Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • Try dispute resolution
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

---

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

Start a new discussion

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

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

Extended content

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  I welcomed feedback from others

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Other physics editors and I have been cleaning up after Drbogdan's "today, scientists reported"-style edits for years. Here's an example from 2019, where (frankly nonsensical) text was added to Bell test based on press-release-level coverage [1]. It took a while for that to get removed [2], because little blue clicky numbers make text look respectable. Here's an example from December of that year at Casimir effect [3]. We had to waste time going through a whole AfD for a page that should never have been made in the first place. Is it the worst thing we have to deal with while maintaining science articles? No, but it is exasperating. XOR'easter (talk) 18:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where Are We?

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've got to say, the incessant name-dropping, like the preposterous claim of "My 100+ publications" (150, actually -- all but six of which turn out to be online comment posts), is absolutely nauseating and adds to the feeling that you have no idea how to distinguish the valuable from just plain crap. EEng 03:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

BTW, here are my 97000+ publications. And no, no one's interested in a picture of Gamow-inspired you at ATF/DC in the Forensic Laboratory doing Neutron activation analysis. Oooooooh, wow! EEng 02:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please explain what you mean by "progress"? How does one make "progress" when the filing editor, Warrenmck, a user with 994 edits stretching back to their first edit a year ago, on 8 March 2023, has made a series of bizarre claims against Drbogdan, a user with 90,324 edits stretching back to 2008 (although he didn't start editing until 2010?) and who has maintained a good record for 14 years?[4] Perhaps Warren's inexperience explains why he thinks Drbogdan isn't allowed to post photos of his hikes on Commons, or why Warren strangely keeps citing the WP:PROSELINE essay, which has zero rationale for any kind of proposed sanctions here. Notice, I am not calling for WP:CIR against Warren here, unlike his calls against DrBogdan for "violating" proseline; no such violation exists, my dude. Drbogdan has spent 14 years building Wikipedia. Your newest false claims about "AfDs" above (you keep making these absurd allegations, without end) is belied by 81.4% of Drbogdan’s main space articles, currently live. Of his 90k lifetime edits, 67.4% are to mainspace. He has contributed content to more than two dozen articles which either became featured articles after his edits or were already featured. If his edits were as problematic as you say, we would know. It is safe to say, his edits are sound based on the total lack of complaints. Furthermore, I continue to find it odd and unprecedented that Warren, a user with little experience and few edits, made his way to ANI, happens to cite the IP in his complaint, who just so happens to be calling for an "indef" for Drbogdan based on almost no actual demonstrable problem. This has all the hallmarks of a content dispute, not a conduct dispute. As I've shown above, Drbogdan has edited harmoniously for 14 years. Yes, Drbogdan made a controversial decision to use Wikipedia as a webhost for his dissertation and to link to comments he made on the NYT, but that is being rectified by the community at the MfD. Other than that, there is nothing else that needs to be done. Therefore, I move to close this discussion. Viriditas (talk) 01:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

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

One again, you have tried to change the subject to me instead of focusing on the topic. And once again, you have misinterpreted what was said, as nothing I discussed implied "socking". I do want to point out, that in addition to the multiple misinterpretations of yours I've highlighted in this discussion (and I'm still not calling for WP:CIR), you also made similar misinterpretations on Drbogdan's talk page. This is a pattern. For example, in this edit, you accused Drbogdan of changing your words on his talk page and you threatened him with this very ANI. You wrote, "stop editing my words, that's inappropriate and I've been trying to engage with you on this productively. If you insist on changing my own words to suit you I'm going to WP:ANI this situation." So it appears you started this very ANI based on your own misinterpretation of WP:RTP, which Drbogdan has famously been doing to his talk page from the very beginning. Your misinterpretation extended to your edit summary, where you wrote "Inappropriate editing of a talk page comment per both WP:SUPERHAT and WP:TPO"[5], which I will remind you yet again, is 100% false. This is a pattern from you. Viriditas (talk) 22:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Drbogdan didn't change any comments, he changed the heading, as he always does on his talk page. Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages explains how and when to do this and it is best practice. Viriditas (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

The heading is part of the comment. Refactoring always preserves the original editor's meaning and intent. Changing the heading is the opposite of preserving meaning. Under "Concerns", that guideline writes, Be aware that not every editor will agree with your refactoring or even of the refactoring concept in general. Provide links to the original, uncut version, so others can check your changes, and if necessary go back to the original to clarify what an author actually said. This combination of refactoring and archiving will often prevent complaints that information was lost. Make it explicit that you have refactored something so no one is misled into thinking this was the original talk page. Changing another editor's words and collapsing the meat of their comment [6] does none of that. XOR'easter (talk) 22:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, we strongly disagree on this point. Drbogdan is allowed to change the heading on his own talk page (he has been doing it for 14 years, and many, many other editors refactor as they see fit), and he is allowed to collapse whatever he wants. I admit that you and Warrenmck are confused by WP:TPO, but the fact remains, Drbogdan did not change any comments, and never has at any time. Viriditas (talk) 23:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

My mention of "making progress" was in reference to my earlier comment [7], which I think is clear enough. I do not believe that any of the claims made against Drbogdan are "bizarre". Nor does pointing to Drbogdan's long history of editing make much of a point when the persistence of bad editing habits over multiple years affecting many articles is exactly the problem under discussion. XOR'easter (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I went back to your earlier comment, and I still can't make heads or tails of what you mean by "progress". What is the intended outcome you wish to see here? In reply to your other point, in fact, pointing to Drbogdan's long history of editing shows that the vast majority of his edits and article creations are fine. Viriditas (talk) 22:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

A majority, even a vast majority, of edits can be fine. That doesn't make the bad edits good. XOR'easter (talk) 22:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

What percentage of his edits are bad? Viriditas (talk) 22:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Drbogdan combines a commendable enthusiasm with what I can only call a persistent carelessness. Take Peekaboo Galaxy, for example. Arguably, he shouldn't have created it in the first place: one paper plus a smattering of flash-in-the-pan pop-science websites that all copy the press release don't add up to an article. But, that aside, he made a mess that others have to clean up. This edit added a duplicate of the reference just above it. This edit mangled a quotation, blending the original paper and a "news" story about it. XOR'easter (talk) 22:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm confused by your comments. If Drbogdan shouldn't have created Peekaboo Galaxy, what is stopping you from taking it to AfD? And speaking of AfD, the stats tool shows Drbogdan agreeing with the community 92% of the time, even when it comes to articles he created, the most notable being Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Bogdan. Let's put all the cards on the table. Drbogdan is one of the most harmonious, non-combative, peaceful editors on Wikipedia. He has made 90,000 edits, and has never actually been involved in any major dispute. If I wasn't a card-carrying atheist of the Christopher Hitchens variety, I would think he was a Bodhisattva or the second coming. I cannot think of any other editor on Wikipedia who has led this much of a conflict-free history on Wikipedia in its entire history. Does Drbogdan have issues? Of course, just like every other editor. I think you and others have shown a problem with his use of press releases, and I think he needs to understand that he can no longer use them. I am agreed with everyone on that point. Viriditas (talk) 22:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

If Drbogdan shouldn't have created Peekaboo Galaxy, what is stopping you from taking it to AfD? The fact that AfD is a time sink, and AfD's of pages with a superficial veneer of notability because they happen to be full of little blue clickly linky numbers are exceptionally tiresome. XOR'easter (talk) 22:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I will take the article to AfD right now if you can give me a good reason to delete it. I'll wait. Viriditas (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Have you considered that you acting like a massive asshole is not actually helpful to Drbogdan, about whom at a minimum one can say is consistently polite? Like, you don't have to agree with the criticisms of him, but you're making him the locus of a larger set of behavior problems (your nonstop abrasiveness and apparently willful inability to understand straightforward comments), and that can't really be helpful. --JBL (talk) 00:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Nobody’s perfect. Viriditas (talk) 03:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

This has gone beyond "not perfect" and straight into WP:TEND. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:49, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I will make a comment that if a story appears in newspapers or popular press then readers are going to come to Wikipedia to find out more about it. So I think ti is fair enough if our articles mention the latest thing from the NYT. But we may need a deeper reference to where that info comes from. I am not opposing Drbogdan in the additions to articles. But in the long term, some of this content should be summarised and given a historic perspective. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

There’s a difference between breaking news in science, like the imaging of a black hole for the first time, and the kind of edit that results in a press release from a single source on scientific minutiae being added at lightning speed. This is why I raised List of rocks on Mars and Timeline of Mars 2020; two articles heavily edited by Drbogdan in his news-byline style that functionally need complete rewrites because of it. It’s possible that many of the stories Drbogdan adds could find a place here with a little more time and wider press, but the way he’s editing them in is disruptive and poorly handled, and very consistently so. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 07:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

And the news-ticker style actually introduces factual errors, like confusing the date a galaxy was originally discovered with the date that a later observation about it was published [8]. This kind of carelessness is easy to overlook and laborious to correct. XOR'easter (talk) 15:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Or the WP:PROFRINGE-adjacent lack of understanding of WP:ECREE on topics like panspermia and Dark Matter (which, with credit to Drbogdan, I asked him to bring up with a wikiproject and he did). I was actually trying to find the recent dark matter discussion Drbogdan had and found that this has been going on since 2015

So apparently Drbogdan is the great image-adder. He added yet another image in Pluto. Drbogdan, would you mind... taking it slow?

That's nine years of people addressing quality issues in his edits and is an exact parallel to some of the issues with List of rocks on Mars and Timeline of Mars 2020. I think Drbogdan is open to feedback in the sense that he'll politely ignore it. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 07:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Warren, may I offer a bit of friendly advice, in the spirit of getting back to my civil self and sharing some wisdom? If you go to Preferences > Gadgets > Strike out usernames that have been blocked, you can control the look of the name of users on your screen, such that when they are indefinitely blocked, a line appears through their name. I assume you have this preference off, because it shows you are citing a sock puppet who complained about Drbogdan. I’m making this comment in good faith in the hope of saving you some trouble. Viriditas (talk) 09:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Sockpuppet or not, they appear to be correct in this case. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:59, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment: It appears some formatting in the ANI above this one is causing the closed template to extend below to this ANI. I'm not 100% sure what's catching it but don't want to mess around with the ANI closing tags directly, either. Thanks to whoever got it. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 10:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Since a lot of discussion has taken place, which has resulted in me (and I think some others) changing their stances on this, I'm actually asking for a WP:CIR indef at this point. There's evidence of Drbogdan being asked to be more careful with disruptive edits going back an entire decade, and his entire response here and at his talk page has been pure WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The articles he's been the primary editor of are complete messes that need rewrites, and articles he's taken an acute interest in for a short period require mass-reverts to undo everything he added to get the quality back up to where it should be, while only occasionally resulting in content that can be reworked to be appropriate in the article as a whole. He's openly admitting to making low quality edits with the expectation that others will revert it if they aren't of sufficient quality and while it's commendable how open he is to having his edits reverted, it doesn't change the fact that he's making consistent low quality additions to articles which require a lot of time and effort to undo.

With four editors here and more going back that time period providing a detailed explanation of exactly the behaviours that are an issue here his only real addressing of them has been a nebulous "*thank you*", statements that he's okay with reverts (but not a single indication that he understand why the reverts are happening), and Unclear about a specific problem here despite diffs aplenty. While minor things in isolation, the puffery reverts in CDK Company and copyvio edits in Twyla Tharp are egregious:

re: the possible copyvio you noted at the Twyla Tharp article - unclear at the time of posting if the brief video clip (1976) was PD or not - clip was made 48 years ago - and may now be PD?

After 17 years of editing and 90,000 edits we should expect more of an editor than this. I respect the effort and the amount of good faith that Drbogdan has been engaging with, but I don't think that he's adding much other than a workload for other editors. It feels like we have a choice of basically hoping others monitor the topics he's editing enough to prevent him from persistently adding in content that doesn't belong, or simply engaging in WP:WIKIHOUNDING, which I don't think any of us want to do (and I'm certainly trying to avoid). Even in the MfD for his dissertation, regardless of the outcome, there's users expressing shock that someone who has been here as long as he has is so fundamentally unfamiliar with basic policies. The sheer volume of low quality edits coupled with the fundamental inability to understand why multiple editors going back a decade have taken issue with this kind of editing just strikes me as a much larger problem than just the quality of any individual set of edits. Even Drbogdan's most ardent defender just went back and removed a dozen citations to Drbogdan's New York Times comments which were edited into articles. While they were willing to presume it was wholly unintentional, I can't easily look past cite news |last=Bogdan |first=Dennis |authorlink=User:Drbogdan when linking to one of his own comments in that cite. You don't get that authorlink by accident from the autofill options linking NYT comments unless I'm mistaken. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Plugging that link to Drbogdan's comment into the Visual Editor's automatic citation generator gives a reference to the opinion column itself: <ref>{{Cite news |last=Foer |first=Jonathan Safran |date=2020-05-21 |title=Opinion {{!}} The End of Meat Is Here |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/21/opinion/coronavirus-meat-vegetarianism.html |access-date=2024-06-30 |work=The New York Times |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331}}</ref>. I don't think there's any way to get |authorlink=User:Drbogdan and all that without deliberately typing it. XOR'easter (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

So Drbogdan is calling his NYT comments publications, listing them all on Wikipedia, pointing people in NYT comments to his Wikipedia profile, which hosts his biography and dissertation, and editing in his own comments as sources into articles as sources. This is all on top of a decade-long pattern of low quality edits and simply disregarding feedback on that. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 17:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. All I see is an, admittedly wilful, misinterpretation of the rules that has not been dealt with previous (and got a little further than is usual.) I'm not even sure if a ban would be warranted as such. Warning; delete what is due for deletion; and deal with things further the next time someone feels obliged to raise issues to this level. The lack of admin attention here so far also speaks for itself. JackTheSecond (talk) 18:32, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't like to recommend indeffing. But I'm doubtful that this is a workable course of action. Instead, it seems like a suggestion to put up with nonsense and waste more time dealing with carelessness, obtuseness, and what looks more and more like self-aggrandizement, until such time as somebody is finally irritated enough to bring the problem to ANI again.

I am also doubtful that the lack of admin attention here so far also speaks for itself. The message I'm getting from it is that this thread is less time-critical and involves subtler problems than most everything else on the board currently. XOR'easter (talk) 19:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I want to apologize to XOR'easter and Warren for aggressively attacking them like a hungry pitbull on a forced intermittent fast. There are many reasons why I'm overprotective of Drbogdan, and I spent some thinking about them over the last several days, but none of that excuses my behavior. It feels like I temporarily lost my mind in some kind of blind rage, and that is very unfortunate, and I feel bad about it now. Viriditas (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Apology accepted. XOR'easter (talk) 03:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the apology. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 07:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it's just too much to plough through, for me anyway. Secretlondon (talk) 17:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

It seems DrB's cordiality and air of cooperation has been working well for them for years. Over 10 years ago, other users have complained about their haste to insert news into articles, often replying with some variation of please understand that it's *entirely* ok with me to rv/rm/mv/ce my edits of course. His agreeable tone juxtaposed with his poor sourcing and editing style was also remarked on 10 years ago. -- MacAddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 17:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Indef for User:Drbogdan?

Hi, uninvolved editor here. Creating a new section so that we can more concisely discuss whether a WP:CIR and WP:PROMO indef ban for this user would be appropriate. The accusation of self promotional insertion of sources into Wikipedia is a serious one, if true and deserves a discussion and probably a 6 month indef with the home the user can take some time WP:HEAR the concerns raised. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm unsure an indef is appropriate, but an editor using their own comments under a news article as a source deserves a special type of trouting (maybe from space). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I’ve seen CIR bans here for much, much less and it’s hard to point at someone’s long record on Wikipedia when there’s basically no evidence Drbogdan has ever considered any feedback in a decade of low quality editing, and the use of his own comments as citations while directing people in the NYT comments section to his indexed Wikipedia user page which contains his CV and dissertation seems like cut and dry WP:PROMO. I’m not seeing anything resembling a net positive contribution here and Drbogdan hasn’t shown up to this ANI beyond pretty much insisting he’s done nothing wrong. I’m not sure why an indef isn’t appropriate? There’s no indicators I can see anywhere that he’ll change his behaviour or even recognizes the problem and he’s constantly making messes for other editors, and his response to Viriditas removing his news comments as citations doesn’t really make it seem like it was a mistake, rather “oops I got caught”.

I feel like we’re getting hung up on his time as an editor and sheer number of edits and not “how has that time and how have those edits been used.” Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

”6 month indef" is self contradictory. What is being proposed here? A 6 month block or an indefinite block? The user has zero blocks in their log so this proposed sanction seems harsh. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

An indef does seem harsh, but we're talking about a decade-long problem. I haven't seen a proposal for a less harsh sanction that actually makes sense. ("A trout, and an admonition to ... be more careful in every aspect of your editing"?) XOR'easter (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• This guy inserted as a citation, in one of our articles, his own goddam online comment [9] -- which he signed with a pointer to his Wikipedia user page. To facilitate this embarrassing self-aggrandizement he apparently uses Archive.today to snapshot anything, anywhere in which his name appears, no matter how trivial, thus immortalizing his words of wisdom. This kind of nonsense has been going on for years. What more need I say? EEng 03:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

  Block, permanent/indefinite. Brings Wikipedia into disrepute. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

  Option for “Ban from mainspace”, which is where he does actual damage, with a demand that if he wants to return to trust to edit, he must clean up his userspace, particularly the misleading “publication” list. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Weak Support indef. Indefinite is not permenant. There appears to be damage being done to the encyclopedia vis-a-vis self-citing comments in articles. Even in good faith, the poor quality contributions cost volunteer time. I don't think he's presented a convincing argument that this behavior will change. An indef would stop any disruption until and unless such assurances are made. I think he has much to offer the encyclopedia, and hope he will do so in a way that is not disruptive (e.g., low-quality). EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Support downgraded to weak per comment replying to Randy Kryn, below. EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• Strong oppose, I've personally been very happy with many of his edits, and have been alerted to news and events by running across his postings. DrB has no blocks, so to go from a clean block record to an indef seems like overly punishing for the sake of punishing. For someone with no blocks this discussion itself is "lesson learned", and could be closed now with just a "boo", a trout, and then how about some deserved pats on the back for a job well done. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

  Is a trout good enough? Wouldn’t a week block be a signal to future discipline if his actions continue?  Augu Maugu ⛩️ 12:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

  At the risk of bludgeoning, his only comments on the situation have been to say he doesn’t understand what the problem is and he never addressed the issue of editing in his own NYT comments. I don’t know how it’s possible to interpret this situation as “lesson learned”. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

  31 hours may be a good "lesson" to be learned, but for someone as productive and skilled in scientific editing jumping from zero to indef hurts the encyclopedia as much as the editor. Editing personal comments may or may not fall under the umbrella of subject matter expert, but if not then they shouldn't be included - and that may be what is learned. But an indef doesn't seem the route to go here. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

  While I don't agree the good outweighs the bad, I do want to draw attention to the above comment, which is entirely valid. Whether the bad outweighs the good is a judgement call, and thank you Randy Kryn for such a concise counterpoint. I'll also be amending my support to a weak support. (I have less faith in my own judgement than a veteran editors'.) I hope other editors chime in promptly to clarify what the community-at-large's judgement is re: good/bad balance. EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:21, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

  Drbogdan's behavior in this discussion is always polite but rarely, substantively, responsive. I suggest Drb place the template NOINDEX|visible=yes at the top of each of his user pages. This good faith gesture by Drb may remove some pressure on his editing. Once this voluntary step is taken, this discussion might progress. This time sink needs to end. Unless Drb is unable to take such an easy step, "signs point to" no progress made.
  — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 16:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC) —

   Done - added "{{NOINDEX}}" to top of user and talk-pages - new to this and entirely unintentional - seems to have been part of an earlier copy/paste template - should now be *entirely* ok - please adj or let me know if otherwise - thanks - Drbogdan (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

  Comment The explanation that it was part of an earlier copy/paste template doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. It was directly added alone in this edit and there's no addition of a template for quite a distance on either side of that edit. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 07:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  Regarding the alerted to news and events by running across his postings bit: that's a reason to follow someone on social media, not a reason that their edits on Wikipedia are actually good. XOR'easter (talk) 20:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support an indef: I don't see how this discussion can be "lesson learned" if DrBogdan's response is "is there room for improvement - yes - in the sense that there is room for improvement for everybody of course - some more than others I would think - hope this helps" - lesson not learned as far as I can see. Toughpigs (talk) 16:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Support as submitter. I don't think any attempt to convince us he's seen the error of his ways at this particular juncture would be sincere, and even removing the indexing from his user page wouldn't mitigate the fact that he's directing the internet to his user page at every possible chance. There's already been enough time spent cleaning up these messes, there's not much to be gained from giving him more opportunities to edit in more junk or promote himself further. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Conflicted I find myself agreeing with the commenters who say that an indef at this point seems harsh, but I also am not sure what else to do. We have an editor here who essentially used an overly formalistic approach to Wikipedia's policies to undermine those very same policies. But what really gets me is, as others have noted, that DrBogdan still doesn't seem to understand that. They certainly understands that the exact actions they undertook were wrong, but I get no sense that they comprehend why. I cannot shake the feeling that even now they are thinking of new ways to arguably fit within the letter of the law (apologies for the legalistic metaphor) to achieve the same ends--which are very much contrary to the spirit of the law. I think that some sort of sanction is certainly needed, but I will leave it to the great and good to determine what that might be. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:13, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support I'm basically in the same place as Dumuzid except I think something needs to be done to make DrBogdan take this seriously. I think he's used to politeness letting him skate by. An indef isn't permanent - hopefully it will grab his attention enough to make him want to do something about it. DeCausa (talk) 18:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

  Also, the faux artlessness is wearing thin, as here. There are too many excuses like that now. DeCausa (talk) 07:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  Just to be clear I'm ignoring in my "support" the "6 month" aspect of the indef proposal which of course makes no sense. DeCausa (talk) 21:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support If Drbogdan isn't going to learn any lessons from being taken to ANI, then he needs to be indeffed until he acknowledges the issues and actually corrects them. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
• Would a topic ban from science related content work? I also think zero->indef is a lot, but editor shows no willingness to change their behavior saying others can fix it, which is not sustainable. Don't think a mainspace p-block would help since they'll fiddle in userspace with their citations. In either case, no self promotion is a given. Citing your own comments? Absolutely unacceptable. Star Mississippi 16:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  I have a feeling that would just shift the issue to other topics within the encyclopedia. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  Not just their own comments...no editor should be citing any online reader comments as sources. Schazjmd (talk) 19:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support an indefinite block, reluctantly. I was about to oppose the indef and support a lesser sanction and then read the self-citation, which answers the question that had, in my mind, been an open question, which is whether he has been editing promotionally. I had hoped that a lesser sanction would be in order, but an indefinite block is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - Can some sort of low-quality prize be given to User:Allan Nonymous for proposing something contradictory, such as trouting with an image of a dictionary? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support indef (not a six month one though). This is the level of self-promotion new accounts would immediately get shown the door for. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support per EEng’s statement.  Augu Maugu ⛩️ 00:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support indef (as in 'not just for 6 months'). I'm unclear as to whether this is a chronic competence issue, a case of thinking that rules only apply to other people, or a bit of both. Functionally though, it makes no difference. Wikipedia is not social media. It is not a platform for self promotion. It is not a platform for self-citation to media comments sections (how in the name of insert-you-preferred-deity could anyone who's been around this long think otherwise?). It is not a scratchpad for endlessly spamming articles with whatever minor news story catches your eye. That's what blogs are for. Drbogdan should start one, where we can safely ignore it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:38, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed.  Augu Maugu ⛩️ 01:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

No cooperation, no good faith

User:Michalis1994 refuses to cooperate to improve the article. He does not discuss with me, but reverts without explanation. The sources he cites do not correspond to what he writes, and his additions make the article look more like a libellus than a calm record of the facts. Here are some diffs https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Afroditi_Latinopoulou&diff=prev&oldid=1230703015

also remove my appeal for discussion

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Afroditi_Latinopoulou&diff=prev&oldid=1230638536 D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Improve the article? You're removing fully cited material. You want to dispute it? Add to talk page - this isn't Greek Wiki. Michalis1994 (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

You have not replied to the talk page. D.S. Lioness (talk) 18:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

He is a user of bad faith. You can see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/D.S._Lioness is fraudulently trying to delegitimize my contribution. D.S. Lioness (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

This is a bit of a mess, but it does look at first glance as if D.S. Lioness is attempting to whitewash the article to remove cited criticisms of specific politicians and political parties. For the record, Lioness, do not accuse other editors of "libel", as that can be construed as a legal threat resulting in you being blocked. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite— Preceding undated comment added 19:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I am the creator of the article in question. The best solution is that both editors just refrain from contacting each other. This is a disagreement that started over at Greek Wikipedia apparently.BabbaQ (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

no, dear! it didn't start on the Greek Wikipedia, at least not with me. The user on the Greek Wikipedia via i.p. tried to pass the same text to the article of the party, where an administrator blocked him by locking the page. So, it was moved here. And he even put the exact same text in both the article about the party and the article about the person. I don't know if this is acceptable but does no do a good impression to the reader.

I also don't see not talking to each other as a solution, as it is imperative that differences are discussed. If you want to help perhaps you can take participate on the discussion page of the article. D.S. Lioness (talk) 01:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Although the only relevant quote I found regarding your comment on the word libelous is this A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat" let me explain that by libelous I mean putting content that does not match to what the sources say. It's hard for someone who doesn't know Greek to be able to judge if the sources are being misused, I understand that, but if you're interested you can use a translation app to understand. Also, it is a bit hasty to conclude that i want to whitewash somewhat insulting I think to my person. I'm just trying to make the text NPOV, something the user is completely indifferent to. D.S. Lioness (talk) 02:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Insults / Bullying

request for blocking to User:Michalis1994 per Wikipedia:NOTHERE and Wikipedia:Civilty see here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Afroditi_Latinopoulou&diff=prev&oldid=1230879788 D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

You are in a politically motivated edit war with them? Secretlondon (talk) 18:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Did you read what he wrote ? what does politics have to do with it? D.S. Lioness (talk) 19:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Well I can see that you are blocked on Greek wikipedia for socking. Secretlondon (talk) 23:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

And this is clearly discussed above. Stick to there, please. Secretlondon (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

What does the fact that I am blocked in the Greek wp have to do with my problem? What do you mean by sticking there? What i have to do? D.S. Lioness (talk) 00:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

You posted this further down the noticeboard. Someone has clearly moved it to here, with the other thread. Secretlondon (talk) 21:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Is this a WP:boomerang issue maybe? Insanityclown1 (talk) 19:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, this absolutely seems to be a boomerang case. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Third opinion#Active disagreementsD.S. Lioness (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I recently replied to a request for third opinion on this case, but I failed to realize it was (in multiple subthreads!) at ANI already. The dispute is much worse than I recognized in my 3O response and it does seem like administrative action is warranted. At a minimum the article should be protected and the participants referred to WP:DRN, in my opinion. VQuakr (talk) 21:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Topic bans for both would be appropriate at least. For how long is up to consensus.BabbaQ (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Whitewashing and continuous removal of sources

Quick report on D.S. Lioness: she's been relentlessly axing articles and deleting cited content to push her own POV. Entire sections in Afroditi Latinopoulou, including academic articles, have been wiped out and replaced with dubious, unreliable sources. The same pattern is evident here (no reason given), here (no reason given, despite the MEP's history), and here (removed information about the town, without giving any reason at all). Michalis1994 (talk) 08:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

heads up: per the big red warnings that show up when you start a new thread, you need to notify users of this. i did it this time cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 11:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• The above was filed as a new thread; I've copied it here.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Personal attack (whitewashing), again. D.S. Lioness (talk) 18:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Explain how this is a personal attack and not simply you being thin skinned? Insanityclown1 (talk) 05:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to temp block D.S. Lioness

This seems strongly like a boomerang issue. User here seems only interested in censoring opinions that disagree with her.--Insanityclown1 (talk) 05:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Not sure a block is necesssary, but topic bans for either or both users may be necessary. I'm not sure that either editor has shown that they can edit in the area of Greek politics effectively. From what I've seen, DS Lioness has edited other users' talk comments to remove personal attacks (against themselves, making them not the best person to remove them), and from what I can see, Michalis1994 is trying to ensure the article is "NPOV" - which to them means that any negative information they think is relevant is included. Neither editor seems to be discussing based on policies/guidelines, but based on their own opinion of the other editor and their own opinion of what's relevant. Pinging User:VQuakr (and will notify on their talkpage) as they responded to the WP:3O request, but to quote VQuakr During a content dispute, it is more important than ever to focus on content, not editors - neither user here seems to be able to focus on the content rather than taking digs at the other. I don't think an interaction ban would be fair here unless it is accompanied by them both being unable to edit topics related to Afroditi Latinopoulou (including any politics related to that person) - so I think either a time limited topic ban or an indefinite topic ban (with ability to appeal after contributions elsewhere, as standard) would be better. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 06:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I will not remove the term 'whitewashing' as the deletion of cited content in the article raises significant questions about the author's intentions. Additionally, this concern now extends to the political party founded by Afroditi Latinopoulou, Voice of Reason. It is evident that D.S. Lioness has prepared a similar version in her sandbox, aiming to completely replace and distort the cited content regarding the party. Hope you can all see the pattern here. If this isn't whitewashing, then how should it be described? Moreover, there is nothing inherently negative about accurately describing the political party as a far-right organisation - something that has been confirmed by the third opinion, to which D.S. Lioness responded with further personal attacks. The so-called 'negative' tone identified by the other author is, in fact, the result of ideological analysis from reputable sources, which they seem eager to conceal. The replacement of reliable sources with questionable material, coupled with the aforementioned actions, raises concerns about whether D.S. Lioness is going to stop those actions and seek consensus. I have expressed my willingness to discuss this further, but it currently seems impossible to find common ground. Additionally, I must point out once again that they have been previously banned from Greek Wikipedia for exhibiting the same behavioural pattern. Michalis1994 (talk) 07:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Temporary topic bans for both seems appropriate.BabbaQ (talk) 15:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Why for both? That seems a little weird. Michalis1994 (talk) 16:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I demand a single piece of evidence of alleged whitewashing: which cited content I removed?

Your edits deceive readers and vandalizing w.p by adding lies such this June 2024, she called for Pride Parade to be dissolved, saying, "It is a celebration of vulgarity, emphasising the sexuality of sadomasochists and other various abnormalities in public view." Where the source mention something like that? Here the source in Greek and tranlated by google translate in english

See for yourselves. Enough is enough with your lies. D.S. Lioness (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Support indefinite topic ban for D. S. Lioness, as their clear POV pushing is not beneficial to the encyclopedia.

As for Michaelis, I'd suggest a voluntary topic ban for 3 months to just take a break and come back when they're feeling less hot-under-the-collar from this mess. The article can wait, and there's already more eyes on it from this ANI. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

where is my pov pushing? You accuse me and you want to ban but without a single evidence!!! You just believed the other user lies. Did you read my edition? Did you read my sources? In what ground you accusing of POV pushing?? D.S. Lioness (talk) 01:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Now he's looking for my sandbox and he wants me to be blocked for what I WILL WRITE D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Αs far as I am concerned I will abstain from the Latinopoulou article until the user check is completed. Τhen everything will become clear D.S. Lioness For a comprehensive update I leave this one here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/D.S._Lioness D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support As proposer of an indef ban for D.S. lioness. They seem unable to stop digging as it were. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insanityclown1 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

  6 months ban for what? what policy have i violate? What evidence do you have? D.S. Lioness (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support - 6 months definite ban for D.S. Lioness. And 3 months voluntary topic ban for Michalis1994, would be appropiate.BabbaQ (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

  6 months ban for what? what policy have i violate? D.S. Lioness (talk) 01:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Side note - semi-protection of Afroditi Latinopoulou might be warranted. No issues if that's premature at this point. VQuakr (talk) 19:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: The assumption that D.S. Lioness will cease her vandalism is fundamentally flawed. Her disruptive editing and vandalism have now extended to other pages, such as the Alexis Papahelas article, where she removed cited content just a few hours after discussions began to address concerns about her contributions. This mirrors her previous behaviour on the Afroditi Latinopoulou page and is unlikely to stop there. This serves as a warning to anyone who believes the situation might improve or that her actions are confined to the Afroditi Latinopoulou page. Michalis1994 (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

what are you saying; what exactly are you trying to achieve? what is the vandalism in Papachelas' article? I even explained in the editing summary the minor changes I made. I remove only unverified material according to WP:BLP.

Υou are trying to take advantage of users who don't know Greek, who don't know Greek political parties, who can't confirm what is written in order to achieve my complete exclusion. This is totally immoral!!!

you accused me of whitewashing the far right without providing a single piece of evidence for your claim. Not a single one!!! You manipulate users who are perhaps sensitive to political issues and especially the far right to achieve your devious ends!!! D.S. Lioness (talk) 00:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

You are now the one being uncivil. I’d be more careful with what I said at this juncture. Insanityclown1 (talk) 06:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Proposal for a temp block for Wikipedia:Civility violations. Don’t call a user “devious.” Insanityclown1 (talk) 07:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

And what should I call a user who is trying to mislead the community into kicking me out of the project? Have you checked to see if what he claims is correct? D.S. Lioness (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

You should answer in a way that doesn’t resort to making personal attacks against another editor. Insanityclown1 (talk) 20:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Continuous whitewashing and removal of labels/information related to other neo-Nazi parties: [10] [11] - there is a clear pattern here. Michalis1994 (talk) 06:23, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I think an interaction ban between the two would also possibly be appropriate. This sequence of threads is indicating to me that neither of the parties in conflict can simply leave well enough alone.--Insanityclown1 (talk) 09:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Ηis contribution has now become a pure stalking at me. You can check this here D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

proposal

Because we are waiting check user results, i think the calmest solution is to "freeze" the issue )unless it is possible to accelerate the procedure) because it may turn out that this conversation is meaningless, just like the one below. D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Last time I looked you'd both reported each other for check user. Is this another one? Secretlondon (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

No, my check user has completed, Michalis1994 not yet. D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Note D.S. Lioness is currently sitting out a 24-hour block for Edit Warring, and cannot contribute here during that time. Posting so this section doesn't archive before they can respond to further comments. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Maybe it might be for the best if both of them got blocked, at least from interacting with each other. I just don't see them getting along. Insanityclown1 (talk) 02:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Administrator adding copyright-violating text

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

---

An administrator who adds copyright violating text to an article, when they are absolutely fully aware that it is a copyright violation, should not be an administrator. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nevada_Gaming_Commission&diff=prev&oldid=1228849678. It is far, far from the first time that I've seen this administrator behaving in this way. 193.117.188.78 (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

also note that the administrator concerned has protected their talk page and thus cannot be notified. 193.117.188.78 (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I can't find where this text is being lifted from. Can you supply the source of this copyrighted text so we can confirm it's a copyvio? Or are you just assuming because an author has some copyvios? Canterbury Tail talk 20:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail: OP is currently blocked for 1 week. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Note:This IP editor has just continued on this article with different IP accounts so this disruption on this article hasn't stopped. They also never informed "an administrator" of this complaint. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:07, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I know, should probably let this section be archived, but I'd just like to say as I'm one half of the two IP accounts who edited the article since the LTA, i.e. the IPv6, I am indeed a different IP user than the LTA editor who created this section. Seeing the other IP editor's talk page, they seem like a different person too. Personally I went there from here, to try to find if there was copyvio - and while I found identical text, the source turned out to be created after it was added to the article and, unlike I initially thought, from a different section than the one the LTA was editing.

I won't notify the other IP, as there really isn't any discussion happening anymore, though I imagine it would have worked (unlike with my dynamic one). – 2804:F1...7A:B4D (talk) 20:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that as well. Taking a look at this, it reminds me strongly of WP:LTA/BKFIP, who would easily engage in edit wars and even revert other people's good faith edits under the edit summary "rv vandalism". Looks like the latest IP is already taken care of by User:Favonian though, who blocked it as an open proxy. — AP 499D25 (talk) 01:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah, so Liz was talking about a different article than the (only) one mentioned! That's what I missed. – 2804:F1...7A:B4D (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Problematic RFC at Talk:Shakshouka

• LEvalyn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Shakshouka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There is an RFC at Talk:Shakshouka#RFC on etymology that is problematic in at least three ways. First, the RFC concerns the reliability of sources, but has not been first discussed at the Reliable Source Noticeboard, which is the proper forum. By the way, the Oxford English Dictionary is almost always the most reliable source on the etymology of English words, including English words of non-Englis origin.

Second, the originator has started this RFC because they have a misguided mission for which there is no consensus, and have misinterpreted my non-encouraging advice. The originator is User:LEvalyn, who says that they want to rewrite Shakshouka in order to bring it to Good Article, but all of their edits were reverted by other editors including User:M.Bitton] with negative comments on the talk page. User:LEvalyn then filed a DRN request. User:M.Bitton deleted the notice of the DRN filing. This action is a de facto declining to participate in moderated discussion, and moderated discussion is voluntary. I closed the DRN request, saying that it appeared that there was a lack of consensus for the full rewrite that the originator wanted, but that if they still wanted to do a full rewrite, one or more RFCs would be in order. I did not recommend the use of an RFC to bypass the Reliable Source Noticeboard, and this RFC is not about article content anyway.

Third, there has then been edit-warring over the RFC between User:M.Bitton and User:Pathawi:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AShakshouka&diff=1231760807&oldid=1231760575
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AShakshouka&diff=1231760972&oldid=1231760807
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AShakshouka&diff=1231761045&oldid=1231760972
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AShakshouka&diff=1231761137&oldid=1231761045
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AShakshouka&diff=1231761322&oldid=1231761137
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AShakshouka&diff=1231761347&oldid=1231761322
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AShakshouka&diff=1231761347&oldid=1231761322
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AShakshouka&diff=1231761573&oldid=1231761480
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AShakshouka&diff=1231761704&oldid=1231761573
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AShakshouka&diff=1231762166&oldid=1231761815
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AShakshouka&diff=1231762252&oldid=1231762166

I haven't tried to analyze the details of what they are edit-warring about, but this is clearly a 6RR by both of them.

This RFC never should have been started in this form, and these editors were clearly edit-warring.

Robert McClenon (talk) 14:52, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm one of the two editors involved in the edit war. Robert McClenon (talk · contribs) is right that we were both in clear violation of 3RR. I'll add that we both have enough editing experience to have known better, and probably got under one another's skin. It appears that the cycle of reversions is resolved, but I think it was symptomatic of more serious problems in this specific process. Pathawi (talk) 15:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• While there is no excuse for what happened, the background information is important nonetheless: the edit warring on the talk page was due to the fact that Pathawi kept moving my comments. I asked them to stop, but they categorically refused (they literally broke 3R on my talk page with their templating) while acknowledging that what they were doing is silly. At the end, I've given up and moved my comments to where they wanted them to be, just so that they are not deprived of their context. As for the RfC, I already stated what I think of it (which is in line with what Robert McClenon is saying). M.Bitton (talk) 15:44, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'll try to avoid a back & forth here, but I disagree with this characterisation: I held (& hold) that M.Bitton was engaged in disruptive editing in the RfC, & attempted to follow the process at WP:DDE prior to opening an ANI report. This entails a sequence of four disruptive editing templates, which I posted in order on M.Bitton's Talk page as edit warring continued—& with explanation of what the templates were in the third and fourth instances. I do not & did not care what stays on M.Bitton's Talk page, but I believe that it was correct process to give notice following WP:DISRUPTIVE—I don't think that's a 3R violation or otherwise edit-warring. Pathawi (talk) 16:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  When someone tells you that you're not welcome on their talk page (see my talk page history) and you keep templating them just for the fun of it, it's not just edit warring, it's harassment. M.Bitton (talk) 16:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed. Grandpallama (talk) 16:37, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  The templating does not seem like it was done "just for the fun of it", but instead a misunderstanding of how to follow DDE. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Super Goku V: I would believe that if I didn't have a brush with them in the past. I do recall a dispute, not dissimilar to this one, in which I was arguing that not every claim by Ethnologue is correct. They turned up with all guns blazing to try to make it about me rather than the content. Luckily, the other editors didn't pay attention to them and various discussions (without the toxic atmosphere) ensued until we even managed to get Ethnologue to revise its estimates. M.Bitton (talk) 11:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  Currently, the only things I see with major interactions between you two is a discussion about a map on the Arabic article, a discussion on RSN that seems to have been a collaboration, and a dispute about a third user where you threated to take Pathawi to ANI over Pathawi telling someone else to ignore your warning to them. Granted, I didn't get past 2022 as I need to get some sleep. If you find it, feel free to cite it. --Super Goku V (talk) 14:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  I don't know what incident M.Bitton is referring to above, & I wonder if they've confused me with another user: I think very poorly of Ethnologue, and I think it's unfortunate that it is so entrenched as a reliable source for Wikipedia (tho I acknowledge that it's an established reliable source—maybe this was the substance of some prior interaction?). I don't think we had any interactions prior to 2022, but maybe my memory will be shown to be faulty. Pathawi (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  Hmm, maybe. A bit more looking and I can see you both participated at Featured picture candidates in the same discussion in late 2022 where you said that "(...) Ethnologue should really be a source of last resort, rather than a preferred source. Ethnologue is not subject to academic review. In fact, I suspect that if we were to be strict about these things that it would not qualify as a reliable source. I disagree with the characterisation of Ethnologue as the "standard reference" in linguistics—it is certainly cited in scholarly work in linguistics, but it's also frequently criticised by scholarly work in linguistics. (...)" None of that sounds like to the arguing that not every claim by Ethnologue is correct portion of their comment to me. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  In that instance, M.Bitton and I voted the same way for roughly the same reasons and I made no mention of M.Bitton at all. It doesn't sound like what they're describing. The only time I can remember mentioning M.Bitton in the third person was telling an editor they'd accused of edit-warring for a single revert to ignore the hostility. We had one very tense interaction around the map of Arabic dialects, in which they were interested in introducing misinformation to Wikipedia (we both acknowledged this as misinformation) to see how the community would deal with a tricky policy issue, but our interaction was an exhausting, extended back-&-forth—not something that involved other editors—& it was not about Ethnologue. I can't recall anything similar to what they're describing above, & it doesn't sound like me: I don't have great confidence in my memory, but I've been fairly critical of Ethnologue for quite a long time. Pathawi (talk) 01:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  Since it doesn't seem like the guidelines have been pointed to, most of this falls under TPO and USERTALKSTOP: Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection & If an editor asks you not to edit their user pages, such requests should, within reason, be respected. While DDE does have a step that says, If tendentious editor continues reverting: Use templates [uw-disruptive1], [uw-disruptive2], [uw-disruptive3], and [uw-disruptive4], it also mentions at the top of the section that the steps do not have to be done in that order. Additionally, you don't have to use the templates in order and can use a stronger one first. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  I think the point is moot, here, as this cycle is done, but note that part of WP:USERTALKSTOP is 'Also, a user cannot avoid administrator attention or notices and communications that policies or guidelines require to be posted merely by demanding their talk page not be posted to.' It also seems a little curious for User A to cry 'harassment!' because User B is posting process notices to User A's Talk page when User A is at the very same time posting to User B's Talk page. You're right that one doesn't have to post templates in order: I had missed that. I'm having difficulty gauging whether or not it would have been a better choice, Edit: primarily because it was preceded by my own bad decisions & involved another user's pretty wild behaviour. At any rate: This is all irrelevant drama that I really regret having participated in. There's been a constant flurry of process drama that is getting in the way of efforts to improve a fairly bad article section. Pathawi (talk) 16:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, this does seem to be resolved and moot. I will acknowledge that USERTALKSTOP does mention that, but will leave it at that. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• This is still going on? I have no strong opinions on the edit warring between M.Bitton and Pathawi, which they seem to have resolved on their own, but I'm concerned that the time has arrived for a page block from shakshouka for LEvalyn, who has been involved in battleground edit warring there to push a questionable POV ever since they were first canvassed to the page. It started out innocently as a question for a WP mentor (see here) but quickly devolved into Raturous (a SPA who never made any edits except POV-pushing to the shakshouka article) asking LEvalyn to proxy for them at the talkpage, to which LEvalyn agreed. After LEvalyn's edits trying to remove "Maghreb" from the article were repeatedly reverted, they attempted to weaponize ANI in order to get sanctions against M.Bitton. Now, LEvalyn, whose ignorance on the topic extends to gems such as Buccini never uses the word Maghrebi at all, and gives the location for shakshuka as "North Africa (Tunisia, Algeria, also Morocco?)", p. 133. To go from that to "Maghrebi" is not appropriate, and who only ended up at the page in an inappropriate manner, claims to want to turn it into a GA? Frankly, given the incessant sealioning on the talkpage by LEvalyn, I sympathize with M.Bitton's frustrations, and think an enforced break for LEvalyn from this topic is in order. Grandpallama (talk) 16:37, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I've been watching this whole slow-motion car crash for some time. (Disclosure: LEvalyn has at times come to me with questions like "Is it normal for someone to do [whatever thing is going on at Shakshouka at this moment]?" and I have typically responded in astonished horror.) The whole thing is ridiculous, but this ANI is genuinely the most ridiculous and surprising part. Robert McClenon said If the filing editor still wants to rewrite the article, the least disruptive way to try to do this would be one or more RFCs. LEvalyn then started an RFC. LEvalyn commented on the RFC saying, Oh -- this is my first RfC, so please let me know if I have made any mistakes! I plan to send an RfC notice to the reliable source noticeboard and all of the wikiprojects to which this article belongs. Robert McClenon did not let LEvalyn that anything was done wrong. He started this ANI instead.

Furthermore, this ANI lists LEvalyn as the sole named party, but also brings up a dispute between M.Bitton and Pathawi. That seems unfair to both of those editors, but also I must note here that the editor in common between these two disputes is M.Bitton, who is the main editor responsible for stonewalling essentially all changes on the article for months. Anyone who is unsure of this is welcome to look at the article's Talk page, which really does speak for itself. The current RFC is the result of M.Bitton insisting that the OED and Collins dictionary are making "baseless" claims about etymology. Other editors have now been involved in the RFC, and have observed these problems. For example, Super Goku V: In fact, this article seems to have an issue since at least 2021 with each year since having over 100 mentions of "revert" or longer. It is clear that there is currently a problem here over something.. LEvalyn's first involvement in this article is this year. Not 2021. -- asilvering (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I could say much more, but I should add first that I think a misguided mission for which there is no consensus is a truly astonishing way to categorize the work of an editor who is doing their best to improve the abysmal sourcing on a wikipedia article. If ensuring that articles meet WP:V according to WP:RS is a misguided mission, what mission do we even have at wikipedia? -- asilvering (talk) 17:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, to start here, Robert McClenon, I know of absolutely no firm requirement, codified anywhere in policy or community consensus, which requires that issues with the reliability of sources be resolved at RSN. And indeed, in my experience, the vast, vast majority of such issues are resolved on the talk page of the article for which the reliability of particular sources is being considered. RSN is merely one resource of which parties can avail themselves, but let's be honest: RSN is plagued by many of the same problems that are common to our larger fora and there are any number of scenarios where RfC would resolve issues as (or more) reliably, quicker, less acrimoniously, and with as much third party, previously un-involved community input. Unless I've missed some significant new piece of community consensus in the last few years, there's nothing remotely inappropriate in using an RfC in this context, and even if there were, there's certainly there's no reason to assume bad faith in a newer user's decision to seek outside perspectives in this manner. Especially considering you advised them to approach the issues you declined to mediate in this fashion? If you thought that RSN was the superior vehicle for addressing these problems, then you definitely should have urged as such.

I have to say, this is a very strange report to me. DRN already has a low hit-rate for resolving the issues of editors who attempt to try to avail themselves of its volunteers' assistance, in my experience. Which is unsurprising and not necessarily a knock on your efforts given the nature of the issues that land there. But people are going to start thinking twice about even trying to use the space if users, including new users, get hauled to ANI by the mediators on this kind of very weak tea. I don't know, maybe the overall issues on the talk page and reversions history for this article are more pronounced than this filing is letting on, but they don't seem to be from a quick overview--and in any event, you had the option to formulate this complaint with the most relevant information on behavioural issues, and I must tell you, what I am seeing here is a big nothing burger for the most part. The biggest issue by far is the edit warring to move comments, in violation of TPG, but that issue both a) did not involve the main party you listed as the main issue at the head of this thread, and b) that issue is now apparently resolved.

I'm going to be honest Rob: I greatly admire your commitment to ADR on this project, but the main thing that seems called for here is a boomerang trout on you for a hasty and poorly justified escalation to ANI. And I seem to recall it's not the first time I've had that feeling about an issue you brought here in recent time. I honestly don't think that hauling parties before ANI is something a person who got involved in an issue nominally through mediation should be doing, outside concerns about very, very serious violations of our behavioural norms. And this is not that. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Let me hasten to add that the way the RfC is structured definitely is an issue. Asking "which of these sources are the best quality for the article" is too non-specific to generate any truly useful feedback, let alone consensus, and largely misses the point of the normal process for determining both reliability of individual sources and the weight that their individual or combined usage creates for support of non-attributed claims. But all of this could have easily been explained to the OP, rather than opening a complaint here. Again, I'm just not seeing any compelling evidence of tenentiousness or disruption in what is being presented here. It may very well be there, but if so, it hasn't been well presented (either in summaries or diffs) here. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Since I was pinged, I figured I should follow-up on this regarding the revert issue. Having gone over the last 200 edits, two names popped up more than the others by a good margin: M.Bitton and Skitash. Out of the last 200 edits, they have combined to have removed at least 63 of them in 41 edits for a combined 52% of the edit history. Given that Skitash's first edit to the article was May 22nd of last year and they have only made 17 total edits to the article, this isn't going to focus on them.

Regarding M.Bitton, they have made over 78 reverts to at least 118 edits in their 92 edits to the article since their first edit on October 5th of 2020. Adding the times they restored a revision would bring the number to between 82 and 84, depending on how an edit that changed the infobox and lede and an edit that changed the entire article are counted. Based just off the times they clearly reverted by using "Reverted X edit" in the edit summary, it is still 84% of the edits they have made to the article and an average of one revert every 17.5 days. This isn't to say that all or most of the reverts are problematic. As far as I have seen it is the opposite in fact, with reverts for a user trying to prioritize Tunisia over Libya, another user adding Palestine and removing Israel, and a third user trying to change The Times of Israel to The Times of Palestine as simple examples of what seems to be reoccurring vandalism. Honestly, the article feels like it should be in one of the Contentious topics given how many troublesome edits it attracts. (M.Bitton claimed that there is an Extended confirmed restriction on the article, but I don't see any proof of that.)

Where the reverts becomes a problem to me lies with the reverts to edits that are made in good faith. Just take LEvalyn's edits for example. LEvalyn made over a half-dozen changes only to get reverted by M.Bitton with the following explaination: You removed the word Maghrebi without a valid reason. M.Bitton specifically objected to just one of the changes, but reverted all of them. In the following 26 hours from the first revert, M.Bitton makes two additional reverts to LEvalyn's edits with the following edit summaries: restored and added two RS to prevent further disruption & Please refrain from deleting the wording maghrebi and imposing your POV. There is even this line from the talk page discussion justifying the full reverts: "2) You are fully aware that the removal of the word Maghrebi will entail a revert." This specific situation feels like Stonewalling. And now we currently have a poorly formatted RfC attempting to determine if two dictionaries are a better source for the etymology of shakshouka as an attempt to discuss it failed. For at least some relief, I would prefer it if M.Bitton set a personal goal to only revert the article once a month and to seek out another user to revert further or to only use reverts on bad faith edits. It isn't the only issue, but it seems to be one of them. --Super Goku V (talk) 13:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

They misrepresented the sources (see the article's talk page and the diffs provided that show what they did). First LEvalyn challenged a word as unsourced, when the sources were added, they misrepresented thems and made factually incorrect claims about them not supporting the word Maghrebi, and when faced with the diffs and the relevant quotes on the TP, they removed the sources and the wikilink from the very word that they first challenged (this was done after the BS ANI report). That's without mentioning the fact that they started casting aspersions and forum shopping. If that's not tendentious editing, I don't know what is. M.Bitton (talk) 13:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I would prefer links to the aspersions and forum shopping you are referencing, but you are somewhat proving my point. As far as I can tell, your reply to me here only addresses the removal of the word Maghrebi. Was there some reason you couldn't partly revert LEvalyn and restore Maghrebi to the article without undoing all of his other changes? If you can do a partial revert to resolve an issue, then do so. --Super Goku V (talk) 14:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Everything I said is in the article's talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

M.Bitton claimed that there is an Extended confirmed restriction on the article, but I don't see any proof of that I have never claimed such a thing. M.Bitton (talk) 14:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I can scratch that, but the reason I said that was because you referenced WP:ARBECR in this edit summary of a revert. ARBECR is the Extended confirmed restriction motion that was adopted. Did you mean something else by that link? --Super Goku V (talk) 14:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I referenced WP:ARBECR as one of the reasons because it also applied in that case. It doesn't mean that there is an "Extended confirmed restriction on the article" (as you seem to think). M.Bitton (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Partial Explanation by Original Poster

I probably should have also listed User:M.Bitton and User:Pathawi at the beginning of this thread. I will clarify my reference to a misguided mission. What is misguided is a mission to bring an article to Good Article status by rewriting it against local consensus. Improving the sourcing of an article is never misguided, but a major effort to rewrite an article when there isn't yet local consensus to improve it is not likely to work.

My real reason for bringing this report to WP:ANI was the edit-warring, which is a conduct issue, and I now see that I should have listed the edit-warriors as subjects of the report.

What is the preferred option for dealing with a poorly formed RFC?

Now that the edit-warring has stopped, I am willing to have this report closed, and to let other people worry somewhere else about what to do with the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:53, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, let me walk back my comments above a little, Rob: I actually don't think that the report here was necessarily a bad thing in the final analysis, insofar as it brings attention to a dispute that might well have been getting out of hand at the point you decided to report. Having looked at the revision history for the TP, I can see where the impetus for action may have come from here. I just think the framing might have been more neutral. For my money, and without intending to get into the weeds of the content issue, I think M. Bitton's take on the issue leans heavily into OR territory, attempting to supplement the content issues with their personal knowledge and their idiosyncratic take on the value of dictionaries as sources, which has no support in WP:RS/WP:V policy that I am aware of. The vast majority of the modern English lexicon is constituted by loan words, and the suggestion that dictionaries are verboten for this purpose for such words is clearly at odds with policy and common practice across the project.

That said, there may be some more nuanced arguments to be made with regard to their applicability here, but M. Bitton is not presently making any that I think are likely to gain support in the terms they are proposing. Indeed, consensus seems to be solidly against them on this issue at present, and their terse, borderline battleground attitude on the matter is not helping their case. Under the circumstances, I think it was reasonable for LEvalyn to have opened the RfC. It just could have been structured a bit better. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: what' so unusual about discussing a dubious claim that is allegedly made by a source? Of course there are more arguments to be made (per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS), but for them to be presented one has to read something other than "you're not a reliable source" (you'll notice that I stopped replying once I realized that it was a lost cause). As for the RfC, there really was no need for it as nobody has edit warred over the claim (the usual BRD process was followed) and, as was said previously, the presented source about the etymology is unrelated to those about the definition (I did mention in the discussion that the section could be renamed "definition and etymology"). M.Bitton (talk) 01:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Regarding your first sentence, the problem is that the OED is a reliable source, not a dubious one, and you've supplied no basis for doubting it on this point besides your personal disagreement with it and an artificial distinction you've made regarding when it is and isn't reliable. Your response here reinforces everything SnowRise said, which largely echoes what I had said to you at the talk page, before the RFC, about OR and about the dictionary's areas of competence. Largoplazo (talk) 07:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I said the claim (not the source) is dubious and I explained why I think it is. Your response here reinforces everything I said in my previous comment. M.Bitton (talk) 11:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

The claim is dubious—to you. Because you say so. You aren't even saying it's false, you're saying it's dubious, which amounts to, "Well, I never heard that, so nobody is allowed to rely on it." And you have gone deep into WP:IDHT mode when I point out repeatedly that the dubiousness of this claim to you is irrelevant as to whether other editors can include it in an article in reliance on that source.

That the OED is a reliable source is what's relevant. Your WP:OR, your personal opinion, your lack of sufficient personal knowledge to validate the claim, etc. are irrelevant to whether you have any justification for holding up other editors' contributions to an article that are supported by a reliable source. You don't. Largoplazo (talk) 21:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon, about your comment that First, the RFC concerns the reliability of sources, but has not been first discussed at the Reliable Source Noticeboard, which is the proper forum: This is not a requirement. This has never been a requirement. RFCs can be used for any content dispute. A prior discussion somewhere (anywhere sensible) often results in people discovering that an RFC is unnecessary, so we encourage it in WP:RFCBEFORE, but even that is not absolutely required. Any editor who thinks they need uninvolved, outside editors to join a conversation about article content should consider starting an RFC, and they should not be worried about jumping through any particular bureaucratic 'hoops', such as first having a discussion on a particular page, or anything else. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment from LEvalyn

First, I apologise for the flaws in my RfC. As I said, I have never made one before, and I guess I didn't do a good job of framing the question at hand. Should I withdraw the RfC? Can they be amended? I would be particularly grateful if someone else felt they could start an RfC (or an RSN discussion?) about this topic, or suggest a more appropriate wording for me to use. For the record, I wouldn't say I am a "newer editor," just new to RfC/ANI/DR/RSN/etc, since in the seven years I have been editing I have never experienced stonewalling like this.

To respond to the comments about my behaviour, I am honestly a little perplexed to be accused of POV-pushing. Is the POV supposed to be edits trying to remove "Maghreb" from the article? I don't think that's a fair characterization of edits like this and this, especially since I explicitly suggested that M.Bitton should add the word Maghreb back in if it's important to them. Indeed, in my later edits, I have included the word. I also think it's unfair to say that my edits are reverted by other editors including User:M.Bitton; no "other editors" have reverted me, only M.Bitton. The negative comments on the talk page are also 99% M.Bitton, and just this one from Skitash. I have been really mystified by the uniquely uncollaborative and unconstructive atmosphere at this article, which is why I have sought outside perspectives at ANI, DR, and now RfC. If the broader consensus is that this article should remain unchanged, I would be disappointed, since I don't think it's in very good shape and I have now spent more time trying to achieve consensus here than it took me to write my most recent GA, but I can respect it. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

There is what you think about me and then there are the facts: a) you started casting aspersions (see my comment on the TP beginning with "I ignored the aspersion casting once, this is the second.."), b) you misrepresented the sources that I looked for and shared with others (the explanation and diffs proving this are on the TP) and c) you initiated an ANI report in which you accused me of all kind of nonsense. Anyway, I'm only bringing up this because you mentioned me in order to divert the attention from yourself, I have no interest in joining you on a trip down memory lane. M.Bitton (talk) 11:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

At this point it seems better to leave it unaltered than to change it midway through after some participation. See what happens and go from there. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Edits at "Isla Bryson case"

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

---

I'm not sure if this is the right place to write this, but an IP user has been making some edits at the article "Isla Bryson case" that are less than productive. That person is disrupting the article, seemingly to illustrate a point and spread their opinion on trans people. Under the manual of style on gender identity, we should refer to people by their gender identity, not sex assigned at birth, but the IP user is removing and changing wording to portray a trans woman as being male.

As you can see in the MOS, this matter has been litigated ad nauseam, and consensus is that we should not misgender people, which also has been extensively discussed at the article's talk page. When I discovered two edits the IP user had made a few days prior, I reverted them and said in the edit summaries that I was doing so per the talk page. Then I went to bed. A few hours later, while I was sleeping, the IP user reverted without explanation, reinstating the edits portraying Isla Bryson as the wrong gender. When I came back and saw those edits, I reverted again, linking to the MOS in the edit summaries, and as I was writing this they have once again reverted without explanation. Please send help. 188.176.174.30 (talk) 16:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I have again reverted the IP user's edits to the article. This places me at, but not above, the three-revert rule. 188.176.174.30 (talk) 16:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I've partially blocked the IP from editing that article. 6 months. I know it seems long but they're never going to edit it productively and the odds of another person getting that IP and trying to edit that article is massively low. Canterbury Tail talk 17:01, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. That is probably the best course of action. By the way, was this the right venue for my complaint? If they show up again on a new IP, should I just take it here again? 188.176.174.30 (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I've added the article to my watchlist. Looking at the history it's possible the article should be semi-protected, however the disruption isn't consistent and is very spread out. Canterbury Tail talk 18:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay. I've been goaltending the article for a while now, and there has definitely been some disruption. It hasn't been too much of a time sink for me, but your help would be appreciated. This article is right in the grey area of whether bad edits are frequent enough that semi-protecting is necessary. After today I'm leaning a little more towards it being necessary, but there still isn't an obvious answer. Again, thank you for your help. 188.176.174.30 (talk) 18:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Well I'll keep an eye on it as well and if I think it needs protecting I'll do so. Right now I don't think so, but you don't know what the future brings. Canterbury Tail talk 19:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

The article really should be semi-protected under WP:CT/GG. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Good day all. I am the IP user in question. I see that I have been blocked without being given any opportunity to defend myself or give my side of the story. I would like to that now if I may. With respect, 188.176.174.30 has completely misrepresented the situation.

The page in question concerns a transwoman who raped women while identifying as a man. Notwithstanding that history, I completely agree that she should be referenced by her chosen gender - ie as a woman with female pronouns, etc. No argument at all between myself and 188.176.174.30 about that. And I completely agree if that if I had sought to portray this individual 'as the wrong gender' then that would be wrong. However, I have done no such thing.

Following extensive discussion on the talk page in August 2023, consensus was reached that this individual's former (male) name and her male sex should be referenced in the article, given what she did while presenting as a man. Accordingly, in line with that consensus the page (before I started editing) it already referenced this individual's sex: ie, her male sex. I did not do that. It was already in the page as a result of the August 2023 consensus.

At this point, I pause to note that 188.176.174.30's assertion that "consensus is that we should not misgender people" is completely misleading and ignores what was agreed in August 2023: which was that in this particular case, this individual's sex should be referenced in the article.

Returning to me, all I did was to make clarifying improvements to the page to make clear the distinction in this case between sex and gender. For example, I changed the phrase 'sex at birth' to simply 'sex' (reflecting the biological reality that sex itself does not change (although gender of course can). I made clear in the edit summary exactly what I was doing and why.

Accordingly, I did not in any way portray this individual in the wrong gender, as 188.176.174.30 alleges. Her gender is female. The page reflects that. The page should reflect that. It also purports to clarify that her sex is male, and I simply wanted it to do so more clearly. The fundamental mistake 188.176.174.30 is making here is to fail to understand the distinction between sex and gender.

I therefore suggest that my ban is completely unjustified, and I would request that it be lifted.151.124.107.115 (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about the wall of text. I have tried to be as concise as possible, but it is not my strong suit. This took forever to formulate, and I don't know what to cut out without cutting out what I am trying to say.

While I stand by much what I have said above, it appears that we have talked past each other. If I understand your position correctly, then we still have a disagreement, but your position is more nuanced and in my opinion much less objectionable than I had initially understood it to be. I am glad that we are in agreement about recognizing Bryson's current gender identity, name, and pronouns. There is a difference between sex and gender, and when you changed "assigned male at birth" to "born male", I was wrong in saying that this was "misgendering", though I still believe those changes were wrong, for reasons I am getting to later.

I have no objection to the article including Bryson's former name(s), and the fact that she committed her crimes before transitioning. As you say, that has been discussed on the talk page, and I recognize and agree with the August 2023 local consensus that we, in this specific case, should deviate from the general rule against using pre-transition names. Deadnames should only be included when a person was well-known under their previous name (for example, Elliot Page or Caitlyn Jenner), but the site-wide consensus doesn't account for the fact that criminals or criminal suspects, and facets of their lives before the day of the crime, are dragged through the media circus and so might become notable. Bryson's pre-transition name has been widely publicized, and it is reasonable to include it despite the fact that she (at least AFAIK) stopped using that name before becoming notable.

However, your edits are in my view still less than ideal, because the wording is ambiguous or more prone to confuse readers than the previous wording. Your wording might, unintentionally, play into the hands of bigots who want to push trans people back into the closet, though I should be clear that I do not believe you are such a person and I don't mean this as some insincere personal attack. Although I believe your edits are suboptimal, I am not saying that you are acting in bad faith or deliberately causing harm. We have a disagreement, but you have remained civil, if a little unwilling to discuss things earlier when you reverted without explanation.

While sex and gender are different things, there is significant interplay between the two, to the point that some people are unable or unwilling to differentiate the two. Some of these people are bigots, but many (probably most) are not. Though sex-gender distinction deniers are generally considered to be wrong, and their arguments are overwhelmingly seen as unconvincing in academia, people with these views form a large part of the population, and of Wikipedia's readership. This does not mean we should go along with what they say, but it means that when they see a term like "sex", there is a chance that they will assume we are using it interchangeably with "gender" like they do, and so will be needlessly confused.

This problem is solved, or at least mitigated, when we use a stock phrase like "sex at birth" or "assigned [male/female] at birth" to clarify that we are talking about their sex and not their gender. A person who is ignorant of the differences between them, or worse yet, one why is openly bigoted and is denying the difference to justify their beliefs, might read the article and see wording like "sex" without "at birth", and take it as confirmation of sex and gender being the same. They might see people calling sex "immutable", and think that gender is too, because to them it's the same thing. In other words, while the wording might be redundant or unclear to some people, not being redundant risks misleading a portion of our readers and, in the worst-case scenario, setting them on a course towards bigotry. My issue here is not the wording per se, but how some people might misread the wording.

When choosing which terminology to use, our intentions matter (and I believe your intentions are good), but so do the real-world outcomes, regardless of whether we intended them. Human sexuality, including sex and gender, is a complicated subject where even well-intentioned people are more prone than usual to assume that they are always right, and that the way they see things is the way everyone else sees it. I believe this is both a cause of me having misunderstood you, and the root of our disagreement (even assuming I now understand your position).

When I was talking about the talk page, I was not clear enough in saying what I meant. Earlier, before I understood what you were trying to do, I thought the heart of our disagreement was over retroactivity, i.e. whether Bryson should be treated as if she were of the male gender (not sex) before her transition, rather than retroactively applying her current gender identity throughout. This November and December 2023 discussion on the talk page touched on similar issues, which is a large part of the reason I spoke of avoiding "misgendering [as] extensively discussed at the article's talk page". This was a mistake on my part, stemming from my misunderstanding of your intentions.

Setting aside this argument about the article "Isla Bryson case", I still believe that, although I am not without sin, you have acted in an unproductive manner in the handling of the argument. When I first reverted your edits, citing the talk page (again, my mistake, I'm sorry), you made no effort to move to the talk page and resolve this disagreement, and you didn't even leave an edit summary when you reverted. When I reverted again, citing the talk page and MOS:GIDINFO, you once again reverted without explanation. While I certainly played a large part in the misunderstanding, you did little to clear it up, and continued to reinstate your edits, even when I voiced my reasons why I believed they were bad. This was a failure of communication on both our parts, but I believe you were less cooperative and more disruptive than what the situation called for. While your block from editing the article for the next 6 months might be disproportionate, I still think some kind of sanctions for you, and possibly for me as well, would be in order.

At this point, I should say that I don't feel nearly as strongly about the disagreement we actually have, as I felt about the disagreement I thought we had when I misunderstood your position. I would like if people agree with me, but I realize my argument might be pedantic. This is a minor disagreement (despite all the ink I have just spilt on it), and I would not object if you suggested we agreed to disagree. Everyone is free to keep arguing, but at least for a little while I won't be responding. I am invoking my right to remain silent, as my head is starting to hurt a little. 188.176.174.30 (talk) 01:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you 188.176.174.30. I think the executive summary here is that this is simply a content dispute enflamed by poor communication. Nothing more. You're clearly acting in good faith, and so am I.

I'm not going to comment directly on the substantive disagreement between us as to the content of the article. That we can debate respectfully on the talk page.

I certainly don't think you merit any sanctions here. However, I would gently say that, having clearly explained what I was doing in the edit summary and why, it was not helpful for you to simply blanket reverse me, referring nebulously to the talk page and other policy pages - without engaging in the specific detail of what I had said. Such behaviour gave me the unfortunate impression - which I now know to be false - that you were simply a bad faith IP pushing a point of view without actually looking to engage in constructive discussion. I also don't consider it fair for you to criticise me for reversing you without an edit summary when you had already ignored the clear and detailed edit summaries that I had already provided.

All that said, I repeat that I don't consider that you merit any sanctions. I suggest that I don't either. Now that the position is clear (and now it is understood that I was not seeking to misgender anyoone here) I suggest that the clear and obvious way forward here is for my ban to be lifted and for us to discuss and seek to reach consensus on the talk page. 151.124.107.114 (talk) 15:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I am glad that we are now of the same mind about the nature of this disagreement. This was a small issue that got out of hand because of misunderstandings. Any further disputes about content is best handled at talk, linking back to here if necessary.

Once again, I would like to apologize for setting off this whole situation. I think it stems from an, in hindsight wrong, assumption I made when I saw your edit summaries. One of my favorite topics to read about is how bigoted groups, such as misogynists, white nationalists, and religious fundies, use rhetoric and flawed logic to make their beliefs more palatable to everyone else (and how the rest of us can counteract them). They often do this through dog whistles and other ways that allow them to plausibly deny their bigotry, and hide in plain sight. Relevant to our discussion here, transphobes often do this by conflating sex and gender, and referring to trans people by their sex at birth (as I had initially thought you were trying to do).

I should reiterate that I don't believe you are one of these people, and even when I misunderstood your point I only believed there was a small chance you were. But something in your edit summaries read as vaguely dog whistle-y to me, because they looked superficially similar to some common transphobic slogans about how "sex equals gender" and "there are only two genders" and pseudoskeptic appeals to "biological fact". It is clear to me now that those similarities are coincidental, but I overestimated the odds that they weren't. While there are many people whose modus operandi is speaking in codes to sneak their bad ideas into the public debate, you are not one of them.

Even though I am an IP myself, I forgot that IP editors are human too, and jumped to the conclusion that you were dog whistling because IPs are more likely than registered editors to be disruptive. There were signs to me (in hindsight, false positives) that you might be a transphobe trying to sneak their views into the article and its revision history, but I assumed the worst and was too hasty in acting on those signs. This was wrong of me. It's also why I said sanctioning me might be in order, because I fear that I, by escalating based on something only marginally bigger than a hunch, went too far astray from assuming good faith. Any sanctions against either of us would be meant as something small, a slap on the wrist, to remind us about the importance of trying to understand each other, though I can see we have already learned our lesson and sanctions might be unwarranted.

If administrators were to undo your block from editing the article, I would not object. As for the underlying issue about content, I might participate at talk when I have the energy and the inclination, but that could take a while. It is good that we have, by and large, reached an understanding, and I hope that we will be able to respectfully work together going forward. I need to work on my communication skills, and in future I should put in more effort to understand what other people are trying to communicate to me. Again, neither of us is without sin, but I can only work on me and you only on you. 188.176.174.30 (talk) 01:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I think we've reached an understanding and have said everything that can be said here. I would simply request that an admin remove my block - I think it's quite clear now that it is not needed. And then, once we've cooled off, we can continue this productively on the talk page. 151.124.107.114 (talk) 14:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Alright. I suggest you reach out to one of the admins about lifting the block, and directing them to here so they know it was mistaken. See you later. 188.176.174.30 (talk) 15:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

151 you were only blocked from the article. If you have a legitimate content issue to discuss, you remain free to use the article talk page Talk:Isla Bryson case to discuss it provided you don't use any open proxy IPs to do so. Note however trying to push through these changes [12] does not seem to be a legitimate content issue so is unlikely to be something worth discussing on the article talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 04:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

If only everyone was as gracious as the protagonists here! I think this can be closed now with nobody being blocked and with them agreeing to use the article talk page to resolve any disagreements. Communicating via edit summaries can lead to miscommunication, especially between editors who do not seem to have concision as a strong point. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! 151 and I will continue our discussion about the content dispute later at the talk page. As for the concision thing, being too verbose is another thing I need to work with myself on. It seems I either talk too much or not nearly enough. 188.176.174.30 (talk) 10:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

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

More IP Shenanigans/Possible Legal Threat From Jacobchoi20/AirbusA350500 at 220.255.188.227

It's hard to read because, frankly, it's quite incoherent, but it appears that User talk:220.255.188.227 is making a legal threat or a regular threat of some type "I see you were all talking about a project, but I do not know what you are referring to. No wonder, User:Picard's Facepalm threatened me on their talk page, which made me extremely upset. I wonder if they would not like Wikipedia to have a list of administrators caught abusing, with their photo on the list." [13]

This is an acknowledged IP of Jacobchoi20/AirbusA350500 that consists of the editor and their sockpuppets or the editor and their co-workers which were also tasked to edit-warring on airplane pages. That part is hard to guess as their story changes every time they interact with an administrator. In any case, their accounts have already had talk page access revoked. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:04, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I will gladly second this report. There were other accounts and numerous AnonIPs that this user has been using to circumvent blocks with, and now he/she is at it again. All I have done is provide information and advice - albeit at an increasingly more direct level with each passing interaction - on how to improve their edits so they don't keep getting reverted, getting their acocunt(s) unblocked, links to the policies and guidelines surrounding the reversions, and reminding them of COI issues. Numerous other users including CoffeeCrumbs have gone through exhaustive lengths across so many of their IPs and accounts spanning many months to try and point the user in the right direction - but they flatly refuse to even try to make an effort and instead just repeatedly lash out with threatening language, catastrophizing the consequences of not having their edits published due to reversion, and otherwise absolutely incoherent and inane ramblings that really lead me to believe they are taking WP as a far more serious point in their life than it should be. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 14:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not even sure why the editor got angry at you again for something from more than a month ago. I suspect we're going to get long-term sniping from this source from a variety of similar IP addresses. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. The pattern is quite clear at this point. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 21:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Now that @220.255.188.227's one-month suspension for block evasion instituted by @Jpgordon is over, this chronic, admitted block evader is once again editing. This sockmaster has been a massive time sink for several administrators over the last three months, is blocked on like three accounts, and continually makes acknowledged IP edits. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Let's see if three months suffices on this IP. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Certainly hope so. The editor hasn't been personally abusive to me, but the accusations against Picard's Facepalm have been really over the line. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I also revoked TPA from this timewaster. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 13:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your help - and anyone else involved. I am afraid this will only delay things for a bit - the user has a lengthy habit of finding other IPs outside of the previous netblock to show back up from. It has been a cascade of block evasions. I am sure other users or myself will be back with additional updates. :) Thank you for the efforts just the same! --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 14:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Because of the sockmaster's record of abusing TPA and making threats against Wikipedia (See User talk:Jacobchoi20), I'm sure instantly revoking TPA upon detection of such socks is wanted to prevent administrators from wasting time. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 00:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

And believe me, I accidentally AGFed this sock. Their use of TPA is purely disruptive. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 00:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Persistent addition of unsourced content by 67.83.125.225

67.83.125.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, continued after final warning and hasn't responded to warnings. Examples of unsourced edits: 1, 2, 3, 4. Waxworker (talk) 09:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

have blocked for 31 hours. – robertsky (talk) 11:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

IP has continued adding unsourced content after block expired. Waxworker (talk) 16:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

This editor has been using this IP for only about a week, but a variety of other IPs have been making similar disruptive edits for years, and are likely the same editor. For example, compare this recent edit to this from last November. Or this sequence of similar edits going back over 2 years: 16 Mar 2024, 14 Dec 2023, 3 Jun 2023, 21 Jan 2023, 15 Aug 2022, 26 May 2022, 17 Jan 2022, all of which use the characteristic odd phrasing "speaks X with an X accent" (where the two X's are the same), used frequently by the current IP. Some of the IPs which made these earlier edits already have long term blocks: User:47.21.209.2 (blocked for 1 year by Evergreen Fir, User:2601:86:C47F:BE60:3C65:C0F4:E332:A490 (blocked for 3 months by Ad Orientem), User:2601:89:C700:BD50:A87B:DD2C:A337:C08E (blocked for 3 years by Ad Orientem). CodeTalker (talk) 23:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Adityagoyal6363

Adityagoyal6363 (talk · contribs) predominately edits in Indian reality television articles. On Bigg Boss OTT (Hindi Digital series) season 3 I've been having an small issue with their edits as some of their are contrary to MOS:CAPS with this being the most recent edit on their part changing the section headings back to mixed-case. I'm not thrilled about that, but the larger issue I have is the lack of communication or response from them about the issues after leaving https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Adityagoyal6363&diff=prev&oldid=1231958415 warning] messages on their tak page. They have responded to earlier messages on their talk page, so I know they are aware of the messages, but ignoring the WP:MOS from an editor with 2000+ edits of a year is not a minor thing. Given the lack of response around this, perhaps a page block from this page until they acknowledge they will follow the MOS is needed here. Thank you. Ravensfire (talk) 17:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

And this continues for today - [14]. Ravensfire (talk) 13:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not optimitic given the lack of engagement from Adityagoyal6363, but I have started a talk page discussion here to maybe see if something will happen. Still, some admin attention here would be helpful to avoid a slow-motion edit-war over capital letters. Ravensfire (talk) 15:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Today's batch of bad capitalization from Adityagoyal6363 - [15]. Ravensfire (talk) 18:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Violation of MOS:CAP in itself is not a very serious issue, but the fact that they have refused to engage at their or article's talk page as well as at ANI is actually concerning. Perhaps a temporary block is necessary until they learn to start using talk pages. Sutyarashi (talk) 19:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

[16] the disruption continues. I'm guessing that since this is ignored, WP:AIV is the right place for this. C'mon, admins, nary a response here. Ravensfire (talk) 15:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Mushy Yank

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

---

So, this guy named Mushy Yank is trying to spoil the plot of Despicable Me 4 a month before it releases. His justification is that the film released in his country but the film is an AMERICAN movie. Despite warnings from both me and another user, he has persisted in trying to spoil the movie. Please ban him. HiGuys69420 (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC) Here is a link to his user page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mushy_Yank

No. See WP:SPOILER. --Yamla (talk) 19:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, I just wanted to report HiGuys69420 for this edit summary: "Shut the f*ck up. Do you think it is fun to spoil the plot FOR MILLIONS OF UNSUSPECTING VIEWERS. Wait until 1-2 weeks before the release you jerk." But I confess that user was faster than me :D. I believe there are quite a few guidelines and core policies that this user deliberately ignored and would like them to stop harassing me on my TP and edit warring with no reason on the page they themselves mentioned. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

(Prior to this message) I have warned HiGuys69420 to knock off the (blatant, inappropriate) personal attacks. --Yamla (talk) 19:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

OK. If you think it's enough for asking me to "shut the fuck up" and calling me a "jerk", sure, thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

And I hadn't seen that edit (again a call for a ban of the "jerk" that I am), which you kindly reverted. I must admit that I am surprised at this tolerance towards incivility and personal attacks, especially when they are repeated. But maybe that's the standard now. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:04, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

not that i'm experienced enough in this ani thing to whip out the wp:boomerang card, but this doesn't seem to be the first time higuys has gone on a streak of uncivil reverts and edit summaries over one or two reverted edits, or called someone a jerk over it, for that matter. while i do think the initial attempt to stop spoilers was in good faith (if a little misguided), i can't say the same for the subsequent actions. i won't make any decisive votes myself here, besides supporting yamla's warning cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, seems higuys have blanked the talk page as well. Not like it's not allowed, but there's an discussion happening here and hiding out warning prevents people from examining the user's past conducts. Anyways, higuys seems to have shot themselves in the foot with the ANI, but I feel like giving them time to change would be a better response, personally. I wouldn't object to a block if they keep making personal attacks, though. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 23:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry HiGuys69420 (talk) 02:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Why is anyone who doesn't want to know what happens reading the section titled "Plot" in an encyclopedia article about the film? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

you could make an argument about the grammar or the questionable conciseness, but spoilers are not an issue here. additionally, you failed to notify mushy per the big red warnings provided at the top of the page and when starting a new topic, so i've done that this time cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 19:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry for the use of harsh language but just to clarify I did not say the actual f word i censored it HiGuys69420 (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Are you trying to say that shut the f*ck up is less hostile than shut the fuck up? Really? I’m gobsmacked. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

it's still kinda hostile so im sorry. Btw mushy i did not revert your edit again BUT i did add a sign stating that it needs to be improved heavily HiGuys69420 (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not the word itself that's banned, it's the underlying hostility that the use implies, which is the same however you spell it out. As for your adding in the template, given that you clearly don't want the spoiler plot at all, nor have you actually suggested anything wrong with the spoiler plot itself, combined with an edit summary that looks a lot like it's a retaliatory edit for not getting your way, suggests to me a real problem with WP:POINT. Your conduct in this dispute has left a lot to be desired. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

to clarify, the use of swear words isn't the problem. what is is what they're used for. a sentence like "holy shit that's a lot of fucking sources for a single claim", while not exactly necessary, isn't inherently bad, as it's only an observation accentuated by profanity. hell, i do it a lot

meanwhile, a sentence like "f*ck you, dumbf*ck", while censored, is still considered a personal attack, as it's targeted towards someone (as opposed to what they do or don't do) with the specific intent of hostility, and effectively means nothing in the context of making articles slightly better. with that in mind, telling someone to "shut the fuck up" is unambiguously considered a personal attack as detailed in wp:npa, regardless of censoring cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 14:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I understand that. I am sorry that I said that, I was angry and was blinded by rage at the time HiGuys69420 (talk) 15:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Persistent addition of poorly sourced/unsourced content

User AngelicDevil29 had been previously indeffed by Yamaguchi先生​ on 5 July 2023, due to Persistent disruption and addition of poorly sourced content. They were unblocked by Deepfriedokra​ on 22 January 2024 after an AN discussion, while noting that the blocking admin was inactive at that time. However, it appears that AngelicDevil29 still has a long way to properly understand what WP:RS and WP:NOR are. Just in past few days:

• At Zuṭṭ, they added unsourced content. After being roll backed, instead of providing reference or discussing at talk page, they continued to revert while claiming I didn't add anything, just tried to clear things out and then which talk page? Per WP:ONUS, I expected AngelicDevil29 to atleast provide citation or use talk page, but ultimately had to initiate talk page discussion myself.
• At Bizenjo on 27 June, adding unreliable WP:RAJ source in spite of being told by several editors to not do so [17]
• Same at Zehri, adding a early 20th century Raj source in support of their claim.
• At Sardarzahi, they changed ethnicity to Sindhi on 27 June, as usual without any reference. Then they reverted multiple editors, twice, and another editor needed to tell them to not revert maintenance work.
• At Langah (clan), they changed ethnicity to Sindhi with edit summary Revision, again providing zero source for the change. And yet again, while adding poor quality sources failing WP:VER and WP:RS, followed by making WP:OR statements and misrepresentating sources at their talk page.
• Same OR/ poor quality additions at Daudpotra[18][19], most of which fail WP:VER as well.

The list goes on, and I'm afraid, goes back to January. AngelicDevil29 has been made aware of these WP policies by a number of editors, and if they are not, I fail to understand why they were unblocked at first place. I feel a topic-ban, if not indef, on them regarding South Asian castes is necessary given the persistent original research, WP:SYNTH and borderline POV pushing to somehow "prove" that a certain tribe/caste is Sindhi (another example can be seen here) in spite of being amply warned; all without any regard to the reliability of the sources or whether the source even supports their claim.

Sutyarashi (talk) 10:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Yamla:, @UtherSRG:, @Ivanvector:, and @Deepfriedokra: for added visibility on this thread. While I am typically in favor of allowing second chance, it does seem that the issues of original research and synthesis remain to be resolved. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

If I'm wrong then I apologize. AngelicDevil29 (talk) 22:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I find it hard to imagine there's any likelihood of improvement. I'm inclined to indef block. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I have used sourced content, for zutt, I just added links and small copyedit of present map and the ancient map, which you on talk page agreed and suggested me to use it. For Bizenjo, Zehri I added only sources, I didn't knew if that source was unreliable which you reverted, and I didn't do anything else on these two articles.

at Sardarzahi, I added script and Sindhi Ethnicity word, because it was already written that the tribe is of jadgal origin, and it was written that they migrated from Sindh. But after you reverted, I stopped.

for Langah I did edited with sources, some of them are already been used on other articles, so I thought those were reliable.

and Daudpotra are also sourced, the only issue was you persisting that the tribe is only found in north west which I requested that it is not specified to north east. Thanks. AngelicDevil29 (talk) 22:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

None of that justifies your edits. For starters, you never used sourced content, for zutt, page history is up there to verify your claim.

For Bizenjo, Zehri I added only sources, I didn't knew if that source was unreliable which you reverted

You very well know that a 1909 source by a colonial anthropologist comes under WP:RAJ, Sitush, I and several other editors told you that very clearly. You can't go away with that claiming ignorance.

at Sardarzahi, I added script and Sindhi Ethnicity word, because it was already written that the tribe is of jadgal origin, and it was written that they migrated from Sindh. But after you reverted, I stopped.

Yes, and that's original research. Can't believe that you were unblocked when you do not understand that. And you stopped only after edit warring to restore that version.

for Langah I did edited with sources, some of them are already been used on other articles, so I thought those were reliable. and Daudpotra are also sourced

No these were terrible sources, failing WP:SELFPUBLISH and WP:RS. In addition to that, most did not even support your added content.

You're here only admitting that you added unsourced and OR material and cited poor quality sources without double check. Not only that, you resorted to continuous reversion to keep the OR content. You're well aware of Wikipedia policies regarding them, and the fact that you were previously blocked for same disruption and addition of poorly sourced content, and within six months of being unblocked have returned to same path, not even considering your conduct wrong, gives me no confidence that you're going to upheld them in future as well. Above articles were already in my watchlist and hence your edits were immediately noticed, but I'm sure there are many others where you were free to edit without being checked.

I support an indef block for AngelicDevil due to persistent violation of WP:OR, WP:VER and addition of non-RS content in a number of articles, after coming back from a block due to very same reasons. At the very least, a topic ban seems appropriate to prevent further disruption in these areas. Sutyarashi (talk) 03:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I did not used sources for zutt, because it was obvious and easily verified by the other articles, as i also said on its talkpage, the on edit history, even what you suggest on the talkpage does not use any source,1 but you yourself that ancient maps and present day maps change.

for Bizenjo and Zehri I honestly didn't had idea, I only used a source the content was already their, in my intention was to provide more source, that's all.

for Sardarzai I apologize, I engaged on edit war.

this source 2 has been used on many other articles, but when I use you say it's unreliable, this 3 is a self published for which didn't knew.

and for daudpotra, can you please tell me why is it necessary to specify a "north west"? And for daudpotra being branch of Kalhora. Which of them are unreliable? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Kindly tell me. AngelicDevil29 (talk) 16:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're now only repeating yourself and trying to justify your actions. If you didn't know about reliability of a source then why you insisted on their inclusion instead of discussing at RSN or talk page? Especially after reading your reply below and seeing what you did at Dollah Darya Khan, I don't think you could care less about poor quality of sources you use. And that is after you came back from an indef, presumably by convincing the reviewing admin that you now clearly understand what's RS and what is not, and that you would avoid original research from now on. But you went exactly in the opposite way.

I have no intentions to go around in circles. The issue of your editing is chronic, and not limited to these articles. I leave the matter to administrators to decide what is appropriate action here. Sutyarashi (talk) 18:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Im not justifying anything. I agree that I used WP: Raj for Bizenjo and Zehri out of ignorance. I didn't knew if it was written by a Colonial person.

for Zutt I said that I only used links and a clarification on present and ancient map.

and for sardarzai I didn't knew that using a script is WP:OR. And for what I apologized.

and for Langah two of sources seemed right to me but you said one is self published other is unreliable. And I took backstep.

And daudpotra you are not telling me which of the source is unreliable? WP:Raj? Or WP: OR or anything else. AngelicDevil29 (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

And I'm not trying somehow "prove" that a caste/tribe is Sindhi, but I find sources online, which does mention them to be Sindhi and I try my best to use reliable source and avoid WP:Raj. AngelicDevil29 (talk) 22:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Your description of what you did doesn't align with the diffs. The description by Sutyarashi does align with the diffs. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

kindly check the talkpage 1 for Zutt, for Bizenjo, Zehri check edit history, I only added one source "https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=yKs3AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA4&dq=jadgal&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjS2qGuuPyGAxWicfEDHdZJDlY4KBDrAXoECAsQBQ#v=onepage&q=jadgal&f=false" which was apparently WP:Raj for what I apologize, as I did not knew it was WP:Raj source.

For sardarzahi 2 I only added the script and added Sindhi word instead of indo aryan. Which was reverted by Mr Sutyarashi, then I changed Sindhi again into indo aryan 3, leaving the script. Which then Mr Sutyarashi removed and accused me of removing sourced content which I didn't removed. 4.

for Langah see my talkpage 5 for daudpotra see 6 also my talkpage. Thanks AngelicDevil29 (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

See my reply above. Also, try to write a single comment, it makes it easier to reply. Sutyarashi (talk) 03:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Morevoer, these are not the only articles where you have inserted OR and poorly sourced content. At Dollah Darya Khan you again added Raj sources from 1850s[20][21], unreliable blogs[22], even altering the quotations to change origins from Baloch to Sindhi. That's now becoming WP:NOTHERE behaviour. I think someone would now have to spend much time fact-checking the large number of articles you have been heavily editing since being unblocked. Sutyarashi (talk) 16:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

WP: Raj applies to tribe/castes for historical figures? And does WP: Raj rule also applies on Afghanistan?

Unreliable blog? Again encyclopedia Sindhiana has been used previously on other wiki articles.

The quotations was already 1 altered I only changed after reading the source. AngelicDevil29 (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

"Every source by a British Indian official falls under WP:RAJ and should be avoided. As a general rule, books dating from 19th century should not be used for reference." Has been told you plenty of times; can't repeat myself more. I should not be the one to tell you that the fact a blog has been used at Wikipedia is by no means an indicator for its reliability.

If the quotation was already altered, instead of even more altering you should have restored it. And sorry, you did not read the source. It does not contain the caste inserted by you. Or you did, and like anywhere else couldn't care less about what it says? Sutyarashi (talk) 18:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

even if it's about historical figures, I was told to avoid WP:Raj sources for tribes/Castes in South Asia "India, Pakistan and Bangladesh" by sitush. Now again does it even applies to people, humans and things? Kindly Clarify.

books dating from 19th century should not be used for reference." For anything?

I meant I read the lead sources which mentioned it to be Samma, for what I changed, while others sources doesn't mention his tribal affiliation. AngelicDevil29 (talk) 19:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Anyone here object to an indef ban at this point? User is either WP:NOTHERE or WP:ICHY. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

kindly don't block me indef. AngelicDevil29 (talk) 21:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I genuinely apologize for the mistakes I did. I promise to not to repeat them again. I request to not make block for indef, please give me a last chance. Thanks. AngelicDevil29 (talk) 21:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

You asked for final chance and made the exact same promise earlier, didn't you? You even said that if you did anything against the Wikipedia rules again then you must be blocked forever. You were given a second chance to rectify your mistakes, and you persistently violated the Wikipedia principles on OR and non-RS content. You either do not understand, or pretend to not understand them, and as above diffs show, give zero regards to what they state and other editors tell you. I find no reason that you should not be indeffed, unless more of the community time is intended to be wasted. Sutyarashi (talk) 23:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Indef blocked as WP:NOTHERE. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Ongoing removal of sourced content at List of video games with LGBT characters

Zanza05 has been continually removing Xenoblade-related entries on List of video games with LGBT characters, despite being sourced to sites that are listed as acceptable per WP:VG/RS. This has been ongoing for over a year, having previously done so under multiple IPs including [23] [24] [25] [26] (the latter of which is still topic blocked from those pages, technically making this block evasion). I attempted to explain policy to them and suggest more constructive ways to edit if they disagreed with the inclusion, but they have ignored this and continued disruptively editing. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 16:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Yep, the day they created that account on May 30, 2024, they headed straight to List of video games with LGBT characters. Judging from their lengthy edit summaries, and IP 198 with the same lengthy edit summaries, they probably are the same person. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Pretty much. I've had the page semi-protected a few times to try and curtail their editing, which is why they created an account to get around that. After a solid year of this, even if the page is permanently semi-protected, I'm not convinced they're not just going to create an account and get right back to it instead of taking the hint. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 18:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I've indeffed them for block evasion and LTA. Canterbury Tail talk 18:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Why is Xenoblade such an issue? Trade (talk) 19:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Your guess is as good as mine. I can only assume based on the name Zanza that they're a Xenoblade fan who doesn't want to acknowledge the existence of LGBT characters in the series. It's a non-issue now, though, unless they decide to come back under a new name. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Just typical behavior of a transphobe/homophobe.CycoMa1 (talk) 20:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

wait, is that user transphobic/homophobic, xenobladophobic, or xenophobic? /humour —usernamekiran (talk) 17:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Pretty sure they've moved to Streetsmarter based on this edit]. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 03:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Indeffed. Socking, personal attacks. Take your pick. Star Mississippi 13:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

The page has also been semi-protected for three weeks by Daniel Case. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Editor persistently adding poorly-quality material while refusing to engage

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

This user has persistently created extremely poor-quality articles on Circassian history, refused to engage in discussion on any of them, and repeatedly moved them back to mainspace after draftification with no attempt to fix the issues ([27], [28], [29]). They have previously been warned by administrators and are the subject of an SPI case. Earlier today I left a final warning on their talk page; they since created this very poor article which shows no signs of understanding the issue.

Even if there is no SPI issues, there are clear WP:CIR problems with this editor. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

It looks machine translated to me. Secretlondon (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Secretlondon, I doubt they will respond, either here or on their talk. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I've indeffed. They'll either find their Talk, or otherwise show they have the English language abilities to productively edit here. Star Mississippi 01:51, 3 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)

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)

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)

• 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)

"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 Research Gate).

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 [30] and Lopez-Vera's book [31] 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 [32]. After the RfC I undid this edit [33] 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)

initial report is SPA

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

Shinjitsunotsuikyu (talk · contribs)

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

Admin corruption

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

---

This is probably pointless, but I'm still going to try this anyway. I have no clue how to format this so please bear with it: I am trying to add two games to the horror games category, namely System Shock 1 and its remake. Two users then decided that I was wrong, so they reverted my edits that I then reverted back. Afterwards, they each asked me for sources and citations for why they would classify as horror games. I provided both sources and even provided my own arguments for why I think they're horror games. Neither of them wanted to accept those sources and they kept reverting my edits regardless all while refusing to elaborate on why they didn't think they were horror games (except the admin who just tried to move the goalpost after I provided him with a source from the studio and publisher behind the remake that officially classifies it as a horror game). One of them also happens to be an admin so that means my edits are now "disruptive" and that I'm always wrong.

Here is the link to the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Salt12352 the thread isn't that long and it's basically just me and the other two arguing back and forth and it's obvious from reading through who the admin is of the two. The other page I'm referring to that doesn't have a talk page is for the remake of said game. I'll admit that my tone might've seemd a little harsh in the beginning so I apologize for coming off as overtly hostile even though it wasn't my intention, but I guess tone can be hard to convey through the written word. Salt12352 (talk) 19:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@Salt12352 You need to notify the editors, see the top of the page. Doug Weller talk 19:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Not sure how this is related to bribery or corruption Trade (talk) 19:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

What is the incident here? They added incorrect categories and they seem disagree with WP:CATDEF. Masem left one message. This seems like an overblown reaction. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 19:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The incident is the reporter's refusal to properly use talk pages. If anything, this should be a WP:3RR block. IceWelder [✉] 19:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:OWB#37. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@Salt12352, what you were told is that the article must contain verifiable content that supports it being added to a specific category, and that there is no mention of "horror" in System Shock. It's that simple. Work on the article's talk page to get consensus to incorporate the reliable sources' description of the game as horror, and then it will qualify for that category. There is no "corruption". Schazjmd (talk) 19:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: I've shortened the header because it was way too long. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: And I've posted a 3RR warning. I hope everybody will keep in mind that Salt12352 is a very new user. Bishonen | tålk 20:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC).

In the video game area,broadly genre applies to gameplay aspects and not the narrative genre as it would for films or books. While System Shock and other games can be sourced to be in the narrative genre of "Sci Fi horror", which Salt provided, that doesn't automatically make the game a horror game in terms of gameplay, and I'm not aware of any sources that call it a horror game in terms of its gameplay. It's a nuance of terminology and I tried to explain that to Salt. — Masem (t) 20:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Emilia Clarke

It is ridiculous, I started an SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DemisLittleWarrior, but the talk page at Emilia Clarke is gotten a bit extreme now with multiple socks, ducks! etc. And the revert back to the horrible image I don't like against one person's crusade with socks... :/ Maybe an admin can shut down this case and restore the older image? Govvy (talk) 20:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

This looks like a very inept attempt at sock-/meatpuppetry. And of course the image they're pushing is horrible. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I think you need to notify people, admittedly I'm not sure if it's every account, but I don't think notifying no one is enough in this case. 2804:F1...7A:B4D (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I was a little unsure who the master puppeteer was!! :/ I just went with DemisLittleWarrior who knows I opened an SPI against them, besides, Emilia Clarke got padlocked, so hope that helps. Night from the UK, I am off to bed! Govvy (talk) 22:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Block the lot of them and move along. DemisLittleWarrior has no interests outside that article and it's all about changing the picture. Nothing of value will be lost. Canterbury Tail talk 23:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely right and done. RickinBaltimore (talk) 00:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

User:WestTNConfederate

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

---

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

Username implies support for the American confederacy, coupled with a confederate-supporting quote by southern general Patrick Cleburne on the user page, with few contributions I would support a block per WP:HID. Bestagon ⬡ 20:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

An editor with just two edits, one to their user page and the other which is productive and currently standing, and you want to block them per an essay? Traumnovelle (talk) 04:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I have to agree I don’t think a block is warranted.(At least not yet.) They created their account a few hours, ago maybe give them a few days and see if there is a change in behavior.CycoMa1 (talk) 04:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I don’t disagree that the user and the quote are problematic.

The username clearly goes against Wikipedia:Username policy.

CycoMa1 (talk) 04:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

How so? West TN appears mean West Tennessee. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Usernames that praise highly contentious people, groups (also known as "hate groups"), or events—future, past, or present—that currently allocate, have allocated, or plan to allocate efforts or resources toward afflicting direct discriminatory, social, physical, or emotional harm toward those who identify as part of any of these groups.@ Insanityclown1 (talk) 06:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

While an immediate block feels a tad excessive in some cases, I think there’s an argument to be made that it violates this provision of WP:ATTACKNAME:

Usernames that praise highly contentious people, groups (also known as "hate groups"), or events—future, past, or present—that currently allocate, have allocated, or plan to allocate efforts or resources toward afflicting direct discriminatory, social, physical, or emotional harm toward those who identify as part of any of these groups.

I’d say the Confederacy fits that “highly contentious, discriminatory group” benchmark. The Kip ^(contribs) 06:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked WestTNConfederate, not because of an essay, but because of their violation of the username policy that says that usernames that clearly reference highly contentious events or controversies are not permitted. "West Tennessee " by itself is not contentious but adding "Confederate" instantly renders the username contentious, which is confirmed by the fact that they promptly added a quotation advancing the racist Lost Cause of the Confederacy narrative. Editors knowledgeable about southern views of the American Civil War are welcome, but not those whose very first edits are to align themselves in support of a failed rebellion of those profoundly racist slavemasters. Cullen328 (talk) 06:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't see that as applying to the Confederacy, or else it'd extend to practically every historical state, such as Rome for example.

If the user proceeded to edit disruptively a block would be fair but this user had only edited productively, got taken straight to ANI and blocked. I fail to see how this block is of benefit to the project. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Did you not understand WP:ATTACKNAME? Two people just explained it to you and Cullen provided the context. Confederate is in their name.  Augu  Maugu ♨ 06:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Traumnovelle, if you truly fail to see how this highly contentious username followed by an edit promoting a deeply racist narrative is a problem, then I recommend that you figure things out before commenting further. Just a suggestion. Cullen328 (talk) 07:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Two things to say here. First, the United States has had ‘’two’’ confederacy built governments, the first being Confederation period between our independence and the ratification of the current US Constitution which rolled out our federal government. Just because someone identifies as confederate doesn’t mean we should automatically assume the second abortive attempt by southern states to reestablish the government they had when they joined the union. Second, regardless of the above, we ought to have AGF’d here and at least waited to hear back from the editor in question. An oft overlooked part of the U.S.’s history is that many of our Native American tribes operated as confederations, and one quote does not a contentious editor make. In this case, particularly with the new editors, the status quo should be considered a stable position, and waiting for some input would be the wiser move. Blocks out the gate like this can backfire by stirring the pot, turning what could be a productive editor into a troll or vandal, or worse an LTA account. Just something to keep in mind. 2600:1011:B134:6C0C:41BE:2423:90CB:3D20 (talk) 08:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Summarised my thoughts better than I could thanks. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it's blatantly obvious what the username in question was referencing. Insanityclown1 (talk) 08:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

And if the quote was from a Native American or a RevWar general, those would be reasonable exceptions upon which to reflect. I rather think that a quote from a CSA general makes the connection not only pretty damn obvious, but claiming otherwise sounds like being contrary for the sake of being contrary. Ravenswing 09:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Especially given that Tennessee didn't exist as a state until after the confederation period, but it was part of the Confederate States... Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Good point! Ravenswing 12:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

It’s one thing to AGF if it was just the username, but when the username is accompanied by a pro-Lost Cause quote complaining about “the Northern narrative,” I think the right to AGF has been forfeited. The Kip ^(contribs) 14:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Music disruption from English IPs

• Naiim Reid-Le Blanc (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 2A00:23C8:D40A:B701:4AB:809E:AB9E:DD8D (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 86.191.223.159 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 109.149.1.202 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Someone using multiple IPs from the UK has been disrupting music articles during the last week, especially Maxïmo Park. They use multiple accounts to change articles back and forth, self-reverting with a different IP.[34][35] Edit summaries are a variation on "the way I can"/"the best way".

Can we put Maxïmo Park into protection? And perhaps block some of these IPs. Binksternet (talk) 23:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I semi-protected Maxïmo Park for a week. The edits don't quite meet WP:VAND so haven't done more at the moment. Let me know if it continues. Johnuniq (talk) 02:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Continued incivility from SpacedFarmer

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

This user is continuing their pattern of incivility and personal attacks towards editors who disagree with them. Since creating their account in late 2023, the majority of their edits of been in deletion/merge/split discussions.[36] They have been taken twice to ANI before.

• In April, the complaint describes an incident in which SF was uncivil towards editors who disagreed with them,[37] was warned about their incivility (albeit poorly),[38] only to double down and attack the person warning them.[39] While no action was taken and the civility warning was dismissed as being uncivil in its own right, comments in the discussion including by Snow Rise and Hydrangeans expressed concerns over SF's tone and taking digs at the contributions of others nonetheless.

• In May, I brought up what I felt were several issues related to SF's behaviour at AfD, among which was their incivility. The other issues were mostly dismissed due to SF's record at AfD, but again, nearly every editor who commented expressed concerns at SF's tone towards others, including their behaviour in the ANI thread itself. Clearly a message should have been received that their tone was unacceptable, but no acknowledgement of the concerns was made before the thread was archived.

Now, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Sakhir Formula 3 round, SF has again taken to being uncivil towards editors who disagree with his nomination.

• [40] In a reply to me: "There's always a home for them in Fandom. Nothing wrong with that site, though. People should think before shoving junk into Wikipedia." Bolding mine; The "go to Fandom" comment is itself bad, but again he belittles and does not assume good faith of the efforts of other editors.
• [41] In a reply to another keep !voter, WP:OTHERSTUFF would have itself been a sufficient reply, but SF can't help but make a personal attack about Fandom. "Fandom is always there for fans like you."
• [42] SF then adds to his initial reply to me, with what is partially a line they use often at AfD but also partially a personal attack, "and do we need an WP:INDISCRIMINATE amount of sports results to clutter Wikipedia with, especially those the most ardent minority of nerds bother with".
• [43] After I warned him about his incivility, he doubles down with "Wow, such snowflakes like the modern times, getting upset by words like 'nerds', I thought nerds like being called nerds. I was a car nerd at one time and am not ashamed of that label. I call 'efforts' like this junk because people write crap."

Given that the user has not heeded past warnings to keep it civil, or even acknowledged that their lack of civility is a problem, and continues to bring this behaviour into discussions on deletion, merging and splitting whenever they face opposition that they can't just quickly reply to with a wikilink (and even sometimes when they can), I believe something beyond a warning (like a topic ban) must be done. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  03:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

SpacedFarmer is certainly assertive in expressing their opinions within the context of improving the encyclopedia, but I fail to see how calling another editor a "nerd" is an actionable insult. I've been editing Wikipedia for 15 years and if anyone called me a "nerd" for editing the articles that I choose to edit, then I will accept "nerd" as a badge of honor. Similarly with "snowflakes" which is a term that has been used, over used and counter-used so often that it has lost actual meaning in the fog of trading political insults. An assertion that specific content is "junk" or "crap" is bold and unvarnished, but the appropriate response is to advance a convincing argument that the content in question is neither junk nor crap. SpacedFarmer, I encourage you to select wording in such discussions that is less confrontational and more collaborative. Editors who initially disagree with you about "something" are not your enemy. Cullen328 (talk) 07:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

The exact worlds used are less of a concern than the overall pattern of immediate confrontation towards disagreement. How many more people are going to have to tell this user to be less confrontational and more collaborative before they finally get it? ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  13:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328 I had a somewhat similar response to the first ANI report about this user brought earlier this year. In that instance, I felt there was blame to go around and that the conduct being complained about with regard to SpacedFarmer constituted fairly minor violations of behavioural norms under the circumstances. When I was pinged here for this report, read it through, and reviewed the original ANI, I was initially anticipating saying something similar. But after reviewing some of the more recent comments in context, and especially after having just looked at the attitude on display in the second ANI, as well as in some other circumstances where SF has been asked to adjust their approach, I'm starting to lean towards agreement with the OP that there's an issue here that needs addressing.

For one, although I don't think that they are the biggest issue here, I don't think that the "nerd"/"fanboy" comments are entirely nothing. Context is king, and the fact is that SF is demonstrating a pattern of dismissing the concerns of other editors with these sorts of non-sequitor comments, combining ad hominem and strawman elements, thus violating the principle that editorial arguments should be based on content and policy, not one's suppositions about what they imagine to be the motivations and qualities of their rhetorical opposition (or, "focus on the content, not the user", as we usually say in short). There is definitely a problematic amount of WP:Battleground seeping into SF's approach here, from what I can see. And frankly a non-trivial amount of arrogance that they are a more serious editor than those disagreeing with them and that they know best what is called for, with their all of seven months worth of experience on-project.

This attitude may well have been unintentionally enabled by those of us who blew off the first few episodes, but regardless, it's clearly starting to become irreconcilable with a collaborative environment, and I think we're headed towards either a block and/or a topic ban from sport/motorsport subject matter if SF is unable to perceive the issue with their approach and adjust accordingly. I don't know that we're at the point of such a proposal yet, but (for their own benefit if nothing else) SpacedFarmer should at least get a clear warning from us at this juncture. And a clear acknowledgment from them that they understand where the community concerns are coming from wouldn't hurt. Regardless, without a rapid change in outlook concerning how to regard and communicate with their fellow editors in content disputes, I don't see how they avoid some sort of sanction at some point probably not too far down the line. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Snow Rise, I appreciate your perspective. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 01:13, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

A new response on SpacedFarmer's user talk offers fresh evidence of their increasing use of personal attacks: "People like you are what is shit about modern motorsport, no wonder why the once great sport full of pussies like you nowadays." I think something needs to be done. Toughpigs (talk) 21:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours for personal attacks. Amazingly stupid comment considering this ANI is open for this exact reason. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: SpacedFarmer topic banned from deletion, broadly contrued

I think it's safe to say that SpacedFarmer doesn't have the temperament to work in the deletion realm of Wikipedia. I'm proposing a topic ban from all deletion areas of Wikipedia, broadly construed. Support, obviously. Maybe this'll give SpacedFarmer a chance to change his tact around deletion. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 01:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

151.71.237.22

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

---

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

This user frequently engages in uncivil conduct by summarily deleting or substantially rewording edits without discussion, and by writing edit summaries that impugn good faith contributors. This user has also been accused of edit warring.

Examples of summary deletions/substantial rewording without discussion:

• Example 1 - whole gallery section removed
• Example 2 - large swath of table removed
• Example 3 - un-doing of my rollback of the user's unconstructive edits

Examples of uncivil edit summaries:

• Example 1
• Example 2
• Example 3
• Example 4

Whilst not all of this user's edits are substantively unconstructive, overall this user's behaviour is concerning and, if allowed to continue, would hinder co-operative editing. May I ask you to consider remediation or a block as you deem appropriate. Thank you for your assistance. PubliusJ (talk) 07:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I see nothing in the first group of edits that goes beyond normal bold editing, and rollback should certainly not have been used in example 3, and in the second group nothing that gets anywhere near actionable incivility. You may disagree with some of the edits, but that is simply a matter for the article talk page. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback.PubliusJ (talk) 12:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Looks like another sock of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP to me. "Passive-aggressive" edit summaries, blanking of user talk warnings, and large content removals. If anyone else agrees with these edits then that's fine, but admins should note that this is a banned LTA who is not allowed to edit Wikipedia at all, and so any IP address / account identified as them should be blocked upon sight.

This is probably the fourth AN/I report I've seen against BKFIP in the past one week (as well as reports made by him against other editors). Jeez... — AP 499D25 (talk) 08:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Cheers mate, I appreciate the investigating. I note that like this user, the LTA you referenced has also had conflicts on Self-referential humor (see my Example 4 above). Unfortunately it appears these may be one in the same, but I leave that to the administrators’ judgement. PubliusJ (talk) 12:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Joseph Williams (musician) Article Issue

Joseph Williams (musician) article:

I noticed from Special:Diff/1232390732 there seems to be some problematic edits. First, User:Niicolet1327 made changes to the article with the IABot tag (username reported at UAA for impersonalization of User:Nicolet1327) which seemed to remove a lot of content from the article. Then, they self-reverted their edit but then User:Anabelse2 reverted the self-revert with edit summary "Obvious vandalism". Afterwards, other users edited the article constructively onto the new material which means that I cannot use the undo button. Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 14:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

The article was hijacked to become an article about a different musician. I've restored last-good. Schazjmd (talk) 15:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@Schazjmd Thanks! Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 15:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• I've blocked all the newly registered accounts, Niicolet1327 for the username violation, and the others for disruptive editing (somewhat arbitrarily decided the rationale).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks Bbb23, I'll watch the page for now and if DE continues then I'll RPP. Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 15:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks, Bbb23. You might want to block Anabelse2 also, that new account was the 2d one to mess up the article. I requested page-protection after Undospam002's attempt. Schazjmd (talk) 15:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  nm, Favonian took care of Anabelse2. Schazjmd (talk) 15:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  I meant to block Anabelse2 and thought I had. Good thing Favonian is stalking me.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

(Non-admin comment) This appears to be a continuation of the vandalism which has been going on with J. Williams, and the account in question is likely another sock of Japansonglove. If this is starting up at this page now I think it's going to keep happening for a while, as it did at J. Williams, and it may be worth throwing up a filter onto both articles to catch it when it happens again. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1158#User:Aka4729 impersonating administrator and removing AfD template on heavily socked article, just under three weeks ago. Narky Blert (talk) 16:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

That's Smagzine. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Does that mean Smagazine is Japansonglove? I can't imagine this same editing pattern from two unrelated sock editors. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 07:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

From a quick glance at the behavioral evidence, I'd say absolutely. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I was just going to ping you & @Usedtobecool from when you sorted out the last instance @LilianaUwU. We really need an edit filter because they don't seem to get bored. Star Mississippi 13:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

SPA at Talk:Gurbaksh Chahal

Stop me if you've heard this before [44], but there's an SPA making spurious claims and issuing empty threats in an effort to downplay Gurbaksh Chahal's history of domestic abuse. The latest claim, buried in a massive wall of text, is that Chahal's conviction was expunged, a statement that should definitely be in the article if proven by a reliable source, something that is unlikely to be provided by Mr. BNN Breaking. All I've found is this puff piece that reads as if it was written by Chahal himself. Since I won't be available much until later this evening, I'd like to ask for some additional eyes at the discussion to help us parse whether there is any merit at all to the claims of this SPA who is almost certainly an undisclosed paid editor. Oh, and if someone could block the guy, that'd be great too. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

FYI: That "puff piece" is indeed sponsored content, as all In focus pieces in Deccan Chronicle are. See the disclaimer at the bottom of the article, No Deccan Chronicle journalist was involved in creating this content. The group also takes no responsibility for this content. This is a known practice in many mainstream Indian news publications; see WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Abecedare (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Feels like the same white-washing that's been tried before on Chahal's page by named and IP editors. 100% agree about the Deccan Chronical being a paid/sponsored article with the disclaimer and the over-the-top praise of Chahal. The IP's requests are, at least in part, somewhat ridiculous, especially around BNN Breaking. That page has gone through AFD and especially the most recent coverage in NYT supports notability and yes, the overall tone of the article is critical because the coverage in sources is quite critical, especially later sources that started digging into the AI driven nature of the site. Chahal's life overall is interesting, with a strong start, legal issues that impacted his businesses as well as his own life and recently projects that were called into question due to some dubious practices. I think everyone who actively edits on that article would appreciate an experienced NPOV review, but the comments from this IP should be weighed with the knowledge that this has been attempted multiple times before (see the archives) by both named and IP editors. Ravensfire (talk) 16:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

This campaign to expunge Chahal's domestic violence history from Wikipedia is never-ending. The "7-year fight ends in victory for 'tech mogul" ploy has already been discussed. Chahal's lawyers petitioned the court to expunge his felony domestic violence conviction. The court did not grant the petition. Therefore, the conviction was not expunged. A do admire these peoples' persistence... Chisme (talk) 03:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Joanmonito65

This user is edit warring to insert a (now thrice-deleted from Commons) copyvio image into an article. See here. Efforts to explain that it didn't belong on Commons fell on deaf ears and I had to block them on that project. It doesn't seem that PerfectSoundWhatever's attempts to explain the issue to them here borne any fruit either, so they may need to be blocked here as well. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Looking through their history I've just reverted several other attempts at subtle vandalism and changes. Every edit bar one has been reverted and it's clear they're WP:NOTHERE. I've just gone ahead and indeffed them. They'll never be productive. Canterbury Tail talk 18:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

User:TheEagle107

I want to report @User:TheEagle107 as per WP:HUSH. The User in question repeatedly inserted "warning" templates during an edit war on Jinn Talkpage.[45], [46], [47].

Additionally, the User made several accusations against me also on other User's talkpages in my absence, I still ahve to deal with now since months, I request the interference of an adminitration.

I asked them several times to stop abusing my talkpage, but the user didn't stop. Since their actions extents far beyond that, such as [48], where they engaged in WP:HOUNDING. The User's talkpage @Booku also has been called for a dispute resolution invoked between User:Eagle and me due to alledged vandalism. (I do not report Booku, but want to show the etent of hounding User:Eagle is engaging with).

Due to the aggressive accusations towards me and invoking more and more other users (here they referred to the talkpage on another User's talkpage [49]) I feel seriously threatened by the user and hope for intereference on the behalf of administration. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Experienced user not adding references

• Catironic9013 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Catironic9013 is an experienced user that has been adding unsourced content to Wikipedia as of late. I have given them notices on their talk page but they don't seem to care to discuss their edits. Here are the most recent additions of unsourced content.

On La academia [50], they added content about an upcoming season of the show and the judges for it but failed to add a source so I reverted their edit. Two months later, the user once again added information for the upcoming season without any sources. [51][52]

On Top Chef VIP [53], they added that new judges were joining the series but again did not provide a reference. I later added the content myself with a reference, but it should not be my responsibility find sources for the edits of other users.

The most recent issue was on La casa de los famosos México season 2 where they added a cast member without a reference. [54].

I feel that as a user that has been editing since 2020 and with over 1,000 edits they should know that references are necessary so that readers can check that the content here on Wikipedia is true and that it comes from a reliable source.Telenovelafan215 (talk) 01:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Again, if anyone can help, I would appreciate it. Telenovelafan215 (talk) 19:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Catironic9013 hasn't used a talk page (article or user) in 3.5 years. Unless I overlooked something, the last time they cited a source for an edit was in Oct 2023.[55] Schazjmd (talk) 20:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Legal threat re: Raj Bothra

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

---

JeniferDeBellis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) stated Dr. Raj Bothra, who hopes to avoid legal action if these false and slanderous things are not revised. (Special:Diff/1232500543) — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I got it. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Article gaining insanely high number of views

I am not sure if this is the right place to put this, but the article "Neatsville, Kentucky" has gained over 600,000 pageviews (more than likely not by bots). I saw it and immediately thought that an administrator or someone needs to get involved, and multiple discussions have already taken place on the talk page pertaining to this. Again, I do apologize if I did not put this in the correct noticeboard. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 03:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

There's extensive discussion here: Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) § Inexplicably popular article (by views). DanCherek (talk) 03:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

An admin has already been on that, as can be seen in the recent edits to the page. JackTheSecond (talk) 03:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Blatant trolling by User:12.75.41.40

This is pretty clearly a logged-out sock at this point.
1 Special:Diff/1232327952 - (google translated japanese) I think he was telling this person to go cry. Reversing this with google translate gets "Yasuke is a legendary samurai, cry about it."
2 Special:Diff/1232410065 - (google translated japanese) Reversing this with google translate gets "You admit that you don't understand the usage of certain English words, but instead of worrying about word usage here, why don't you try contributing to the Wiki where you can understand it fluently?You're very angry about Yasuke.", misconstruing what I said, with an inflammatory comment at the end.
3 Special:Diff/1232422026 - calling an attempt at consensus building foruming
4 Special:Diff/1232528340 - implying an accusation of racism

This person is clearly experienced with the website Special:Diff/1232516037, engaging in harassment while quoting back to irrelevant policy. This is reaching a point of disruption on the talk page. I started off assuming good faith, thinking they might be new. Quack. DarmaniLink (talk) 06:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I have been editing as an IP for 20 years. Please stop posting on my user page, and stop deleting other users comments on the Yasuke talk page. Are you willing to explain why you came out of semi retirement to join in on the contention over at the Yasuke talk page? Just like I said on the talk page, we welcome any reliable sources you have. But please, provide them.

12.75.41.40 (talk) 06:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

For the record, I only posted on this users page to leave harassment templates and an ANI notice, and only deleted their most recent comments on the talk page per WP:DENY. Further evidence in the framing that they are here to troll only.

The semi-retirement banner went up within the last week, after seeing the mess that the page was, I thought I'd take a prolonged break after the discussion finished. Never mind, it seems I already had that up. Man, times been flying. Guess I wasn't as retired as I thought I was. DarmaniLink (talk) 06:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I checked the most recent edit at Talk:Yasuke which was diff where the IP reverted DarmaniLink. Apparently DarmaniLink had removed the IP's comment and the IP restored it. I haven't examined the background but the IP's comment is 100% correct. Johnuniq (talk) 06:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Those comments in isolation, yes, however, the rest of the comments combined build a different picture. DarmaniLink (talk) 06:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Kathleen's Bike - issues with the understanding of basic words and general refusal to engage in meaningful discussion

This user is currently engaged in rather strange behaviour at Talk:Thomas Niedermayer; for example they are seemingly unable to understand the definitions of the words "killing", "manslaughter", and "murder" despite being presented with the definitions of those words used by Wikipedia. They also dismiss all reliable sources presented which disagree with their position, calling them "lazy summarising" and instead cherrypick specific sources rather than acknowledging the broader view of available sources. I had sought to resolve the issue on the talk page, but it feels as though they cannot be reasoned with. 78.147.140.112 (talk) 08:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

As it says on the banner at the top of this page, "This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems." You should have done a "Request for comment" on the talk page, see WP:RFC. Marcus Markup (talk) 12:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not a very experienced editor, apologies.

I felt it appropriate because the user does seem intractable, but I will pursue an RfC. 78.147.140.112 (talk) 14:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

27.96.192.133 hoax vandalism and BLP issues

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

---

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

This user has edited Morningside railway station, Queensland multiple times to incorrectly state that the railway station has permanently closed when it is in fact temporarily closed for reconstruction works. See the recent edit history for that article.

Note that they have also edited Di Farmer which was reverted as BLP issues (see Special:Diff/1232148546 and Special:Diff/1232148343). Possible motivation for these edits is the Morningside station issue.

Also of interest might be this message they left on my talk page.

I would put this to WP:AIV as hoax vandalism, but I think there's multiple concerns with this editor. I think that they might genuinely believe that the train station is permanently closed, so I can't really definitively point to a single reason to block them. Fork99 (talk) 08:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I think a report to AIV seems pretty justified given the blatant BLP violations, the personal attack on your page, and edit summaries that include "closed down because of dictators who refused to listen" indicate a general WP:NOTHERE attitude. -- MacAddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 11:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for gross BLP violation. Acroterion (talk) 12:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

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

I'm not perfect but I'm almost arbitrary edits' on Japan national football team's article

Hello,

I'm asking for your help because the user I'm not perfect but I'm almost persists in wanting to maintain their version against all odds despite the opposition of 2 different users (SoftReverie and me) on Japan national football team's page, and I'm not perfect but I'm almost was the 1st to modify a long-standing consensus version. When this is explained to them with edit summaries (1, 2), they simply revoke without edit summaries nor dialogue (1, 2) and threaten others users with reports. This is not an acceptable approach. Could you please call them to order so that they will cease their actions? Thank you very much. PS : I was mistaken in reporting it on the wrong page earlier. --Martopa (talk) 15:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

The last edit by I'm not perfect to the article was a month ago.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@Martopa, there doesn't seem to be any discussion on the article's talk page. However, claiming language like The Land of the Rising Sun made sure of the points by overcoming Indonesia is a long-standing consensus version is a hard sell. How about you try discussing the issues with the other editor (on a talk page, not in edit summaries) first? Schazjmd (talk) 15:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Possible violation of WP:DR and spirit of WP:AGF at Talk:Jinn

Please take a look at this post by VenusFeuerFalle and see if you find it in breach of WP:DR spirit of WP:AGF as Bookku (our informal dispute facilitator) and myself do. At the suggestion of Bookku (here) I have attempted to find admins to look at the post with little success (see here and here), but one of them (Daniel_Quinlan) suggested I post a report here about it.

The issue is part of part of couple of months long going dispute and preparation for RfC at Jinn, (starting around here). --Louis P. Boog (talk) 16:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Related, VenusFeuerFalle made a report further up -- MacAddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 16:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Lack of cooperation from User:HannibalSnow

For a while now User:HannibalSnow has been beefing with me for reasons I am not sure of. Particularly in the pages Transformers One and Draft:Batman: Caped Crusader. I explain my reasons for edits in both page histories, but they keep reverting them without explaining why. I tried discussing with them in their user talk page but got no response. Tried discussing with them in the talk page of Transformers One, but got no response again.

In the draft article for Batman: Caped Crusader in particular, they keep adding unreliable and poorly formatted sources. I came here because I know they have no respect for me and would not listen. Zingo156 (talk) 20:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Personal attacks by IP

96.59.79.27 (contribs) is still attacking article content in "censorship of australia"-related topics ([56]) and calling other people's edits "vandalism" ([57]) after their block expired. Has also vandalized articles themself. ([58])

As the original blocking admin put it, they also engage in "...sheer paranoid ranting." Rusty ^{talk contribs} 21:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

As I noted in my block message, if the sum of the IP's edits had been made from a registered account they would have been indeffed by now. I've re-blocked them for the same length of time they've been active on that IP.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Unilateral removal of RfC tag

I should like to file a complaint about Redrose64, who unilaterally removed an RfC tag from an RfC in progress without telling anyone they had done so, just 5 hours after the bot had assigned it an ID. No one noticed they had done so until today. I restored the tag with the assigned ID, but is that the right thing to do or does it need to be assigned a new ID? Opinion in the RfC are pretty much equally divided, and the duration may need to be extended as because of the removal, uninvolved editors have not commented. This is a mess and RR64 should have consequences for this. Skyerise (talk) 21:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@Skyerise:, can you provide a diff where you discussed your concerns with Redrose64 before opening this thread?-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Why have you taken me straight here without first attempting to discuss the matter with me, either at the discussion in question or at my talk page? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Because you did it in a deceptive manner. Neither your edit summary nor your talk page comment disclosed that you had removed it. I did reply to you here, just hours later. Nowhere did you say you had removed the RfC tag. You should be de-admined per Wikipedia:ADMINCOND for "egregious poor judgment" in this matter. Skyerise (talk) 21:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Skyerise, your bad faith allegations are borderline personal attacks and don't reflect well on you. I suggest you dial it back substantially and ask Redrose64, civilly, for an explanation on their talk page. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I've restored the RfC. If you dispute my assertions, please show me where Redrose64 explicitly disclosed that they had removed the RfC tag. Weren't they as an administrator required to actually say what they had done? It is weeks later and another editor just pointed out the removal to me. I'm pissed off, and I believe I have every right to be. Skyerise (talk) 22:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

You have not WP:AGFed and asked whether it was a mistake or not. You have immediately WP:ABFed and accused them of being deceptive. Lavalizard101 (talk) 22:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@Skyerise: Are you aware that ANI is not the place to make first contact with an admin (or anybody actually) about an edit they made? Redrose is free to make edits they think are appropriate and you're free to as well. When there's a disagreement the first step is a talk page, not ANI. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

So any editor may unilaterally remove an active RfC tag already assigned an ID without saying that they've done so? Bookmarking this in case I feel like doing that sometime. Skyerise (talk) 00:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Are you really not familiar with WP:POINT, either? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 02:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

She really isnt. Go through the history of the talk page on witchcraft to see that on display. 2600:480A:3A13:8A00:1:C043:7150:DCE3 (talk) 03:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

You should log-in to your account to comment on something that may-or-may-not involve your account (see WP:LOGOUT).

That said, I'm not seeing where Skyerise disrupted Wikipedia to illustrate a point in that talk page. – 2804:F1...0F:122 (talk) 04:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I believe the IP is referring to the incident where I was repeatedly harassed on that talk page by two admins who eventually brought me up on ANI and tried to get me sanctioned, a motion which failed when they turned out to be long-term meatpuppets (living in the same house and editing from the same IP) who voluntarily relinquished their admin tools and left Wikipedia rather than face the music when their long-term deception was uncovered. Yeah, that incident really left me with a higher level of trust and respect for admins. NOT! Skyerise (talk) 10:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Tell you what, why don't you other admins ask them. I suggest this be taken by admins to WP:AN for an admin review. I've reported my perception of the incident, and I'm done here. I don't trust them to answer me honestly, so please why don't you ask them that. I want nothing more to do with Redrose64. Thanks. Skyerise (talk) 22:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

At AN/I you can't just make unsupported allegations and then peace out. Your refusal to even discuss the matter with Redrose64 and continued aspersions are unacceptable. You were blocked for a month in November for personal attacks; this cannot be a pattern.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

OK, fine. @Redrose64:, did you remove the RfC tag by mistake? Skyerise (talk) 22:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

The proper good faith question, instead of painting it immediately as a mistake, is to ask them why they did so. Redrose is a competent editor and admin and I see no reason to assume bad faith. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Wait... This is about a single post-AfD merge and how to properly handle it? The removal of the RfC tag is absolutely valid. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Multiple editors have stated that they believe most of the material should be kept; perhaps an equal number simply want to remove it all. Material that all editors agreed should be removed has been removed (media opinions and opinions from those not active in government was agreed to be irrelevant, iirc). I think that's a perfect reason for an RfC. Skyerise (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, as Redrose also did apparently. This is about the implementation of an AfD result, which was was closed with a clear consensus to merge. This is a content dispute in regards to what belongs at the target page. You can disagree with the results of the AfD, but it's your responsibility to address the reasons why it was closed that way if you want it to be a standalone article. Content disputes about a single article don't belong at RfC. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Who wants it to be a standalone article? I stumbled upon a merge that hadn't been done yet. There was a notice at the top of the talk page, so I performed the merge. I was not previously an editor of either article. I wasn't involved in the AfD either. There are very clearly diametrically opposed opinions on the matter, so more input is needed from uninvolved editors. It's bigger than the need for a third opinion. Isn't that what RfC is for? Skyerise (talk) 23:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Imagine if an RfC was called every time someone wanted a decision. Anyone can edit, and anyone can revert the edit. You added an RfC. Someone in very good standing reverted it. Please take the hint given here and go and discuss as if there might be the slightest possibility that there was a good reason for the revert. Johnuniq (talk) 01:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Imagine if one weren't when it were necessary. Of course there may have been a "good reason" for the revert; good reasons don't always make something the right thing to do. Skyerise (talk) 01:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Multiple editors have stated that they believe most of the material should be kept; perhaps an equal number simply want to remove it all. — Again, this is a misrepresentation of the RfC, which was begun by Skyerise about trimming the section. Despite Skyerise wanting to keep material in totality on the basis of relevance, most editors are in favor of trimming the material regardless of Skyerise's relevance basis. I pointed out these issues here. And with the bad-faith personal attacks against Redrose64, Skyerise also made a WP:THREATEN personal attack on my talk page [59] threatening to, yes, "pursue admin action" against me if I did not keep the material. GuardianH (talk) 02:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe I am misrepresenting the balance of the RfC. I am myself neither for nor against removing more material. It's my opinion that the RfC should be allowed to continue to run and be closed by an uninvolved closer who can make this determination, not by those who are involved and want to preempt the RfC. Skyerise (talk) 02:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Skyerise, you're wrong and everyone else is right. AfD merge is a defective product. The right process to discuss merger is proposed merge, and mergers from AfD have a much lower success rate. When AfD is closed with "merge", it does not compel editors at the target article to accept that as if it were some decree. (That's why a proper merge discussion is had at the target article, not some remote page.) Editors interested in the target article are not bound by the "decision". They can revert the addition. Onus is on the editor who wats to add; he needs to build consensus, and AfD doesn't help at all there, it's like it never happened from the aspect of the target article. AfD is an inadequate forum for serious merging discussions because it does not seriously consider the state of the target article. There is only one solution, and an RfC isn't it. You need to edit the content back in incrementally (see WP:FEET) which will identify where the problem actually lies (what specific sentence, source, etc. is objectionable).—Alalch E. 10:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

You know, there was actually fruitful discussion and removal of all content that was objected to using actual discussion and presentation of reasons rather the one or two editors repeatedly removing the entire merge without discussion. The RfC would have yielded fruit, IMO, but by all means override me and deride me. Not gonna edit war over it, but that doesn't make the motivations of certain editors any less questionable. Thanks. Skyerise (talk) 11:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

It's gonna be fine, the content is there in some form, and it can be improved by bold editing, incrementally. The opinions expressed have not been annihilated, they're on the page, and discussion can continue in a format that does not cause confusion. —Alalch E. 11:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok, fine. Sorry if my honest misunderstanding caused problems. Skyerise (talk) 12:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:NAC undone. It read: Further attention of administrators not needed, multiple of whom have talked with Skyerise, who was notified that 'this cannot be a pattern, was then talked with some more and understood the problem and apologized; during all this a boomerang was not invoked, so it would not make sense to boomerang now, after the apology; the "RfC" was closed, the unsatisfactory state of things at the article itself was made less unsatisfactory, the degree of ongoing disagreement is low and any remaining dispute can be resolved through the normal editorial process. Everyone is thanked for their patience and good-spiritedness.—Alalch E. 13:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Alalch E., this is a bad close, and there are plenty of admins, so I'm not sure why you saw fit to close it in such a starkly biased way. Redrose64 asked Skyerise: Why have you taken me straight here without first attempting to discuss the matter with me. Skyerise replies with: Because you did it in a deceptive manner. And you call their last message here directly above: Ok, fine. Sorry if my honest misunderstanding caused problems an apology? Apology to whom? Persons? You label Skyerise's combativeness (seemingly a reoccurring problem and a pattern) "good-spiritedness"? Like his You should be de-admined per Wikipedia:ADMINCOND for "egregious poor judgment" in this matter. No. Possible sanctions are at stake, still, so why are you, a non-admin, closing this thread? El_C 20:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• After reviewing this discussion and the RfC, I see a few issues: (1) Skyerise opened an RfC without following WP:RFCBEFORE; (2) Skyerise has exhibited battleground behavior and ownership (diff), and incivility (diff); (3) Skyerise brought this to AN/I and misrepresented that Redrose64 had offered no explanation for removing the RfC tag; and (4) Skyerise has yet to take responsibility for those behaviors, calling this an honest misunderstanding. Skyerise has a history of blocks for personal attacks, including for personal attacks and failure to AGF. If Skyerise is able to recognize what they did wrong here, I would support a warning at this point. If not, a block might be appropriate to prevent further disruption and deter future PAs. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  Mea culpa? Thought this was closed; Alalch E. was correct in interpreting me to mean that, although I try to act in good faith, I don't always assume it. And while at the time I thought I was doing the right thing, in retrospect I see that I was mistaken. And I apologize to Redrose64 for not going to them directly. I just felt stupid for not realizing they had removed the tag until three weeks later, and wish that an admin who removes a tag should at least mention that they did so on the talk page and their edit summary. That lack of notification led to confusion, which doesn't in any way justify incivility in my response. Skyerise (talk) 02:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  And I apologize to Redrose64 for not going to them directly. — The going to Redrose64 directly is one thing, but if there is anything you need to address its the personal attacks, threats, ownership, and combative behavior that has been recurrent on more than one occasion. GuardianH (talk) 02:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  I addressed that doesn't in any way justify incivility in my response. Not gonna grovel, chum. Skyerise (talk) 03:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  Perhaps instead of just apologizing for jumping the gun you could also apologize for the personal attacks and aspersions. Franky I'm shocked no one proposed a boomerang based on your behavior here, because RedRose was certainly not being sneaky, per your own link in the beginning of this thread. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

But there is an issue here beyond Skyrise's response

So, I seem to recall that Skyerise has been here before recently, so I understand if others here feel that this is an opportune time to make a point to them about AGF and tone of interactions. And I don't want to undermine that effort if it is deemed advisable or even necessary. Particularly in that Skyerise themselves stands to benefit most from that discussion. But the thing is, all that said...I'm not sure the issues in this instance were entirely of their making?

Here's the thing: I'm about a fifteen year veteran of this project and I respond to a lot of RfCs: it's probably the single largest chunk of time I've devoted to the project in terms of community processes: I'd estimate I've responded to somewhere around 1,200 or 1,300 of them in the last ten years. And I've never once seen an RfC procedurally closed merely because it touched upon issues related to a merger. If I'm perfectly honest, I didn't even realize it was expressly proscribed by WP:RFCNOT, and I'm guessing most other editors don't either. And I think there's a reason for that: said portion of the RfC guideline was created by none other than RedRose64 more or less unilaterally, in a very perfunctory discussion with all of four editors and eight comments, almost all of the substance of which were theirs.

Now let me hasten to add, I think the process was clearly above-board and in good faith: a reasonable effort to codify what RedRose64 and another editor felt were obvious circumstances in which RfC should not apply. However, it was not a very robust or well-(or at all-)advertised discussion. RfC is a pretty fundamental tool for dispute resolution, and I think at a minimum that this discussion limiting its availability in various contexts should have been linked at the village pump.

And the consequences of giving short shrift to this process of amending the process page are not inconsequential to the current situation. Because honestly, of all of the scenarios which RedRose chose to codify as verboten applications of RfC, merger discussions stick out like a sore thumb as probably the least appropriate context in which to forbid such use of RfC. Every other process they chose to add to that list makes a certain amount of sense because they all have a commited forum or a listing which allows for the channeling of community attention from previously un-involved parties to the discussion. The discussions themselves either take place in a specific namespace or the article talk page discussions are posted for community members who contribute to that process. Not so for mergers.

So what Redrose did in adding mergers to that list was essentially create an automatic walled garden for merger discussions: only those previously involved in editing the articles in question (and in most cases, probably only those participating in the discussions leading up to the merger proposal) are going to know about the dispute, and now involved parties have no outlet for seeking additional un-involved voices. In my opinion, that is a very undesirable and problematic set-up. I tend to think that five years without complaint grants even slap-dash additions to policy and procedure pages some degree of implicit community support, but I think this situation, having been identified, now needs some review.

All of which is to say, I do think that Redrose did contribute some to the confusion here, by creating that section of the RfC procedure page largely wholecloth, and then applying it to this situation in a manner inconsistent with anything I have ever seen from another editor in cancelling an RfC already under way. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, I don't see what was to be gained (or would be gained in similar circumstances on any article) by limiting the availability to reach out and seek opinions from editors previously uninvolved in the dispute. And if nothing else, Skyerise is correct on one point: this action should have been at least expressly noted in a comment on the talk page made concurrent with the removal of the RfC tag. That is always best practice when using a technical means to prematurely close an RfC. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Skyerise, let me add that my line of reasoning above should not be taken for blanket support of your approach here. You're getting pretty uniform feedback here about your style of response to these kinds of situations where you feel you were procedurally thwarted by someone and even as someone who somewhat understands your frustrations here, I urge you to take that advice on board as a general matter. I think Redrose64 probably could have been a little more careful and express with their approach to this situation, but bringing them here without an attempt to clear the air before hand, and actually believing they should (and would) be desysopped for anything involved here does not present the image of someone with perspective on how we prefer to resolve such matters on this project, or the intended use of this space. In other words, take the heat down a few notches, even when you think your frustration is justified. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: your point is taken. Skyerise (talk) 03:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Edit War.

Emre Özgür Yıldırım, This user is engaging in an editing war with me on the "Siege of Halicarnassus" article. Even though I invited the right person to talk on the talk page first, the user did not agree to this and continued to edit the page. And he accused me of nationalism. User_talk:Keremmaarda#May_2024 Keremmaarda (talk) 07:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Keremmaarda, you need to inform the editor about this discussion. There's a big notice at the top of this page and on the edit notice when you posted this comment. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

The OP is fresh of a block for topic ban evasion and looks to be attempting to fire the artillery at the people who he thinks need to be sanctioned. I think this is going to end in a WP:BOOMERANG. 2600:1011:B134:6C0C:41BE:2423:90CB:3D20 (talk) 07:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I did. Keremmaarda (talk) 07:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

This "edit war" in question is simply reverting Keremmaarda's brazen edit made on said Wikipedia page "Siege of Halicarnassus". The wiki page has for it's entire history has been stated as "Macedonian victory". Keremaarda changed this for whatever his ulterior motives may be, despite the outcome battle being a universal consensus among historians and widely taught in college history courses. After reverting his edit, I added 4 additional scholarly sources to the article just to further authenticate what the article has stated for it's entire history. The edit Keremmaarda made which contradicts scholarly consensus and was also written in non-enyclopedic wording, used a single citation of a translated book. He claims this single source given is the most respected voice on the matter, which is obviously ridiculous as there is no top historian on Alexander the great, rather hundreds of historians and scholars. Emre Özgür Yildirim (talk) 07:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Looking this over -- although this is a content dispute best solved on the article's talk page, which neither of you has yet attempted -- I'm sympathetic with Emre's take that several different sources trump the opinion of a single scholar, even if that scholar was universally hailed as the sole authentic authority on Alexander. (Which he is not.) This just needs you two sniping less and talking more. On the article's talk page. Ravenswing 09:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

(administratively previously involved) I agree with the IP above, the underlying motivation of this thread when looked through the prism of the discussion at User_talk:Keremmaarda#May_2024 isn't great. Daniel (talk) 17:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Eyes needed to look over many contributions - Not sure if this is vandalism or incompetence or what

Kennethmacalpine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing mainly in Wales-related articles. Several of their edits, generally marked as "correction" have changed correct links to dab links, see for example here, here, here. Others, such as here have completely changed the name of a reference's author. Here we see a link to Ceretic of Elmet being changed to Cerdic of Wessex, a geographically and chronologically entirely different person. The number and nature of the changes mean it would be helpful if others looked them over too. As I say, I don't know if this is incompetence or vandalism, or what. DuncanHill (talk) 10:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

It's a new editor, maybe they don't know what dab links are. You just warned them today, let's see if they provide an explanation. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't account for changing names entirely. DuncanHill (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• They also appear to be editing as Kennethmcalpine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). DuncanHill (talk) 18:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  I've blocked this 'old' account. GiantSnowman 20:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm going to be more attentive, I'm new to Wikipedia. Kennethmacalpine (talk) 20:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Continued LTA and sockpuppetry

For the past 2 years, there has been an incredibly disruptive user who would edit logged out with fluctuating IP ranges which geolocated to Italy; they would repeatedly mess with census figures, add nonsensical information to aggrandize their religion and language, and try to include a certain religion/sect (Ravidassia) as a part of Sikhism. They accumulated hundreds of temp blocks on their IPs; a few other editors and I reported them to ANV and ANI many, many times over the years, including this report which led to their IP ranges being partially blocked from pages they would often target-[60]

Recently, they decided to use sock accounts to continue their vandalism-[61]. Unfortunately, another one of their disruptive accounts is still active-User:SantwinderSingh- who also inflates Sikh census numbers, decreases other religions' population size, targets Punjabi dialect articles, and tries to include the Ravidasia faith as a part of Sikhism.

I'm hoping this account could just be blocked for disruption, even though I know this is a sock account, I figure it might be handled quicker at ANI rather than at SPI which is fairly backlogged. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 11:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive IP-hopping editor

The following IPs are making disruptive mass changes of "Transnistria" to "Pridnestrovie" across many different articles:

• 80.94.250.159
• 217.19.215.92
• 217.19.215.109

Mellk (talk) 11:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Two of these are now blocked. Although reported on AIV, the edits are not strictly vandalism, but are disruptive. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you. Mellk (talk) 12:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  It may be best to block the range, there is still ongoing disruption from 217.19.0.0/16. Mellk (talk) 16:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  Now from 80.94.250.218. Mellk (talk) 18:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  Whoa there. 217.19.215.0/16 is 65534 IPs, and is used by at least 15 different networks in several countries in Europe. The network you named is a resold /24. You should be careful using large netmasks. 12.75.41.40 (talk) 19:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

University of Ghana

While patrolling recent changes, I noticed around 20 accounts with similar user pages, all affiliated with the University of Ghana in some way. Some examples: Adorble Courage, Yaw Agyare Amoah, Diana Ofori, etc. They don't have any WikiEd messages on their talk page and appear to be in different majors, so I'm not sure if they're part of an education program or not. Is there anything we could do? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

You could try asking them. Anything further depends on whether they are being disruptive. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

2604:2DC0:101:200:0:0:0:1B1D

He reverted the stoning edits to earlier versions as previous socks. Please ban him indefinitely. Thank you. Margeandtheferrero (talk) 17:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

We don't block IPs indefinitely, but 2604:2DC0:101:200:0:0:0:1B1D has been globally locked till 8 May 2027 as part of 2604:2DC0:0:0:0:0:0:0/32. See [62]. Bishonen | tålk 17:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC).

Latiromazzaire, category and zero communication

Latiromazzaire (talk · contribs) has been adding incorrect categories repeatedly. They do not seem to grasp WP:CATDEF and continue their behaviour still. After this edit, I left a final warning, asking them to stop. An hour and half ago, they partially reinstated their edit.

They have been asked not do so, and have been subsequently warned about their incorrect and frankly, disruptive, editing. They received messages by DonIago, Ferret and myself about this matter. They haven't responded to a single message. Matter of fact, they haven't edited their talk page at all.

While they have ignored all messages, they did however communicate through two edit summaries, here and here. WP:COMMUNICATION is required. Perhaps it's also a case of WP:COMPETENCE, failing to understand, or just WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 17:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely: User talk:Latiromazzaire#Indefinite block. El_C 20:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Copied/paraphrased draft posted to mainspace

On July 3rd I wrote this article on a subject.

15 minutes after I published to the draft space and submitted to AfC, BullDawg2021 Paraphrased my draft, and created the Wikipedia page Haliey Welch (notice the name has an intentional typo, because it notifies that there is already an article in the draft space).

It can be proven that I created this page first by looking at the draft history of my article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Hailey_Welch&action=history

To sum it up: BullDawg2021 basically paraphrased my article and published it to the mainspace, and this incredibly disingenuous. It's eerily similar to my page, and I spent one to two hours writing it and finding the sources and fact checking the sources, yet BullDawk2021 was able to publish the page with a very similar sounding lede just 15 minutes after I published the draft and submitted to AfC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comintell (talk • contribs) 19:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Her name is Haliey Welch. Please check her own website [63]https://16minutes.life/ I also had no idea that this user created a draft on the same subject. I never even saw this draft until Comintell accused me of paraphrasing their article. This is a huge misunderstanding. I propose that we merge the articles together. BullDawg2021 (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok, if you didn't i'm sorry. I spent so long curating this article/draft. I just got really upset when the AfC was declined because "article already exists in mainspace" when I created my draft before you created yours. I worked hard on it Comintell (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

It's fine, I just don't want to get blocked or get in trouble for something I didn't intentionally do. I should have also better clarified that her name is spelt that way. BullDawg2021 (talk) 19:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

It seems very hasty to go straight to ANI before reaching out and having a discussion on BullDawg2021’s talk page. I get your frustration when you’ve put a lot of effort into an article, but in the end, Wikipedia is a collaboration and articles aren’t yours, no matter how much work you committed to it. —- MacAddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Turkish ultranationalism: The notorious Wolf salute

Given recent events in association football, the page for the Wolf salute, akin to the Nazi salute, has come under a barrage of Turkish ultranationalists whose goal is to infantilise the salute, which is pseudo-scientifically described as an identifier for Turkishness, even though it is political and an appeal to ultranationalism, usually of the far-right kind.

The Turkish user @Beshogur is calling me a single-issue user and removing all of my edits, which use sources to characterise the gesture as what it is: ultranationalist and neo-fascist.

Yes, I am only here for this article, because it means a lot to me. I am German, and we have the Rechtstaat (state of justice) here. No, I am not disruptive for removing Turkish ultranationalism.

It does not matter how experienced this user seems to be or for how long he has been on the "free" (anti-fascist?) encyclopedia. What matters is that the user must discuss their edits and not just remove them when we sees fit.

Thank you. And, fascism must go. Everywhere. Gypsybores (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

You said in your notification to Beshogur that you reported them for personal attacks yet I don't see any from Beshogur. I see them from you. Care to explain before the WP:BOOMERANG? EvergreenFir (talk) 19:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, how is that a personal attack? What is a boomerang?

All you need to know is that these nationalist pages are like dust-catchers for these cases.

How is calling me a single-purpose user and disruptor not a personal attack?

Do you not care about fascism? Gypsybores (talk) 20:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Blocked as NOTHERE EvergreenFir (talk) 20:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for opening the thread, because I was going to open. This user is indeed a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account.

He's not the only one calling me ultranationalist (some were blocked before for the same thing).

I will show his personal attacks:

• [64] Mate, do you have a problem? Do you use the wolf salute often? Surely, there has got to be a provision on the "free" encyclopedia to ban non-free (i.e., fascist) users.
• [65] And I will report you for Turkish ultranationalism. Who do you think you are?
• [66] Interesting, you are a Turkish far-righter based in the Netherlands or Belgium. How does he even know my location? And you think you are impartial? Again - who do you think you are? so he's going to start threatening me?
• [67] Beshogur, mate, do you have a problem? So what I want to reverse vandalism by ultranationalist users like? I will find a forum for arbitration for this.
• [68] Ultranationalist removal of sourced information
• [69] Revert ultranationalism and threats

I am not even mentioning attacks on other users. Definitely WP:NOTHERE. Beshogur (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Also this was the original lead on wolf salute article: The wolf salute, the grey wolf salute or the grey wolf gesture (Turkish: Bozkurt işareti) is a Turkish nationalist and Pan-Turkic hand symbol, linked to the far-right Grey Wolves political movement. The gesture is banned in France and Austria.

what he turned into -> The wolf salute, the grey wolf salute, or the grey wolf gesture (Turkish: Bozkurt işareti) is an ultranationalist, pan-Turkist, and neo-fascist hand symbol.

which is unencyclopedic. Beshogur (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

It's sourced. What are you talking about? Gypsybores (talk) 20:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

And, I am NOT a he. Typical chauvinism, accusing me of maledom.

In any case, please do not cry wolf (no pun intended). If you are cozying up to ultranationalists, you have to reckon with appropriate responses.

None of your citations are ad-hominems. You are not impartial; you have experience and try to revise history as you see fit.

That in itself violates every clause of scientific conduct.

So, I ask, again, who do you think you are? Gypsybores (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I was just about to indef, but EvergreenFir beat me to it. El_C 20:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Mashing some sources together doesn't mean you can do whatever you want. That lead had been like this for a time. Beshogur (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Personal attacks from 2A02:FE1:7191:F500:1D68:AEEA:EBA5:D751

• 2A02:FE1:7191:F500:1D68:AEEA:EBA5:D751 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2A02:FE1:7191:F500:1D68:AEEA:EBA5:D751 has made unreliable edits on various race and intelligence articles and has been heavily reverted. I first ran into this user on the Helmuth Nyborg article where a first they were removing any mention of sources describing Nyborg's involvement with the far-right and neo-nazism. I reverted this user a few times but I did my best to cooperate with them on the talk-page.

2A02 has made several posts accusing me of being a sock-puppet at Wikipedia and an editor of RationalWiki. There were two earlier posts by them on this [70], [71]. On their talk-page they were warned by another user not to make this type of personal attack [72] and "This should be considered a level 2 warning" [73] yet they continue to do so [74]. The user said they won't be filing an SPI and has woven a complex conspiracy theory that users supportive of race intelligence research are banned from Wikipedia.

In the above diff, the user falsely claims I have lied about working as a journalist and that I have used this sock-puppet account London Student Journalist. This is a random blocked account from 2018 that is nothing to do with me. I never claimed to be a journalist. I am a philosophy student and I do private research for a newspaper on far-right figures. The same user also claimed that I am involved in RationalWiki and created an article on there yesterday which is not true.

The same user has also been linking to old Wikipedia conversations from 2020 and 2021 [75] citing conspiracy theories from two blocked Wikipedia accounts Gardenofaleph and another banned user who was topic banned on race and intelligence Captain Occam. Both of these accounts were promoting strange conspiracy theories about RationalWiki and about two Wikipedia users sharing accounts to discredit intelligence researchers. Nobody took their claims seriously but this user is linking to this old content.

I believe that the issues of repeated personal attacks and promotion of conspiracy theories about off-site websites need to be addressed here. It should also be noted the same user has been warned about canvassing [76] but is trying to canvass two other editors they believe sympathetic to their pro-race and intelligence viewpoint to file an SPI. The user is not acting in good faith, they seem upset with my well-sourced edits on Helmuth Nyborg so have resorted to promoting misinformation about my account to try and shut me down. Their behaviour has not been pleasant, I also left them a message on their talk-page but they removed it [77]. 51.6.193.169 (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

This IP is a long-term problem user who I believe has been topic-banned and blocked for their past behavior in this topic area; @Generalrelative: do you have the links to past discussions? --JBL (talk) 00:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

IPs on a crusade

Hello. There is someone who is on a crusade on English Wikipedia to replace all instances of "Transnistria" (Romanian-derived name, the most common in English, already settled by various RMs [78] [79]) with "Pridnestrovie" (Russian-derived name). They've used so far four IPs, the first three already blocked [80] [81] [82] [83]. All of these appeared today, 5 July. As you can see they have extended their disruptive edits, every single one of them having been reverted for now, throughout many articles. If this is an appropriate venue to ask for this (I think so), could an IP range block be enforced? Unsurprisingly, all four IPs have the same location. Thanks, Super Ψ Dro 21:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• I placed a year-long block on 80.94.250.0/24. They seem to have no interest in substantive discussion, and no doubt they will complain about censorship. Thanks for reporting. Drmies (talk) 22:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Super Ψ Dro 22:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I spend my days eating cheese

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

---

This is a user I first encountered because they added an irrelevant WP:AUTOBIO notice to an IP I was watching. I don't know why they did this. When I left them a message on their talk page about it, they ignored it and blanked my user page. They later apologized on their own accord which I thought was surprisingly nice of them. They then proceeded to move their user and talk page to random namespaces ([84][85][86][87]) and made a bunch of other seemingly random, unconstructive edits. I reported them to WP:AIV but withdrew my request after they apologized and left this note on their user page (I believed their edits might have genuinely been mistakes). Recently they started editing again and made a few troll edits ([88][89]) then added these ([90][91]) notices to their talk page, suggesting their account has been compromised. I assume this is just a case of WP:BROTHER. Not really sure what to do here, but if you scroll far enough down their contributions, you'll see they did (or tried to) make some constructive edits in the past. Maybe an admin can give them a stricter warning about their troll (?) edits? C F A 💬 22:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked. They also claim their account is hacked. Not sure I believe them, but just another basis for the block, even though a troll is a troll.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Bbb23, I spend my days eating cheese too. The rest of the club can be found by way of User:Specialagentsnoopdawgiedoodoo97. Drmies (talk) 22:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Excellent, another reason for the block, so many. I'm having homemade mac 'n cheese tonight for dinner. Perhaps I should join the club.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Woolstation introducing copyrighted text to articles past third warning

User:Woolstation, looking at their talk page, has been warned three times for introducing copyrighted material into articles. [92][93][94]. Today, they made this edit [95] which introduced material copied from their cited source, [96]. You can see the copypatrol report [97]. Upon further examination of the article, I had to remove more copyrighted material from different sources, including the subject's own website.

I do not know why they continue to introduce copyrighted matter into articles. Maybe they don't understand, maybe they don't think it's that big of a deal. But it needs to stop, and the situation needs admin intervention. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 22:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• I blocked for 48 hours. The previous warning was by User:Diannaa, and if they feel like a stronger sanction is warranted, that's fine. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Drmies, Diannaa, GreenLipstickLesbian, I've indeffed after finding further problems at Andy Thayer and Draft:Uptown People's Law Center. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC) ‎
    • So it goes. Drmies (talk) 00:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

High-speed editing IP

The IP address 2600:4808:6091:5E00:748A:F9DA:24C0:52 has been, starting yesterday, making possibly thousands of high-speed edits (as fast as 3-4 per minute) changing names of countries to former names or predecessor states such as Greece to Kingdom of Greece and Brazil to First Brazilian Republic. Has been warned but has not stopped. I've tried mass-reverting their edits but the massRollback script isn't working reliably for me. Rusty ^{talk contribs} 22:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

IP has been blocked. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 22:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tel_al-Sultan_massacre&diff=prev&oldid=1232874929

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

This as well (see the edit summary) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATel_al-Sultan_massacre&diff=1232876802&oldid=1232875094 - IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)