information about Abdulrahman El bahnasawy and I was so surprised that one user who created the page , called himself Mr. fantastic fox or something is insisting to remove the important information for no good reason. One of those important information is for example the complaint submitting against the RCMP and the report by his lawyer and professional who visited him in the prison and saw with there eyes the bad medical treatment which lead to his suffers from mental problem. so who is that user ? why he wanted the page to be against Abdulrahman Elbahnasawy. Is he working for an organization which wanted the page to be that way or so over. that's now my turn for a question ....who is fantastic fox user and why he insisted and still insist to hide important authentic information and if he or any one else working under an organization or so over, then his account is in violation of the user policy on site,  ? Danjoel99 (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Is he working for an organization which wanted the page to be that way or so over

Do not accuse another editor of conflict of interest without very good evidence. This can be considered a personal attack.

You need to review our reliable sources policy, because I do not believe the sources you provided meet those criteria. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:43, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

User:LuddWrites

LuddWrites (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Etan Ilfeld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:LuddWrites has been editing the article on Etan Ilfeld, a London-based entrepreneur and publisher for some time, repeatedly adding poorly-sourced and questionable content regarding Ilfeld's connections with an Israeli Artificial Intelligence firm. Initially, this consisted of content clearly in violation of WP:BLP policy (e.g. [214]), as a result of which I posted some advice on BLP and RS policy along with the standard BLP contentious topics notification on their talk page, and also the one regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, since this also clearly applied. [215] A later edit to the Ilfeld biography [216] didn't overtly violate policy, but given that it was lacked any third-party sourcing, seemed undue, and accordingly I reverted, asking in my edit summary to "Discuss this on the article talk page..." [217] Instead of doing this however, LuddWrites chose instead to add a grossly misleading link in the 'website' parameter of the infobox. [218] The link isn't to Ilfeld at all, it is instead to an article concerning what it describes as an "AI machine directing Israel’s bombing spree in Gaza". THe article makes no mention of Ilfeld. Under most circumstances, a misleading link like that might be seen as simple vandalism, but in this case was clearly intended to draw a link between Ilfeld and Israeli actions. Given that LuddWrites entire editing history seems to revolve around making connections between Ilfeld and events in Gaza, despite the lack of any published reliable sources discussing such alleged connections, it may well be seen appropriate to apply an indefinite block per WP:NOTHERE. Attempting to sneak in POV-pushing content in this manner is clearly unacceptable under any circumstances, and LuddWrites has been given ample warning of potential consequences. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

RPP requested. -Lemonaka 11:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I've gone straight to an indef for this one. They are clearly not interested in learning or listening to anyone else, and lets not forget the BLP violations. No interest in improving the encyclopaedia. Canterbury Tail talk 11:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Valjean Bludgeoning and personal attacks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I fist interacted with this user on WP:Miscellany for deletion/User:Valjean/Archive 32. This MfD has been filled with this user's constant badgering of any delete !voters. I mostly ignored those messages and focused on what I felt were misrepresentations of WP:BLP by some of the keep !voters of this discussion. In response, Valjean chose to write [219], a tirade filled with PAs against me for daring to suggest that his draft violates NPOV, something that at least one keep !voter had stated in the MfD before me.See below. Nickps (talk) 22:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC) Nickps (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I have requested that Nickps provide examples of any BLP violations in a draft in my userspace, which I will gladly fix. Others have also questioned Nickps's black vs white misunderstandings of BLP and NPOV. I want to see examples. Accusations without evidence aren't helpful. In lieu of providing even one example of a BLP violation (which might exist, but he won't help me), Nickps decided to abuse ANI.

This is basically a content dispute being handled at the MfD, where I have learned to avoid commenting because others saw it as bludgeoning. That's why my request was made on the talk page there, which is where longer discussions occur. That is not bludgeoning of the MfD. It's asking for evidence. Is that unreasonable? His refusal to provide any evidence of his accusations is itself a behavioral issue. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The MfD was opened by a sock, and no one has yet provided a single example of a BLP violation. Why are some resorting to attacks instead of providing that evidence? Maybe they DONTLIKE the topic? It easily passes GNG with lots of mainstream RS, legal, and government investigative coverage.

ANI is not a substitute for evidence. Please provide evidence of BLP violations exists to deal with this. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I have stricken "sock" above, but the issue has been discussed at the MfD and Doug Weller's talk page. Start here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

this is self-evidently a monumental time sink, due entirely to a single contributor insisting that material which could perfectly adequately be hosted off-Wikipedia instead be hidden away in a misnamed archive. Accordingly, I suggest that Wikipedia should cut to the chase, invoke WP:IAR (along with WP:NOTWEBHOST), and inform Valjean that the disputed content will be deleted after 24 hours have elapsed. There are enough actual issues with real content without the community having to deal with 'content disputes' concerning things that aren't article content, and which stand no chance whatsoever of becoming such. Wasting peoples' time with nonsense like this is unquestionably a behavioural issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support AtG's suggestion in spades. There's a lot of wikilawering going on, combined with TLDR walls of text and user talk coaching, when the bottom line is so effing simple: BLP is fundamental—not just for our own, on-wiki reasons such as NPOV, but for very real life legal reasons too—and there is no room for wikilawering, no room for policy corner shaving, and no room for the outright bad faith and near-trolling that this thing descended into several days ago. TNT the thing and let's get on. ——Serial Number 54129 19:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  @AndyTheGrump and Serial Number 54129: This doesn't cut it. Valjean has bludgeoned an MfD, personally attacked me and accused the MfD's nom of being a sock. That last one was done at ANI, a few comments above this one, without any evidence and without notifying the user in question (which I've since done). We're long past the point where deleting the draft is enough. Valjean needs to get sanctioned. At the very least, you guys should have proposed to have the PAs against me revdeled.

  Before I get accused of hiding evidence or something, note that some editors in good standing have expressed concern about the nom over at the MfD. An SPI might be in order. That still doesn't absolve Valjean of WP:ASPERSIONS. Nickps (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you, and even called for a block two days ago. Admittedly only a p-block, but then Valjean hadn't trolled to the extent they now have, including on my own talk page! Egregious behavior. ——Serial Number 54129 20:59, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment, I'm pretty sure ArbComm is looking at the nom from the notes in the MfD. They may not technically be a sock depending on timing between the old and new accounts (which they disclosed.

The discussion has been a train wreck from the beginning and has only devolved as have most discussions related to the former President. Perhaps the entire thing needs to go to ArbComm if we're going to have a sane next 100 days. Star Mississippi 00:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - It appears that User:AndyTheGrump and User:Serial Number 54129 are saying that we should inform Valjean that the disputed content will be deleted after 24 hours have elapsed. That is a content decision, and WP:ANI is a conduct forum, but the disputed content is already at an MFD that has been open for nine days and is waiting for closure. Since the MFD is still open, ATG and 54129 may add their !votes to the MFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
  • I have no comments on the behavior review, but that a WP editor thinks these types of articles are appropriate and the extensive level of detail given to it, are epidemic if the failure of keeping our coverage of current events to the summary level NOTNEWS sets and definitely shows how that can be used with RGW attitudes to create expansive pieces that toe or cross the line with BLP. We shouldn't be involved in this type of rumor mongering nonsense, even if backed by RSes, until we know how to distill it to use able information and not write every minute aspects involved. Masem (t) 20:37, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - I am involved in the MFD, having !voted in it and having been badgered by Valjean. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - It also appears that Valjean is trying to use Wikipedia to right great wrongs, wrongs done by Mr. Trump, or the future wrong of Mr. Trump's re-election. I consider Mr. Trump to be a threat to world freedom, but I agree with Wikipedia policy that Wikipedia should not be a vehicle to right great wrongs. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
• There's some missing context here. Valjean found themselves in this same situation when two of their userspace pages were brought to MfD last October: see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Valjean/Why Crossfire Hurricane? and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Valjean/Trump–Russia crime scene. There was further discussion at their talk page starting with User talk:Valjean/Archive 28#Your essays/drafts and continued at the section below it "Are you going to stop attacking me or am I going to have to file a formal request for sanctions?". They ended the dispute by having some of their userspace pages U1'd, but they also preserved some of the content as we see here. The full list of Valjean's currently existing userspace pages can be found at Special:PrefixIndex/User:Valjean/. Obviously I'm unable to view the deleted pages, but some of the remaining pages show the same pattern. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Thank you, User:Thebiguglyalien, for refreshing my memory about the previous exchange that I had almost forgotten, in which Valjean also lectured me about assuming good faith in a way that showed that he was using Assume Good Faith as a cudgel. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - Valjean took it upon themselves to add a new section to WP:BLUDGEON called "What is not bludgeoning" a couple of hours ago. I have no horse in this race, but wording like If an editor has made an accusation against another editor, the accused editor has a right to demand evidence backing that accusation, and the accuser is obligated to provide it. and If the accuser won't comply, they should withdraw their accusation and apologize. set off some alarm bells, and sure enough I find that they're in the middle of a dispute in which they're being accused of bludgeoning. Whatever the merits of the accusation (which I don't care to know the details of), I find this kind of behaviour to be really bad form, and a pretty telltale sign that someone's trying to stack the deck in their favour. Theknightwho (talk) 01:33, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
  • What the what?!?! Thank you for notifying us, User:Theknightwho. That was trying unilaterally to change the meaning of a much-quoted essay in order to use it to wikilawyer. I think that a block of Valjean is in order until this case is resolved, so that Valjean doesn't change any policies and guidelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

    @Valjean: I notice that you provided an argument for the change mentioned above on Wikipedia talk:Don't bludgeon the process. But there is one thing I'd like to know, as it's relevant to this: would you please provide a bit of context as to why you decided to make that change now? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Will I be accused of bludgeoning if I reply? You're an admin, so I'll assume you will protect me, because I am acting in good faith. So far I have not been allowed to defend myself, but was just accused of bludgeoning when I asked for evidence of the accused BLP violations in the draft. So I decided to see if Wikipedia said anything about bludgeoning, and I found an essay (which Robert McClenon thinks is a PAG, so I have hatted what I wrote below), and it directly addressed the situation, but only in the lead, with nothing in the body. So here's what I wrote:

What is not bludgeoning

The following was removed. I'd like to hear what others think of the described situation:

"If an editor has made an accusation against another editor, the accused editor has a right to demand evidence backing that accusation, and the accuser is obligated to provide it. The burden of proof is on the accuser. If the accuser won't comply, they should withdraw their accusation and apologize. Responding to that justified demand by falsely accusing the accused of bludgeoning is very uncivil."

It was removed because the language was deemed...too strident? Well, then revise it. The issue is very real. I took my cue from this in the lead:

"To falsely accuse someone of bludgeoning is considered uncivil, and should be avoided."

Wordings in the lead should be backed up with content in the body, so I provided it. (I know, this is an essay, but... )

The MfD was started with accusations of BLP violations in the draft article, but not one example of a BLP violation has been produced during the whole MfD, and the process has gone downhill from there, with no one producing evidence, just attacking me for requesting evidence. My requests for evidence have been described as bludgeoning, even when my requests were made on the talk page, not in the MfD.

That's when Nickps started this ANI thread, rather than responding to my request on the talk page. That's the exact situation the essay describes as a civility violation. Will someone in authority get my accusers to provide evidence, or will they just get away with attacking me at the MfD and here? I'd like to fix any BLP violations. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Red-tailed hawk - I will clarify. I didn't characterize WP:BLUDGEON as a policy or guideline. I characterized it as an often-quoted essay. I expressed a concern that, after changing the wording of an essay unilaterally, Valjean might then change the wording of a policy or guideline unilaterally. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I can assure you I will do no such thing. I have even voluntarily hatted that section on the essay talk page. I just want to see an example of a BLP violation in the essay so I can fix it. Why won't anyone provide an example? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of whether your additions to WP:BLUDGEON were a good idea (and I tend towards thinking they weren't), it's an obvious conflict of interest to do that in the middle of a dispute where you're being accused of bludgeoning. Theknightwho (talk) 17:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, WP:ARBBLUDGEON is something that does exist, and the sentence Editors should avoid repeating the same point or making so many comments that they dominate the discussion is the rough essence of the bludgeoning essay. WP:BLUDGEON is an oft-quoted essay, but that it describes a pattern of disruptive editing (the actual guideline) is not something that I see contested, particularly so in light of the ArbCom's embrace of it. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• The MfD has been closed as "no consensus", and the draft article moved to User:Valjean/Rumor. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:17, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
• I'm not going to give the link to Wikipedocracy as I don't want to encourage it, but the canvassing there against Valjean is unacceptable. Doug Weller talk 08:45, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Doug, I expected better of you. People off-wiki are going to discuss things here. That's not canvassing; that's just awareness. If people who are now aware choose to participate, that's arguably better than problem behavior continuing because people are in the dark about it. Mangoe (talk) 15:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@Mangoe Sorry to disappoint you. I simply do not like WO. Doug Weller talk 20:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

• Canvassing on the MfD or this ANI discussion? _WADroughtOfVowels^P 10:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

  Where in the Valjean topic has canvassing happened? Where has anyone asked for participation in this topic or the MfD on Wikipediocracy? Not a single person. Wikipediocracy isn't perfect but this BADSITES mentality where the mere existence of the site is being used as a cudgel to excuse dismissing of certain criticisms if they're even just mentioned there is getting, frankly, absurd to me. And that's exactly what's been happening the last several months, especially since the CoI blowup. Greenday61892 (talk) 16:46, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

  Greenday61892 has made 78 Wikipedia edits and 158 Wikipediocracy posts, so I think their opinion here should probably be taken with a grain of salt. jp×g🗯️ 13:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  Tell me this isn't your first account without telling me this isn't your first account. Levivich (talk) 14:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  Multiple editors went to the public forums on WPO to say Valjean is on crack cocaine. Really awesome "criticism" there. 🙄 Levivich (talk) 17:00, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

  That's moving the goalposts now though; that has nothing to do with what I was replying to. I wouldn't call that criticism either. Greenday61892 (talk) 17:29, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

  It’s because of that that I brought up WO. Doug Weller talk 20:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

  And now they're saying nasty things about Doug. Really awesome "criticism", indeed. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

  Why don't we just make boilerplate templates, one pro-WPO and one anti-WPO, so that we can just get it over with quickly and not shit up every noticeboard thread in which they become involved? We can call them {{Every time you post on Wikipediocracy God kills a kitten}} and {{When the dox hits your eye like a big pizza pie that's an unjustified BADSITES witch hunt}} jp×g🗯️ 13:44, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose sanctions against Valjean, but I might support a boomerang. I've been aware for some time of the nonsense going on at Wikipediocracy, and it's unacceptable. There's someone there who posted for a long time as saying that they are Valjean, followed by "try to prove that I'm not!", and is now posing as another Wikipedia editor. Clearly a "false flag". And there's a lot of hating on Valjean, basically for having Asperger's, which is part of a long history of internet-based hate speech directed at "aspies".

Be that as it may, I'll turn now to the actual complaint here. I'm not going to say that Valjean is without fault. But he is making a sincere effort to do the right thing, even if sometimes his manner of communication can understandably rub other editors the wrong way. Nickps complains that Valjean is making PAs against him and has bludgeoned at the MfD. Well, here is what Valjean actually said to Nickps early in the discussion: [220]. Seems to me to show significant self-awareness and civility. But it's true that Valjean commented way too much in the early days of the MfD. I told him so. And he stopped. (Let's face it, deletion discussions are frequently landmines, and editors can overreact, but it matters whether they catch themselves and dial it back.) But look what happened later in the MfD. Valjean quieted down (not perfect, but significantly better), and then Nickps took to bludgeoning every editor (including me) who commented for "keep". If you go to the MfD page, find the comment by Serial Number 54129, and read from there to the end, you'll see what I mean. This ANI complaint smells like he was disappointed that the MfD closed as "no consensus", so he wants to push back here.

I realize that any content dispute about Donald Trump is going to be fraught. But there isn't enough here to justify sanctions against Valjean. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:45, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

As someone who also has ASD (Asperger's is long deprecated), I'm not seeing any hate for him for being autistic. Neither directly or indirectly. Only criticisms of his actions. Whether you meant to or not, it's infantilizing to dismiss criticism of one's continued actions as making fun of someone's neurodivergencies, and that's what bringing up his ASD here feels like to me since I can find no such evidence of said "making fun of". Greenday61892 (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

[in Rodney Dangerfield voice] Yeah, it's long deprecated... by my wife! Fellas you know how it is!!!

Anyway, so what else... we got this guy, Greenday61892, I should say this guy or this gal, I don't know, it's the Internet, either way they've got 78 edits on Wikipedia and 158 posts on Wikipediocracy. You know, it used to be you went to WPO to talk about Wikipedia drama, now we've got people who come over to Wikipedia to talk about WPO drama. What's up with that? [pause for audience laughter] I'm tellin ya.

No, but really, great people over there on WPO, I just wish they wouldn't keep mistaking our drama boards for a urinal. [pause for audience laughter] No respect from those guys. They were mad at me once and I asked them, what, you think I should stop doing admin stuff just because you guys are pissed off I mentioned your website when you sent a bunch of dudes over to stuff a discussion? They said no, we think you should start! No respect at all.

Anyway, you all heard about this Walter Mondale fella? He's got this new plan to fix the economy, it's real cheap too -- he's gonna buy Reagan one of those cellular phones so he can call him whenever he needs some advice. Ain't it the truth. jp×g🗯️ 05:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Orange is the new black? JPxG is the new EEng. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:34, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

You're an admin JPxG, act like one instead of whatever this sarcastic drivel is. Greenday61892 (talk) 05:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, I ask again, please point out the exact words where anyone at any point said, on WPO, to come post in this discussion or the MfD. Greenday61892 (talk) 05:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Completely uninvolved here, but I also have ASD and have seen nothing like what you are describing. Jdcomix (talk) 16:56, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

OK, I looked back, and I see now that the person who used to say that they were Valjean, and then changed to saying that they were another WIkipedia editor, has now removed that stuff. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh I think I misinterpreted what you said either way; I thought you meant criticism of Valjean across the site at large, didn't realize you meant specifically the joe job. My mistake. Greenday61892 (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

No, I meant more than that, including the crack cocaine stuff noted above. The point is that there is mean-spirited stuff that grows out of his ways of expressing himself in disputes. But none of that is the main issue here. The main issue is that Valjean's conduct here does not rise to the level of requiring administrator intervention. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

So, let's see how many lies about me you fit in a single comment. The ASD part was addressed already so I won't comment more on it. You say that This ANI complaint smells like he was disappointed that the MfD closed as "no consensus", so he wants to push back here conveniently "forgetting" that the ANI was opened while the MfD was open. You provide a diff of Valjean being courteous to me when I said something he agreed with, conveniently "forgetting" how fast he switched his tone when I started disagreeing with him. You say that I was bludgeoning the MfD and yet all I was doing was responding to some editors, including you, yes, that I felt were misinterpreting BLP. BLP is one of our most important policies. Getting it wrong is not an option, so when I thought you three editors were making a bad argument, I said so, and I explained myself. I didn't just spam you, I responded to your arguments. Nickps (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

You've treated the MfD as a WP:BATTLEGROUND, so I suggest that you dial it down before it boomerangs on you. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Diffs please. Nickps (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

As I said above, find the Serial Number comment, and read from there to the end. There are too many for me to list one-by-one. You say here that "all I was doing was responding to some editors, including you, yes, that I felt were misinterpreting BLP". I have a hunch that that's what Valjean thought he was doing, too. I told Valjean, quite clearly, at my talk that he should deescalate. I think the bottom line, now, is that you should deescalate, too, and then maybe we can all move on. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose sanctions against Valjean. Carlstak (talk) 17:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
• On bludgeoning that is readily apparent at the MFD. Even after Tryp said to quit it they instead just started harassing people at their talk pages and emailing people looking at the reply on mine and their talk page. Then for personal attacks take a look at what they said to me on my talk page. That seems to be a common thread assuming bad faith and it seems to be related to anything Trump. Outside Trump they are a solid contributor. PackMecEng (talk) 20:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe that's because what I said didn't make any sense. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:58, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, @PackMecEng: can you expand upon what you mean by emailing people? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  They tend to email in general but with this one i saw this as a sign they were emailing users about it. PackMecEng (talk) 02:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand how this article is anything but a BLP violation. BLP isn't just sourcing but due weight and not reporting on tabloid rumours. It should really be deleted just to put an end to all this, it will obviously never become a main space article and isn't needed on Wikipedia. Valjean can copy it off wiki if he so desires. Traumnovelle (talk) 10:01, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

A Few Throwaway Comments

The content issue has been resolved by closure of the MFD, and that wasn't an issue for WP:ANI. Since Valjean wanted to know what the BLP violations were, I will try to answer, knowing that my answer will not resolve the controversy, and will not answer Valjean's question of how to resolve the BLP violations. There are no specific BLP violations in the draft or sandbox or whatever it is, so that the problem cannot be dealt with by editing. The problem is that the page in question is an entirely negative page about a living person who already is the subject of a biography of a living person and of multiple sub-articles. The page in question did not appear to be split or spun out as a single additional sub-article. WP:ANI is not the right forum for thrashing out this nuanced question about the BLP policy. MFD was a proper forum, and the close of No Consensus correctly shows, in my opinion, that the issues about the page are not straightforward. So either the question of whether the page in question was a BLP violation should be discussed in a policy forum, or it should be dropped. I think that there were two sets of conduct issues. The first had to do with User:Valjean, and were whether they were violating civility with their demands for answers to questions, and whether they were trying to change the rules by editing an essay that was being quoted. I think that those questions are now in the past because the MFD has been closed, and can be shelved. There may have also been questions about a boomerang against the filing editor. I will let other editors discuss that or drop that.

If there are any remaining issues, I don't think that WP:ANI is the right continuing forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I think that's a very fair summary. As the person who raised the boomerang issue, I would be happy to drop that, if other editors will similarly drop the complaints about Valjean. As someone who has been communicating with Valjean a lot, I will commit to continue to try to work with him to get the content issues that you have correctly identified fixed. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: I can't drop the complaints about Valjean because I'm not the only one in the thread who's making them. I do want to put this behind me though so, yes, I'll drop the issue I alone raised, namely the PAs. The ball is on your side Tryptofish. If you still want me to get sanctioned, make your proposal. Nickps (talk) 22:37, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Nickps - Who else are you saying is still asking for sanctions against User:Valjean? You were the Original Poster and the harshest critic. I concurred with much of what you said, and have said that I am ready either to move to another forum or drop the issue completely. So who is still seeking action? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:33, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Italic text

I was referring to Serial Number who agreed with me that action needs to be taken and has not recalled as of me writting this. Nickps (talk) 10:01, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I would be happy to drop the boomerang issue if you drop the issue that you alone have raised – of course, I won't hold against you anything that other editors, not you, have said. What matters now is the need to deescalate the dispute. It's not doing you or anyone else any good to have this drag on. I'm sure an uninvolved administrator can close this any time, and I hope that someone does. The sooner, the better. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• LET ME KNOW, in future, IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT ME AT WP:ANI. Thank you! ——Serial Number 54129 11:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tordenskjold nationality

A user (user:DanielMadsen123) keeps changing the nationality of Peter Tordenskjold from Norwegian to Danish-Norwegian despite it having been discussed on the talk page of the article with the conclusion that he was a Norwegian, in the service of the king of Denmark-Norway, which I understand to be in line with Wikipedia's attitude in general when it comes to persons who are native to states bound by personal unions.

I mentioned the talk page in the comment of one of my reverts, but he continued. I then mentioned it on his talk page but he made the same edit again.

I feel that describing this person as Danish-Norwegian is as inaccurate as describing a Scotsman as English-Scottish and that it is diminishing of Norwegians.

Here are some diffs: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Tordenskjold&diff=prev&oldid=1223996471

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Tordenskjold&diff=prev&oldid=1223996763

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Tordenskjold&diff=prev&oldid=1236864151

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Tordenskjold&diff=prev&oldid=1237673759 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grikiard (talk • contribs) 12:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@Grikiard While it appears that DanielMadsen123 is changing the subject's nationality against consensus, the long time span over which they've made those edits means does not yet rise to the level where administrative action is needed. —C.Fred (talk) 12:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Persistent POV original research edits by Dinkan2024

This editor Dinkan2024 is consistently pushing POV original research sans any sources in this page named Nirmala College, Muvattupuzha even after each revert, explicitly violating every core principles of Wikipedia. The editor's POV Original Research edits [221], [222], [223]. Already crossing 3reverts.

Recommend administrators to take necessary action on this Editor. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 10:42, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

This feels like WP:BITE to me. The editor has only been warned once and you haven’t given them a ANI notification on their talk page as noted in the big red box at the top of this page. Celjski Grad (talk) 11:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree. This isn't ANI worthy. Procyon117 (talk) 14:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

@Procyon117 Unsourced Pov edits completing 3reverts. Then what worth are such moves if not ANI? അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 12:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

You didn't try talking to them on their talk page at all, for one, as I don't see any messages from you there. And usually people are reported here if they've received three or four warnings on their talk page and still keep doing it. Also, while yes they have been reverting a bit, they technically haven't violated WP:3RR as they didn't cross the threshold. Procyon117 (talk) 12:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@Procyon117 usually people are reported here if they've received three or four warnings on their talk page and still keep doing it noted.

The notice has already been sent. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 12:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@Celjski Grad Pardon for not notifying. But how come this be a WP:BITE when this editor already crossed 3reverts that too with POV unsourced material? അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 12:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

PVZ copyvios part 2

Eches0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Duck of someone who's been previously mentioned at ANI. Just look at their contributions. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Blocked. We'll see if Special:Nuke will cooperate today... —Ingenuity (t • c) 02:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

It did not. I got five different errors! Floquenbeam managed to get it working, though. —Ingenuity (t • c) 02:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Do we want to open an SPI to see if there are any other socks around? I know @NinjaRobotPirate said something about blocking some socks a few days ago, and this sock seems to have been created in roughly the same time frame as the sockmaster (or at least the user I'd identified as a problem the other day). Hamtechperson 02:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

There were a bunch of sleepers that I blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:19, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Stevebroshar

Stevebroshar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user crossed the red line with this edit to his user page. He posted: The Bad -- Timhowardriley, context: Computer program, Source code, attributes: [rule-based, argumentative, disagreeable, poor writer].

Here is a recent disruptive talk section: [224]. He posted I think you struggle with technical writing and writing in general. I think the original text could be written better, but unfortunately, you made it worse. We have spoken before and you were argumentative I recall. I'm guessing you will be the same now.

Here is another recent disruptive talk section: [225]. He posted Dear @Timhowardriley I tried working with you, but you have no interest in that. You are close-minded, and disagreeable. Not a team player. You shot down all the concerns and suggestions I made, horked up the comments I made above and now reverted my careful, well considered and IMO valuable edits. You are a hack and a bully. This article is terrible, yet you seem to think it's your pet and cannot live without one precious word of it. Thanks very little.

A scan of his user contributions show many edits that delete article content and no edits that add sourced material. Moreover, he mainly contributes by adding talk sections. His talk posts present a negative Wikipedia environment. Timhowardriley (talk) 14:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the userpage content and left them a warning on their talkpage. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

PROD removed by a tendentious LTA user

There is a ridiculous sockfarm on Wikipedia that has been using proxies, sock accounts, and IPs to illegitimately vote in AFDs, often times they'll shamelessly vote multiple times with multiple accounts, they've also begun to specifically target my PRODs with their SPAs and proxies, all so they can retain poorly sourced and written articles aggrandizing their side's military history and make it seem as if they won all their battles despite overwhelming odds. If a sock account/IP/proxy removes a PROD, is it allowed to be reinstated on the grounds of being illegitimately removed? Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 16:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

No, a PROD can be removed for any or no reason. Take the articles to AFD, and if there is evidence of socking, raise at WP:SPI. GiantSnowman 16:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

If it's a banned user removing them, those are explicitly allowed to be restored. Since there aren't any links to specific examples here I can't evaluate whether that applies in this case. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:59, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I see that now on the PROD page-In addition, a tag may be restored if removed by a banned user or blocked user evading a block. In haste, I nominated the article through AFD shortly after the PROD tag was removed by the sock proxy, so I wouldn't be able to rePROD it, but I will make note for future cases. Thank you, The Blade of the Northern Lights and GiantSnowman for your input, I'd also appreciate more community input. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 17:10, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that this is a sock? GiantSnowman 17:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

GiantSnowman I would say that's about 95% a HaughtonBrit sock, but since they're using proxies it will never be 100%. You probably don't want to read the SPI unless you're really bored. Black Kite (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Haha, thanks, will resist for now then... GiantSnowman 17:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I would actually escalate to AfD if a PROD is removed no matter if it's a sockpuppet who's removing the PROD. Sockpuppets tend to go a bit too far when it comes to trying to save their sacred cows from slaughter, making themselves (and thus the edits to be reverted) obvious in AfD scenarios. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 23:02, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the correct advice should be: read the PROD removal edit summary, consider whether it might indicate some notability that you missed before, and only if you still disagree escalate to an AfD with a nomination statement that addresses why you think the PROD removal was wrong. Reflexive escalation to AfD of bad PRODs is just as much a problem as reflexive removal of good PRODs. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

IP and comments about race

I warned the IP editor 69.119.174.139 (talk · contribs) for their edit on Mississippi where they changed "upholding white supremacy" to "upholding racial homogeneity" in regards to racial segregation and wrote in the edit summary "White supremacy does not exist, unlike Jewish supremacy". Their response was: "This website actively promotes anti-white vitriol". They also made this edit on the article Murzyn (a term for people of African descent) removing a sentence about it being viewed as a pejorative and writing in the edit summary "We do not care". They are still making problematic edits in this regard. Mellk (talk) 23:57, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

What the fuck. That IP needs to be blocked ASAP. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Gave them a one month timeout. If the issue continues after the time is up, we can try a longer block. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 01:18, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

My spaces? LIMINAL. My horror? ANALOG. My cities? WALKABLE. My burgers? NOTHING. My Cause of the Confederacy? LOST.

Good block, I am mostly commenting here because the scrolling on AN/I is bugged and I think saving a comment will fix it. jp×g🗯️ 21:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Late comment, but this almost feels like a Mikemike sock based on their editing pattern. Jdcomix (talk) 13:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh my god, WHAT?! I'm African American and this is not okay, this really ain't okay whatsoever. And it had to be Mississippi as well? This breaks so much rules in just now being this awful of a person. mer764KCTV5 / Cospaw the Wolfo (He/Him | t • c) 18:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Please review Lustigermutiger21s behavior

• Editor being reported: Lustigermutiger21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Lustigermutiger21 has accused me of having a COI in regards to Gavin Wood and also previously accused Bilby of having a COI with Woods, seen here. They have provided no evidence for these unfounded claims. They also have insinuated that there is whitewashing of the article, and made multiple personal attacks against Bilby seen here, here, here and here. They have repeatedly denied they were personal attacks and offered a brief apology at the thread at BLPN. I still don't think they fully understand how inappropriate those comments were, and did not strike them out as suggested by Bilby, myself and notwally, I finally removed them here per WP:NPA.

They are also edit-warring to re-add content that has been disputed by multiple editors at BLPN and on the talk page. I believe a topic ban from Gavin Wood is warranted, and/or a block for casting aspersions about editors having a COI and gross personal attacks. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I saw the recent comments at Talk:Gavin Wood and blocked Lustigermutiger21 for 48 hours. I was about to post a block notice at their talk when I saw mention of this report. More might be needed in view of WP:RGW and the inability to accept other opinions. Johnuniq (talk) 08:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Based on the edit summaries from the recent series of edits at the Gavin Wood article, this user seems to erroneously believe that just because a source isn't listed at WP:RSP, it's automatically unreliable; that approach is problematic. Left guide (talk) 08:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I saw that as well, one of them removed was WP:THETIMES. The article will probably have to be reverted back to a stable version before their deletion spree. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Their removal of sources such as Wired and Business Week on Brock Pierce may indicate that the issues are not limited to just one particular article [226]. – notwally (talk) 21:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and then left a court document and a lawyers directory website to support assertions about a living person; although he didn't originally add the refs, their claim in the edit summary is they double checked citations when revising the personal life section. They also left WP:NEWYORKPOST in the personal life section during their revision as well. They have also edited other articles related to cryptocurrency, including some BLPs, but I haven't check those articles. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:47, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposal for topic ban

Based on their problematic and disruptive editing at Gavin Wood and the talk page, I am proposing an indefinite topic ban from Gavid Wood and the talk page, broadly construed, with no appeal sooner than six months. This proposal does not preclude other sanctions that editors wish to propose. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Lustigermutiger21's response [227] to their 48 hour ban for personal attacks does not inspire hope that they understand the problems or will change their behavior. They had the concerns about their behabior brought up by at least 3 editors prior to Johnuniq's block message, and their apology for how their actions "were perceived" suggests that they are still denying that their actions were in fact problematic. That apology and minimizing of their behavior came only a short time after they had made a general accusation of COI editing in their comment [228] on the article's talk page after they had made a spate of WP:POINTY edits removing sources from the article [229]. Hopefully they will take Johnuniq's warning about a potential indefinite ban seriously. – notwally (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

This was actually their response to the block, and it smells like it was AI-written. Left guide (talk) 21:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I fixed my first link that was incorrect. Thank you for noticing. – notwally (talk) 21:33, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

User:DN27ND

DN27ND (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Reporting for conduct in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nori Bunasawa.

Most notable thing is using my race to taunt me. I'm Korean. [230][231][232]. To verify that I'm not myself coming at this from a point of racial bias, you're welcome to scrutinize my previous edits and past work; see this post for context on who I am. I'd have to extremely shortsighted to be biased in this scenario; why would I sacrifice the credibility of my around 80,000 edits on Wikipedia for a single judoka that I hadn't heard of until this AfD?

Other conduct issues. Possible WP:COI, being discussed here. In the COI discussion, note the draft approval process discussed by Marchjuly; suspicious even with a generous interpretation. Repeated WP:BLUDGEONING (24 replies nearly in a row (interrupted by one reply)) despite asking them multiple times to stop ([233][234][235]). Accusing anyone who disagrees with them of censorship ([236][237][238]) or having hidden agendas/biases ([239]).

What makes this more absurd is that I even think the subject of the article is possibly notable; it's just these extreme conduct issues and the draft approval process that are turning me off of voting to keep the article. Literally, if they had just quietly pointed out the offline sources I would have voted keep and never have noticed the draft approval process. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 01:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@Axad12 @Marchjuly @DanCherek @Papaursa @Liz @Kingsif tagging people who participated in the AfD 104.232.119.107 (talk) 01:44, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I've p-blocked DN27ND from the AfD for bludgeoning and disruption. Star Mississippi 01:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Exactly the right call, I'd say. One of the most pronounced cases of bludgeoning I have seen in a long while. That said, I think there's probably more to be done than that immediate step to stem the disruption. Looking at the racial commentary, I don't think we can even call this a particularly borderline case, in terms of whether there is a clear intent towards derogatory tone. Between...1) the implication that DN27ND is entitled to question the IP/toobigtokale's ability to contribute neutrally to any subject that involves Japanese culture, just because the latter Korean ("Everyone knows about the history of the Japanese-Korean rivalry. This is not the thread to hold a grudge."), and 2) the multiple "let me translate that for you" style comments... I have no issue real reservation in calling this racist--if in a somewhat dog-whistley way. At the least, we can say these comments are least racially-directed in a manner irreconcilable with this project's behavioural rules.

Then we have to add in the bludgeoning, the credible COI issues raised in the AfD, the fact that this is clearly an SPA account (no edits outside those concerning the subject of the article at AfD), the general WP:Battleground mentality on the subject, the highly promotional nature of numerous of their edits, their apparently limited grasp of sourcing and notability standards, even after four years of work on said article... For me it's all adding up to a pretty substantial WP:NOTHERE/WP:CIR issue. At a minimum, I think a topic ban is probably called for here until this editor can deepen their facility with working on articles that don't connect to persons they have a direct line of communication and coordination with. Of course, for this user, I suspect a TBAN from their preferred subject is functionally indistinguishable from an indef, since it's questionable they would stay on the project to edit on other topics. But that's not really on the community; the user is bringing more disruption than productive work at present, and that has to stop. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

feel free to broaden the block @Snow Rise (or others) as I'm about to step offline. That was an immediate bandaid on the disruption before I saw COIN and most worrisome, this disclosure. I didn't p-block from the article as they don't appear to have been editing it, but it's clear they should not be in the event it's retained. Star Mississippi 02:17, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Just a note to second SnowRise's suggestion of a wider ban for NOTHERE and CIR.

User DN27ND has said that they intend to write further similar articles by approaching the intended subjects and using their scrapbooks of non-RS press cuttings. If the user is permitted to do so then the problems seen here are going to recur.

In any event, any user whose final argument is to resort to racism has no place on Wikipedia.

(Also, some mistake surely re: DN27ND hasn't edited the Nori Bunasawa article. They are responsible for over 75% of the content, with a further 16% being the edit by the subject's own account (110347nbtough) installing the text which DN27ND admitted to having written.) Axad12 (talk) 05:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

(Also, some mistake surely re: DN27ND hasn't edited the Nori Bunasawa article. They are responsible for over 75% of the content,

Sorry, I was tired and phrased it poorly with "been editing". Other than this edit they hadn't edited it since 10 June so there was no reason for a p-block since they weren't active disrupting it as they were the AfD. Star Mississippi 12:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't going to post here since I figured that there was nothing more that I could add. However, it's hard to see this, this and this at Talk:Nori Bunasawa as just being a coincidence. I expect there will be more such posts added to the article's talk page, the AfD or both. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:26, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I've taken a flamethrower to that debate with {{collapse top}} to make it functional again as a deletion discussion. Also added a section break below the (now-collapsed) bludgeoning to allow other editors to contribute more easily — and I would encourage others to do so, to assist in forming a consensus. I totally support the pblock and would actually support increasing it to sitewide per Snow Rise and Axad12, although I am reticent to do it myself as the same admin who also collapsed their bludgeoning at the AfD. Daniel (talk) 06:33, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DN27ND for the socking. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

These two IP comments at the AfD, doubling down on the race-related sentiments, look a lot like block evasion [240][241].

This IP address was previously blocked from a variety of articles.

Some form of wider block for the IP (and wider block for DN27ND) may be desirable here. Axad12 (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm loathe to protect the AfD since we have IP 104 here editing collaboratively but do not have the on wiki time to play whack a sock, so please take whatever action is needed to reach consensus. Thanks @Daniel for the HATting Star Mississippi 02:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi and Daniel: DN27ND is back editing at Nori Bunasawa. Perhaps one of you could take a look at their edits, particularly since they've yet to respond either at WP:COIN#User:DN27ND or this ANI to address their "working relationship" with Bunasawa. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:47, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I think DN27ND has elaborated on his relationship with the subject to a sufficient degree that it is clear that they have collaborated on the article together. That being the case, he ought to have declared a COI on his user page and should only be suggesting edits via the Bunasawa talk page. The COI policy has been explained to the user, but unfortunately (as we saw at the AfD) he is a disruptive editor with little respect for policy.

I get that he is trying to save the article from deletion, but (a) the material he is adding isn't helping to establish notability, and (b) working outside of the COI policy isn't the way to go. I'll reserve judgement on whether he is involved in the apparent meat puppetry at the subject's talk page - but clearly there is a lot to worry about re: this article, this user and the general situation since the AfD was opened. Axad12 (talk) 14:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@Axad12 @Marchjuly thanks for flagging. I've extended the p-block to the article. DN is welcome to use the Talk page. Star Mississippi 23:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

User:BQWI

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:BQWI committed acts of vandalism on a Berber editor's home page (User:Aṭlas). BQWI posted offensive and defamatory statements such as "Berbers are creatures from Hell," "All Berber with his small phallus is king," and "A book is like a garden carried in the rectum." The user also uploaded explicit images of human feces and made derogatory comments like "This user loves kawaii culture~!" and other stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElijahOF (talk • contribs) 17:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

The user just attempted to remove this report. Lavalizard101 (talk) 19:37, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP address expressing inappropriate behavior:

Hi, I would like to report this IP address: 2601:984:201:7E90:793E:62CC:7267:1A53, for asking me to come to their house on the MrBeast Burger talk page. This is very inappropriate and I would like them banned. Thank you. HiGuys69420 (talk) 14:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I left the IP a warning on their talk page. This seems like run of the mill vandalism. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 14:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Looking further into the issue, HiGuys69420's usage of "Chris’s kiddie dog and Chris’s Creaming and Dreaming milkshake" is worrying, as my research shows me this is apparently a hoax spread to attack a living person. I've deleted the topic at the talk page and ask HiGuys69420 to be more careful when it comes to BLPs. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 15:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The pagehist at Escape Room (2019 film) also seems to be an issue where OP refuses to use the talk page and is using edit summaries to argue, and just a quick contrib scan is showing someone who doesn't want to collaborate well or show basic respect to other editors. HiGuys, I would highly suggest not calling another editor 'dude' in the future. Nate • (chatter) 16:33, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I was using the talk page but the guy didn’t reply HiGuys69420 (talk) 16:34, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Then notify them on their own talk page. And the IP was clearly a drive-by that just needed a simple reversion. Nate • (chatter) 16:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I saw it on twitter and thought it was real HiGuys69420 (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Please don't do that again in the future. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 16:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

"I saw it on Twitter and thought it was real" is a statement that beautifully summarises our day and age. Ostalgia (talk) 19:14, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

sigh. Insanityclown1 (talk) 00:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

That IP should remember that Wikipedia is WP:NOTFORUM. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:20, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

User:July2806

July2806 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Has made a lot of uniscussed moves and reverted anyone who reverted them per WP:RMUM AlexBobCharles (talk) 18:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@AlexBobCharles: I'm not seeing where they've move-warred, can you share a particular page where this has been a problem? Elli (talk | contribs) 23:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

There's Special:Redirect/logid/163506984 and Special:Redirect/logid/163508061, for one. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah that's certainly not great and I'm not confident in their competence regarding moves generally (they have moved Interim Government of Mohammad Mokhber four times in recent days). Given this I have WP:PBLOCKed them from making page moves as a preventative measure. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Block evasion and ongoing disruption at List of video games with LGBT characters

I made a previous report about this only a month ago, and to no one's surprise, the moment protection expired, the same vandal immediately resumed doing the exact same thing ([242] [243]), not even trying to hide that they're the same person (note that they are once again using the name of a Xenoblade character for their account like last time). Given this seems unlikely to stop, I would like to request either permanent or much longer-lasting protection for the page (and potentially its two subpages) to prevent this from continuing. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 01:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Canterbury Tail: and @Daniel Case:, who were responsible for the previous block and protection. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 01:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Protected again for a month. Daniel Case (talk) 02:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Much obliged. In the meantime, can someone else take care of Ontos30 for block evasion, please? -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 02:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Indef'ed. DMacks (talk) 03:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Inappropriate behavior by Zanbarg

I want to report @Zanbarg: for inappropriate behavior. First, the editor is exhibiting ownership of content.[244][245] Second, the editor is exhibiting this kind of attitude in user talk pages.[246][247][248] I've directly told the editor to stop harassing me in my talk page but they won't leave my talk page, and asking me to be friends with them.[249][250][251] Third, the editor has been adding poorly sourced "episode summaries". The references don't line up to the episode summaries posted by the editor. I've brought up the issue in the article's talk page.[252] The editor simply reverted their edit back into the article.[253]Hotwiki (talk) 05:20, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Harassment over Kevin McSheehan article

Kevin McSheehan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

So I edited Kevin McSheehan, I cut some bad sourcing, it looked a bit shaky for notability and I tagged it accordingly.

Since then I've been receiving threat messages by email and text and a phone call this morning (my phone number is public), purporting to be from the article subject, demanding I revert the article!

(The threats have been forwarded to the arbcom and by them to WMF.)

Joe-jobs exist, so I'm not going to state it's really Mr. McSheehan. But whoever it is is annoying and persistent.

I'm not worried for myself, but other editors should probably be aware that touching this article might lead to being annoyed by a foolish person.

I have no interest in editing the article further, but it could probably do with more (and experienced) eyes on it - David Gerard (talk) 09:50, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

For removing this trash cite that went to the guy's own website and a patent database? Christ. Can't have shit in Cincinnati I guess. jp×g🗯️ 10:55, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

oh, the article's author who had like a handful of edits between 2009 and now uploaded the image of the guy in the article and tagged it "own work", and also bro has a bunch of tough guy posts on twitter about how he could kick my ass if i watch anime that he locked replies to followers only. Hell yeah dude. True 500 IQ four-dimensional chess if true 😂😂 jp×g🗯️ 11:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Ubaldo Pfannerstill warning users for making constructive edits, this is an LTA that I can't remember.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ubaldo_Pfannerstill Title says it all. Obvious DUCK of another user who recently got indeffed for the same thing. Needs to be indeffed. Jdcomix (talk) 15:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

This would likely be a sock of Hamish Ross. Schazjmd (talk) 15:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

That's the one. Jdcomix (talk) 15:50, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Raykoosi0

Raykoosi0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Classical WP:NOTHERE WP:TENDENTIOUS user.

Personal attack for not getting allowed to alter sourced information; "Bro, stop changing Kurdish history. That's why no Kurds like being called Iranian. Why do you do that to Kurds? We are cousins by blood. Racist!"

Severe WP:COMPETENCE issues. Eg here [254] when I listed several policies for them to read after they ranted about their personal crusade, they replied; "Sir, are you a robot or a human? I’m talking in human language, so stop switching to robot mode." There is also this one here [255], where they still don't understand that they have to reach WP:CONSENSUS and use WP:RS, not Reddit nor their personal opinion.

Edit warring and/or removal/alteration of sourced information because it clashes with their POV;

• Zaza language [256] [257] [258]
• Battle of Kirkuk (2017) [259] [260] [261] [262]
• Rawadid dynasty [263] [264] [265]

They have already openly declared their intentions on this site a few times, which is basically to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS [266] [267]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi. You misunderstood the topic. I was a Peshmerga fighting in that battle, and I was there. I know this topic is very sensitive and needs more work and the Reddit link was for you, not for the Wikipedia page. I was trying to make you understand the topic, and the reversal you did regarding the Rawwadids was against reality. I added reliable sources without changing the topic or removing the sources. It seems you are trying to engage in an edit war with me, which makes me want to leave Wikipedia. I have studied Middle Eastern history and am a professional in this topic. I can speak all the main languages of the Middle East, which allows me to conduct extensive research on these topics. I hope you stop the edit war with me. I have read all the Wikipedia rules you sent yesterday, and now I understand them better. This is why you shouldn't treat me as the same person. I hope you understand. Raykoosi0 (talk) 13:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I was a Peshmerga fighting in that battle, and I was there.

Even if that's true, Wikipedia is based on WP:RS, not your personal opinion/deduction.

I was trying to make you understand the topic

I don't need to "understand" anything from you nor Reddit. You are not scholars.

the reversal you did regarding the Rawwadids was against reality.

Again, Wikipedia is based on WP:RS, not your personal opinion/deduction.

It seems you are trying to engage in an edit war with me, which makes me want to leave Wikipedia.

Yet you have been reverted by multiple users by now [268] [269] [270].

I have studied Middle Eastern history and am a professional in this topic. I can speak all the main languages of the Middle East, which allows me to conduct extensive research on these topics.

Again, Wikipedia is based on WP:RS, not your personal opinion/deduction.

I have read all the Wikipedia rules you sent yesterday, and now I understand them better.

Clearly not per your comment here and disruptive edit today which was reverted by me [271]. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:58, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

What about the reliable sources that I added? I wrote them, and most of them were far from my opinion and included sources like Iranica and other reliable sources.But you still removed my chanfe it? Raykoosi0 (talk) 14:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

• Removed my changes. Raykoosi0 (talk) 14:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

  I assume you're referring to this [272]. So altering sourced information is okay as long as you also add sourced information? Heck, you even cherrypicked that Iranica citation [273], because it literally states that the Rawadids were of originally Arab stock right above the bit about Ibn Khallikan/Ebn Ḵallekān, and you tried to dispute that in the article. https://kurdshop.net/ is also not WP:RS, and you also even added unsourced info in that diff. So much for reading the rules. You are WP:NOTHERE, and I won't entertain your comments anymore. I'll wait for an admin verdict. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

  Why is it cherry-picked when I added both opinions that are in Iranica? Which one was missing on the Wikipedia page? You literally tried to hide the truth. I don’t know the reason; I hope it’s not related to hate. You did the same to another person who was trying to add the second opinion, but you removed it. [This one] Raykoosi0 (talk) 14:45, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

  Why is it cherry-picked when I added both opinions that are in Iranica?

  Expect that there are not "both opinions". Perhaps you should spend more time reading the source than Reddit, this is what it starts with; "RAWWADIDS (Ar. Rawwādiya, Rawādiya), a family of Arab descent that controlled Tabriz and north-eastern Azerbaijan in the late 8th and early 9th centuries. Their Kurdicized descendants ruled over Azerbaijan and parts of Armenia in the second half of the 10th and much of the 11th century."

  I don’t know the reason; I hope it’s not related to hate.

  Once again suggesting that I am racist, despite you being reverted [274] and warned [275] by an admin for calling me a racist and whatnot. More proof that you are WP:NOTHERE.

  You did the same to another person who was trying to add the second opinion, but you removed it. [This one]

  More dishonesty. The reason for my revert is explained here [276]. HistoryofIran (talk) 15:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

  This is my last time addressing this topic, and I will leave it to the admins. I didn’t say you are racist in the previous conversation; I just said I hope it’s not associated with hate. How is this the same? Please stop associating today with my previous conversation, as I mentioned I hadn’t read the rules before.

  "I don't need to "understand" anything from you nor Reddit. You are not scholars."

  Your responses feel quite harsh. Saying you won’t try to understand me just because I’m not a scholar makes it seem like you see yourself as superior to others.

  And again, you ignored this and cherry-picked only the first part of Iranica:

  The Rawwadids are described by Ebn Ḵallekān (d. 681/1282) as a branch of the Haḏbāni Kurds, and Ebn al-Aṯir (XI, p. 341) says the Rawwadids were “the most noble of the Kurds.” Raykoosi0 (talk) 15:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

  This is my last time addressing this topic, and I will leave it to the admins. I didn’t say you are racist in the previous conversation; I just said I hope it’s not associated with hate. How is this the same? Please stop associating today with my previous conversation, as I mentioned I hadn’t read the rules before.

  Drop the act. You were indicating that I was hating Kurds. If thats not racism then what is it?

  Your responses feel quite harsh. Saying you won’t try to understand me just because I’m not a scholar makes it seem like you see yourself as superior to others.

  Im sorry for ruining your scholar roleplaying, but as youve been told countless times, Wikipedia is based on WP:RS, not you and Reddit. If anything, it is you that think you are superior since you think we have to follow your words rather than that of WP:RS.

  And again, you ignored this and cherry-picked only the first part of Iranica: The Rawwadids are described by Ebn Ḵallekān (d. 681/1282) as a branch of the Haḏbāni Kurds, and Ebn al-Aṯir (XI, p. 341) says the Rawwadids were “the most noble of the Kurds.”

  The author (Peacock) is simply mentioning their reports, nothing more. He still ultimately introduces them as Kurdificed Arabs. You boast so much about your skills yet you cant even understand a simple Enclyopedia article. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked Raykoosi0 for 24 hours because of violations of WP:GS/KURD's extended-confirmed restriction, which have continued after a warning. I made the block partial so that they could continue to participate in this discussion. The block is not directly related to the main substance of this complaint, and it shouldn't be considered to have resolved the issue here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Cool Raykoosi0 (talk) 15:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

User:ILoveDenpaMen48

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

ILoveDenpaMen48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Apparently sharing their account and/or not here to build an encyclopedia; [277]; [278]. Note edit summary here, alsoAndy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I am, it's just that my sister sometimes gets into my phone without permission. I made sure she is banned from my phone. ILoveDenpaMen48 (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Blocked by Bbb23 as a WP:COMPROMISED account. --Yamla (talk) 18:22, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Their excuse was technically considered WP:LITTLEBROTHER, to nobody's surprise. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 18:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Goodymeraj, #WPWP2024 entrant

• Goodymeraj (talk · contribs · logs)

User is taking part in the Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos 2024 competition, where whoever adds the most images to articles before August 31 wins a prize. They had a few messages about inappropriate and off-topic additions earlier in the month and after being reported to the competition organiser User:Reading Beans were told by them to "Please, desist from adding images for the #WPWP2024."

They've decided to keep going, though, and yesterday returned to add an unrelated photo to the psychic cold reading article of some people performing the script of a play cold (because the Commons picture description uses the phrase "cold reading").

Given that the competition runs for another month, and runs every year (Goodymeraj also took part in 2023), and that the user isn't responding on their talk page, this may merit a block to at least get their attention. Belbury (talk) 08:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

• Ah, the annual WPWP image spamming problem. I've just removed another one as well. Not all their additions are bad - indeed, most of the ones this morning were actually fine - but it is sometimes really random what they're adding (the image of a traffic junction for Rosmalen Grass Court Championships was spectacular). I can understand why mass-reverting might be tempting, as User:FMSky did this morning, but can we at least look at them, as some of those were actually OK as well? I've just reverted a couple to put the image back in. As to what we actually do here, I'm open to suggestions. Black Kite (talk) 08:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

  They're possibly just searching Commons for the article title, and using any result that seems to fit. That can often be helpful, but of the eleven new images that they've added to articles in the past few days, five have since been reverted for not actually depicting the article subject. That's a poor success rate.

  If the user can't see their talk pages (a competition organiser asked them to write fuller captions a while ago but they haven't taken this advice) or speak English well enough to understand what's being posted there, they may not realise that there is a problem. Belbury (talk) 09:00, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

  Looking at recent errors the same images were being used on these subjects' Wikidata entries, so the user may just be uncritically repeating mistakes that have been made on Wikidata (either taking the images from there directly, or from a Commons image search that takes the incorrect Wikidata entry into account). Belbury (talk) 09:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

This user has a repeated pattern of disruptive behaviour and clearly not here to build an encyclopaedia. There are repeated warnings from editors and myself. This user has also been reported to administrators in the Igbo Wikipedia and also on Meta. I would support a block if proposed. Best, Reading Beans 09:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

It may be worth noting that I did some back-of-the-envelope calculations for this last year based on the sum of the prize pot, the leaderboard, and the amount of time it took me (a very experienced technical and content editor with a lot of scripts and a decent multi-monitor computer setup) to add images. I am a pretty damn fast editor, but the minimum amount of time it took me to find and add an illustration meant that I would have been far at the bottom of the class unless I was adding images as a full-time job. jp×g🗯️ 09:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Or unless you didn't care whether the image was relevant (the subject of this thread added eleven images in 8 minutes yesterday, most of which were useless). Black Kite (talk) 09:50, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, right -- it was basically set up so that doing this was the only reasonable way of competing . jp×g🗯️ 10:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Per Reading Beans above, this is a WP:NOTHERE user who is not responding to questions. If a partial block can prevent the user from adding any images, that could be sufficient. Otherwise, a block for disruption is in the interest of the encyclopedia.Dialectric (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

This is a competition doomed to fail, alongside competitions about creating the most articles possible. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:17, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Tridaspe

Tridaspe is an obvious duck of User:Ergobus who mass-uploaded a bunch of copyrighted Plants vs Zombies images. Someone might want to nuke them. C F A 💬 20:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm trying nuke them, but I think there's an issue with the mass delete script. It's just hanging, then I get the error %error_body_content%.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Seems to have resolved itself despite the error message. I nuked Alcho0's uploads as well.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Maybe we were running into each other. I was trying to nuke the files and got the same error. -- Whpq (talk) 20:56, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Colman2000 and close paraphrasing

User:Colman2000 has received some warnings for copyright violations close paraphrasing, but the latter issue persisted, as outlined at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations#Colman2000. They have not responded to the most recent warnings nor the CCI notice, but have continued editing in the same vein. Basically, they take text from (mostly) the Texas State Historical Association Handbook of Texas online edition, following it line by line, but either using synonyms or somewhat changing the word order to avoid direct copyvios. E.g. today they expanded Lake Creek, Texas in this fashion[279]. I'll post some clear examples, but everything else is closely following the original as well.

Three examples, many more can be provided if necessary
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Article: "More people came to farm the fertile ground beside the creek after the Civil War. Among them were Sarah Ann and John W. Wilson, who came in the latter part of the 1860s. Wilson was a Methodist cotton farmer and circuit rider who quickly constructed one of Delta County's first gins." Source: "After the Civil War more settlers arrived to farm the rich land along the creek. These included John W. and Sarah Ann Wilson, who arrived late in the 1860s. Wilson was a Methodist circuit rider and cotton farmer, who soon built one of the first gins in Delta County." Similarly, yesterday, they expanded Enloe, Texas. Again, an example of the long close paraphrasing: Article: "The population was 400 in 1914. Residents had access to a phone exchange and may attend either the Methodist Episcopal or Baptist churches. There were two banks, a bakery, a telegraph office, two general stores, a café, an apothecary, and a seed store among the businesses. The town also housed the headquarters of the Carson Lumber Company. The main industry in the area was cotton shipping, which employed two gins and seven cotton buyers." Source: "In 1914 the population was 400. Residents could attend either the Baptist or Methodist Episcopal church and had access to a telephone exchange. Businesses included two banks, a telegraph office, a restaurant, two general stores, an apothecary, a seed store, and a bakery. The Carson Lumber Company was also headquartered in town. Cotton shipping was the major industry, and the community supported seven cotton buyers and two gins." Third and final example, from yesterdays expansion of Ben Franklin, Texas: Article: "Isaac B. Nelson opened the first post office in 1853 in his one-room cottage at the intersection. At the time, the Wynn and Donaldson distillery, the Greenville Smith sawmill, and cotton gins were all supported by the locals in Lamar County. Taliaferro B. Chaffin gave a Methodist Episcopal church two acres in 1854. Smith's sawmill supplied the materials used by the citizens to construct the building." Source: "The first post office was established by Isaac B. Nelson in 1853 at his one-room cabin on the crossroads. The community, at that time in Lamar County, supported cotton gins, the Greenville Smith sawmill, and the Wynn and Donaldson distillery. In 1854 Taliaferro B. Chaffin donated two acres for a Methodist Episcopal church. Citizens built the structure from materials provided by Smith's sawmill."

I don't know if a final warning from someone here would suffice or if a block is needed to stop this. The actual cleanup can be done through the CCI, but making sure that the list of articles needing cleanup doesn't get longer would be appreciated. Fram (talk) 10:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

As those examples have been written with exactly the same number of sentences, and that the context of each sentence doesn't differ, these are fine examples indeed. It doesn't help that the History section of Lake Creek, Texas is written in one long paragraph either. Maybe just mention to Colman that simply rewriting the sentence is still regarded as close paraphrasing? They really need to write like they know about the subject themselves. A^♭m ^(Ring!) _(Notes) 10:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

He's ignoring notices and doing the same thing again the following day, particularly on Kensing, Texas. @Diannaa I hope you don't mind being pinged here, but I know you're an expert on handling copyright and plagiarism. Would you mind taking care of this matter? A^♭m ^(Ring!) _(Notes) 20:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked the editor. Hopefully the CCI case will be opened soon. — Diannaa (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, both. Fram (talk) 07:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I generally like to distance myself from ANI, but... As a courtesy note of related discussions for anyone following here, a CCI has now been accepted, the user submitted a successful unblock request, and they have started a related Teahouse thread. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 23:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Karl Erik Edvin block evasion

Karl Erik Edvin (talk · contribs) does exactly same unreferenced edits in articles about Swedish wars as recently blocked IPs 85.230.77.37 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 2A00:801:757:8855:488E:1AA1:F5CF:D4C8 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), see User talk:Karl Erik Edvin. - Altenmann >talk 20:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Now this person shamelessly spams my talk page. Why are you not blocking this account? - Altenmann >talk 03:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Based on behavior, I have blocked User:Karl Erik Edvin for disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 04:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Persistent disruptive editing by 2601:8C0:37F:63ED:0:0:0:0/64

2601:8C0:37F:63ED:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps making disruptive edits like adding fictional character entries that they describe as "sexy" to disambiguation pages (1, 2, 3, 4), and removing romanized Japanese titles with no explanation (1, 2, 3, 4). Hasn't responded to warnings, and behaviour continued after a 48 hour block on July 30th. Waxworker (talk) 03:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Blocked the /64 range for two weeks as a regular admin action. Hopefully this time it will get their attention. --Yamla (talk) 09:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Fennoskand performing disruptive edits on the Karelian National Movement page

So this is similar to something I've dealt with before (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1156#user:stop the occupation of karelia and user:MiteriPanfilov unusual edits) but basically User:Fennoskand is promoting a very biased view of the Karelian National Movement. Normally I wouldn't take this to ANI this quickly, but I have dealt with this in the past and there is very clear disruption here. Gaismagorm (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

looks like they have stopped already, I guess I probably should've waited before reporting. Gaismagorm (talk) 10:50, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

nevermind they are arguing with me on their talk page (at least I think they are, it's an unregistered user, but they are speaking in a similar way to this users old talk page comment) Gaismagorm (talk) 11:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

content removals by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/31.216.224.152

See [280] -- loads of content removals, using the same edit summary. I figure a block is needed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I've notified them on their talk page. Please note that It's required that you notify them on their talk page when discussing an ANI issue. Pinging them on their notifications is not enough. PEPSI697 (talk) 09:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Blocked as a proxy (INFATICA_PROXY (RESIDENTIAL), OXYLABS_PROXY (RESIDENTIAL)). Admins and users are free to take whatever other options are appropriate here. --Yamla (talk) 09:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I can't connect the account of whom the edits were reverted by this IP to any known SPI or LTA but any expert is free to do it. A09|(talk) 11:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Rather distinctive edit summaries but it doesn’t ring any bells with me. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Masterliverwort

Masterliverwort just revealed that they are sock of Kemilliogolgi (a sock belonging to AdityaNakul sockfarm) see this SPI for background. Ratnahastin (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked the account for  Confirmed socking.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive and persistent editing by a promotional SPA dodging their ban.

Possible banned sockpuppet (unconfirmed as of now; sockpuppet investigation page) re-adding removed promotional material by making single purpose accounts, repeatedly on Death of Rey Rivera and refusing to join in on Talk Page discussions.

Also, violation of WP:NPA in their edit summary.

Awshort (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Nora has engaged in multiple violations of the 3rr rule. Insanityclown1 (talk) 18:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Ponyo has blocked. Is a blocking TPA necessary as well perhaps given the fact that Nora is throwing wild accusations around? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insanityclown1 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

• I have rev-deleted the edits made as well, just to be on the safe side. Black Kite (talk) 21:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks. I added Pimpinela6 to the SPI as well for good measure. Insanityclown1 (talk) 21:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Legal threat over Bryant & Stratton College

I am the recipient of a legally threatening letter, supposedly from Bryant & Stratton College, attempting to control the editing of that page. I feel confident that the letter is not actually from the college; while the letter itself says its come from Buffalo, the Swiss stamps and the German? postmark indicate it was mailed from Europe. I am also think it almost certain that the mail is from a floating IP editor who has been active at Talk:Bryant & Stratton College, as he stated on the 26th that they had notified the college of the discussion (the letter was supposedly composed on the 25th) and the letter reflects the concerns and wording that they had used earlier, and the IP locates them to Switzerland. I should note that a similarly dubious legal letter was sent to user CollegeMeltdown five years ago. I should also note that there is a current sock puppet investigation about a possible link between registered user AsteroidComet and the IP.

I am uncertain all of what is to be done here. Certainly, if the SPI concludes with a confirmation, AsteroidComet should be blocked. It is worth considering whether the college's article and talk page should be put in a permanent page-protected state, as this is a problem with a multi-year history and discouraging this IP from involving themselves on the page might reduce the risk of it continuing (at the cost of blocking uninvolved IP/new editors, but it seems at least most of the IP edits to that Talk page are likely from the same individual.) Folks here may have some better ideas of what is to be done. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I would think, regardless of what on-wiki actions are taken, you need to contact WMF Legal at legal@wikimedia.org to advise them of the letter and ask for advice and next steps. Even if it's a stunt, a legal notice sent via postal mail becomes something they may want to follow up on. Grandpallama (talk) 00:31, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Not a lawyer yet, But Grandpallama is giving good advice. Don't ignore this. Send it to the proper folks and let them decide what needs to be done. Insanityclown1 (talk) 01:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I sent them a copy shortly after I posted this. (Not my first time dealing with WMF Legal.) Thank you for caring. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

No problem. I always take the "trust, but verify" approach to this sort of thing, as the potential to spiral into a complete dumpster fire is just to significant to ignore. Insanityclown1 (talk) 01:07, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Jumpy542

User:Jumpy542 has repeatedly submitted drafts that they have not previously worked on (e.g. [281], [282]), and that are clearly not ready for submission or previously declined and not since improved (as evidenced by their long list of user talk page notices for rejected draft submissions. They have also been doing something similar with submitting DYK hooks (I frankly don't know the process well enough to understand the details, but User:SL93 in particular has repeatedly engaged Jumpy542 about this). Jumpy542 has been minimally communicative or noncommunicative in response to queries about their activity, and I have reached the point of considering this either incompetence or intentional trolling sufficient to raise WP:NOTHERE. BD2412 T 03:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

For the DYK hooks, Jumpy542 has been promoting DYK hooks to the prep areas which they have no business doing. I highly doubt that Jumpy542 has been reviewing those promoted articles for errors (or even that they know how to) because they promoted the hooks without even closing the nomination pages. Jumpy542 stopped with promoting DYKs once a block was mentioned by Schwede66 at User talk:Jumpy542#DYKs. Just recently, Jumpy542 posted a DYK main page notification (and incorrectly) on my talk page when the article has yet to reach the main page. The have also edited someone else's user page. SL93 (talk) 03:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to go with seriously incompetent and refusing to listen. What is the solution? There's options--an indef block is one, but that's harsh, and I don't know how a temporary block would help. No one ever spends a week of being blocked by practicing and reading up. A block from draft space is a reasonable, certainly. If they continue disrupting the DYK space we may have to consider extending the block into other spaces. BTW right now they seem to be just adding WikiProjects to drafts--are they doing at least a decent job? Is it useful? SL93, BD2412, let me know what you think. Drmies (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

My base concern is, why are they behaving this way? Promoting DYK hooks is not generally newbie behavior, so the early focus on that raises my hackles. I am dubious about the possibility of a minimally communicative editor going from incompetently participating in DYK and draftspace to competently and communicatively (as appropriate) participating in other spaces. My instinct is to indef, but I feel that such a step would need validation from the community.

As to your specific question, their WikiProject additions do appear to be correct. Whether they are useful depends largely on whether the drafts to which they have been added are any good. BD2412 T 18:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I might think that an indef block would be extreme if Jumpy542 would show that they understand, but their response to this discussion on their talk page was just "ok". When I asked them why they posted an incorrect DYK notification about my nominated article being on the main page, they said that they were still learning. I don't know what them still learning has to do with posting fake DYK notifications. SL93 (talk) 20:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, here we are, seven hours later, and the editor offered an "ok" and then went right back to putting things on draft talk pages. I don't get it. I'm going to go and indef, for a mixture of incompetence, "I didn't hear that", uncollaborative editing, and general disruption. Drmies (talk) 23:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it's a shame, but the non-engagement is itself dodgy. The editor can always appeal the block and provide their reasoning in that request. BD2412 T 02:20, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive user moving their userpage and other pages

This user: User:VishnuPriyan.G keeps moving their userpage into mainspace, moved the Login page to another title, and is disruptively creating empty pages and moving them for no reason (not to mention that they could also be editing while logged out). I already filed a report at WP:AIV but it has apparently gone unnoticed. Could someone please block them? Clearly a case of WP:NOTHERE. Thank you. CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

You need to notify the involved party. I have done that for you. Insanityclown1 (talk) 06:03, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@Insanityclown1: Thank you! CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:06, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

And blocked by user:Robertsky Meters (talk) 06:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Persistent addition of unsourced content by 2A02:C7C:52F5:3100:0:0:0:0/64

2A02:C7C:52F5:3100:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content, hasn't responded to warnings. Examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4. Waxworker (talk) 06:19, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Please notify the subject of an ANI report. Per the header of the page it is required. Insanityclown1 (talk) 07:31, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@Insanityclown1: - I already did to the talk page of the most recently used IP on the /64 shortly after making this report. Waxworker (talk) 07:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Belomaad (continued)

This is a follow-up to an earlier post here, titled User Belomaad.

First there was Belomaad's edit-war in Umm Kulthum bint Ali, where he repeatedly added unreliably-sourced content to the article. That material was finally removed with the intervention of AirshipJungleman29.

Then came Belomaad's poorly-sourced and sectarian edits to Criticism of Twelver Shia Islam, which were spotted by StarkReport. The issue was apparently resolved when Belomaad removed their own content. After that came Belomaad's poorly-sourced or unsourced edits to Hadith of pen and paper, like this one. Please see Talk:Hadith of pen and paper#Unconsciousness.

More recently, Belomaad has made a string of edits to Muhammad al-Mahdi, Occultation (Islam), Hadith of the twelve successors, Origin of Shia Islam, Imamate in Shia Islam, in which this user selectively quoted from reliable sources to push a certain sectarian POV. I reversed most of these edits, explaining that editors are expected to survey the literature and give each view its due weight. And that Belomaad first needs to reach a consensus on each article's talk page. In turn, Belomaad has accused me of stalking. I'm not stalking anyone. It's just happens that the above articles are on my watchlist, I've contributed substantially to most of them, and feel particularly responsible for safeguarding them against polemics and sectarian propaganda.

Should something be done? Pushing a particular sectarian POV is the unmistakable pattern in Belomaad's edits. Even if we turn a blind eye and somehow assume WP:GOODFAITH, the fact remains that the time spent undoing Belomaad's damage to these articles could have been spent improving Wikipedia. To sum, Project Wikipedia is about creating a reliable and neutral encyclopedia. Belomaad is obviously not here for that. He repeatedly targets articles about Shia Islam and sabotages them by adding biased and often poorly-sourced content. Albertatiran (talk) 07:24, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Had you checked my contributions, you would have known that I also contributed to articles and other wiki projects that aren’t related to Islam at all.

Your contributions, on the other hand, are all Islam related.

StarkReport had a very respectful conversation and presented their view and was clearly there to help, which is why we could reach an agreement. But you, on the other hand, attack fellow editors and aren’t ready to collaborate at all. This pattern repeated itself with Shadowwarrior8 who is a more experienced editor than me which is why the whole thing only ended with a ban. On the other hand, I never experienced such people on Wikipedia before, so I couldn’t present my view like Shadowwarrior8. Belomaad (talk) 11:22, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Belomaad, please be more specific. When have I been "disrespectful" to you? And when did you ever try to collaborate and address my concerns on the talk page? It seems to me that you're deflecting the problem by making irrelevant and personal accusations. Also note that Shadowwarrior8 was banned equally and I'm not sure how that separate case has any relevance here. Albertatiran (talk) 11:51, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Dimadick

User:Dimadick has posted this antisemitic libel. How is such a thing still allowed here? --Gonnym (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding. Which part of Zionism as settler colonialism was not clear to you? Dimadick (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Where in Zionism as settler colonialism does it say that "the main purpose for Zionism's existence" is "genocide"? Rlendog (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I hate to sound like devil's advocate but the article mentions stuff like this:

"This perspective contends that Zionism involves processes of elimination and assimilation of Palestinians, akin to other settler colonial contexts such as the United States and Australia."

That sounds like the definition of genocide to me.

May not say it is the main purpose tho.CycoMa1 (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

"processes" does not mean "purpose" Levivich (talk) 18:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Not to mention that according to the article this is just one perspective, hardly a definitive defintion. Rlendog (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. I guess I should cross my comments.CycoMa1 (talk) 14:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

It's an editor trying to impose their own beliefs as fact and creating a WP:BATTLEGROUND environment, which is certainly an indictment on their ability to participate in this topic area (as is the case with a good number of people in this topic area). But that doesn't mean it's appropriate to take it straight to ANI with a single diff. If you have more diffs of the editor engaging in this sort of behavior over a longer period of time, then it might be appropriate to file at WP:AE. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Thebiguglyalien You are aware that the diff was a Support/Oppose vote on a move request from Palestinian genocide accusation to Palestinian genocide? How else could you support such a move request without claiming it as your belief that the other title was more accurate? Black Kite (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

The statement that is being objected to goes beyond saying that the editor believes that Palestinian genocide is a more accurate title. Rlendog (talk) 21:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest using sources and policy based arguments, not just your own belief on what Zionism means. It's also needlessly inflammatory so say that the main purpose of Zionism is to commit genocide, rather than establish a homeland for for the Jewish people. There is a wide chasm between something being a purpose and something being a possible result.

We should really be clamping down on personal views as an argument in this topic area. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Let me make sure I understand, if an editor says an homophobic, raciest, or other hateful speech, but only does so occasionally, it's ok? So saying something like <Hateful speech> followed by This is the main purpose for black people's existence, This is the main purpose for gays's existence, or This is the main purpose for women's existence is fine? Or if I truly believe it as Black Kite comments, then there isn't even an issue here? Gonnym (talk) 06:37, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

The difference is that sexual orientation and race are immutable characteristics, while Zionism is an ideology or a belief. If someone said something to the effect of "the main purpose of communism is genocide", that's obviously inappropriate and raises questions about whether the person should be participating in the topic area, but it's not at the same level as making such generalizations against black people or gay people. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

People who use "Zionisim" use it as a substitute to mean Jews, and it's plainly obvious. Gonnym (talk) 07:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

That is a completely ridiculous nonsense statement. Zionism is not Judaism. Levivich (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Zionism can absolutely be used as a dog whistle for Jews, especially by people who deny that it's ever a dog whistle. But that's the point of dog whistles: they can also be used innocuously, so there's plausible deniability. Do you have any evidence that this particular use is meant to invoke Jews more broadly, beyond a hunch? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

While this could be considered uncivil and inappropriate for the venue, labeling it as “antisemitic” is being downright deceitful. There is nothing even remotely anti-Semitic in the linked comment. Conflating Zionism and Judaism is a common way for Israel’s supporters to silence and deflect criticism and shouldn’t be humored by the community. Having said that, I can see how the contents of Dimadick’s could be seen as inflammatory and uncivil. Unless there are any substantial accusations of anti-semitism or further examples of incivility, then I don’t see anything that needs to be done here aside from maybe a warning for both users. Elspamo4 (talk) 12:13, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. Like you can be jewish and be anti-zionism.CycoMa1 (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I was gonna comment the same thing but you commented it earlier . Even WP says it Weaponization of antisemitism AlexBobCharles (talk) 07:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Just thought I should jump. Personally I think saying:

"This not an accusation, this is a historical genocide. This is the main purpose for Zionism's existence."

goes a bit too far.

But I also think it's a stretch to go around accusing editors of having bigotted beliefs for a single comment that seems problematic.

By any chance, can someone provide anymore diffs that may such suggest this user has bigotted beliefs? No, then I doubt this user is a nazi.CycoMa1 (talk) 18:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Behaviour is not binary between policy-compliant and demonstrating nazism, this Godwinistic jump does not help the discussion. CMD (talk) 18:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I know. Just coming in as an outside neutral force.CycoMa1 (talk) 18:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Speaking of policy. I have seen only one comment in this discussion link to any policy pages.CycoMa1 (talk) 18:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Maybe this kind of thing wouldn't happen if !vote arguments based on personal opinions rather than policy were treated like hate speech, or at least came with some kind of disincentivizing cost. Wikipedia editors don't need to know that Dimadick thinks Zionism is genocidal and Gonnym thinks this is antisemitic libel. Make a policy-based argument or say nothing seems pretty straightforward. Sean.hoyland (talk) 18:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you but substance-free !votes are a problem everywhere on Wikipedia. (I would love it if we started sanctioning people for it, though, right down to "keep, it's important!" and such, because substance-free votes are disruptive.) Levivich (talk) 18:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

The opportunity cost of enforcing that is too high. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Good point. We don't really need to sanction editors, what we need is to have closes that discount such votes, and close reviews that uphold such closes. The thing that everyone on this website can do, right now, today, to help improve the quality of discussion everywhere, is to vote in close reviews (e.g. at WP:DRV, WP:MR, and WP:AN) to uphold closes that properly discount bad votes, and overturn closes that don't. If enough people do that, things will change. Levivich (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Until that happens that's another huge opportunity cost. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

If you discount non-policy compliant votes then you're accused of "supervoting". You can't win. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Maybe a swear jar-like thing. A personal opinion based !vote costs you your extendedconfirmed rights or 500 minor typo/gnoming fixes. Or maybe editors in contentious topic areas could be paired-up like couples to get helpful ego-crushing feedback from their partner. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Too punitive, and too hard to enforce. I agree there should be something to help this situation though - maybe something like how SPAs' comments can be tagged with {{spa}} (which looks like this — example (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ), maybe a different version could be created for opinion based voting - eg. {{opinion vote}} "— The previous comment seems to be based on personal opinion rather than citing Wikipedia policy". This in effect would act like a minor trouting, and an indicator to the closer. (Actual usage of this template would be discouraged unless the topic necessitates it - in the same way usage of {{spa}} is generally discouraged). BugGhost🦗👻 08:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

There is also this gem: Last I checked, I have never defended Zionism as an ideology, since I consider it to be a racist excuse to exploit the Palestinians. FortunateSons (talk) 22:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The longer quote is even worse: Since when do I defend child abuse? Last I checked, I have never defended Zionism as an ideology, since I consider it to be a racist excuse to exploit the Palestinians. Gonnym (talk) 07:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

You're misquoting him

In response to this:

1. Are you a zionist?
2. why do you downplay child abuse through your edits?
3. Why do you promote abortion so much?
4. Are you related financially or work in a non profit organization that promotes abortion or downplay child abuse victims such as law firms that defend abusers?

He answered

The "Since when do i defend child abuse?" was related to question 2 and 4 , the "Last I checked, I have never defended Zionism as an ideology, since I consider it to be a racist excuse to exploit the Palestinians." was related to question 1 . AlexBobCharles (talk) 08:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Well it was in response to this [283] . AlexBobCharles (talk) 08:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

The most serious thing in this thread is an editor calling this "antisemitic libel". You may disagree with it, and the comment in a move request should be backed by more than personal opinion on "I think this is true", but antisemitic it is not, and there should be some sort of sanction for the people throwing that accusation around. nableezy - 19:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Based. --JBL (talk) 22:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Just so this doesn’t go nowhere, I would say that the rather poor heat/light balance warrants a short ban from the topic area or very stern warning about conduct (with the understanding that repeated behaviour will lead to escalating sanctions), just so we can close this and hopefully avoid future disruption. It has already taken up more than enough time. FortunateSons (talk) 12:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Only if filer is also sanctioned for the antisemitism slur. Else smack hands, back to work. Selfstudier (talk) 12:30, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Assuming this is not typical commentary, I would say that my principal issue is that the statement is uncited and so it is OR, a little bit of which is permissible ordinarily but giving that as a rationale within an admittedly sometimes heated RM on a hot button topic is not going to make friends and influence people. So that's my advice, in future find a cite for things that you would like to say and if you cannot, consider whether or not you really want to say that thing.Selfstudier (talk) 19:16, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you really expect every person to cite their views in a talk page discussion? Also im pretty sure both sides of the conflict would find a RS to support their view in this topic area AlexBobCharles (talk) 19:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Not what I said precisely. And if it is something controversial and one cites it, then one does not end up here, at least not for that. Selfstudier (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Their act does not interfere with the purposes of WP and it is in a talk page discussion which normal viewers dont see and if anything reporting and discussing things like this does interfere with the purposes of WP by spending editors times , also keep in mind that accusations of anti-semitism (similar to an accusation of racism but worse) and libel is in itself an accusation per personal beliefs (supported by many (and probably less sources than Israel committing genocide is ) and should have the same action taken. (if you said these things in arwiki they would probably ban you per your logic that you should ban User:Dimadick) AlexBobCharles (talk) 19:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Dimadick could have !voted the same way with the use of less provocative words, and should have. However, the main issue here is with the reporter. Wikipedia must not buy into the notion that negative statements about Zionism are necessarily antisemitic. This is a false claim which is ubiquitous in the world today solely because it is an effective tool in defending Zionism. Accusing someone of antisemitism on this basis alone is a very serious personal attack, and in my opinion should merit an immediate block. Zero^talk 02:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

It is not "solely" in the world because it is an effective tool, it's also in the world because the conflation is quite common with actual antisemitism. If we are trying to reduce sweeping statements conflating the two (and reduce less provocative language in general) we should not justify this with incorrect sweeping statements on other points. CMD (talk) 03:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The objective would presumably be to reduce personal attacks rather than reduce sweeping statements. Sweeping statements don't violate policies. Also, note the presence of the word "necessarily". The issue is the 'if-then-ism', if negative statement about Zionism, then antisemitic libel. No one is disputing that there are antisemites that make negative statements about Zionism. And "...is ubiquitous in the world today solely because..." != "...is in the world today solely because...". But for me, sometimes you can blame the victim too, Dimadick in this case. There is cause and effect here. The reporter is not going around making this accusation every time they see negative statements about Zionism. They were gifted the opportunity to participate in this effort to conflate anti-Zionism and antisemitism by Dimadick thinking that everyone who reads that discussion would benefit from reading their personal non-policy based opinion on the matter. I would challenge the claim above that this "does not interfere with the purposes of WP". If the policy-based arguments are the signal, the rest is noise, literally interference that has to be filtered out by participants/closers etc. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The "necessarily" is not the part I quoted, although you are correct it was an odd contrast with the succeeding sentence, and correct on the cause and effect. The policy problem with crafting this about PAs rather than overall statements is that the initial statement was not what is usually treated as a personal attack on this board, as it was a comment specifically on a contribution rather than on a contributor as a whole. Not the clearest of lines, but usually one applied here to the usual WP:CIVIL discussions. CMD (talk) 05:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Charging someone with writing an "an antisemitic libel" is an assertion about their motivation and is thus 100% a personal attack. Nobody is suggesting that Dimadick typed those words by accident. As for what I wrote, you are partially correct and if I was going to do it again I'd write something like "ubiquitous in the world today primarily because it is an effective tool in defending Israel against criticism". Zero^talk 07:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

This Special:Diff/1236241150 inflammatory comment warrants a warning as a breach of WP:SOAP. This Special:Diff/1236451797 false accusation of antisemitism warrants a block as a breach of WP:NPA. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Based . Also @DaringDonna should have the same WP:SOAP treatment per this section [284]. (It is not clear if "i will take further action" is a threat) AlexBobCharles (talk) 08:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I wrote that before this ANI was created. So I withdraw the comment. DaringDonna (talk) 14:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

This is false you posted on 29 July and the ANI discussion was started on 25 July AlexBobCharles (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I meant to say "before I knew about" the ANI. Selfstudier alerted me to this discussion. DaringDonna (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

It was at my talk page but it wasn't me, it was ScottishFinnishRadish. Selfstudier (talk) 17:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

+1 – the directed libel accusation is far more serious than the somewhat crude, but undirected comment. Ideologies are no more sacred than religion, and all and sundry can sputter disrespects at them, should they so choose – just preferably not on Wikipedia, and not least in places where it is bound to draw ire and see this sort of sorry proceeding. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Please excuse my ignorance. What does the +1 mean? DaringDonna (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreement with the comment being replied to. Selfstudier (talk) 17:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Per FortunateSons, I would endorse a topic ban for both the reporter and the person being reported. Furthermore, I would also be fine if the topic bans were indefinite; this topic area is way too heated already and the comments made by both the reporter and Dimadick are disruptive. Jdcomix (talk) 13:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I think a warning for the reporter (or honestly, a trout) is more than sufficient, and that an indef would be significantly exzessive for the reported person, unless there is some past conduct that I missed. FortunateSons (talk) 13:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm only talking about an indef A/I topic ban, not a block. And the fact that they have made multiple inflammatory non-policy comments in this topic area warrants an indef TBAN imo. Maybe it is excessive, but something needs to be done to improve the quality of A/I discussions, and TBANs for repeated opinionated !votes might be a way to do that. Then again, like I said, this might be too much. Regardless, I support at least some sort of TBAN for Dimadick. Jdcomix (talk) 14:02, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Chin pin choo repeated WP:COPYVIO

Since 31 July, Chin pin choo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been uploading non-free (Associated Press, Reuters, Indian Army) images to 2024 Wayanad landslides as their own work and/or Creative Commons, and deleting talk page questions and copyvio notices about them without any responses.

Images: [285], [286], [287], [288]

Article diffs: [289], [290]

Talk Page diffs: [291], [292], [293], [294], [295]

Further, they've deleted [296] the speedy delete notice on a similar image [297] uploaded by someone else.

Celjski Grad (talk) 16:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Blocked x 36 hrs. They have clearly done some good work, but way too much has been problematic. Hopefully they will take the hint and slow down. Anymore copyvios and the next stop is probably going to be an indef. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:57, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem I know their block hasn't expired yet, but I can unfortunately confirm that this isn't limited to non-free images. They have also copy-pasted text from external sources. See Special:Diff/1238113356 and Special:Diff/1238113054 copy from [298], and Special:Diff//1238111432 copies from [299], Special:Diff/1238128586 partially copies from [300], and Special:Diff/1238128985 partially copies from [301]. I'll check if the prose is still in the article, but they probably need to show at least a modicum of understanding before they can come back.

And I know nobody can tell me this for obvious reasons, but what on earth edit filter "LTA 1122"? They've tripped it 75 times.

GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 05:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I actually found and removed those as well [302], [303], [304] but didn't have time to see who added them. Celjski Grad (talk) 10:17, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@Celjski Grad, @GreenLipstickLesbian I have left them a strongly worded note that I regard as a final warning about their editing and copyright in particular. If there is any further issue, the next step will be an indefinite block. Thank you both for dealing with these copyright violations. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:49, 3 August 2024 (UTC)