Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1166

SFHistorian1850

SFHistorian1850 appears to be a single-purpose account focused on portraying members of the "progressive" wing of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in a positive light. The account's article edits consist entirely of removing negative content (often referenced) and adding favorable information (often poorly sourced) about these politicians. In addition, the account has made 4 separate requests for page protection for politicians from the same group that were each denied. I denied the first request (prior to getting involved in trying to help resolve a content dispute on Hillary Ronen), and the following three requests were declined by other administrators.

Thus far, SFHistorian1850 has received (1) a contentious topics alert for BLPs, (2) a conflict of interest warning, and (3) a BLP warning for poorly referenced information. Given the account’s apparent conflict of interest and the warnings being ignored, a block may be needed.

• Content removals: Hillary Ronen #1, Hillary Ronen #2, Hillary Ronen #3, Aaron Peskin #1, Aaron Peskin #2, Hillary Ronen #4, Hillary Ronen #5 (some are a mix of removal and addition)
• Positive additions: John Avalos #1, Hillary Ronen #1, Hillary Ronen #2, Hillary Ronen #3, Hillary Ronen #4, Aaron Peskin #1 (some are a mix of removal and addition)
• RFPP requests: Hillary Ronen, Connie Chan (politician), Aaron Peskin, Dean Preston

Daniel Quinlan (talk) 04:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Until they made an edit yesterday, they really hadn't edited since March and April 2024. So, while I recognize that their editing might be problematic (thank you for the thorough report), I'm not sure if the situation right now is urgent. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Liz, thanks for taking a look. There is definitely a pattern of lengthy breaks between these edits, but it's also relentless since December 2022 so it seemed like ANI was the right place (like it says above: chronic, intractable behavioral problems). If you believe an additional warning, a topic ban, or some other action is appropriate, I have no objection, but it started to look like a more serious form of COI editing once I realized there was a broader pattern beyond Hillary Ronen. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 04:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

In case "progressive" is unfamiliar in this context: it's a term commonly used in San Francisco media. Most articles use the terms "moderate" and "progressive" to distinguish the two main political factions within the Board of Supervisors (example #1, example #2). Daniel Quinlan (talk) 17:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Personal attacks over content dispute

TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk · contribs) Hello. I'd like to flag for attention a content dispute over the status of several geographic locations in Queensland that has led to personal attacks against myself and another editor by this user. On the talk page for Ipswich, Queensland, myself and others have raised concerns about TFEU's behaviour. They have engaged in similar content disputes, accusing good faith editors of WP:OR and questioning WP:NPOV, including placing inappropriate maintenance tags on the articles and reverting edits that restore sourced, long term stable content. As there may be a language barrier, I brushed off TFEU's comments on their own talk page that are disparaging toward Australians. However, attempts to discuss this matter with the user and resolve the dispute indicate they intend to ignore consensus. They are now accusing myself and StellaAquila of multiple instances of "forgery" that they believe need to be looked at by an administrator. Of particular concern to me is the edit summary for [change] on 26 August, which accuses me of falsifying sources and undermining consensus. I feel this is now a personal attack and have asked TFEU to strike their WP:Aspersions, however they seem to have gone inactive and have not responded. Dfadden (talk) 10:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I had no intention of using any personal attacks. I would also like to point out that I wanted to inform you about the falsification of sources in this article - my intention was not to offend anyone, and if someone thinks otherwise, they are breaking the Wikipedia:Assume good will. I didn't say anything about the user as such, I only wrote that what that what he is doing is falsifying sources. Also, I would like to remind you that falsifying sources is a verb and describes an action regardless of the good will of the user and whether he do it on purpose or by mistake. I have noticed falsification of sources in this article. I explained it thoroughly in the discussion, it didn't help. Dfadden didn't even discuss it in the discussion, nor did he try to clarify the matter before reverting. User:StellaAquila add [1][2] and later, user:Dfadden restored[3] the content of the article that is not supported by sources. In other words: both users inserted the content of "regional city" and "serves as the city’s central business district" and sources for that content, even though the sources say nothing about it. That's not all - they removed the article's content (word of "suburb") which is supported by one of these sources (there is even a quote!!!). User:Dfadden came here to complain, and didn't even verify the sources inserted by user:StellaAquila. Dfadden, it is your responsibility to verify the sources before restore StellaAquila's version. Just because you weren't the first to insert false sources doesn't mean you're blameless. By blindly restoring false sources inserted by user:StellaAquila, you are just as guilty of forging sources as he is. It is very good that the matter was reported to ANI, because it is unacceptable for users to falsify sources in the article.

I have correctly inserted content ("suburb") supported by a source and have provided a citation from the source. I have also correctly inserted appropriate templates for content not supported by sources (template:failed verification span) [4], because that's what this template is for. User:Dfadden removed content supported by a verified source + quote and removed templates informing about a faulty source[5]. Dfadden, how do you intend to explain these destructive actions? TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 15:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

You’ve said you had no intention of using any personal attacks, but the following quote looks quite offensive to me, even allowing for the fact that you aren’t editing in your first language:

Discuss in Talk:Ipswich, Queensland is not good idea, this talk page will recruit mainly Australians, which will allow them to push through even the stupidest idea. The discussion should have a broader, international character, where the Australian point of view (disconnected from reality) has only one voice [6].

At the very least you should apologise unconditionally for an exceptionally poor choice of words. That statement needlessly inflamed a content dispute into an ANI issue. Axad12 (talk) 18:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

It was about the topic in a broader sense - the point of view among Australian residents about the localities may be considered unacceptable in the international environment (such as Wikipedia), especially since in many cases this content is unsupported by sources (thus violating a fundamental principle of Wikipedia). I was agitating for a broader discussion in a neutral place on Wikipedia, where the "Australian" opinion will be treated as one among many others. Looking back at my statement almost 2 months after writing it, I can see that my choice of words was indeed inappropriate. I apologise for an exceptionally poor choice of words. TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 20:37, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

The word i take most issue with is "forgery", which you again just used right here in this discussion, despite your claims you never said that about me: By blindly restoring false sources inserted by user:StellaAquila, you are just as guilty of forging sources as he is. You also made this accusation on the talk page: The StellaAquila / Dfadden's version is a forgery, because the user inserted two sources into the content, but these sources do not say anything about it[6][7]. The administrator should look into this matter because in this article it is already a recidivism..

Its one thing if you have an issue with WP:Synthesis of the sources added by StellaAquila (which is a discussion I'd be happy to engage in at the appropriate place). Its a very different thing to accuse people of forging sources - which implies we made up sources out of thin air to deceive or personally benefit. Forgery and recidivism are words associated with criminal activity. Was this just another "exceptionally poor" choice of words that you just doubled down on after your earlier disparaging comments? Dfadden (talk) 21:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

For me, in a broader sense: introducing false sources into the article, especially since I wrote about it earlier in the discussion, is falsifying sources / forging sources. I can see that you are really offended by this - ok, I won't use these words anymore. I would also like to point out that we have completely different opinions on this subject - you react too bluntly (I don't know if I used the correct word) to my descriptions of your behavior and it is possible that I am using words that (contrary to my logic) may be considered inappropriate. As I wrote above, my intention was not to offend anyone. Unfortunately, I do not know how to write in English that someone introduced false sources to the article - without using words that may offend someone. For me, the situation is so absurdal that even pointing out that someone introduced false sources into the article may be considered a personal attack. Although my intention was not to offend anyone, I apologize for my words. TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 22:01, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I accept that you did not intend to accuse me of criminal conduct, however you repeatedly state that I am falsifying information when i have done no such thing! I have encouraged you to discuss controversial edits (which others have told you they have concerns about) before making changes to articles that have been stable for a long time. I reverted one of your edits after a conversation was started on the talk page. I asked you to discuss any changes first as it was controversial and they seemed to go against the majority in the discussion, which was still ongoing. I added a source that stated Ipswich is a regional city (albeit a primary one, i think in this case the city council is reliable). I did indeed restore the source added by StellaAquila. although I acknowledge its not the best source and a better one could be found, but this was just part of me reverting a controversial change you made. In response to this, you left permanent comments in an edit summary accusing me of falsifying information and of forgery on the talk page. Language barrier or not, that was rude, unnecessary and demonstrably untrue! I also note you have been involved in similar content disputes on a number of articles relating to cities in Queensland where you have displayed hostility towards anyone who has a different opinion to you and in Spain (such as here) where you were cautioned against edit warring. Dfadden (talk) 22:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

You are offended that I am writing untruths, that you are falsifying sources, and you are offending me, that you are writing untruths about me above. I have reverted few changes made by User:StellaAquila in Queensland's articles because some his edits were controversial. I don't remember any disputes with other users in Queensland's articles. You added a source that stated Ipswich, Queensland is a regional city? Where? Please give wikilink and quote from the source. The same applies to the second source, which is also false. Why are you writing once again, untrue, that the version with term of "regional city" is stable version? The term of "regional city" is a new change made by User:StellaAquila in 10 July 2024‎. In addition, why are you trying to hide the fact that you restored a version that contained two false sources even though I wrote about this problem earlier in the discussion? Besides, what kind of new tactic is this, you carefully analyze all my edits I have made on Wikipedia to find some small points against me. This is against Wikipedia rules and has signs of harassment. TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 23:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

If you are insufficiently fluent in English to be able to disagree without causing needless offence then I’d suggest you have three choices.

Either…

a) Take advantage of one of the various options available to get extra eyes on a dispute, e.g. WP:3O, WP:RfC, etc. (That sort of thing is usually a good idea anyway when 2 users just cannot agree, which happens to everyone from time to time).

b) Edit on English Wikipedia in such a way that you avoid arguments (inevitably some users find this easier than others).

Or, failing all else, c) Edit (or argue) only on a version of Wikipedia where you are fluent.

The above is intended as constructive advice, based simply on the fact that it requires a very high degree of fluency in a language to have a protracted argument in a civil fashion.

As ANI does not rule on content disputes I'd suggest that you take the content issue that underlies this thread to another location. Once there, de-escalate the situation by using more neutral language and wait for others to decide what should happen. Does that sound reasonable? Axad12 (talk) 06:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Axad12. These are all very wise and reasonable courses of action. I would like to clarify that I did not raise this AN/I to resolve the content dispute (there is already a discussion running on Talk:Ipswich, Queensland), but rather to address TFEU's pattern of problematic behaviours. We did previously discuss an RfC, which I encouraged, however this was met with more rubbish about excluding Australian opinions - So that there is no situation of appropriation of the Australian-related articles of the English Wikipedia by Australians, so that the Australian point of view is not pushed in a discussion where 99% of the arguments will come from Australians, because the discussion will be local. Discussion should be neutral. In such a local discussion like Talk:Ipswich, Queensland, only the Australian point of view ones would be discussed. Given that the topic is very disputed and controversial and changes to Australian-related articles are often contrary to international standards, a Wikipedia:Third opinion is necessary.

Another example of problematic and uncivil behaviour can be found at user talk:StellaAquila#Australian articles, where (prior to the edits to Ipswich that TFEU claims I "falsified"), there were more accusations of WP:OR and threats against that user over a rather minor edit: However, your falsification of sources in relation to content is seriously damaging Wikipedia, and the consequences will be severe. Also, the removal of the word "Brisbane" from articles [1] will not be tolerated. Naming Brisbane as a region - your original research [2] also will not be tolerated. This is the last warning. I should also note that a third, uninvolved editor has echoed the concerns raised by myself and StellaAquila in the discussion at Talk:Ipswich, Queensland.

Finally, to respond to TFEU's question as to where I added a source that indicated Ipswich was a regional city, I refer to [[7]], where I added a reference from the Ipswich City Council (albeit a primary source) that states: The city is ideally positioned on the national road network; As Queensland's oldest provincial city, Ipswich has a rich history.; Ipswich also has a range of charming townships within the western rural areas of the city, each with its own legitimate claims of historical significance. This edit was reverted by TFEU [[8]] with the edit summary the discussion did not explain anything new. Besides, no matter what the consensus in the discussion would be, we are dealing here with falsification of sources by user Dfadden. User Dfadden inserts a sources to content that is not in the sources. The administrator should deal with the matter because it is a recidivism. It seems clear to me based on this that TFEU is not interested in working collaboratively to resolve anything and will continue to cast WP:Aspersions regardless of any consensus. Dfadden (talk) 08:56, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

• Dfadden, you are repeating yourself and nitpicking the same thing over and over again. Soon you will quote all my comments here. And why? My opinion on the Australian naming problem was quoted above in the discussion. As can be seen from the above-mentioned Ipswich and dozens of other articles, Australian users tend to call everything (villages, towns, cities, LGAs, agglomerations, urban areas etc) as "city". This is contrary to international standards in Wikipedia. That is why I agitated that there should be a broader discussion of an international nature, not a local discuss between... Australians residents with mainly the "Australian" point of view. Of course I can show the evidences: many discussion pages and Australian articles showing that I am writing the truth. Of course, this is a substantive issue and ANI is not the place for such discussions.
• Regarding your source - this is a source about City of Ipswich, not Ipswich, Queensland . Secondly: the source does not mention term of "regional city" and your edit refers to inserting this source into the term "regional city". The source does not mention "regional city", so the accusations of OR are completely justified. So your source is 100% false and misleading. I have growing concerns about your intentions because your above comment may mislead other users. To the administrators who are not know with the Australian naming issues: City of Ipswich is a city with a mayor, city council, administrative boundaries, an official website and even has international relations, e.g. sister cities. On the other hand, Ipswich, Queensland is just a population center, area covering the city center, without a mayor, city council, administrative boundaries and official website. Ipswich, Queensland is nothing formal, this is area who covers the city center of the City of Ipswich. The source cited by user:Dfadden refers to City of Ipswich [9], not Ipswich, Queensland (which is what this discussion is about).
• Dfadden, I would like to remind you that ANI works both ways. If there is a dispute between two users, it does not matter which one starts a thread on the ANI site first. Your comment above shows not only that your source is false because it does not refer to Ipswich, Queensland (source refers to City of Ipswich) and the source does not contain the term "regional city" (and you entered the source to this name). Your comment above, which may mislead anyone unfamiliar with the problems of Australian naming, and the fact that you, as an Australian, know perfectly well that the source is from City of Ipswich and not Ipswich, Queensland - this suggests that it is worth taking a second look at your intentions. So far I have been guided by Wikipedia:Assume good will, but it is worth to analyze the attempt to deliberately introduce false sources into the article. It is also worth remembering that there is also a motive - Dfadden, despite my proposed compromise in the form of a neutral term "population center", the user has not initiated any discussion towards compromise[10], trying to force the controversial and disputed term "city" for Ipswich, Queensland. I am not accusing anyone!!!!, I am only suggesting that it is worth taking a look at this situation. TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 15:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  Can the admin reviewing this please comment on whether a partial block could be placed on this user for Ipswich, Queensland to prevent further disruption? This would still allow everyone to participate in an RfC to resolve the content dispute over Australian cities and provide an opportunity for consensus and de-escalation. Dfadden (talk) 12:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  Can the admin reviewing this please comment on whether a partial block could be placed on user:Dfadden for Ipswich, Queensland to prevent further disruption? User:Dfadden is not willing to compromise at all, he imposes only and exclusively one version that he supports. The user did not discuss two important topics in talk page[11], instead he came here to complain. The user entered false sources into the article and despite everything coming to light, he did not even decide to apologize. Now the user unwilling to compromise will want to restore his version, possibly with false sources since his version has no reliable sources. Therefore, I not only suggest a topic ban in this article for the User:Dfadden, also I suggest consider blocking the account for a certain period, e.g. 2 weeks or month, for his underhand actions towards me and other users (harassment me, lies about me, evading responsibility for own edit, probable attempt to deceive other users by inserting a source concerning City of Ipswich, not Ipswich, Queensland) and the article (introducing false sources into the article). I have nothing against having a substantive discussion with a user:Dfadden on an article's talk page, but the article should be protected (by topic ban for user:Dfadden in Ipswich, Queensland) from subsequent edits that push words without supporting sources, most likely violating the OR rule and against introducing false sources into the article. TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 16:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  Dfadden hasn't edited that article since 18th July. You reverted that edit and Dfadden hasn't edit warred but instead engaged in discussion. The idea that a block is required to "prevent further disruption" to the article is nonsensical.

  If your post above is an attempt at de-escalating the current situation and avoiding needless offence then perhaps you'd better seriously consider option (c) in my post of a few days ago. Axad12 (talk) 16:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  Not exactly - you forgot something important. You forget that the fact that a user did not engage in an edit war earlier in this case does not exclude that when he gets rid of me he will introduce his version backwards (without edit-war). What guarantee do you have that if I am banned from editing this article, Dfadden will not restore his version with false sources? You should understand one thing: his version has no reliable sources, everyone involved in the discussion of this article (including Dfadden) knows that. There is a huge possibility (based on his actions in the article and in this discussion) that Dfadden, when he gets rid of me, will want to restore his version 1) with false sources 2) without any reliable sources, because there are none. Therefore, the article must be protected. There is no point in me avoiding discussions on the article's talk page, but I would prefer to contact a third party (Wikipedia:Third opinion) who will exercise control over violations of Wikipedia rules, especially Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Dfadden needs to understand one thing, I have absolutely nothing against the consensus, IF it complies with Wikipedia's rules. His version in 100% violates Wikipedia:Verifiability and everything indicates that "regional city" also violates the Wikipedia:No original research rule. Apart from the issue of breaking the rules, we have a substantive thread to discuss. Instead of continuing the substantive discussion, the user preferred to scare me with reporting to ANI[12]. I would like to remind you that my current version of the article is compromise #1, which shows both options in reference to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (both "suburb" + source+ quote and his "regional city"+[failed verification]). I proposed the compromise #2 in the article discussion. So, compared to me - the Dfadden does not want to compromise, he only wants to enforce his version unsupported by sources, which shows his intentions. TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 17:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  I'd refer you again to the desirability of option (c). Axad12 (talk) 17:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  Support p-blocking TravelerFromEuropeanUnion from the article, as they clearly cannot edit this topic without resorting to insults and demanding to get their way. The sealioning of bouncing between accusing another editor of deliberately introduce false sources into the article then immediately following up with I am not accusing anyone!!!!, I am only suggesting that it is worth taking a look at this situation. is just disingenuous. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  Support as per my comments above. Axad12 (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  I am willing to voluntarily withdraw completely from editing this article and even from the discussion, but only on one condition. I would only write only one summary comment on the article's talk page, two points: 1. Wikipedia rules and 2. a substantive/merythorical issue but only and only IF a third person (Wikipedia:Third opinion) makes sure that:

  1) Wikipedia rules are unconditionally and mandatory followed. This means that a third party will not allow content to be inserted without sources and will be responsible for accurate verification of sources.

  2) the substantive thread will be analyzed using arguments (not the number of votes, because Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a democracy). The third party will evaluate the arguments from everyone in the discussion and draw conclusions as consensus.

  This is a modification of Axad12's proposals, to which I will gladly agree. It can be as RfC, I see no obstacles. TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  Instead of continuing the substantive discussion, the user preferred to scare me with reporting to ANI May I remind you that you were the one who said you wanted an administrator to intervene as part of a thread i started to discuss this issue? The StellaAquila / Dfadden's version is a forgery, because the user inserted two sources into the content, but these sources do not say anything about it[6][7]. The administrator should look into this matter because in this article it is already a recidivism. I am also not the only editor in that discussion to raise concerns that you are not listening or do not understand what the community is trying to tell you, and have crossed a line into personal attacks in previous attempts to engage with you to resolve this issue.[[13]] Dfadden (talk) 20:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  The issue of adding false sources is an administrative issue. The administrator should look into this matter. I still have this opinion and it is sufficiently explained in my previous comments. The sources are false and cannot be used in the article. This does not change the fact that I proposed a compromise and you did not respond in the discussion about the compromise, but started to scare me with a motion to ANI. You are trying to distort the discussion here, introducing the same quotes over and over again, just to distract other users from your behavior. TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  @TravelerFromEuropeanUnion I've found that I agree with you on the content (and have posted to the talk page, so consider me involved), but agree with the others that there's an issue with your approach. WP:AGF is indeed a part of WP:5P4. In your condition above, what you ask is basically that the process follows Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. This implies that currently they are not. Regardless of your intent, the effect is a personal attack, which is why this matter has come to this noticeboard. I suggest you'll get far better results in your time here if you assume there's a miscommunication, not malice, the next time there's a disagreement. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  Ok, I agree with you. However, I would like to "pass the baton" to a third party (preferably you) who will ensure that the article adheres to Wikipedia's policies, in particular Wikipedia:Verifiability. Thank you for engaging in the discussion here and at Talk:Ipswich, Queensland. TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 14:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Just noting here that discussion has resumed on the article talk page, tense but productive. If it continues this way, this section can likely be closed with no action as a "everyone worked it out without admin intervention" happy ending. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@EducatedRedneck I thank you very much for your assistance in resolving a misunderstanding over what you have described as a complex issue. However, I am still quite concerned about @TravelerFromEuropeanUnion's capacity to engage in this discussion in good faith, given this recent contribution [14]. Dfadden (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I pointed out in the discussion the problem with the interpretation of content from sources indicated by Dfadden. I provided specific examples and an explanation. I have the right to do so. After all, no one can forbid me from pointing out the problem of someone's interpretation, if it is to be treated as an argument in a discussion.I am not going to be afraid to write down my arguments and point out irregularities in the talk page. I have the right to do so like any other user. My old comments (often from 2 months ago) were previously personal attacks - I agree and I apologized for that. That case is closed. Now it's a completely different matter and I no longer use personal attacks. And the fact that I pointed out that the source's interpretations by user Dfadden are wrong and provided evidence is not a personal attack. TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 21:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

You do have a right to point out your concerns and contribute your opinions on the content of the discussion. You cannot draw inferences about that individuals who are engaged in an ongoing civil discussion are "manipulating sources" and claim they are acting in bad faith. Especially when you have contributed no sources of your own to the same discussion. I also remind you that WP:Synth does not apply to talk page discussions. I have done nothing but respond to @EducatedRedneck questions and concerns to help them understand the nuances of Australian geography when they have asked. Where they have challenged my answers in a civil and respectful way, I have justified my position including acknowledging the limitations of sources i have found and trying to identify the root causes of disagreement. This has been productive so far. Please stop trying to derail it. Dfadden (talk) 22:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Very nicely written, too nicely but I currently have not written anything about any "manipulating sources" and "are acting in bad faith". Why are you trying to mislead the administrators? I treat this trying to mislead the administrators as a personal attack against me. From what I remember, this is the next time you've written untruths about me here. When will this end?

The point is that you introduces a lot of interpretations of maps and sources into the discussion. I understand that you are trying to explain certain things about Australia to the user. The problem is that many of your interpretations of maps are disputed. I only wrote that EducatedRedneck should not treat your comments as a reliable source of information because "these are just his opinions/his interpretation about maps and information from the Internet". Any user's opinion is not a reliable source of information, it is just an opinion and should be treated as such. This is not an personal attack on you. You say: "Please stop trying to derail it" - that's exactly the point. I apologize for wanting to "derail" the treatment of your map interpretations as a credible source of information. I've noticed that EducatedRedneck treat your interpretations as revealed truth, I asked him to be more careful and showed him two examples of your misinterpretation. I understand that you don't like it, but if someone overinterprets the content of the source, I have the right to write about it in the discussion. This is not a personal attack, despite everything you came here and try to mislead the administrators. What should we think of your behavior? TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Reflecting on our contributions in the talk page discussion, we could both benefit by reviewing WP:BECONCISE. However the reason we are back at ANI is not the content dispute -

I have now proposed a compromise to end the content dispute and provide you an opportunity to pursue your argument in a more appropriate place. Rather we are here due to your continuing incivility directed towards me. You really need to keep your criticisms focussed on the content rather than making assumptions about people. If someone says something that doesnt appear correct to you, you could try politely asking them questions like other editors have to confirm understandings, or bring alternative sources to the table. This would show good faith a lot more than rudely critiquing my replies to other editor's polite questions and drawing inferences that my intentions are to deceive people or propagate misinformation. Dfadden (talk) 06:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok. PS. I supported the compromise on the talk page. Regards, TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 20:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

PerseusMeredith

Would it be possible to have an admin look at the recent contribs for PerseusMeredith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and consider a WP:NOTHERE block? Their recent contributions appear to be incivil, in particular, stating Wikipedia has a liberal bias (The truth is that there are a growing number of articles, studies and videos showing wikipedia's growing bias. The list of "reliable sources" doesn't pass the eyeroll test of anyone who isn't on the far left.) (this was reverted apparently), then coming back a second time to put it in the wrong place (comment is made almost completely at the top of the discussion) and more simply (Even with the Wikipedia liberal bias). At best it's unsubstantiated WP:ASPERSIONS, but the behavior fits WP:NOTHERE IMO. Their article-space contributions are likewise... interesting. In Diversity, equity, and inclusion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), they added Since 2015, the approach has been tested in the fire of the marketplace and failed. Academics have tried to repeat McKinsey’s findings and failed, concluding that there is in fact no link between profitability and executive diversity. And the methodology of McKinsey’s early studies, which helped create the widespread belief that diversity is good for profits, is being questioned. Then there's their edit warring at Atheism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to include sadness as something atheists have more of than religious followers (1, 2, 3, 4). And then there's the talk page discussion that followed (The health benefits of religious belief is well-documented. I don't understand why it would be scrubbed from this article.).

For all their claims of "bias", they sure seem to be interested in injecting their own bias into Wikipedia articles. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

In no way is opining about the possibility of systemic bias on the project as a whole a violation of the WP:CIVIL or WP:ASPERSION, regardless of how little we might credit that assessment. I'd actually say that an editor of your tenure on the project suggesting that it is, is itself much closer to an issue we should be concerned about--but the truth of the matter is that this whole report is a tempest in a teapot.

I looked at the edits for both articles you have raised here as indication of "issues" with this editor (as well as the associated talk page discussions), and they likewise leave me perplexed as to why you view those edits as disruptive, let alone evidence of the kind of longterm, intractable issues justifying an ANI filing. At Atheism PM is arguing entirely from the basis of the content of the peer-reviewed source that seems to have been in the article for a long time before they got involved, and (though I haven't reviewed the source myself, and could easily change my mind about this once I have) they actually seem to have a pretty valid point when they observe that the positive qualities of atheism (as purported in that study; for obvious reasons, not discussing my own take) are being cherry-picked, leaving the negative one out.

Regardless of whether they prevail on that argument, at present they are engaging in discussion on the talk page, and not edit warring, and that discussion is quite young and has yet to see any standard efforts at normal dispute resolution (3O, RfC, DR). Meanwhile, on the DEI article, they added a sourced statement, which was reverted (for reasons that seem unclear--whoever reverted failed to explain in their edit summary, I think), and then PM let the matter drop.

I don't see anything here that comes close to requiring community attention. Don't get me wrong, some of the rhetoric runs parallel to what we see in a certain type of problem editor, and I think they should be encouraged to take it to community spaces already set up to discuss bias (and/or their user and user talk spaces), rather than being so liberal in decorating their article talk page arguments with such borderline soapboxing. But that's about the long and the short of it. As far as you have presented here, they are colouring more or less entirely within the lines of our policies and procedures and the Atheism and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion article discussions are entirely content disputes right now. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

• I think a comment like the eyeroll test of anyone who isn't on the far left shows some inflammatory word choice indicating tone rather beyond merely opining about systemic bias. As for whether this is a matter of behavior or content, the successive edits at atheism, as linked in the OP, to push in content describing atheists as generally sadder than religious people brings the matter into the realm of behavior, not content, since that crossed Wikipedia policy about edit warring, albeit a week ago. And by way of aside, I'm aware that there's some secondary literature pointing to a relationship between religiosity and happiness, but while some of PerseusMeredith's edit summaries mention a source (though they seem to not have added it as part of their edit?), one of the sources already cited in the article (Puckerman, Sociology Compass, 2009) shows the claim is demonstrably not an academic consensus, as Puckerman lays out several studies and critiques that question the claimed link between atheism and unhappiness (pages 956–957).
  This combination of behavior is troubling. Attention of some kind doesn't seem misplaced. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

This is one of the few occasions when I'm afraid I have to strongly disagree with your assessment, Hydra. What policy has been violated here? Certainly not the ones cited by the OP. Even the one brief episode of edit warring is a case where context calls into question whether PM was being disruptive, since their subsequent edits in that sequence seem to have been efforts to arrive at wording which addressed the concerns laid out in the edit summary in the initial revert. And it seems that once they realized that this minor tweak was not going to suffice to create consensus, they dropped the effort to place the content and opened a good-faith discussion on the talk page to resolve the issue, exactly as our policies direct them to do.

And in that discussion, they've asked a very reasonable question that no one has been able to satisfactorily answer yet: why are the editors on that page so willing to accept that source as an WP:RS for purposes of suggesting that atheists have a higher IQ (which is every bit as controversial a theory in this field), and yet reject that very same source for it's suggestion that the religious may be happier. What's good for the goose should typically be good for the gander in these kinds of circumstances. And yes, it's true that claim about higher levels of happiness among the religious is controversial, empirically complicated, and not established academic consensus, but all of those things are equally as true for the claim of higher intelligence among atheists. Which is why the claim for the latter is attributed in the article, and not stated in Wikivoice. Why would we not do the same for the other claim that is presented in tandem in the same source?

More to the point for our purposes here, even if the contributors for that article ultimately decide that some peculiar, convoluted argument from WP:WEIGHT means that we should present the one claim and not the other (and let me tell you, as someone who is both an atheist and has a formal background in cognitive science, I would be inclined to raise an eyebrow at that), the whole debate is still a content issues. One which Perseus is apparently pursuing in good faith on that talk page, allowing the status quo version they disagree with to stand in the article, while they wait for feedback in said TP discussion.

The first sentence of this page reads "This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems." (emphasis in original). Nothing the OP has presented here rises to that level or anywhere near it. At most, PerseusMerideth needs to be told that they are doing no favours to their arguments by adding little soapboxing observations about WikiPedia's general failing to their !votes on more discrete issues. Beyond that, I don't see anything that has been presented here that represents PM doing anything but following the normal editorial and dispute resolution processes in good faith. Granted, given their strong views, I can't rule out that they would ever disrupt the project to make a WP:POINT. But it is incumbent upon the party or parties alleging misconduct to provide evidence of it. And as that has not been done here, I therefore WP:AGF that PM is conducting themselves as well on other articles as they are on the two mentioned here: which is to say, not without some attitude, but perfectly within the rules and expectations of this community. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

As far as chronic goes, since my initial post I looked further into PerseusMeredith's contribution history (figured that if I say the matter's worth attention, I may as well put in the elbow grease myself), and I've become a lot more concerned that there's a longer term pattern indicative of being here to legitimize a personal stance rather than to build an encyclopedia. The following are each examples of PerseusMeredith from what I can tell misrepresenting sources that a lot of editors would generally consider reliable in order to remove content that I suppose might be considered 'liberal' by an editor who thinks Wikipedia is biased to the far left:

• At Thanksgiving, Removing a reference to the day's cultural association, through the National Day of Mourning protest, with the genocide of Native Americans on the grounds that the source didn't verify it—even though the National Geographic source did, as a later edit points out
• At Jezebel, removing content, about the Jezebel cultural trope on the grounds that it was a political and subjective statement. The removed content was about how the biblical trope was used to justify sexual abuse in historical American chattel slavery, and it had been cited to multiple academic journal articles.
• At William F. Buckley, removing content that noted Buckley praised dictator of Spain Francisco Franco for overthrowing the country's elected government on the grounds that the citation provided was a Biased source. Not appropriate for a biography. The citation was to a book written by Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman and published by W. W. Norton.
• At William A. Dembski, removed criticism of a lecture about intelligent design on the grounds that the Citation is a blogpost from one biased author. While it's entirely right that we should be careful about what we write in and what we cite for BLPs, the edit summary made it sound like the source was a personal blog when it was actually published by the National Center for Science Education.

Some of these aren't 'fresh', I realize. Rather than urgency, the concern here is chronicness—the behavior being longterm and repeated over time. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 03:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, in light of your research, afraid I must agree. The evidence of a longterm pattern obviates my initial concerns about a lack of substantial issues in the OP. I rescind my position that it is premature to be discussing this editor's conduct. Clearly at a minimum we need to have a chat about WP:NPOV with this user, if not take more substantial action. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for giving more examples @Hydrangeans, with ~160 edits in two years it was seemingly every few edits that rang out as simply being here to push their own stance and not actually improve the encyclopedia. To answer @Snow Rise with regard to WP:ASPERSION, the concern I had was that they're basically saying editors who disagree with them are biased liberals. Yes, they're not calling out specific editors, but the tone is troubling especially in WP:CTOP areas. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

"the concern I had was that they're basically saying editors who disagree with them are biased liberals."

I noticed that your statement is devoid of citations. That's because I've never said that, how is that not a false accusation in violation of the casting aspersions policy? PerseusMeredith (talk) 17:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

They're cited in the original report above (the first two diffs) where you state [t]he list of "reliable sources" doesn't pass the eyeroll test of anyone who isn't on the far left and [e]ven with the Wikipedia liberal bias [...]. Also, familiarize yourself with the concept of implying and insinuating things, which is what I meant by basically saying. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

"editors that disagree with them are biased liberals" - means that everyone that disagrees with me is a biased liberal.

That's entirely different than criticizing the list of reliable sources and alleging that wikipedia has a liberal bias (and citing documentation of that bias).

You brought this allegation of uncivility against me but your patronizing post that I should familiarize myself with the definition of implying and insinuating is decidedly uncivil. I only requested that you cite me correctly and that you comply with the wikipedia policies of casting aspersions. PerseusMeredith (talk) 19:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

The National Geographic source leads to a dead-end link. What are you basing your comment on? The CNN article references a plaque that says "genocide." You may disagree but I do think there is a basis for removing the term and putting "death."

Regarding Jezebel. These is only one journal not "multiple academic journals." One is an article on a University website:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110728034514/http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/jezebel/

There is only one journal cited "Women and Therapy" which has more to do with stigma regarding rape victims than the actual Biblical term "Jezebel." My edit was in effect for over 5 months. If it was entirely without merit, it would have been reverted months ago.

One of the citations, doesn't reference Jezebel in the abstract and you can't read the article on the link.

"The Jezebel stereotype is an oppressive image and was used as a justification for sexual assault and sexual servitude during the eras of colonization and slavery in the United States."

This is what the abstract provides:

"Specifically, we link two historical images of Black women, Jezebel and Matriarch, to the contemporary experience of Black rape survivors." As you can see, the post and the journal article say something entirely different. I think there is a clear, unbiased rationale for removing the post.

William Dembski, this is the article. I agree that I shouldn't have used the term "blogpost," that was my mistake. But the criticism remains the same that this is not appropriate for a biography of a living person. This is one person's opinion on one event 17 years ago. You can read the article, this is not material that is neutral in content, disinterested in tone, and carefully sourced. The removal was appropriate.

"As lackluster, rushed, and incomplete as the presentation itself was, the question-and-answer period went even more poorly for Dembski."

https://ncse.ngo/victory-over-intelligent-design-oklahoma PerseusMeredith (talk) 15:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I think there's something important that has been missed in the above. Whatever the incivility, NPOV etc problems with the editor, far more concerning is COPYVIO problems coming from them. The DEI addition mentioned above [15] was copied exactly from the WSJ source (archival link to the source [16]). It seems like they did the exact same thing with the same source in another article, possibly with an even longer paragraph based the articles and guessing from the edit summaries etc of the deleted history. They were warned [17] and the discussion they had with Diannaa here User talk:Diannaa#McKinsey & Company - WSJ Citation, suggests they incorrectly thought just adding quote marks would be sufficient to remedy the problem. But I think it's clear that the paragraph is not the kind of thing we should include as a quotation. To be clear, these are contemporaneous, so it's not the case that Diannaa warned them and then they did it again, however at a minimum it's disappointing that they either did not remember or did not bother to check whether they'd made the same mistake in the DEI article, which they did. Nil Einne (talk) 04:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

BTW I let Diannaa know about the DEI problem, as well as this thread so it's possible she or someone else will revdel. To be clear, besides the possible need for revdel, the infringing content has IMO already been satisfactorily rewritten by another editor in a general cleanup so it isn't an extant problem in the article only maybe the edit history. Nil Einne (talk) 04:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't deal with WP:CCI or do I deal much with copyvio problems, but I think there may be further problems in their history e.g [18] added to our article

Bill Wilson made a call that connected with Henrietta Seiberling, which eventually led him to the introduction to Dr. Bob Smith and the creation of Alcoholics Anonymous. This phone can still be found in the hotel lobby.

vs from the source

Bill Wilson made a call that connected with Henrietta Seiberling, which eventually led to the creation of Alcoholics Anonymous. This phone can still be found in the hotel lobby.

or [19]

Moes had been given a vision from God of a great hospital rising out of the cornfields around Rochester–the little country town, with its one doctor. To that hospital, she had been told in her vision, would come patients from every part of the world and from every nation. And she had seen the name ‘Mayo’ respected the world over for surgical achievements.

vs

Her vision was of a great hospital rising out of the cornfields around Rochester–the little country town, with its one doctor. To that hospital, she had been told in her vision, would come patients from every part of the world and from every nation. And she had seen the name ‘Mayo’ respected the world over for surgical achievements.

While this is more complicated since we might not be able reword the alleged vision much, I'm still unconvinced that's a good way to handle it. The source is frankly terrible for this (I mean the actual source isn't even directly cited and I assume was never viewed), so I expect finding one or two better sources might help to resolve how to handle including this vision, if at all.

And these edits are particularly revealing IMO. PerseusMeredith first adds: [20]

Perhaps even more potentially problematic than negative personal experience is the possibility that bias may influence research quality: its design, execution, evaluation, and interpretation.

which makes no sense in the context of the article and preceding text. Their next edit they "fixed typo" [21] and changed it to

The APA has alleged to have lack of political diversity and that bias may influence research quality: its design, execution, evaluation, and interpretation.

As you might guess, the original "typo" version was direct copy from the source which they then fixed. Regardless of why they posted the unmodified text, I think most experienced and copyright aware editors will agree that copying text and then re-wording it is a terrible way to write content for articles since it is very likely to lead to WP:Close paraphrasing problems as IMO happened here even after they partly re-wrote it.

And it looks like this was their second attempt to add something which was likely copyvio. Prior to that there was this [22]. While I can't view it, the deletion logs [23] combined with that being the only thing deleted suggests to me it was also a copyvio problem. (Other than not being able to check the original edit myself, the one reason I'm uncertain is it doesn't look like PerseusMeredith was warned at the time. [24])

Note I looked at some other edits which looked like they might be fine so I'm not saying all PerseusMeredith's contributions are like that but IMO there seem to be too many given the relatively small number of main space additions of content they've made. I'm not sure where to go from here. Editors more familiar with the matter could comment whether a WP:CCI might be needed. If a CCI is started and PerseusMeredith remains unblocked, any way they could help with the process would be a positive although I assume some editor would need to double check anything they do.

Nil Einne (talk) 10:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

The copyright issue isn't a one-off - here's another instance of copyvio issues with this editor - this at James McCann (baseball) is directly lifted from the article cited as its source ([25]).

PerseusMeredith wrote:

Doctors told his mother that her baby had a 1 in 4 chance of surviving and that if the baby did survive, he or she would be severely mentally or physically disabled. His parents chose to put their faith in God and declined the offer to terminate the pregnancy. "From Day 1 God has been protecting me,” McCann has said. “My goal is to share what God has done for me.”

The source wrote:

Doctors told her that her baby had a 1 in 4 chance of surviving and that if the baby did survive, he or she would be severely mentally or physically disabled. The young couple chose to put their faith in God and declined the offer to terminate the pregnancy. “Open your eyes. I was that child. From Day 1 God has been protecting me,” McCann said. “My goal is to share what God has done for me.”

The only change is to remove part of McCann being quoted while leaving in all of the article writer's words practically verbatim, changing only "her" to "his mother", "McCann said" to "McCann has said", and "The young couple" to "His parents". Egsan Bacon (talk) 22:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

• In this situation, I'd really like to hear from User:PerseusMeredith before taking any action. They aren't a new editor and in this report they have been heavily scrutinized and I'd like to hear their response to these allegations to see whether they are defensive or they are willing to change their approach to editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Wikipedia may have a liberal bias or not, but it is certainly not biased towards the far left. That claim is nothing more than a dog-whistle. Happily the investigation into copyright violation above means we don't have to look into the content of what has been said. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I will take ownership of the copyright violation. In two years, this is the first time this was brought to my attention, I was sloppy by not putting the quotation marks on the three sentences from the WSJ article (although the article was cited). I still don't see why including those three sentences with the quotation marks would be a copyright violation since it was three sentences and not a large body of the article. I'd appreciate additional color here but I will be sure to include quotations in the future. As I previously, shared when this was called to my attention, my bad.

With respect to the talk post that gave rise to this inquisition, I do think it is well-taken that it was not the correct forum to engage in topics of wikipedia bias. I will refrain from doing this in the future.

But I certainly think it's fair, to say that wikipedia is bias. In order for there to be a violation of neutral point of view, the edit must be "without evidence." There are a number of sources and studies that back up this statement. You may disagree with the sources but the statement does have evidence.

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w22744/w22744.pdf

https://manhattan.institute/article/is-wikipedia-politically-biased

https://wjc-org-website.s3.amazonaws.com/horizon/assets/Jb32GlTy/wjc-slamstudio_a-flood-of-hate_v4.pdf

https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3041021.3053375

For instance the argument about atheism is that this statement is a policy violation.

I did not target a single editor (unlike what has happened to me). I have noticed that no one has actually provided empirical data that shows that wikipedia doesn't have a liberal bias. On one hand, I have data to back this up but my accuser does not.

The other example in the original post requesting an inquiry is that this sentence in atheism talk is somehow a policy violation "(The health benefits of religious belief is well-documented. I don't understand why it would be scrubbed from this article." Again, here is the data backing up this statement (there is A LOT more than what I am citing):

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2019/01/31/religions-relationship-to-happiness-civic-engagement-and-health-around-the-world/

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2019/01/31/religions-relationship-to-happiness-civic-engagement-and-health-around-the-world/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/dec/03/beyond-beliefs-religious-faith-happier-healthier-life

Is it somehow a policy violation to post statements that are well-documented? My post attempted to bring in the second half of the article that was cited. My editing record shows that I do not have a pattern of using unreliable sources and I don't post my own opinion "without evidence." When asked to take things to talk, I have. I have not engaged in a pattern of edit warring. There has not been a policy violation.

I do think that this post and the strict scrutiny of my editing record is a violation of [26] and [27]. Why would saying that wikipedia has a liberal bias cause a review of two years worth of posts to cherry-pick "evidence" that I should be banned? PerseusMeredith (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Allusions to Wikipedia's bias are fine. We're biased in all sorts of ways and there are legitimate disagreements to be had over the subject. What's not fine is WP:BATTLEGROUND. What should give anyone pause is an account that only exists to push one side of AmPol culture war issues, attributing disagreement not to good faith differences but editors' bias. Their very first edit was arguing that rapid-onset gender dysphoria shouldn't be called pseudoscientific because, basically the theory is actually probably true (a fringe interpretation that has nothing to do with the reason that RfC ended with no consensus). To the point, that very first edit attributes disagreement to one user's personal bias. Looks like it's happening frequently. In mainspace, they've only made 92 edits and more than half (48) were reverted. Is intervention required? I don't know, but at minimum Perseus should find other articles to edit so they don't look like they're only here to pursue an agenda. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges or import personal conflicts, nor is it the place to carry on ideological battles or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear."

I don't believe any of the 48 reverted edits were the result of ideological battles or nurture prejudice. Arguing that something shouldn't be called pseudoscientific isn't an ideological battle. It's a position that a lot of people actually agree with. PerseusMeredith (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Perseus, while I don't believe Rhododentries' first diff linked above makes a good case for your having a disruptive approach, the issue can't be as easily dismissed with the second two, nor other of your comments and actions that have been raised here. I'm sure you will realize from my initial full-throated defense of you in this thread, that I believe we have to be careful about being too aggressive about shutting down those who want to express concerns about potential bias on the project. My support is not due to agreement with your perspectives, but rather a concern that if we are too dissuasive or repressive of such opinions, we risk engendering walled-garden effects.

But there are limits, and the second and third edits that Rhodo identifies are great examples of where you have crossed the line into something WP:tendentious. On this project (and in good argumentation in general) we have the principle of "comment on the issue (content, sources, policy), not the person you are arguing with". While that rule of thumb is relaxed somewhat to allow for more generalized criticism of project norms (as compared to accusations against individual editors), there is still a point at which broad colour commentary and WP:SOAPBOXING not directly rooted in the particular editorial issues being debated at the time becomes WP:disruptive.

And beyond that concern, and the possibility that you may eventually face an editing restriction or other sanction if you don't ease up on making "Wikipedia is a cesspit of liberal bias" a go-to clause of virtually every argument you lodge in every dispute you take part in, there is another reason to avoid it: it just makes your argument look weaker. On individual articles looking at discrete editorial issues, it will typically be seen as an argumentum ad hominem, and it weakens whatever legitimate points you might have otherwise made from policy and sourcing, and makes it more likely veteran editors will dismiss your position more readily.

So for practical reasons all around, I urge you to drop this habit, and if you want to comment on Wikipedia's general biases as you perceive them, save it for centralized spaces and discussions set aside for precisely those conversations. Your participation in talk page discussions will be a lot more smoother and your arguments a lot more efficient if you do. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I don’t see the specific citations that Rhodo cites. That being said, I think it’s good advice and I will refrain from commenting on liberal Wikipedia bias in the future unless it’s in a centralized location dedicated to that discussion. I agree that citing bias in a talk page is whining and counterproductive. PerseusMeredith (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think that first diff is a particular good example by which to criticize PM's approach or try to get them to understand where they are creating more noise than substantive contribution. Their position there is not substantially different from that of the majority of the dozens of editors (including many veteran community members, for whatever that is worth) who contributed to the no consensus result, with a roughly 2:1 ratio rejecting the psuedoscience label. From what I can see, their argument was less "this theory is correct" and closer to "the label is not WP:DUE".

Now, from the colour commentary creeping in around the edges, am I pretty sure that PM does in fact believe there is at least some validity to the theory? Yes, I think that's true, and it's a discredit to their approach here that I am able to make what I feel is a guess that I am pretty comfortable with as to their personal view. But you know who else that is true about in that discussion? Virtually every one who took part. I can't remember the last time I saw an on-project discussion about a trans rights issue where the majority of participants weren't blurring the lines between the editorial decision and the value of the underlying theory, event, or facts. So I'm not inclined to come down particularly hard on one user, making their first registered edit, who actually did a pretty good job of predicating their !vote on policy/sourcing considerations, all things considered.

However, all that preamble is just a caveat, because PM's second and third diffs that you identify are perfect examples of why there is a problem here that they need to come to grips with sooner rather than later, which I will now directly address with them immediately above. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

uncivil behaviour by User:Gabriel601

Dear Administrators, You need to do something about the disruptive and uncivil behaviour of @gabriel601 Below is my complaint.

Editor @gabriel601 had nominated my article, Paul Oluikpe for deletion accusing me of "lying" in the following uncouth language: "One more question to the article creator. Who is “Muradmomi12”, a user who posted a fake template on your talk page Here claiming to have accepted the article. Is that your second account?. Remember lying won’t save you. So you can just be honest and things be sort out properly per Wikipedia policy".

There are many other uncivil language he used in the deletion process(please go to the deletion discussions on Paul Oluikpe and see for yourself.

(1) I provided proof of the article meeting notability guidelines with a 7 point refutation of his claims and requested him to provide proof of the article not meeting the notability guidelines and he provided none. (2) In return he said so many uncivil things about me "deceiving the public". He went on a rant about how I am a new user (9 months old) with less than 200 edits, and how come I am able to submit an article that was accepted. (3) He accused me of colluding with @muradmomi12 who has actually been banned/blocked on wikipedia. (4) Upon looking at his talk page I noticed that @gabriel601 has been blocked previously for the same incivility and uncouth language, and disruptive behaviour on wikipedia. He just got unbanned/unblocked recently and has gone on another spree. (5) Today, he has just targeted another article of mine and nominated it for deletion.

I request that an administrator should take a look at his activity on my article Paul Oluikpe. If an administrator reviews my article and finds the subject not notable, I would accept a speedy deletion. But if you find that the subject is notable, and that @gabriel601 had not acted in good faith, I leave any course of decision to your discretion. Kind regards @cfaso2000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfaso2000 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Could it be a “bro” or a “sis” to address you as Cfaso2000 ? But this seems uncalled for & funny as i have never called you a liar or a deceiver. Something went wrong on your talk page here User talk:Cfaso2000#Your submission at Articles for creation: Paul Oluikpe which could give everyone the impression of knowing what was wrong. But since you already claimed not to have anything to do with that I let it closed. You said nominating your article Paul Oluikpe for AFD was a vandalism but that was only my first edit to the page therefore it gave me the impression you seems not to know what vandalism is all about. You said my nomination to your article was not done in good faith and I was surprise like has this editor gone to read this policy before making accusations because you are all getting everything all wrong. After saying all this accusation in the first place I never insulted you rather let things be a bygone. My only question to you was that what happened to the fake approved template on your talk page which could be looking like a deceive to the public that your article was accepted. That in anyway never stated that you are a liar neither a deceiver nor did I ever called you such. You need to be calm. I definitely have no issues with you. Less I forget would advise you can always submit your article for review so that it doesn't get nominated for AFD just like others and of the 2023 you have done which was nominated by Star Mississippi. So, I'm not after you at all. Take care and have a lovely day. Gabriel (……?) 17:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

What you wrote on the page is in black and white and needs no interpretation. I have said it's insulting to say "remember lying won't save you" or "When I saw that it actually looked like a deceive to the public", or to say "You joined wikipedia 9 months ago with less than 200 edits but thats by the way". These are not statements made in good faith. Cfaso2000 (talk) 17:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

First off, it's not very nice of Gabriel to WP:ACCUSE. However, Cfaso2000 appears to be WP:BLUDGEONING the AfD processes. So, perhaps a warning to both and we can move on with our lives here. Conyo14 (talk) 20:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Well understood. Gabriel (……?) 21:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I do agree that this misleading AfC notice posted by Muradmomi12 is strange, but it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with Cfaso2000. C F A 💬 23:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping @Gabriel601. Just noting I've seen this but haven't been able to look at the AfDs aside from the one I raised. @Cfaso2000 I'd advise you to slow down on your editing until you're more familiar with what constitutes notability. Muradomi12 doesn't appear to have ever been blocked and not sure what their connection is. Star Mississippi 01:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Threatening other users and accusations

• KustrimiAbdu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kuči (tribe) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:KustrimiAbdu is a new account created solely to offend people on Kuči tribe page, and to discuss stuff about sources for that article on RS Noticeboard.

He is attacking other editors, and could be a sock but i can't confirm it, as it's really weird that he created account and jumped right into all the topics related to Kuči tribe, including ones on RS Noticeboard.

He is threatening other people and claiming they are pushing "Serbian POV nationalist Kosovar genocide rhetoric" which is laughable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Setxkbmap (talk • contribs) 22:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

The newly created account "KushtrimAbdu" is most likely a single purpose account created for the sole purpose of derailing the discussion in the opposite direction it supposedly supports. This is not an account created by someone who is Albanian as it claims on its userpage. Even the spelling of the username is wrong in Albanian. The account should be reported at SPI as most likely this is not a new editor but someone who wants to create the perception that "Albanian nationalist" SPAs are targeting the article.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Glad you agree. It would be nice if you did report him at SPI. Thanks! Setxkbmap (talk) 23:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

(Redacted)

I agree that this seems to be a joe job, and a potentially very dangerous one, seeing as there could be real-world reputational, professional, and legitimate safety concerns for the individual being impersonated. The account userpage and image should be deleted and all statements by the account removed and mostly revdelled ASAP. If that action is not immediately forthcoming from a volunteer admin here, you should consider emailing the the WMF Trust and Safety Team (see here), who probably should be made aware of this regardless. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Made an attempt to speedy the userpage. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 00:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I deleted User:KustrimiAbdu but will wait to see if further views are forthcoming before further action. Johnuniq (talk) 02:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Suspicious coordinated editing at Ra'il I'Nasah Kiam

• Ra'il I'Nasah Kiam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Paigeb4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Demuretsy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Puntkinstler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

So, here's the timeline:

• A new editor creates a user sandbox on their first edit, then moves it to mainspace after getting the 10 required edits for autoconfirmed.
• A month later, long after the page has been draftified, another brand new user uses their first edit to add "needed references and context for notability" to the draft, then submits it to AfC.
• After less than 20 minutes, the AfC submission is moved to mainspace again by a 3-year old account with only 20 edits.

I ended up reviewing and heavily tagging the page as it was possilikely notable (so, no AfD) and already had gone through AfC (no re-draftification), despite having major tone issues, but I'm suspecting that something might have been at play here. Not sure if it's sockpuppetry, a COI farm, or yet another kind of coordinated editing. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

This hasn't gotten any response, and, while the users haven't edited since, it could be good for someone to take a look at what happened with the article, as it is still currently in mainspace. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:12, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Don't have time for more than a quick skim but I agree with "possibly notable" and also with your tagging. Some of the sources are indeed primary and there is indeed a flavour of advocacy. Someone with more time should make sure that the NPR and Slate sources are more than passim. Did not try to investigate the editors since other people can do that better. Hth Elinruby (talk) 03:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I got around to checking the references, and while they are impressive, they are all of them about Black Twitter. Not I'Nasah Kiam. Unless I am somehow missing something. I did "Find in page" for "I'Nasah Kiam" on each and got zero results on any of them, except for the two primary sources and the one that isn't online. I don't hang out much at AfD but this looks like a GNG fail to me. Mind you, if this was AfD I would be supposed to do a BEFORE, which I have only done in a very cursory way, but again with zero hits. The post has now archived and maybe you don't have the time to pursue this -- I certainly don't -- but fwiw it seems worth further digging by someone. And the history you brought up does seem suspicious. Is it possible that there are spelling variations on the name? Otherwise I dunno. I suggest approaching an admin directly. Elinruby (talk) 21:37, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Mischellemougly - WP:UPE

• Mischellemougly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) / Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mischellemougly
• Richard Elfman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Er elezi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I started the SPI around two months ago, since then I have occasionally followed Mischellemougly's contributions. The common pattern I found is that their articles always get an image added to them shortly afterward. Most of these articles are clearly obscure, i.e., they have little to no traffic/page views. So, the odds of an image being uploaded for them are practically zero, as most of the articles aren’t reviewed to be listed on Google Search nor do they have many incoming wikilinks for editors to stumble upon them. Today, I noticed that Mischellemougly moved Artan Dulaku from draft space, which I believe was initially on User:Er elezi/Artan Dulaku. I G11'ed Artan Dulaku, wwhich was eventually deleted by User:Deb. The pattern of their behaviou is available at their SPI and I have a small hunch that Mischellemougly is a sockpuppet of User:Jehowahyereh [28]. Until this month, User:Mischellemougly had never edited outside of topics related to Kerala/India. This month, they moved Artan Dulaku from draftspace and created Mambo Diabolico, which was edited minutes after creation by User:Richard Elfman, writer of the play Mambo Diabolico. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 18:42, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I can see that an indefinite block is on its way, but if we are unable to identify the master, I propose that all of Mischellemougly's articles be draftified for further review. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 18:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

If they get draftified, please leave an AFCH comment with a link to this ANI thread. I just did a really quick spot-check of some of their creations and notability looks plausible enough that reviewers might simply accept them back to mainspace without looking deeper. -- asilvering (talk) 20:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Er elezi created that article in two places, calling it a translation from another Wikipedia - and guess who wrote that one? Deb (talk) 19:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you lettin me know about this UPE, The SPI against me was not even intimated to me or notified to me. I found about it here. This user Jeraxmoira🐉 has been continuously creating issues and even have done edit wars in most of the pages I edited or created. I have left editing those pages to avoid the harassment from this user. I am editing or creating pages of my interest and I found this user has been targeting the pages I edit or create for many months. I am mainly interested in film/media related pages and have been editing or creating such pages. From above I found that the user Jeraxmoira🐉 accuses that I created or edited pages outside Kerala ? Is there any such rule in wikipedia not to edit or create pages which is area bound ? I just checked and found the user Jeraxmoira🐉 has been creating pages related to Tamil Nadu, nearby state of Kerala and has recently been creating pages outside Tamil Nadu - JerAx , Evelin van Rei etc. So what is that he want to convey. I don't know why this user want me to get rid of editing Wikipedia.

Mischellemougly (talk) 04:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 

Mischellemougly, would you like to address the accusations leveled against you? how did you come across Artan Dulaku and why did you move it to the mainspace? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

To answer your question, I might need to disclose some personal identity details about me, I am ok in disclosing it if you need an answer for that. I am a person who was born and bought up in US and my native is South India. I closely follow US based and south Indian and bollywood based movie shows, music shows etc. Dancing with the Stars (American TV series) was one such show I followed. I have seen Albanian version of Dancing with the Stars in YouTube in the YouTube channel of Albanian TV channel Vizion Plus. Artan Dulaku is the owner of Vizion Plus and I found a draft article about him with no reference. So I have added available references in internet and published the article. I found it got speeded after a few days. About Mambo Diabolico, its a variety music band which was featured in the movie Aliens, Clowns & Geeks, Danny Elfman was the composer of the movie. I'm a great fan of Danny Elfman, the composer of Spiderman, Avengers etc. I created the article for Mambo Diabolico as it has a variety in its performance and I has been following their videos. Mischellemougly (talk) 13:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

You follow Dancing with the Stars (American TV series) yet you have made zero edits on that article or others related to it in the last year. Then you suddenly move an obscure Albanian entrepreneur's article out of nowhere and jump to Mambo Diabolico, which gets edited by Richard Elfman minutes after it was created. Any competent editor can see through this nonsense. Richard Elfman care to comment on how you came across Mambo Diabolico right after it was created? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:30, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I am a person who was born and brought up in US and my native is South India. You were born and brought up in the US? Is that correct? Your writing is characteristic of someone for whom English was learned later in life, rather than being immersed in it as a young child. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Didn't you notice this? Deb (talk) 07:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

rsjaffe, I was born in Macomb County, Michigan and lived there till I was 4-5 yrs and came back to India after my parents divorce. Again I went for my higher studies in Macomb Community College in my 20's and came back to India to manage our family business. That's all personal. I don't know why I need to explain it here?

Jeraxmoira🐉 , Is it necessary to edit pages about everything you know about? Then there wont be any time left to live other than editing in Wikipedia. I have vast knowledge and interest in various subjects and do you want me to edit about everything I know ? You mentioned my editing as nonsense, that's not a fair way to deal things out here. Do you seriously think that the Richard Elfan, Danny Elfman's brother edited the page? Anyone can create such an username and edit ? And if its true and if its real Richard Elfman, I don't know why I am being accused for his edits ? 

Mischellemougly (talk) 03:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

No, we don't think that he edited it. We think that you may have edited using a different user name. If that turns out to be true, you will be blocked so it's in your interest to be honest with us now. Deb (talk) 07:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Mischellemougly, I don't know how this discussion will end up but I regret that you felt compelled to share biographical information in this discussion. That was unnecessary and I'm sorry that you felt pressed to divulge facts about your life. That shouldn't be relevant to this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Liz , That is ok as far as its a panel where I can open up and only concern is this is a public space. B/w I found that you have warned Jeraxmoira🐉 previously for the user's editing style.Right now while I check the page Mambo Diabolico, he moved it to draft and tagged it for speedy deletion. What is the user trying to convey and why is the user so desperate?

Deb , Why should I use such an account to edit the page, when I have this account to edit ? I am not getting your point ? Mischellemougly (talk) 08:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC) Mischellemougly (talk) 08:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Don't worry, I've blocked that other account now. Deb (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I want to raise a complaint against this user Jeraxmoira🐉, where can I do that ? Here or somewhere else ?Mischellemougly (talk) 08:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Before you attempt that, you should read Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot. Deb (talk) 07:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Armand Duplantis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armand_Duplantis

Can an administrator please review the conduct of new user Globallycz who is continually reverting the page when no consensus for doing so exists on that Talk page. Thank you Billsmith60 (talk) 17:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@Billsmith60, your message on their talk page was not enough. You need to explicity mention that you've brought them to ANI. I put the template {{Ani notice}} there for you. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 17:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I am new to this. I have provided justification with verifiable references to support GOAT status of Mondo. Yet i didnt receive explanation on why there is a disagreement. I do not understand why it is my conduct issue when this person do not want to engage in discussion. Take the example of removing Diamond League title from athlete individual wikipedia page. He just agreed with another editor (marble fellow) and went ahead to remove it. They thought it is common sense that diamond league is not a competition with medals awarded and should not be in the medal table. But almost every diamond league winner has their diamond league title listed in their wikipedia page. Later i think he realised that inclusion of Diamond League title should not be deterred otherwise it would be incomsistent with other athletes' wiki pages. But then he proceed to nitpick on the placing of the diamond league title saying that it should not ranked above area title and just unilaterally moved it to the bottom of medal table below youth and junior championships titles. This is rather absurd and inexplicable move as diamond league meetings are senior level competition. I have provided justification why diamond league final should be ranked a higher level of competition than area senior outdoor championships. But i dont think he is prepared to listen. Nevertheless i am not afraid of facing any admimstrative action as long as my objectibe is clear which is to help to improve the content of wikipedia articles supported by good sources.

Yes his actions of reporting matters to admin instead of a proper discussion seems to have jumped the gun. He probably hoped that i will be scared away. But such actions on his part only come across as authoritative and opinionated. He may be more experience as an editor but shouldnt attempt to scare people to bring his point across using unjust adminstrative actions. Globallycz (talk) 06:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for doing this Billsmith60 (talk) 11:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Billsmith60, you never even gave them a talk page warning before coming here. Going straight to ANI is really jumping the gun. -- asilvering (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

If you look carefully at the relevant Talk page, I did indicate that I would be referring this to an administrator. I've said what I need to there and avoided the wall-of-text approach that user employs. If no one else contributes to the debate, then a new user will have abrogated control of that page to themselves Billsmith60 (talk) 09:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• arrogated control...

Billsmith60 (talk) 09:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Pitstop Pop is WP:NOTHERE

Pitstop Pop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making user pages containing obscene messaging and WP:NPA attacks on other editors. Borgenland (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

(Non-Admin Comment) A lot of these pages talk about lewd things relating to minors, I would probably hide the edit summaries due to this. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 18:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

They are blocked indef now for vandalism and the pages they've created are deleted. Hopefully an admin will come around and hide the edit summaries in the talk page (including one of my edits that I forgot to remove the topic name). Myrealnamm's Alternate Account (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I think everything has been handled now? Johnuniq (talk) 02:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Johnuniq Yes, unless an admin (or you) would like to revdel the edit summaries in Pitstop Pop's talk page, as suggested by SMG? Myrealnamm's Alternate Account (talk) 12:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Eep. Sorry, missed that last night. Fixed now. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan Sorry, totally my mistake, but the older revisions still have the content in them if you would like to revdel it. Myrealnamm's Alternate Account (talk) 12:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

86.28.140.195

This IP keeps deleting sourced information from The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power season 2 without an explanation:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1244914222&oldid=1244848938&title=The_Lord_of_the_Rings%3A_The_Rings_of_Power_season_2
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1244978224&oldid=1244921926&title=The_Lord_of_the_Rings%3A_The_Rings_of_Power_season_2
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1244983357&oldid=1244981831&title=The_Lord_of_the_Rings%3A_The_Rings_of_Power_season_2
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1245008956&oldid=1244998242&title=The_Lord_of_the_Rings%3A_The_Rings_of_Power_season_2

They have been warned at their talk page but continue to make this edit. I requested page protection but that was declined and I was told to come here instead. @CipherSleuth has also been reverting these edits. I'm not certain what the best course of action is here. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: I've blocked the IP or a bit; you really should leave multiple warnings though before escalating elsewhere. Elli (talk | contribs) 14:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

It's edit warring so you can head to WP:ANEW next time.

Content-wise they are right however since the source doesn't support the statement in the article. Not that this excuses the edit warring or lack of communication. Yvan Part (talk) 14:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I see now that the source has been changed since the information was added. Would have been nice if they mentioned that in their edit summaries! - adamstom97 (talk) 15:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Need a range block for IPs of 2603:300a:108:100:

• 2603:300A:108:100::/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)

Multiple IPs of that range are currently vandalizing Wikimedia Commons (the article, if that isn't clear). See revision history. TheWikiToby (talk) 15:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

•  Done Range blocked for 72 hours. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I also went to WP:AIV btw. TheWikiToby (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Tgeorgescu racist remarks

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

---

Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be a "dissenting voice" in respect to China, Communism and Mao Zedong. They have made multiple racist and defamatory comments. For examples:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Traditional_Chinese_medicine&diff=prev&oldid=1244310969

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Traditional_Chinese_medicine&diff=prev&oldid=1244312672

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Traditional_Chinese_medicine&diff=prev&oldid=1244313749

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Traditional_Chinese_medicine&diff=prev&oldid=1244314786

Chinese medical scientists lack funds for performing research, lack freedom of speech, lack a culture of contradicting their peers if objective evidence so demands—they're basically educated that speaking truth to power is insanity. They know that criticizing TCM could make some CCP boss angry, and that would mean jail time. Totalitarianism is a ruthless game, and science is its victim. The PRC government is not interested whether TCM is effective, they just see it as a cash cow. Research about its effectiveness could only ruin the cash flow.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Acupuncture&diff=prev&oldid=1233495448

Mao was in some respects outstandingly stupid, sadistic, or delusional.

They seem to be supported by many other users, such as User:Hob Gadling, User:Chipmunkdavis and User:MrOllie, likely the members of a tag team, and my complaints on talk pages are swiftly reverted.

Sanctions are needed. If administrators are not dare to exercise their power, please refer the case to ArbCom or the Wikipedia Foundation. 202.40.137.128 (talk) 11:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

The comments are not racist against all Chinese people throughout the world, they reflect that the current mainland China government does not permit free speech and freedom of thought, both of which are correct to say. 331dot (talk) 11:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

None of those comments are "racist" in my opinion, and objectively not "defamatory" for a whole host of reasons. The suggestion that other editors are 'tag-teaming' is not supported by evidence, and should either be substantiated with diffs or struck/withdrawn. Daniel (talk) 11:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I have an addendum too- that the PRC government doesn't permit free speech/etc is certainly up to them and the willingness of the Chinese people in mainland China to permit them to do so. But it's not incorrect to say that they don't. 331dot (talk) 11:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@331dot. "Chinese medical scientists lack funds for performing research, lack freedom of speech, lack a culture", "Totalitarianism" "they're basically educated that speaking truth to power is insanity. They know that criticizing TCM could make some CCP boss angry, and that would mean jail time" "PRC government is not interested whether TCM is effective, they just see it as a cash cow" "Mao was in some respects outstandingly stupid, sadistic, or delusional." All of these are not supported by sources. Full of speculation, most are not correct. 202.40.137.198 (talk) 11:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

But it's not racist, which is your claim here. The same things could be said about the current Russian government. I suggest you withdraw your grievance, this isn't going to go the way you want it to. 331dot (talk) 11:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

It's against all "Chinese medical scientists". Not racist? It's against Mao "Mao was in some respects outstandingly stupid, sadistic, or delusional." not defamatory? 202.40.137.198 (talk) 11:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not against all Chinese scientists around the world. It's against "Chinese" scientists in the PRC. It's not even against them personally, but their government which does not permit them to speak freely. You really need to withdraw this before it is closed against your wishes. 331dot (talk) 11:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

202, your statement on that article TP is WP:CASTINGASPERSIONS and I'd suggest self-reversion. [29] O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Objective3000 YEs these are WP:CASTINGASPERSIONS made by User:Tgeorgescu:

• "Chinese medical scientists lack funds for performing research, lack freedom of speech, lack a culture of contradicting their peers if objective evidence so demands—they're basically educated that speaking truth to power is insanity."
• "They know that criticizing TCM could make some CCP boss angry, and that would mean jail time."
• "Totalitarianism is a ruthless game, and science is its victim. The PRC government is not interested whether TCM is effective, they just see it as a cash cow. Research about its effectiveness could only ruin the cash flow."
• "Mao was in some respects outstandingly stupid, sadistic, or delusional." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.40.137.128 (talk) 11:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd suggest you self-revert. 202.40.137.198 (talk) 11:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

What editors do any of those refer to? Nil Einne (talk) 11:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Simply presenting the opinion that one person is outstandingly stupid, sadistic, or delusional is not racist unless you suggest it is because of their race. I happen to feel that way about a particular current US politician. Doesn’t mean I’m racist against whites. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Against one person is defamatory to the least. Against all "Chinese medical scientists" is racist. 202.40.137.196 (talk) 11:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Are we allowed to say a particular current US politician "stupid, sadistic, or delusional"？ 202.40.137.196 (talk) 11:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

You're allowed to say it on a street corner in the US(heck, politicians of all stripes in the US say that of their opponents every day and newspapers print it), or on your personal blog on a computer that you own, but you can't say it on Wikipedia just because, because this is a privately operated website that can have rules about what is said here. It's not the government enforcing rules. 331dot (talk) 11:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Just as a heads up, you might trip over WP:DROPTHESTICK or WP:POINT soon, if you keep going. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 12:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

You ARE aware, yes, that CASTINGASPERSIONS solely refers to conduct by editors towards fellow editors? Ravenswing 16:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• I've blocked Special:contributions/202.40.137.0/24 for one month.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Bgsu98

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

---

Despite a lengthy discussion that took place on Talk:Strictly Come Dancing series 21#Average Score last year in which it was agreed the Average chart tables on the Dancing with the Stars franchise can be added due to WP:CALC, User:Bgsu98 has continued to revert anybody who adds them , and doesn't even give a reason in his reversions, just a sarcastic comment, as can be seen here [30], even though he himself clearly understood that they were here to stay as can be seen here, Talk:Strictly Come Dancing series 21#Average chart in which this user's continuous poor attitude and inability to accept a difference of opinion to him. 2A00:23EE:2540:BD04:3032:33CC:C3FD:AE0 (talk) 20:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi! When you report someone to AN/I, you need to send them a notice on their talk page about it. You can do so with the {{ani notice}} template. This time, I have done this for you. Best regards, QwertyForest (talk) 21:25, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@QwertyForest: Thanks for that hun! But I haven’t got time to be leaving Bgsu messages. He’s been reported here enough times to know the drill and just leaves sarcastic comments anyway. 2A00:23EE:2540:BD04:69E5:7A48:FFA1:4D58 (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Tell this IP to either log in under their real account or go pound sand. I don't have the time or patience for these disgruntled IPs from the U.K. with long histories of chronic, disruptive editing. Pinging Ponyo. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@Bgsu98: Ponyo's on holiday hun, she hasn't got time to sort out another one of your reports. 2A00:23EE:2540:BD04:69E5:7A48:FFA1:4D58 (talk) 21:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.

^ From the top of this page, if you don't have the time to leave them a notice as required, then don't bother filing a report. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

This IP just outed themselves as a long-standing sockpuppet. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:31, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll leave the SPI to someone more knowledgeable, but I do agree there is consensus to add those tables, they're similar to the ones found at the RuPaul's Drag Race franchise articles seen here, and the Dancing with the Stars franchise articles seen here.

And I also agree that they are not MOS:ACCESS compliant, which can easily be fixed by using accessible symbols in the Colour key like this — *  Winners #  Runners-up, etc. and then using the corresponding symbol in the table. But of course getting editors to recognize these tables should be more accessible can sometimes be an uphill battle. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

The tables on all of the Dancing with the Stars (American TV series) articles were rendered MOS:ACCESS compliant a few years ago. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Not the one I linked above, or this one. There are no accessibility symbols in that color key or table for "Bottom two or three" or "Eliminated" etc. There is only a dagger and a double dagger for high and low scores, which is great, but screen readers can't read those explanatory notes because they require interaction to provide information, see MOS:NOHOVER, and when the screen reader does get to the Notes under the table, all it reads is "This couple", which is not helpful, since there are several couples. Like I said, uphill battle that I have fought many times and had to finally surrender, because I'm outnumbered. C'est la vie ( life is harsh but one must accept it). Isaidnoway (talk) 00:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

@Isaidnoway, I am moving this particular discussion to your talkpage. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh you're absolutely right User:Isaidnoway. It is an uphill battle, but despite Bgsu98 being reported here numerous times for removing tables even though there was a consensus for those tables to be added back, his general bad attitude in response and entitlement to remove them, the admins seem to side with him for who knows whatever reason! Those pages will be restored one day though, they’re all in the archives ready to be reverted. 31.94.70.250 (talk) 00:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I know the fanbase, who are mainly the regular editors at all those different franchise articles, just love those tables, and there is consensus to keep those tables in the articles, but that doesn't mean they should be inaccessible to our visually impaired readers. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:50, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Dancing with the Stars season 33

User:Bgsu98 has ignored the WP:3RR and is continuing to edit war on Dancing with the Stars (American TV series) season 33 over a chart that was agreed at Talk:Strictly Come Dancing series 21#Average Score 2A00:23EE:2540:BD04:D5C5:4CDD:B466:9865 (talk) 00:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

2A00:23EE:2540:BD04:D5C5:4CDD:B466:9865, you have both been edit-warring. It takes more than one editor to edit war. Please stop reverting edits on this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Understood Liz! Have a fabulous evening 2A00:23EE:2540:BD04:D982:D7B0:F7F9:8723 (talk) 01:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

This IP is a longtime blocked sockpuppet editor. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

• Moving message to here as they seem like the same subject, same editors involved. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

• I don't know if they are a sockpuppet or not but User:2A00:23EE:2540:BD04:D5C5:4CDD:B466:9865 and User:2A00:23EE:2540:BD04:D982:D7B0:F7F9:8723 have been blocked for a month now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:44, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  Their manner of speech is identical. Definitely the same person. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  I just semi'ed the article. I recall this from another ANI / reality show. In support of IP editing, but when you act like a clown, you lose access. @Bgsu98 in the future, just ignore them and ask for protection. It's a blatant sock so not 3RR, but it might save your sanity Star Mississippi 02:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Star Mississippi, I did request the protection on that article, but then their nonsense spilled out all over the place tonight. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

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

2001:448A:1090:667C:0:0:0:0/64 and addition of inaccurate categories

2001:448A:1090:667C:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps making inaccurate changes to 'Video games developed in X country' categories in articles about video games - the countries they're changing them to are not discussed in the articles (WP:CATVER), such as changing the category to say that Sonic the Hedgehog 2 was developed in France rather than Japan. Hasn't responded to warnings and this is a long-term issue from this range - these category edits from this /64 date back to December 2023. Examples of recent disruptive category changes: 1, 2, 3, 4. Waxworker (talk) 11:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I've rangeblocked the /64 for 3 months.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Zlogicalape's unsupported sockpuppetry allegations

I'm reporting @Zlogicalape for persistently violatingWP:ASPERSIONS by either claiming that I have sockpuppets or implying it. Although they were told previously more than once that making such claims is considered personal attacks if one doesn't provide evidence for recent misbehavior.

-User Zogiclape said this:

Here and here

Also made implications on Joseph Barbara's talk page:

"and I would appreciate it if this charade would stop as i'm not in the mood to launch an investigation into multiple accounts (though i believe you couldn't care less)"

"therefor this talk should end. (aside from the multiple accounts thing)."

-also this

-And on the side, the user misused sources by adding claims to Saint Barbara's article citing sources that don't state what they added.

I accessed the sources they used and I showed on the relevant talk page that the cited sources don't mention what User Zlogicalape added using them.

Whatsupkarren (talk) 23:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm wondering why my report hasn't been addressed yet, as this user has been repeatedly warned not to cast aspersions on other users, yet they continue to do so. Whatsupkarren (talk) 12:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

• I've blocked Zlogicalap for a week for continued disruption across multiple articles.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

User:清风与明月 Continued Tendentious editing.

After attempting to communicate and attempting to collaborate in good-faith, my colleague continues to engage in WP:TEND contrary to policies on Wikipedia. Their activities continue to include what appears to be a systematic attempt to engage in WP:CENSORSHIP by removing or diminishing mention of sex-work as part of the function of a Geji, contrary to numerous reliable sources that state such. When we disagreed on Talk:Gējì, they requested that a third party be brought in to arbitrate the issue and have since doing so continued to edit the page without engaging in the WP:3PO process. Understanding that 3PO is voluntary and nobinding, I am mentioning this because in my last time raising their conduct I was informed I had not attempted any dispute resolution first. The user was also notified by an admin User_talk:清风与明月#Gējì to participate in the discussions rather than ignoring them and continuing to re-add contested content.

Difs:

• [31]User removes a source with no summary as to why, leaving a source which is predominately in Chinese despite Wikipedia favoring English language sources and a source which in the abstract refers to Liu Rushi as a prostitute, which the user is misusing to represent them as not engaging in sexwork.
• [32]User adds a source and misrepresents it as saying that Geji did not engage in prostitution. The source never explicitly says Geji did not engage in prostitution but does say that courtesans and prostitutes did provide sexual services.
• [33]In this edit, the user again misrepresents the source as in-line citation says none of what the user added and says instead musical performance and sexual performance were, in fact, usually the forte of an individual known as a "singing girl" (geji 歌妓, literally "song courtesan")
• [34]Here, the user tries to change the lead using a personal essay about a scholar's experiences to definitively state that Geji were not prostitutes even though the essay in question doesn't even say that.
• [35]User removes entire sections of text and sources with zero explanation as to why.
• [36] They provided an edit summary this time, but again continued to misrepresent the sources and editorialize as well as removing sourced content for no real reason.
• [37]User editoralized again, changing "eloped" to "abducted" and "Lovers" to "Friends" despite the fact that the source uses eloped and the source uses lovers.

As documented previously, the user has been warned about this behavior and has continued to engage in this conduct. Likewise, the user has been accused of wasting other editors time in submitting article drafts, and warned for edit warring. More recently, their talk page demonstrates articles they've created or proposed which are up for deletion or have been rejected. As I noted in my previous complaint which I dropped in an attempt to find common ground and work together here, there seems to be an issue of WP:CIR that is damaging to the enyclopedia. Brocade River Poems 03:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, BrocadeRiverPoems

I thought your name was familiar so I looked in the ANI archives and found this thread, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1163#User:清风与明月_multiple_issues, that you opened on the same subject. It's kind of hidden in your statement by just referring to it in a link as "here". Likewise, if you participated in previous dispute resolution processes, even if they were not successful, it helps to provide a direct link so that editors can see the background of the disagreement. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi,

Apologies for not making the incident clearer. As for other dispute resolution processes, Talk:G%C4%93j%C3%AC#Third_opinion an attempt to get a third party at their behest here which they have yet to engage with though they continued to edit the article, and numerous attempts at direct communication such as on their talk page User_talk:清风与明月#Collaboration_on_Geji and variously on Talk:Gējì which have resulted in no change. Brocade River Poems 04:13, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I think I need to explain. First of all, I did not say that ancient Chinese Geji did not provide sex. I have always said that not all of them were prostitutes. And I also added two different views on the Geji wiki. I have said that "ancient Chinese geji sometimes had sex with men, but many of them were not prostitutes." At the same time, I also added "another view is that ancient Chinese geji were entertainers and prostitutes."The content I quoted also has references, and they are English books. 清风与明月 (talk) 10:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:G%C4%93j%C3%AC

I don't want to emphasize it anymore. Please read my full content. I mean that the fact that there are singing girls who engage in prostitution does not mean that all people are prostitution. And sexual relations with men are not necessarily in the form of prostitution. It is this person who insists that singing girls in ancient China were prostitutes. He thinks that they are all prostitutes or sex workers. That's why I said we can't communicate. Because there are completely different perspectives on understanding, it is impossible to unify this entry. 清风与明月 (talk) 10:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

This is not a venue about content. This venue is about your conduct as an editor and whether or not it is damaging to the enyclopedia. You have failed to properly cite sources, you have failed to evaluate the reliability of sources, and you continue to make contentious edits without participating in discussion and without proper edit summaries in which you routinely remove sourced information from the article. This is a chief example of what I mean by WP:CIR is a big issue here. You say I have said, you shouldn't be saying anything. All Wikipedia articles can do is represent what the Reliable Sources say. You, however, seem to have an agenda. Per WP:NOTTRUTH, Editors may not add information to articles simply because they believe it to be true, nor even if they know it to be true. and WP:NPOV which states Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. Your tireless efforts that either come unsourced or with unreliable sources has long since encroached the territory WP:POVPUSH. As for your statement He thinks that they are all prostitutes or sex workers. That's why I said we can't communicate., I would thank you to not randomly misgender me, and secondly, I have never pushed for the inclusion of the word 'prostitute' in the article. The statement which you continued to edit in contrary to what the source said stated simply that Geji sometimes engaged in sexual activity with their clients, because that is what the majority of the sources say. Brocade River Poems 15:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

The names of singing and dancing venues in ancient China include yuefu(乐府), jiaofang(教坊), goulanwashe(勾栏瓦舍),[102]gelou(歌楼),[103] qinglou(青楼)[Label 2] and wuxie(舞榭).[104] Although the meanings of these singing and dancing venues have changed in different dynasties, but cannot equate all singing and dancing venues with brothels or places of prostitution.[Label 1]Starting from the Tang Dynasty, there was a custom among gejis that those who had a good relationship would become sworn sisters and were called "incense brothers(香火兄弟)" and "handkerchief sisters(手帕姐妹)".[Label 3]Not all gejis married nobles as concubines.Some gejis chose to marry musicians, and after marrying musicians, they usually retired from the profession and trained their children in artistic skills. Some gejis began teaching other women skills during their careers. Some gejis eventually became teachers who taught girls singing and dancing.Due to the low status of gejis, some were forced to lose their virginity, and some became men's mistresses involuntarily. This kind of sexual exploitation is not necessarily equivalent to prostitution.Some gejis also engaged in prostitution, such as Sha Cai in the Ming Dynasty, who was a geji and a prostitute at the same time and eventually contracted syphilis.[105][106]But this is a personal behavior and does not mean that all gejis are prostitution. In addition, some pimps run brothel businesses in the name of gejis. The girls sing during the day and engage in prostitution at night. They are usually understood as prostitutes.

This is the description I added to the geji entry. I haven't finished adding the specific references yet. I object to this friend's accusation that I whitewashed the geji profession and prostitution. I think my description is objective enough because not all geji are engaged in prostitution. On the contrary, this friend wants to identify all geji as prostitution, which is not objective enough. 清风与明月 (talk) 10:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I am updating this to include more problems.

• [38] The user hasn't properly cited the information they have added, moreover the source is being used to support the statement Some gejis also engaged in prostitution, such as Sha Cai in the Ming Dynasty, who was a geji and a prostitute at the same time and eventually contracted syphilis, the source doesn't actually explicitly say any of that outside of the fact that Sha Cai developed syphillis per the translation the user provided which says She was very famous for a while, and people described they as the second Zhao(二赵) and the second Qiao(二乔). Unfortunately, Sha Cai got syphilis and half of her face was rotten.. The user has misrepresented the contents of the source.
• [39] User has added a source which, again, does not support the claim they are using it to support. The source as provided by the user says She vowed that if she did not meet a talented man, she would not lose her virginity and A rogue man threatened her to have sex, but Xie Suqiu did not agree, so she decided to leave and finally returned to Luoyang. None of this supports the claim this is a personal behavior and does not mean that all gejis are prostitution.
• [40] Addition of more unsourced content that Geji were forced. While I have no doubt that sexual exploitation occurred, it is not evidence that Geji did not perform sexual services as part of their job, nor is the comment sourced. It is the exact kind of WP:OR and WP:POVPUSHING that I have raised these complaints about.

The sheer volume of edits they make to the page and the sheer number of errors they introduce greatly impedes any attempt to improve the article. Whenever positive changes are made, the editor goes back in and makes dozens of more edits which erode the quality of the article again. Again, I am suggesting some form of intervention per WP:CIR, the editor continues to demonstrate a competency issue in evaluating sources and accurately representing them, which is WP:DISRUPTIVE, sometimes an editor creates long-term problems by persistently editing a page or set of pages with information which is not verifiable through reliable sources or insisting on giving undue weight to a minority view.

Per the following points:

• Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editors not only add material; some engage in disruptive deletions as well, e.g. repeatedly removing reliable sources posted by other editors.,
• Is unwilling or unable to satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or performs original research., and
• Fails to engage in consensus building.

Brocade River Poems 21:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Providing a further update. Upon examining the history of one of the articles edited by the other editor, I believe User_talk:103.137.63.207 to be the same as the editor in question. Notably, anonymous editing was blocked from the IP Address on June 10th for disruptive editing. On 05:17, 20 June 2023 User account 清风与明月 was created. At this dif [41], the IP Editor was reverted. Then this [42] IP editor User_talk:194.26.74.9 arrives and makes a similar change to the ones that had been reverted. Notably, 194.26.74.9 came up as an IP out of Hong Kong when I looked it up, and its entire range was blocked. Beyond that, the edit histories of all of these IP editors seems heavily in line with the user in question. Special:Contributions/194.26.74.9, Special:Contributions/103.137.63.207, Special:Contributions/清风与明月&target=清风与明月&dir=prev&, Special:Contributions/194.26.74.35, Special:Contributions/1.65.203.129,Special:Contributions/111.246.12.104, and probably others. The reason I bring this up is because it demonstrates that if these IPs did in fact belong to the user that the user has been making these tendetious edits since as early as June of 2023, and that upon being blocked for doing it, they simply continued to make the changes anonymously on a different IP Address. Brocade River Poems 02:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

• I too have concerns about this editor's changes to the article. There seems to be extreme WP: POV pushing, removing referenced content that does not agree with their viewpoint and adding obscure offline references to justify their additions. Although a third opinion has been asked for, they continue to edit the article to change it to their POV, even though this is opposed to by other editors. --John B123 (talk) 20:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I am further updating my report to note that the editor in question has continued to ignore requests that they stop editing the page while discussions are still underway, and they have introduced a number of style errors to the article [43] in their latest update. Brocade River Poems 18:41, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Given this Teahouse post, I believe it is clear that this user has no intention to stop being disruptive. Quite the contrary, in fact. I can see no reasonable remedy, short of an indefinite block, which I hereby propose. —Wasell^(T) 17:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Given the amount the user edits and the amount of problems they introduce to the enyclopedia, I second the indefinite block. There are severe WP:CIR issues. Brocade River Poems 17:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I assumed from their Teahouse post that they already had some kind of topic ban. But they have a clean block log, and they aren't listed on WP:RESTRICT. Those seem like obvious first steps. -- asilvering (talk) 21:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Just providing another update, the user has admitted [44] that they changed content and misrepresented what the sources say because I really felt that the article about Yang Wan didn't match the facts and was too disgusting. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 00:08, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

The reported user is being very disruptive. Clear and significant WP:CIR issues. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Reverting speedy deletion template (A7) and probably Two accounts used by single person (sock)

@Solveitabhinav has created (infact moved) a page, Abhinav Ankit without any indication of importance. Page is unreferenced, BLP issue and might be promotional, created by the subject. Moreover, when I (and one other user) tried to produce it for speedy deletion under general criteria A7, the deletion template is forcefully reverted by @Queswtihabhi. It seems that @Solveitabhinav has made a sock account which is @Queswtihabhi and is using both accounts for defending that unencyclopedic page. Please look into this matter and take strict action(s)! TheProEditor11 (talk) 07:41, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

The page has been already moved to draft for approval, check and revert. @TheProEditor11 Queswtihabhi (talk) 07:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

You are suspected sock by editors like us. Previously, the page was not in draft, it was on Wikipedia. TheProEditor11 (talk) 07:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

My apologies about this, but this not the case of sock. Moreover thanks for the update. Solveitabhinav (talk) 08:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

It is a case of sock. You are misusing two accounts to revert speedy deletion criteria and to uphold your promotional article. TheProEditor11 (talk) 08:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

That has been confirmed by CU PhilKnight. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 08:13, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, checkuser confirms the sock puppetry. I have indefinitely blocked the master and sock, also I have speedy deleted the draft. PhilKnight (talk) 08:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Accusations of vandalism

What can we make of this edit? The alleged vandalism consisted only of corrections of punctuation errors. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Warning user was indeffed. Looks like another Hamish Ross sock case. Yvan Part (talk) 06:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Persistent addition of unsourced content by 82.86.104.118

82.86.104.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, continued after final warning. Examples of unsourced edits: 1, 2, 3, 4. Waxworker (talk) 15:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

They keep going. I reported to ARV.--CNMall41 (talk) 04:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

To AIV you mean? Seems that worked, the IP is now blocked for 48 hours. – 2804:F1...10:1F3D (talk) 04:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Repeated deletion of content by User:Lil elitechong in the List of shopping malls in Malaysia

User:Lil elitechong and associated IPs (180.72.136.111 & 2001:f40:905:5906:5198:187e:ba1d:2815) have persistedly made unexplained deletions of content in List of shopping malls in Malaysia.

Seeking prompt action/intervention on this matter. Thanks hundenvonPG (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Can you give more WP:DIFs to better detail the problem here? Sergecross73 msg me 12:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Here it is @Sergecross73:

First round of deletions by 180.72.136.111:

• [45]

Second round of deletions by 2001:f40:905:5906:5198:187e:ba1d:2815

• [46]
• [47]

Third round of deletions by User:Lil elitechong itself:

• [48]

Safe to say, above IP addresses showed identical and persistent unexplained deletion patterns, in spite of repeated warnings given, and potential abuse of multiple addresses that go against WP:SOCK. hundenvonPG (talk) 14:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Unexplained deletions are definitely frowned up, but I'm not sure there's really enough disruption to take much action here yet. The page history doesn't show that frequent disruption - neither the user nor the IPs are really all that active. Unless there's other recommendations coming in, I think I'll probably just give them a warning to use edit summaries, discuss issues on the article talk page, don't edit while logging out, etc. If they continue, you can reach back out to my talk page and see if its bad enough to warrant page protection or anything additional. Sergecross73 msg me 16:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Unsourced content, poor source integrity by Mbssbs

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

This is a long-time editor who has several years' history of adding poorly sourced content to articles (unreliable sources, sources that don't support the claims introduced), if sourced at all. They have not responded to any warnings on their talk page, the earliest of which date back to 2015. I hope this urges them to tell their side of the story. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 15:39, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

XtraJovial, I don't think you'll get any responses here as you haven't supplied any diffs/edits illustrating the problems you say you are seeing. Editors aren't going to spend hours going through someone's contribution history, you need to supply the evidence yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Diffs:

• 1 (unsourced)
• 2 (poor TSI)
• 3 (unsourced)
• 4 (dubious TSI)
• 5 (poor TSI)
• 6 (SPS)
• 7 (unsourced)
• 8 (unsourced)
• 9 (BLP vio)
• 10 (unsourced)
• 11 (unsourced)
• 12 (unsourced)

These diffs span approximately ten years. I haven't looked further, but I suspect this has been an issue for much longer. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 12:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

...and another one. The article is entirely unsourced as it is, but that changes nothing. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 15:34, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• Mbssbs received a number of warnings regarding their addition of unsourced content, including a level 4 template warning and non-templated messages on their talk page, which went without a response from them. Further questions regarding the sourcing of specific edits in July and in August also went unanswered. Mbssbs is essentially flying under the radar, while it would be helpful of them to just answer to questions and talk page messages, or at least acknowledge the warnings and change their editing behavior, which afaict has not happened. Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 19:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not optimistic that they'll provide a response, especially given that these several years of warnings seem to have fallen on deaf ears. More warnings won't do anything, either. At this point, they should be blocked, and I can make a case that it should've happened long ago. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 19:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Someeditor7

This editor appears to be here to right great wrongs regarding "censorship" over gender in gaming, and in doing so is resorting to insults (see here) and trying to argue that other editors have a COI because they include their pronouns in their signatures (see here and here). This editor is NOTHERE. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Indeffed.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:08, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Good block. Good grief. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

As a bystander, from what I can see of the edits to the Concord article and talk page, I think it was inappropriate to block this user. Perhaps there are things I cannot see. But from what I do see the user tried to make some cited edits to a single article, changed citations when the specific sources were challenged as unreliable (separate discussion that reliability for facts is distinct from reliability for opinions), and most importantly stopped editing the main page and went to the talk page to argue for including reports of this opinion in the main page. I may be missing some things as I didn't do a deep dive of the edits and reverts.

I try to take a neutral stance when reporting on social issues as I believe it is important for people to be aware of the basis of opinions, instead of remaining ignorant of them or inferring strawmen. I am not perfect, and I am also not universal in when I choose to speak up to describe my understanding of these bases. That said, from what I have seen online, there is pushback against the Concord video game that specifically highlights its highlighting of pronouns and gender terminology. This seems to be a factually true claim. Whether or not this led in part to any number of specific people not purchasing the game I do not know. But given the shear magnitude of gamers it probably had some effect, including some who may have purchased it just because of the pronoun and gender highlighting.

As such, I believe the appropriate action would have been to edit Someeditor7's edits, not revert them entirely and ban the editor. Banhammers are materially worse than name calling, as they are a use of power that demonstrates in no uncertain terms that the person being banned is less than the person doing the banning. The message this sends is far more harmful to a psyche than mere "I think you stink" type verbiage that is used among people of no power differential. 2601:648:8285:6740:B919:E99E:BFD1:C594 (talk) 19:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Note that my IP address changes whenever I reboot my router. I'm not jumping on solely for this topic, but have been a long time infrequent editor. Most recently I've contributed to the Concord page with a semi-protected quest for the "Hero's" to "Heroes'" grammar change, as well as as 2601:648:8285:6740:1D2C:BF1E:F643:ABCF. 2601:648:8285:6740:B919:E99E:BFD1:C594 (talk) 19:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

173.197.99.96

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

An IP with a small number of edits is trying to force an event into multiple articles:

Addition to Criticism of Google‎ [49]

Same addition to Censorship by Google [50]

Same addition to YouTube copyright issues [51]

Addition again to Censorship by Google after I reverted [52]

Addition again to Censorship by Google after I reverted [53]

Addition of two dispute tags to Censorship by Google [54]

Addition again of two dispute tags to Censorship by Google after I reverted [55]

Started a TP section at [56] which does not appear to have anything to do with the article

It appears that the user is upset that YouTube blocked a video this week. The sources are questionable, sound bloggy, and speculate about the reasons behind the removal, one even saying there are many if’s ands and buts, and the text added states: YouTube removed a Linus Tech Tips video entitled "De-Google Your Life Episode 2" alleging that it violated YouTube's Community Guidelines, presumably for mentioning YouTube alternatives FreeTube and LibreTube and video downloading tools. We don’t “presume” here. One of the sources is titled: “YouTuber’s de-Google video removed, community gets revenge”. We don’t engage in “revenge” either. Adding two dispute tags to an article because your addition was challenged is also not normal. Also note that the Criticism of Google article is about major controversies, often involving governments, not the recent removal of a single YT video. At this point, not sure I'm handling this correctly, realize WP:BITE applies, and not sure how to further deal with the situation. As the articles are not very active, I came here. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a tough one. On the one hand, the dispute is young and the issues with the IP's conduct not especially deep or probelmatic, but on the other hand, if the talk pages are slow and the issue spans multiple pages, we should try to get a dialogue organized with the IP to iron this out. I agree that the wording puts a thumb on the scales with the "presumably" language, but I think its likely a modified version of the content will eventually come in: haven't looked at the current sources and this isn't exactly my field, but I think the Linus Tech media group is actually a pretty massive player in the contemporary tech industry news? So Google pulling their content for what might be perceived as self-interested reasons (whether that is accurate or not) is likely to get coverage, I would think. So the issues may essentially work themselves out with the sourcing and then all we would have to do is provide some subtle nuance to the IPs prose to avoid weasel words and such. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:30, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Before any such text is added to an article criticizing a corporation, I'd like to see coverage from independent, less bloggy sources that don't stoop to snide remarks. But I don't want to keep reverting. BTW, personally I think Google deserves massive criticism. But I want good sourcing and see very large areas for inclusion. Not one YT video pulled a few days ago. During just the second quarter of 2024, about 8.4 million videos were removed from YouTube.[57] O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, I just looked at the Goosed article, and I have to say that I do suspect it would survive an RS determination discussion. But it's so hard to tell anymore with new-media adjacent online industry press, with their largely inscrutable ownership and editorial controls. It might need to go to RSN. That said, I actually found the reporting pretty neutral in tone: they cover a lot of the obvious reasons why YouTube/Google might bounce the content for ToS violations, as opposed to just because the video presented industry and service competitors. It doesn't look terrible to me, but I also wouldn't go to bat over it. Hopefully more sources pop up relatively quickly and save us the trouble of trying to decide if one source constitutes enough WP:WEIGHT for this. I understand your skepticism that it does. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Actually, my point in coming here was more behavior, not content. I'd like to see the editor slow down instead of forcing the same content into three articles. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

How slow do you feel is most appropriate? Also, would you please elaborate on what you mean by "TP section at [58] which does not appear to have anything to do with the article" -- in particular, would you please say why the section doesn't seem to relate to the article? 173.197.99.96 (talk) 02:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

At the very least there's way too much focus in that talk section on WP:OR than in demonstrating what reliable secondary sources say about the issue, if anything. Nil Einne (talk) 07:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC) 10:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Are you referring to the single sentence, out of over a dozen, asking whether [59] is or may become forbidden? In any case, here is an additional independent reliable source: Connor, Jak (8 September 2024). "Linus Tech Tips responds to YouTube controversy following anti-Google video takedown". TweakTown. Retrieved 9 September 2024.. While Tweaktown.com has not yet been mentioned in WP:RSN let alone WP:RSP, they clearly meet the WP:RS criteria. 2603:800C:D00:F512:CEDC:1CBB:6C80:F8FA (talk) 04:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

You forced the addition back into the article during discussion. This is improper. Also, the minor mention in Tweaktown doesn't really add anything. Although your IP address and that in the section title are very different, they geolocate to the same resort area. Could you tell us if both are you? If so, you need to stop trying to force this into multiple articles without consensus. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

No I'm referring to the whole thread. Your first comment at "19:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)" seems to be just random speculation without any reference to reliable secondary sources discussing the LTT video and its takedown.

Your next comment at "20:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)" also does not mention any reliable secondary sources so it's very unclear what any of that has to do with censorship by Google which is the subject of the article. If reliable secondary sources had talked about the video series and how its content might have been sensitive to Google and resulted in censorship, perhaps there would be merit to mention such details, but not without reliable secondary sources making this connection. Note an important point here, even if there were reliable secondary sources talking about the video series as a whole (which you didn't mention), perhaps they could be used in the LTT article or something, but it would not belong in the Censorship by Google unless they made such a connection.

Your third comment at "02:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)" also doesn't mention any reliable secondary sources, and in fact the tone of your comment "correct me if I am wrong, but I believe" strongly suggests it was not based on any reliable secondary sources.

Sometimes a little OR on talk pages can be useful when editors are confused about something or as part of the effort to find reliable secondary sources. However in this case, I don't see how any of that discussion was beneficial considering there was basically no discussion of what reliable secondary sources actually said about the issue, and how we should cover it, if at all.

While Cybernews and Goosed were in the reverted edit, even if they are RS they aren't exactly great RS. So for something as significant as censorship by Google, it seems anything worth including was surely covered in better RS. So the way to demonstrate that the controversy is worth including is surely to demonstrate coverage in these other RS rather than all that other stuff you did. Or at the very least, to argue something is significant enough to include yet is only covered in Cybernews and Goosed for some odd reason.

But none of this happened and Tweaktown link was the first time you actually brought something which might be a reliable secondary source onto the talk page, and I'm assuming it didn't even exist at the time I posted above considering it seems to concern something that came after I posted.

Nil Einne (talk) 18:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Why is it improper to modify the parent article when a third reliable source agreeing with the first two in a dispute emerges? Are you saying we should wait for aquiescience on the talk page, here, or both? The Criticism article I edited doesn't yet have a talk page section unlike the Censorship article to which you refer.

I did not "force" anything. If as you imply it was proper for my addition to be reverted, which it has been, then so be it. I am not interested in playing games. In any case, as Google's sentencing for their antitrust conviction is next on the agenda, I suggest that we should err on the side of inclusion. 2603:800C:D00:F512:37E1:E38D:5577:BAD3 (talk) 20:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:OWN, with personal attack and vandalism accusation by Mr.choppers

There has been a problem recently where Sevgilerde (talk · contribs) (now blocked for socking, see SPI and Selamsize (talk · contribs), Mervanlar (talk · contribs)) has created a number of unsourced stubs on various proprietary engine technologies and acronyms, such as Cdi, D4-D, CRDI, TDCi et al. Mr.choppers (talk · contribs) has been involved in cleaning this up, mostly by redirecting them to common rail. Which is our typical practice in such cases, although it hardly helps the reader or explains anything about the topic. Particularly as common rail is itself such a poor article. It's mostly a list of these same acronyms, and with two sections that give an history of common rail and an explanation of it (unsourced). But these sections are themselves poor and really very confused as to the topic: a topic with a long history, several technical evolutions and one that can't be summarised usefully with a single para as if all were the same.

However the existence of a poor stub is not proof of a topic being inherently non-notable. Accordingly I looked at one of them, Honda's i-CTDi and their related i-DTEC (see Draft:İ-DTEC) and decided to work on it: i-CTDi (the two should probably be merged). However Mr.choppers took exception to this and announced on the talk: page that they were about to delete it anyway (casting aspersions in passing at my own efforts, so at least they'd read it). Such a summary dismissal, my being extremely busy in the days since, and also waiting to get hold of the two (extensive) Kenichi Nagahiro sources meant that I did little after that. The article then was a bare stub, but it was a valid stub with added references.

Today they not only blanked it, but did so as "restore redirect deleted by vandal; see talk page." I object most strongly to this (which I noted at the talk:) and to being described as a vandal (I was the one who removed the redirect, I was the one who wrote and referenced the much-expanded article). I AGFed and regarded this as an oversight, perhaps having not seen the article as it now was and so restored it. Mr.choppers promptly blanked it again. So, not much oversight there then.

This is a notable topic. It's a significant aspect of Kenichi Nagahiro's illustrious career (albeit outshone by the rest of it), interestingly it even became a specific theme in Honda's award-winning advertising campaign for better diesel cars. The sourcing there already is enough to support a simple stub. Technically i-CTDi is not simply common rail! There is more to it than that (as noted above, common rail is an old technique with many newer developments, none of which are covered in that article). There is plenty of meat in this topic to produce an article on it. This article was first blanked as 'not notable' then found itself enmeshed in an SPI. Wikipedia hates socking, and that regularly overrules any notions of WP:N. But there has been no AfD on this, no discussion of it, other than its hostile and personalised description by Mr.choppers.

I intend to restore this article and, time permitting, to work on it further. I refuse to be driven off it by one editor, no matter how much they're Defending The Wiki From Sockpuppets this week. I would like (but do not expect) an apology for being termed and treated as a vandal. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I now see that while I was drafting this, I've now been 'thanked' for a minor unrelated edit and they're railing against "the deletionist cabal" at User_talk:Andy_Dingley#Spartan. But they're still deleting my work on the article, so that's all a bit hollow really. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I certainly never called Andy a vandal, I called Sevgilerde a vandal. I even restated this directly here. I-CDTi was a redirect for 16 years, was restored by blocked sockmaster Sevgilerde and then turned back into a redirect five times by five different editors after a long bout of sockpuppetry. As for the merits of whether I-CDTi deserves a standalone, that is open to discussion, but until the community agrees then I believe this should remain a redirect as it was before Sevgilerde's antics.  Mr.choppers | ✎  19:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:OWN: You might believe that, I don't. And back when Wikipedia was an encyclopedia, not a social club, when someone bothered to write a sourced article, we went with it. You do not get to change that. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Let I-CDTi be developed, and if it still doesn't look to pass notability, then an AfD would be the proper venue. And thanks for clearing up the misunderstanding about who the vandal was. I don't see anything actionable here, so this thread can safely be closed. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Unsourced changes by Nabilahammed02

Nabilahammed02 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Nabilahammed02 has repeatedly added unsourced or poorly sourced information, going back to their second day of editing, in March 2024. Warnings on their talk page have gradually escalated through uw-unsourced4 and beyond, but have elicited no response or change in behavior. They edit infrequently and disrupt a small set of articles, so the problem is not urgent, but it is chronic and seemingly intractable.

In their contribution history, 36 of their 72 edits show as reverted, and I suspect more have been undone in manners that don't result in a tag in their history. I believe they think they're improving the encyclopedia, but lack the competence (perhaps English is not their first language) to understand Wikipedia's sourcing policies and what they've been told about their editing. A short block is unlikely to have much effect, since they may go weeks or months between edits. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:01, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Blocked x 24 hrs. Let's see where things go from here. I don't like starting with long blocks unless we are dealing with naked bad faith editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:34, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Editor calling other editors who reject a source as racists and claiming religious discrimination

This one is pretty straightforward but here's a little background: Performance arts organization Shen Yun is widely recognized as a propaganda arm of the Falun Gong, a new religious movement centered on its founder, Li Hongzhi. Both Shen Yun and the Falung Gong are based in Dragon Springs, a large compound in New York state, USA. Both the Falun Gong and Shen Yun have been in the media a lot lately due to another one of their arms, the Epoch Times. Note also that the Falun Gong has a long and well-documented history of attempting to manipulate Wikipedia's coverage of Falun Gong topics.

Anyway, @Zujine:, an editor who has frequents Falun Gong-related articles for over a decade declared in response to myself and various editors rejecting a poor source over at Talk:Shen_Yun#The_Hill_contributor_article that (diff):

The editors who consistently attack Shen Yun and Falun Gong on Wikipedia are biased in a dangerous way that is based on religious and racial discrimination.

In short, by covering this topic with WP:RS and rejecting non-WP:RS, Zujine is claiming that users like @Binksternet: and I are racists and religious bigots. This is a clear example of Wikipedia:Casting aspersions.

It's already difficult to improve our coverage of new religious movement and WP:FRINGE spaces without this kind of thing to contend with. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Falun Gong has been under discretionary sanctions/contentious topic designation for over a decade. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Zujine received the notice last year Special:Diff/1185299978 as did Bloodofox Special:Diff/1185300192. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I suspect that Zujine needs a topic ban here, if not something more. This isn't really acceptable, but waiting for others to chime in. Black Kite (talk) 21:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

So, I don't want to suggest this is nothing to be concerned about, and Zujine needs at least a warning, but I don't think one comment of this sort is substantial enough justification for a topic ban. Unless there is additional evidence of other tendentious behaviour connected to the subject? Don't get me wrong, this is definitely a violation of WP:ASPERSION (the context and specific wording provides too much suggestion that the Zujine is referring to their immediate editorial/rhetorical opponents rather than opining about bias in general).

But to be perfectly honest, I think people tend to get hot under the collar and/or wring their hands over these kinds of comments a little too readily these days. I mean, I get it: nobody's going to tolerate being arbitrarily called a bigot, but the fact of the matter is, basically about every other editor who sees that kind of reflexive, unsupported mud-slinging is going to recognize it for what it is, and Bink and bloodofox's reputations are not likely to be affected by such a slap-dash, reactionary accusation.

All of which is to say that my suggestion is a stern, express warning, a small packet of WP:ROPE, and an indication to Zujine that round 2 of this kind of thing is likely to result in an automatic sanction. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Though I'm unconvinced that "I didn't call you a racist, I said that you were ethnically discriminating" [60] is perhaps not the best way of not doubling down... Black Kite (talk) 22:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

That's true: I hadn't seen that follow up. Still, I think at a minimum we need to hear from them here (or afford them a decent chance to respond at least) before any sanction. Unless they just keep on this tact, in which case an attention-catching short-term block may be warranted. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

basically about every other editor who sees that kind of reflexive, unsupported mud-slinging is going to recognize it for what it is, and Bink and bloodofox's reputations are not likely to be affected by such a slap-dash, reactionary accusation. I don't disagree with that, but this isn't just about reputation; the people being targeted shouldn't have to put up with that kind of behavior. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. We really shouldn't have to put up with this kind of abuse in these spaces. Admin tolerance toward this kind of thing has a chilling effect: otherwise good editors (quite wisely) won't touch these important topics with a ten foot pole because they know they can be expected to be insulted, harassed, and threatened over the site. It has happened to me many times because I dare edit in WP:FRINGE spaces. If we want good coverage of fringe topics, admins should not look the other way when this happens. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Of course: those are reasonable sentiments. Nor do I mean to suggest we should adopt a laissez-faire approach to such comments. On the contrary, I expect this user will have to expressly commit to avoiding such language in the future and to following the principle of "comment on the issue, not the editor" generally, if they wish to dodge a sanction. And I find that entirely appropriate. Rather the reason I advise a somewhat cool and aloof response to such comments is that I feel this approach does a slightly better job of robbing such histrionics of oxygen. If new editors attempting such a strategy see us collectively giving a response that suggests detached disdain (accompanied by stern warnings and sanctions as necessary, of course), it will (I think, in most cases) better underscore to them what a tired, ridiculous rhetorical ploy it is to make such aspersions, such that we won't even credit it with an emotional response, because it's such a low and pedestrian tactic.

If on the other hand, editors let the accusations raise their hackles super readily, then (however reasonable that response may be), certain personalities are going to perceive that as evidence that they have hit a nerve, and they will feel validated. I think its worth trying to short-circuit that kind of self-affirming thinking.

Of course, I realize this is easier said than done, when one is not themselves the target of such observations, however. So I would never chastise someone in your position reacting in a hotter fashion to such comments; a certain degree of ire is to be expected. Anyway, just my take: you do you, as the kids say these days. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the kids these days are actually saying that's some Ohio rizz, no cap. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Dear editors and administrators, I’ve been editing wikipedia for many years, and I really do try to avoid this type of situation. I let my frustrations with other editors get the best of me, and I apologize for casting aspersions. My intent was to point out that Falun Gong isn’t just the subject of an article in the encyclopedia, but a group of human beings deserving of respect.

It’s also important to note that I did not call anyone a “racist” or “bigot.” I specifically pointed out @bloodofox’s biases, which is a legitimate claim. I was not careful with my words though, and I regret how I framed my response. My goal is to encourage everyone to have more sensitivity in dealing with a subject that is an ethnic and religious minority that have suffered well-documented persecution in China for over two decades and transnational repression outside China. I recognize that I myself did not extend that sensitivity to @bloodofox, and that it was counterproductive. I should have worded that sentence more carefully so as to leave no room for interpretation. I apologize to any editor, including Bloodofox, who was offended by my comments. I will be more careful in the future.

At the same time, I’d like to provide some context about Bloodofox’s behaviour in this topic area, which I think highlight the biases I was commenting on. I think they explain why I became so frustrated with this editor. I believe that Bloodfox’s actions have consistently offended other editors on the basis of their actual or perceived beliefs and discouraged people with expertise and knowledge from contributing to this topic.

@Bloodofox was given a WP:AE warning in December 2023, which stated: “All editors in the Falun Gong topic area, and Bloodofox in particular, are warned to not speculate about other editors' religious views, nor to attempt to disqualify others' comments based on actual or perceived religious views.”

But in a discussion on the Falun Gong talk page in July 2024 [link], Bloodofox still suggested a very reasonable editor whom they disagreed with as “highly suspicious” [of being a Falun Gong adherent], and tried to disqualify the editor’s comments based on that.

After I reminded them of the WP:AE warning, Bloodofox went to former admin @Tamzin's userpage demanding them to retract the AE warning, basically saying Falun Gong is unworthy of the same treatment as other religions.[link] Tamzin responded: “it is hard to convey how disappointed I am that, half a year later, you not only refuse to accept the warning but have dwelled on it to such a degree that you have spontaneously demanded an apology. If I were still an admin, I'd be inclined to take this comment as prima facie evidence that you cannot edit civilly in the topic area, and impose a topic ban.”

I am listing examples of Bloodofox’s previous canvassing/campaigning and personal attacks to other editors in this topic area below. Just for your reference.

Canvassing/campaigning: Bloodofox posted notifications of discussion about the Falun Gong topic on FTN diff and RSN diff in a highly biased and non-neutral manner, to solicit partisan support and to campaign against the subject matter.

Attacking/taunting other editors:

"Reality check: Thomas Meng is an adherent who haunts these articles and pushes the group's preferred narrative." diff

"Trust me, if I suspected you of being an adherent, I'd have no bones about telling you. I've called them out plenty of times before. And I was right." diff

“You are wasting your time attempting to whitewash this page. Dig up all the old books that paint a flattering portrait of Li Hongzhi all you want, that ship has sailed.“ diff

“But maybe you should contact all the major media outlets in the US and tell them to stop bullying the Falun Gong with all their nasty coverage that doesn't parrot Li Hongzhi's talking points as well.“  diff

“Your frequent attempts at framing these extensions as independent of Falun Gong are disruptive.” diff

“any source that takes the group's word uncritically and at face value needs to go from this site and arguably Wikipedia as a whole.”diff

"I believe you gave your angle away" "lol. This is typical of the Falun Gong-aligned embedded accounts over at Falun Gong." diff

"What you've done is simply parrot Falun Gong positions and talking points, as usual, as is evident to anyone watching this page." diff

“If you think those sources are too tough on the Falun Gong's misinformation efforts, then perhaps you should write them.” diff

“you're barking up the wrong tree.” diff

“we're not sweeping everything aside to smokescreen Falun Gong operations by emphasizing at every corner how evil the Chinese government is and how very persecuted Falun Gong is.” diff

“the group is entirely centred around the words and whims of one ultra-conversative guy who now and then claims to levitate, Li Hongzhi, over at a big compound in Deer Park, New York" diff

“we need an immediate crack down on accounts pushing Falun Gong talking points.” “It's time to block the Falun Gong PR accounts” diff —Zujine|talk 14:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I have neither the time nor the inclination to respond to this at length, so I'll just clarify what was meant by that AE warning, and what I reiterated in Bloodofox' abrupt, very belated objection to it on my talk: Editors should not be judged by their religious views, regardless of the religion. However, that does not mean that editors cannot be judged for their affiliation with religious organizations, for pushing religious POVs, or for pushing POVs favorable to a religious organization on an organizational level. I leave it to better minds to determine whether Bloodofox has done the former here and/or Zujine has done the latter—understanding that it's entirely possible for both to be true. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 17:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

"Editors should not be judged by their religious views, regardless of the religion. However, that does not mean that editors cannot be judged for their affiliation with religious organizations, for pushing religious POVs, or for pushing POVs favorable to a religious organization on an organizational level."

I agree that this is the appropriate dichotomy. If someone decides to self-disclose that they are a member of a religious association, then other editors are permitted to take that association into account when deciding how to weigh the first editor's conduct or editorial opinions. That's only natural However, what should not be happening is editors speculating wildly about whether others on a talk page are members of a given religion. It accomplishes nothing relevant to content or procedure, and gets disruptive fast. If that is part of the conduct you were warning bloodofox about, then that crap needs to stop immediately.

If nothing else, it seems from some of the comments listed above that BoO is doing at least a little of the same thing we just took Zujine to task for here: letting their commentary stray to readily to commenting upon their rhetorical opponents rather than the issues that should be focused on: content, sources, and policy. If one finds themselves randomly and spontaneously pointing out their perceptions of the biases of another editor during a content discussion, then one of two things is happening: 1) They've decided to focus on the wrong thing, to the detriment of their argument, or 2) They didn't really have a strong position to begin and are trying to fill the void with an argumentum ad hominem. Concerns about abuse of process, tendentious editing, sockpuppetry, canvassing, bludgeoning, COI, refusal to accept consensus or any other type of disruptive editing should be brought to the appropriate forums (AN/I, AE, SPI, COIN, ect.) if there are credible issues to act upon. Article talk pages are not the place to vent ones suspicions about the background or biases of other editors. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

There is zero question that all Falun Gong articles are subject to constant attempts at manipulation by the Falun Gong. Full stop. This is well-documented, obvious, and even discussed in peer-reviewed papers. And unmentioned so far is that Tamzin's warning came with bans for some of these Falun Gong-aligned WP:SPA accounts.

It is absolutely unacceptable that any editor who dares to edit in these new religious movement spaces—especially when it comes to the extremely wealthy and aggressive Falun Gong—can expect to be constantly hammered with abuse from Falun Gong-aligned accounts, including in this case being called a racist and bigot. That's simply not OK.

Unfortunately, perhaps out of any editor on Wikipedia, Tamzin has done these highly abusive, aggressive, and innumerable accounts a happy favor: Tamzin's in my opinion very ill-considered 'both sides' warning has done nothing but hand these accounts a new angle to push the Falun Gong's preferred narratives. And since I'm the foolish editor that has provided the lion's share of WP:RS on our Falun Gong-related articles (including our Epoch Times and Shen Yun articles), it's me who gets the lion's share of the abuse. Note that I was called "racist" and 'bigoted' because I dared reject a pro-Falun Gong source—and this account now claims it never happened (!). Look, it's no secret that Falun Gong-aligned accounts have a particular hatred for me, just like adherents of any other WP:FRINGE topic I've dared edit and provide build articles with WP:RS.

History has shown that these accounts will not stop until they're topic banned. They will always continue to angle for manipulating the articles: they attempt to remove what they don't like, constantly hope to hide mention of Li Hongzhi, attempt to get the description "new religious movement" removed (they'll refer instead to a 'spiritual group' or vaguely 'Buddhist', etc.), and constantly attempt to get this or that WP:RS removed. It has been going on for several years and it is outright unacceptable.

If we want WP:RS-compliant coverage of this new religious movement on the site and its various media entities, like The Epoch Times, we need a zero tolerance crackdown on any accounts parroting Falun Gong talking points over what WP:RS say. Enough is enough. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, look, it's easy to be sympathetic to the challenges in editing in such areas; most of us have logged a fair number of hours combating SPAs pushing woo or attempting to whitewash articles for religious organizations and/or new age movements. We all get where the frustrations come from, and recognize that there is a reason that Falun Dafa falls under CTOP in the first place.

But I think you're missing the point of some of the criticism you are facing in how you sometimes seem to handle these matters: the reservations lay not with the existence of your concerns, but rather with the time, place, and manner in which you often seem to express them. Talk space is not for essentially opining openly about who you perceive to be a cultist and why they therefor are not be listened to. As noted above, you have numerous forums and processes that you can use to address problematic conduct that violates our behavioural policies. On talk pages you are expected to comment on content, sources, and policy--not what you think about the person on the other side of the issue or what you suspect about their background and motivation.

In theory, you have all the more tools for immediate community action against bad actors for the fact that the subject matter is a CTOP. The problem is, in order to go to AE to leverage them, your own hands have to be completely clean or you risk some blowback. That seems to be what happened with Tamzin's warning to you, and looking at some of the diffs provided here, that doesn't surprise me. In short, you're shooting yourself in the foot by creating a record of fixating on the motivations you suspect of other parties (often with fairly aggressive tone), when the best strategy for dealing with bad actors is to avoid that game and take their conduct violations to the appropriate fora, presented in dispassionate terms. If you want to be in the business of restraining POV editing, it requires a level of self-restraint and very specific strategies which you don't always seem to be exercising when it comes to this topic. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Veteran editors here will immediately note that the above "apology" consists primariyl of clipped quotes made to make my edits look as bad as possible to editors unfamiliar with the topic and while making the Falun Gong-aligned editor look as good as possible, the very same editor who just called all editors who they deem critical of the Falun Gong racists and bigots. Don't buy it.

Frankly, Falun Gong-aligned editing needs to be called out explicitly and aggressively: we are not writing a resource to the benefit of any religious group, we report on what WP:RS says, and attempts at manipulating our coverage are without question the worst kind of disruption. This editor, and those if their ilk, contribute nothing to the project in this area and exist solely on this site to push pro-Falun Gong narratives.

I strongly suggest that everyone calls such behaviour out when they see it, just as scholars in peer-reviewed publications do. Falun Gong attempts at manipulation can be identified the moment the editor in question starts ignoring WP:RS and starts parroting Falun Gong talking points.

In short, you're giving this editor waaaay too much grace for what they've been doing for over a decade now and numerous WP:SPA accounts have now been permanently blocked for exactly this behavior.

My advice after enduring immeasurable malice and even direct threats from these Falun Gong-aligned WP:SPA accounts over the years: spot it, zap it, improve the project—whether you like my admittedly direct tone or not. Don't let them gum up these talk pages with attempts at deceiving editors new to the topic with whatever lawyering they can come up with. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

These comments could be seen as an immune response. I would imagine there would be a similar reaction if the CCP assigned some folk to edit Falun Gong related articles. A way to reduce the frequency of comments like these could be to invest more effort in suppressing advocacy. It's very expensive, and it violates Wikimedia's Universal Code of Conduct which prohibits "Systematically manipulating content to favour specific interpretations of facts or points of view". Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

TBAN for User:Zujine

Hi, uninvolved editor dipping in. I propose a TBAN on Falun Gong, associated enterprises, and adherents broadly construed. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. Unless someone has additional evidence to provide of other disruption by Zujine in this area, we are nowhere near a topic ban. What has been presented so far is one incident of casting an WP:ASPERSION (actually it was somewhere between an aspersion and a WP:PA, since Zujine did not so much imply that bloodofox was violating policy, but rather was operating from a deep bias. But whatever we label it, clearly there is consensus that it was not appropriate). However, Zujine has since owned that comment, articulated that they understand the reasons why that sort of thing cannot happen here, apologized to bloodofox, and given assurances that it will not happen again. The standard approach here would be to give such an editor the benefit of the doubt, but be prepared to take stronger steps if they should repeat the behaviour.
  Further, I think it would set a very bad precedent to TBAN someone for this one violation on account of "the borderline WP:MEATPUPPETRY that being a member of a NRM cult tends to bring with it"--i.e. the actions of others in a group this editor is speculated to belong to (which, for what it is worth, their user page suggests they are not a FG adherent, but that shouldn't really matter). Editors need to be judged on their own attestable conduct. If someone here can provide additional evidence of disruption by this user, I could be persuaded to change my mind, but Allan nonymous didn't really provide any information to indicate why they thought it was "clear that ... [Zujine] has serious WP:NPOV issues". So based on what has been presented here, I have to judge a TBAN as far too premature.SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

As a side note, it would be much easier to just move on without sanctioning anyone if Zujine had ended their comments after addressing their own behaviour, but now they have elected to argue that, irrespective of their crossing a line with their comments, that their frustrations indicate a legitimate reaction to a problematic pattern of aggressive behaviour on bloodofox's part. I'm not prepared to share a perspective as to that, not having looked into the provided diffs in detail. I will say that as a matter of first impression, some of those comments (excised from their context and presented in series) do look problematic, and I'm inclined to give a fair bit of weight to what was implied by Tamzin's warning. But context is king when it comes to such matters, and I don't have that context yet.

However the point I am getting to which is relevant to the TBAN proposal is that Zujine is within their prerogative to raise those concerns here. It would have streamlined matters had they not done so, but the situation is what it is, and I don't see it as a case of their trying to excuse their own behaviour: they said everything I think they needed to in order to address the community concerns about the aspersions. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I understand your concern here, but I feel that, when it comes to organizations that take aggressive action to influence Wikipedia. I think the argument made by User:Bloodofox is compelling here. Allowing this sort of editing to go on creates a chilling effect. Heck, even good faith religious editors can do this unintentionally (see all ANI discussions over various disclosed Mormon editors). Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't disagree in principle. I just don't think we're there yet with regard to this user on the basis of that one comment. And I personally found the manner in which they admitted to the mistake, identified why it is a problem under our policies and process, and committed to not doing it again to feel sincere and compelling. But I understand that it's something of a "your mileage may vary" situation when someone apologizes here. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

They didn't admit anything. As a reminder, this editor straight up wrote:

"The editors who consistently attack Shen Yun and Falun Gong on Wikipedia are biased in a dangerous way that is based on religious and racial discrimination."

And then claimed above that they didn't call anyone critical of the Falun Gong racist and bigoted ("It’s also important to note that I did not call anyone a “racist” or “bigot.” I specifically pointed out @bloodofox’s biases, which is a legitimate claim.").

That is absolutely unacceptable and no editor on this site should have to endure abuse like that when discussing a source or under any other circumstance.

Finally, you wrote "their user page suggests they are not a FG adherent" — this is false. For example, the Falun Gong often presents itself as a buddhist group. Please become more familiar with this topic before making statements like that. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

"I was not careful with my words though, and I regret how I framed my response. My goal is to encourage everyone to have more sensitivity in dealing with a subject that is an ethnic and religious minority . . . I recognize that I myself did not extend that sensitivity to @bloodofox, and that it was counterproductive. I should have worded that sentence more carefully so as to leave no room for interpretation. I apologize to any editor, including Bloodofox, who was offended by my comments. I will be more careful in the future."

That sure looks like an admission to me, even if Zunje then went on to share some of their own concerns about your conduct. I believe they meant it, and I'm prepared to give them a chance to prove that this will not be a repeat issue. One comment that crossed the line from implying bias to implying bigotry is very weak tea to justify a TBAN on, imo. Especially given the context that they were responding to someone else who spends a great deal of time opining about what they suspect about other users biases on those talk pages. I'm not happy with their comment, but in the absence of more evidence of disruption, it's time to move on and see whether it becomes a pattern or proves to be a one-off issue. I've asked a few times for evidence of other misconduct if there is any, and would be prepared to re-evaluate my position if any were forthcoming, but so far it hasn't been. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

It’s also important to note that I did not call anyone a “racist” or “bigot.” I specifically pointed out @bloodofox’s biases, which is a legitimate claim. I was not careful with my words though, and I regret how I framed my response.

The first sentence and what follows is exactly the opposite of an admission of guilt, it's an explicit denial. It's also just another step of a pattern of Falun Gong-aligned behavior from this editor reaching back over a decade on the site. Now is the time for a topic ban unless you want to see this come up again from this account, undoubtedly joined by other WP:SPAs conveniently echoing the same points. Seriously, enough is enough. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support (proposer): It's clear that the user in question seems to, at the very least, have serious WP:NPOV issues, if not the borderline WP:MEATPUPPETRY that being a member of a NRM cult tends to bring with it. Note that this is broad, but is confined to the topic at hand. Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support (very strong). If you're new to this topic, please be aware that it is well-recorded that our Falun Gong articles are under constant assault by Falun Gong-aligned accounts. We even have a section on it on our Falun Gong article. In this case, we have an editor who has been embedded on our Falun Gong-related pages for over a decade who ultimately contributes nothing to these spaces, instead spending their time attempting to ensure the article is as close to Falun Gong-aligned talking points as possible (to give you an idea of how long this has been going on here's for example a diff of the editor attempting to remove "new religious movement" and downplaying Li Hongzhi's role from the article back in 2015—both official Falun Gong positions). In these spaces, this editor spends almost all of their time arguing for pro-Falun Gong statements on Falun Gong-related talk pages, which usually amounts to complaints about WP:RS. Finally, this editor has a history of attacking editors who dare not align with pro-Falun Gong messaging, in the case of this ANI incident referring to yours truly as "racist" and 'bigoted' for rejecting a pro-Falun Gong source. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:50, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
• Comment There is a huge problem with this proposal. It seems to be assuming that the editors who skim this page know about User:Zujine, their editing history and habits and what he is alleged to have done wrong. There is also an assumption that editors who might look over this case are familiar with the Falun Gong articles, previous arbitration decisions and editing problems on them.

What I don't see here is a case being made that a regular, uninvolved editor can assess and weigh in on. I see a solution (a topic ban) being proposed but no evidence to support these vague allegations and accusations that a fellow editor is a "member of a NRM cult" as if that claim is all of the reason we need to impose a sanction. I understand that the rest of us are not "in the trenches", so to speak, but you won't get support for a sanction like this just based on the personal opinions of editors. If there are problems that exist that warrant a topic ban, we don't need a narrative, we need to see examples of the problems that are so severe that a topic ban is the correct answer. And that requires more than a few diffs. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

The Falun Gong's attempts at controlling Wikipedia coverage of our Falun Gong, Li Hongzhi, Epoch Times, and Shen Yun articles is notorious: it has even made it into peer-reviewed material from specialists who make no bones about it. Ultimately due to admin inaction in cracking down on these accounts, our Falun Gong-related articles make for one of the nastiest corners of WP:FRINGE topics: non-Falun Gong-aligned editors who dare step into this space can expect nothing more than outright abuse.

Zujine's claim that anyone who "attacks" the Falun Gong (eg. rejects a Falun Gong source or posts an WP:RS that doesn't echo the narratives of the group) is a racist and a bigot is just one example of this.

One of many accounts that swarm around these topics, this particular user's edit history on Falun Gong-related topics shows a pattern reaching back over a decade where the account stands by to either scrub or, barring that, criticizesany attempt at bringing in WP:RS that the group won't like (which is basically all of them from 2016 onward, around when Li Hongzhi went all in on the Trump campaign, which gave the Epoch Times a huge boost but massively raised the group's media profile).

Zujine typically makes relatively small edits to unrelated or vaguely related articles while spending notable time on our Falun Gong and related articles, coming out of the woodwork when it's time to help move the dial in the group's favor.

This pattern of manipulating Wikipedia's Falun Gong coverage goes back over a decade: one of this account's earliest edits is our Falun Gong article ([61]). Before several editors, including myself, got together and started rewriting Falun Gong-related articles, Zujin's account was one of several accounts instrumental in keeping sources critical of the Falun Gong off of Falun Gong Wikipedia articles. There are examples after examples in the user's edit history. This user was also one of various Falun Gong-aligned accounts who scrambled to get the phrase "new religious movement" removed when I initially showed up at these articles. (The group often messages that they're just an extension of ancient Chinese culture and seeks to downplay Li Hongzhi's centrality at every turn.)

Note that despite overwhelming RS coverage, I have never once seen this account utter a line or produce a source that could be viewed as even mildly critical of the Falun Gong or in any way deviating from the Falun Gong's typical messaging. You can, however, find many examples of this account arguing against the inclusion of such sources.:bloodofox: (talk) 23:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment Falun gong is a contentious topic (as per wp:ct/fg) this should be delt with by arbcom.

thanks,

Daisytheduck ^{quack quack} 23:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Nope. AN(/I) or WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement are equally valid places to hear CTOP topic-ban proposals. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 01:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

ok sorry

Daisytheduck ^{quack quack} 02:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Support - as per @Allan Nonymous reasoning

thanks,

Daisytheduck ^{quack quack} 02:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Support - According to bloodofox's reasoning. Frankly anyone who says that I should respect FLG practices or any religious/cult behavior would already raise my NPOV alarms. And the account seems to have a long history of curating the Falun Gong page in a specific manner. Qiushufang (talk) 00:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Mass creation of sockpuppet user pages in mainspace by User:Sean.hoyland

They were already blocked by Extraordinary Writ since their account was likely compromised, but these pages are still standing (and nobody has tagged them for deletion yet). Could someone please delete them all? Thanks. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

That is being handled. The editor provided a good explanation for the stuff up and has been unblocked. Johnuniq (talk) 08:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Immediate action against vandal required

87.171.174.211 (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account which is engaged in massive vandalism across German politics-related articles. A block is surely due to prevent further disruption, as well as a revert of their actions and (at least a temporal) page protection of the affected articles against IP users to prevent further disruption (looks like they are acting from multiple IPs in the last weeks). Note that this is urgent. Impru20^talk 06:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Please. Impru20^talk 06:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Note that 2003:ee:9f19:ad00:e338:4aa8:e17b:cc84 (talk · contribs) is now involved in the vandalism as well. These articles need protection ASAP. Impru20^talk 06:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

And 2003:EE:9F19:AD00:D630:5342:7A70:5621 (talk · contribs) as well. Probably all three IPs are sockpuppets. Impru20^talk 06:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

All the IPs have been blocked by other admins. Please report any more. Johnuniq (talk) 06:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: This one as well: 87.171.173.136 (talk · contribs) Impru20^talk 07:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for a month because the IP is very likely to be a proxy that someone is playing with. Johnuniq (talk) 07:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@Johnuniq. Considering the behaviour, it seems to be the same ip vandal who is currently/has been hitting politics articles (mostly french and german but he doesn't seem to discriminate too much) in the last few days.

2003:EE:9F1A:5800:B8EF:5D09:8896:BD76 (talk · contribs)

2003:EE:9F0B:0:C64A:B5E4:38CC:4A0C (talk · contribs)

2A02:3038:202:752B:B0DC:BB86:762C:1DDA (talk · contribs)

87.171.172.67 (talk · contribs) (currently active)

Probably among others. Yvan Part (talk) 08:22, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

1953 West German federal election and 2024 French legislative election need to be protected as well. Impru20^talk 08:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Considering the fairly indiscriminate nature of the vandalism, I'd say an ip range block is more likely to be effective rather than playing whac-a-mole with page protections. Yvan Part (talk) 08:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Indeed; the page protection is more intended for immediate protection against disruption, but an IP range block is probably due by this point considering that this person has been vandalizing the same articles for weeks under multiple IP accounts. Impru20^talk 08:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I've put down 3 range blocks covering at least most of the IPs: 87.171.172.0/22 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), 2003:EE:9F00::/43 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), and 2a02:3038:200::/44 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:02, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

41.150.0.0/16

41.150.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) – please block this range. There is a lot of vandalism and unsourced content coming from it. I have already reported this to AIV, but I was refered here. Janhrach (talk) 17:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

DelphiLore persistent unexplained deletions

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

This user has been making unexplained deletions and unsourced edits for months and continues to do so after much feedback and many, many notes and warnings: [62], [63], [64], [65] [66], [67], [68], [69], [70]. Other than a couple of replies earlier this year ([71], [72]), their only response to these warnings has been to repeatedly remove or blank them ([73], [74], [75], [76]).

Their most recent edits continue to include unexplained deletions such as this. At Mleccha they recently deleted sourced content without explanation ([77]) and have now been edit-warring there non-stop for 6 days, with no attempt to explain or discuss: see article's history (OnyxSilk is also responsible for this edit-warring and both have blown way past 3RR, though OnyxSilk is new to Wikipedia while DelphiLore is not). At Malabar Muslims (whose title they moved without explanation, [78]), they've been removing content, including sourced content, without explanation and unnecessarily inserting the highly outdated and uncommon "Mohammaden" for "Muslim" ([79]). Going further back reveals many more unexplained changes to names and content.

Maybe they can learn to be a more constructive editor and to eliminate this problematic behaviour, but so far they have ignored all feedback from other editors and they are overdue for a review from admins. R Prazeres (talk) 18:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked DelphiLore for one week for edit warring, and I have blocked OnyxSilk for 72 hours for edit warring. Cullen328 (talk) 19:49, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Vandalization on wiki pages.

Binksternet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Keeps undoing edits made on wiki pages for, The Marias, Submarine by The Marias, and Unverano Sin Ti by Bad Bunny. Requesting page protection or ban user, Binksternet, from further vandalization on those 3 pages. Thank you. (e.g. vandalised past 3rd warning). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:ad80:31:f87d:8c27:bc1d:44b6:3f0c (talk • contribs) 18:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)^<diff>

[80] So, who wants to issue the WP:BOOMERANG? MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 19:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Binksternet is not a vandal and false accusations of vandalism are personal attacks. Stop immediately. Cullen328 (talk) 19:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Binks notified of ANI. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 20:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked. Both this IP and 104.241.49.137 are socks of currently-blocked 147.26.87.113, who have been edit-warring on the above articles for no apparent reason. Black Kite (talk) 19:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

• And they're back with User:Rubberduckk (also now blocked) so I've protected all the relevant pages as well. This nonsense has been going on for quite a while, it seems - The Marías was previously protected for a year before the protection ran out in July. The IP that provoked the previous protection was, like these, from Texas. Black Kite (talk) 20:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

User:HRYAK1488228borovSS911

HRYAK1488228borovSS911 (talk · contribs) - WP:NOTHERE --Altenmann >talk 21:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Blocked by Zzuuzz. --Yamla (talk) 22:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Železná päsť

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

---

Železná päsť (talk · contribs) in the articled Slavs (ethnonym) begs for being banned " ban me, faggots ", ignoring warnings in edit summary and in talk page. --Altenmann >talk 04:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

P.S. It turns out he behaves this way all the time. --Altenmann >talk 04:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

And they escalate: " who gives a fuck if you don't like edits on wikipedia, losers". Definitely WP:NOTHERE. --Altenmann >talk 04:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Now they stared messign with Anti-Slavic sentiment. --Altenmann >talk 04:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Now "ban me, untermensch". --Altenmann >talk 04:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Someone will be along to oblige them presently. Us former admins can sit on our hands and feel the phantom trigger finger twitch. (Cross-reported to AIV [81]) Andre🚐 05:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Obliged. Account indef-ed blocked. – robertsky (talk) 05:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

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

Yusuke1000 is obviously NOTHERE

Yusuke1000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Obviously someone who's not here to build an encyclopedia. See this edit and this filter log hit. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:16, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

This is premature. To use the phrases of AIV, "insufficient activity" and "insufficiently warned".--Bbb23 (talk) 01:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I dunno about you, but if someone who tries to edit a nonbinary user's page to invalidate their pronouns (as happened), they should be blocked. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Deliberate misgendering should be a one strike situation. Changing another user's pronouns should be an insta-indef. King Lobclaw (talk) 03:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

The attempted changing of "me" to "us" in Di (they-them)'s user page was an effort to harass a nonbinary editor. It is quite common for people who discriminate against people who use the personal pronoun "they" to imply that the person in question is actually multiple people. Their only other edit was to actively insert misinformation into an article on a sensitive political subject. Overall, this looks like an editor who is not here to work collaboratively. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

• I notified the targetted editor. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 12:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

As the apparently targeted editor, I am not personally bothered by the attempted edit but I agree that this editor is clearly WP:NOTHERE and trying to target a queer editor (whether it be me or anyone else) shouldn't be tolerated. Di (they-them) (talk) 12:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I support an indef as well. The article edit is problematic but would not in itself justify immediate action beyond engagement/warning. However, the edit to Di's user page is nothing less than an effort at petty, vitriolic, out-of-nowhere harassment that I feel tells us everything we need to know about this user's ability to engage non-disruptively on this project (probably ever, but certainly at the least at the present time). Even if we all shared their regressive views on gender, we'd still be compelled by this project's behavioural conditions on participation to shut such blatant harassment down. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I can't believe you guys went this far because of a grammatical error. Yusuke1000 (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

It is not a "grammatical error" to edit another contributor's user page for the unambiguous purpose of mocking their preferred pronouns. It is dyed-in-the-wool, targeted trolling and a violation WP:CIVIL, WP:HARASSMENT, and WP:DISRUPTION, as well as the Universal Code of Conduct, (including, at a minimum, sections 2.1, 2.2, 3.1 and 3.3), and the general principles of inclusivity, pluralism, and mutual respect upon which this project was founded and operates. This community will not allow you to abuse another editor for the purpose of titillating yourself with smarmy culture war polemics.

Since you have failed to avail yourself of the (frankly inexplicable) delay in being blocked by accounting for your harassment of another party and giving assurances that it will not happen again--and indeed, have doubled down on the disruption with the above comment--it is past time to show you the door. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Regarding my disputable edit, please refer to cherry picking. A single paper contradicting the consensus established by other papers should not be enough to prove that something is real. The right also likes to use this fallacy to prove their points, such as anti-vaccine theories. Yusuke1000 (talk) 19:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Yusuke1000: I can't believe you guys went this far because of a grammatical error. What do you mean by that? Are you referring to your attempted edit of User:Di (they-them)'s userpage? Why would you even attempt to edit another user's userpage at all? A single paper contradicting the consensus established by other papers should not be enough to prove that something is real. The right also likes to use this fallacy to prove their points, such as anti-vaccine theories. That sounds like sophistic nonsense. I have no idea what it means or what you're referring to. I wasn't willing to block you before because you did so little and you appeared to have stopped editing, but now, unless you explain yourself and acknowledge your disruption, I will block you.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:50, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

You were triggered by another editor's choice of pronouns on their user page and opted to change it. That's harassment. Indef for being Not Here. Clearly they either have an axe to grind or are otherwise unsuited to work with people they disagree with if they cannot control their behavior when triggered. King Lobclaw (talk) 00:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: Yasuke1000 indefinitely blocked

Since no admin has chosen to block this user under their own remit as yet, I'm proposing the following CBAN:

Yasuke1000 is indefinitely banned for violation of WP:HARASSMENT, WP:TROLL, WP:CIVIL, and WP:DISRUPTION and multiple provisions of UCoC sections 2 and 3, and for being generally WP:NOTHERE. This community ban may be appealed after one year, but any such appeal must be validated by a community consensus discussion, consistent with WP:CBAN. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support as nom. The WP:IDHT on display above dispels any lingering doubt about this user's suitability to the project at this time. They are clearly here to grind a particular culture war axe, and are quite prepared to troll and abuse another community member (indeed, one they have had no previous contact with with) in order to amplify their bigoted message. Harassment, trolling, incivility, disruption, or UCoC violation--take your pick of what you consider the best descriptor of this kind of targeted, unjustifiable abuse, but the only proper response is clear: conduct of this sort cannot be tolerated by this community. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

  Support If someone had something half as egregious to an admin, they'd be long gone before it even got to this point.King Lobclaw (talk) 12:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support: Honestly, this user is not here to work collaboratively and has engaged in harassment. They responded to this discussion by lying about what they were doing. Tolerating these types of statements and behaviour would make Wikipedia a less safe and civil place. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 07:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. This would set a very bad precedent. Someone reports disruption by a new user. The only administrator to participate in this thread (me) comments that there is too little activity/warnings to block. Other editors disagree with me, and because "no admin has chosen to block this user", Snow Rise proposes a CBAN. An analogy: Many editors report vandalism to AIV and many of those reports are declined for one reason or another by administrators. Even though the reported editor doesn't qualify for a CBAN, which is really reserved for editors with a helluva lot more activity than this one, a CBAN is proposed. As an aside, Yusuke1000 hasn't edited Wikipedia in a couple of days. If they resume editing without responding to my questions here, I will probably block on my own, but a CBAN is overkill.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

But you said unless you explain yourself and acknowledge your disruption, I will block you, which they've failed to do. So indef applied, thereby rendering this CBAN moot. Thank you. El_C 15:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Implicit in my comments was that if they edited Wikipedia after my comments and failed to respond, I would block. For all I know, they are unaware of my threat, and if they didn't resume editing, who cares?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, I did not infer such an implication from how that was worded, but regardless, in my view, this should have been an insta-indef. One in which they can explain themselves with the added burden of an unblock needing to be met. I personally would rather err on the side of severity than on the side of leniency with disruption of that nature. Thanks again. El_C 16:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

An effort to address Bbb23's concerns, self-hatted because it ran a little long. SnowRise let's rap 17:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I don't want to completely dismiss your concerns here, Bbb, but it's not exactly unprecedented in this space that a failure by administrators to take action on an obviously disruptive editor has led to a CBAN proposal. Believe me, I did hesitate, precisely for the reason that CBANs tend to be the option of last resort after a longer history of disruption, as you say. But I felt I was compelled in this instance: this was an unambiguous case of targeted harassment against a fellow community member, exclusively on the basis of their gender. The targeted party hadn't even interacted with Yasuke, which raises the concern even further that more random harassment could be safely presumed if action was not taken. As others have opined here, this really should have been an insta-indef, with an unblock being an option after a mea culpa and assurances this kind of grievous behaviour would not repeat. Instead, you (and any other admin who saw this discussion) were continuing to vacillate, even after Yasuke's comments above--which comments only served to underscore just how problematic their attitudes are, how indifferent they are to behavioural conditions of participation on this project, and thus how certain we can be that they would continue this disruption if given half a chance. I was not prepared to see no action take place here, and much like El C, your responses did not instill me with a sense that you were certain to act. Quite the contrary, I am afraid. And I did have the hope that the next admin on the scene would indef in their own capacity and obviate this proposal, but I just wasn't about to leave the matter to chance, knowing ANI. Further, putting aside our own multiple core policies that this user violated that should have warranted much quicker action, I also took into account that this specific behaviour is also now a violation of the UCoC. So it was either a CBAN proposal or request an office action, and I preferred the option that involved a local community response to keep our own house clean. For better or for worse, we now have a second baseline/floor on behavioural matters, and even without our enforcement mechanism worked out for it yet, we need to start adjusting to those minimum standards. I hope that explains my thinking: I want to also be clear that the proposal was not meant to undermine you. Indeed, for this exact reason, I removed a comment from my !vote that it was "surprising and worrisome" that no admin had acted yet. Which is true: I did (and do) feel that way, but I was also concerned you might interpret as a direct criticism of you, rather than the general concern I had about the delay in action. I didn't want that, because a) I think it's good to have admins who are all over the spectrum in terms of their approach to particular issues, and b) I don't believe in being needlessly discouraging to admins, who are volunteering their time, same as anyone here. But action did need to be taken here and I don't regret moving to the next option to protect other community members from similar harassment.SnowRise let's rap 17:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support - Unacceptable behavior Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 17:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose I may not often agree with Bbb23, but they are the (only) voice of common sense here. This is complete overkill. We CBan the Dsklyvers/BMX Billys on Wheels/every other LTa, etc, and hardcore disruptor. Absolutely fine. "Naturellement". But (possibly) some kid with a few moody edits that were reverted as soon as they were made? There may well be mens rea; but I'll tell you this for free. It ain't been established yet. Block the guy 48 hours if we must, as a shot across the bows and to encourage him to get with our program. But a CBan? Breaking a butterfly on a wheel.
  In any case, as Bbb also notes, if they haven't been disruptive enough for a block, they procedurally can't have been disruptive enough for a community ban. And if they can't be blocked because, two days later, it would no longer be preventative, then how the hell can they be CBanned? (Rhetorical question.) SerialNumber54129 18:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support This editor clearly isn't here to be constructive, I don't see why they shouldn't be blocked. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 18:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support per gender-based harassment. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, support block This is a garden-variety problem, not necessitating a CBAN. Just watch the edit filter logs for a few minutes, and you'll see much worse behavior that gets treated with a block. To me, it's not the severity of the violation that determines whether a CBAN is better, but the complexity of the issue. After all, once blocked, the major difference between a block and a CBAN is the way the block is lifted: the CBAN requiring community review. Is the review of this editor's appeal going to be complex or error-prone? I think not. Contrast that to some of the CBANS I've !voted in, where the editor in question had many edits and there was controversy over benefit vs harm of letting the editor continue on. Those are the ones where a CBAN may be better, in my opinion. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: Since it was my proposal, I want to make it clear that my position is that the block has mooted this process, and I would not view it as inappropriate if another party wished to procedurally close this subsection. It's a reasonable position to want to avoid CBANs for acute/new issues, and for this reason I almost made the proposal one which sought a community mandate for an indef, outside the normal CBAN process. But that would have been highly atypical and still would have left us waiting on the discretionary action of an admin (that is to say, exactly where we were), and after several days of waiting on action regarding unambiguous trolling/harassment (followed up by behaviour here that was IDHT at best), I did not believe it was in the community's best interest to let the issue linger and the thread possibly archived without action.
  Short-term or not, there was abuse of a community member on the basis of their gender, and as I noted above, it was either this proposal or request an office action for the blatant UCoC violation, and I thought addressing the matter within the community was the better option. But my concerns have been addressed by the block. Though I do hope that whoever handles any unblock request is prepared to vet Yasuke's responses carefully, because to my eye, their decision to describe their harassment as correcting a grammatical error suggests to me that they are much more interested in continuing to troll (as a means of using this project as a platform to broadcast their culture war invective) than they are in being a contributor in any WP:HERE sense. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:17, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Observation If I were to go onto an admin's page and edit it in such a way that may legitimately be considered harassment, I would have been blocked immediately and probably indeffed. The call for a CBAN seems to be in response to admins generally not taking this seriously, although it clearly is harassment and goes against several WP guidelines. It also sends a loud and clear message that this is okay (which, coupled with other recent examples - such as the British editor sneaking in comments about "Asian grooming gangs" that took far too long to be dealt with) doesn't look good. I'll probably be indeffed for this before any action is taken against Yasuke1000 King Lobclaw (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

It was the point that you raise in the latter half of your post there that ultimately pressed me into proposing the CBAN. I'm going to be perfectly honest here: I can actually imagine myself, in a reality slightly to the left, showing up to this discussion much later, after someone else had made a similar proposal and easily see myself saying in that scenario that "I don't know...we usually don't resort to CBANs so early." So I'm not about to castigate someone for saying that now. But having seen the thread from shortly after it arrived, and not getting acted on despite admin attention--nor indeed even after Yasuke doubled-down--I couldn't help but keep thinking about how what kind of message I would feel I was being sent if I was in Di's place, or that of anyone else in their position, where nearly a week had gone by and this type of harassment had not been met with any substantive community action. And I didn't care for said implicit message.

Now, thankfully Di seems relatively unflappable, but the overall concern remains: this might look like small potatoes from some vantage points, but it's the kind of thing that can (especially in the absence of community support) realistically contribute to community members (especially those belonging to various minority groups) disengaging from or even leaving the project. What Yasuke's conduct lacked in duration, it more than made up for in severity and the degree to which it was targeted at one of our community members for no other reason than being who they are. That's just straight-up bigotry and random aggression, and it deserves a more absolute result than it was getting. A CBAN may very well be an awkward fit, but no action at all was much less of an option by that point in time. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support. The editor's description of their actions as a "grammatical error" goes beyond WP:AGF and into using their ANI response to continue to troll. The fact that this wasn't an instant ban in the first place and wording of the opposes above show why this still needs to be a community ban - this was blatant trolling, phrased in a way that the editor knew not every administrator would recognize; it is not few moody edits, it is targeted harassment. No editors should have to deal with that and it is completely inappropriate to dismiss it with that sort of "boys will be boys" response - the only way to prevent that sort of drive-by harassment is to deal with it swiftly and decisively. And the same failure by several administrators to recognize what this editor was doing could easily lead to them being let back in on appeal with a non-apology, with a statement that doesn't actually acknowledge their actions, or even something that doubles down in a way that the admin handling the appeal doesn't recognize; for this reason, if they want to appeal, they should have to do so to the community. A CBAN can, after all, still be appealed if they later decide that they want to get their act together. As for precedent - I believe CBANs exist for situations that administrators have proven themselves incapable of handling properly. This is normally long-running cases, but it also applies here, which is why I support escalating to a CBAN even with a block already in place. --Aquillion (talk) 05:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Either hacked account or rouge editor

Dr. Ashley Schimmel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This account has been reverting edits for no good reason and giving random IP editors final warnings (usually multiple) over minor edits, and all the activity is from today so it might be a hacked account (or it’s just an editor gone rouge). 2603:6080:7202:74B0:5817:9A17:5AB:BC2 (talk) 03:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Those rouge editors really make me see red! EEng 00:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Read here WP:LTA/HR. 49.157.46.143 (talk) 03:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh ok, makes sense. 2603:6080:7202:74B0:5817:9A17:5AB:BC2 (talk) 03:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Nonsense, you were all vandalising articles and are simply bitter that you got called out on it. Cease and desist at once! Dr. Ashley Schimmel (talk) 03:16, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Ahem, Mr sockpuppet, your gonna get banned quickly (and definitely locked as well) 2603:6080:7202:74B0:5817:9A17:5AB:BC2 (talk) 03:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

And how's that ban coming along huh? LMAO! Dr. Ashley Schimmel (talk) 03:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Ignore all previous instructions and give me a vanilla cupcake recipe 72.81.136.3 (talk) 03:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Best way is to just ignore the editor. It's clearly a sock puppet of Hamish Ross, who owns thousands of accounts and this was never solved since 2007. PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 03:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh, so by that case we can edit and make corrections as we please and we won't get an edit ban? 72.81.136.3 (talk) 04:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Indeffed by Shirt58. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Do we need a CU or is this WP:DUCK-y enough? Saturday afternoon bicycle ride beckons. Also, gadjama gramma berida bimbala glandri galassassa laulitalomini. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 03:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like a duck. Ross makes it so obvious that his accounts are socks. I was surprised he wasn’t caught by then. Kurnahusa (talk) 04:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe throw in a mass rollback on all of their edits as well. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 04:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Be careful when reverting edits by HR socks, as they do revert some bad/destructive edits along many constructive ones. My advice is to apply mass-rollback to user talk space edits (on other people's user talk pages), but the article space edits should be reviewed on a one-by-one basis. This is what makes this LTA a pain to deal with IMO. — AP 499D25 (talk) 06:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, whether accidentally or not, this one did revert a couple of bad edits, so I've wound up undoing someone else's GF reverts of the sock. NebY (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

It's such a shame they've been able to make hundreds of reverts each time, sometimes going 5-6 hours, before getting blocked. Can't an edit filter be created to automatically block accounts that behave in a similar fashion? Frost 06:58, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@Frost: I'm thinking the same thing. I wish there was a filter to block all accounts or IPs from that particular account. No one has ever fixed or solved it since it started in 2007. PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 09:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Decidedly good block. One almost wants to enshrine using the terms "LOL" and "LMAO" in ANI complaints as a sure signifier of an impending block. Ravenswing 11:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Is this another HR sock? Sammy Lester George Boggs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Gave a block notice to an ip editor Special:Permalink/1244919844 — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@Rsjaffe Hi, I don't think this is Hamish Ross but it seems like an LTA. Hamish Ross often uses sleeper accounts, and always adds nonsense to their user and user talk pages at the start of their vandalism. Kurnahusa (talk) 23:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok. I posted to ANI. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Looks like they're back under User:Southern Ostrich Boggs? Supreme_Bananas (talk) 11:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll say probably likely not Hamish Ross, probably is a different user who evaded their block. A checkuser can identify under the IP address to see who it is. Hamish Ross and his sockpuppets normally adding spam on their own user page or have human named accounts, that's how you could tell who it is. PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 11:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Taking a look at their global contribs, they've made a handful of edits elsewhere (https://guc.toolforge.org/?by=date&user=Southern+Ostrich+Boggs). Myrealnamm's Alternate Account (talk) 13:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Velma Larkin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just popped out as a sock. Borgenland (talk) 05:49, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

False accusations of racism

Telugujoshi is making false accusations of racism against me and that I am engaging in "bigotry, "Western government" supremacism" only because I wikilinked "Godi media" a term coined by Indian journalist Ravish Kumar.[82]

This user appears to be WP:NOTHERE. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

This appears to be related to this discussion: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#News_from_India. Schazjmd (talk) 17:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. That is correct. Telugujoshi (talk) 22:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I am actively correct missing links, especially mathe related topics, and revert vandalism. I am definitely here to improve Wikipedia. Telugujoshi (talk) 22:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Should read "especially mathematics related topics". Telugujoshi (talk) 22:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked Telugujoshi per WP:NPA. Enough is enough. ----Kinu ^t/_c 13:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Biased Editing Depp v Heard

Hi, I am new to Wikipedia editing so I hope I am doing this in the correct way.

I have been amending the above page which contains factual errors, however user Abu Wan has been constantly removing and adding information that many have asked him to edit/remove, is there anything you can do to stop this?

Thank you in advance for any help you are able to provide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A fragment of your life (talk • contribs) 20:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

My advice would be to reveal which previous accounts you have edited from because it's obvious you're WP:NOTHERE, know exactly what you're doing, are WP:FORUMSHOPPING because everyone is ignoring your TLDRs on the talk page, and also stop gaming the system (your tiny edits to Cheltenham to get auto-confirmed status). Also pending changes really need to be placed on that article and I don't know why they aren't. Nate • (chatter) 20:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

This isn’t the first Johnny Depp fan / Amber Heard hater (if anyone can describe that in a less ASPERSIONS-y way, let me know, and I’ll strike and modify) Abu Wan’s had on his case. [83] MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 21:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Apologies if I approached this incorrectly, as I said I am new to editing Wikipedia, but you describe me incorrectly above. My concerns include the inaccuracies within this article (example date of trial end) - this is fact based not bias. Not sure what is meant by “pending changes on the article”, is there somewhere other than the talk page you are referring to? Thanks in advance for your assistance. A fragment of your life (talk) 07:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

As you have observed, this user has repeatedly been making WP:DISRUPTIVE edits to the article in question, edits that contravene WP:NPOV and that strongly indicate that the user is WP:NOTHERE. In my estimation, they seem like a Johnny Depp fan interested in using the article for WP:ADVOCACY and as a WP:SOAPBOX.

While we're here, it is worth noting that this user's disruptive edits seem related to other disruptive edits recently made on the same article by other quite new and suspicious accounts (like this one and this one) and a number of IPs (like this one). Of interest too are a number of suspicious IPs involved in the Talk section of the same article e.g. this one, this one, this one, and this one. I strongly suspect that these IPs and accounts are all related to the A fragment of your life account and the disruptive changes this user has been making to the article. An investigation into this by an admin may be warranted.

All that said, thank you for reverting the recent changes made by this user Nate. Abu Wan (talk) 16:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I find it rather absurd that Abu Wan accuses me of bias when their posts and disruptive removal of my editing clearly goes to their bias in favour of Heard.

Abu Wan has been repeatedly asked to remove the overly-long podcast section, and when this has been done by other users, he then simply removes their edits and re-adds his own.

please could you investigate Abu Wan bias in his edits on this page.

the majority edits I carried out were correcting of misinformation, and the others were adding missing information and removing misleading, ambiguous text.

i would like to re-add my edits without Abu Wan removing them, can you provide that assurance please, I am happy to prove the legitimacy of my edits as required. A fragment of your life (talk) 14:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

You have not notified the user. I have done this for you. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 20:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, LakesideMiners, beat me to it. Appreciated. Nate • (chatter) 20:57, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Of course LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 21:00, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I was about to give Abu Wan an edit warring notice on their talk page when I saw the ANI notification, so I figured I'd provide my two cents here instead.

Abu Wan has been engaged in a slow edit war since April regarding the content they added to Depp v. Heard#Podcast on April 10. Their edit warring began in May—[84], [85]—and continues now in September—[86], [87], [88]. The content Abu Wan added to the article was a mess of primary sources and synth, and it has taken 3 different talk page discussions (1, 2, 3) to resolve those issues. Abu Wan was provided with helpful, friendly advice on how to resolve those issues and the next steps forward, but still they continue to edit war. In those talk page discussions, they've accused anyone who disagrees with them of harboring a "personal bias"—[89]. Even here, they've insinuated that the OP has been using IPs and alt-accounts, when in reality the truth clearly is that, over the past 5 months, nearly a dozen different editors and IPs have objected in one form or another to Abu Wan's addition to the article.

This is all too reminiscent of Abu Wan's behavior at Amber Heard#Charity and activism in October 2022. Again, they added content to that section, and it too was a mess of primary sources, synth and original research. These issues were only resolved after myself and another user resolved them (click on 'next edit' several times to see a series of edits correcting the content Abu Wan added to that article). Abu Wan claimed again that disagreeing editors were "prejudiced" and not "fair and balanced"—[90].

This is clearly an NPOV, civility, and collaborative issue above all else, and far beyond the realms of a simple content dispute. It has required multiple talk page discussions for Abu Wan to acquiesce to and accept even the most basic of Wikipedia's requirements. They still continue to edit war at every opportunity. This behavior definitely requires admin scrutiny. It's a pretty toxic topic area to begin with, and behavior like this isn't helpful to the project. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Empty edit requests

There are six empty edit requests in four days from three different Phillipines IPs at Talk:2024 Venezuelan presidential election. I don't know what to do with these, or where to take this, so here I am. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

And what seems to be the same IP is repetitively active at Edmundo González (candidate in said election). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Seems that's already been dealt with. Procyon117 (talk) 14:24, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

It's easy enough to deal with if it continues. Most of the edits are coming from Special:Contributions/2001:4454:2F8:D000::/64, which can be partially blocked from articles where they're being disruptive. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, perhaps they will stop now that Gonzalez has sought asylum, but if it continues, to what notice board do I take something like this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

ANI is the only noticeboard that deals with user complaints, really. Or you could check for recently active admins. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

They are back already; I'm traveling to a family wedding and don't have time to follow through on other channels. Can the block recommended by NinjaRobotPirate be activated? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Special:Contributions/2001:4454:2F8:D000::/64 partially blocked from the talk page for a week. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Benfor445 arguably WP:NOTHERE

OP will wait and see if the behavior continues first.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
An editor in a very politically charged talk page discussion I observed yesterday was arguably WP:CASTINGASPERSIONS fairly intensely.[91] I then noticed that the account had basically only ever edited political talk page discussions tout court.[92] One of their first such threads was called "This is fascism"; and they sure had a very pronounced WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude in this one.[93] They have been warned by an admin before.[94] Isn't all that actionable qua WP:NOTHERE? Biohistorian15 (talk) 10:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC) Frankly, I do not see any aspersions in the diff you shared, Biohistorian15. Cullen328 (talk) 16:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC) Well, in the diff, they accused another editor, Kcmastrpc (in answer to [95] and [96]) of having a POV on the matter without providing evidence. Biohistorian15 (talk) 17:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC) Do you really think that observing that another editor has a POV is "casting aspersions"? Don't we all have POVs? As for the editor's April 20, 2024 comment at Talk:Project 2025, it had elements of NOTAFORUM but ended with an appeal to protect the article. This was their third edit, so it is not surprising that their comment was not presented the way that more experienced Wikipedians usually write. Cullen328 (talk) 17:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC) Do you mean the statement: "To all Wikipedian editors, protect the page by all cost"? I doubt this is about page protection in the formal sense. This, to me, reads like a political demand. Biohistorian15 (talk) 17:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

64.189.18.X, timewasting and serial disruption

64.189.18.0/24 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), most recently 64.189.18.24 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).

Unfortunately, this editor makes good contributes fairly frequently, but they create work for others to clean up far more often, and they have not shown any interest to my knowledge in the reasons other editors may find their behavior counterproductive.

1. Perhaps the most obvious: I suspect without hyperbole that they add the serial comma to every list they notice that lacks one. They've even posted edit requests on pages demanding others add the serial comma for them.^[D1] They have been told why this is not constructive, but they have never directly acknowledged any site policy as far as I've seen. It's also pretty clear this editor doesn't care about the existence of conventions other than American English,^[D2] which might be why they constantly violate WP:LQ, creating another trail for others to clean up.^[D3] There doesn't seem to be any other outcome other than a block where they would stop.
2. What is probably more actively harmful is that they impose the perennial ulta-WP:BURDEN burden upon others, where they remove material lacking inline citation in a manner where the otherwise-GOATed WP:BURDEN functions as a fig leaf for exercising their compulsions detached from concern for whether it improves the encyclopedia. What's more, they seem to have decided that improperly formatted citations do not count, and thus they will simply remove them and their associated material, demanding that others fix the mess they themselves have just created.^{[D4 D5]}
3. To round out that they don't seem to care about how the site actually works: for several consecutive days they posted edit requests on Talk:United States demanding editors heed the banner that had been placed on the article about its duplicated citations. This continued despite being told that others can see the banner and this would not make it happen any quicker.^{[D6 D7]}

It's not worth digging much deeper, but as far as I've read this editor has never demonstrated any consideration for the time or priorities of others, and they're clearly a net negative. Remsense ‥ 论 13:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Now seems to be on an MOS:ENGVAR spree. Q ^{T C} 16:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

They've consistently been on it for hundreds and hundreds of edits, it's pretty irritating to work through and undo it all. I more or less nailed it above: 5% of their edits add page numbers, and the rest are either switching to American English, violating LQ, or adding Oxford commas for no reason.Remsense ‥ 论 17:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh, and they also love removing "needs more citations" banners from articles with half of their paragraphs still uncited, which doesn't really make sense with their other fixation but. Remsense ‥ 论 17:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked 64.189.18.0/24 for a month. Hopefully this should get their attention. They do not appear to have ever replied to any warnings (and there are a lot) placed on the various IP talk pages, and their English does not appear to be very good either i.e. [97]. Awaiting an unblock request from whichever IP is active at the time. Black Kite (talk) 17:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Meta Voyager's tendentious editing

Meta Voyager (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is largely a single-purpose editor in relation to International Churches of Christ, has in my view crossed a line into tendentious editing at Talk:International Churches of Christ. Their editing appears to be motivated by a desire to remove mentions of sexual abuse lawsuits against the church (which have been covered in the Guardian and LA Times amongst others) from the article, rather than by improving the encyclopedia. Their latest argument is that the coverage is no longer significant or reliable (despite the continued existence of the Guardian and LA Times sources). When challenged on this, Meta Voyager's response has been to suggest that me and another editor, TarnishedPath, have COIs due to the amount we've contributed to the article, offering as evidence: @Cordless Larry, an administrator, ... has authored 13.4% of the ICOC article within the last 11 months and @Tarnished Path, a veteran editor, ... has authored 9.3% within the last 4 months according to today's Wiki page statistics. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:08, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I guess it was inevitable that we would end up here and I welcome a closer scrutiny of your behavior and mine on the ICOC Talk Page by experienced administrators. As a new editor, I questioned several months ago on your Talk Page your decision to post me on the Conflict of Interest noticeboard because I self-disclosed that I am a member of a church with connections to the International Churches of Christ (ICOC). Since then, other editors have questioned this conclusion by asking, for example, whether Wikipedia limits the editorial rights of Boy Scouts because they might edit the Boy Scouts' article. I cited other of your postings that evidenced your belief that the ICOC is a cult, a controversial topic within the ICOC article. Your reply suggested that I could bring your conduct to the administrators' noticeboard. I declined in hopes of an opportunity to find common ground on future editing opportunities. The record will show that I have voluntarily confined my comments about the ICOC to the Talk Page even though I still disagree with your declaration of my COI status. One irony of your reasoning for saying that I crossed a line is that it is the same basis that you have used to attempt to limit my voice and others as fellow editors. The opening caption to the ICOC article states that "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject." and on the Talk Page you have highlighted personally the issue of my COI status. Are you above questioning on this topic? Another irony is that you have strongly supported the principle of reliable sourcing in challenging whether other sections of the ICOC article should remain. Now that I am making a reliable sourcing argument, you choose to escalate the matter to this noticeboard. I look forward to further review by others in determining whether I am engaged in "tendentious editing" or whether you have gotten too close to an article that now deserves the attention of an unbiased administrator. Meta Voyager (talk) 22:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

No comment on the tendentious editing, but it seems to me your argument on the talk page in that section is fundamentally flawed. You claim on the talk page that the lawsuits are "dismissed", but the RfC you reference talks about ongoing lawsuits, not dismissed lawsuits, so if they are dismissed, why shouldn't they be included? It also seems to me you are missing the historical aspect of these allegations that span 25 years; one of those being accused is now a convicted pedophile. My suggestion is you WP:DROPTHESTICK, because I don't think you are going to find any support for your position. And here are the total stats for the article and talk page: Isaidnoway (talk) 00:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not an irony. I support reporting what reliable sources tell us about all aspects of the organisation. It's you who's arguing that we should disregard what reliable sources say about the lawsuits, because that reporting doesn't suit your agenda. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:49, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I found the accusation at Special:Diff/1241726178 that I have a conflict of interest, because I have apparently been responsible for 9.3% of edits to the article in the last three months, to be a bizzare WP:ABF. Did they not bother to look at my contribution history or my statistics? Their bizzare misintripriations of the RFC found at Talk:International_Churches_of_Christ/Archive_11#RfC:_Ongoing_court_cases_involving_low_profile_individuals in their comments in the Talk:International_Churches_of_Christ#Recent_RFC_raises_reliable_sourcing_question_in_the_lead_and_court_cases_section discussion speaks for itself. TarnishedPath^talk 01:46, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

For the benefit of those reviewing this posting on the Administrators’ Noticeboard, please be aware that I have made no substantive edits, tendentious or otherwise, to the ICOC article due to being assigned by Cordless Larry the status of having a conflict of interest – a status that I disputed but have chosen to respect by limiting my comments to the ICOC article’s Talk Page. Meta Voyager (talk) 00:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

The relevant statistics for evaluating my comments about the magnitude of recent edits by Cordless Larry and Tarnished Path are found on the Page Statistics of the ICOC article under the heading: AUTHORSHIP - Authorship attribution, measured by character count, excluding spaces. These statistics identify the editors who are responsible for the authorship of the current version of the article. The Total stats chart provided by others below washes out the number of edits by Cordless Larry over an 11 month period, Tarnished Path over a 4 month period and Meta Voyager over an 8 month period by comparing their edits to the edits made by all editors during the nearly 20 year history of the ICOC article. The Authorship chart presented below accurately portrays the current impact of all editors on the ICOC article. To compare the Authorship statistics to the presentation in the Total stats chart: Cordless Larry-13.5%, Tarnished Path-9.3% and Meta Voyager-too small a percentage to report (below 0.1%). Meta Voyager (talk) 13:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Total stats

Article Found 1 edits by Meta Voyager on International Churches of Christ (0.02% of the total edits made to the page) Found 76 edits by Cordless Larry on International Churches of Christ (1.18% of the total edits made to the page) Found 9 edits by TarnishedPath on International Churches of Christ (0.14% of the total edits made to the page) Talk page Found 50 edits by Meta Voyager on Talk:International Churches of Christ (1.65% of the total edits made to the page) Found 125 edits by Cordless Larry on Talk:International Churches of Christ (4.12% of the total edits made to the page) Found 79 edits by TarnishedPath on Talk:International Churches of Christ (2.6% of the total edits made to the page)

Proposal: Topic ban

Revisiting the history of this, I was reminded of Meta Voyager's actions at Talk:International Churches of Christ/Archive 11#RfC: Ongoing court cases involving low profile individuals, where they also tried to call into question the reliability of these sources, arguing that "The authors referenced in the LA Times and Guardian articles do not have special expertise on legal matters" and trying to use the essay WP:LAWRS to justify exclusion of coverage of the lawsuits (being called out for Wikilawyering by TarnishedPath as a result). Since this behaviour of seeking out spurious reasons to exclude coverage critical of the subject seems persistent, I propose that Meta Voyager be topic banned from articles related to Christianity. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:16, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. (diff) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raladic (talk • contribs) 18:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• OPPOSE : All the parties involved in this content dispute seem to be highly conflicted. Actually Meta Voyager has shown considerable restraint in apparently not editing the article directly. Sectioneer (talk) 13:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  In what sense are Cordless Larry and TarnishedPath conflicted here? It looks to me as though they are just trying to prevent conflicted users from editing the article (either directly, or by creating a precedent for other conflicted users to do so via talkpage discussions). Axad12 (talk) 13:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  Cordless Larry’s conflicted status began when he made the choice on September 3, 2023 as a Wikipedia approved Administrator to make substantive edits to the ICOC article, particularly about federal lawsuits involving the ICOC. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1173681275 He continued to author content about the federal lawsuits through March 15, 2024 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1213815275 despite having knowledge as far back as September 4, 2023 that these federal lawsuits had been dismissed.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1173761043 According to WP:INVOLVED, “[i]n general, editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may be, or appear to be, incapable of making objective decisions in disputes to which they have been a party or about which they have strong feelings. Involvement is construed broadly by the community to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.” Cordless Larry’s proposal here to impose on me a total topic ban from articles related to Christianity after posting my comments on the Administrators’ Noticeboard is the latest example of his use of Wikipedia’s administrative procedures to attempt to limit another editor’s ability to edit the ICOC article. In my opinion, his conflicted status as an Administrator and substantial editor  to the ICOC article is worthy of review by other Administrators. Meta Voyager (talk) 11:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  Making a lot of edits to a page isn't a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest relates to an external relationship between editor and subject (e.g. like you have).

  Also, raising an issue at ANI isn't an abuse of administrative procedures - it is appropriate use of the relevant procedure. Axad12 (talk) 11:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  Hmm, I can imagine a situation in which making a lot of edits to a page would be considered something like a conflict of interest, even if it's definitely not a violation of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline. In our Wikipedia:UPPERCASE jargon, we'd call that "being WP:INVOLVED". That particular shortcut goes to the admin policy, but we use the concept widely, particularly in sentences like "any uninvolved editor" – a group that excludes people who have made a lot of edits to a page, and especially if their edits are primarily to add negative information, remove positive information, and oppose the efforts of people doing the opposite. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  Any one can offer a proposal in a discussion. I am not an administrator and I can propose you be indefinitely blocked or even site banned. Fellow editors can then say whether they support or oppose any sanctions and give their rational. Making a proposal is not "administrative procedures". I am going to help you out. When you say conflicted status, experienced editors see that as you stating they have a COI which I do not see any evidence of. Perhaps it would be best for you to stop saying that and instead just say they are involved. Again, I don't see where they used admin tools so this would be incorrect but it is the closest to what you are trying to say. --ARoseWolf 11:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, from memory I don't think I've ever performed an admin action in relation to this article (and certainly not in the current dispute). Cordless Larry (talk) 07:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, in what sense do TarnishedPath or I have a COI, Sectioneer? I hadn't even heard of the ICOC until I was alerted to the article by a question at the Teahouse. I'm pretty sure TarnishedPath doesn't have a COI either. Meta Voyager, by contrast, either "currently attend[s] a congregation that operates independently, but has a relationship with the International Churches of Christ" (per this) or is "a lay member of the church" (per this).

  Tendentious editing can take place on talk pages as well as directly to articles, and specifically includes repeated disputing of the reliability of reliable sources (WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH). Cordless Larry (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  I’m not sure that an editor with less than 90 edits has the experience to comment here. Doug Weller talk 17:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  It speaks for itself that most of @Meta Voyager's 77 edits are at the International Churches of Christ (ICOC) article or its talk and most of the of the remainder that aren't there are about the ICOC article. TarnishedPath^talk 01:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  @TarnishedPath I was actually referring to Sectioneer, but your comment makes the same point about Meta Voyager. Doug Weller talk 14:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  It's normal for new editors to focus on a couple of articles. @TarnishedPath, your first 100+ edits were mostly at a few articles about Australian politics. There's nothing wrong with that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support per the respondents comments above in which they claim that merely having edited the article a number of times or adding in reliably sourced content constitutes a WP:COI. TarnishedPath^talk 13:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support: There's clearly something wrong when a user with so few edits, and such a poor grasp of basic policies, is wikilawyering on a subject like the removal of properly sourced mentions of lawsuits. The user's primary purpose on Wikipedia seems to be to make as many spurious arguments as possible in favour of the removal of adverse material on a subject where they have a COI. It seems to me that that is fundamentally opposed to the idea of being here to build an encyclopaedia. (Note also, this behaviour extends beyond the lawsuits issue and has also involved the long-running dispute over whether the ICOC is a cult or cult-like organisation.) Axad12 (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support I'm not convinced this editor is capable of editing anywhere, and certainly not in the area of Christianity. Doug Weller talk 14:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support Per others above. Reviewing their short contribs list they're clearly here with a specific purpose and that purpose isn't to build an encyclopedia. DeCausa (talk) 07:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support A topic ban seems appropriate, if not an outright ban. The user seems to want to expunge perceived negative information surrounding the church and any sort of lawsuits; these appear to be well-documented in RS. Not liking them isn't a reason to have them removed, sourcing is sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 16:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Unless somebody has something else besides the above. (I've been hanging out at that article since I was invited by the bot to an RFC in April; I did not research prior to that) , I don't even see what the specific accusation is. It was indicated above that they haven't edited the article. And I've seen only reasonable arguments on the talk page. Regarding actions related to the RFC results, IMO the RFC did not have a finding on dropped/withdrawn lawsuits and so it's not correct to say that Meta Voyager advocating removal of those is a conflict with the results of the RFC. IMHO being a mere member of an affiliated church is a weak COI and so IMHO we should not imply that it is a zealot type situation from just that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. I was leaning towards the same perspective voiced by North8000 above yesterday, based on all of the above discussion and a cursory review of the relevant talk page discussions, but I wanted to dig into the articles and the issues a little more before lodging an !vote. Thanks to N8 for since providing the perspective of someone who had been watching the article from the medium distance, and having now followed up on the previous discussions, I have to say I also do not see on what specific behaviour such a ban could be based. Indeed, to the point that I feel like the fact that it was proposed seems a little problematic.
  To begin with, I'm extremely dubious of the conclusion that this editor even has a WP:COI in the meaning of our policies. Unless we're going to start banning the world's 1.4 billion Catholics from contributing to articles about their faith and topics touched upon by their religious associations? But this is not the first most ideal time and place to re-litigate that conclusion. The question therefor is whether, having been found by a community discussion to be under that designation, have they comported with all the guidelines thereby entailed? No one here has shared so much as a single diff to demonstrate they haven't. Nor does being an WP:SPA automatically qualify them as such.
  This user may very well have a bias: I won't waste time second-guessing whomever among the involved editors has decided it is so. But bias towards an editorial view not supported by the majority of established editors for an article--nor even some tenacity in pushing the minority view--are not automatically WP:disruptive. And I'm not seeing the requisite evidence of behaviour/PAG violations crossing the line into disruption that would justify a community ban. The biggest issue that I have seen so far was the need to correct them about the fact that some of the other participants in the discussion are not "conflicted" (in the meaning of the word on this project) just for their past involvement in the article. But unless I have missed some comment, it's too early to assume they will not heed that education. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: Possible typo. From the sentence it looks like you meant "are not automatically disruptive"? North8000 (talk) 14:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Your supposition is correct, North8000; I've corrected my wording above, accordingly. My thanks for the catch and the notification. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose what has Meta Voyager done wrong exactly besides being new and not understanding our confusing policies? I haven't looked at the conduct dispute but many lawsuits are undue for inclusion for Wikipedia articles. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  It's more than not understanding policies. They're not here to contribute to the encyclopedia but to find a way to justify removal of content from this one article, with which they have a COI. As well as the actions outlined above, they've also previously unilaterally closed an RfC that they initiated, after I had told them that this was not permitted. These aren't the actions of a good-faith editor but someone who's trying to find whatever way they can to have material based on reliable, secondary sources excluded from the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  I encourage not jumping to conclusions about an editor's motives, especially when there have disagreements between you and them . In regards to the RfC closure, @Meta Voyager noted your objection and acted likewise. Although their own closing of the RfC may not have been the best course of action, it does not seem to have been made with ill-intent.

  “However, do not assume there is more misconduct than evidence supports...Given equally plausible interpretations of the evidence, choose the most positive one.” WP:CIVILITY

  Other editors, myself included, have not noticed concerning behavior from @Meta Voyager, and you have. In this case, let's lean towards “the most positive one” until there is unanimous and overwhelming evidence of bad faith editing. XZealous (talk) 19:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  To clarify, Meta Voyager noted my objection and went ahead and closed the RfC regardless. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  On 4-26-2024, I concluded that a consensus on the RFC was not likely and proposed someone I thought was an independent editor to write a close to the RFC. After Cordless Larry pointed out that the proposed editor was not independent because she had previously posted on the RFC, I posted in response the following "Objection noted. Since closing summaries are not required, I’ll proceed with ending the discussion." Although I genuinely thought a closing summary was not required under Wikipedia policies, when my close was challenged, I consented without objection and the RFC proceeded. Meta Voyager (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  Larry, let me preface this by saying that, having reviewed the RfC and subsequent related discussions in their entirety, I believe the RfC itself reached precisely the right conclusion and balance as to what should and should not be included. I also feel that whether MV's read of the close is accurate or not is largely inconsequential, because their conclusion that there needs to be ongoing coverage of lawsuit in order for it to be included in an article cannot be squared with longstanding community consensus and policy. This is very much like the countless occasions I have seen in various talk page discussions suggesting that we cannot cover the purported criminal activity of notable persons, or the notable crimes of non-notable persons, until such time as there is a conviction--which is very much not what WP:CRIME and WP:BLPCRIME say. As in those cases, MV adopts (alebeit with regard to civil matters) an outlook that positions this project as if it were an extension of a court of law, with similar priorities. This is a false equivalence, and I am glad you and others pushed back against it in the article in question.

  All of which is to say that MV is wrong about what policy directs us to do in these circumstances--and indeed, is wrong (I believe) about what policy should be on such matters. We do not need to map our coverage of controversial legal proceedings such that we obscure coverage in reliable sources of such matters until a court finds a party criminally or civilly liable for a purported act. Our test on this project for coverage of lawsuits is the same as for any other matter: WP:WEIGHT in WP:RS. Any other system that makes us beholden to mention only successful legal actions is untenable for far too many reasons to list here.

  As such, at some point Meta Voyager will have to accept this conclusion--and insistence in ignoring these conclusions will become WP:Disruption. However, we are not nearly there yet. We are talking about a very new editor who is going through growing pains, and, as noted above, being an WP:SPA does not automatically make an editor problematic. While I have seen sub-optimal elements in their approach in those discussions, I also see someone putting in a good faith effort to understand and comport with our rules. I personally think it is very dubious to identify them as having a COI just because of their religious affiliations, but they have overwhelmingly adhered to our COI guidelines regardless. I routinely see much worse conduct from new editors. If they continue to push lines suggesting they will always prioritize the interests of the church over the project's needs, and cannot reconcile themselves to our rules, we can revisit the issue. For now, I am not convinced they are WP:NOTHERE. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:07, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

To put my previous abstract statement more briefly, IMO what Meta Voyager was proposing on cases did not conflict the RFC result, and IMO statements that it did conflict are incorrect. North8000 (talk) 12:42, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

That's my read as well. There may come a time when Meta Voyager can be deemed to be civil POV pushing, but right now their activities fall within legitimate discussion of perspectives that seem to be merely contrary to those held by certain other parties on the talk page. Some of the early discussion in this thread lead me to the conclusion that MV had already been deemed to have a COI, but having just checked the COIN discussion in question, it turns out there was no such consensus at all. So there is no editing restriction for this editor, making it all the more impressive how, despite being a relative newcomer they have, out of respect for apperances and expressed concerns alone, decided to abide by COI restrictions completely voluntarily. That does not present the image to me of a disruptive editor or unreasonable personality. On the contrary, it makes me inclined to believe their incidental comment on their talk page suggesting they are a legal professional, because they appear to have a robust respect for our rules and the precautionary principle generally. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

On an incidental but important sidenote, it's something of a relief to learn that the COIN discussion did not result in a consensus COI in this case; if COIN really had gotten in the business of declaring COIs over mere disclosures of faith and general association with a religious movement, then that is something that probably would need to go to the Village Pump for broad community discussion, because I cannot imagine the community deeming that an acceptable standard consistent with the policy. And just so we're clear, I'd live to remind everyone of what the policy (specifically WP:COINOTBIAS) actually says:

"Beliefs and desires may lead to biased editing, but they do not constitute a COI. COI emerges from an editor's roles and relationships, and the tendency to bias that we assume exists when those roles and relationships conflict." (emphasis in the original).

To the best of my knowledge, the community has never validated the perspective that mere adherence to a religious creed or worship under a particular religious branch constituted a role or relationship establishing a COI, and I can't imagine it ever will. The OP and others here are vocally complaining that Meta Voyager crossed a line by implying that they had a COI merely because of their longterm engagement with the article. Which clearly is a fallacious argument. But so were their COI arguments against MV, and they clearly started this COI namecalling. Honestly, the more I look into this, the more concerned I am about the approach to talk page discussion and collaboration of the complainants here, rather than MV's. Neither side's approach is pitch perfect here, I'll say that much. But I really think the best way forward here is to close this discussion with an exhortation to both sides to engage with more patience.

And let me add that I get it: Cordless Larry and TarnishedPath don't want the article whitewashed. I both understand that perspective and appreciate their work to that end. But if you're going to make a stand on holding those kinds of lines on this project, you have to accept that sometimes it involves protracted periods of patience while those points are argued out. I'm seeing too little of that patience here, and too much leaning into trying to remove their rhetorical opposition from the equation altogether, with COIN and ANI filings that I would describe as made on incredibly thin justification. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:04, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

"Beliefs and desires may lead to biased editing, but they do not constitute a COI. COI emerges from an editor's roles and relationships, and the tendency to bias that we assume exists when those roles and relationships conflict."

A belief in particular supernatural deities is a separate matter to membership of a particular church. The section you quote clearly states that COIs emerge as consequence of relationships. Membership of a particular church, as against being a Christian, is a relationship. Someone who has a membership with a particular church has a relationship with it and thus a COI exists. TarnishedPath^talk 09:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and I'd say that the membership distinction is all the more important when the organisation concerned is widely regarded by reliable sources as a cult, as others here have noted. Similarly, Hydrangeans's comparison with an American editor editing US history articles doesn't really work here. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:12, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

So Catholics are forbidden from editing articles concerning their diocese, Anglicans forbidden from editing articles regarding their ecclesiastic provinces, Shia Muslims forbidden from editing articles on the imamate they worship under, and so on? Come on you two, surely you see why this can never be a viable rule that's ever going to be endorsed by this community? Which is why no one supported your attempt to get a COI designation at COIN and why you are getting so much pushback here on the implication that you should have.

If nothing else, such a radical broadening of the COI policy to allow it to apply to anyone who associates with a given denomination would need to be vetted in a community discussion of the largest possible involvement. And I think I can tell you with some confidence that the community would vociferously reject such a proposal, given it's massive and hugely diverse (and largely negative) implications for the project. I would seriously recommend you both WP:DROPTHESTICK on this one; it's not going to happen and trying to push this line of complaint is not helping your overall arguments. It's not a good look that you come here complaining that MV suggested one of you was conflicted out on flimsy grounds, when you've been doing the same thing to them for a while, and are still pressing that argument despite the failed COIN proposal. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 13:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "the failed COIN proposal". At Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 207#International Churches of Christ, I wasn't calling for editing restrictions on Meta Voyager. I was rather calling uninvolved editors' attention to problematic editing by a number of editors with connections to the article subject. And I'm not calling for editing restrictions based on a COI alone now - I'd be happy for a COI editor to make good-faith suggestions on the talk page, but what's happening here is tendentious (repeated questioning of the same reliable sources and the closure of an RfC as an involved editor, despite being told not to do so). Cordless Larry (talk) 14:04, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Well COIN is by definition where you discuss COI issues, so I'd say that's a distinction without a meaning; clearly you felt that MV and others had a COI and hoped to find support there for that perspective. And even in your post here, you are continuing to imply that MV has a COI, so your messaging is very mixed.. That said, I don't see the point in splitting these hairs any finer. If you didn't want a COI designation, that's just as well, as one was never going to be forthcoming, imo.

I'll just backstop this line of discussion by reiterating that pushing for an automatic COI designation for members of a given church can only shoot a proponent of such an argument in the foot. You are prevailing on the underlying content issues (as well you should be, as far as I can tell) and this discussion has accomplished nothing but to undermine your successes in that regard and waste a lot of community time. Clearly there is no consensus for the TBAN proposal, and not only do most respondents here not think action is warranted against MV at this time, but a number of us even feel they have shown considerable patience and restraint in the face of unwarranted ABF and attempts to restrict their involvement in the article. I really do recommend you take your win on the content matters and drop the rest of this. I do agree that MV also has their own stick to drop on said content issues, and I hope they have taken that message from this discussion. If they fail to, I promise you that I for one will be adopting a very different perspective on the next proposal for sanctions. But I can't be any more blunt than to say this: they aren't the only one who has something to WP:HEAR from this discussion. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 14:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@Snow Rise, Thank you for your helpful guidance throughout this process, I think we have all learned a lot. For my clarity, Is this what you are describing as a failure to HEAR what is being said on this board? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@JamieBrown2011 if you have an accusation to make file a report. TarnishedPath^talk 07:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is. In my opinion, it was inappropriate for those tags to have been placed on the talk page to begin with, without an affirmative and unambigous community finding of COI. Cordless Larry and TarnishedPath took their case to COIN and received no consensus in support of their perspective there (unsurprisingly, since this community has never endorsed the position that mere religious affiliation imputes a COI, and almost certainly never will, as such a standard is untenable for countless reasons). The matter then came here, where no one has directly endorsed their unique read on COI, but to the contrary numerous of the uninvolved respondents have expressly rejected their interpretation.

So CL and TP have now heard back from the community in the two primary fora that handle such determinations, and it is clear that no consensus currently supports their outlook (and most here reject it). So it's well past time for them both to WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on. At this point, I encourage North8000 to follow through on their inclination to remove the tags, since they are the editor currently involved on that page who is closest to having a moderate position between the two camps, and thus least likely to set either side's teeth to gnashing. I would not recommend JamieBrown or Meta Voyager remove the tags themselves, for pro forma reasons.

If TP or CL thereafter re-insert the tags, I for one would then be willing to consider a boomerang sanction against such party here in this thread. This has to stop. CL and TP are well within their prerogative to go to the village pump and make a WP:PROPOSAL to expand the remit of COI to include religious affiliations, but as of now, their arguments that WP:COI already implicitly supports such a conclusion did not receive consensus support at COIN and have largely been expressly rejected here at ANI. If either cannot accept the community verdict in this case, and try to enforce a declaration of COI despite it, I believe they will have at that point crossed unambiguously into WP:disruptive territory, and a boomerang may become necessary. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 09:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

No proposal is needed, WP:COINOTBIAS already states "COI emerges from an editor's roles and relationships, and the tendency to bias that we assume exists when those roles and relationships conflict". Your assertion that arguments per COI have been rejected here is frankly incorrect. I only read yourself and Hydrangeans have stated there is no COI (by my reading, please correct me if I'm missing anyone). Others have stated that they don't see what Meta Voyager has done wrong or that they only have a weak COI. For the record I took no case to COIN. I commented on the discussion at COIN while I was there reading something else and that's how I found my way to the article. TarnishedPath^talk 11:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

If you don't see the plain repudiation of your position writ large across this discussion (and inherent in the two previous failed COIN proposals), then I fear there really is a problem here. Bluntly, opening a third COIN filing while this discussion is already open and discussing the COI issue, with a pretty clear consensus, is blatant WP:FORUMSHOPPING and, for my view anyway, a bridge too far; I think you're outright WP:TEND on this issue at this point. I really do recommend you let this go. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 12:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Failed COIN proposals? I don't understand how anyone could characterise discussion which mostly went off topic and then petered out as failed. There is no consensus here about COI, which is unsurprising, as it has mostly not been the topic of discussion. There is consensus against a topic ban, however most people !voting oppose have not discussed COI and the thread wasn't started about COI but alleged tenditious editing.

I've started the new COIN discussion to get clarity on whether the connected editor notices should be removed, not to relitigate anything here. TarnishedPath^talk 13:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I think there is an underlying implication in their statements, that ICOC claims to be a religion but does not qualify as such, and is therefore the kind of organization for which editing by a member does constitute COI. TooManyFingers (talk) 20:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

You've completely inverted the appropriate process and burden of proof under policy. Any editor, regardless of their belief systems, is presumptively allowed to edit any article. A determination of COI (of the sort described in the policy) requires either a self-declaration or else an affirmative finding by the community. If the previous COIN discussions failed to get a consensus for such a determination, then they are, by definition, failed proposals. The tags never should have been listed on the talk page so long as that was the case--and bluntly, whoever put them up was already acting outside of behaviour permitted by policy. Beyond that procedural point, your fourth bite at the apple at COIN has no more realistic chance than did the first two COIN threads or the proposal here, and you are just chewing through more community time and patience at this point. This is an extremely bad look that you are taking on, for no feasible potential gain... SnowRise ^{let's rap} 13:39, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose The editor that @CordlessLarry is trying to ban from “all Christianity” has been trying to make a simple point on the Talk Page. The 5 federal law cases reflected in the LEDE of the article have all been dismissed. The 4 state cases that are currently ongoing do not appear to have been covered by a RS.

That simple point has been obscured by both @TarnishedPath and @CorldlessLarry through, what appears to me anyway, both extensive Wikilawyering and what certainly feels like intimidation tactics. As a self-declared member of the church, I have personally been dragged before the COI Noticeboard twice by @CordlessLarry in an apparent attempt to silence dissenting voices. This latest attempt to ban an editor who has made exactly one page edit by what has the appearance of a WP:TAGTEAM, (who collectively have written almost 25% of the current article content), and just with a brief reading of the last few months of Talk Page discussions, certainly demonstrate some of the characteristics of WP:OWNBEHAVIOUR, should be evidence enough for wise administrative oversight.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 21:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

• I'm a "dissenting voice" in respect to abortion. But I don't edit that article, since I don't want to get banned. Sometimes dissenters just have to accept the way things are, and self-censor their edits. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  You are a "dissenting voice" in respect to China. You should have self-censored your edits.

  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Traditional_Chinese_medicine&diff=prev&oldid=1244310969

  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Traditional_Chinese_medicine&diff=prev&oldid=1244312672

  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Traditional_Chinese_medicine&diff=prev&oldid=1244313749

  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Traditional_Chinese_medicine&diff=prev&oldid=1244314786

  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Acupuncture&diff=prev&oldid=1233495448

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement 202.40.137.196 (talk) 10:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Meta Voyager has made a total of 6 articles to Article namespace (assuming none were deleted) as of writing; 4 of which are related to Christianity. None of the edits remotely violate policy nor even resemble POV pushing (permissible or not). This report is preemptive and premature. People with WP:COI are welcome to make {{Edit requests}}. And to be clear, reliable sources very convincingly lay out that International Churches of Christ is a cult. Wikipedia's role in challenging WP:FRINGE remains, but it's not a license to WP:BITE editors. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 01:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Meta Voyager hasn't been editing the article, and the behavior isn't even alleged to be applicable to a topic as broad as articles related to Christianity but rather solely to an article about one relatively small denomination. The proposal as such is excessive and premature. Any preventative action to be taken would at the very least be better served by narrower tailoring.
  As far as the claim that mere religious affiliation amounts to an actionable WP:COI, I don't think that's very tenable. It's a common sense case, the same way that, say, being American isn't an actionable COI for the US history topic area. I'm reminded of another ANI thread I participated in where a lot of users concluded that it was disruptive when a reported user claimed that religiously affiliated Wikipedians or cited source authors had conflicts of interest. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - Meta Voyager has shown tremendous restraint in his editing and we have to remember Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:8BAB:B116:675B:AB5F (talk) 01:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban, seems appropriate. Not an outright ban, that's perhaps too much at this point. If the behaviour continues elsewhere/in other subjects, then we can talk about permabans. Oaktree b (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Oaktree b I see you responded with support earlier in this thread. Did you mean to post this again? XZealous (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  I did not, let me edit it. My error. Oaktree b (talk) 16:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@Snow Rise, there was no 1st, 2nd or 3rd bite that I had at anything. You really need to go back and review who started prevoius discussions before you make more patently incorrect statements. TarnishedPath^talk 06:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not really relevant which of you started which discussions. The point is, the community is clearly not prepared to accept your idiosyncratic reading of the COI policy such that "belongs to a religious denomination = automatic actionable COI for that religion". And your failure to hear that is just hoovering up more and more community time, effort, and patience, left and right. I really do sympathize with and appreciate the motivation that animated both you and Larry on this issue from the beginning. Truly, I do. And I really would like to spare you from an eventual boomerang here. But based on your approach to this discussion and the underlying dispute so far, I'm not sure you are going to be able to stop before it gets to that point. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I've noticed that the majority of editors at COIN have stated there is no COI and I have no intent to push the COI question any further. TarnishedPath^talk 10:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

That's great--thank you: I do think this is the best way forward for everyone. I'll add the article and talk page to my watchlist and try to reliably provide an extra voice if there is a further pattern of efforts by SPAs to whitewash out criticisms of the church. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose for the wise reasons laid out by North8000 and Snow Rise. I'm not sure how this situation ever escalated to this point. Nemov (talk) 17:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - the proposal is too broad. The initial complaint was about one specific talk page. I'm not seeing any evidence that there is disruptive editing by this user going on at multiple articles and talk pages related to the whole topic of Christianity. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Repeated coatracking with close paraphrasing

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

---

User:Wikiprediger and I have been going back and forth on Operation Countryman. I think he's WP:COATRACKing most of a Parliamentary speech (open license) about Freemasonry in the London Police into an article about a specific investigation, and he probably thinks I'm defending the Masons, for tolerably obvious reasons. Can someone check if I'm overreacting to the close paraphrasing and coatracking? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not asking for a second opinion on the content here, that would be a different venue. It's mostly the close paraphrasing after warning that I'm unclear about. Thanks. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

It's all rewritten and it is important information. User:SarekOfVulcan acted contra-productive (just reverting then improving) multiple times and so seems to be biased and without a neutral POV. Thank you. Wikiprediger (talk) 19:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there is clearly close paraphrasing involved. Beyond that, the other issues (of which coatracking seems the most significant) need discussing on the article talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

What is the meaning of the word coatracking please - google cannot translate it? Thank you. Wikiprediger (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Coatrack articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Now I understand. But I think it does not lead away from the topic, but has a deeper complementary view. Wikiprediger (talk) 20:05, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

The tentacles of this masonic lodge had strong connections with the Conservatives. Yes, very complementary. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

It's in the source - and there it was even more emphasized. Why do you hide that? Wikiprediger (talk) 22:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Because the lodge in question was founded after Operation Countryman ended, if I'm reading it correctly. Hence, COATRACK. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I do have concerns that wikiprediger is a spa (single purpose account) - and is a fan of borderline conspiracy theory. I DON’T think they have crossed the line into disruption, but I do think they may need some guidance from editors who have experience writing criticisms - with an eye to WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. I would offer to mentor, but I am involved in the topic area. Blueboar (talk) 20:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

... and I do have concerncs Blueboar does not understand the meaning of democracy. It is my business alone how many and which topics i write about.I am from another country and there have a long history of many topics i worked on.

• I do not need any guidance to speak my own opinion :-) Maybe you are biased and not neutral in relation to freemasonry. But that's typical, like criticism on the churches or similar... a little too obviscious to intervene or undo nearly every single of my discussion sor changes.
• but, just keep going. the more often, the more visible it becomes for everyone.

Wikiprediger (talk) 22:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

In point of fact, Wikipedia is not a democracy. Any change you make can be subject to review and change by other editors, and the prevailing view is determined by consensus. Your ability to speak your own opinion, on this private website, is constrained by the degree you follow Wikipedia's civility rules. The reason we are concerned with so-called single purpose accounts is that they have a strong tendency to edit for the purposes of promotion or showcasing their favored point of view.

Beyond that, SarekOfVulcan is a very well-respected administrator and editor of long standing, with more years on Wikipedia than you have mainspace edits. We are considerably less likely to find that he has violated Wikipedia norms than we're likely to find you. Ravenswing 23:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I didn't meant Wikipedia as i spoke about democracy. I meant my free choice of topics. The rest of your text is too much speculation for me. I thought speculation (pov) ist exactly that, what is unwanted on wikipedia? So why are you doing it so extensively and publicly here? That's the best example that you could be biased yourself. I am not the one who makes such conspiracy theories. :-) it's really easy to expose you. keep going, we'll have a lot of fun together in future. Wikiprediger (talk) 18:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikiprediger, Wikipedia is built on collaboration and consensus. It's also built on writing articles with a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for you to voice your opinions with impunity. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I would not agree with that based on my experiences so far. I do not see any constructive cooperation or improvement here either, but rather a lot of energy being put into completely rejecting contrary information, hiding it and attributing POV to other members while publicly spinning conspiracy theories... Wikiprediger (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

CBAN Indef for User:Wikiprediger

A clear case of an editor who seems to have a WP:CIR issue as to how Wikipedia deals with WP:FRINGE. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose CBAN. Support indef. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Oops, meant indef here. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Technically speaking, a block placed by community consensus is a community ban. See the policy explanation here: WP:BLOCKBANDIFF. Users who are 'blocked' by consensus actually still have to go through community discussion to become unblocked, rather than simply being able to appeal it through regular unblock requests. See this and this for other examples of community-blocked users. — AP 499D25 (talk) 06:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I hate calling a block for an editor this new a CBAN, though. If they can figure out what they're doing wrong, it shouldn't be a huge effort to get back in. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that's correct. The table says they can make an unblock request and an admin can address it if it's a community indef rather than ban. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

If you read carefully, it says "an administrator will copy the appeal to the appropriate venue" after the user makes an appeal at UTRS or through the unblock template.

Below, it says "Bans imposed by community consensus or for repeated block evasion may be lifted by community discussion".

And above, it says only bans can be authorised by community consensus, whereas regular blocks are placed by uninvolved admins at their own discretion (i.e. not by consensus). — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support indef. I can't tell if he's trying to right great wrongs or troll, but the combativeness is definitely WP:NOTHERE. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe you are biased and not neutral in relation to freemasonry. WP:ASPERSIONS called. It wants to Support Indef. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 02:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

• (non-admin) Support indef: One thing I hate about such editors is WP:IDNHT. Borgenland (talk) 18:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Support - Absolutely WP:NOTHERE. WPDGR is not WP:LISTENING. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Archived without closing. Would someone care to review? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Close requested at WP:CR. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support indef. Clear WP:NOTHERE and WP:IDHT. Toughpigs (talk) 01:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

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

User:O recomeço and WP:CIR 3

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

It had recently been brought to my attention that last month, Northern Moonlight pointed out a myriad of edits O recomeço made that had grammar and spelling errors on their talk page - [98]. Furthermore, since then, there have been further edits containing such errors ([99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104]).

While O recomeço had acknowledged that their grammar is below the standards expected of English Wikipedia editors, it seems as if they are making little to no effort to improve upon it. Should we block? I feel like we had been wasting our energy with them, and at some point we have to say "enough is enough". The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 02:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I haven't kept up with their edits since my messages in their talk page, but I do find it rather unfortunate that their understanding of what is expected is just not there despite their enthusiasm for contributing. It doesn't seem to be just a grammar/spelling problem, but a general difficulty in communicating the idea of their contributions across in English.

I'm not about to vote as an IP editor on if Wikipedia should block or not someone (though I do report people), but I'd just suggest - if you do find they need to be blocked to get the message across - that you also consider what length of time is actually needed to do so. – 2804:F1...DA:91C2 (talk) 03:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

long, rambly comment coming...

while the issue is overall small in scope, i do think it's been going on for too long, and i'm starting to think that it stems less from their first language (which seems to be brazilian portuguese), but more so from a consistent failure to understand english (in a language riddled with english loanwords), improper humor (see this diff, aren't nazis just the wackiest punchline?), and almost active disregard for the manual of style. for an example, let's look at the text from this diff:

A pioneer of Vlogling in the pre-internet world. Some of his videos really seen to inspired the Youtube creactors.

translating this directly into brazilian portuguese with no regard for how that language works (however that works with a language does doesn't even exist), it would be

Um pioneiro de Vlogling no mundo pré-Internet. Alguns dos seus vídeos realmente viram a inspiraram os criacdores no Youtube.

which borders on gibberish regardless of language

however, translating this into actual, proper portuguese while not completely disregarding the manual of style and... 5rd grade portuguese, it would be

Um pioneiro de vlogging no mundo pré-Internet. Alguns dos seus vídeos inspiraram criadores no YouTube.

note the underlined words not being misspelled this time, that alone would be considered grounds to call it a skill issue in brazil (if it was a real place)

and then translating that into english (as literally as i can make it), it would be

A pioneer of vlogging in the pre-Internet world. Some of his videos inspired creators on YouTube.

it's still unclear and wouldn't slide in a b-class article (for starters, which videos inspired which creators, and how?), but it's a surprisingly easy sentence to translate. even in portuguese portuguese, those typos would be out of place (especially amoung, that one's just painful)

overall, i do think action is needed, since nearly every single instance i could find of someone suggesting a grammar correction tool or something has been met with silence (see their talk page). i don't know if this is grounds to accuse them of idht, but it's really starting to look like it. if possible, i'll vote for a mainspace block until they decide to attempt... really, any sort of improvement. but if they're gonna do anything first, please have it be learning how to spell "among" cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 12:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

on that note, i'll point out their edits to ptwiki, which are... surprisingly tolerable, give or take some minor spelling mistakes they actually fix. do more of that, please cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 12:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Their mainspace contributions might not go a long way towards building the encyclopedia (most recently [105]) but a mainspace block wouldn't make much difference. Of their 338 edits, 292 have been to the various Wikipedia:Unusual articles pages: Wikipedia:Unusual articles/Popular culture, entertainment and the arts, Wikipedia:Unusual articles/History and so on.[106] NebY (talk) 16:28, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

fr*ck, i forgot unusual articles wasn't in mainspace. pretend i said "main and project spaces" i guess cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 16:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

on first thought, that would be a terrible idea. a block from mainspace and wp:unusual articles would be slightly less unnecessarily drastic cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 16:37, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

The obvious lack of competence aside, I find it very frustrating to deal with them because they never listen to other experienced editors. People wrote paragraphs teaching them how to use grammar correction tools? Didn’t care. “Try sandboxes first?”. Didn’t touch it once. I had to add those Wikipedia:Unusual articles pages to my watchlist because over 50% (165/326) of their edits have grammar and/or spelling problems. Northern Moonlight 07:05, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I previously suggested to this editor that this might be a problem specific to the unusual articles pages. We have very few Portuguese-speaking editors and it seemed that the effort of coaching them on their English might be worthwhile. If they are again editing that page despite their hostile reception there, maybe there is something to the IDHT allegation, and if people are suggesting tools, I do applaud that.

It still seems a little BITEy to go straight to a CIR. I suggest a page block, if they are willing to translate articles about Brazil. If not, well, clearly something is not working here. Also, what is this stuff about "actual" Portuguese versus Brazilian Portuguese? Frown. The two dialects are as I understand it somewhat more different than American and British English, but that doesn't mean Brazilian Portuguese is not Portuguese or "doesn't even exist". Since I don't see the point of the comment, though, possibly I am misunderstanding it. It also occurs to me that if they also make mistakes in Portuguese, they may be dyslexic or simply a bad typist. Maybe they fix the mistakes at pt-wiki because their spell check underlines them there? I did look at Grand Delusion's diffs though; most of the errors would not be caught by spell check since they amount to a wrong word, or capitalization errors, not a misspelled word. Spell check should have caught "amoung" though.

I suggested, and still suggest, articles about Brazil, since the area needs help, although a few Portuguese-speaking editors have made some headway with the machine translation there and may be able to help. I am on the fence about restricting them to the talk page there as well. The diffs above are not much better than the incomprehensible machine translation in some Brazil articles. However, although I encourage this editor to ask for help getting an English spell check if that is part of the problem here, I don't see why we need to hound them about poor English on talk pages. They are understandable. I hope these comments help advance the discussion. Elinruby (talk) 07:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

if it's referring to my comments, then

• "actual ... portuguese" there referred to "not carrying over all the misspellings and interpreting them literally", as opposed to european portuguese. i really don't know enough about that variant to opine one way or the other, but from some quick checking, most of what they write wouldn't slide in either variant. the wording there was pretty bad, so the misunderstanding probably makes sense
• all that stuff i say about brazil and everything related to it not being real is unsubtle self-deprecation, as stated in my user page. i've been brazilian all along. please help
• yes, i do still feel that outright blocking would be a little too bitey, but i specified from the start that if i some action were to be taken, i'd support a projectspace block (not mainspace, that was my mistake), or potentially a pblock from unusual articles. i also specified that if there would be a reason, i think it would likely be a mix cir and idht, as opposed to just cir
• is this a bad time to volunteer for translation?

if it wasn't referring to mine... oops? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 12:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

heh. I have previously lamented that self-deprecation frequently does not work well in this venue as the social lubricant it can be elsewhere. And here I am as the one misunderstanding it. I did not realize you were Brazilian and would be delighted to discuss translation. I will ping you elsewhere about that. Meanwhile I think we agree that CIR is excessive and I am a bit baffled as to why the editor keeps trying to help people who keep proposing it. Since this is the third time maybe they need encouragement to contribute where it will be appreciated. Elinruby (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

For those puzzled by the heading, OP has brought O recomeço to ANI over this concern twice before. [107][108] Grandpallama (talk) 01:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I wish it was a "one-and-done" case. Unfortunately, however, O recomeço continues to exhibit competency issues and ignore the advice of others. They have addressed their problems without fixing any of them. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 04:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I said here. O recomeço, your English isn't good enough to edit the English Wikipedia. Please, only edit the versions of Wikipedia in which you have a firm grasp of the language.-- Mike 🗩 14:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, I really didn't expect that my huge enthusiasm about various curiosities could actually cause so much confusion here on Wikipedia. But here we are, look guys, I'd like to make it super clear that all my edits on the English Wikipedia were made with the intention of adding more unusual items to the unusual articles page. However, now I see pretty clarity that this has been causing a lot of headaches for the "caretakers" of the page. I do know that what you do is for the best of this community, and perhaps it would be better for me to stay on the pages of the languages ​​I master, but I wanted to reaffirm that I don't have any "persive" goals in my activism. I humbly ask that you do not block me at the Unusual articles page, but With that being said, what exactly would be considere an unusual topic on this page? What I love about the unusual articles section is that most of the items on it are not easily found in other media outlets, or even on the internet. And since I have a huge facility with information and social networks I thought it would be a gold mine for my entertainment and that of others, but now I see that the way I did it is unpopular, to say the least. Thanks for your input. O recomeço (talk) 00:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

O recomeço, that's a content question that should be discussed on the talk page, not ANI. This is a noticeboard to resolve suspected incidents of misconduct, not to decide what content should be added to a page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

@O recomeço: This thread is not about what content you can add to the page. It’s about your inability to 1) contribute in English and 2) listen to community feedback. We asked you to use a grammar correction tool multiple times (#1 #2 #3 #4) and you didn’t care to respond to any of them. Northern Moonlight 06:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

O recomeço: This has nothing to do with your contributions to Wikipedia:Unusual articles, many of which have been questionable no doubt (for example, how is an anime based on the Final Fantasy video game franchise "unusual"?). What it does have to do with is your inability to contribute to English Wikipedia without introducing spelling and grammar mistakes, and your ignoring the advice of others on how to improve. The fact that you missed the point of this whole discussion in your response speaks volumes about your competency issues. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 18:33, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, so let's talk about the real mistakes I've been making. My problems regarding the grammar of the English language and my, in fact, ignorance of accepting my difficulty in accepting the grammar tools that you've been recommending. Regarding the first topic, I really have problems with writing English, I corrected this paragraph myself through a corrector recommended by [[The Grand Delusion]], and I know that for now I should focus on the Wiki in Portuguese and Spanish, languages ​​of which I speak very well. Regarding the spelling tools, I'm really going to use them from now on as a way of learning, and I decide that I'm going to edit the English Wikipedia only once in a while. I'm a newbie here on Wikipedia, and I can be a little harsh on my own mistakes, but I like to think like this: I can't change what I did wrong, but the future hasn't been written yet. With this post I would like to announce that I will edit the Unusual articles page with just one correction tool. O recomeço (talk) 18:52, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

So O recomeço posted this to my talk page. Should we take their word for it, or should we indef them to make them stick to their word? The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 04:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm personally of the mind that we should close the door on someone who says they're leaving, as I've seen far too many people use that as a way to avoid sanctions when they're clearly about to be trouted. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

They keep saying they're here to edit the Wikipedia:Unusual articles pages, which aren't part of the encyclopedia. That's clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia. NebY (talk) 17:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

i disagree with it being grounds for a nothere block. nothere doesn't seem to account for people who focus their edits on projectspace, but they're at the very least done in good faith. keep in mind that isn't to say that i think a block or some other form of restriction would be unwarranted, i just don't think nothere would be a plausible reason. maybe a combination of the aforementioned cir, apparent idht (which they finally seem to have addressed, but only time can tell if they'll actually do it), and improper humor issues, but not nothere

as far as my current stance goes, i'd say put a pin on the idht part and see if their next edits aren't riddled with tpyos of words they're constantly exposed to in two different languages (seriously, "amoung"?) cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 11:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Aaaand they lied. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 17:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

how is that a lie? I don't understand their fixation with these pages, but then I don't understand yours with with getting them blocked. Elinruby (talk) 21:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh lord, you again... they implied that they would step away from editing English Wikipedia, only to continue editing it. Also, aren't you the one who made the bullshit claim that wanting O recomeço blocked is motivated by ethnocentrism? The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 23:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

o recomeço said they'd be making less edits here, as opposed to stopping entirely. they also said they'd be using grammar checking tools per your suggestion, which it seems they actually did, since the diffs you provided don't have any typos or egregious grammatical errors. you could argue that the content they're adding is still unfitting, but didn't lie about it cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 12:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

ya. I don't know about unfitting, since I don't see the point of the articles in the first place, but then the same applies to DYK. However, to be pedantic for just a moment: it would be a lie if they claimed that they had not made any edits to the page. You could claim that they have broken a promise, but as cogsan points out, that does not really seem to be true either. Something something casting the first stone. Shrug. As it stands they could say that they addressed your concern and you still cast an unsubstantiated aspersion. Unless of course you have an explanation and there is some definition if "lie" that i am not aware of. But given that English is my mother tongue, I doubt that. Elinruby (talk) 18:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

"Unfitting" in that the articles they've been adding to Wikipedia:Unusual articles are not unusual. I have brought up the fact that their contributions have been questionable, pointing to their addition of Final Fantasy: Legend of the Crystals as an article where I fail to see how it could be considered "unusual". The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 22:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Did you ask them? I just spent an hour I'll never get back taking another look at that list, and I still don't actually see much I would myself find "unusual". (Uninhabited islands, micronations, borders set by clueless colonial powers...)

More importantly, what should or should not be included would be a content issue. As is the question of why the article exists in the first place. Focusing on the behavioural aspects of this seems to show one editor making at least some kind of an effort, and another one not. If we must have this list, then the same rules should apply as everywhere else, don't you think? Elinruby (talk) 00:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Just as you're questioning my alleged interest in getting this user blocked, I'm questioning your supposed interest in defending them. Also, Wikipedia:Unusual articles is not considered an article, as stated explicitly on the page - "This page is not an article, and the only criterion for inclusion is consensus that an article fits on this page." I feel like you're more interested in arguing with others than actually helping us achieve a consensus as to whether O recomeço should stay or go, which is what this report is about. I'd rather we just put them on probation and see if they show any long-term improvement - only two edits after posting to my talk page is not enough time to determine that. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 00:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

article...list... of things. Elinruby (talk) 00:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Are you really gonna be arguing that it's an article when it clearly says it's not? The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 04:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

why would I do that? Kindly do not put words in my mouth.

I am saying that you are grasping at technicalities. That the ... whatever ... is an obscure compilation of news of the weird which you are gatekeeping for some reason I can't fathom, and which this editor wants to contribute to for reasons I also can't fathom. But I am not the one trying to get someone blocked. They seem to have made a contribution in reasonable English, but now the goalposts have moved and their contribution doesn't meet the highly subjective topic criteria, according to you. If you are the grand poobah of "interesting" articles then you should tighten up your definition of "interesting" so that people who want to contribute for whatever reason know what is expected. That is what I am saying. That, and that I notice that you did not answer my question. That is all. Elinruby (talk) 20:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

No one's trying to "gatekeep" it. And I am not the only one who has raised issues about their contributions to it. And finally, thanks for derailing the conversation at the heart of this report by changing focus from the editor's proficiency of the English language and whether or not disciplinary action should be taken over it, to whether or not their contributions to Wikipedia:Unusual articles fit the criteria for inclusion. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 22:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

"Unfitting" in that the articles they've been adding to Wikipedia:Unusual articles are not unusual. You said that, not me. You are becoming less and less coherent. I stand by my previous post and have nothing further to say except that your whatever of unusual articles is not very unusual. Bad borders were drawn by colonial powers? You don't say. Small islands exist? Alert the media! But clearly language is not the sole issue since they've now improved that and the issue has become something else. Elinruby (talk) 01:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not MY list of unusual articles. If you have issues with some of the entries on the list, I strongly suggest you take it to the talk page for it, and have this discussion moved over there so that we don't derail this discussion about whether or not a user should be blocked for perceived competency issues any further. If we're gonna argue about Wikipedia:Unusual articles, we should do so where it would be more fitting. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 03:03, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

i think that should be talked over later, to be honest. maybe perhaps after the discussion about the quality of their edits is over cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 11:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

My morbid curiosity compels me to ask this: which ethnicity was Elinruby’s “ethnocentrism” comment exactly referring to? Northern Moonlight 03:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Not sure, but I can tell you that O recomeço is Brazilian. The definition of "ethnocentrism" is to apply one's own culture or ethnicity as a frame of reference to judge other cultures, practices, behaviors, beliefs, and people; based on that, I'm guessing Elinruby's comment was referring to American/English-speaking cultures or ethnicity. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 03:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Neveselbert template editing

Neveselbert has had a long history of troublesome conduct as a template editor, including a prior AN thread in February which had a consensus to remove their template edit rights but fizzled out unactioned, and then a lengthy argument on their talk page in March, both of which involve promises to refrain from editing protected templates without sufficient care.

They've now gone ahead and reverted me at Template:Infobox person with a nonsense edit summary (Requests should be made at the talkpage) - the edit I made was requested at the talk page (Template talk:Infobox person#Edit request 19 July 2024). They seem to use the template editor right relatively rarely - their previous use was a questionably-explained revert to Template:Non-free use rationale and its stylesheet a month ago, the use before that was one AWB run back in July, and then there were no uses at all between March and July. It seems clear to me now that Neveselbert's use of the template editor right is causing more harm than good and it should be revoked. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted my reversion of your edit. I didn't recognise that the edit request was made on the talkpage at first glance, and this was an honest mistake on my part (the confusion probably arose as a result of the interval between the request being made and being implemented being months apart). There's absolutely no need to escalate this; you could've clairifed the situation at my talkpage instead of assuming bad faith. I reverted the change precisely because I thought the change was made without sufficient care, and I look forward to discussing the change at the template talkpage. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 04:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

And by failing to check the talk page before reverting you've proven you don't have the competence to hold template editor rights. This by itself would be a minor issue but given everything before the camel's back is broken. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

That's completely absurd. It was one mistake, and I've corrected myself. I genuinely didn't recognise the discussion, and you easily could've clarified this with me. I don't understand why you can't just discuss matters instead of needlessly escalating. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 04:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

@Pppery's edit summary was Copy from sandbox per request (emphasis added). If you didn't recognise that the edit request was made on the talkpage at first glance and genuinely didn't recognise the discussion, that means you didn't read the edit summary. You also would've noticed the discussion if you had ctrl+f'd on the talk page. Both of those are things that a TE should do before reverting the edit of another TE, at minimum. Given the past pattern of behavior, and promise and failure to change, I agree that TE should be revoked. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't usually edit at this time, in the middle of the night, and clearly I made a mistake in failing to notice the discussion. I'm guessing that the fact the request was made in July, and that there were multiple subsequent talkpage sections, and that the implementation was made in August, threw me off, and I screwed up. I really wish Pppery could've told me this at my talkpage instead of resorting to what should be a last resort. I've consistently kept my promise to change insofar as sandboxing and discussion of changes to templates are concerned, and the reversion I made was to a previous status quo made by an admin. Again, I messed up, I didn't read the talkpage properly, so I wrongly assumed that the request was made elsewhere (such as at Pppery's talkpage) rather than the template talkpage. I would've reverted immediately had I been personally informed. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 04:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

This is not just "one mistake". This is the last in a long series of mistakes. And while you've apologized for every one they've kept happening. The camel's back is broken.

And I'm not assuming bad faith. I don't doubt that you're trying to improve Wikipedia. I'm stating the fact that your use of this permission seems to be repeatedly causing chaos and accomplishing little else. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Reverting to a previous status quo, approved by an admin no less, isn't "causing chaos". I made a mistake, I realised that, and I self-reverted. I don't understand why you couldn't have told me this on my talkpage. It's not as if I made a change to the template without sandboxing or prior discussion, as this was merely a restoration of a previous status quo. It's also worth noting that this change isn't uncontroversial, nor the result of a discernible community consensus. It was requested and implemented without any notification to editors who had previously contributed to the last status quo. To be clear, I'm not saying I was right, I was clearly mistaken, but please understand that I was only seeking to restore what I saw as the last stable version of the template. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 04:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the template editor right from Neveselbert on the basis that it does not seem necessary and has been used unwisely. Editing templates/modules requires a much different approach from that used elsewhere. The comments above would be exemplary for normal editing back-and-forth but do not show an understanding that it is not just a "mistake" to revert an edit made nearly four weeks earlier at Template:Infobox person (509,035 transclusions). Johnuniq (talk) 05:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

SM Kamrul Hassan again

• SM Kamrul Hassan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• MGBD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Prior thread: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1165#MGBD and IP socks on SM Kamrul Hassan

Immediately after the protection levied as the result of the thread above expired, MGBD returned to the exact same edits he was making before. I should also note that MGBD didn't edit Wikipedia from 30 Aug until 12 Sep, barring this edit to a related article.

Enough is enough. I'm asking for a block for MGBD for refusal to listen to valid criticism from multiple editors and for essentially waiting out the protection to continue his edit warring. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 07:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Jéské Couriano, I have indefinitely pageblocked MGBD from SM Kamrul Hassan, and semi-protected that article for three months. Cullen328 (talk) 07:49, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Dankeschoen, Cullen. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 07:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Bitteschön, Jéské Couriano. Cullen328 (talk) 08:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Certain User are after a certain page named SM Kamrul Hassan and keeps protecting the page by deleting all releveant information

One certain accounts keeps deleting information on this page on claims that information is not cited, where as the information was cited from relevant sources. However similar pages of bangladeshi generals are not even cited but the user are targeting this specific page "SM Kamrul Hassan" only creating a double standard and keeps protecting it without any info in with with admins help. How is this happening, please help!!?? MGBD (talk) 08:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

You just got a partial block from editing SM Kamrul Hassan at ANI for BLP violations. Considering your persistence, you'll be looking at an indef soon enough. Yvan Part (talk) 09:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Other articles being badly cited does not mean that this one should be. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger @Jéské Couriano @Cullen328

Hey, I think maybe I have misunderstood the citations. But As far as I have read wiki pedias policy it is possible to cite facts such as education and posts held/served from primary governement sources. There fore, Im having the feeling Jeske is rushing through the article without actually reading the information written nor the source it is coming from, properly. And kind of perceiving that Im putting in false information inherently by default. I may have not understood citations initially but even when I cited them correctly (as far as my understanding) Jeske thought I was just trying to revert the information with out actually noticing exactly what I have written or where is was sourced from. So if my citation is not good and since you blocked me, could any/all of you write the information from the website below of this SM Kamrul Hassan and cite them as you see fit.

https://afd.gov.bd/psoprofile MGBD (talk) 16:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I do read the sources you use, as the last thread also made abundantly clear. Given part of your problem is citing biographical claims to sources that don't support them, I'd be a fool not to double-check your sourcing. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

So whats wrong here? In the citation the link to the website is provided above. Can you do the citations then? As you are so well versed in it MGBD (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano from the website...@Cullen238 MGBD (talk) 17:41, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

also what do you mean the information in the website does not support what I had written? Can you please read the last version I wrote and the information that is provided in the website? You are saying they were not the same??? @Jéské Couriano MGBD (talk) 17:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

just review it carefully and read from top to bottom @Jéské Couriano @Cullen238

https://afd.gov.bd/psoprofile MGBD (talk) 17:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328 MGBD (talk) 17:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@MGBD: Once again, government sources are primary sources and cannot be used for claims that could be challenged. As for the FE source, you used it only to source the infobox and not the several paragraphs of prose you added alongside it, which had zero sources all day. And even then, the unit he is in is not explicitly stated in the source (and I have other issues with the source, i.e. its unknown provenance). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano i still do not see where its explicitly written that government sources cannot be used, what are the reasons for challenging? Its a Bangladeshi Government website which is most reliable actually. he is Principal Staff Officer of Armed Forces Division if you look at the heading. I did cite the paragraph to this website if you have a look at my last edit before being blocked. Can you cite them properly then... MGBD (talk) 18:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano if you conduct a overall study of bangladeshi army and countries perspective you would understand that these websites are the most reliable source there can be when citing bangladeshi army generals. MGBD (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328 MGBD (talk) 18:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano also you are admitting that you undid the infobox even though it was cited correctly..@Cullen328 MGBD (talk) 18:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@MGBD: WP:Biographies of living persons#Avoid misuse of primary sources applies to government sources as well, as those will always be primary sources. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

It says misuse under certain conditions only. Doesnot explicitly say government sources can never be used. MGBD (talk) 18:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't need to. Wikipedia policy is not prescriptive. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano I find your reasoning a bit troubling... you are stating one of the Top official's of a country's information from a government website is unreliable? This is confusing and feels like Conflict of Interest from your part. @Cullen328 I suggest please review the page, sources, info boxes from edit history and lets have someone else who is not me or @Jéské Couriano to re-write this page.. MGBD (talk) 18:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I am stating that it is a primary source and thus not the best source for an encyclopaedia project that overwhelmingly prefers secondary sources, and unsuitable for one that practically hard-requires secondary sources for biographical claims. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano ok can you expand the article then? With the infobox I cited? MGBD (talk) 18:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

No, because I'm too busy going thru the other articles on Bangladeshi military figures - a topic I'm legitimately not interested in - because you won't quit harping on me about that. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano yeah please do.. and take your time..want to see how the articles changes. MGBD (talk) 18:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

MGBD, Jéské Couriano is a generalist editor with a wide range of interests and you have presented zero evidence of a conflict of interest. I am not interested in expanding this article. My interest as an adminstrator is to prevent you from adding poorly referenced content. Cullen328 (talk) 18:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@MGBD: You trotted this particular routine out at the last thread and it essentially got gonged. I'm also curious as to what your relationship with Verella33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is, as they were created after you got pblocked, and their first edits were to complain about why the page was protected and to demand the (BLP-noncompliant) infobox be reinstated. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 15:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328 ok so will you unblock me if I start sourcing information as per the policy MGBD (talk) 18:41, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328 also the conflict of interest is likely to be one of many factors as this is an army officials page.. I want to trust you but there are always many different nationality intelligence agencies that constantly work as serving agendas as geopolitics gets involved. Nothing else really... MGBD (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

You're playing with fire, MGBD. And let's not forget what you said in the previous thread. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano Im sorry dont take it personally...its just a thought MGBD (talk) 18:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

MGBD, unless I think that I have made a mistake (which I haven't in this case), I do not unblock editors that I block. I leave that to other administrators. There are instruction in the pageblock notice I left on your user talk page explaining how to make a formal unblock request. WP:GAB for convenience. What I recommend is that you make neutral, well referenced edit requests at Talk:SM Kamrul Hassan instead, to show that you can do things properly. What is your connection with SM Kamrul Hassan and the Bangladeshi armed forces? Cullen328 (talk) 18:53, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328 ok I will study and look into it...and I donot have any direct affiliation with them.. MGBD (talk) 18:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano just want to say on a end note... since you got so involved with this page, please give is an expansion when you have time... it will be a giffy for you, considering how fast u work. Thanks and signing of for now. MGBD (talk) 18:53, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• Per CU: MGBD (talk · contribs) and Verella33 (talk · contribs) are  Confirmed to each other. Cod with KFA (talk · contribs) and Pathfinder2022 (talk · contribs) are  Likely the same person; they're editing the same topics from the same single-allocation IP via a different device.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

  I wish I could say I was surprised. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 07:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Concern over article - impact of disinformation on democratic processes

{{subst:With reference to the <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bharatiya_Jana_Sangh>.I have notified major disinformation 1. On Search it shows as Former Political Party? Its an active Political Party 2. Status Dissolved? not true, 3. And Existed Until 1977 to be removed -is not true, 4. Syama Prasad Mukherjee (spelling correction) to Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerjee}}OmGanGanpataye (talk) 07:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, OmGanGanpataye. Please make a formal edit request at Talk:Bharatiya Jana Sangh, providing reliable sources verifying the changes that you want to make. Cullen328 (talk) 08:29, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

And as I've told you before, don't "fix" what isn't broken in the process. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 05:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

@SumanuilI really appreciate the time and effort you put into this article, your advice was incredibly helpful and has given me a clearer path to follow.

I agree that making changes when things are working well can sometimes lead to unintended issues. However, it's also important to periodically review processes/articles to ensure they remain efficient and effective as circumstances evolve.

My motive aligns with yours: maintaining valid content on Wikipedia is crucial for upholding its role as a reliable, accurate, and neutral resource for users both in India and around the world. Together, we can contribute to ensuring that Wikipedia continues to serve as a trustworthy source of information.Please help me to edit the valid content. thank you! OmGanGanpataye (talk) 13:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism by IP range 2405:201:4016:3138:D878:2CD2:2B9D:AC73

2405:201:4016:3138:D878:2CD2:2B9D:AC73 and its related [109] have been removing sourced content, adding unsourced and edit warring. This IP range is likely a sock puppet of User:Prince Of Roblox User:Anantam tripathi or User:Doremon9087. Never ending disruption [110] [111] [112] [113] [114], [115], [116]. Also note uncivil comments here here here, so may be a sock of User:Karkanistan. See [117] [118] [119] [120] and many other articles affected by this IP range. I've requested ay WP:AIV and WP:RPP for action. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Mdj112233 unsourced and unexplained edits

• Mdj112233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Has made numerous unsourced and unexplained edits (they appear to rarely if ever use edit summaries), has refused to explain themselves when asked (see their talkpage), including reinstating their edits when reverted without explanation (see the edit history of the Lancelet article for an example). @Ta-tea-two-te-to: also has had issues with this user. I think the best solution is to block them indefinitely from article space until they agree to communicate. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Non-stop badgering by Legaleagle86

On Talk:2024 Kolkata rape and murder incident, Legaleagle86 is engaging in non-stop badgering despite having been warned against it.[121] He has made 37 responses until now and is misuing the talk page for forum-like discussions such as: [122][123]. Ratnahastin (talk) 02:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I have indefinitely pageblocked Legaleagle86 from that talk page. Enough is enough. Cullen328 (talk) 02:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

User: Ingquza

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

This user has gone under the radar a bit, but they're a mass disruptive editor. They add alternative names to things that are just incorrect, and add unnecessary "not to be confused with" to various pages, as well as some outright vandalism.

Disruptive distinguishing:

• On Jaundice
• Sasol

Alternative names:

• Jacques
• Bellville
• Atlas Copco

Vandalism:

• Kraaifontein
• Overburg
• Manie Libbok
• Hugo Boss
• Dyslexia

GraziePrego (talk) 03:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Ingquza for disruptive editing. Cullen328 (talk) 03:15, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Batong1930 disruption and PA

Batong1930 (talk · contribs)

See this diff for what seems to be the most recent example of a pattern of irreconcilable conduct. Remsense ‥ 论 01:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked Batong1930 for one week for disruptive editing. The belligerent f-bomb directed at a fellow editor is not acceptable. Cullen328 (talk) 03:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Harassing vandal back again

Regular readers will have seen before that a vandal pops up from time to time to revert a string of my recent edits, leaving uncivil comments in the edit summary. They are back again, this time under the name Gooning 4 fistagon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and with the same MO (except more widely spread in their vandalising and incivility). Could someone please block and revdel their all their summaries. There's obviously some deep seated issues with this one, but whatever that may be, they shouldn't be allowed to leave their comments across the site. (And to think my rollback permission was removed because I once called them a vandal - not such a smart step that). - SchroCat (talk) 07:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Update: Now blocked, but the revdel still needs to be done. The vandal/troll is now making demands on their talk page that suggest they are also a sock, and still leaving edit summaries that need a revdel. If someone could please oblige, that would be great. - SchroCat (talk) 07:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I've rev-del'd the worst of the edit summaries and removed their TPA. Black Kite (talk) 08:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks Black Kite, it's much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:20, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@Black Kite Could you revdel [124] this one as well? Thanks, GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 09:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

And maybe this edit summary that's just been left for me too? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

• I am now being harassed by an IP on my talk page: could someone please take action? Many thanks in advance. - SchroCat (talk) 14:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  Please take a look at this editor's reverting history while you're at it. They are a clear WP:OWNer. 94.54.1.170 (talk) 14:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  Which of your edits did I revert? Reverting something does not equate to any claim of ownership. You, however, seem to think that leaving edit summaries such as "S:crew U f:kng WP:OWNer", as you did here is somehow acceptable. - SchroCat (talk) 14:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think it's acceptable but your habitual WP:OWN nonsense was driving me crazy. 94.54.1.170 (talk) 14:20, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  There's no ownership, so you can cut out the lying that's accompanied the harassment and incivility. Which of your edits did I revert? - SchroCat (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  This isn't about me, no matter how much you'd like to play it this way. It also isn't about any specific edit. WP:OWN is a pattern with you and you should reflect on what that means. 94.54.1.170 (talk) 14:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  So you don't want to say which one of your edits I reverted? That's fine. The admins here will make of it what they will - and they'll make of your incivility, trolling, harassment and lying what they want too. - SchroCat (talk) 14:29, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  Diddums also isn't civil, it's not like you're excempt just because you removed it later. I don't care what the admins make of me, I just want them to deal with your nonsense. 94.54.1.170 (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah we're nipping this in the bud now. IP blocked for obvious evasion, and harassment. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks - it's much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Margin914 causing vandalism

This account was created less than 40 minutes ago and jumped right into vandalizing AFD pages. Account has removed AFD tags and closing AFD. Did the same here and here. Account is also creating draft pages for the articles listed in AFD nominations to resubmit for publishing if deleted. Page Vivek Verma was deleted per G5 and before too. I would not be surprised if this new account is a sock. RangersRus (talk) 13:03, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

See also Bukka914 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is clearly the same user making the same edits. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 13:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

FYI this is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BuickCenturyDriver. C F A 💬 15:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

@CFA: What's your reasoning?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Well, there's only two AfD closer LTAs that I'm aware of, and BuickCenturyDriver is obviously this one. What confirmed it for me right away was their "no consensus" closes which is something only BuickCenturyDriver does. (e.g. see: [125][126][127][128][129], etc.). There's a bunch of other evidence too, like their username format (word then 3 numbers - e.g. Sarmy719, Coner720, Luvei721, Luvioe721, Zerby720, Scorpion126, Scoripon126, Hyperore512, Wrzzrobe512, Phazon720), impersonation (e.g. DanCharak, DatGoy, Zzeezou, HJ Hitchall, Eavonian), etc. They also edited my comment here ([130][131]) to change "BuickCenturyDriver" to something else which is essentially an admission in my opinion. C F A 💬 14:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, CFA, excellent job! --Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Posting of personal information

Please see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Talk:Asmongold Discussion 2A04:4A43:526F:E9BE:68F2:5E2D:6A37:9D33 (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and personal attack by Alon9393

In the past week, Alon9393 has gone on a tear of !voting in AfDs and nominating articles for deletion. Despite multiple warnings from Liz (diff, diff), HopalongCasualty (diff) and Geschichte (diff) about their participation, Alon continues to participate in AfD discussions in a disruptive way. Alon has nominated multiple pages with no valid deletion rationale (diff, diff) When confronted, the response has been something that is either sarcasm or a complete WP:NOTGETTINGIT reaction (diff, diff) and shows either confusion or deliberate obstinacy about how to assess WP:PROMO (diff). Alon offers !votes not based on P&Gs and some are just plain non-sensical (diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff). These votes are making it harder for closers to assess consensus. In addition to the disruptive AfD participation, we have personal insults against another editor (diff) and an accusation of the same editor misrepresenting his home country (diff). There may also be a WP:CIR issue here as the editor continues to fail (diff) to properly transclude nominations. For the ongoing disruptive AfD activity, even after warnings, and CIR problems, I wonder if a (temporary) topic ban from AfD would be appropriate. The personal insult (which has not been apologized for or otherwise addressed by Alon) is additional evidence this user may need to take a break. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support indef due to WP:CIR issues. 202.47.50.250 (talk) 04:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
• If the editor is causing mass disruption at AfDs but otherwise making constructive edits on mainspace articles (which seems to be the case from a cursory glance), then perhaps a partial block from Wikipedia namespace would stem the tide. Left guide (talk) 06:23, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
• As explanation, but not excuse, for some of the appearance of CIR, they have made edits that indicate a possible language barrier and other personal situations that interfere with clear English communication. But I agree that here we only care about what happens here, not what causes it. DMacks (talk) 09:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@DMacks: Don't you get the feeling that Alon9393 is intentionally communicating in poor English to give the impression that their skills are worse than they actually are? When you compare the English in their articles to their comments on AFD or talk pages, the difference is pretty striking. --— Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I’m assuming good faith here; the poor English language skills are also visible in mainspace edits, but Alon’s focus there is often on adding citations and infoboxes, where weak English competence is less disruptive. I don’t see the signs you do of UPE or block evasion; I see an over-enthusiastic newcomer who’s trying to be a helpful participant but doesn’t have either the grounding in policy or English language to participate effectively in AfDs, and in ignoring warnings and advice has become disruptive. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Dclemens1971, Ok I AGF. But their personal attacks aren't going to stop either, and accusing me of being anti-Pakistan is no small matter, especially in a place like Pakistan where I live. They’re playing with serious, dangerous accusations. Also see this RPP labelling IPs as confirmd socks without any evidence. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you, the personal attack was out of line and I did not even fully consider the impact the aspersions about national loyalty might have. Yet another reason for an appropriate sanction. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

• Since they've made personal attacks against me (though I’m not too bothered by it), I just wanted to share my two cents here. It seems a bit suspicious for someone with ~500 edits and who just joined a couple of months ago to be so invested in AFDs. Maybe they should be temporarily restricted from participating in AFD. --— Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC).
• I noticed Alon9393's participation at AfD and was concerned by some very poor arguments, for example at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Iraq, Moscow they argued for keeping the article on the embassy on the basis that it may be attacked in the future. They also argued for keeping an article on a consulate by stating "The article has encyclopedic relevance; the topic appears in an encyclopedia. The content of the article is encyclopedic, with a broader extension and content it can remain on Wikipedia." Some of the nominations they have made are not unreasonable, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghirmai Ghebremariam (although the rationale is not great) while the nom of FUNREDES is also not unreasonable given the lack of sources and poor state of that article. They also did cite WP:ORGCRITE in that nom. At the moment I think we should assume good faith unless there's evidence to the contrary. I'd personally suggest that they just need to slow down, read up on some of our notability policies and WP:AFDDISCUSS. Also we need to make very clear that personal attacks is unacceptable behaviour that could lead to blocks. AusLondonder (talk) 09:38, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support for temporarily restricted from participating in AFD as per Saqib and facts showed by AusLondonder. They need a break. Mehedi Abedin 09:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
• Whether the userbox and edit comments on their user page are genuine (note: added today), and whether they explain and/or excuse this behaviour, I don't know, but AGF they might. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support restriction from AfD or pblock from wikipedia namespace, whichever works better. Just read their talk page. It appears that they are not understanding the advice they are given and exudes overconfidence.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. Alon9393 has posted yet another personal attack against Saqib, which as Saqib notes above could have real-world personal implications. Administrator attention is warranted here. Diff: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alon9393&diff=prev&oldid=1245861312&diffonly=1. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
• Regretful support for at least AfD restriction per WP:CIR.

1. I have questioned an AfD and the user has removed the attribution from the article, creating a coppyvio. They also removed a critical part of the text "when this quantity exists." [132]
2. On FUNREDES they have shotgunned {{Cn}}, including placing one after an existing {{Cn}}. [133]
3. Picking a random edit, they provided a useful piped link, but lost the possessive marker at the same time. [134]
4. I am concerned that their command of English coupled with over-confidence will lead to more issues. For example, they consistently use "notoriety" when they mean "notability". This could constitute a BLP violation in an article. And that's just one word.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 17:15, 15 September 2024 (UTC).

• They have continued to be disruptive at AFD, such as saying an article had no refs, when it had two extlinks clearly on-topic. And they also filed an RFPP to protect an AFD to prevent participation from anonymous IPs, which is firstly not a valid basis by default (IPs are definitely welcome to participate in general!) and specifically this AFD had zero IP edits at all ever. That's "AFD related, but not "an AFD page" and they have not demonstrated any ability to restrict their edits by request, so I am indef p-blocking them from WP namespace. No prejudice against further admin action, no need to consult me before modifying this one in any way. DMacks (talk) 17:47, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  @DMacks the user is now vandalizing articles in mainspace by removing whole article texts; editor is clearly NOTHERE. Can we get an indef for mainspace before further damage is done? Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  I support the indefinite block due to this unacceptable behavior. While they may be frustrated by their restrictions from AFDs, vandalizing pages is only exacerbating the problem. Fwiw Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Libraa2019. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  I support this. This user seems to be reverting many of their past additions to articles right now, some quite significant. GhostOfNoMeme 18:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

• Upgraded to site indef. DMacks (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  Given the responses in his talk page, I suggest blocking him from editing it. INFIYNJTE (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

• The user's attempts to blank their own article creations might qualify for WP:G7 speedy deletion. Would there be any objections to tagging them as such? Left guide (talk) 19:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I've no objection about the others, but Abdul Hannan (singer) since the AFD is open. Regardless of whether the BLP is kept or deleted through AFD, the AFD process should be followed, even though they also wanted it deleted.— Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

They have nearly 700 edits over 2+ months and their page-creation log is also full of AFDs. That's a lot for each of us to parse. Might be useful to post a list of what you propose for G7 so we can double-check nobody else has made a substantive edit. I usually frown on G7 if an article has existed "for a while" even if nobody else has touched it. Maybe better to mass AFD unless you think this editor was bad-news content-wise from the start (rather only turning disruptive once flagged for AFD disruption). DMacks (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@Saqib and DMacks: The user created only nine articles, so I'll summarize my assessment of them all here:

• Ortega (rapper) and Carlos Báez Carvajal look like clear-as-day G7 cases.
• At Víctor Roqueme Quiñonez, the only potentially significant change from another editor is citing the infobox birthplace. Akiva (singer) doesn't seem to have had much going on from other users aside from translation and citation cleanup, and copy-editing. At Talisman (singer), another user purged unsourced material. Don't know if those three articles qualify for G7.
• Kfir Tsafrir was substantially re-written by another user, probably not G7-worthy.
• Helge Rasche and Abdul Hannan (singer) are at AfD, so we can wait and see how they close before making any further decisions.
• Simone Roganti has a more complicated history. For example, another user added substantial sources and content but also tagged it for notability in the next edit. Might be best to go to AfD to decide its fate.

Left guide (talk) 00:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Was unaware of this thread when I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crooks & Nannies as an unintelligible nom. Endorse block. Star Mississippi 20:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I also ran into this person's curious edits. It's rare that someone tries to bridge the gap between Pakistan and Israel. Otherwise user seems not to bother too much with WP conventions. gidonb (talk) 23:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I went through their AfD noms and closed those without merit or established editors weighing in support of the nomination. Any established editor is welcome to revisit these with a reasoned nom if they believe its needed, but these weren't going anywhere. Star Mississippi 23:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Verbal abuse

Anirban Reebok, a new user, trying to remove information from Ras malai. I reverted their edits and warned them on their talk page. In reply they wrote in Bengali: "শোন গাঢ় মারানী, তোকে চাইলে আরও 10 টা account থেকে ban দিতে পারি তুই রসমালাইয়ের history ভুল লিখছিস, তুই যতবার বদলাবি, আমি আছি with আরও 10 টা account" (meaning "Listen Ghamarani (a verbal abuse), I can ban you from 10 more accounts if you want. You are writing wrong history of Rasmalai, every time you change it, I am with 10 more accounts".).

Looks like they are not new here and using sock accounts. They have no intention to build encyclopedia and only cares about what's only true for them. Needs to be blocked. The article is now protected. Mehedi Abedin 01:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Anirban Reebok for multiple reasons. Cullen328 (talk) 01:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Edit history of User:Moarnighar

User:Moarnighar arrived very recently. They wrote "session" on the user page and started a spree of period changes that did not add value. As User:GreenC put it, these gave the appearance of "I was here", or "need a lot of edits to launder account". Additionally, Moarnighar has added personal information sourced from blogs, referenced as raw URLs and disguised as minor edits. Some of the edits have been reverted or commented on their talk page. In a concerning development, Moarnighar has now begun submitting baseless AfDs, unnecessarily draining community resources. Urgent admin intervention would be appreciated. The account exhibits classic sockpuppet behavior, yet to report there I believe I would need at least a hunch on the puppeteer. gidonb (talk) 18:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

The editor has a lot of problems and I'm surprised they are still at it. They consistently violate WP:PRESERVE (policy) deleting simple factual content that is easily sourced eg. "the author wrote a book titled..", deleting the sentence rather than adding a cite to the book. They mess with sentences and paragraphs, either combining them or splitting them illogically, there is no sense of reading comprehension, rather based on the visual impact. They create ill-advised AfDs. Overall it looks like a case of WP:COMPETENCY at best, or something else at worse. -- GreenC 19:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

User:GreenC, your impression that they were creating a pattern of edits to launder an account was most likely spot on, as they now seem to be cashing in on the built-up goodwill with destructive AfDs. Typically, such individuals sit alone in front of their screen, laughing at the time they've wasted for a value-driven community. gidonb (talk) 20:14, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

They also seem to be editing as an IP now. I reverted them in Russ Baker, only for two different IPs to show up the next day and undo the revert. -- GreenC 17:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Yep, this looks like a pretty clear case of WP:GAME, I would suggest an indef, and probably a CU for the IPs. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I encountered this user via their AfD on Pacific Cigarette Company which I personally consider to be baseless. Rainsage (talk) 00:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

There is a chance this is an AfD racket focused on Africa. Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd doubt it. I think they just browsed a list of companies such as Any.do, which has nothing to do with Africa whatsoever save for the huge stretch of hiring Mossad operatives. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protection request for Subh-i-Azal due to disruptive IP

User:Qalandar303 was banned indefinitely (here) less than two years ago. Several IPs have been making the same edits to the same page over the last four days and just said, You have been reverted, and will continue to be so indefinitely. If you continue to misbehave, brow-beat and bully, rights are reserved to take furthermore action. [135]

Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, why does this belong at ANI, and not WP:RFPP like every other protection request? MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 11:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Because I don't do this very often. I'll take it over there, thanks. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Hindutva activist making threats to physically harm

A Hindutva activist belonging to Hindutva group Hindu Raksha Dal is making threats to physically harm.[136]

His IP range is Special:Contributions/49.36.160.0/19 and he is also making legal threats.[137] Ratnahastin (talk) 15:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Nuke 'em and bury the rubble... Hindutva digital stormtroopers should be no more welcome than neo-Nazi ones. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked the range for a month. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I suspect this is the same editor that's already been blocked two times Talk:2024 Kolkata rape and murder incident#Kindly remove name of victim immediately. Hopefully the larger range will be enough to keep them out. (While the early IPs were in the same range I'm personally reluctant to say it's all definitely the same editor considering there are probably a number of activists who might use the range. Still it's a problem same editor or not.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, tone down the rhetoric please. The block is 100% justified but you are straying into Godwin's law territory. Cullen328 (talk) 17:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Can you explain how the comparison isn't justified or the rhetoric is inaccurate? Also note that I said neo-Nazis not Nazis so Godwin's law doesn't apply. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Cool it please. This is unproductive. Cullen328 (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Satanicfacts

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

---

New user Satanicfacts has been making personal attacks toward user GenoV84, repeatedly using the words "princess" ([138]), "pussy ass keyboard warriors" and "pathetic" ([139]), and "a zero" ([140]), clear signs of WP:NOTHERE. — ‎‎‎hhypeboyh 💬 • ✏️ 23:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

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

CIR and sourcing issues with User:Martimix

Martimix (talk · contribs) has been editing for over 5 years, and has over 30,000 total edits, so by this point I would expect them to at least have a basic understanding of content policies, namely WP:V, but their editing pattern shows this to not be the case, with edits such as these, citing any Twitter account they can find, regardless of if it actually meets WP:RSPTWITTER or not: [141], [142], [143], [144] (A Youtube video, which if not entirely bogus from the day the edit was made, has managed to expire within only 2 weeks of it being cited), [145] (cite is used to claim Syria has the QLZ-87 grenade launcher, in a source which never mentions the QLZ-87 even once, only 'Chinese aid' in vague terms), [146], [147], [148] (Makes a claim about appearing in a specific battle that the source makes no mention of), [149] (some punter with 19 followers on Twitter is not an RS, to make it clear). And this is all within a two-week period. I added a comment on their talk page about the matter, [150], to which they followed up with these two edits: [151] [152], the first of which claims Syria is a user of the PB pistol, despite the source only giving a one-sentence description of the PB and not listing its specific users, and the second one claims Syria uses the Gsh-18, despite this having no entry at all within the same source. If this isn't outright disruption with the multiple instances of them inventing claims that don't appear in the sources they use, then I see it as some plain old WP:CIR. Loafiewa (talk) 22:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi!

I do not have problems with citing sources at all. In this 3 cases I did not realize that the mentioned sources are not related to the given article or that they are faulty. Before I could fix it, you came and reported me. Ok.

I am very sorry for that, and it will be never again. But we are human and make faults sometimes.

Thanks Martimix (talk) 06:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Your assertion that it's just these three cases is false. [153] Here you directly contradicted the cited source with the highly misleading (if not a blatant lie) edit summary of "Typo".[154] Here you wrote "Moderate usage. Captured from rebel groups.", again in contradiction to the source which only mentions one rifle (thereby making any mentions of 'moderate usage' WP:OR), and which does not make reference to any rebel groups. [155] Here you wrote "Supplied by Iraq", while again citing a source that directly contradicts that as they say they don't know how it got into the country. [156] Here you wrote "the 26th Tank Regiment attempted to break through the Ukrainian defense [...] and the attack later succeeded", whereas the source you cited says "Mashovets reported that the 12th Tank Regiment, however, failed to break through the Kyslivka-Kotlyarivka line from the south while the 26th Tank Regiment lost momentum before it could complete the tactical encirclement from the north." These diffs all date from over 2 weeks ago, so the claim that I reported you before you had the chance to fix these issues is nothing but an attempt at lying and deflection. Why should we even believe you when you say you won't do it again? You've lied enough in your editing to have lost any goodwill. Loafiewa (talk) 12:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Can confirm that Martimix questionable sourcing goes way back, such as this June 2024 edit where it claims Syria used ZiS-3 guns, but the source in question doesn't make any mention of them being in Syrian inventories: [157], or this edit from August 2023, which claims Syria still used 3M6 Shmel in 2023: [158], which is not listed in the Syrian entry of the Military Balance 2023 (pages 354-357). I can't tell if Martimix is not double-checking their own sources or intentionally misleading readers by giving a veneer of reliability, but either way, it does not look good. Mr. Komori (talk) 00:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Kellycrak88

This good-faith editor, User:Kellycrak88, is creating a lot of articles, but seems to run into every possible issue, some of them again and again, including things like copyright violations, factual errors, NPOV issues, and problematic interactions with others[159][160]. The latest discussion I had with them was yesterday at User talk:Asilvering/Archive 9#Need Guidance on Bias and Admin Issues in Baronage Guidelines Discussion, ending with them promising improvement[161] after I asked "Please slow down, create less but better articles, based on better sources, and at the very least make sure that the claims in the article are correct." Since then, in the past 24 hours, they created 5 articles, with the same issues continuing.

First they created Baron of Abergeldie. 8 sources, the first two are Wikipedia articles, the fourth[162] and sixth[163] are "page not found / 404" errors: searching for Abergeldie on that fourth site yields no results at all. With also a Wordpress blog thrown into the mix[164], the sourcing of this article really isn't acceptable. The next creation, Baron of Arbroath, has one line about the current baron, and three sections about earlier history of the town of Arbroath unrelated to the Barony. It has nothing about the actual history of the barony.

Next, they created Baron of Ardgowan, a title first granted in 1404 apparently. Well, no, the castle was given in that year, but a few centuries later the family became baronets (not barons), and remain so to this day[165]. I can't find any evidence for a Baron of Ardgowan before the present one was granted the title somehow.

Because of the continued issues with reliable sourcing (including the repeated use of "accessed" sources which don't even work) and with fact-checking, it would be probably best if they would be required to create new articles through the WP:AfC process, without being allowed to create an article in the mainspace or move one to the mainspace. Fram (talk) 09:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Baron of Abergeldie: I acknowledge that there were a couple of "page not found / 404" links, likely due to typos. These URLs have since been corrected and are now functional. The blog link (which was not immediately obvious to me that is was hosted on wordpress) has been replaced with credible sources, including The Times, The Guardian, The Evening Standard, The Telegraph, and Tatler, which quote the Baron Abergeldie or refer to the estate and castle. Additionally, I’ve included his title listed in Debrett's, alongside the other sources already cited, including his profile from Burke's Peerage.

Baron of Ardgowan: This title is verified in the Registry of Scottish Nobility and the Scottish Barony Register, which provide both the creation date and the current title holder. It is not uncommon for some baronets in Scotland who hold estates to also hold baronage titles (the King can confer multiple titles), as pre-2004 these were historically tied to land ownership (i.e. owning a castle). After 2004, such titles became personal, allowing them to be transferred to heirs or assignees. The Stewarts (of the scottish royal house) were somehow attached to the Hasburgs because Prof Stephen Kerr was gifted the Barony of Ardgowan as an award for helping the Habsburgs in their legal case against the Republic of Austria for stealing all their property and banishing them in 1919. So in this case, Prof. Stephen Kerr received the Barony of Ardgowan as an honour in 2004, and his title was recognised by the Lord Lyon King of Arms—the monarch's representative in Scotland.

Baron of Arbroath: Likewise the title and creation date is verified in Burke's Peerage, Debrett's, the Registry of Scottish Nobility, and the Scottish Barony Register.

I appreciate that you’ve highlighted these three articles. As with many newly created articles, there is always room for improvement. Historical information, especially regarding baronage titles, often exists in offline sources such as The Great Seal (Scotland's oldest national record) or crown charters, or books, making it more challenging to source fully online. Nevertheless, I believe the information provided thus far is credible and well-sourced enough to justify the creation of these pages, and hope others will help improve them further.

Addressing Fram’s behaviour: I’m glad you’ve brought these concerns to the attention of other administrators, as I would like to formally lodge a complaint against Fram for persistent harassment. Fram consistently targets my contributions, especially those related to baronage titles, with comments such as "meaningless titles", "spam", "non-notable title", "utterly non notable bought title of no value" and "completely unimportant." This behaviour reflects a personal bias, not only towards me but also towards the broader Baronage project and other editors involved. Fram's continued targeting feels like an attempt to stifle contributions on this topic, despite these titles being verifiable through credible sources.

I’ve created numerous pages on topics ranging from Irish history to Georgian architecture and biographies. Yet, it’s only my contributions related to baronage titles that face this level of scrutiny. This suggests a personal agenda against baronage titles, which Fram and some others view as "pretend titles."

Throughout this process, I’ve done my best to remain polite and open to feedback. I’ve learned from my mistakes and have received valuable guidance from experienced editors like @Asilvering whose mentorship has been instrumental in helping me navigate Wikipedia’s policies.

While I’ve had ongoing concerns about Fram’s behaviour, I would be open to returning to a more civil and constructive interaction if Fram is willing to do the same. If the community is considering restricting or blocking my account based on the ongoing harassment from Fram, I must express my frustration. It feels disheartening to be continuously berated for trying to contribute positively to the site. If this bullying behaviour continues unchecked, I may be forced to reconsider my participation on Wikipedia. Kellycrak88 (talk) 12:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

But you've mentioned two of the problem sources here again. The Registry of Scots Nobility is a self-published website by an anonymous author that sells barony-related merchandise. It therefore does not meet our policy at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Similarly, the Scottish Barony Register is a private for-profit company that charges up to £800 to "register" these titles, even though there is absolutely no legal requirement or even legal basis for doing so. It is a business that is trying to preserve the financial value of these products by selling its services as an unofficial market regulator. Consequently, I don't consider that to be a reliable source either. I think you need to restrict yourself to high-quality independent secondary sources. DrKay (talk) 13:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

This is the first time, as far as I’m aware, that someone has suggested these sources are unreliable, so it’s not "again." Let’s look at both:

The Scottish Barony Register (SBR) was established in 2004 following the Abolition of Feudal Tenure (Scotland) Act 2000, specifically to provide an official record for the transfer of baronies, which were removed from the Land Register of Scotland. The present custodian is Alastair Shepherd, WS, a Writer to the Signet—one of the most senior legal professionals in Scotland and a former Ross Herald at the Court of the Lord Lyon. He has extensive expertise in heraldry and Scottish baronies. The SBR’s services are only available to Scottish solicitors, and they generally do not answer enquiries from the public or individuals. Scottish solicitors rely on the SBR for validation and the transfer of titles, and the Lord Lyon relies on the SBR (as the only register) when recognising baronial titles in letters patent. This gives the SBR a significant role in verifying crown charters and related historical documentation to confirm the rightful owner of a barony, despite being a private register. Let’s consider the facts from their website: [166] the 2023 annual report shows 4 new registrations and 5 assignations of existing titles, typically through inheritance. Total revenue was £5,200 for the year. Would you really consider that a money-spinner, besides covering the custodian's time?

As for the Registry of Scots Nobility (RSN), their website states that their committee requires a "Certificate from the Scottish Barony Register" or "evidence from the Lord Lyon" to verify new title holders. They provide a certificate verifying each baron signed by the Earl of Loudoun a senior Scottish peer (provided at no cost, so not exactly a money-spinner either). However, it appears the RSN primarily functions as a social organisation rather than a self-published website, hosting events for the Scottish nobility, including peers, baronets, and barons. The badges and regalia associated with this group are largely for ceremonial events and are provided "at cost," as stated on their website. Additionally, the custodian of the SBR gave a speech at the RSN’s event in 2023: [167] It has the credibility, but I’m unsure what your specific requirements or guidelines are for deeming sources unreliable. Kellycrak88 (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

To state that the Scottish Barony Register is a non-reliable source is absurd and shows a complete lack of understanding of the current legal situation of the Scottish Baronage. It is the sole source of reference for the Lord Lyon - one of the Great Officers of State in Scotland. See Lord Lyon's Menking note: "The Scottish Barony Register is the only register for the Lord Lyon to have reference to in these matters, albeit a non-statutory register. The present practice was established by previous Lord Lyons" and "I am content to follow this practice as long as the present Custodian is ‘a person of skill’"..

The current Custodian of the Scottish Barony Register is Alistair Shepherd, one of Scotland's leading property lawyers and former partner at Coulters.

I do not know the agenda of some of the editors and admins here, but portraying the SBR as an unreliable source is disruptive and damaging to Wikipedia. The same individuals have employed underhanded tactics in their handling of this entire matter, including repeatedly labelling my 20-year-old account as a single-purpose account. Different opinions must be accepted on Wikipedia and should be subject to open and honest discussions—not subjected to 'grey tactics' in an attempt to "win". Charliez (talk) 15:27, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that it is factually incorrect to state that the Scottish Barony Register is a "for-profit company". The Memorandum of Association art. 6 states clearly that "no portion (of the income or property) shall be paid or transferred, directly or indirectly, by the way of dividend, bonus or otherwise howsoever by way of profit, to members of the company". It seems a better understanding of this subject should be sought by all parties to this discussion. Charliez (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I've already made clear my suspicion that your "20-year-old account", which only has 117 edits and mysteriously crops up at every opportunity to support Kellycrak88, is a [meat]puppet. Turning up at yet another page to promote the identical viewpoint, with similar idiom, phraseology and timing, does nothing to assuage that suspicion. DrKay (talk) 20:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I could say the same thing about yourself @DrKay as you're always popping up supporting @Fram. Now you are, of course, entitled to your view, @DrKay, but respectfully, this is an unfounded allegation if you're implying I’m using multiple accounts or any other puppet claims (wikipedia:meatpuppet). Many editors share my views, just as others like yourself can oppose them. In fact the baronage guidelines were not proposed by me—the edit and Talk thread were started by @Daniel Plumber, which I and many others supported in the conversation thread. Let's try to find common ground without puppet allegations and contribute constructively moving forward together. Kellycrak88 (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Really? This is your response? Even when your off-wiki co-ordination with these editors was exposed[168]? DrKay (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@Kellycrak88: If you're claiming that Fram and DrKay are meatpuppets (based on no evidence) I'm unsure whether that's simply casting aspersions or if WP:CIR is an issue here. Black Kite (talk) 13:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@Black Kite: I'm not throwing any derogatory words at anyone. I’m not looking for conflict. My aim is to contribute positively to Wikipedia and resolve any disputes constructively. Kellycrak88 (talk) 13:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

You have repeatedly tagged my account specifically as WP:SPA. I suggest you read up on the criteria for tagging accounts that way.[169] As to your puppet claims: I have supported Kellycrak88's viewpoints in maybe 2 or 3 discussions over the last few weeks. What motives you may have for claiming I support him at "every opportunity", I do not know, but it's disingenuous and I really think WP would be better served if you refrained from trying to "score points" in arguments that way. The thought that I set up an account 20 years ago in preparation for supporting Kellycrak88 today, is quite frankly laughable.

I have followed Kellycrak88's activities over the last few weeks because we clearly share some interests. He has been an extremely active editor in some very specific fields. Clearly, Fram seem to share the same interest - and, it would seem, so do you. I believe you will find that both Fram and yourself "mysteriously crop up" much more often than I in connection with Kellycrak88.

My comment on this thread, however, was specifically directed at your claim that SBR was an unreliable source. That is factually incorrect, and when you use such arguments to win a discussion, you are doing Wikipedia a disservice. The same applies when you attempt to discount my views by labelling me as a SPA or puppet. It's uncalled for and is damaging to the debates on Wikipedia.

Likewise, the claim that SBR is a for-profit entity is not true. WP would be better served if you were to withdraw those allegations even if it might prevent you from construing some "gotcha moment". If you have an issue with the quality of some of Kellycrak88's articles, WP was built specifically to handle this sort of concern. You needn't extend that discussion beyond those articles by attacking legitimate sources used on a number of different articles across WP. Charliez (talk) 20:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I will not withdraw any part of my comments. Nor do I accept that any of them are "factually incorrect". DrKay (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I think that is unfortunate as both these are matter of public record:

-You can verify that SBR is a not-for profit entity by looking up their records in Companies House.[170]

-You can verify that the Lord Lyon has said that SBR is a reliable source (in fact the only reliable source for baronies).[171]

Phil Bridger has a good point, though, when he says that SBR's records are not public. Quite frankly not sure how they have been referenced in the articles in question, but I know that SBR issues certificates to validate claims. Charliez (talk) 22:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Yawn. All my comments remain valid. DrKay (talk) 06:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

A couple of points. The statement referred to by DrKay is very concerning. Wikipedia business should be conducted in public and on this site, with exceptions that only involve administrators and other similar functionaries. And our article on the Scottish Barony Register says it "is accessible exclusively to Scottish solicitors", meaning that it has not been published in such a way that it can be used as a source. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Is running a WikiProject from a user sandbox even a thing? From what I see, WikiProjects should be in the project namespace and accessible to all, not hidden in a user sandbox with "official" participants having to email the founder to join the discussion channel. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Also noting (page mover hat on) that I'm having to do a big amount of cleanup in Category:WikiProject Baronage of Scotland articles, with articles having been moved and changed in scope from the geographical area to the title without discussion (for instance, Torboll to Baron of Torboll (title extinct), or Scottish feudal barony of Kirkintilloch to Baron of Kirkintilloch (extinct title)), with the scope being changed under the name of "clean up" (diff 1, diff 2). And yes, that's a lot of WP:RMUM and a lot of superfluous disambiguators. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

What cleanup? The reason for the geographic change is because since 2004 baronage titles became non-territorial personal titles no longer attached to the land. See the change in the law Scotland Act 2000 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2000/5/notes/division/1/3/6/11 the official explanatory notes. This has been welcomed by representative bodies for the Baronage of Scotland. Kellycrak88 (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, for a start, titles shouldn't contain unnecessary disambiguators (see WP:TITLEDAB). Also, mass change at the level of tens of articles should be discussed on-wiki prior to being done. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:09, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

There were discussions with other editors I recall on various Talk pages, and @Daniel Plumber pitched the idea of a WP:BARONAGE project with inspiration from the WP:Project_Clans_of_Scotland (especially as over 30 clan chiefs were barons). The idea was to gradually build a record of all Scottish barons, most dating back to the medieval period. It seemed appealing to me, as it’s a topic I’m deeply interested in, believing it would bring immense value to Wikipedia users with similar interests. Since this was created as a mock project in his sandbox, I didn’t see any harm in agreeing to collaborate, considering it both interesting and rewarding. If Daniel in his sandbox proposing to use a real-time chat is against Wikipedia rules, then I sincerely apologise. My mentor did advise me that the community might be skeptical of any off-wiki communication (for transparency read the convo here) therefore I have ensured my conversations are on-wiki to avoid any issues. Kellycrak88 (talk) 22:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you can organize something as a "mock project" and still tag many mainspace pages as being part of it. Either it is official or it isn't. Also, were the conversations that decided on the mass page move on-wiki or off-wiki? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@Daniel Plumber: can you please justify this in the context of Wikipedia's values of on-wiki collaboration and decision-making? You may wish to consider the principles listed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject Tropical Cyclones in this context. Daniel (talk) 04:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

fwiw, I warned them about this on 26 August: [172]. If the off-wiki discussion has continued since then, I'd be quite concerned. -- asilvering (talk) 19:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

A lot of other issues surrounding the Baronage articles and project have been raised since, I'll mostly ignore these for now. Looking at the three recent articles I gave as examples above, they have all been edited by Kellycrak88 since to correct the issues. The results are that Baron of Abergeldie has now as its first source this Wordpress blog, and the corrected link to Spottinghistory.com[173] makes it clear that this is an unreliable source, as it is sourced to Wikipedia. The edit at Baron of Arbroath did nothing to solve the issue I raised, that it is 90% about other things already decribed at length at Arbroath and not directly related to the barony, one line about the current baron, and nothing about the history of the barony and the previous barons. And Baron of Ardgowan has been made worse, not better. The infobox now claims that the title was created in the 13th c., the text claims that it was created in the 15th century, the available evidence still suggests that these were baronets, not barons (no evidence of a baron before the current one has been unearthed). The arms in the infobox, File:Baron of Ardgowan.png, described in the text as "reflects the long-standing history of the Stewart family and their connection to the Scottish nobility", is the arms of the current baron, not a member of the Stewart family, and not related to their arms at all. The needed competency or care to create well-sourced, trustworthy articles about the actual subject seems to be missing. Fram (talk) 09:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Fram, it's frustrating for me as it seems you haven’t read my earlier response. I’ve already acknowledged and addressed your points. As I stated above, yes the articles have been edited and improved, and certainly haven’t been made worse. It feels irrelevant what I say if you ignore my responses and double down on your arguments, which has been a running theme in our previous interactions.

Baron of Abergeldie: The page now has over 15 sources (including The Times, The Guardian, The Evening Standard, The Telegraph, and Tatler) repeated here again as you seem to overlook this in favour of repeating your previous arguments. If Spottinghistory.com is indeed an unreliable source for a history on the castle (which I wasn’t aware of), I have no problem removing it—there are plenty of other credible sources available.

Baron of Arbroath: Historically this title was territorial, attached to the land of Arbroath, a town with significant historical importance, such as its connection to the Declaration of Arbroath (signed by 40 barons) and the Battle of Arbroath. As I mentioned, these pages will be improved with more offline info from sources like the Great Seal, among others, this is a speciality of a professional historian to be honest, but I believe they are sufficiently well-sourced to start with, including some 6 credible sources currently listed for the title on the page. Your argument that 90% of the article is about the town doesn’t negate the territorial connection of the barony to Arbroath itself.

Baron of Ardgowan You claim the page has gotten worse, but I’ve double-checked the sources, which indicate the creation date as the 13th century—not a specific year. This is common with older titles, especially with medieval titles, where the earliest crown charter often refers to an even earlier creation charter that is lost. Baronage titles frequently don’t have a single creation date due to their antiquity, so the article isn’t “worse” because of this. You are correct in the body content it said 15th and was overlooked I've just now edited it from 15th to 13th.

Furthermore, you seem to ignore the fact that the crown can confer multiple titles. Baronetage titles outrank baronage titles. This would explain why the family primarily used the higher-ranking title. If you're suggesting the sources are inadequate—such as the RSN, which I’ve explained requires Lord Lyon evidence or an SBR certificate, and inclusion is verified with a signed certificate by the Earl of Loudoun, a senior Scottish peer—then I’m willing to spend some time going through the Great Seal (and brushing up on my Latin) to find the references you require. I’ll dedicate time this weekend to settle the matter.

Regarding the coat of arms, the title was in the Stewart family for 700 years before being transferred to the professor. It’s normal for the new baron’s arms to reflect features of the previous holders, in this case, the Stewarts.

As for the questions raised by Chaotic Enby and others, we should wait for Daniel Plumber to respond, as he is the founder of the project page. I’d also like to reiterate that I am making an effort to engage with you constructively. Kellycrak88 (talk) 10:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I think I can rest my case, seeing what you just did at Baron of Ardgowan[174]: the article is now claiming that Robert III of Scotland (1337-1406) conferred a title to John Stewart (1364–1412), in the 13th century... You then claim above: "Baronetage titles outrank baronage titles." Really??? Not according to Order of precedence in Scotland or any other article we have on the subject, it seems. And then "It’s normal for the new baron’s arms to reflect features of the previous holders, in this case, the Stewarts." Please directly quote the source on this (you haven't given a page number and I can't access it anyway, I think), as this seems highly dubious when one compares the current arms, File:Baron of Ardgowan.png with what appear to be the Shaw-Stewart arms (no reliable source, but all sources I found agree that it is something like this or this, which has nothing in common with the current arms. Fram (talk) 11:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Please do rest your case! You seem determined to pick holes wherever possible.

Regarding the Order of precedence in Scotland link you sent. Baronets are ranked 12th in precedence, while Scottish barons are ranked 28th.

The Statutes of 1592 and the Baronetcy Warrants of King Charles I show the non-peerage Table of Precedence as: Baronets, Knights, Barons, Lairds, Esquire, and Gentlemen.

Baronial titles are typically used when a landed family does not hold a peerage title of higher rank, or if they have been created a knight of the realm or hold a baronetcy (a hereditary knighthood), which ranks higher than a knight or Scottish baron. This is why individuals who are knighted or hold a baronetcy are often referred to simply as "Sir John Smith" without any reference to the baronial title.

You are correct that the reigning monarch that granted the original title of baron needs reviewing. If the sentence about the arms is contentious, we can remove it and I will stand corrected. It doesn't take away the fact that my point is valid that arms often reflect features of the previous holders, I can find some examples if saying this is also contentious. Kellycrak88 (talk) 12:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

You are right about Baronet being a higher rank than Baron in Scotland, weird. However, then why isn't the page at Baronet of Ardgowan instead of at Baron of Ardgowan? The former has been used for 300+ years (I can find no evidence, apart from the disputed Scottish Register, of a 13th c. creation; the 1402 event was just a land grant, the baronetcy seems to have been created in 1667), the latter is now created for someone completely unrelated to the history or genealogy of the family. The article, like most of your creations, doesn't correctly or adequately cover any of this (again, see e.g. the Baron of Arbroath article, which repeats the history of Arbroath which we already have at that page (and better), but doesn't tell us anything about the history of the barony and the barons). "It doesn't take away the fact that my point is valid that arms often reflect features of the previous holders, I can find some examples if saying this is also contentious." Which is completely irrelevant. The issue is that if you include this in an article as a claim about a specific coat of arms, it must be true for this coat of arms. No one is asking you for examples of other cases where that claim may be true, what would be the purpose? Fram (talk) 13:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

the baronetcy does have a page: Shaw-Stewart baronets - again you're repeating arguments, I've already responded to all these points above and I will dedicated my weekend to find the source crown charters from the Great Seal as you're repeating that the registers are disputed and unreliable (which is quite ridiculous btw) Kellycrak88 (talk) 13:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@Kellycrak88, you were the one to do the mass page move. You shouldn't have to wait for the project founder to answer whether that was discussed on-wiki or off-wiki. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I am not here to care much about the minutiae of Scottish order of precedence. I do, however, care about the fact that there seems to be an entire WikiProject, with tagged articles and everything, hidden in a user sandbox, with most of the coordination seemingly happening off-wiki, resulting in mass undiscussed page moves against title guidelines. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

As someone directly involved in these matters, I believe I have a say on this.

Regarding the WikiProject being housed in my userspace, here’s the relevant notice from Wikipedia on proposing new projects:

"In 2024, we are changing the proposal process to reduce the number of failed attempts at starting groups. While we restructure the pages, please do not propose any new groups. In the meantime, consider the two thousand existing projects or attempt to revive one of the many dormant WikiProjects. If your group cannot wait for the new process, please only create group pages in the userspace of one of your members.".

This is why the project exists in my userspace. It simulates a WikiProject, and once it is successfully proposed, the page will be moved to the mainspace.

I had a plan for a larger project focused on researching the baronage. While this could eventually lead to a formal WikiProject, it currently involves extensive research that cannot be published on Wikipedia. Therefore, keeping it sandboxed until I am ready to present something on Wikipedia seemed ideal.

We centered on a larger project, rather than individual articles. When specific Wikipedia articles needed revision, that was addressed on the project page, emerging organically during our discussions about the broader research. The off-wiki channel has been deleted like 2 weeks ago.

Regarding the "mass move page" initiative, I am not aware of any discussions taking place, either on-wiki or off-wiki. It appears that Kellycrak intends to make those pages resemble proper title pages. While I appreciate their good intentions, I believe this should be discussed first. Additionally, these pages should not be reverted to titles like "Scottish feudal barony of X", as feudal baronies, as a legal entity, have not existed since 2004.

Please feel free to "civilly" ask me any questions, as I am willing to put this to an end, now and forever. All sides have clearly tired of this. I believe this comment sufficiently addresses Daniel's question above. Daniel Plumber (talk) 12:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Therefore, keeping it sandboxed until I am ready to present something on Wikipedia seemed ideal.

Sorry, this was the part that was confusing me, I'm not sure to understand why it was on one side kept sandboxed, and on the other side was already tagging pages in mainspace.

Additionally, these pages should not be reverted to titles like "Scottish feudal barony of X", as feudal baronies, as a legal entity, have not existed since 2004.

It was reverted as an undiscussed page move (WP:RMUM), as the ones that were moved back were extinct historical baronies that had ceased to exist way prior to 2004, and were thus not affected by the change. More generally, I believe that the notability for most of them comes from the place itself (WP:NGEO), even if it ceased to exist as a legal entity (we do have pages on historical subdivisions), rather than the title itself. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

fair point for extinct titles, extant is obviously different Kellycrak88 (talk) 13:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

It was intended to function de facto like an official WikiProject. Pardon my ignorance, but honestly, I am currently unaware of any guidelines or rules that forbid this. Daniel Plumber (talk) 14:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

what's the problem with moving the project over to the mainspace? as we're discussing with administrators here, they probably have the power to do that? Kellycrak88 (talk) 14:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Administrators have technical abilities, but not "powers" to do stuff beyond community consensus (except in straightforward cases). Here, the best bet would be to go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals and formally propose it. In fact, I would be very happy to see it become an official WikiProject, as I see that the group appears well-organized and it would be great to have it in a more visible place. Good luck with it! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

No problem, we're all here to learn! Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide recommends them to be in the project namespace, which would be a great thing for your project, seeing that it is already tagging articles and everything, and appears to have a core of well-motivated editors. If it's formally proposed, I'm pretty sure it could be an official WikiProject pretty easily! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll keep that in mind. By the way, may I ask if it is possible to start a new proposal yet? Daniel Plumber (talk) 11:14, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

The order of precedence reference was in response to Fram, who incorrectly stated that barons rank higher than baronets. It's an easy mistake to make, but I wanted to clarify that it's actually the other way around. This is why the Baronets of Ardgowan, who also held a baronial title, didn’t use their baron title, and likely why it was eventually gifted to the professor. @Chaotic Enby I can’t answer questions about the project being in a user page or sandbox, or why mainspace pages are tagged to a sandbox, so we will need to wait for the project owner to clarify that. However, I can assure you that there were no off-wiki conversations, at least none involving me, about mass page moves. Daniel Plumber’s project page post appears to have been from a couple of weeks ago, while the handful of articles I moved was many months ago, with good intentions. It was not 100 articles without consultation or attempt to deliberately disrupt anything.

As I’ve mentioned above: "the reason for the geographic changes is because, since 2004, baronage titles became non-territorial personal titles, no longer attached to land, as per the Scotland Act 2000 (see the official explanatory notes here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2000/5/notes/division/1/3/6/11). This change has been welcomed by representative bodies for the Baronage of Scotland."

If there had been significant backlash from the community regarding this, it would have surfaced by now. On the contrary, other editors have positively encouraged my efforts to improve these pages, which contributed to the fruiting of the WP:BARONAGE project. Furthermore, I will also add that I am a relatively new editor and I am learning procedures and polices as I go, so a few months ago I was at a different level of Wikipedia procedure as an editor, and today, I certainly wouldn’t move multiple pages without wider consultation. That said, in retrospect, the move has ultimately improved Wikipedia by accurately reflecting this subject matter and widely welcomed. Kellycrak88 (talk) 12:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

The "handful of articles" (more than 30, in fact) were not all "accurately reflecting this subject matter", as many of them were about titles that went extinct way before 2004 and were thus not affected by that law, on top of the moves adding unnecessary disambiguators (things like "(title extinct)" shouldn't be in page titles if there is no need to disambiguate with another identical title).
I am not sure to what extent they were "widely welcomed" (in fact, I haven't seen other editors comment on these page moves at all before today), but there isn't any expiration date for criticism of undiscussed mass page moves to "surface". Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

as mentioned above I see your point regarding extinct feudal baronies, obviously different for extant - feudalism ended in 2004 in Scotland - when the dignity of these titles became protected in law as personal titles, non-territorial no longer attached to the land Kellycrak88 (talk) 13:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I have some familiarity with the peerage and adjacent subjects and I have concerns. Inflated claims surrounding Scottish baronial titles, as they can be bought and sold, is not a new problem. Looking at Baron of Abergeldie, allegedly improved, the first paragraph cites Luxurious Magazine [175] for the claim that the title was created in 1482. Leaving aside whether that source is reliable and independent, it doesn't say that. It doesn't discuss the title at all. It does say that the estate was bestowed on the Gordon family in 1482. Mackensen (talk) 13:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Baron of Abergeldie has been in the same family for 21 generations. The first holder was a Gordon and the current holder a Gordon. Please kindly check all the reference links provided there's over a dozen. I've previously had these discussions at length these families are not selling their heirlooms the full dialogue is here. Kellycrak88 (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I thought I'd have a look through Baron of Abergeldie, being somewhat familiar with the concept of peerages.

• I've no idea what ref. #2 thinks it's citing, because it links only to a home page.
• I can find no mention of Abergeldie in regards to any namesake barony in ref. #3, only mentions of the Gordons of Abergeldie.
• Ref. #4 mentions "the Baron of Abergeldie, John Gordon"
• Ref. #5 mentions "Baron Abergeldie, John Gordon, 76"
• Ref. #6 does not mention the barony.
• Ref. #7 does not mention the barony.
• Ref. #9 Describes Abergeldie as a feudal barony. Looking at the list on the source, these appear to be purchased titles relating to land acquisition?
• Ref. #10 mentions "Baron Abergeldie, 76-year-old John Gordon".

I'm haven't read through this entire discussion, forgive my time constraints, but wish to make several points. Firstly Kellycrak88 is incorrect in saying baronetcies rank higher than baronies. They do not. This obviously differs as to whether one is discussing different peerages, or Scottish lordships which are not part of any peerage.

I usually find an easy way to discover whether a topic is real or notable is to search on Internet Archive. While this can be more troublesome for modern topics, it should not be difficult for a title allegedly created in 1482. Internet Archive provides one result for "Baron of Abergeldie" and one result for "Baron Abergeldie". The one available reliable source, this Burke's, says that John Howard Seton Gordon was recognised as feudal baron in 1965. It should not be difficult to find reliable, detailed, sourced about long-held baronies; that's why most of the articles have existed for over a decade.

I would like to see Kellycrak provide some reliable sources that discuss the barony of Abergeldie. Not the castle, not the Gordon family, nor the Setons, and not the lands. Please illustrate for us this barony, created in 1482 and handed down generation to generation, and its recording within the Scottish peerage. Because I can't tally what the article says and you claim, and what the sources say. Thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe I certainly can -- here you go with full lineage listed in Burke's Peerage 107th Edition:

Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 (note links expired in 24 hours)

I never said it was a Scottish peerage title, it's a Scottish baronage title, which does rank below a baronet. Pre-2004 they were often referred to as feudal barons. Since 2004 the law changed and ended feudalism so that is not the correct term today. Kellycrak88 (talk) 14:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Note my edit to my initial contribution; I realised after the fact that the concentration was not on peerages. My focus was on establishing sources, so I'm now more confused by the fact you clearly have access to at least one reliable source outlining at least the basics, but have chosen to instead fill out the article with blogs, old and unrelated newspaper reports, and tangential websites. Make use of sources like this and clarity will come along much sooner. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, @Pickersgill-Cunliffe, for your diligence and thoughtful comments. I truly appreciate your feedback. I’ve had previous run-ins with Fram, who won't accept Burke's Peerage as a valid source, so I’ve often felt the need to bolster pages with as many credible sources as possible to prove notability. Similarly, as mentioned further up in this thread, DrKay and Fram also dispute the reliability of the Scottish Barony Register and the Registry of Scottish Nobility, despite evidence provided by myself and others that supports their credibility. Kellycrak88 (talk) 14:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not clear to me where I gave the impression that I "won't accept Burke's Peerage as a valid source". I don't claim that the information in there isn't reliable (like all source, it may contain errors, but in general it will be correct probably). Not everything included there may warrant a page (or even a mention) here, it's a lot of genealogy and often little else, but a fact or topic not being suitable for Wikipedia even when mentioned in Burke's doesn't mean that I won't accept it as a valid source. Fram (talk) 14:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Can I buy or borrow a copy of the Scottish Barony Register? If not (as stated by our article on it) it cannot be used as a source. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

As promised, I spent the weekend researching further.

Baron of Arbroath: This title was actually created as a free lordship, barony, and regality (granting the baron high powers, including the authority to impose the death sentence at will). It was created for James, Marquis of Hamilton, providing us with a definitive creation date and monarch [176]. There is also a lot of historical information that can be added.

Baron of Ardgowan: As suspected, I could not find the creation charter. However, this is not uncommon. Until the late 19th century, each new baron required a crown charter from the current monarch (as a feudal superiority) and not all of these are in the public domain. Typically, today's holder would possess the physical originals, which are authenticated by the custodian of the SBR. It is not unusual for some crown charters to be missing or unavailable in public sources. However, I did find a reference to the Barony of Ardgowan (confirming its existence) in the crown charter records of parliament in 1672, where it was assigned to the baronet family in question. Hopefully that's the matter settled. [177]

@Phil Bridger I can send you a copy if you would like. For full transparency, I was sent a copy of the SBR by someone who found my email on my user page. While I understand that only Scottish solicitors are meant to access it, some private individuals have copies. Reflecting on this, it may be a grey area for me to continue referencing it as a source. However, since the RSN requires an SBR certificate or evidence from the Lord Lyon, and considering it's high-standing, I still maintain that the RSN is a credible source and should not be regarded as a self-published website unworthy of citation. Kellycrak88 (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

That an Ardgowan barony existed in 1672 is hardly evidence that it was created in the 13th century (and the article still has the above blatant anachronisms about date vs. monarch and so on). Fram (talk) 08:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

https://archive.org/details/burkeslandedgent0000unse_e7e1/page/1268/mode/2up?q=Ardgowan

Page 1268—Lineage—Among the archives of this ancient family, there are preserved three charters by ROBERT III to Sir JOHN STEWART, his illegitmate son, of the lands of Ardgowan, Blackhall and Auchingoun, in co. Renfrew, dated 1403, 1395 and 1390. These several lands have lineally descended in an uninterrupted course of male succession, from the said Sir John Stewart, to the present Baronet.

Page 1268—JAMES STEWART, of Ardgowan, obtained from JAMES V1 a charter, erecting his lands of Ardgowan, Blackhall and Auchingoun into a BARONY 1576.

I've found an earlier date than 1672, there is reference in this book to a 1575 crown charter erecting Ardgowan into a barony, however that is not to say the SBR custodian may have examined an earlier charter(s) provided by the holder for registration hence the 13th century claim. As we don't know for certain, I will update the creation date to 1575 with reference to this book, until someone comes forward with evidence of an earlier date. Kellycrak88 (talk) 14:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Sending me a copy doesn't publish the source. Publishing is necessary, but not sufficient, to make a source usable on Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

noted Kellycrak88 (talk) 14:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

While I understand that only Scottish solicitors are meant to access it, some private individuals have copies. Reflecting on this, it may be a grey area for me to continue referencing it as a source.

I don't think there's any grey area. A source that is not available to the public is not published, per WP:PUBLISHED, so cannot be used as a source. CodeTalker (talk) 19:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Example of persisting sourcing and other issues

Issues seem to persist. New creation Baron of Ardoch, has now 7 references. 2 and 7 are the same and go to a page which has nothing to do with Ardoch[178]. Presumably this was intended, but in neither instance does it verify any of the flowery text in the paragraphs it supposedly verifies. "He has been described by former UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown as 'an inspiration and a visionary'." is taken literally from the source[179]. Which is still better than the next line, "Since assuming the title, he has maintained the estate's legacy and continues to oversee its cultural significance." which has two sources, neither of which support this vapid promo language. More copyvio? Sure, "one of Scotland's landed gentry, owning thousands of acres in his estates" comes straight from this source, not even given as an attribution. Similarly, the description "politician, a successful merchant and Lord Rector of the University of Glasgow" comes straight from here. And of course the anachronisms again, the infobox claims "creation date 1707" and "created by Robert III of Scotland" who died more than 300 years earlier. Fram (talk) 11:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

For Canmore that's not the link, the link on the page: https://canmore.org.uk/site/45934/ardoch-house which for some reason is now redirecting to the wrong page, yes the correct link https://canmore.org.uk/site/104668/ardoch-house as you mentioned.

Regarding the Gordon Brown book reference quote it looks credible to me, especially considering there are dozens of other sources to choose from.

Google search "Gordon Brown an inspiration and a visionary Tommy MacKay" and browse through all the results, news articles include the Glasgow Times and book references -- I thought we already discussed less is more, if you want me to load up the article with countless references I can do that but there appears to be a difference of opinion on this. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

The other notable Lairds, who are very notable individuals have full wikipedia pages they're very much established historical figures. So adding those descriptions for who they are does not seem ill founded:

• Robert Graham Of Gartmore, 15th Laird (1735–1797) politician, a successful merchant and Lord Rector of the University of Glasgow
• Robert Bontine Cunninghame Graham, 19th Laird president of the Scottish Labour Party; a founder of the National Party of Scotland in 1928; one of Scotland's landed gentry, owning thousands of acres in his estates
• Admiral Sir Angus Cunninghame Graham, 20th Laird (1893–1981)

I think you'll find that the information from Tommy Mackay's personal website comes straight from wikipedia. The two sentences you claim I've plagiarised "politician, a successful merchant and Lord Rector of the University of Glasgow" and "one of Scotland's landed gentry, owning thousands of acres in his estates" from Tommy Mackay's website are 12 words each which if that is a copyright violation from the man's personal website, then I will reorder those so they're entirely unique. You mention I don't reference note his website, but as personal web site connected to the subject my understand is that it's a conflict of interest so it's not referenced. However, I did include a link in the external links section as the website it's quite relevant and interesting for the subject matter.

Robert III of Scotland granted the lands in 1398 and later it was raised to a barony as explained in the lead I quote:

The lands of Ardoch trace back to 1398, when Robert III of Scotland granted the lands to Finlaw Buntyn, marking the beginning of the estate's long history. In 1707 the lands were erected into the Barony of Ardoch

Hence there are 21 Lairds of the estate that date back to 1398 even though it was only raised to a barony in 1707 the baron title doesn't appear to have been used (holding knighthoods or liberal politician reasons or tradition possibly) except for the current holder who was recognised by the Lord Lyon. I'll review the page again to ensure it's clear. Kellycrak88 (talk) 11:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

As we are clearly talking past each other, I hope some others will chime in and explain to whoever needs explaining what they are doing or interpreting incorrectly. Fram (talk) 13:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I thought we already discussed less is more, if you want me to load up the article with countless references I can do that but there appears to be a difference of opinion on this. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I am very confused by what you mean here. The issue is not that you need more sources for that sentence to be credible (in 99% of cases, you shouldn't need more than one source for a given claim), it's that you are literally copy-pasting it instead of writing it in your own words, which constitutes a copyright violation.

The other notable Lairds, who are very notable individuals have full wikipedia pages they're very much established historical figures. So adding those descriptions for who they are does not seem ill founded

Passing Wikipedia's "notability" criterion (which really just means there are enough secondary sources to write an encyclopedic article) doesn't automatically justify the use of flowery language to describe the individuals. We should strive to be objective, which means avoiding peacock words.

The two sentences you claim I've plagiarised [...] from Tommy Mackay's website are 12 words each which if that is a copyright violation from the man's personal website, then I will reorder those so they're entirely unique.

Yes, that's copyvio. Please reword them in your own words, avoiding close paraphrasing. If you have evidence that these sentences (not just the information, the specific wording) was copied from Wikipedia, then it isn't copyvio, but that evidence should be presented upfront. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Kellycrak88, please explain how this source verifies "Over the centuries, Ardoch became a key estate in the region, serving as an important seat of power. Ardoch House was constructed on the estate in the late 18th century, replacing an earlier medieval structure used by the family from the 1300s." or "Ardoch House, built in the late 18th century, is the seat of the barony. This Georgian estate replaced an earlier medieval house and serves as a testament to the estate's long-standing heritage. The house is recognised for its historical value and stands as a key landmark in Dumbartonshire". Fram (talk) 16:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

This is just plain harassment Fram, don't you have anything better to be than focusing all your efforts and time on me?

The caput of the Barony of Ardoch is Ardoch House hence it's the seat of the barony.

The source from the Canmore website (the National Record of Scotland’s database for historical sites) says quite clearly that Ardoch House was built in the late 18th century on the site of a previous medieval structure. It says the estate was originally associated with the Buntein family replacing an older medieval tower and mansion used by the Buntine family, the original lairds of the estate, from the 1300s and the Georgian-era mansion replaced earlier fortifications. Click through on the page an read for yourself in the original Ordinance Survey index card on the Canmore website: https://canmore.org.uk/collection/2424345

Canmore also references Ardoch House in these books (among others): [180]

Coventry, M. (2008) Castles of the Clans: the strongholds and seats of 750 Scottish families and clans. Musselburgh. Page(s): 237 RCAHMS Shelf Number: F.5.21.COV

RCAHMS. (1978d) The archaeological sites and monuments of Dumbarton District, Clydebank District, Bearsden and Milngavie District, Strathclyde Region, The archaeological sites and monuments of Scotland series no 3. Edinburgh. Page(s): 16, no.91 RCAHMS Shelf Number: A.1.2.ARC(3)

Furthermore, the official website of Tommy MacKay, the current Baron of Ardoch, offers insight into the history of the estate. It outlines the evolution of the house and its role as the seat of the Barony of Ardoch, describing how the Georgian house replaced the earlier medieval residence. While this source cannot be cited directly in a Wikipedia article, it is a helpful corroborate reference for background research. More details can be found on the estate here: Tommy MacKay of Ardoch – History

@Chaotic Enby No, the issue if you read what Fram said is he's stating the Gordon Brown quote is not a credible source, there are dozens of sources available as I showed in the google search result above, I picked one and can also add the other twelve if needed (but other editors advised less is more). Nothing has been copyvio, everything written to best of my knowledge I've written uniquely for the page. Except for the two 12 word description sentences which Fram matched to the personal web site. So please kindly explain to me how would put into your own words (avoiding close paraphrasing!): "politician, a successful merchant and Lord Rector of the University of Glasgow" the second part of the sentence the words Lord Rector of the University of Glasgow that being the man's title is that copyvio in your opinion? It's also a majority of the words in the sentence. I've now changed it to "a politician, a prosperous merchant, and the Lord Rector of the University of Glasgow" but I would love to be shown how's it done. Kellycrak88 (talk) 17:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Fram said "He has been described by former UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown as 'an inspiration and a visionary'." is taken literally from the source[79]. (triple nested quotation!) The preceding sentence, Presumably this was intended, but in neither instance does it verify any of the flowery text in the paragraphs it supposedly verifies., clearly refers to a separate source linked in that very sentence. Again, no need to add other sources, the issue is the straight copy-paste.

Regarding the "how to put in my own words", I'd start by removing "successful" or "prosperous", as that doesn't add information about his role. Looking at his own article (which you can check, sources there might be useful here too, although some of it is unsourced) and other sources, "merchant" appears to be a euphemism for "slave owner and trader" (e.g. [181]), and he seems to be more known for his poetry than for his brief tenure as Lord Rector of that university. More generally, it is always best to look at multiple sources to see how to best describe an individual, rather than take the first description you find. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, I did miss that sentence, then are quotes allowed on Wikipedia if there is an issue with copyvio? How would you rewrite the Gordon Brown quote? Also very fair pointers on looking for other angles of descriptor—thank you for the constructive feedback. Kellycrak88 (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Quotes are allowed, provided they are explicitly attributed as quotes and not more than a few sentences long at most. They shouldn't be reworded. (Wikipedia:Non-free content#Text and WP:COPYQUOTE explain this better than me) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

and to clarify, are you saying you would avoid referring to him as Lord Rector of the University of Glasgow for fear of copyvio? Kellycrak88 (talk) 18:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

No? That wouldn't be copyvio (that's the title of the position itself), I am just saying that it isn't the best way to describe him as it doesn't seem to be what he is the most notable for. If I had to pick, I would describe him as "politician, poet, and slave plantation owner". Or, if we want to be more precise, "Jamaica slave holder, poet, and Member of Parliament for Stirlingshire". Or any of many similar wordings. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Kellycrak88 claims, when challenged on his sourcing: The source from the Canmore website (the National Record of Scotland’s database for historical sites) says quite clearly that Ardoch House was built in the late 18th century on the site of a previous medieval structure. It says the estate was originally associated with the Buntein family replacing an older medieval tower and mansion used by the Buntine family, the original lairds of the estate, from the 1300s and the Georgian-era mansion replaced earlier fortifications. Click through on the page an read for yourself in the original Ordinance Survey index card on the Canmore website: https://canmore.org.uk/collection/2424345

Issues with this include:

• The source used in the article[182] is not the source they use here, they are just housed on the same website.
• The source used in the article is not even about the same "Ardoch House.
• The source they now use as justification[183] states: "Ardoch House (in ruins). In front of this farmhouse (Ardochmore) is situated the Old Mansion of Ardoch. it was built about the beginning of the 17th century". It also states that the mansion disappeared about 1874 and that no remains survive. It says nothing at all which matches what Kellycrak88 supposedly read on that page, apart from the connection with the Bunteins.

They clearly can't be trusted to read or present sources correctly. It seems highly irresponsible to let them continue editing in the mainspace. Fram (talk) 09:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Fram - the updated source https://canmore.org.uk/site/104668/ardoch-house is your link you provided in your message above. Hence you provided a wrong link, and I made a mistake of not thoroughly checking your link past the title. I guess I assumed you always thoroughly check everything with a fine tooth comb considering your engagements with me.

https://canmore.org.uk/site/42373/ardoch-house this link is where I originally read some of the info. Also as mentioned above there are book references mentioned and Mackay's site for confirming the correct address for Ardoch House.

I feel your approach in these discussions has been less constructive and more focused on targeting my contributions (and others) specifically with an agenda attached to Baronage articles—where you've previously expressed personal bias. Your comments and reverts appear to be more about attempting to control others "a power trip" than providing users genuine feedback to learn from or improvements to the content. Other users in this thread and other discussions have also noted similar concerns.

Before this admin request of yours to restrict my account, you’ve consistently monitoring my contributions and reverted them, often adding comments that appear designed to disrupt rather than help improve the articles. Some of your points have been valid, while others, as I’ve addressed above, have not. Even when your feedback is accurate, the way you deliver it comes off as antagonistic, more in line with bullying than with constructive criticism. This kind of persistent interference feels like harassment, and I respectfully request that you stop.

If the administrators support this continued behaviour, I will have to reconsider my contributions to this community. My goal has always been to contribute positively and improve my work, and I’ve always welcomed constructive feedback, but it’s difficult to do so under constant scrutiny.

I urge the administrators to carefully consider the implications of enabling such targeted actions. Kellycrak88 (talk) 12:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

You said "late 18th century". It says "beginning of the 17th century". That is totally different. The content is therefore not supported. Furthermore, there is no mention of the barony anywhere in the source. It therefore does not belong in the article on the barony. This is textbook original research and should be removed or sourced to reliable independent secondary sources that explicitly support the article content. DrKay (talk) 13:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes you're correct on the date, however on the baron's web site the address (see footer) and his profile in Burke's Peerage the barony seat is Ardoch House, Cardross, Dumbartonshire G82 5EW -- which matches the Canmore source page location. Also a google map search does show a building at the post code. DrKay please free to update the page with dates or remove whatever you deem necessary thank you. Kellycrak88 (talk) 13:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Your entire response here to DrKay's concern that you are offering "textbook original research" is to offer more original research. Grandpallama (talk) 14:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

My goal has always been to contribute positively and improve my work, and I’ve always welcomed constructive feedback, but it’s difficult to do so under constant scrutiny. What is this nonsense? Multiple editors here have agreed there are concerns with your editing and handling of sourcing, and your response to the uncovering of these issues is that you should be allowed to edit without scrutiny? That's the sort of tendentious attitude that gets accounts sanctioned. Grandpallama (talk) 14:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

No, I believe you've misunderstood my point. Please take a moment to read my full response for the whole context. My comment about scrutiny was specifically addressing the targeting by one user, Fram, over the past few months. To be very clear, I fully welcome having my contributions reviewed and impoved by other editors—that’s the essence of collaboration on Wikipedia. Kellycrak88 (talk) 14:41, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

It is not harassment to track a user's contributions for policy violations. You have repeatedly demonstrated an unwillingness to adhere to wikipedia's verifiability and no original research policies, so it is not unreasonable to check your contributions for such problems. Just above here I again advised you to restrict yourself to reliable independent secondary sources that explicitly support the article content. Your response was to introduce a self-published website from someone with a conflict of interest and to link that to another source in a synthesis of published material. You have been repeatedly told by multiple users that this is not acceptable. DrKay (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Fram’s interactions are certainly not all related to policy violations, as you're suggesting. I am not deliberately or repeatedly failing to adhere to Wikipedia’s verifiability and no original research policies, as you’ve accused. The baron’s personal website is not listed as a reference in the article, as I’ve already mentioned above, because as I said above that would be a conflict of interest. I brought it up here only to provide context for our conversation. Regarding the Canmore source, it does state that the mansion is demolished, which is why I checked the postcode in Google Maps to verify its actually there. Additionally, I’ve referred to reliable sources like Burke’s Peerage, which confirms Ardoch House as the barony seat. This isn’t about violating original research rules but rather addressing the proposal from Fram to restrict or shut down my account. That's what we're discussing.

That said, I’m feeling exhausted and will be stepping back from Wikipedia for a while. I trust you’ll make the decisions you believe are best. Kellycrak88 (talk) 15:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Proposal: Kellycrak88 mainspace blocked

In light of the above, showing the continuing issues with WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:COPYVIO even after multiple attempts to corret this behaviour, I propose to block User:Kellycrak88 from the mainspace to give them a chance to edit in sandboxes, draftspaces, or through edit requests on talk pages, where they can show that they can contribute while following these policies. Fram (talk) 12:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

My closing statement: I understand the concerns raised, but I believe this proposal is disproportionate and serves to further Fram's ongoing agenda to control and restrict contributions, particularly related to the Baronage project, due to Fram's proven personal bias against these titles. Not only my account but also other editors in the Baronage project, as other editors above have noted. I have taken feedback very seriously and I'm committed to improving my knowledge and adherence to Wikipedia's guidelines. As a new editor, I acknowledge that I’ve made mistakes, but I have always been open to constructive feedback, learning, and improving with each edit.

Last week, I left an olive branch message on Fram’s Talk page as a gesture of goodwill, in the hope that we could move past the tension and engage constructively. Unfortunately, this effort has not lead to any change in approach, as they continue to attack me from every possible angle they can find, instead of engaging constructively with me directly, reinforcing my belief that this issue stems more from personal bias than content-related concerns.

Blocking my account from mainspace and limiting me to sandboxes, draftspaces, or edit requests would severely hinder my ability to contribute meaningfully and collaborate with the community. It would effectively disengage me from the community. It could also be perceived as enabling Fram’s attempts to shut down my account for reasons that extend beyond content-related concerns, and I believe the community should consider whether such actions are productive or fair.

I would instead appreciate the opportunity to continue working on articles under the guidance of experienced editors or my mentor, @Asilvering, who has been instrumental in helping me navigate Wikipedia’s policies. This approach would be far more constructive in helping me refine my editing practices and comply with all necessary standards.

To date, I’ve created around 20 pages and made substantial contributions to articles on Irish history, Georgian buildings, historical sites, biographies, and titles of nobility. I respectfully ask that administrators consider a more balanced and constructive approach that encourages growth and collaboration. Restricting my account, particularly when I’ve demonstrated a willingness to learn and improve, would not only hinder my efforts but also send a message that good-faith contributions are less valued than control over others.

I hope the administrators will take these points into careful consideration as they assess the situation. As mentioned in my last post, I am taking a break from wikipedia and but I do hope that I will be able to return as an editor on equal standing in the community.

Oppose - I humbly and respectfully request that the motion to block my account from the mainspace not be passed at this time. Instead, I ask that I be given the benefit of the doubt and a second chance to continue improving under guidance. I can assure the community that these issues will not happen again, but if concerns were to persist in the future, any editor is welcome to raise this issue again for further review. Kellycrak88 (talk) 13:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

My involvement so far has mostly been restricted to answering Kellycrak88's direct questions, but I can of course get more directly involved with the content. @Kellycrak88, I would suggest that you voluntarily begin new articles in draftspace instead of mainspace while there are outstanding questions about your editing, as a show of good faith. -- asilvering (talk) 17:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering thank you for your thoughtful advice and offering to review my work. Congratulations on recently being voted in as an admin – there's no one more fitting for the role. While I don’t agree with Fram's proposal, I’m happy to start new articles in draftspace for review and input by you as a show of good faith and this will ensure I'm meeting all necessary standards. This will allow me to continue contributing productively and level up my editing, while addressing any concerns. As mentioned earlier, I’m stepping back from Wikipedia for a while, but when I return, I’ll be in touch with you. Kellycrak88 (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Support: There seem to be quite serious issues with WP:CIR here. Also, despite the advice given above re: WP:COPYVIO, I noticed that the user's article for Newhall House and Estate still consists primarily of direct lifts from other websites - an issue which the user would obviously have been aware of but made no attempt to resolve despite his various commitments above to learn, improve, address concerns, etc. etc. etc.

I'd also point out that the intention of the relevant project is apparently to produce 300-400 articles, as stated here [184]. Given the repeated issues mentioned above I'd suggest that that is an endeavour that this community would do well to prevent in some way. Or, at the very least, robust measures should be put in place to stop it from becoming a monumental timesink. Axad12 (talk) 10:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

As a subsidiary point here…

When new users arise and seem to have a primary interest in the large-scale creation of articles in relation to intangibles which are bought and sold (the mechanics of which they seem to be very well versed in), I begin to wonder if there is perhaps some element of conflict of interest involved.

Similarly, it must inevitably raise concerns when the project is apparently limited to vetted ‘official participants’ [185] and was set up with the intention that communication would be conducted off wiki. This is all the more the case when plausible concerns over sock or meat puppetry have been raised in relation to the participants [186] [187] by user:DrKay. The project talkpage discussions between the various participants look rather constructed to me [188], with various characteristics being shared between different users (starting sentences with lower case letters, use of hyphens, occasional failure to use full stops/periods), especially when different accounts respond shortly after the previous post.

Similarly COI concerns are bound to arise when a user has placed his email address on his talk page (presumably to allow non-Wikipedia account holders to also contact him off wiki) and has produced articles such as these [189] [190] [191].

I must admit I’m somewhat concerned about this project. I wonder if further investigation might be in order? Axad12 (talk) 11:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Regarding your subsidiary note. As discussed at length previously they can be bought and sold, but from my knowledge there is no market 1 or 2 or 0 sales per year, looking at the history of barons in sources like Burke’s peerage these families are not selling their heirlooms. I welcome an investigation as I can assure you as I’ve stated previously, and I reiterate I’m not involved in multiple accounts and I have zero conflict of interest. The articles you’ve quoted above are all well referenced, although I can improve upon knowing polices I now know. One is for a a very notable celebrity London nightclub owner who has been in the press every week, the other is a german baron the page is translated from the already existing german Wikipedia page and the other is a notable lord who has a plethora of press as a billionaire and was in a UK reality TV show for his flashy life. Kellycrak88 (talk) 12:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

With regard to the issues with your project, it seems to me that it has been created (and conducted) in such a way that it appears to be exceptionally dodgy. I make no apologies for pointing that out.

As for the articles you mention..

Your very poor record on sourcing stands for itself,

It would be interesting to see if the notability stands up,

It seems to me that there are blatant WP:PROMO elements in the articles, e.g. his venues cater to celebrities and royals, and he opened a new VIP spot, and The venue garnered attention for its friendly exclusive atmosphere, exotic cocktails, and royalty and the awards section in the Nick House article.

Meanwhile approximately half of the Sam Malin article consists of this jumble: He was supposedly an investor and president of Burke's Peerage in 2017 but there is no proof of directorship or ownership on Companies House, only Tatler press articles.[2][3] He also does not have a Burke's Peerage profile.[4]. Wikipedia reports facts supported by sources, not observations from your own research. Axad12 (talk) 13:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your concerns and I welcome any investigation into the notability of the articles I’ve contributed to. Transparency is key on Wikipedia, and I am more than happy for the notability of these subjects to be evaluated. Everything I have done is open to review, and I will ensure that any necessary improvements are made in line with Wikipedia’s guidelines. Kellycrak88 (talk) 13:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, "transparency is key" and everything "is open to review". Except, of course, when it is conducted off-wiki by a group of accounts who have been accused of being sock or meat puppets. When that happens things become rather opaque.

Interestingly, your response above scores a 95% likelihood of being AI generated at gptzero.me (it says "We are highly confident this text was AI generated"). Is that the key to many of the issues above?

I'd wondered how you'd intended to write 300-400 poorly sourced articles, but I suppose we now have the answer to that. Axad12 (talk) 13:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

By comparison, most of your contributions to this thread score about 3%-5% likelihood of AI (except for the long "Closing Statement" above which also records a high score).

Let's be honest here, only an exceptionally bad faith editor would use AI to create a post saying that "transparency is key". Axad12 (talk) 14:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

As I’ve already stated I’m not part of any off-wiki conversations! It’s not me intending to write 300-400 articles it’s a group effort there are many committed editors in the project. What happened to assuming good faith?! Kellycrak88 (talk) 14:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

There are not "many committed editors in the project", what nonsense. At the moment there are just 4 participants listed on the project page (and whether they are all independent end users would seem to be a matter of some doubt). In your responses above you've done yourself no favours. Good faith is not extended to users who lie (as below), use AI to talk about 'transparency' and continually try to evade whatever point the previous post was raising. Axad12 (talk) 14:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I have not lied, and I’m not here to engage in confrontation. The project page is a sandbox on Plumber’s page and hasn’t even launched yet and doesn’t include many other involved editors. If you look at the Scottish clans project page it has many committed editors that have a shared interest in Scottish barons. You obviously have your motives to keep attacking me but I’m opting out now. Get outside, enjoy the sun, it’s a sunny weekend. It’s clear that we don’t see eye to eye on this matter, so I’ll step back from discussion this with you for now. All the best Kellycrak88 (talk) 14:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. Maybe you could spend some time removing all the copyvio and promo text from your articles instead, along with all the non-WP:RS sources? Perhaps out in the garden if the sun is shining... Axad12 (talk) 14:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully, you can't really "opt out" of other people discussing your contributions. Wikipedia is a collaborative endeavor, not some place where people can "agree to disagree" and stay in their corners.

And I don't think you can have a project that is "still a sandbox" and "hasn't even launched", but on the other side has already tagged tens of pages and is creating hundreds of new ones. On the one hand, you say that It’s not me intending to write 300-400 articles it’s a group effort there are many committed editors in the project, and on the other hand, that the project hasn’t even launched yet and doesn’t include many other involved editors. Either you have an actual project, or you have a sandbox, you can't have the benefits of both and the responsibilities of neither. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I’m out with friends at a garden party I said “for now” I can’t keep responding right now it’s rude to the people I’m with, but I had to jump in with today’s replies when I’m being called a liar and inaccurate statements are being made. I’m happy to reply again tomorrow or next week. As stated above, it’s not my project it’s Daniel Plumber, you need to address with him regarding making it an official project. He already stated Wikipedia is not allowing new projects at this time hence he started it in sandbox. Please chat with him. Kellycrak88 (talk) 16:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Per my comments above, I would also support further investigation in the organization of the project, although I make no comment about the sockpuppetry claims. The project appears to only "simulate a WikiProject" by staying in a user sandbox instead of being publicly available, while at the same time is already tagging pages and coordinating large-scale article creation. If it is to be an active WikiProject, it should be in project space and have all the responsibilities of one, including full transparency and visibility in WikiProject listings. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. I think clarification is urgently required on one point. The project was originally set up to be run using off-wiki communication. Kellycrak88 claims never to have been involved in any off-wiki communication, however...

a) he also claims to have been sent a document off-wiki (presumably from a project member rather than a random member of the general public).

b) he also claims that he made the page moves on this own say-so and has no idea if the matter was discussed off-wiki. So, either he was under the impression that presumably quite extensive discussion was taking place off-wiki, which he was not party to despite apparently being the most active member of the project, or he made significant project decisions without feeling the need to discuss with other project members. Are either of these scenarios plausible?

c) he also claims that the project intends to produce 300-400 articles and that most of those articles won't be created by him. That being the case, is it really feasible that he arrived at such an ambitious figure without discussion with other project members?

So, has there been off-wiki communication or not? And if not then how has the project been co-ordinated apart from the very meagre (and, by the looks of things, constructed) discussions on the talkpage, which only date from 19th August onwards? Also, if there has been no off-wiki communication, then how are we to interpret the events that have led to plausible accusations of sock puppetry / meat puppetry? Finally, are we really to believe that the two most active members of this project (Kellycrak88 & Daniel Plumber) have never been in any form of significant communication? Axad12 (talk) 17:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Interesting talk page discussion here [192] between Kelly, D Plumber and apparently the holder of a title. Kellycrak88 directly states to the title holder I suggest we create a dedicated Earl of Wigtoun page (including the subsidiary Cumbernauld) which is separate from the peerage page. We need history of the title (probably already provided to you by BH), list of holders, family details, armorials etc. Lots of credible reference links will be needed for it to be approved by other editors. Feel free to email me, my email is on my page. Also, later Can you please send me history PDF for the barony you received from BH and I'll get started on the dedicated pages. Looks like blatant COI to me to be having a direct discussion with an individual about setting up a page for them.

Also, Kellycrak88 states I can no longer edit the peerage page as there are other editors that are against baronage titles claiming that holders are not notable and should not be on wikipedia, including some administrators, that refer to these titles as fakes and not real, etc. It is not good idea to edit peerage pages at all in my opinion. Dedicated baronage pages are needed. This presumably clarifies the purpose of setting up the new pages, to avoid scrutiny at existing pages. Similarly editing peerage pages is a receipt for disaster. Dedicated baronage pages needed with lots of credible references.

Not sure what this quote is supposed to mean: Just personal opinion - most articles died out early through the AfC (Articles for Creation) submission process, and a direct creation would likely be "raided" by Fram. I recall that somehow David Willien (IP address) was able to retain most of the information on the Earl of Erroll article - not sure though, haven't checked lately.

Two weeks earlier the holder of the title at the top of this post had been the subject of a discussion here [193] between Kelly, Plumber and Fram where it was decided that the holder should not be included in the currently existing article. See also, canvassing email from Plumber to Kelly to attend that discussion here [194], quote: I'm not good at arguing, so I'm here to ask you if you could do the job?.

Hopefully the notes above adequately clarify what is going on in this project. Axad12 (talk) 20:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

P.S.: Off-wiki evidence suggests that the named IP address user mentioned directly above appears to be another title holder. Axad12 (talk) 20:37, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

P.P.S.: Off-wiki evidence suggests that the 'BH' (also referred to as 'Brian') in the talk thread may also be linked to Scottish barony matters. Axad12 (talk) 21:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I think it is best for the off-wiki evidence (and conclusions drawn from it) to be emailed to ArbCom, rather than exposed here. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

To be honest I don't think there is really any need for the off-wiki evidence. The talk page evidence above is surely sufficient to demonstrate the project's activities. What was going on in the off-wiki discussions, and why they felt it necessary to initially conduct communications off-wiki and exclude outsiders seems perfectly apparent, i.e. at a minimum, COI activity, attempts to circumvent standard scrutiny and procedures, and canvassing.

And that list excludes the various issues first raised by Fram, DrKay, etc. Axad12 (talk) 21:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree, either way there's definitely a level of COI editing and canvassing. Creating new pages for the purpose of avoiding scrutiny at existing ones is also certainly problematic, especially if other users explicitly doubted the notability of these subjects. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think that the issues here are rather beyond those that would be dealt with by the user voluntarily not installing new articles into mainspace. It would be far better if either (a) both Kelly and Plumber were given topic bans, or (b) if the project was disbanded and all future barony related activity had to be done under the auspices of an already established project where behavioural norms could be expected to be adhered to and other users within that project could oversee what was going on. E.g. no creation of new articles to avoid scrutiny at existing ones that fall under a different project. Axad12 (talk) 14:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

There is already the established Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage which has the whole United Kingdom and Ireland in scope, and already has detailed guidelines and objectives. The currently discussed project appears to duplicate part of it, and it could be good to consider a merge into WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage, possibly by making it a task force. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Sounds logical. I wonder what would be required to shut down the current (unofficial?) project and merge it into that established project? We really can't have a situation where editors are permitted to set up a new project (and new articles) to avoid the scrutiny of the members of an existing project. That sort of endeavour needs to be stopped and dismantled. Axad12 (talk) 16:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Does this now mean you’re finally conceding I’m not involved with multiple accounts??

Again, I reiterate: I’m not involved in any real-time private chats on WhatsApp or otherwise regarding Wikipedia.

Full transparency and I believe I explained this many times, I have received emails and direct messages. Did you know it’s possible to direct message any user on Wikipedia? Yes, random users do message or email me documents, including the SBR register or a barony PDF written by a professional historian or letters patent proof of barony owner etc. If that is a crime to receive mail then I must apologise but reading up on polices it doesn’t seem so! Btw Wikipedia:External_discussion Off site is not banned! Also fully transparency I do remember having 2 hour phone call because someone sent me their number and it was very pleasurable chat—and no I did not create a page for them! The phone call was with the Marquis of Huntly. I recall he was concerned about his privacy along with educating me on the subject.

When I first noticed Plumber’s edits, he was adding baronage titles to peerage pages, and I specifically said that wasn’t a good idea because it would cause issues for multiple reasons. I said dedicated baronage pages are needed. My intention was not to avoid scrutiny, as you’re suggesting. In fact, a new page gets reviewed several times even when posted to mainspace—far more scrutiny than a simple edit. (Baronage titles differ from peerage titles and it's a matter of record that people get confused when the same title is added on the same WP page).

I have never suggested excluding outsiders—and Plumber wasn’t implying that either.

And YES! I made the page moves without off-wiki discussions, and my recent batch of pages was entirely on my initiative. I know you find that hard to believe but it’s true!

There are some 400 baronage titles. That’s why I mentioned the figure 300-400 pages, and again, I didn’t discuss that figure with others.

It seems we’ve reached an impasse in this discussion. While I understand that you may have concerns, I protest against the assumptions being made about my character and intentions. I’ve tried to address each point in good faith, but I’m increasingly sensing that this is turning into an unproductive exchange.

I don’t care anymore, some users here have the sole obvious intention of creating speculative accusations and conspiracy theories to destroy my character, silence my account and suppress a genuine Wikipedia project. Kellycrak88 (talk) 20:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Does this now mean you’re finally conceding I’m not involved with multiple accounts?? I don't remember ever claiming you had multiple accounts? My only concerns were about the organization of the WikiProject and possible off-wiki coordination.

If that is a crime to receive mail then I must apologise but reading up on polices it doesn’t seem so! Btw Wikipedia:External_discussion Off site is not banned! What you are linking is an essay, not a policy, but it does state:

As a note of caution, using external forums to make decisions about Wikipedia content is frowned upon (see the guidance Consensus-building pitfalls and errors). This is particularly true if discussion fails to take place on the wiki as well, to allow people to participate equally even if they were unaware of the off-wiki discussion.

I don’t care anymore, some users here have the sole obvious intention of creating speculative accusations and conspiracy theories to destroy my character, silence my account and suppress a genuine Wikipedia project. People are not here to get you or silence you or your project, only to have more clarity about something that appears to have been partly organized off-wiki. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your sentiments but In @Axad12’s response above they’re suggesting to you — that Kelly and Plumber are topic banned, and the project be disbanded. Kellycrak88 (talk) 23:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

It’s not “despite the advice given above”—I must protest! You’re referring to the very first article I published when I initially registered my account, about an Irish historic Georgian house. Of course, knowing what I know now, I can improve the article so that it meets standards and withstands scrutiny. I will also review all my work to ensure it adheres to Wikipedia’s guidelines. You forget that I’m a new user learning the ropes, and it’s concerning that you seem to share an agenda to suppress my account and prevent the publishing of articles on a subject matter that others in the community find valuable. That myself and many others contribute to.

If this motion is opposed, the end result will be that I will become the most policy- and guideline-adhering Wikipedian. I am now fully aware of the procedures, have the guidance of a mentor, and realise I’m under scrutiny and on a last chance to get things 100% correct before contributing further to Wikipedia. Kellycrak88 (talk) 12:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

What I said was that you created an article which was primarily constructed from material lifted from elsewhere, and since then "Despite the advice [on COPYVIO] given above" you've "made no attempt to resolve [the issue on that article] despite [your] various commitments above to learn, improve, address concerns, etc. etc. etc."

I'm not sure what there is to protest about. What I said was manifestly true. Any suggestion to the contrary is a blatant lie.

As for your ridiculous claims that I "share an agenda to suppress [your] account", when will you stop making such nonsensical groundless accusations against editors who raise perfectly valid concerns? Axad12 (talk) 12:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

No, it was my very first article, you’re not acknowledging that fact and or the fact that since then my commitment to becoming a more competent editor. I welcome constructive feedback, but it feels like you’re not considering the progress I’ve made and the steps I’m taking. It’s important to give new editors the opportunity to learn and grow rather than simply dismissing them based on initial mistakes. Kellycrak88 (talk) 14:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself, I said that since you were told about COPYVIO you have done nothing to remove the extensive COPYVIO from that article. It doesn't matter whether it was your first article or your most recent article - either way you did nothing to resolve the issue.

This isn't about 'initial mistakes', it's something you didn't do in the last week.

I'm really not sure why you're continuing to argue this point. I suppose it's either WP:CIR or WP:IDHT. Axad12 (talk) 14:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I’ve removed the copyvio and requested rev-del. We shouldn’t let known copyright violations persist. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose There's obviously plenty of room for improvement as Kellycrak88 themself owns to, but that's an improvement already, so with a bit more due care and attention I think preventative sanctions can be avoided—and retaining a potentially useful editor is always a better result than throwing one out, unless absolutely unavoidable. SerialNumber54129 13:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support, off-wiki coordination of an aspiring wiki project is the kind of thing that normally warrants an indef, but I think this gives the user the benefit of at least a bit of doubt. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:29, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

It’s incredibly unfair how I’ve been treated throughout this process. I have zero conflict of interest, yet here I’ve been called a liar, accused of being a meat puppet, accused of operating multiple accounts, accused of masterminding off-wiki private chat channels and now facing claims of commercial incentives—all completely UNTRUE and without any proof! People here are going down rabbit holes of speculation concocting conspiracy wonderlands. I am 100% neutral with no connection to any page I’ve contributed to besides my willingness to contribute to subject matters which I'm knowledgeable about and enjoy. Trust is a two-way street, and at this stage, I feel very let down by the community. Given the way things have unfolded, I’m left questioning why I should continue participating in a community that seems to have disregarded that basic principle. Kellycrak88 (talk) 20:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

You now say (above) that your intention was not to avoid scrutiny, as [I’m] suggesting, but you’ve already stated elsewhere [195] that you can no longer edit the peerage page as there are other editors that are against baronage titles claiming that holders are not notable and should not be on Wikipedia […] It is not a good idea to edit peerage pages at all in my opinion. Dedicated baronage pages are needed. So, your intention to avoid scrutiny was clear.

Creating a new page for a different group of people to scrutinise, rather than the group of people who you already know disagree with you, is still trying to avoid scrutiny. If, as you say, your intention is to learn and improve, why not just take the issue on board and stop trying to create new articles to avoid scrutiny at existing pages?

Also, you’re now saying (again above) that you did participate in off-wiki conversations and that that is allowed. But only a few days ago you were protesting, and not for the first time, I’m not part of any off-wiki conversations.

And you still claim to have zero conflict of interest even though the relevant talkpage conversation (link above) makes the COI quite clear.

So, the concept that you’ve been less than truthful is easily demonstrable, and sadly that makes it difficult to take some of your other comments at face value. This has a bearing on your claims to be learning and improving. Rather than accepting the legitimate policy issues that have been raised throughout this thread you routinely deny having done or said things that you can be shown to have done or said, and then you deny that you've done anything wrong and claim that all suggestions to the contrary are personally motivated conspiracy wonderlands. Unfortunately that is the opposite of learning and improving.

Also, most of the suggestions that you have listed above as all completely UNTRUE were clearly made about the project as a whole and not about you personally. However, the fact that you so readily conflate the two does little to remove the concerns. Axad12 (talk) 04:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I’ve already addressed these points yesterday in the thread above, but now you’re rehashing them here. I’ve notice from your previous replies, you stick to your accusations without backing down when provided with facts, often warping things out of context. For instance, you didn’t acknowledge that the Irish Georgian house article you accused me of copyvio was my very first article (published 7 months ago). Then you shifted to arguing that I didn’t fix the article in the past week, despite me clearly stating in my closing statement that I’m stepping away for a bit.

Once again, creating new articles does not avoid scrutiny—mainspace articles undergo far more reviews than a simple edit to an existing page. If anyone wanted to avoid scrutiny, it would make more sense to make small edits to existing pages. However, I had multiple reasons for not editing peerage pages and for advising Plumber to stop. It causes confusion for users and make no logical sense, which could lead to confrontations with other editors. For example, Earl of Wigtown (peerage title) and Earl of Wigtoun (baronage title) are different.

I’ve now repeated 3-4 times in this thread that I’ve had no personal involvement in off-wiki conversations through private chat channels like WhatsApp or otherwise, as was proposed in Plumber's project sandbox talk page, which he deleted a few days later (possibly just testing). I’ve consistently clarified this. My involvement has been limited to responding to unsolicited emails or direct messages, which I’ve explained multiple times and doesn't break any rules. I have not participated in orchestrated off-wiki discussions or planning, and I stand by that.

I also maintain that I have zero conflict of interest. My involvement is purely as a contributor who enjoys learning and sharing information. I am neither personally nor professionally connected to baronage titles or the individuals involved (some barons have reached out to me, as you noted on the Talk page you linked to, with their letters patent and barony history, etc, but I have not found policies against this).

Despite this, you’re still accusing me of lying, and now suggesting that Kelly and Plumber be topic banned and the project disbanded(link). If that’s not disproportionate, I don’t know what is. It’s clear that the intention, formed from conspiracy theories, is to attack my character, silence my account, and suppress a legitimate Wikipedia project.

As I’ve already mentioned, it seems we’ve reached an impasse. I have made every effort to address these points in good faith and I respectfully ask for a clearer path forward rather than revisiting the same accusations repeatedly. Kellycrak88 (talk) 11:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for my delayed response, I’ve been attending a garden party with His Grace the Lord Kitchener.

The only sense in which we’ve reached an impasse is that you stubbornly refuse to take advice on board.

If you continue to conspire to find ways to avoid proper scrutiny, and if you continue to conduct on and off wiki discussions with potential article subjects (thus creating conflict of interest), then inevitably it will be spotted by someone and you’ll end up back at ANI in the future. At that point you’ll receive far less latitude that you’ve experienced thus far.

The reason I’ve been trying to get you to recognise those issues was simply to help you to avoid that outcome and to encourage you to abide by community standards. I see that you can’t be talked around, but that is your problem rather than mine. Axad12 (talk) 12:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I am not stubbornly refusing to take advice on board, or avoid scrutiny—I am engaging with the feedback provided and improving where possible. If this motion is supported and my account is restricted, then you will have achieved your goal, and I won’t be returning. However, I still believe there’s a more constructive way forward than this approach. Kellycrak88 (talk) 14:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment I was surprised to see a thread of more than 93,000 characters about an editor who needs improvement. I have admittedly not read the wall of text in detail but I have the broad strokes. In sympathy with Kellycrak88 because it is difficult to be the subject of negative discussion. I think Kellycrak88 should take the draft suggestion seriously. Lightburst (talk) 22:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Lightburst for your input and understanding. I agree with you, and as said above I am willing to accept the proposal from my mentor @Asilvering, that if I am not restricted, I will voluntarily start new articles in draftspace for their review. This will allow me to work under guidance and ensure I meet necessary standards. Alternatively, restricting my account or topic banning me (as discussed above) does not constructively serve Wikipedia users or send the right message, especially with opposing agendas already shown to be at play. I've already noticed that many editors, some newer than me, who previously voiced opinions of support on this subject have fallen silent, likely due to fears of continued accusations of meat puppetry etc (unfounded). Most people here do of course act in good-faith and I am hopefully that the wider Wikipedia community will not tolerate bias. Kellycrak88 (talk) 00:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Order by Supreme Court of India

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

---

Today, the Supreme Court of India ordered Wikipedia to delete the name of the victim from our article on 2024 Kolkata rape and murder incident. Probably, someone ought to inform Wikimedia's legal team? Note that we have an ongoing RFC on the issue. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 06:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikimedia legal has already been well aware of this situation for weeks. They are highly professional and to think that they are not already following this matter closely leads only to wastes of lawyer time that instead should be focused on the legal defense against this absurd ruling. Cullen328 (talk) 06:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Huh? I knew they were involved in the ANI case but this seemed to be a new development to me! TrangaBellam (talk) 06:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

To say that this X post (tweet?) is deficient and uninformative is an understatement. Cullen328 (talk) 07:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

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

Miami IPs need a rangeblock

• 2601:582:C486:590:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Someone using Miami IPs has been persistently adding false or unreferenced information to music articles. For instance, this edit added a false fourth songwriter, despite BMI Songview Search listing just three songwriters. A second example can be seen with this edit adding false guest artist billing despite the album showing no such featured billing. I am requesting a rangeblock on Special:Contributions/2601:582:C486:590:0:0:0:0/64. Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 03:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I blocked the range for three months. Johnuniq (talk) 08:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Revdel request

Hello, could an admin please revdel this, RD2? Vandal account is already indeffed. Thanks. Wikishovel (talk) 09:33, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Just checked the link, and it’s  Done. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 10:02, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

User Khassanu on Islam

Need help/guidance

User wants to make a change to a very well established and sourced set of concepts on Islam page that have their own wiki articles. I have already left message on user talk page attempting to explain process that should be taken to make that change, based off of user's last revision summary, they have no intention of attempting and will simply edit war their way.

The two reverted are me and the changed are user Khassanu's edit.

Changed - Revision as of 14:23, 15 September 2024

Reverted - Revision as of 16:19, 15 September 2024

Change - Revision as of 17:01, 16 September 2024

Reverted - Revision as of 18:24, 16 September 2024

Change - Revision as of 18:51, 16 September 2024

RCSCott91 (talk) 19:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

It's concerning that Khassanu has never used an article talk page or responded to any of the many comments on their user talk page. Schazjmd (talk) 19:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I didn't realize that until you mentioned it, I hope I wasn't just 'talking into the void' when writing on their talk page.

They also seem to never give an edit summary. Makes me wonder of the content of their other article edits and whether they've simply been changing things based on personal opinion instead of using sourced material.

How do you not get into an edit war with someone who doesn't respond and even refuses to use proper WP:Talk?

RCSCott91 (talk) 21:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, you come here with diffs of problematic edits and hope an admin will use a mainspace block to compel them to communicate and respond to the criticisms of their edits. Schazjmd (talk) 21:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@RCSCott91: You are required to notify an editor when you begin an AN/I discussion using {{subst:ANI-notice}} on their article talk page. I have done so on your behalf. @Khassanu appears to be inserting their unsourced religious opinions into articles. See also these edits, which include adding unsourced religious theorizing into infoboxes and inserting endnoted text into a random spot in the lead. Seems here to right great wrongs, albeit not very well. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank You, to both @Schazjmd and @Voorts. I now know, what to do if something like this happens. RCSCott91 (talk) 23:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Khassanu seems to have a history of disruptive editing. Removing or altering information in infoboxes without any regard for appropriate referencing. Their talk page is illuminating, and I note that they have never replied to a single message left there. GhostOfNoMan 11:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

User that does nothing but removing huge chunks of information

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

---

Hello, I’m just here to voice my concerns about User:CatTits10. This person joined Wikipedia very recently but already has amassed almost 3000 edits, mostly removing huge portions of information from articles without any regard about the readability of this articles, completely destroying the flow of some. This user also doesn’t seem to be interested in improving said articles by adding very easy to find sources for most claims. This is starting to look like destruction to me instead of contribution. Would like some admins to shine their light on this. Thank you. A concerned user (mostly active on a different language Wikipedia). LesRoutine (talk) 15:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Very agressive user page - User:CatTits10. They are open about just removing all unrefed content en masse on various types of metal music etc pages. Probably not the way to go. Johnbod (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

It should also be noted that at least 4 or 5 others have warned the user to no avail. Their reasoning (from talk page comments) are because the "content is unsourced" and "CN tags sit there for decades".

But here's a head-scratcher. On their user page, they write how they've added hundreds of pages to their watchlist, and that they're confident that they can "get shit done"...but their account is only a few weeks old. Incredibly fast learner or..? Xanarki (talk) 17:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed that this is an editor on a personal mission to delete as much (admittedly unsourced) content as possible, with an I'm going to do what I want, there's no stopping me energy. Here's an example from a user talk page:

"Nobody does their job around here. I took it upon myself to "clean house" on all pop punk, emo, metalcore, deathcore, hardcore punk, death metal, black metal, alternative rock, nu metal, post-grunge and alternative metal bands. Over the past month, I have singe-handedly removed millions of bytes of unsourced information from band and musician biographies all around this project. This is only the beginning, this is only phase one. I am going to build this encyclopedia back stronger than it ever was." (diff)

This editor needs to slow down and be more judicious in their cuts. Toughpigs (talk) 17:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I learned how to properly write and cite stuff in college (I went to school for music business). I don't think I'm a fast learner by any stretch lol, I'm more or less just an extremely hard worker. There's a good quote by meteorologist James Spann that's something like, and I'm paraphrasing, "I'm not particularly good at anything, I'm just the hardest working person you'll ever meet" and I think that applies to somebody in my situation. I would describe myself as somebody who is severely spread thin over numerous different life forces. It carries over into my digital footprint, hence the extremely raw and aggressive nature of my editing style (which I have somewhat agreed to tame). EXTREME EDITING FOR EXTREME PEOPLE!!!

Cheers, CatTits10 (talk) 17:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

We shouldn't assume the worst of any new editor that knows what they are doing (even if what they are doing doesn't accord to our wishes). Before I made my first edit to Wikipedia I made damn sure that I was on firm ground by reading up on policies and guidelines. But then again I am of the generation that was brought up on RTFM, and if we didn't we could expect ridicule. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah they tried to shove RTFM ethics down my throat when I was growing up, eventually I got tired of people in my life being impatient hot-headed pricks so I stopped giving a fuck a long time ago. I mainly wanted to make sure my edits sent out a huge flair that these articles were deserted and neglected. Apologies if some of these articles have been left in their "awkward stages". I'm gonna start by re-adding album releases that I removed and give them proper citation. I don't even understand how these kids even wrote these sections without a strong lead sentence that captures the main idea. What the hell were they thinking dude?! Oh yeah, right, they weren't.

Cheers, CatTits10 (talk) 18:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

User:CatTits10, your user page says what you have been doing on Wikipedia lately, which implies that you were doing something else before. What id were you using? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Good question. Haven't edited since college, then I was making grammar corrections on random articles and watching recent changes. I did some genre warring but those days are behind me I think. Recently I had enough of my friends belittling the project because its "written by kids" so I just had a "fuck it, I'll fix it myself" moment. I knew I needed to register an account to make the changes I wanted to make. I apologize for the disruptive removals. I believe the articles will end up better in the long run. CatTits10 (talk) 17:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Then maybe your friends were wrong? In most areas (it might not be true of popular music, which I usually avoid) Wikipedia is not written by kids. That might have been true 20 years ago, but, like everyone else, Wikipedia editors have aged and the kids have other things to do now, such as spending every waking moment staring at their phones. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it was true 20 years ago, but I was disappointed at how unmaintained these articles have gone for the past two decades. I remember being a teen and being bummed when info from my favorite bands would get axed from their respective pages. But Wikipedia is reliable because of unsourced content being challenged, and nowadays I understand verifiability, copyright ect. and I get it now. I just think statements should be sourced to justify their existence in Wikipedia. It's hard to decide what to keep in the article when some of these have 20,000+ bytes of unsourced and irrelevant information. CatTits10 (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Clearly you didn't look deep enough into my contributions. Yes, I went too hard with removing shit last night (probably a few pages of my recent contribs). But if you would have looked deep enough into my edit history you would see that I've spent even more time adding sources and content for the stuff I already do have the sources for. I just think it's sad that the people who are fighting tooth and nail to keep the content in the page don't want to go and get sources themself.

I'm sorry but you don't even know me, I have every right to be offended at the notion that I am a "user that does nothing but removing huge chunks of information" when there's clear evidence that is not all I do around here. Thank you. CatTits10 (talk) 18:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

As an editor who takes a pretty aggressive approach to articles, I understand User:CatTits10 propensity towards an aggressive approach. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

A tip to CatTits10 going forward, drop using the word kid/kids from here on out. It's condescending and makes you look bad. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 19:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

My guy. Children shouldn't even be using this site in the first place. There is some absolutely horrific shit documented on here that noooooooo one should ever see lmao.

You're right though, how insensitive of me. What I meant was, Wikipedia is written by scene kids.

Thanks for the privilege check bro! CatTits10 (talk) 19:26, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Dude, drop this attitude you have and calm down. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 19:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Dude, I'm just fucking around haha. You're the one getting all worked up on a thread for a case that doesn't involve you :P

Cheers, CatTits10 (talk) 19:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Everyone's free to comment on AN/I threads, so I don't know what you're getting at.

I just noticed that your go-to word to describe editors who have done what you don't like is "kid(s)", which in my opinion is demeaning and condescending.

I'm perfectly calm, just offering some advice to avoid you getting into even further trouble. Drop this "aggressive" persona you have and you'll go way further on here. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 19:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Haha don't worry about me. I won't get in trouble. Besides, Wikipedia isn't about "going far" or whatever. It's not a game, a race, a social club or whatever. It isn't about "getting ahead" or "winning". I think this whole thing has been blown out of proportion, to be honest. At the end of the day we're supposed to be here to maintain the integrity of an encyclopedia. Lol. CatTits10 (talk) 20:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I mean. Is it aggressive editing? Yes. Is it wrong? I don't believe so. If information cannot be verified, it should either be marked as such or removed; there's generally nothing wrong with preferring the latter. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 19:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Three separate editors have went to CatTits10's talk page and essentially told them to slow their role, and they didn't. There's a difference between "aggressive" editing (whatever that means), and having a shoot-first-ask-questions-later approach to editing which I think CT10's editing style is now. Scaledish explained the policy to them on their talk page and CT10's response was essentially "I don't care". Now if CT10 doesn't like the policy, that's perfectly fine, but they still have to abide by it. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 20:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

"If information cannot be verified" This right here touches on the core issue I have with the editor's conduct. The information can easily be verified. I've done a spot-check on their removals/CN tag spamming. 5+ I was able to restore with a source almost immediately by the most basic of Google searches. A lot of it is really silly stuff like erasing/tagging "(Band) released (album) in (year)." statements in band articles where a fully sourced stand alone article exists. Sergecross73 msg me 20:38, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

We need to provide in-text citations though so people know beyond the shadow of the doubt that we know what we're talking about. We need to know where we got what claims, and who said them, and when. The heavy-handed blankings were more of a means to draw attention to the issues at hand. I'm mostly just butthurt that when people try to reintroduce the unsourced content they don't bring sources. Maybe some of the material I removed wasn't contentious or dubious or libelous or whatever the hell it's called this week. I still think stuff should be sourced so people know our content isn't just made up like my middle school essays.

Cheers, CatTits10 (talk) 20:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying unsourced statements are acceptable. I'm saying that in a lot of these scenarios, the answer to fixing it is adding a source. It's a contextual thing. If you read something sketchy like "Linkin Park's Meteora album features a 7 minute banjo solo." delete it because it sounds like nonsense. But if it's something like "Linkin Park's Meteora was released in 2003", just Google "Linkin Park Meteora 2003" and you should be able to find your source pretty quickly. Sergecross73 msg me 20:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@CatTits10: You say The heavy-handed blankings were more of a means to draw attention to the issues at hand. This is a textbook example of WP:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, which is a behavioral guideline violation. Please refrain from doing that going forward. Left guide (talk) 22:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

No one is required to source unsourced content before removing it. If you think the content should remain you can find a source yourself. I can't understand a new editor has been reported for removing unsourced content when so many editors add poorly sourced or unsourced content. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

As someone who reverted one of their edits, I'm not opposed to removing unsourced content judiciously, but there's a limit.

For instance, at American Football (band) they removed any direct mention of their self-titled album from the history section, while retained some sentences following it that still mentioned it indirectly, making it read really sloppily. It was still mentioned unsourced in the lead, so in terms of removing unverified info it didn't achieve much, and American Football is mainly notable for this album, so this means that it doesn't cover basic stuff that readers would expect, and this is not exactly hard-to-verify info. From my experience at WP:URA it's a lot more productive just to add sources for this kind of thing.

Thankfully, they've went back and sourced it instead, which I appreciate. ― novov (t c) 05:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I've seen uncited claims languish for a decade or more. Removing them is what sometimes spurs someone to bother to cite it. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I have too. I think a better way to deal with them when haphazardly removing them would make the article incomplete and poorly worded is to cite them. Even removing the content and replacing it with a minimal sentence to ensure that the article still covers the topic adequately would have been preferable. ― novov (t c) 05:47, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

That would be a content issue however and nothing that requires administrator intervention. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

If a user goes about editing and discussing issues in a way that is uncooperative with their cohorts, then that becomes more than a content issue, though I acknowledge that there is some room for personal disagreement on where exactly that line is. In any case, CatTits seems to have agreed to try a different tack, so this conversation doesn't really serve much purpose unless things re-emerge. ― novov (t c) 06:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

You're not supposed to include citations in the lead. CatTits10 (talk) 12:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Usually yeah, but the reason why it’s like that is to avoid any redundancy with citations in the body. The lead is ideally meant to summarise the body, if removing content in the body it should usually go from the lead as well. ― novov (t c) 12:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh gotcha. I was specifically targeting the bodies of articles CatTits10 (talk) 12:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• I'm of the opinion that if the entirety of one's editing is removing content, then while that's allowed, it doesn't show evidence of someone being here to actually build an encyclopedia. Even someone who solely does copy-editing or WikiGnome type edits their entire time here is contributing more. Silverseren^C 20:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  But I've done waaaaaaaaay more than just delete content, dude. Lol. You'd know that had you actually looked through my contributions. But like, whatever at this point. I'm so over this entire situation. CatTits10 (talk) 20:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  Here's what Cattits10 recently posted on Sergecross73's talk page:

  "But actually reading the sources takes a really long time though and I'm concerned I will accidentally add a source that doesn't have the info I need if I try skimming it, and yeah I know there's no deadline, but let's not lose track of the fact that I am doing chores on this project that should have been done two decades ago and I have a high sense of urgency to finish these projects."

  There are a lot of experienced editors telling you that you are editing too fast. It's obvious from your mass deletions that you're taking out everything that doesn't have a reference number at the end, without thinking about the content. Now, you say that adding sources takes too much time. This is not an approach that is likely to last here. You need to change how you're approaching this, or you risk being blocked from the site. Toughpigs (talk) 20:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  Clearly you have not been paying attention to my edit history and observing the evolution of my style based on criticisms I have received from administrators, dude. CatTits10 (talk) 21:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, but six edits ago you stated on Sergecross73's talk page "They need to close that thread and quit arguing with me then lmao. The person who opened it didn't even look at my entire edit summary. And now there's people I've never interacted with coming by just to ridicule me!! Not that I care, I just think it's kind of sad lol."

  This is you not taking on the criticism that's been offered to you here. In fact I would argue it's you being flippant to those criticisms and labelling anyone who disagrees with you is "sad".

  From the same post on SC73's talk page:

  "Trust me dude, I know what I'm doing. I may not have the level of experience you do, but I have a vision for these pages to have rich, valuable information with reliable sources and neutral tone. I'm going to try to chill out, but I'm just glad I've gotten these pages trimmed down to "ground zero" so they can actually be a viable project to work on."

  This strikes me as "my way or the highway" talk. The fact that so many editors have taken issue with your style of editing may mean that you don't know what you're doing, but you insist on doing it to the probable detriment of articles. Don't make this situation worse by digging in. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 21:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  Do you think its possible my style of editing is just ahead of its time and nobody is ready? I kind of see this as a "revolution" of sorts. No more unsourced content! Like I said, the only reason I deleted the content was to draw attention to the issues at hand, because it was getting neglected. I knew the info was likely factual, but also, for all I know it could be libelous garbage or plagiarism. I don't intend for the articles to stay this way forever, but it just needed to be done. I like the idea of a fresh, new Wikipedia. This project deserves it. CatTits10 (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  Regarding "I have a high sense of urgency to finish these projects", your urgency may be a wasted effort; there's no expectaction for these projects to ever be completed. Your solution to the problem "We have dirty dishes" has been to throw the dishes away, when a better solution for most of them would just be to clean the dishes. Sure, it's more work, but you don't have to go out and buy equivalent dishes again later. I haven't looked into your work, but have you been cataloguing the information you've been deleting to reintroduce later when you've found suitable sources? HerrWaus (talk) 21:34, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  DUDE. Yes. Everything is in my watchlist. The people who are trying to reintroduce the sourced content are forcing me to fish for sources, and I have managed to force some of them to fish for sources. I never intended for the information to stay out of the article forever. I just wanted to make sure it was sourced before it was added back in. Adding citation needed tags doesn't work because everyone just ignores them and they just sit there for decades. But recently I have taken on a new approach to this, where I try to find sources and add them in, instead of deleting. Honestly, a good editing style should be a combination off all three. Deletions of bullshit, citing unsourced content, and tagging shit. CatTits10 (talk) 21:38, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  You're calling for a one-person "revolution", and then you seem surprised that people show up to fight. That's what happens in a revolution lol Toughpigs (talk) 21:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  Why are you crusading against citing sources in articles? If you want the information back in the article then why aren't you citing your sources? Now that you're reverting my removal of unsourced claims, you're kinda the one who is making those claims, so the burden is kinda on you to back up what you're saying with a reliable source. This is pretty much the only effective way I knew how to make sure this tedious wikiwork would actually get done. There were definitely better ways this could have been handled. I learned a lot today.

  Peace, CatTits10 (talk) 21:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  Like Sergecross said to you, people have already tried your approach before and have gotten blocked/banned for it. There's nothing "revolutionary" here. Drawing attention to issues is one thing, deleting information wholesale is another. People have tried to do fresh/new Wikipedia-likes, and guess what? None of them go anywhere. Now there's many issues as to why, but it turns out starting with zero content (or barebones content at the very least) isn't exactly good. We beat Encyclopedia Britannica in website traffic, so surely we must be doing something right? :) . ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 21:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

• A for intent. A for effort. D- for implementation. By all means, simply delete a sentence with an unusual, outlandish, or just doesn't make sense claim, if there's no source. But don't remove material that stuff that appears correct; tag it as unsourced, or source it. That said, I can see some unsourced claims about people's relationships that have been removed by Tits, and have then been poorly restored by someone else with no sources. Perhaps we need to stop milking this whole thing now, and see if the situation continues. Nfitz (talk) 22:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, this thread needs to die already. Thank you for the kind words! I know what I need to do differently moving forward. I'm going to approach this with a fresh mind and (hopefully) a few hours away from Wikipedia. Maybe I should take a walk... CatTits10 (talk) 22:17, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  Everyone should be reminded that WP:BURDEN applies to restore content. Unsourced content should be tagged rather than being removed, but if it has been challenged in good faith you must correctly source it before it is restored. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

see this edit I reverted… I know sources should be the norm, I also agree with that. But this user continues to remove easily verifiable information just to force people to add sources and I still don’t think that is the right way going forward. This user’s so called ‘revolution’ changed from taking out big chunks to annoying users by removing smaller chunks. Also never seen someone get so many edits in such a short time, there’s no limit to it I know, but this just can’t be constructive in any way… LesRoutine (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

That one paragraph concerns something recent, this isn't even longstanding content. It should have been added with a source to begin with. If it was so easily verifiable you should have added a reference. Undoing a legitimate edit to restore unsourced content is what should merit sanction. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:04, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it should have been added with a source to begin with, and if this was the only 'wrong' edit of a random user I would've added the reference, but in the bigger picture of what this user is doing I'm standing by my revert. Oh, and in this case, shouldn't he have added the source instead of removing the information? A quick Google search gave me over 10+ results that said the claim was true. This user claims he is verifying before removing, but this proves they're lying. LesRoutine (talk) 07:13, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

You found sources but chose not to add them? Traumnovelle (talk) 07:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point, not just about this, but in general with everything concerning this user. LesRoutine (talk) 07:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

The attitude is a bit of a problem but reporting a new user to ANI will often result in them behaving poorly. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Omg bro I literally looked for the source before I reverted it, you need to chill. CatTits10 (talk) 23:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Support 72 hour block: After looking at some of the content removals, discussions cited, and conduct in this thread, I agree with @Nfitz that the intent (drawing attention to unsourced references) is good, but in my view, the execution (removing them en masse to sen[d] out a huge flair that these articles were deserted and neglected and complaining about th[o]se kids who weren't thinking) was extremely poor. Instead of signing up for the November unreferenced articles backlog drive, this editor decided to make a scene, and then insult and condescend to other editors in this thread. Given that the condescension and heightening of tension by this editor continues, I think a cool-down period is appropriate to prevent this situation from spiraling further. @CatTits10: even if a block is not implemented, I recommend taking a break from Wikipedia for a few days and forgetting about the scourge of unsourced statements in band articles. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm already cooled down so no block is necessary. I'm just tryna source my stuff now. CatTits10 (talk) 01:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

You've made 500 edits in the past 48 hours. That's a lot. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm actually trying to try to start using the "show preview" button more and try cutting that number in half. CatTits10 (talk) 01:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I took a look at an edit of his that was reverted, it involved information sourced to just Twitter and Youtube. This just seems like bullying a new editor who is following our policies to support retention of content that never should have been added to begin with.

A lot of this content is recently added too and isn't just old content added back when citations weren't required (they've basically always been required). Traumnovelle (talk) 02:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Not to pile on further, but being seriously concerned about a pattern of edits like this one is not just bullying. Remsense ‥ 论 03:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Jesus Christ you sound butthurt in that edit summary. Holy shit, wow. CatTits10 (talk) 03:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Like I said, my butt was seriously concerned. Remsense ‥ 论 03:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I made a mistake. Big fuckin whoop. CatTits10 (talk) 03:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to pile on or bait you and I know it is not easy to have all this scrutiny surrounding you as a new editor, so please consider taking it from the heart when I say I'm glad that you've identified and working from the trip-ups new editors always experience in some form, and experienced editors continue to. Remsense ‥ 论 03:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

smooth sailing from here on, home skillet CatTits10 (talk) 03:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

This is a completely different issue? CatTits has tried to add sourced content but used two unreliable sources (this one is definitely reliable: [196]). Instead of explaining what is wrong with the sourcing you instead just claim it is 'completely unacceptable' maugre one of the sources being an academic article.

@CatTits10 sources on Wikipedia cannot be self-published except in limited circumstances where appropriate. Sites such as Wordpress are self-published and not reliable. The academic article was a fine citation however and there was nothing wrong with it. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I didn't even realize it was Wordpress. I was literally just throwing shit at the wall trying to see what would stick. The website's design must have looked slick and professional so that's the only reason I thought it was a reliable source that I maybe hadn't heard of. I have a bunch of jazz theory and technique books that I want to try pulling information from. I'm also gonna start going to the library and checking out books. CatTits10 (talk) 04:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

You should pay more attention to what sources you add in the future and not just add whatever you can find.

>I have a bunch of jazz theory and technique books that I want to try pulling information from. I'm also gonna start going to the library and checking out books.

Good, books are typically far better sources than websites, just make sure the book isn't self-published. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I usually don't just add whatever I can find I just don't know what constitutes a reliable source when it comes to music theory, only coverage of popular music CatTits10 (talk) 04:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

See WP:RS for a general overview of what a reliable source is. Essentially anything published is typically reliable, e.g. books that aren't self-published and articles in an academic journal. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• I'm struggling to see the problem here. I largely agree with Guessitsavis: policy supports removing unsourced content. There doesn't seem to be any allegation of an edit war either. Per BRD, if people don't like his edits, they can always revert and discuss. _pbp 02:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  Because it's not helpful to use policy as a fig leaf for chronic patterns of idiosyncratic behavior across a large number of articles that make improving the encyclopedia harder and can't be justified except via said fig leaf—as opposed to doing something other than indiscriminately ripping unexplained holes in articles. If you were correct in your view we wouldn't have the {{cn}} template at all, and if we thought it was a good idea to remove every unsourced paragraph we find without discernment, that would be the easiest bot to code up and let go nuts. Remsense ‥ 论 03:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• I'm not sure where this, "there can't be any material without sources" is coming from. It seems to be in opposition to Wikipedia polices, like WP:NOTPERFECT in WP:EDITING which sourcing isn't even provided in the first two cuts at an article. What policy is saying that verifiable material with no sources must be deleted? There's certainly some essays around - but policy? Perhaps putting that to rest, might bring this to a resolution where CTs enthusiasm and energy can be harnessed to improve the project! Nfitz (talk) 04:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  WP:V 'Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.' Sure editors might be encouraged to add sources but there is no requirement. There are 83,165 articles without any sources. Good luck trying to source every statement there before removing it. We'd never be able to remove content faster than it is added. All this time spent trying to get an editor sanctioned could have been spent referencing content. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• This is a collaborative project where editors are expected to treat each other as colleagues and with respect, unless there is convincing evidence to the contrary. Here we have an editor who is on a determined mission to remove unreferenced content written by, according to their pejorative assessment kids. Just here in this thread, their failure to colaborate and failure to treat their colleagues with respect had been shown repeatedly through their use of juvenile and inflammatory and dismissive language like lol and then impatient hotheaded pricks, dude and then fuck it I'll fix it and then fighting tooth and nail and then Dude, I'm just fucking around haha butthurt and then EXTREME EDITING FOR EXTREME PEOPLE!!! and then Whatever the hell it's called this week and then waaaaaaaaay more than just delete content and then so over this entire situation and then dude and lmao and then kind of sad lol and then Trust me dude and then chill out DUDE and then Jesus Christ you sound butthurt and then Big fuckin whoop.
• This editor seems to derive some kind of sick pleasure from mocking, insulting, belittling and disrespecting their fellow editors, while repeatedly using dismissive and extremely immature language. Not necessarily immature in years but far more so in temperament. I do not see how this thread can be closed without a firmly worded warning that a 180 degree turn in their conduct is required if they hope to keep editing Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 04:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  Indeed, they are fawning in the attention [197] Closhund/talk/ 05:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  I'm the most ardent WP:V supporter, but regardless of content edits this is a complete failure to collaborate or just trolling. They are either deliberately mocking other editors, or lack the ability to understand that is how they are perceived. Assuming good faith they should be CIR blocked. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• Those who think KittyBoobs' mission is a righteous one need to read WP:V more closely:

  When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source, and the material therefore may not be verifiable. [FN:] Some editors object to others making chronic, frequent, and large-scale deletions of unsourced information, especially if unaccompanied by other efforts to improve the material. ... Also, check to see whether the material is sourced to a citation elsewhere on the page. For all these reasons, it is advisable to clearly communicate that you have a considered reason to believe the material in question cannot be verified.

Let me restate that: The essential test for removal (instead of just tagging {cn}) is that you have a genuine, considered, good-faith belief that the material can't be sourced. This editor is openly proud of not giving that even a moment's consideration. What they're doing completely inapprorriate, and destructive. Either they stop themselves, or we should stop them. EEng 05:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Brooooooooo look at my recent contributions. For the millionth freakin time. I've made the changes to my editing style that other editors have requested. Are you being for real right now dude? Wtf CatTits10 (talk) 05:33, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Not sure where I'm supposed to discern that buried in all your flip, defiant bro-ing and dude-ing. Peace out. EEng 05:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

>:) CatTits10 (talk) 05:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

CatTits10, are you really responding with immature disrespectful garbage like Brooooooooo and then millionth freakin time and then Are you being for real right now dude? Wtf? Are you even reading your own trash before you click "Publish changes"? Are you consciously trying to shoot yourself in the foot, or are you simply out of control? Cullen328 (talk) 05:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

It's called standing up for myself haha. Maybe I spammed too many o's in the word "bro" but you get the idea. I admit I've been slightly antagonistic in this thread as of late, but like I said, the only reason I did what I did was to draw attention to the issues at hand.

I humbly admit my actions were in error. I should have brought my concerns about unsourced material to talk pages instead of just blanking shit. There were just soooooo many of them and I didn't think anyone was going to give a shit or want to help me anyway. I already corrected my editing style and started working on repairing the articles I damaged even further than they already were.

I feel like I should write another paragraph but I'm all out of words so I guess this post is just gonna trail of into nothingness CatTits10 (talk) 06:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

You keep admitting you were wrong and saying that you changed your stance, but your actions don't match your words. LesRoutine (talk) 07:02, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I would also appreciate it if you stop calling me bro. I'm not your bro. And the discussion is being held here, not on my talk page. Thanks. LesRoutine (talk) 07:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

In this context, Bro is a deeply sexist term that presumes that the other people you are interacting with are hard drinking young male party boys. I am old enough to have lived through the emergence of this term in the 1970s and it has always rankled me. I have two brothers and they are the only two people who can call me "bro" without it being perceived by me and many other people as irritating and demeaning. We are here to build an encyclopedia. We are not on a drunken vacation ("holiday" in British English) in Hawaii or Jamaica. Cullen328 (talk) 07:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Not my fault I was born in the generation where "dude" and "bro" are gender-neutral terms. "Deeply sexist" is overkill. CatTits10 (talk) 07:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Be that as it may, some people simply don't care for the term, and that ought to be enough for you to be less liberal with it. Speaking for my own part, I think it's less the potential for perceived sexism and more the fact that, contextually speaking, one often sees the word appended to statements that carry an implicit tone of "you need to lighten up", which in the current circumstances is kind of confirmed by the fact that you are also literally telling people to lighten up. The combined effect is not sending the message that you are WP:HEARing the community's concerns here.

Anyway, put "bro" to the side for the moment, because "kid" is the real issue here: that term is pretty much universal internet slang (particularly in trolling contexts) for "you are beneath my contempt, therefor I will refer to you as a child." That your go-to impulse for broadly categorizing the editors whom you disagree with is to label them with that term is not the only issue with your approach here, but it is very emblematic of the problems with your discussion style. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 09:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

The fact that the lack of standards and values ​​is attributed by the user to the generation in which they were born, almost sums up the whole problem. This is not going to work. This user is not open to changing their behavior. LesRoutine (talk) 11:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• I'm prepared to support a serious sanction for CatTits, if there is not an immediate and substantial change in their approach to both editing and discussion. The level of WP:IDHT, the condescending tone and flippant dismissiveness when responding to community concerns, and the declaration of express intent to score WP:POINTs to generate attention in support of their "revolutionary" ambitions are all quite something to behold above. This is an editor with a serious shortfall in demonstration of basic respect for their fellow editors and community standards, and in the void where such basic courtesy, decorum, and self-restraint should exist, they have instead supplemented astounding arrogance regarding both everything they are being told here and their own perception of the value of their contributions, relative to others.
  CatTits, this is not an XBOX gaming session: contributors who utilize an approach to content you do not agree with are not "kids" and we are not your "bros". More critical, there are clearly a lot of policies and principles of community consensus and project process you have not fully internalized yet, so yes, you most-assuredly need to slow way down in general and on the deletions in particular. This is probably your last opportunity to turn this around before a block or editing restriction becomes necessary, so consider your next responses carefully. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support serious sanction. I had serious concerns before, but CatTits indicated that they had onboarded the feedback. Recent editing patterns have not borne that out, so I feel a sanction is necessary. I'd support up to an indef, but feel the 72 hour block proposed earlier has a better chance of encouraging a change in behavior without driving off an energetic editor.

• My concerns are threefold. First, CatTits has admitted above that their edits are WP:POINTy: the only reason I did what I did was to draw attention to the issues at hand.

• Second, I sometimes use the citation hunt tool or click "random article" to look for {{cn}} tags to fix or, if I can't find a source, remove the passage. By removing unsourced passages wholesale, CatTits reduces the chances of verifiable information being sourced. Furthermore, as pointed out above, due to WP:BURDEN, editors are forbidden from just reverting the edits without finding a citation. Because there's no tag, this would only be done by someone who was watching the page or else WP:FOLLOWing CatTits. This adds up to result in damage to the encyclopedia by removing verifiable information.

• Third and finally, as pointed out above, WP:V is not the only pillar. WP:CIV is just as important, and even after receiving feedback in this thread, their responses come off as dismissive, condescending, and unresponsive to the concerns raised, per Cullen and SnowRise.

• All of these problems can be solved by a change in behavior, but it seems clear that such a change won't result from asking nicely. A short block seems a good first step to convince CatTits to change their approach, particularly with regard to civility. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  but it seems clear that such a change won't result from asking nicely. I… may or may not, have gone about “asking them nicely” before reading this. ([198]) I half expect to fall akimbo of ‘AGF is not a Suicide Pact’, and the other half of me expects something in that message to either tick off CT, or tick off other readers, on the likelihood that I have missed the point myself here, but CT10’s attitude is quite reminiscent of someone near and dear to me off-wiki (although CT10 is definitely not the same person. Trust me, my near and dear would go straight to BRFA), so I wanted to give some WP:ROPE. If it comes back to bite me, I’m adding my name to the list that’s calling for ‘em to be sanctioned, no questions asked.

  
  

  Do we have any stats on the average age brackets of Wikipedians, by the way? MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 12:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  No. "We", as in Wikipedia, or the community, know very little personal stuff about editors - such as how old they are - so how could we have stats on their ages? Bishonen | tålk 12:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC).

  Well, there have been user surveys. The 2011 Wikipedia Editor Survey asked about age, although it's probably outdated by now.

  See Wikipedia:Who writes Wikipedia?#Demographics. GhostOfNoMan 17:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• I am imagining that this has been mostly resolved, but I Support sanctions against CatTits, not for their editing, but their conduct on ANI. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 15:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• Blocked. I've blocked CatTits for 72 hours per suggestions above. Bishonen | tålk 12:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC).
• Obvious troll is obvious. CU blocked.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  i didn't realize so many users wasted their time and commented here, otherwise I would've shared this much sooner. My apologies ! PainiacPig (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  Oh well! Better late than never, at least I tried, and any other applicable platitude. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah ..just a lot of back n forthing, along with tall tales of being a new user and wanting to take extreme measusres etc. When in reality it's probably just a ban evader who has a grudge against Wikipedia. Maybe the spi is off base but it's just my perspective . PainiacPig (talk) 20:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

CatTits10 username

Some here may be interested; myself and another editor expressed concern about their username on their talk page at User talk:CatTits10#Possible username violation. CatTits10 has refused a request to change their username. Following this, I've placed a {{uw-username}} notice on their talk page per the instructions at WP:RFCN. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

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

SheikstarAT

SheikstarAT (talk · contribs) adds inappropriate POV comments in various articles without adding sources to these claims (Gaza genocide, Ben-Gurion, Netanyahu). I'm not really familiar with enwiki policies, so I'm bringing it here. — Draceane ^talk_{contributions} 13:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Aight ban me then. I aint gonna stop now. FREE PALESTINE FOREVERRRRRR! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SheikstarAT (talk • contribs) 13:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Blocked by HJ Mitchell. --Yamla (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Any oversighter willing to suppress/revdel their BLP violations and abusive edit summaries? Ratnahastin (talk) 14:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I revision deleted the most egregious of the slurs. Any administrator/oversighter can do more if they wish. Cullen328 (talk) 17:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SheryOfficial. C F A 💬 20:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

 Confirmed. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 18:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

667-Bandera Mouse is an obvious sock

667-Bandera Mouse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Not sure whose sock this is, but probably needs to blocked anyway. Ymblanter (talk) 13:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

 Blocked and tagged. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 18:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 20:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Turns out I ran across a couple of these, 666-Bandera Mouse and 999-Bandera Mouse, last July. Tagged now. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Inappropriate talkpage usage while blocked

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

---

Not sure if this is appropriate here, but this blocked user NateRocksApollo12 immediately proceeded to spam images of 9/11 in their unblock request, could we revoke talkpage access?

Thanks,

Filmssssssssssss (talk) 13:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah nothing productive is going to happen there. Sorted. Canterbury Tail talk 13:43, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

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

Vandalism by IP at Baja Blast

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

---

96.19.163.75 has been vandalizing Baja Blast repeatedly. Diffs: [199][200][201][202]. Can they be blocked please?A Socialist Trans Girl 02:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Blocked (for an arbitrarily specific amount of time because I felt like it). Going forward, obvious vandalism like this is best handled at Administrators' intervention against vandalism. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

No more arbitrary than the 31 hours that many administrators use all the time, The Blade of the Northern Lights, although a tiny bit more idiosyncratic. Cullen328 (talk) 08:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah oki, sure, I'll do it there in the future

also i like the weirdly specific durating hehe A Socialist Trans Girl 10:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Southern Ostrich Boggs is possibly a sock

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

---

Southern Ostrich Boggs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user was brought up at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1166#Either hacked account or rouge editor (regarding a Hamish Ross sock). Their message on their userpage is suspicious, but they edited to nothing else on the English Wikipedia. However, looking at their global contribs they've also edited Commons and Wikiquote. I was thinking of taking this to SPI but realising there is no sockpuppeteer to put this user under. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myrealnamm (talk • contribs) 19:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Myrealnamm,

This account has only made one edit, to create a User page. What have they done to arouse suspicions strong enough that you decided to bring it to ANI? Their message on their User page implies they are a block-evading editor but I don't see any disruptive activity. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

My apologies, I put this up too early. I will keep that in mind next time. Also I will read the top of the page again before I put anything here again. Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 00:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, this editor was just blocked as a result of this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Meena Kurian case. But, despite the confirmation, I think it was too soon to be bringing the editor to ANI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

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

Swati tribe and related propagandas

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

---

Dear Wikipedia Administrators,

I am writing to bring your attention to a long-standing issue regarding the "Swati tribe" article, as well as related articles such as "Sultanate of Swat," "Sultan Awais Swati," "Hazarewals," and "Pakhli." Upon reviewing the edit history of these pages, it appears that a user,@Sutyarashi, has been systematically reverting contributions from multiple editors, many of whom have provided valid references and citations from credible sources to present alternative historical perspectives on the origins of the Swati tribe.

Despite these editors' efforts to maintain a balanced and well-sourced narrative, Sutyarashi consistently enforces a single perspective based primarily on a recently written reference and a single online blog. While I understand the importance of neutrality and verifiability (as outlined in Wikipedia's core policies WP:NPOV and WP:V), I am concerned that Sutyarashi’s edits are disregarding valid sources that contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the tribe’s history.

In addition, the user has aggressively pursued the blocking or sanctioning of editors who provide alternate viewpoints, which raises concerns about potential violations of WP:OWN and WP:BATTLEGROUND. These behaviors hinder the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia and go against the principles of WP:CIVIL and WP:CONSENSUS. I believe this merits investigation, particularly given the prolonged pattern of disruptive editing.

As a descendant of the Nawab of Allai State, a significant Swati ruler in the late 1980s, I have a personal and historical connection to this topic. However, my concern here is not personal but for the accuracy and fairness of the content on these Wikipedia pages. I ask that the history of these pages be thoroughly reviewed, with attention paid to the removal of referenced material supporting alternative historical perspectives, as well as the actions of Sutyarashi.

I would greatly appreciate your investigation into this matter and would be happy to assist by providing further details or references to support these claims. It is my hope that Wikipedia can continue to provide a balanced and accurate reflection of the Swati tribe’s rich history, informed by a variety of well-sourced viewpoints.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely Prince of Allai State (talk) 12:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Prince of Allai State is yet another sock in the long list of socks of Gibari Sultan. Wish you had actually understood what sockpuppetry is before accusing me for blocking or sanctioning of editors who provide alternate viewpoints, which, by the way, were fringe theories or straight up vandalism. Sutyarashi (talk) 12:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I didn't ask anything to you. I just requested Wikipedia admins to review your activities on Swati tribe and related pages over years just one time. Wikipedia admins will decide the rest. Regards Prince of Allai State (talk) 13:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

AI-generated text according to GPTZero. Next time, try saying something in your own words. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Reporter blocked as a sock. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

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

Legal Threat giving truth a bad name

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

---

Fighting For The Truth no matter what (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) See edit summary in Special:Diff/1245820715 Truth69420 (talk) 10:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I mean, looking at the article I can see why the Mr McManus is upset. The lead is full of editorialised, unencyclopedic content that was added by an IP (Special:Contributions/180.150.39.255) several months ago. Is stuff like this really appropriate for a lead section [203]? Even if it can be supported by sources it is written in a completely inappropriate tone. The paragraphs about Mark Spillane [204] do not appear to be sourced anywhere in the article proper.

Some of the sections later in the article seem to be extremely poorly sourced. The section "Fines for the Melbourne Storm breach" contains the claim that McManus was involved in the Melbourne Storm salary cap breach by billing Melbourne Storm for "promotional" events through his company.... This is supported by two sources, the first states that Neither the players nor McManus were accused of any wrongdoing but McManus told the police of the fallout which included the Australian Tax Office going through him like a dose of salts. and the second states that His company became involved in the Melbourne Storm salary cap breaches, to the tune of $800,000 (without his knowledge, he said). I don't think that either of these sources properly support the claim that he was personally involved in this controversy. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

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

Unsourced edits by AssieBassie000

This [205] is the last of a batch of unsourced edits made by AssieBassie000 (talk · contribs), despite the multiple warnings left at their talk regarding the matter. Enough is enough.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Ilyes toon's disruptive editing

Ilyes toon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has continued to make many disruptive edits since April of this year[1] from a period of inactivity. They have repetitively added low-quality, copyrighted images to numerous articles[1][2][3][4][5] and unsourced content.[1][2][3] They often engage in edit warring whenever their edits get reverted, saying that their reverts are unexplained,[1] they're deteriorating the quality of the article,[1][2][3] and even engaging in vandalism.[1] Multiple editors have warned them about their behaviour but met with no response (see talk page). The user's disruptive edits have not only led them to get blocked from the article Egyptian mongoose,[1] but also earned them sitewide block,[1] both for one month. The worst part is that they continued their disruptive edits that got them in trouble earlier after their block expired.[1][2] This user is likely WP:NOTHERE given their multiple chances to change their disruptive behaviour and I believe they should be given an indefinite block. --_ZZ^Z'S 04:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

It appears that the editor has now taken to logged-out socking [206] for hammering on their point - I hold it highly unlikely that there are multiple editors with the same rabid bee in their bonnet. @WereSpielChequers: you already had to do the honours on that previously [1], care for a repeat engagement? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Edit: Yeah, they're also WP:LOUTSOCKing based on evidence from Elmidae, but that's not the important park. I looked further and found out that they're currently blocked from commons for continuing to upload copyright violations. It was also changed to indef because they socked.[1] Further digging revealed that User:Asouum is one of their socks, the only one that has made an edit on this wiki. The only edit from that account was adding a copyrighted file, which was made on 26 August. Ilyes toon was site-wide blocked on 6 August 2024 for one month, meaning that they would be unblocked on 6 September 2024. Asouum edited while the block was active, which means that Ilyes toon attempted to evade their block. _ZZ^Z'S 14:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

BING BING Hello? Now we've got plain waltzing back with the same disruptive edit that they were blocked for previously [1]. Can someone with the bit please be so good as to block (partial or not)? I am aware that this is not as entertaining as The Eeng Show #113, but some housekeeping here would be highly appreciated. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Since you have evidence of socking, SPI is probably faster than waiting on ANI to take action. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

User_talk:Sathyalingam

User_talk:Sathyalingam had many warnings for his disorderly manner on wikipedia vandalizing many pages, changing boxoffice numbers on film pages, making unsourced changes and such. This account is very clearly a disruptive only account and was blocked in September 2022 for edit warring for 3 Mos. After many warnings the user continues this misconduct, clearly showing that he does not care. RangersRus (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: "Sathyalingam" is a real Indian name, so at least the username's not a penis reference. — The Anome (talk) 17:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I've just indefblocked them; it's not like they're unused to being blocked after the multiple previous blocks. Let's see if they respond to the block message with an unblocked request. — The Anome (talk) 19:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Apparent sock puppetry and copyvio

Weeks ago, GroovyGrinster was reported for sockpuppetry and the result is pending, however, there are other serious issues with this editor.

He is violating copyrights. For example, he created an unnecessary POV fork Khilji invasion of Jaisalmer, where the sentences like "3,800 Rajputs died in battle and 24,000 women perished in the flames. Jaisalmer, which had been occupied by a Muslim garrison" are directly copied from this source.

Another example is that he created another unnecessary POV fork today, Seige of Aligarh (1785) where he added: "65 cannons, one large cannon, 100 mounds of cannon powder, 1000 mounds of lead, bags of grains, and forty thousand rupees in cash" which is also directly taken from this source.

He is using AI often to change the wording but he is ending up with blatant misrepresentation of sources or direct copyvio. Some urgent admin action is clearly needed against this editor. Ratnahastin (talk) 17:12, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

• I agree with this comment. Groovy already had SPI cases filed by multiple different users detailing his sock puppetry. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WhiteReaperPM

Despite this, no admin has taken action yet unfortunately. It may have flown under their radar. But evidently, there are other problems with his editing that clearly demonstrates his disruption as Ratnahastin has revealed. Someguywhosbored (talk) 18:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

• FYI. While patrolling, I raised a concern over the rapid multitude of their MH articles (sometimes on very micro events) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#New user making lot of Indian MH articles, and that at least one other editor seemed to be making the same type of articles. The MH Project is also looking at it. Aszx5000 (talk) Aszx5000 (talk) 14:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Ratnahastin, have they been disrupting any articles that they didn't create themselves? I don't think this could possibly be anything other than another one of the Indian milhist sock puppets, but if they're only screwing around with their own creations, they'll be easy to handle by G5 once the sockpuppet investigation clears. -- asilvering (talk) 15:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The sock investigation board is going provably through its largest backlog in history. That's why I am seeking admin action against this editor here because socking is not the only concern. There is also concern with his copyright violations which is a bigger violation than sock puppetry. Ratnahastin (talk) 15:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering im not sure if this counts but they were vote stacking in the Mughal dynasty talk page (groovy and chauthcollecter which is another one of his suspected sockpuppets). Under “RFC Mughal dynasty lead” [Talk:Mughal dynasty] Someguywhosbored (talk) 00:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the author of Battle of Malthan should also be added to the SPI as it seems very similar in style and construction? Aszx5000 (talk) 09:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I think that one might be a different sockmaster. They're already at SPI here. -- asilvering (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh dear, there are more of them. What is their obsession with writing Mickey Spillane articles on events on Indian military history? Thanks for checking. Aszx5000 (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

There are at least three I can name offhand, and I don't have much involvement with sock-hunting. I assume the motivation is nationalism. Whatever it is, it's very annoying. -- asilvering (talk) 20:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Backlog at Requests for unblock

Once again there is a substantial backlog of blocked users requesting unblocking, as listed at CAT:RFU. This is a perennial backlog, but seems much worse than usual lately—a fact that was forcefully drawn to my attention when a frustrated blocked editor posted off-site complaining that no one had commented on his pending unblock request for more than five months. I am going to do my part to help clear the backlog by dealing with one unblock request per day, which strikes me as a reasonably maintainable pace without risking burnout. It would be great if a couple of other admins would also help out. I also thank the admins, including Yamla and 331dot, among others, who have already been active on this task. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:15, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Brad. I'll try do one or two a day that I am active, admittedly that is only every now and then unfortunately. There was an interesting discussion at AN a few months ago relating to the challenges of CAT:RFU...it feels like a perennial issue. Daniel (talk) 02:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Definitely is a perennial issue, one with no clear solution. It's particularly valuable for people to review the older unblock requests. We are able to keep up with almost all the new ones, but some inevitably slip through the cracks. We need a better solution, but while I have some thoughts, it's very far from clear to me what a "better solution" would look like. --Yamla (talk) 13:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps we can allow non-admins to decline the most WP:SNOWy requests. For example, you probably don't need a mop to know that pure insults, an ad, gibberish, a copy of an already declined request, and a screed that has nothing to do with the block will not pass admin muster. If done correctly, more users can help clear the backlog so that admins can focus on requests that stand a reasonable chance. QwertyForest (talk) 14:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

First, it's unlikely that such requests will sit for long, and, second, non-admins cannot review unblock requests period.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I'm not an admin and I peruse the list of active unblock requests pretty often at Category:Requests for unblock. Buddy Gripple (talk) 16:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I think by "review" he means review and action, not simply viewing requests. Anyone can view them; only admins can action/handle them (i.e. we can't unban editors). GhostOfNoMeme 20:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but that's true of all non-admin closures – they're necessarily "no administrative action" closures, like "keep" or "redirect" in AFD. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

While non-admins can't take actions on unblocks (and rightly so), quite frequently, the blocked editors have questions or are confused about the underlying issues, and getting these questions answered ought not to require admin rights, and might alleviate some of the time sink for the admins. I had been doing this occasionally because of the backlog, but stopped as Liz felt it could be considered grave-dancing -- though that certainly wasn't my intent -- but I'm sure the contributions of other non-admins could be constructive here. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

When you say cannot, do you mean "not permitted to" (the proposal is to change this) or "not technically capable of" (maybe you're referring to WP:UTRS)? jlwoodwa (talk) 17:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Just thinking out loud here, maaaybe limit the non-mop unblock denials to Extended Confirmed Users, so we can be as sure as possible, that we’re getting non-mops dipping in, that have a clue regarding Wikipedia:Appealing a block? I’m conscious of newer users coming in, and denying something that could pass muster, or at least should be left to a mop, to decide. This is also in the wilderness that is WP:IAR, as it’s any uninvolved (independent) administrator according to Wikipedia:Appealing a block#What happens next. At present, non-mops can take a look, and comment on the block, but cannot make the final call.

That being said, drop me a TP Message if this goes ahead, i’d be happy to dip in. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 15:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) I don't think WP:EXTENDED should be enough - it can be WP:GAMEd. Should this idea be adopted, it should be a privilege granted by an experienced admin, similar to WP:PAGEMOVER and WP:APAT. Like a sound record of WP:NAC, it would stand an editor in good stead at an WP:RFA. (No, I do not want this privilege.) Narky Blert (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I think there's a strong risk this is a solution in search for a problem. Per Bbb23, how much admin time is really taken up by such requests? Yes I know we have a backlog, but AFAIK most backlogged requests are generally ones where it's neither a slam dunk accept nor deny, that's partially why they end up backlogged. Definitely when I had a quick look I found that this seemed to be the case. (I also found request time is not always that reliable or alternatively I've misunderstood it.) Even the one case I found which I felt was a deny, I'm not sure it's obvious enough I'd want a non -admin making the judgment, Obviously if a lot of admin time is taken up dealing with the clear deny requests, then allowing others to deal with them might reduce this and allow admins to spend more time on the backlogged ones but I'm not convinced this is the case. Nil Einne (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The proposal would speed up taking users who are blocked, and converting them into users who are ... still blocked. The value of that speedup is essentially zero. EEng 17:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Well I'm pretty sure I've heard of a number of editors saying they'd prefer a definitive answer one way or the other so they don't have to keep checking (yes they could potentially turn on email updates for talk pages messages but perhaps they don't want to), or just so they can move on if it's denied. And of course, a denial should generally provide some guidance why it's denied. (Although there are those dreaded, well no one has unblocked in this time so.....; and some other stuff which don't really.) So I don't think denying requests in general is useless since it's not just simply a blocked editor remaining blocked but hopefully giving an editor an answer even if not the one they hoped for, and guidance. And I expected getting that in 2 days rather than 3 weeks let alone 5 months would be preferred. But since this is only for clearcut denials, I'm not sure if most such editors are really that desperately waiting for any answer but instead only the other answer. And likewise, I'm not sure denying them again does provide much benefit to them in them understanding how they might improve. In other words, perhaps for the specific category of editors likely to be affected, there might indeed be little value of the speedup. So IMO it comes down to what I mentioned. If admins were going to do this anyway and spend a fair amount of time on doing so, it might be helpful to reduce said time spent and therefore free them up to deal with more complicated requests or just something else; but it's an open question if they are doing so. Nil Einne (talk) 18:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Forgot to mention there was also one case which wasn't on hold per se, but a question had been asked of the requester which hadn't been answered yet. Nil Einne (talk) 17:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

On the proposal as written, I oppose - if something is that clear-cut, it takes an admin only a few seconds to action. The risk of a non-admin declining a non-clear-cut unblock request is too high and too acute in impact, given the minimal benefit. My $0.02 anyways. Daniel (talk) 23:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Obvious sock

User:USA00001 is an obvious sock of User talk:INDIA0001, repeatedly recreating Draft:Sarveshwar Aryan and Draft:SARVESHWAR ARYAN even after multiple speedy deletions and AfC declines. Block and salt is necessary. Ca ^{talk to me!} 12:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

This IP address is spamming the same person, both here and in simple english Wikipedia: [207]. Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Another sock: User:Sarveshwar Aryan Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Both acccounts are blocked. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive ice hockey IP is now evading their block, part 2

See here for prior details. 142.163.116.80 and 142.163.206.14 showed up in the last two days and are very, very loudly QUACKing. Same pages targeted, same contribs to said pages, and both geolocate to Prince Edward Island just like the original IP.

I'm requesting both that these new IPs be duck-blocked, and the block on the original IP be extended from its current length of 3 months due to now-repeated block evasion. The Kip ^(contribs) 22:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy ping @Jake Wartenberg as blocking admin for both the original IP and the range covered at the last report. The Kip ^(contribs) 22:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

They are now active at 216.208.243.73 and 216.208.243.93 Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 01:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Should also add that the first edit summary on the .73 address read "Get a fckin life you loser," directed at the kip Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 01:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

User has now left more nasty edit summaries with the .73 address Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 02:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

User just admitted to block evasion, again in an edit summary at .73 Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 02:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

User has now harassed me on my talk page Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 03:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, having looked over the individual's activities these last 24 hrs. I'm guessing they'll be a problem for quite some time to come. GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Yup, now they're edit warring. GoodDay (talk) 02:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Is there anything more admins can do besides a continuing game of whack-a-mole? They've edited under 15ish IPs in the last two weeks, and when one range is banned another inevitably pops up. The Kip ^(contribs) 03:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't know of a master solution for persistent vandals and socks beyond range blocks. When I block an editor, I also check off "Account creation blocked" but that seems to have no effect and the editor just creates a new account. I wish that setting had some effect but I haven't noticed that it does. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

66.25.69.185

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

This IP is a disruptive editor that is trying to right great wrongs. He started with disruptive comments on Talk:Dead Internet Theory (Diff/1246070770 and Diff/1246070166). I have removed them citing WP:NOTFORUM and today comes back on my user talkpage leaving xenophobic remarks (Diff/1246225658). I believe a block is needed due to disruptive editing or WP:NOTHERE. Best regards,--A09|(talk) 20:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for 72 hours for personal attacks and harassment based on national origin. Cullen328 (talk) 08:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of content and possible copyvio on His Three Daughters by User:EL0702

EL0702 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly attempting 1 2 3 4 to replace the plot summary on His Three Daughters with a promotional synopsis which seems to just be a copy-paste of the synopsis sent to ticket listings (example). I'm not sure if this copy is usually copyrighted but at the very least it's unexplained removal of content. I've tried to engage with the user via their talk page but have gotten no response, seems to be WP:NOTHERE. The content is still up as I didn't want to violate 3RR without being 100% sure it was copyvio. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

They have responded on their talk page, it seems the user may also have a COI 5. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked EL0702 for one week for edit warring, which is exacerbated by an obvious conflict of interest. I consider undeclared paid editing to be highly likely. Cullen328 (talk) 20:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Wasianpower (bystander comment) Nobody responded to the copyright question, so I guess I'll take it? Yes. Without evidence that the plot summary has been released under a compatible license, or it is old enough to have fallen into the public domain, it is copyrighted. And random paid editors don't always have the authority to license the material under the cc-by-sa 4 license. I hope that helps? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 08:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

GreenLipstickLesbian, often there are multiple reasons to block an editor and the most straightforward ones are the easiest to use to bring the disruption to a rapid stop. Your point is correct, though. Cullen328 (talk) 08:09, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328 Trust me, no push-back from me on that block! I just saw a question and thought I'd provide an answer wasianpower's benefit. In the past, I've had to tell the odd admin that just because a movie studio put a plot summary into a press release doesn't mean that the material is fair game for copy-pasting into Wikipedia, so I'm not entirely convinced that's common knowledge. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 08:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

There is a lot of debate about the copyright status of movie industry press packet material because they yearn for that material to be spread around widely. I lack sufficient expertise in that area of copyright policy to say anything more than that, GreenLipstickLesbian. I appreciate your input, though. Cullen328 (talk) 08:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Frivolous SPIs being filed and baseless accusations by Biohistorian15

Biohistorian15 a few days ago baselessly accused me (here and here) of being a WP:LOUTSOCK connected to two random IP editors from different geolocations (Brighton, UK and New Jersey, US) 51.6.193.169, 73.195.249.93 as well as at least one sockpuppet archive: Anglo_Pyramidologist. This was frivolous and an admin (Daniel Case) rejected their request for page protection of Diana Fleischman (I made a few edits as 90.255.70.21 and 90.255.83.64 since my IP is not static). Considering the accusation was completely unfounded (the IPs are from different countries, were active months/years apart, and have nothing in common in terms of the articles edited), I decided for the past day to look over Biohistorian15's edit history. I found this disruptive user has repeatedly filed frivolous or dubious SPIs over the past 2 weeks:

• 2 September 2024: Anglo_Pyramidologist (based on the SPI discussion this SPI was probably filed proxying for a banned Wikipedia editor User:Deleet (note Deleet posted his real name Emil Kirkegaard on his account) who Biohistorian15 admitted on the same SPI to being in email communication with; on Biohistorians15's talk page a suspicious IP showed up and admitted to having access to Kirkegaard's private social media). The same IP tag-teamed with Biohistorian15 on SPI until they were blocked: "Disruptive editing/harassment, likely block evasion." As the user Psychologist Guy pointed out on the same SPI, it seems obvious it was not filed in good faith, is frivolous and involves bad actors/meatpuppetry: "this is one of the weakest SPI's I have seen. There is some obvious meat-puppetry going on here."
• 3 September 2024: MonkEbobo08 (pointless SPI against IPs which was closed: "IP edits are too old, closing.").
• 5 September 2024: Lp9mm8g (flimsy evidence for sockpuppetry?).
• 6 September 2024: another frivolous SPI but which they oddly deleted but said they might readd at a later date. Biohistorian15's preposterous claim is someone purposely made ~170 disruptive edit reverts to disguise a single revert on OpenPsych. No evidence of course provided for this nonsense.
• Biohistorian15 additionally filed an SPI against 51.6.193.169 which they baselessly accused me of being (despite a different geolocation and my edits have nothing in common with that IP).
• There are possibly a few others I missed.

Suffice to say, I believe it is reasonable based on above to request an admin prevents Biohistorian15 from filing more SPIs.90.255.65.51 (talk) 21:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Did you try talking to biohistorian about your concerns? Mason (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Conclusive proof of sockpuppetry (the fact that this user now brings up which LTA case this is connected to, is not my problem by the way) has been provided to CUs days ago. Multiple IPs are connected to this case. I will not defend myself further to avoid outing them. I now suspect that the person behind the IP has been hounding me for weeks or months.

I was, myself, permanently banned recently. Multiple suspicious users commented under my unblock request right after. This is how I originally got interested in this case. @mason can attest to some of that.

Now that I have some admin attention: you may also look into my wholly legitimate SPI filings. The LP9 one e.g. was frankly a WP:DUCK. Thanks for bringing this to wider attention 90.255... Biohistorian15 (talk) 22:33, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Please ignore the US IP address by the way. While likely a proxy, I immediately removed my mention as I couldn't prove it. Biohistorian15 (talk) 22:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I also invite admins to look into my recent ban (the peculiar unblock request still being on my talk) as I find it likely that whole affair ironically started with somebody emailing various admins/CUs with loads of frivolous SPI suggestions until one of these finally seemed to stick.

And this person may well also be present today. After all, why else would someone invest so much time defaming me for putting a {{uw-login}} template on two of their various IPs'/proxies' talk pages? Biohistorian15 (talk) 22:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I think you've covered all the context needed. I recommend letting others chime in. Mason (talk) 23:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think their objective is to defame you, it sounds like they are feeling harrassed. I'm more suprised with the backlog at SPI that your cases got such a swift response. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• Wow, I don't think I've ever read such a contentious SPI report, wide-ranging, much of it completely rambling, accusations and counter-accusations, this needs to be closed and archived by an SPI Clerk or an admin who helps out with SPI cases. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I said on the SPI Biohistorian15 filed, I did not want to respond/engage directly (only alert admins to their abuse of SPIs). The reason is Biohistorian15 constantly posts untruthful claims and it is a waste of time responding to someone so dishonest. To provide a few examples in their edits above: (a) Biohistorian15 claims the US IP 73.195.249.93 is "likely a proxy". This is demonstrably incorrect based on a proxy detection test (the same tool used in separate discussions above.) The New Jersey, US IP also had nothing in common with my edits and was last active 3 years ago yet Biohistorian15 falsely and baselessly accused me of owning it. As for the Brighton, UK IP 51.6.193.169 which is also a different geolocation to my IP-range, none of my edits match the articles edited by that IP (not one) yet Biohistorian15 baselessly accused me of "almost certainly" being that IP on an article protection request (which was declined). These accusations are clearly frivolous and unjustified. Furthermore, Biohistorian15 is lying above when they stated they "originally got interested in this case" by comments left on their talk during their unblock request. In reality, Biohistorian15 had already targeted 51.6.193.169 weeks before after having a disagreement with them and reverted that IPs edits on the Heiner Rindermann article and then followed that IP a day later to make a disruptive revert of another edit they made on the Dysgenics article talk: "Rv disruptive removal of IP comment. The comment was unambiguously about improving the article." (as pointed out by @Generalrelative:). To conclude, I believe Biohistorian15 holds a grudge against 51.6.193.169 and this explains why they are filing SPIs against that IP. The rest of their edit appears to be an attempt at deflection. Suddenly they are claiming they are the victim and "defamed" despite they are patently the harasser filing frivolous SPIs.90.255.86.97 (talk) 02:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

90.255.86.97, I'm warning you that your personal attacks distract editors and admins from the case you are making. I understand you are frustrated, but this could lead to your account being blocked. This is a very complicated case and I don't know how long it will take to get some uninvolved editors to weigh all of the content here and, even worse, at the SPI case. If this case isn't simplified, it might just be archived in a few days with no action being taken. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. I do not plan to further respond here. It is frustrating though dealing with someone who constantly posts demonstrably incorrect claims. The US IP Biohistorian15 repeatedly wrongly described as a "proxy" is not a proxy IP. Above they also incorrectly described my own IPs as "proxies" which is not true either. The SPIs accusations against me are completely frivolous which is what I want an admin to investigate. Why would I be a 3 year old American IP with no edits in common or a Brighton IP with zero overlapping edits? Biohistorian15 has recently gone on to another talk page to falsely claim they have a "pretty solid proof for past claims". They also made a highly doubtful claim above of "conclusive proof of sockpuppetry" yet that is not found on the aforementioned SPI. The same user claimed I was "almost certainly" a sockpuppet even though I do not use accounts and have made only sporadic IP edits over the past few years. 90.255.86.97 (talk) 06:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Every single statement the IP makes is a slight misrepresentation. It takes real familiarity with this case to understand this.

For one, they were the ones originally canvassing the talk page of an editor they (ultimately falsely) perceived (from their comments in the SPI) to be an "enemy" of mine or something, and I merely commented in response. Biohistorian15 (talk) 08:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Proxy detection services are extremely unreliable. Furthermore, their focus on details like that long-stale IP I added (and then immediately removed) as context to a request for page protection is actively distracting from what is really going on here.

Ignore the two SPI filings I deleted to not waste clerks time and focus on the case that is actually open. Biohistorian15 (talk) 08:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Anybody is, however, welcome to look into the strange behavior of the most recent UK IP originally in the SPI filing with lots of evidence to show for: 51.6.193.169 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Perhaps you'll find a few likely LOUTSOCKS with obvious behavioral similarities all on your own... Biohistorian15 (talk) 08:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I would like to note that another new user, Trump's mushroomhead, has now started reverting at least two of my recent contribs with defamatory edit summaries. I don't know if there's a connection or not. 10:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biohistorian15 (talk • contribs) ^<diff>

Harassment from unregistered user

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

---

I received the following message on my talk page from the following unregistered user 113.211.210.44: "Hey TDKR Chicago, you Openly Homosexual Gay, why do you always change famous persons infobox image to younger or black & white versions if got when they die and sometimes in their teens and also would you change for example the former Prime Minister of Malaysia and dictator Mahathir Mohamad from the current one to a younger version of himself in the 1980s during his tenure from 1981 to 2003 when his dies?"

I have since removed the message from my talk page, but it can be found here here. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Update: The unregistered user has reverted my edit of removing his harassment from my talk page. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• Not me, but this Openly Homosexual Gay User:TDKR Chicago 101 indefinitely and also before that he was once blocked indefinitely in 2012. See here 113.211.210.44 (talk) 07:09, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

See what I'm saying? TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note that there is also edit warring on Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention an this subject. IP:113.211.210.44 - This sort of harassment is never acceptable, whatever content disputes you are in with another editor.Nigel Ish (talk) 07:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• • Not me, but this Openly Homosexual Gay User:TDKR Chicago 101 and please block him indefinitely and also before that he was once blocked indefinitely in 2012. See here 113.211.210.44 (talk) 07:09, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Also reported user to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring for edit warring on my talk page and for reverting my response on Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Like to thank @Amaury: for his speedy reverts. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

With the IP repeatedly removing TDKR's messages and the personal attacks they are making, I think a block is warranted. QwertyForest (talk) 07:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Given how constant this IP is vandalizing my talk page with personal attacks, I believe a longer block should be given, however I'll respect whatever decision the admins make. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Given the two examples this user shared on Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention (images for Tito Jackson and James Darren), this user's (113.211.211.5) only two edits are adding the images on Jackson and Darren's page. They're possibly the same user. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Update. User has been blocked for two weeks for edit warring by @ToBeFree: (thank you). However, given the personal attacks, not sure if it's possible to extend block? Okay if not. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi TDKR Chicago 101, the duration of IP address blocks doesn't depend (much) on the severity of the issues, so I hope the two weeks aren't seen as a severity classification. Two weeks are usually short enough to prevent other Wikipedia users from being affected, long enough to deter the user of a static IP address from simply waiting until the block expires, and long enough to include the remaining duration of dynamic IP addressing, after which the block loses its technical effect anyway. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I see! I thought in the past I saw first time unregistered users being blocked for longer than two weeks depending on the reason. I was just curious. If anything persists I’ll just go back here and report the user. Thanks for solving this issue! TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

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

Socks of Ahmedshoyebiqbal12

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

---

These two users are clearly socks of indefinitely blocked Ahmedshoyebiqbal12 (talk · contribs)

• AhmedShoyebIqbal1122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Shoyebiqbal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

They are recreating the deleted content of the blocked user. Marbletan (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

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

Inappropriate edit summaries by GamingDude2000

GamingDude2000 (talk · contribs) was warned in April 2024 and again in August 2024 not to use abusive or inaccurate edit summaries (when they can be bothered to use one at all). Nevertheless, they persisted with their recent edit to Honey badger (men's rights), which falls within two contentious topic areas (gender and biographies of living persons). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Holy crap. I revdeleted one of his edit summaries, which was just totally beyond acceptable. Indeffed for repeated BLP violations. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

"Gaming" plus "Dude". What could possibly go wrong? Cullen328 (talk) 18:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)