Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

49.36.176.122 (talk · contribs) posted something which kind of is a legal threat but kind of isn't on Talk:2024 Kolkata rape and murder incident; they're demanding a given change be made to the article and saying that if it is not then Indian employees of the Wikimedia foundation will be in legal jeopardy (something I'm fairly certain is untrue, but I digress) - but not directly threatening to report it themselves. One could construe it as a misguided if good-faith attempt to be helpful, I suppose. Anyway, it probably warrants a look. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on the fence about this one, they are talking about Indian law without threatening to take action but they are making demands for an editorial change. It's complicated because they are an IP address. If they were a registered account and they made a clear legal threat, we would indefinitely blocked them until they retracted their threat. But we don't indefinitely block IP addresses and this account was issuing a warning about potential future actions rather than making a specific threat. I'd like to hear what other admins and editors think. I'm also doubtful of the accuracy of what action they say could happen. But their remarks could serve to intimidate editors working on this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The message looks to me like the ip may be concerned about WP editors rather than a legal threat to take action? Knitsey (talk) 17:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's been ongoing requests at that page to remove the victim's name under Indian law, and repeated replies re WP:NOTCENSORED. In this particular case, I read this as an IP trying to scare editors to make the requested change out of the supposed liability under Indian law, and the supposed stance that the Wikimedia Foundation isn't properly protecting users. I don't think any of this is true, but I don't think it is a specfici threat from this user themself. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is an attempt to chill discussion and weaponize the law in a content dispute. It is definitely against the spirit of the rule if not the letter, and ought not to be tolerated. MrOllie (talk) 18:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it covered by the 'Perceived legal threats' section, "Your edits could be illegal..." wink wink nudge nudge. Reading their further replies that certainly seems to be what they are suggesting. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They're saying that it is an "ORDER to WMF by India's 2nd most powerful court" and that "WMF counsel has agreed to comply and turn the user details over for service of court summons/notice." // "WMF is certain to throw its editors (admins) under the bus". Seems like very obvious legal threats to me. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 21:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll consider this edit Special:Diff/1241706132 to be a legal threat in the context. I see the IP user to be physically involved with legal bodies Special:Diff/1241714216 to be of much concern as to whether they might, if not already, initiate such legal processes themselves or thru their proxies. — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 17:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reading their responses since I posted my opinion, I think both you and MrOllie may be correct. Knitsey (talk) 18:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For fairness' sake I should note that the user posted on their talk page in response to the ANI notice. Being an IP user, they can't respond here directly. AntiDionysius (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They have also posted about this on the non autoconfirmed subpage. GrayStorm^{(Complaints Dept.|My Contribs.)} 02:22, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The somewhat personal attacks should not be accepted (as seen here). Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 21:24, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas I read those "personal attacks" as a good faith attempt to sensitize an editor from India about the potential liablities of editors under their own (often draconian) local laws, as also set down in our Terms of Use. FWIW I view Special:Diff/1241719272 as a genuine advice to that editor by the IP. Sectioneer (talk) 13:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it as a legal threat, just throwing big words around in an attempt to get their way. Concerning, but nothing to worry about, yet. Should it escalate, that could be another discussion. Oaktree b (talk) 12:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

throwing big words around in an attempt to get their way

That's kinda the heart of WP:LEGAL. They're attempting to browbeat others into editing in favor of their POV by using legal language, or "cautioning" others that they could be prosecuted. That's the chilling effect mentioned, and the entire reason WP:LEGAL was created, so people can't use claims of legal action to drive other editors off the page or make them perform specific edits. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. If someone has information they think relevant to legal matters, they should forward it to WMF legal. They should not be giving I-am-not-a-lawyer legal advice to other editors. EEng 23:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The IP had mentioned the "Hindu Raksha Dal" in one of their early messages. This fringe religious group (but armed with automatic weapons and many police case of violence and intimidation) had posted a PDF on their website earlier this week. They've reported the Indian Wikipedia editor to the Supreme Court Empowered Committee for namimg the victim and refusing to take it down, asking for his/her arrest and also made some legal threats against Wikipedia employees in India. Sectioneer (talk) 18:19, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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%). ^[1] Meta Voyager (talk) 13:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

— 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  @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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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

This editor's repeatedly added the word "communist" to Joseph Stalin's first sentence without consensus or valid explanation (see this, this and this). I warned them not to edit war again, but they've obviously ignored it. Also, this isn't the only disruptive edit they've made in politics-related articles (see this, this, this, this and this). Thedarkknightli (talk) 04:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @REDACTED403, @Grandpallama, @Chewings72, @Marcus Markup and @Torimem, could you please take a look at this? Thanks in advance! Thedarkknightli (talk) 04:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This editor makes repetitive changes to dates and titles without providing any explanation for the validity of the changes or providing any reliable sources to support the changes. Chewings72 (talk) 05:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For those curious scrolling by (I do not have the means for a detailed investigation at the moment), Mouch's version is: Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin (born Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili; 18 December [O.S. 6 December] 1878 – 5 March 1953) was a Soviet politician and communist revolutionary who led the Soviet Union from 1924 until his death in 1953. He held power as General Secretary of the Communist Party from 1922 to 1952 and Chairman of the Council of Ministers from 1941 until his death. Note that in the second sentence it already said he held power as General Secretary of the Communist Party, so it seems totally pointless to also say it a second time in the first sentence, even if the guy was awful ("Known communist Joseph 'I F*@%$ing Love Communism' Stalin was a communist Soviet politician and communist revolutionary who led the communist Soviet Union from 1924 until his damn commie death in 1953.") jp×g🗯️ 06:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And is continuing to do so, today, at Sergei Sedov. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 14:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still continuing to make these edits today. glman (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get a block here please?

• Edit warring on adding "communist": [1]
• Edit warring on "man of steel": [2] [3] [4]
• Edit warring on both of the above: [5] [6]

Thank you. GA-RT-22 (talk) 16:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More edit warring on a different article, same user, same text "man of steel".

• Floriano Peixoto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• [7] [8] [9] [10]

GA-RT-22 (talk) 16:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User continues to edit war:

• both "communist" and "man of steel" at Joseph Stalin: [11]

That makes seven times he has inserted one or the other (or both) of these two terms in this article in the last couple weeks. He has been adequately warned on his talk page. In addition to the warnings there was an attempt to communicate with him here [12] to which he did not respond. Can we please get a block now? GA-RT-22 (talk) 23:49, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whitewashing going on at In the Light of Truth: The Grail Message. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing reading on several neo-religious/spiritual movements on this website. A number of them are free of such descriptions as you ascribe to In the Light of Truth. Claims of cultism and cult-like leadership, if anything, should be a separate section of 'criticisms' but descriptions of the group and its beliefs should not be described with such bias. The Eckankar page is a great example of how such discussion is addressed Johnthewhale (talk) 21:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a content dispute. @Tgeorgescu, your obscure message repeated on the article's talk page and the new editor's talk page does not seem to be an attempt to resolve the dispute. Schazjmd (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism sections are dissuaded.

My opponent seeks to whitewash that cult. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not seek to whitewash anything. However, the descriptions of Bernhardt and the failed coming of the Kingdom and the 'bafflement' of adherents at the failure have nothing to do with the contents of the book itself. It is off topic and few other spiritual movements are treated as such on Wikipedia in general. Why is this any different? Johnthewhale (talk) 21:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF. That failed coming and the bafflement are WP:V in a mainstream scholarly WP:RS. Also, predicting that coming is all the book is about.

Predicting the imminent apocalypse of the 1940s and quickly preparing for the coming of the Kingdom of God are the main topics of the book.

In other words, Abd-ru-shin thought he is the Second Coming of Jesus. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This also feels like a content dispute to me. My prescription for this involves a healthy dose of discussion in an attempt to hopefully achieve a WP:CONSENSUS. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If everybody were allowed to delete WP:V information based upon mainstream WP:RS, Wikipedia would go to the dogs.

My opponent seems to pit a paper of cult apologetics against mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP ([13]). tgeorgescu (talk) 22:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Schazjmd, you may want to take another look at what is going on here. Last week a new editor, Calvasche (now blocked, prior ANI), arrived at Grail Movement, pushing some "source" posted on a blog "REFUTATION of the text “MILLENNIAL EXPECTATIONS IN THE GRAIL MOVEMENT” by Zdenek Vojtisek". The blog promotes the works of this Brazil publisher. They really don't like the work of cs:Zdeněk Vojtíšek of Charles University, near as i can tell our best authority on the group(s) involved. Now comes Johnthewhale, removing content cited to Vojtisek, taking issue with new religious movement, and pushing the same "source". He is also arguing pretty much as Vojtisek says the main group does here: downplaying or rationalizing the millennial aspects. fiveby(zero) 00:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

fiveby, maybe you should open a case at WP:SPI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johnthewhale. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please note I have not made similar changes to Grail Movement, which is where I think it is more appropriate to include such statements Johnthewhale (talk) 14:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The millenial aspects are not my concern, though what Vojtisek states does not really match other sources I've seen. My only concern was the line in the synopsis (as it has nothing to do with an actual synopsis). I also stopped editing the 'new religious movement' section because I realize other similar movements are discussed in the same manner. Works in other new religious movements Armstrongism, Theosophy, and others are not described in the main body of their respective articles using words like cult and the like. Such a framework is reminiscent of New religious movement#Opposition, which reflects bias even if on a scholarly basis. I simply feel that such descriptions belong in a separate 'criticisms' or 'controversies' section. These changes are meant to contribute consistency in the way these things are discussed and have nothing to do with my personal beliefs. Johnthewhale (talk) 14:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, "Criticism" sections are frowned upon. They're a vestige of early Wikipedia, and do not conform to modern editing standards. Any criticism should be naturally written into the article, alongside whatever point is being criticized. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And what of 'controversies'? Johnthewhale (talk) 02:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In articles on WRITTEN WORKS, I am sure all veteran editors here are aware that criticisms are generally placed in a section called "Reception"; using the new editor's lack of knowledge about this minor detail of general practice seems to be like Wikilawyering.. (not you say it IS, just that it seems like it COULD be). 73.2.106.248 (talk) 22:17, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I managed to find one of his WP:RS at https://www.ezw-berlin.de/publikationen/artikel/70-todestag-von-oskar-ernst-bernhardt/ . Contrary to what Johnthewhale claims at WP:SPI, it does not contradict Vojtisek's paper. As someone wrote elsewhere, let's call it liberal approach to sourcing. Namely, the source never denies that the Grail Movement is a millenarian movement, and agrees with Vojtisek that Abd-ru-shin called himself the Son of Man. Marloes Janson states that the Grail Movement adopted the "supermarket model" of New Age religion, rather than stress dogmatism. I do not have access to all those pages, but it does not seem to me like she is denying its millenarian beginnings. She wrote "The Grail Movement was founded by the self-proclaimed Messiah Oskar Ernst Bernhardt..." tgeorgescu (talk) 00:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I never used the word contradict. I simply said disagree. A disagreement does not have to be a direct calling out or an explicit difference, but rather an inconsistency with the approach and voice of Vojtisek. Moving the goal posts you are Johnthewhale (talk) 01:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just because they stress different aspects of the movement, it does not mean that either WP:RS is wrong. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry if this is not the best place to report this; I don't know how can I report such a thing, but Boscaswell made an unsubstantiated racism flavored claim that a million white girls have fallen victim to moslem rape gangs. This misbehaviour was pointed out to them by DWMemories on 20 August 2024, yet they didn't retract it. I'm afraid that leaving such comments for too long may give the false impression that such comments are allowed on Wikipedia even tho they aren't.

I also believe their talk page may suggest that they're on some WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS crusade.— 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 19:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I have redacted that bit of particularly unpleasant racism and revision-deleted it from the history. User:Boscaswell, you are almost certain to be blocked from editing if you pull a stunt like that one again. If any other admin wants to take further action, please feel free. Black Kite (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Considering they're trying to pretend the racist English Defense League no longer exists, it seems this person is just here to spread bigotry. Per WP:HID, I'd say they need indeffed. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  To be fair, there is genuine doubt as to whether the EDL still technically exists. A number of their other edits are ... dubious, though, it has to be said. Black Kite (talk) 20:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, compared to the now-redacted comment, the view that the EDL no longer exists isn't particularly controversial. I heard it expressed by several commentators during the 2024 United Kingdom riots, including by Hope Not Hate. Our own article on the organisation refers to it as "defunct". Cordless Larry (talk) 20:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my defence… the statement originates with UK Labour Party MP for Rotherham Sarah Champion, who said in 2015, "There are hundreds of thousands and I think there could be up to a million victims of exploitation nationwide, including right now." One massive and now very well known problem which existed around the abuse is that anyone drawing attention to it feared being labelled as racist.
On my user page I am merely reflecting the views of Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger. Boscaswell talk 21:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a solid defense, she didn't mention anything that concerns the background of the rapists or the race of the victims.

Should we understand that you are doubling down? — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 21:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on a minute, the complaint revolves around a statement I made being unsubstantiated, but when I do substantiate it, I’m at fault? The information in the Shadow Minister for Women and Equalities section of the Sarah Champion article also refers, in particular the quotations in paras 2 thereof. All that having been said, I accept that my making the statement where I made it was not a wise move. I bid you good day. Boscaswell talk 23:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But your comment hasn't been substantiated for the reasons Cheesedealer explained.

Your original post also included other invented statistics to back up your flawed argument. DWMemories (talk) 00:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't show that "a million white girls have fallen victim to moslem rape gangs", it says "There could be up to a million victims of child sexual exploitation in the UK" without any mention of the perpetrators. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From the statistics 89% of the perpetrators will be white.[14] -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And it's not Islam that's the problem religion: [15] Daveosaurus (talk) 05:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps it is, if you look at the comments on this current AfD. Black Kite (talk) 12:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that yesterday the original article content and name where well meant, but it was immediately highjacked and the current title is still an issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Boscaswell has AGAIN written a troubling comment. This time on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslim grooming gangs in the United Kingdom DWMemories (talk) 08:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Cban. We're an encyclopaedia; our purpose is to inform. We're not here to help these people spread the paltering that justifies their nasty little views.—S Marshall T/C 09:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose any action as Boscaswell has been here for a long time. Support sanctions against S Marshall for the personal attack and violation of the civility pillar. Fistagon my son (talk) 10:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC) Sock go bye-bye. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 11:16, 31 August 2024 (UTC) [reply]

  Wikipedia rarely takes much notice of newly-created accounts whose sole 'contribution' to the project is a comment at WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed. Conversely, if you're here long enough you get away with racism and abuse. Fistagon my son (talk) 10:49, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sock. [16] AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:07, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I guessed as much. Nice catch. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• That talkpage makes pretty clear why they're here and it's not to collaboratively build an encyclopaedia. The conduct at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslim grooming gangs in the United Kingdom is also disturbing and illuminating. They refer to efforts to cleanup this page from being a racist, conspiratorial diatribe as having "emasculated" the article and it should now be deleted as there is "no point in having something which does its utmost to minimise and belittle something which is so horrific". I cannot see how someone with this attitude and views can ever contribute constructively here. AusLondonder (talk) 13:33, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I'm wondering why/how this editor is not yet indeffed? GiantSnowman 13:39, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taking Shushugah's suggestion, I started looking at prior edits. I'm splitting this out from the CBAN discussion to avoid confusing the !voting process. Four of Boscaswell's edits were rev-del'd. I haven't looked at more than a couple of the prior edits. Many are in non-controversial topics. The one edit I looked at in a controversial topic appeared to minimize the intent of Sall Grover, who developed a women's cisgender-only service, but the edit (Special:Diff/1241788348/1241792033) was already addressed by another editor.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:49, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the very next edit I looked at was for Douglas Murray (author), in which Boscaswell labelled the Guardian as "left-wing". Looks like we will need to review most recent edits.] — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian is, quite deliberately, left wing, mind. How is that a problematic edit? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sirfurboy Centre-left is how we describe it. Not left wing. Doug Weller talk 18:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah this edit conflicted with a clarification I was writing: "Well technically liberal is what is deliberate [17] but it is left of centre". Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should also clarify that the New York Times and the Middle East Eye was also included in the paragraph and thus got the "left-wing" label as well. With Boscaswell's edit, the paragraph started with Left wing reviews of the book were highly negative. One last newspapaper in the paragraph is properly left-wing: The Intercept. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That adds a whole extra layer of bias. "Reviews in a left-wing paper" would be a violation of NPOV, "left-wing reviews" moves even further from any semblance of neutrality. --bonadea contributions talk 19:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess - and y'all know better than I - that it is considering an act of POV-pushing, because this is done to express bias/conflict of interest of the source. This reminds me of a long discussion taking place rn on whether stating that the Gaza Health Ministry is Hamas-run is due or violates NPOV, and I guess it's the same thing here with the Guardian as a source, no? — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 19:03, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I should have linked the revision to provide context, where it does seem to be an undue edit: Special:Permalink/1240495659. Read the third and fourth paragraph under "Publications". The fourth paragraph had formerly started with "Other reviews..." — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:11, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Holy shit. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 11:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This issue has been taken to WP:BLP/N^[2][3] and has been subject to a long and drawn out debate. After a brief edit war yesterday, the controversial subject matter was removed^[4], but a few editors have persisted on the talk page^[5] insisting that sources must be cited to prove the subject matter is controversial. @Cortador in particular has continued to persist in demanding sources be presented or the material restored despite BLP policy clearly stating that disputed content should be removed until there is affirmative consensus.

I warned Cortador in this edit^[6], and he has continued to make the same argument without citing any policy to back up his argument. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was notified, but I can only summarize what I said on the talk page and at BLPN: I don't think I've ever edited this article or talk page. I saw the discussion at BLPN, looked at the material in question, looked at the talk page, didn't see a clear consensus to include contentious material in a BLP, and so removed it because we need consensus to include rather than exclude. Regardless of whether it should be included here or elsewhere in some way, a hoax claiming a BLP had sex with a couch is very obviously going to be controversial and anyone arguing that it isn't should probably take a step back from editing BLPs. (To be clear, this doesn't mean I think the situation is ANI-worthy and am not arguing for any admin action). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Whilst BLP is obviously the overriding policy here, I sort of understand the point they are making. The hoax was widely covered by lots of reliable sources, and the section (before it was removed) make it very clear that it was a hoax and it was false. We have entire articles about hoaxes with BLP implications so I am unconvinced that a sentence or two here is UNDUE. Regardless, I don't think that Cortador or the others arguing for its inclusion are in any way being disruptive, so I don't think any admin action is required here. Black Kite (talk) 14:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for looking into this. At this point I'm not fishing for sanctions, however, perhaps an admin coming along and reiterating the policy on BLPs and that an RFC should be opened rather than continuing what appears to be an unending discussion. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, for whatever it's worth, there is no mention of the Pizza Gate hoax on James Alefantis page. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:18, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:OTHERSTUFF

  Kingsmasher678 (talk) 16:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you replying to me or @Black Kite? Because sword cuts both ways. Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is not the place to play games. You made some very signficant allegations about disruptive behavior which you have failed to substantiate, that is a big problem. Please substantiate your allegations. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the talk page at Talk:JD Vance, but Kcmastrpc has repeatedly used the threat of AN/I to try to disrupt and discourage discussion at the talk page after finally getting their way and having the paragraph under discussion removed. This is not collegial interaction, and threatening users who are in no way being disruptive is, itself, disruptive. Instead of answering the questions posed (likely because they can't) they've chosen this instead to try and find an administrator to end this for them. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since this discussion has been spiraling out of control for over a month now, wouldn't a formal RfC be wise to establish a consensus for inclusion/exclusion? No opinion on a boomerang proposal. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^ Would advise discussing options before launching this, because this is a case where the wording and placement will matter quite a lot. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, maybe we could use the removed content as a starting point for wording, since those who supported inclusion in the first place seemed to be fine with, and then discuss proposals for placement. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support boomerang, the pattern of bludgeoning and attacking... Then threatening ANI... Needs to stop. Kcmastrpc appears to be NOTHERE, they do almost nothing editing wise that could not be described as participating in the political pissing contest de jure in at best a not helpful manner... Top ten articles edited: JD Vance, Twitter Files, Chloe Cole, Lauren Boebert, Tucker Carlson, Riley Gaines, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Attempted assassination of Donald Trump, Andy Ogles and 2024 Solingen stabbing... Top ten article talk pages edited: Talk:Chloe Cole, Talk:JD Vance, Talk:Attempted assassination of Donald Trump, Talk:2023 Nashville school shooting, Talk:Marjorie Taylor Greene, Talk:Hunter Biden, Talk:Thomas Matthew Crooks, Talk:Andy Ogles, Talk:Tucker Carlson, and Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez [18]. Wikipedia is not a political forum, there is no reason to keep this Yahoo Comments style disruptive editor around when they don't even do any good work to balance out the negative personality traits and constant disruption. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Horse Eye's Back: de jure du jour 100.36.106.199 (talk) 22:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, yes. If you had seen my high school report cards it would come as no surprise to you that I have badly bungled the French language. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

lol :) 100.36.106.199 (talk) 23:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Locke Cole Suggesting WP:BOOMERANG for behavior you yourself have exhibited is a WP:BOLD move. Per @Horse Eye's Back, I brought diffs, and I'd suggest you bring diffs and not just a list of articles that I engage with. Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of bludgeoning are tedious due to the sheer volume of comments... For example at Talk:JD Vance you appear to have bludgeoned at least three different discussions amounting to some 80 edits over only 17 days. Now to be fair I myself have 58 edits on the same talk page so my house has windows, but those 58 edits are over a period of more than two years not less than three weeks. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kcmastrpc For anyone curious, please look at the diff Kcmastrpc provided and the context. Traumnovelle was casting WP:ASPERSIONS (claiming, that editors in the discussion were acting out of a political ideology/motive and not on the basis of sources or WP:PAG) without any evidence whatsoever. I rightly told Traumnovelle to provide evidence and open a discussion at WP:AN/I instead of repeatedly casting aspersions. This is significantly different than what Kcmastrpc did: I'm about to take this to AN/I if you continue to persist and I'm literally drafting the AN/I report right now, which were attempts to silence the discussion they didn't like. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not voting, but I will point out that a look at @Kcmastrpc's talk page will show that there has been other problems with this users talk page behavior in the past.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 17:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to when I had to literally invoke WP:USERTALKSTOP after @Horse Eye's Back wouldn't stop engaging me when I asked them politely to continue the discussion on the articles talk page? I would argue that most of my interactions are cordial, with disagreements coming to an amenable conclusion. I'd ask editors bring examples or diffs. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't say other wise, and not declaring support for this because of that. I am talking about the other sections of your talk page, which present a picture of this being a issue which has been raised in the past, independent of this article.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be presenting history in a way which is favorable to you but not entirely factual... You chose to invoke USERTALKSTOP as a trump card after doing poorly in a discussion about your use of misleading edit summaries (you know that a discussion about user conduct can't be conducted on the article talk page, so insisting on directing a discussion about user conduct to a talk page is a kosher but sneaky way of getting out of the discussion), not because I was being disruptive on your talk page (or anywhere else). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:21, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This also isn't the first time @Kcmastrpc has been accused of Wikipedia:Casting aspersions or of Wikipedia:Edit warring. See here.

Also see here: Talk:JD Vance#Introduction of PRIMARY sources by Skyerise - Acknowledgement of possible 3RR violation & accusing others of Wikipedia:Gaming the system while offering no evidence. Wozal (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skyerise is currently blocked for 1 month after edit warring, and blocks seems to be a recurring issue for that editor. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of who was or was not banned, it's not an excuse for the behavior that I've expressed concerns about in my original comment, especially as it involves other users who are not banned. Wozal (talk) 17:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the same token, I'm not sure how an instance of a single 3RR block, an accusation of aspersions (both made years ago), and a recent interaction with a user who has a record of incivility and edit warring that was recently blocked has anything to do with this particular AN/I boomerang request, especially in light of the reporting editors behavior. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And what would be your issue with the reporting editor's behavior in the linked diff? That once again seems to be vaguely casting aspersions of misconduct without ever actually drilling down and explaining yourself. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:23, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For interested editors, the conversation was archived to Talk:JD_Vance/Archive_3#Introduction_of_PRIMARY_sources_by_Skyerise. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:12, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Per the BLP discussion about the couch hoax it seems clear that a number of editors who aren't engaged with the Vance talk page do see this as a BLP issue. This is coming across as more like an opportunity to get rid of an editor who isn't going along with the group vs an editor who is distributive. We shouldshouldn't confuse disagreeing with distribution. Springee (talk) 11:05, 31 August 2024 (UTC)correction Springee (talk) 20:12, 31 August 2024 (UTC) [reply]

to get rid of an editor who isn't going along with the group So far there's a not-insignificant number of editors opining here who aren't involved in either of the immediate talk page discussions that are being considered here, so I'm not sure if you're just not WP:AGF or also casting WP:ASPERSIONS. But you really should qualify these types of statements more... as to disagreeing [or] distribution, I'm assuming you're meaning disruptive for the second choice, and if so, Kcmastrpc has absolutely drifted into disruption with the AN/I threats, conversation trolling at Talk:Imane Khelif, and their use of Wikipedia as a political forum as noted by Horse Eye's Back. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article discussion is at Talk:JD Vance#Remove the nonsense about the couch and, as noted above, the two BLPN reports are here and here. The issues discussed above (who has been most bad) are trivia because there has been pushing and shoving on both sides. What needs to be sorted out is what should happen regarding text in the article (and at Talk:Tim Walz#Inclusion of Horse S*men Controversy?). My feeling is that the normal procedure of bludgeoning and low-level edit warring should not be permitted. Instead, contentious material should be omitted until a well-advertised RfC supports inclusion. I was thinking of asking for views at WP:AN regarding that as ANI is not really suitable, but we are here now. Johnuniq (talk) 08:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support broad boomerang - In addition to the above instances of bludgeoning and tendentious editing on AmPol articles pointed out by others, they violated BLP at Talk:Imane Khelif with this edit by "just asking questions" re: Khelif's gender. At this point, with their propensity for engaging in American Politics and tangentially-related culture war issues, I would go as far to support an indef as WP:NOTHERE. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  13:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Just to note that Kcmastrpc has upped the ante to engaging in false claims of canvassing. Support Horse Eye's Back WP:NOTHERE statement as well, there appears to be a distinct attempt to use talk pages as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In Special:Diff/1242371226, User:Yewtharaptor added a large section of text which, for the most part, was a near exact copy of a piece of text from this abstract booklet, page 10-11. I intended to leave a warning on their talk page, but was reminded that they have previously received warnings, article deletions and blocks (including two indefinite ones) because of copyright violations.

I'm also paging @Diannaa, @Yamla and @Rosguill, seeing as they were involved in the process surrounding the user's previous bans. Although they were unbanned in March 2023, and don't seem to have received any warnings since, I am of the opinion that this is a troubling return to the behavior seen pre-ban. Hence why I was inclined to bring it up here. The Morrison Man (talk) 21:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have been doing what I promished, Crafting detailed articles respecting the rules os the wiki as I told I would do. I have been editing a lot of articles SINCE 2023 (Specially polishing bad writing) and in all the cases with full respect for the rules. In this Case, there wasn´t a proper translation of the cited anatomical features of Asfaltovenator (Difficult without quote the Same name that they have featured on the Abstract). But, I solved that error by deleting the compromised names and polished the overall article to be ON RULE.

My defense is all the edits I have been doing since 2023 within the rules.

I´m not going to touch any anatomical-related section since I have seen I can´t write them, I will limit to what I know to work well

Or nothing, at this rate I gess...

It was fun to have the Tafraout group done, I had the wish to add our future articles data

Yewtharaptor (talk) 22:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems they've righted their wrong and acknowledged the copyright violation by fixing the section. Conyo14 (talk) 23:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to stress that this is not a single event. The user has already been blocked indefinitely twice for copyright violation, and has shown at numerous times that not only they have a bad habit of recidivism after a few months once they believe they can get away with it, but also lack the maturity needed to reflect on their bad habits and actually correct them, trying to find reasons why they shouldn't be blamed and trying to pressure other editors instead of actually apologizing and correcting their way. Larrayal (talk) 00:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 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 - [19]. Furthermore, since then, there have been further edits containing such errors ([20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]).

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Their mainspace contributions might not go a long way towards building the encyclopedia (most recently [26]) 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.[27] NebY (talk) 16:28, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

For those puzzled by the heading, OP has brought O recomeço to ANI over this concern twice before. [28][29] Grandpallama (talk) 01:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Joshua Jonathan (talk · contribs) appears to be engaged in WP:SOAP and WP:TE on a WP:BLP article titled Michael Witzel. I am not very aware of the subject but I was asked by an editor RealPharmer3 (talk · contribs) to come and try to help on the article where they asked me User_talk:Jtbobwaysf#Wanted_to_get_your_opinion_on_WP:BLP. It appears to be a situation of a Joshua editing generally in a religious genre and maybe trying to push a particular WP:POV. I am not an expert in religion but just my somewhat uninvolved quick view on things. In this matter specifically professor Michael Witzel appears to be a Harvard professor with a controversial (at least to some) opinion on Hinduism. His article seems to contain too much POV content that attempts to frame a WP:FRINGE debate between various opinions about Hinduism (I am maybe doing a poor job to summarize, forgive me). I have warned Joshua here about edit warring as well as WP:BLPRESTORE. Maybe just one of these cases where you wade into a dispute you dont understand, but at least from a BLP perspective we should be careful of what defamatory content we put on the article, particularlly in that it appears to promote some controversey that might not even exist in the mainstream WP:RS, thus it has no business on a BLP, and certainly not promoted to the WP:LEAD.

Edits:

• first revert 07:39, 30 August 2024 Appears to violate BLPRESTORE and after the editor had been warned.
• second revert 03:09, 30 August 2024

Users:

• Joshua Jonathan (talk · contribs)
• RealPharmer3 (talk · contribs)

Thank you! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You selectively removed info with an appeal to WP:CRIT and WP:RS; I explained at Talk:Michael Witzel#Criticism that WP:CRIT does not apply, and that you retained other info from the same source. In response, you issued an edit-warring warning after one revert, which is misplaced, if not rude, and stated at the the talkpage that WP:BLPRESTORE applies, without explaining how. Instead, you're escalating further. You should step back, and simply discuss and explain, instead of throwing around warnings, policies, and vague accusations ("maybe trying to push a particular WP:POV"). Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And don't forget to mention that you did mass-reverted yourself diff, with a minimal explanation at the talk which did not address my concerns. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where in the discussion have you ever articulated what the actual BLP issue is supposed to be? I can’t find any place where you (or RealPharmer3) have articulated anything like “this particular part of the article violates this particular part of this particular policy, because [explanation goes here].” 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Joshua Jonathan - I asked @Jtbobwaysf because we worked on a previous article and was able to learn a bit about WP:BLP and the standard necessary to uphold such an article. Can you explain which content was retained from the same source? From the interview and the Pacific News Service, it was removed if it wasn't backed with another source. If i missed one - please remove it - because my opinion aligns with the policy for WP:BLP.

I also dont agree with you suggesting that it is misplaced or rude that @Jtbobwaysf responded the way he/she did because in my interpretation of the policy, it should have been discussed about before bringing back to the page because an Interview and Pacific News Service is not a high quality reliable source and can easily be misconstrued. I touched upon how WP:BLPRESTORE applies here.

Lastly, lets have calm discussion about this and see where we land. Willing to work together. RealPharmer3 (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RealPharmer3; thank you for your kind response. The Reditt-source has been completely removed indeed; my mistake. Regarding Jtbobwaysf's response: giving an edit-warring warning to a regular editor after one revert without adequately responding to my concerns is misplaced and rude; edit-warring is repeatedly reverting without discussion, and 'don't template the regulars'. It's not exactly the kind of response that invites a collquial discussion - in contrast to your response. For the details, we can duscuss them at the Witzel-talkpage. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:29, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Joshua Jonathan - not a problem. I'd like to say that @Jtbobwaysf is an experienced editor and I'm confident his intention is in good faith, and ultimately I do agree with his judgment here. I don't believe he is acting out of line - you moved too quickly in reverting the edits without trying to discuss anything on the talk page (WP:BLPRESTORE) about its inclusion within the article. Again, I have no problem having a discussion and hearing your POV and thoughts - regardless of the content - as long as it is sourced by high-quality reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and I'm confident that @Jtbobwaysf agrees. RealPharmer3 (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see regular editing here by Joshua Jonathan, I see WP:SEALION. It appears from your xtools stats that you have quite a lot of activity yourself at ANI here so you know the rules. You need to work with other editors on the article with RealPharmer3 to find consensus, just as on every article at wikipedia. If the content is disputed, it gets discussed, and if it is a BLP it gets removed first, then discussed second, then re-added IFF there is consensus to do so. If you continue the civil pov pushing you will face consequences. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Jtbobwaysf - thank you for the response. @Joshua Jonathan I agree with @Jtbobwaysf on this one as well because of the way you handled this situation.

If we want to make Wikipedia a resource that is fair, balanced, and comes from independent and reliable high- quality sources - you will need to become more comfortable having a discussion before going in and adding what you like without reaching a consensus and forcing your POV without sufficient support. I dont think its sufficient by any means to begin including things without a clear consensus (WP:BLPRESTORE), because you feel it is appropriate. It is clear that others may not feel the same way (us), especially for a WP:BLP. We need to have a discussion about this if you want inclusion- it is simple.

As for WP:SEALION, I think further investigation may be necessary to conclude, but after a quick look, I can see there seems to be a trend to your edits on this page, and perhaps others under the same topic (we would need to take a closer look). I looked at your recent edit history for this article and it looks like you are pushing views beyond the requirements of WP:NPOV, which is incredibly questionable: diff diff diff diff - all of which are fixated on calling to light specific words such as, "right-wing Hindu activists", "Hindutva supporters", "Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh", "RSS Linked", etc. Also, here where you attribute that updates by an expert panel on the California textbook topic were due to "lack of knowledge of the board members" (?) These seem to look inappropriate to include as you are building a narrative, not an encyclopedia article on the actual subject.

By pushing the NPOV and accusing others of a "certain one-sidedness" (like you did to @Jtbobwaysf or myself on the talk page), you are inadvertently undermining the undue weight clause that should be applied here for the material or the sources you want to include.

I will not make any accusations or speculate at this stage, but after seeing the way you are handling this discussion, along with recent edits.. it looks a certain way.

If we want to reach a resolution, lets please have a clear discussion. I am willing to hear you out and see if we can reach a consensus. RealPharmer3 (talk) 01:31, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I do react strongly, but over the years I (and others) have seen so much po-pushing, edit-warring, and misrepresentation of sources at India-related pages, that I don't take removal of critical info, or receiving a warning after one revert, lightly.

My recent additions to the Witzel-page come from sources which are already used at that page; sources which also repeat info and quotes similar to the ones you removed. So there is a certain one-sidedness to your removals, which I've explained at the Witzel-talkpage; I don't see a response yet there. Nor do I see a response or explanation by Jtbobwaysf on his WP:CRIT "argument." With regard to the RSS-links, that's basic information repeated in almost all publications on the California textbook controversy over Hindu history (not a fringe-topic, as one of you suggested). And yes, Witzel is quite outspoken in his opinions with regard to this controversy. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 02:50, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This ANI is related to your behavior on the article and isn't refuted about your opinion of the article subject (you said "Witzel is quite outspoken"). We have articles about horrible convicted felons and we still apply BLP while they are alive, you seem to be confused about policy or just want to continue to SEALION. In the edit above you refer to "misrepresentation of sources at India-related pages" giving us a window into your potential WP:RGW in this topic. In this edit you appear to add a link to some source/website flonnet.com that seems to be attempting to attempt to load malware on my machine. I am having trouble understanding how an ANI is ongoing about your actions on an article and during the ANI you are adding sources like this to the article in question. I'm baffled. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:52, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pay attention, will you? That's a source that's already being used at the page. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:14, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am an uninvolved editor and am not up to date on this article nor the content. I do now see this source is used 6 times on the article. Why are you using a website with apparent malware (flonnet.com) to support what you are stating is coming from Frontline (magazine)? Why not link to the magazine story directly? Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's all cool down; I noticed your other comments at the Witzel-talkpage; they're good and non-partisan. Just know that scholars like Witzel, Romila Thapar, and Sheldon Pollock, are continuously targeted by right-wing editors with signal-words like "leftish" and "communist," just like the HEF and related organisations did. And believe me, I know what I'm talking about; I've been editing for thirteen years now, and have seen dozens and dozens accounts being blocked for their pov-pushing and bullying.

Regarding that site, it happened to me too, but didn't pay attention and followed the next link; I think we just have to remove the first link. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:34, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jtbobwaysf: You are not "an uninvolved editor". Some of your edits evoked WP:NOCRIT in a way that does not appear to address the kind of issues covered by that essay. You may formally be right about WP:BLPRESTORE, but you should be careful with labels like "SEALION" when Joshua Jonathan – apart from reverts that formally indeed violate BLPRESTORE – at the same time exactly does what is required: discussing the content and the rationale of your changes/edits. You should substantially engage with their concerns about the misinterpretation of WP:NOCRIT in two instances. It is not enough to say "it is UNDUE, poorly sourced, and critical" when you simply alter text about the LP's own activities that were characterized as "criticism" in the stable version of the article. Lack of your engagement and talking about JJ's "sealioning" turns this content dispute into a behavioral issue on your part as well. –Austronesier (talk) 08:39, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact this should be closed, no Admin is going to take action, at least against JJ. Doug Weller talk 18:50, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right. Apologies, I probably shouldn't have used the term uninvolved, so i struck that above. However, until the other editor asked me to get involved as an uninvolved editor, I then came over and made a couple edits to remove what I viewed as CRIT, thereby agreeing with the editor that asked me to have a look. So as of the time of me writing uninvolved on this ANI, yes that would be untrue. What I meant was when I made the article edits I was uninvolved and at this time I am still not knowledgeable about the article subject. Thank you for pointing that our and allowing me the the clarification. If someone with some admin tools or skill could look at the addition of the odd content mirror website flonnet (I mentiond above) maybe they could see if something else odd is going on with the links. Why is an editor pointing to content behind apparent malware rather than using the native website for the RS? Seems odd. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only odd thing about it is that you haven't noticed, even though JJ already explained it, that JJ didn't add that reference -- it was already present in the article. (The existence of an archive-url, which was also already present, suggests that the URL has been usurped; but I haven't checked that myself.) Your approach here seems to suffer from an unfortunate lack of WP:AGF towards JJ. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 23:34, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Joshua Jonathan - replying to a few of your comments because I'm still catching up on the last day of discourse between the noticeboard and the multiple talkpage threads as I was enjoying a day with family. I'd like to start off this by saying, I completely get it. You've been editing wikipedia for a long time, and you've accumulated a whole lot of interesting experiences with a whole lot of editors. Regardless of whether the material is positive, negative, or neutral, i find the material at hand questionable because of the nature of the sources.

Not sure if there has been a clear consensus but - can @Joshua Jonathan or @Jtbobwaysf please help me understand why some of these sources are seriously being used to justify statements within the article? Interviews, Pacific News Service, and (sacbee..? i think it was mentioned somewhere) do not meet the criteria for a good quality reliable source. WP:BLPRS states all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable and whether it is in a biography or in some other article.

If the information that you are eager to include came from high quality reliable sources, it would be far more appropriate? I'm worried things like transcripts from interviews alone can easily look like original research.

Additionally, could you please address my comment about pushing views beyond the requirements of WP:NPOV, because i feel that in many areas of the article, which have been pointed out above or on the talk page- you are inadvertently undermining the undue weight clause that should be applied here for the material or the sources you want to include. RealPharmer3 (talk) 03:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please take it to the Witzel-talkpage? There you can also explain what you think "pushing views beyond the requirements of WP:NPOV" is, especially in the light of your extensive editing on Swaminarayan-related pages, which may give you a WP:COI. You're probably also aware that a large, Swaminarayan-related sock-farm was cleaned-up three years ago ( see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Moksha88/Archive), a few months after your account was created, so you probably understand what I meant when I wrote that I've met a lot of pov-warriors at India-related pages who have been blocked by the dozens. And, coincidence or not, they had the same over-polite tone you have, requesting clarification after clarification and questioning each and every source that didn't fit their, eh, well, 'narrative'. Sounds familiair? That's where Wiki-experience matters. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:28, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RealPharmer3, you mentioned "sacbee" which is the online handle of the Sacramento Bee, the newspaper of record for the state capital of California, the most populous state in the United States. The Sacramento Bee has been published since 1857 and has won six Pulitzer Prizes and many other journalism awards. Please explain the problem you have with sacbee, also known as the Sacramento Bee. Cullen328 (talk) 04:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: thanks; I was the one who questioned the reliability of sacbee; see Talk:Michael Witzel#"Sectarian, narrow, and historically wrong". The sacbeesource contains the same kind of info which was removed by RealPharmer3, with an appeal to WP:RS; I have the impressiin they just removed info they don't like, without checking the other sources, or with enough background-knowledge. But, if sacbee is indeed such a high quality standard source, then we've met the threshold for If the information that you are eager to include came from high quality reliable sources, it would be far more appropriate, and we can get back to improving the article. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Jonathan, I have lived in Northern California for 52 years which is almost my entire adult life, and I am the sort of news and politics junkie who, back in the 1970s, read the San Francisco Chronicle every day during my morning coffee break and the San Francisco Examiner during my afternoon coffee break. I was living in San Francisco at that time. I am quite familiar with dozens or maybe low hundreds of Northern California periodicals. Despite dramatic changes in the media landscape, I believe that in 2024, there are three world class newspapers still published in Northern California, the San Francisco Chronicle, the San Jose Mercury News and the Sacramento Bee. So, it does not matter to me who does it, but I want to know specifically why editors are questioning the reliability of the Sacramento Bee? Maybe you can help me understand that. Cullen328 (talk) 05:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: I think you have to read Talk:Michael Witzel#Reddif-interview and Pacific News Service; critical comments made by Michael Witzel and Vinay Lal were removed with an appeal to WP:RS, sourced to Rediff and Pacific News Service, but other info sourced to Pacific news Service was retained, which appeared to me as quite selective. I then checked the sources for the sentence "Witzel was accused of being biased against Hinduism, an allegation he denies.", the first of which is sacbee. Given the lay-out of the page I wondered how reliable that source is, in the light of this selective removal of info. But I'm glad to hear that sacbee is reliable, since it contains more or less the same info thjat was removed. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: what's your take on this source? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Jonathan, as for the Pacific News Service, I am also very familiar with them. They were founded in 1969 at the height of the Vietnam War which brought overwhelming death and destruction to the people of Vietnam, and to a lesser extent, to the people of the United States. Pacific News Service published journalism intended to oppose the Vietnam War, and when that horrifically counterproductive U.S. war came to an end, they shifted to journalism critical of U.S. imperialism around the Pacific Rim. Without a doubt, PNS produced opinionated journalism with a strong point of view, but I am unaware that they regularly published falsehoods. Sadly, the economic crisis of 21st century journalism led them to close down in 2017. They remain respected in Northern California. Cullen328 (talk) 06:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey both @Joshua Jonathan -

Yes, we can focus our conversation on the talk page as we progress there. And well, I've edited a whole range of articles to varying degrees and all i have to say is... uhm.... should I not be polite? My family is from Canada, so we're all polite (not sure where you're from but that's how we function up here). Please note that this is a hobby for me, not a full-time job. If I aim my efforts at constant arguments and disagreements with other users, it no longer becomes enjoyable for me. PS- I have met some equally polite and kind editors on Wikipedia.. Also, besides the last post i posted here, i dont believe i asked for any clarification ... I was out all day with family, and there are ongoing conversations happening on the talkpage and here, where i did not see a level of consensus or see all the conversations.. so i wanted to resurface.

Nonetheless, I agree - we can continue the conversation on the talk page as there is an ongoing conversation.

@Cullen328 - thank you for your input, it helps to understand the context of these sources and where they come from. RealPharmer3 (talk) 12:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In mid-June (edited to add: of 2019), CollegeMeltdown reported off-wiki legal threats they were receiving in connection to Bryant & Stratton College. A few weeks ago, Nat Gertler also reported off-wiki legal threats. The general conclusion was that the threats were bogus.

This morning, MenuGt removed information in Bryant & Stratton College that has been the focus of these legal threats. This information has been removed several times, most recently by unregistered accounts, and restored by several different editors. In the wake of this disruption, Aoidh protected the article for one year on July 24 so it can only be edited by autoconfirmed editors. MenuGT's account was created on July 9 and only made one edit until early this morning when they quickly made 16 small edits to other articles and then edited Bryant & Stratton College. I reverted their edit and a few hours later someone contacted my employer alleging that they work for the college's "Division of Legal Services" to ask them to direct me to cease editing the college's Wikipedia article. As far as I can tell, there is no such unit at the college nor does the person who supposedly sent the message work at the college so it's not only a bogus legal threat but a poorly constructed one.

MenuGt is clearly operating in bad faith and a block is more than warranted. A sockpuppet investigation may also be helpful but I'm not entirely sure who the sockmaster would be as the most recent similar edits to the article were done by unregistered IP addresses (2a02:1210:2c5a:ae00:5009:4c2d:53ea:c03a and 2a02:1210:2c5a:ae00:c82e:a757:de0c:bd0c, specifically). ElKevbo (talk) 21:59, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contacting your employer is seriously messed up. I think you should probably contact both ArbCom and T&S by email. arbcom-en@wikimedia.org and ca@wikimedia.org. I have to go somehwere right now but I'll look at the rest of it later if nobody else does. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given those IP addresses and subject matter, I think you'd have to look suspiciously towards User:Supervisor635 (this is neither confirmation, nor checkuser info). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about to head out for a few hours but I did want to acknowledge that I've seen this and will take a closer look when I return home. - Aoidh (talk) 22:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note that CollegeMeltdown's being threatened was in mid-June of 2019, while mine was this summer (and has gone multiple rounds, through both physical mail and email, the most recent being a threat two weeks ago via email to report me to the police.) As such, this is a very long-term matter dealing with someone willing to put effort in, and should not be treated as short-term. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I really screwed up that year! That is very irresponsible of me. But I agree that this makes the situation worse as it indicates a problem that has persisted for many years. ElKevbo (talk) 23:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've upped the protection to ECP for a year. I suppose I'm in the crosshairs now, but I lived through nearly five years as an arb so I can probably take it. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 01:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That does seem to be the best course article-wise for this circumstance, thanks for doing that. @ElKevbo: I would echo Just Step Sideways in saying that if you are comfortable doing so, please email ArbCom and T&S with any relevant information regarding the off-wiki harassment. - Aoidh (talk) 02:42, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that the article is now protected but is no one going to do anything about MenuGt who has clearly gamed the system and appears to be directly involved in these off-wiki legal threats and harassment? ElKevbo (talk) 12:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And the sockpuppet investigation on what seems to be another account for the same user has gone uninvestigated for over a month. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a way to remove autoconfirmed? Seems like we ought to be able to do that.

I've blocked to force discussion of the possibility, @ElKevbo, but obviously that does nothing about the problem itself. Valereee (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Valereee. We can't control what people do off-project but I appreciate you blocking this editor to address what we can do on Wikipedia. ElKevbo (talk) 17:53, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jamesroberttn is clearly WP:NOTHERE, this is no better highlighted than their latest edit inserting personal ethnic attacks into the article boddy ([30]). The MO of this single-purpose account is Tamil ethnic POVPUSH and the user disrupts/vandalizes any sourced information which does not align with this world view especially ethnically labelling and/or removing sourced information from articles. While the user had been warned just over a year ago about this exact behaviour, he seems to learned none the better (that should have been expected considering the reply was this). Here are some recent instances where the user inserts OR, removes sourced content and/or replaces it with OR: [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36].

A need here is felt for some kind of block, as the user clearly does not understand that disrupting Wikipedia is not the way go to despite multiple/repeated warning and alerts. Gotitbro (talk) 22:36, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Racial comments about other editors on top of general disruptive editing. Indeffed. It's never acceptable to judge other's edits based on their nationality/race/colour/etc and always gets an indef from me. If they wish to reobtain their editing privileges they'll need to convince someone in an unblock request. Canterbury Tail talk 22:42, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, obviously good block, we don't need that nonsense here. That fist diff was more than enough for me. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 01:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yup I'd make the block and determination after that first diff. Barely looked at the others. Canterbury Tail talk 01:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good block, assuredly, and I hate to qualify it and validate such problematic behaviour....but there is something to be said about that "not a single drop" wording being far outside the window of encyclopedic tone. Obviously not an ANI issue, but it's worth noting all the same. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:20, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The way to fix that would be to be simply WP:BOLD (an account disrupting from 2015 would have clearly known) and remove/alter it not racially attack other editors. Gotitbro (talk) 12:21, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

103.115.24.69: Uses an extremely racist slur used as a personal attack against other editors ([37]), right after vandalizing the very article that lists them. Looking at the constant vandalism and OR with no course correction (as evidenced by the slur and the litany of Talk page warnings), looks like its time for a block. Gotitbro (talk) 09:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting speedy revision deletion too. Ahri Boy (talk) 10:31, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I revision deleted the racial slur. Cullen328 (talk) 21:24, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miminity (talk · contribs) was recently granted NPP and has been reviewing a page every few minutes. I left a message on his talk page to discuss the speed of his patrols and some patrols that I found concerning. I also advised that he slow down and re-review the patrol guidelines. The patrolling has nonetheless continued so I am compelled to come here. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! I'll slow down quite a bit but the latest reviews I have is tagging it review for deletion. Sorry about the previous misuse of NPP as I misread the workflow. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 03:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another example of some concerning patrols. WPSL PRO marked patrolled at 03:13. Saed Al-Rosan (with all sources in Arabic but two) marked patrolled one minute later. One minute after that, at 03:15, Tristen Robins is tagged with {{sources exist}} and then marked patrolled at 03:18. There is no way that Miminity is checking for copyvio in foreign language sources and doing source checks for notability in the span of one minute. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged Tristen Robins as sources exist, as I find it notable enough and will try to fix it myself later and about the copyvio, I use the automatic tool use in page triage. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 03:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At least one of the reviewed articles is already marked for deletion. I reviewed another: Szczecin Gumieńce – Gumieńce-Tantow border crossing railway line and the only reference is a primary technical document that does nothing to establish notability and almost all the content is unsupported. I think all the articles need to be marked as unreviewed to go through the NPP process again. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. @Miminity: I think you should voluntarily give up your NPP at this point, request training at NPP school, and then re-apply when your trainer thinks you're ready. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just let the admin decides, If they spare me, I'll try to work at very, very slow pace for now on until my perm expires, but if they remove it, I accept it. I ADMIT that I done wrong so I'm really sorry! Also, thanks for showing me the NPP school, I think personally think I needed to attend it for understanding NPP more. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 03:53, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's fair to expect. They got the permission only a few hours ago, so it's understandable that they wouldn't fully understand its expectations. But I'll ping Hey man im josh as the granting admin to decide. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. And also thanks to @Miminity for taking this criticism to heart. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:57, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For full disclosure, I did originally message josh on discord to ask about what to do in this case since he was the granting admin, but when he didn't respond I spoke with Miminity on his talk page and then came here. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well this makes me realize I need to open Discord lol Hey man im josh (talk) 13:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But will slow down again once more, One again Sorry! Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 03:43, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am very encouraged that Miminity has been self reflective here, has admitted errors and accepted criticism and resolved to do better. Those are the traits of a newer editor who has the potential to become a very productive and respected editor. When I first began editing 15 years ago, I made a few newbie errors and was gently chastised. I took those warnings to heart and never made those mistakes again. I am not an administrator who is regularly active at WP:NPP, so I will decline to comment on permissions. So, thank you, Miminity, for your good contributions. Keep it up. Cullen328 (talk) 05:56, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, not too many people "win" ANI threads by charging in and swinging fists. Too many seek to do so. Good on Miminity. Ravenswing 09:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm coming into this a bit late, but I'm very happy to see how @Miminity is responding to the feedback. Based on their responsiveness, I don't see a need to strip the perm from them at this point in time. With that said, I'd absolutely accept if someone else felt differently. Based on their interest, and how they've responded to criticism, I think this is a user we can coach and guide who has, at least as far as I can tell so far, a pretty decent temperament.

This is a good opportunity for me to remind people of WP:NPPSORT, which is where I encourage new reviewers to head to. Focus on areas of notability you're comfortable and confident with. Get comfortable reviewing and tagging pages, focusing on the process and doing quality reviews above all else. Learn other guidelines by searching WP:N(relevant term), such as NACTOR, NPROF, NSPORTS, etc., once you've started to feel comfortable, and leave anything you're unsure about for someone else. You'll pick up speed as you get more experienced and see the nuance in situations, but speed is absolutely never the priority.

When I process perm requests I know there will inevitably be mistakes, both by me and by the people I grant the perms to. We all make mistakes, myself included, but we need to try not to repeat those mistakes and to clean up after ourselves when we can. I think this is a spot where there isn't really anything more to be done, they've been exactly as responsive as we'd hope someone be. The goal is to improve Wikipedia, which is what we're all trying to do at the end of the day, and it takes time. So long as we continue to communicate and discuss things civility with one another... we'll get there, even if it means some bumps and coaching along the way. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lesson Learned, I will not rush the process now and also will use WP:NPPSORT which I didn't know it had, I can finally review pages, I'm familiar with. Thank You Man and all of you especially @Voorts: for telling me, I'm doing the process wrong. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 13:49, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As per m:NTSAMR, please can someone delete User:BenjaminCoombe and block the account? IPs can't tag userpages for deletion. Thank you! 81.2.123.64 (talk) 11:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged the user page for deletion. Knitsey (talk) 11:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And reported as per edit filter. Knitsey (talk) 11:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now blocked per Alexf. Thank you ip. Knitsey (talk) 12:12, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User WP:NOTHERE

Diff Diff User talk page Selfstudier (talk) 12:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The editor keeps on making edits to Talk:Zionism which stray outside of making edit requests in breach of WP:ARBECR. The editor has been warned and yet they persist. TarnishedPath^talk 13:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dgoldman0's discussions on their TP and Selfstudier's TP are classic WP:IDHT and do indicate WP:NOTHERE. They might also wish to read Weaponization of antisemitism. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely for severe personal attacks and ECR violations. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:17, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would like to know why, having stopped editing on 2024-05-10, they chose that particular article today out of 6,876,552 articles. What is source of this mysterious force that article seems to emit? Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Their response has been to blame others for their behaviour. Not a good argument for them. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See their talk page, their appeal and the post above oy. Doug Weller talk 17:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There will be more of them, but according to some of the comments happening at WP:ARCA at the moment it's a both sides problem. TarnishedPath^talk 01:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coming across Bamboo network, a simple look at the lead made it clear that the tone of the article was non-neutral. Seeing that the edit and its summary which restored/inserted the material were needlessly confrontional and bordering on a personal attack (besides the incorrect citation of WP policies none of which address NPOV), it was not a surprise that the talk page of SimeonManier who made the edit is repeatedly filled with aspersions and personal attacks against other users along with a smattering of racialized connotations contained within large walls of text, a sampling (emphasis mine):

My claims with regards to the WP:IDONTLIKEIT & WP:NOTCENSORED guidelines and policies towards other WP:DISRUPTIVE editors and certainly emotionally whimsical IP editors like you are not what you derisively characterize as "accusations."

[38]

as it appears that individuals like yourself with your emotionally-charged pejoratives find it difficult to acknowledge the facts I have presented, no matter how pleasant, inconvenient, or harsh they may be for you to accept. ... Your emotionally-charged reactionary butthurt response is typically illustrative of an editor who has not only been exposed a fraudster and disgruntled editor, but also as someone who doesn't have a credible argument to expostulate, let alone maintain. Good luck spending your time in the Wikipedia gulag, as you're going to need it since you have a lot to think about, given your long record reflective of being the petulant fraudster of peddling your biased and bloated Pro-Burmese manufactured assertions while constantly having displayed yourself on Wikipedia as the fraudulent rule-breaker that you really are.

[39]

Why is it wrong to show the truth that the Hoa have economically hamstrung the Kinh on the economic food chain for centuries?

[40]

It palpably shows your intellectual deficits and that you also don't have a convincing argument coupled with the corresponding evidence to put forth as your venomous characterizations, horrendous tirades, and execrable diatribes are not only low-bar, but it maligns your image while reflecting badly on your reputation as a Wikipedia editor overall. ...
Your baseless tirade is a prime illustration that shows that you don't have a sound counter-argument to back up your unconvincing accusations against me, which is indicative of nothing than a seething bitterness when it comes to the fact that the Kinh Vietnamese are not as economically prosperous as their Hoa counterparts. In which you are taking out that resentment by expressed through your emotional-laden diatribes patently rooted in your own insecurities, grievances, and acrimony. ... The Hoa community is under no obligation to accommodate your grievances and insecurity, nor should they feel any pity for you, due to the lack of economic success on part of their Kinh Vietnamese counterparts. ...
It's no wonder that you're a first-class joke posing as a legitimate Wikipedia editor when your only and biggest retorting rebuttal is just raw emotion-laden ad-hominems.

[41]

Oh gosh, woe is me, I'm ranting about my edits again because they must have hurt the fragile feelings when the uncomfortable facts eventually say otherwise and run contrary to a particular worldview. Well, excuse me, it's called the stating the facts and reality as they are per the sources that I used. If the factual reality on the ground as per the sources stated in the article isn't to your liking, then I guess you can shove your emotional-laden accusations, expectations, and myopically idealistic wishful thinking where it doesn't shine. ...
And it's also quite the bold reply coming from you, being the unestablished anonymous IP editor that you are. I'm sorry to hear that on-the-job training on Wikipedia had to be so tough for you even though I expected that you'd reply to my "rant" on an emotionally-charged whim. Why do I say that? It's because intellectually decimating you by tearing apart your puny, inadequately substantiated, and fragile rebuttal of no substance that is expressed in such poorly written and infantile manner while playing you out as the idealistic amateur that you are on Wikipedia would be a decent warm-up for me before I resume with my usual editing activities. And you wouldn't know the difference between a "rant" and constructive feedback if you took a wrong turn, even if it's on Wikipedia. And how eloquent of you to neurotically rattle your ticked off butt-hurt garbled rambling that you try to masquerade as a so-called counter-argument any different when you falsely try to accuse me of cutting, editing, and even twisting the words of others to fit a "Pro-Chinese chauvinist" worldview on top of myopic "nuances of Chinese superiority?" Based on your previous editing history and rebuttal, I see that you are acting on your misguided feelings which is evidently seen in your frangible rebuttal. This on top of your other modifications that you have made on Wikipedia are clearly shaped and motivated by your own emotionally-laden inculcations, which is not only reflective of an editor with a frail argument and a bone to pick against the modifications of others. But also signifies the editing contributions perspicuously reflective of a linguistically impaired rookie editor, given the apparent intellectual deficits that are evidently seen in your superficially-induced editing patterns (many of which have since been reverted) of the lowest common denominator. Though my edits seem openly vocal and controversially explicit regarding Overseas Chinese economic dominance but I adhere to maintaining Wikipedia standards of integrity as per WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH by showing the facts and truth. ...
signifying your own intellectual laziness and weakness since you cannot counter my logical-based edits that are buttressed by reliable empiricism and robustly factual scholarly data grounded in realism and practicality. ... coincidentally which happens to be brutal and uncomfortable for the fragile likes of you to emotionally contend with, let alone emotionally process and accept. ...
Besides blindly bashing another editor without an iota of rationality, you're deploying ad-hominems common of an intellectual cyberslacker who all too often like my other Wikipedia detractors simply want to silence, punish, and suppress other editors with regards to edits that they find disagreeable or if it fit fails to fit a certain conventional narrative. ...
Well, I guess that previous statement is too "Pro-Chinese chauvinist" for you to mentally confront and digest as well, since your salty rambling amounts to nothing more than a useless emotionally-charged reactionary response rooted in your own deeply-entrenched grievances, insecurities, and resentment that is not grounded in any riveting facts and truth to back up any credible counterargument that you are propagating that holds water. And especially a poorly written one at that is based on grievance, resentment, and insecurity coming from an unestablished IP user such as the likes of you, that's pretty low-bar.

[42]

Oh boy, shocking that not action was taken or any warning served to the user (I guess no one bothered to read through the long walls of texts). But the user seems to be clearly familiar with Wikipedia policies to know that this isn't acceptable and if recent edit summaries ([43], [44], [45]) and edits are any indication it is unlikely any change of tune is going to be taking place here. The user also thought they would be somehow justified at ANI. Well here we are. Gotitbro (talk) 13:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The user hasn't edited in over a month.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Definitely not currently active, Bbb23, but these two links are interesting. [46][47] Grandpallama (talk) 16:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I know that the editor is on a five week wikibreak, but they have been active for five years with nearly 7,000 edits. The behavior documented above is unacceptable. I have indefinitely blocked SimeonManier for personal attacks and harassment. Cullen328 (talk) 21:28, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Worst of all, in my book, was that he used the word expostulate in a way which shows he doesn't know what it means. Outrageous. EEng 23:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editor user:Lavalizard101 has created a whole series of small articles, reverted from a redirect that are duplicating content already found in better detailed articles that they foremly redirect to. The editor is using this rationale: Wikipedia:Wikiproject Geology/Notability#Stratigraphic units as the reason to keep the articles. Its a whole shabby mess and its disruptive and tendentious. I don't see the point of duplicating articles and then not referencing it. These are some of them.

• Black River Formation
• Knox Dolomite
• Kerbel Formation
• Pötschenkalk

scope_creepTalk 17:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I said at my talk page, I did not create these articles, just reverted an undiscussed merge by Zigismon. Note that I reverted the merges a month ago after which Zigismon went to AN and was told to discuss, he hasn't edited since so their has been no other issues. Until today, when you unilaterally ignored BRD and reverted back to the redirect. Worse is the fact that Knox Dolomite and Kerbel Formation (the discussion is occurring at the merge destinations talk page Talk:Munising Group) currently have discussions on them, so you effectively ignored the discussion. Even worse is that the Munising Group discussion has a 1-2-1 consensus against the merge, with only Zigismon who proposed it supporting the merge, me and Викидим being against and Elriana being neutral and seeing both sides. As for Pötschenkalk that wasn't duplicating content, Zigismon copy pasted Pötschenkalk to Pötschenkalk Formation, then redirect to it, which I reverted. So how is enforcing brd disruptive, especially when discussion is ongoing for two of them? Lavalizard101 (talk) 22:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this seems like WP:TEND, if this continues, a WP:TBAN may be in order. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why/How is my editing WP:TEND? Scope creep ignored the fact that on two of the articles discussion is ongoing. The first one is at afd and I accept the result will probably be merge. The other two have discussions ongoing at talk pages and the fourth one is not duplicating info.Lavalizard101 (talk) 23:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They need to figure out what to do or should be prohibited from following eachother ...............edit wars all over Editor Interaction Analyser Moxy🍁 19:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like @CommonKnowledgeCreator has been removing content for navboxes, claiming a consensus to do so, and @Randy Kryn was restoring the content on the understanding that there is no such consensus. CKC, what consensus are you referring to for removing so much material from these infoboxes? voorts (talk/contributions) 19:48, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Investigating a bit further, it appears that the "consensus" CKC is referring to is this discussion showing that some editors prefer to split presidential navboxes up. That discussion, however, has its dissenting voices, and it hasn't been formally closed. I'll note there's also an ongoing TfD discussion for these navboxes. Given that none of these discussions have resolved, there's clearly no consensus yet as to whether splitting the navboxes is something that the community supports.

As for conduct issues, I am concerned that CKC is wielding unresolved disputes to claim a consensus. CKC also appears to be bludgeoning in both the discussion and TfD cited above, responding to many posts with walls of text.

I'm also concerned by the continued reverts with the same rationales across multiple different navboxes. Both CKC and Randy should have hashed this out when Randy first raised concerns about the changes, instead of pressing forward and making a series of changes and reverts to various different templates.

Both editors might need a topic ban from navboxes if this continues. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:06, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the fact that editors are expressly proscribed from using WikiProjects as platforms for making idiosyncratic rules among themselves and then applying them to numerous namespaces (be they articles or templates), per WP:Advice page. If they think there is a principle that should be applied to a class of articles and/or templates, they should be making a WP:PROPOSAL for a policy or change to policy, either in a central discussion space like WP:VP, or on a relevant WP:PAG talk page, and definitely not settling on such a rule exclusively through a WikiProject space. In fact, several of the ArbCom cases that created this rule famously involved disruption of infoboxes resulting from coordinated efforts at WikiProjects, so (taking your summary for granted) CKC at least is really playing with fire here if they try to enforce this rule without following the proper process. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:24, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the alert Moxy. I don't think there are edit wars all over, I've been careful not to. The main reverts that occurred were returning long-term links to presidential navboxes after they had been removed without discussion. Lots of removals of links by CKC, the latest on reverting all of the White House and other residence links on presidential navboxes which I had placed, and apologized for not placing years ago (I did not revert any of the removals except for John Adams, explained next, and that was just once). Residences of presidents and First Ladies have always been listed and linked on their navboxes, and the White House's Executive Residence should be no different. There is a large disagreement if living in the White House occurred during the president's important historical years or were just tangential, which I find a puzzling stance. But no, even if CKC and I have had our go-arounds and extended back-and-forths which I've found quite frustrating as to imparting some basic information wnich is ignored, that shouldn't result in banning either of us from interacting. I don't think I've engaged in an edit war over this period, just a back and forth snowball fight with, hopefully, a good faith editor, who, in my opinion, shows good promise as a navbox editor (but is not as yet due to misunderstanding the difference between policy, guidelines, and essays, and what long-term inclusion of items means).

I usually have hope that things can be worked out through logical discussion. To be a bit clearer on one aspect, I think part of the problem is the lack of other editors participating in discussion, such as the one going on at the White House talk page, which would at least add to the mix and clarify the directions of the discussions but seems to be an ongoing problem in many areas of Wikipedia. CKC is at least improving these navboxes at some points, and that's important enough for me to come to his defense. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my. I just now noticed on my watchlist that CKC once again removed all of the long-term presidential entries from many U.S. presidents navboxes (example). Can someone have a look at those and return them, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:08, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To start, WP:EDITWAR states that "Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring", while WP:NOTBUREAU states that policies "document already-existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected." In my interactions with User:Randy Kryn about the navigation templates that have the biography articles about the Presidents of the United States as their subjects, he has regularly engaged in behavior that I believe violates the letter and principles of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR and WP:GAMING. However, I am more than willing to be corrected if I am wrong. When I first began expanding the biography templates, the templates only included an arbitrary selection of topics—which WP:NAVBOX recommends against per WP:UNDUE. Following a discussion with other editors at the Presidential Succession Act talk page in February of this year, I created separate templates with Presidencies of the United States as the subjects split from the biography templates. I opened the discussion at the WikiProject:United States Presidents talk page after a second discussion between User:Randy Kryn and myself at my talk page in July of this year about the separate templates did not lead to a resolution—which I believe I am permitted to do per WP:CANVASS and WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS.

As far as I can tell, in neither of the discussions with User:Randy Kryn at my talk page did he clearly identify where content policy recommended against my editing and did not present arguments based in common sense warranting the reversions per WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS. Apologies if I've violated an ArbCom ruling that I'm unaware of, but WP:ADVICEPAGE cited above does permit large WikiProjects to collect advice about how to apply Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to their specific subject area, and the discussion that I opened was not to develop idiosyncratic rules related to these templates, but instead over whether they should be split following the already-existing WP:NAVBOX policy. Multiple editors there did express a preference for the biography templates as I had modified them, and other editors created other presidency templates following the general format of the ones I created. Additionally, WP:NOTDEMOCRACY requires that decisions in discussions not be made by voting or popularity, and WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS requires that resolutions be made "using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense", and the disputing editors likewise did not generally identify the letter or principles of policies or make common sense arguments following the policies for opposing the splits.

The discussion at Talk:White House, that likewise is over the letter and principles of the WP:NAVBOX policy—which requires that articles included in navigation templates not be loosely-related to the other articles included and implicitly suggests that the article inclusion criteria for navigation templates is supposed to be more restrictive than that for categories and lists. As for my comments, they would not need to be lengthy if User:Randy Kryn and others did not make broad and false characterizations of my edits and make arguments where the letter of existing policies need to be cited—the former of which I also believe to be behavior that violates WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. The TfD deletion discussions were opened and conducted following User:Randy Kryn's reversions of the biography templates back to revisions that I believe did not follow the letter or principles of the WP:NAVBOX policy, and thus were conducted under a false premise due to his behavior that I believe violates the letter and principles of WP:GAMING. Again, I am willing to be corrected if I am wrong.

I have tried resolving this dispute with him in many forums, but he continually insists returning the templates to revisions that I do not believe follow the best practices recommended by WP:NAVBOX and the WP:NAV explanatory essay. He has also frequently treated me with condescension, demanded discussion following reverts to the templates without citing a policy to which he then does not respond—which has the effect of preserving a specific revision of the template—and consistently falsely characterized my editing, comments, and other behavior, and himself made edits and then characterized them in ways that I believe to be dishonest—all of which I believe violates WP:GAMING and WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Like I said, I am more than willing to be corrected if I am wrong. His previous comment is a refreshing change from my other interactions with him, and I likewise do not believe that there needs to be an interaction ban. I think there does need to be resolution where he either identifies a content policy that precludes the biography and presidency template splits other than a generalized request to discuss it or just concedes that the splits should occur. Otherwise, whatever behavior got flagged is going to continue. I would add that I am not tracking his contributions with any Wikipedia feature. I would really have preferred to not have engaged in this many reversions, but when other editors engage the kind of behavior that User:Randy Kryn has, it is unclear to me how else I'm suppose to enforce an existing content policy. I also hope that on Wikipedia the truth is an overriding defense to accusations—but I won't hold my breath given how I've been treated by other editors in these types of forums in the past. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Point of clarification: WP:NAVBOX is an editing guideline, not a policy. Schazjmd (talk) 23:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would really have preferred to not have engaged in this many reversions, but when other editors engage the kind of behavior that User:Randy Kryn has, it is unclear to me how else I'm suppose to enforce an existing content policy. The best way to handle this would have been to pause and seek broader consensus, such as through an RfC, before continuing to make the contested changes. I think you are both acting in good faith here, but things need to slow down. There's no rush and consensus takes time to build. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• CommonKnowledgeCreator, outside of how this navbox guideline is parsed, Randy Kryn was very complimentary towards you in his statemnt here, it was hardly accusations. It would have been nice if you had shown him the same respect. You close your comments complaining about how you have been treated in the past but good faith goes both ways. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  He has been so here, and today on my talk page. I would not say that he has always been in the past. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:47, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, CKC, I think you do a very decent job above of martialing your arguments to explain your perspective on the issues here and account for why you took the courses of action that you did. But I'd like to suggest to you something that is reflected in those arguments that I seriously think is worth your contemplation. A substantial portion (indeed, I'd argue the majority) of your explanations for how you approached this situation are based in exceptions to the standard rules, be they based in carve-out language inside a broader policy (as with the language you cite from WP:EDITWAR for example) or rules which act as special caveats to process (as with WP:NOTBUREAU). Essentially you are arguing that your approach has been valid under an extended IAR rationale.

Now, in principle there is nothing wrong with leaning on such standards here and there, but you should consider that each of these principles are meant to be approached with restraint, even when used in isolation. They exist as backstops to the standard agreed models on editorial conduct and process that serve to keep our rules and interactions flexible, but they are also meant to be used sparing and cautiously. When you find yourself stringing more than a half dozen of the exceptions to rules together to justify why your edit warring is not an issue, in response to community concerns, it is typically going to be a good moment to pause and consider the very strong possibility that your editorial actions are racing ahead of consensus.

Mind you, I don't have any doubt that you are acting in good faith. And to be fair, you would not be anywhere near the first person to come to ANI accusing Randy of civil POV pushing (I'm sorry Randy, I'm not trying to pile on, but this is an honest observation of a trend I have seen in discussions here concerning you over recent years). But regardless, CKC, edit warring is not the solution. If I can make a suggestion: If you find yourself running in circles in situations like this, despite multiple attempts to engage that haven't lead to useful and robust consensus, the village pump is an ideal solution. It's a valid space to dissect complex policy issues which integrate multiple PAGs and considerations, and it will, in the vast majority of cases, give you enough engagement from a significant number of community members to arrive at a working solution within a matter of a few weeks at most. That's what I would have done in this case after your initial discussions led to forking perspectives and no agreement between yourself and Randy. Food for thought anyway. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Let me start by saying that I appreciate your comment, gave it thought, and believe it was tendered in good faith. However, I disagree with and believe I should dispute your assertion that I am following a WP:IAR rationale because I believe you have conflated the words exception, exemption, and caveat. At least as I understand the definitions of these related but distinct words from Merriam-Webster, an exception is an individual case where a rule is applicable but not applied, while an exemption is a standardized immunity from a rule that applies in every case, and a caveat is an explanation to prevent misinterpretation or a consequential detail to be considered.

As such, the language that I cited from WP:EDITWAR is an exemption rather than an exception as it is part of the rule, and while the language that I cited from WP:NOTBUREAU may be a caveat, it is not clear that it is a special one (i.e. distinguished by some unusual quality) because most policies provide explanations and consequential details to prevent misinterpretations, and thus, is not an exception to other policies either. The language of WP:5P5 and WP:IAR is about exceptions to rules, not exemptions within rules or caveats for rules. As the language I cited from WP:EDITWAR and WP:NAVBOX are parts of those policies and guidelines, the language reflects an already-existing community consensus about those topics per WP:NOTBUREAU.

In other words, I am not stringing together exceptions to ignore policies or race ahead of community consensus, but instead am following WP:EDITWAR and the already-existing community consensus in WP:NAVBOX, and I believe that your assertions that I am not is false. As for your recommendation about the Village Pump, I've used it before to propose a more structured means of resolving content policy disputes and encountered the same kind of reflexive opposition that I typically encounter on talk pages. Given my experience, I don't know that it is a worthwhile use of time if I find myself in the same kind of situation again unless norms change to discourage reflexive opposition and arbitrary reverts, because otherwise even proposing a change to an article, template, policy, guideline, procedure, or organ within Wikipedia or new ones altogether will never progress. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 17:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@2.97.214.7: only began editing today on 1 September. When a bot reverted some of their first edits, they responded to the bot on their talk page by saying "You're a bot so I'll ignore you thank you." [50], where they then blanked the page. [51]

They then went on to have an absolutely wild personal attack streak for the next eleven edits. [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61]

Me and @FilmandTVFan28: warned him, FilmFan with a level 2 and me with the last level for personal attacks. After asking us to stop harassing him, [62] the IP promptly blanked the page. [63]

The IP also broke the 3 edit rule for edit warring [64] [65] [66] [67]. They absolutely know they're edit warring since they mocked someone who warned them about it and promptly blanked the page. [68] [69]

TheWikiToby (talk) 01:16, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TheWikiToby, this IP just started editing today so I'm not sure this is an intractible problem. If the editor is edit-warring, I'd file a case at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, complete with diffs from the article involved. If you believe it is vandalism, it's best to go to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Any editor is free to remove notices from their User talk page, that is not evidence of misconduct. I agree that the hostility is not ideal but they are complaining of harassment because of the notices which resulted in them blanking the page, I'm not sure it's blockworthy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree; the IP's edit summaries are personally insulting. Examples from mainspace edits:

• [70]: you lot are the biggest idiots I’ve ever seen and I’ve encountered Adamstom.97 and you make him look smart. Lol biggest dummies around hahaha.
• [71]: now next time do your research and stop being so ignorant no wonder we all hate you cos you’re a liar
• [72]: Impressive you got one thing right for a change not saying much but still
• [73]: Not about improvement jerk change it again and I’ll happily report you did I mention you’re a jerk?
• [74]: Barry wom you’re nothing but a vandal if you wanna behave that like that do go outside and sniff some flowers quite being disrespectful to the man who’s film watching was a big basis for the 2016 remake shameful. Vandals like you make me sick

If this is what the IP is doing in their first two days on Wikipedia, I imagine it will only get worse. They need a clear message that calling people jerks, liars, idiots and dummies is not acceptable. Toughpigs (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Toughpigs, you were right, I should have looked more closely at their contribution history. My oversight. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP blocked for 31 hours. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:21, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the relatively narrow range of pages edited by the IP, this is block evasion from the user behind Polywog701 (blocked on 27th August for disruptive editing, personal attacks and block evasion). Axad12 (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in all likelihood, this IP [75] threatened with a block in July, this IP [76] blocked early in August, and the IP who started this ANI thread [77] back in June. Presumably the activity extends further back in time... Axad12 (talk) 19:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are on to something, Axad12. Looking further into this, I came across User:2.98.153.89 and from their talk page comments and their editing interests (everything Disney, some Warner Bros and DC), they look like the same editor, too. Maybe we should be thinking about a range block. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz,

Further activity from the same user, who seems to be quite persistent:

16-18 May: User Farmer4-89 [78], blocked as a NOTHERE socking troll, who made this request for adminship [79] as their seventh edit.

4-17 July 2024 IP [80] blocked for disruptive editing.

17 July 2024: User FishyTimes196 [81], blocked as a sock [82], who opened this thread at ANI [83].

23 July 2024 IP [84] blocked as a block evading sock.

All the IP addresses here and in previous posts geolocate to Birmingham UK. Interests seem to be almost solely film related. Presumably the disruption extends further back than May, as the user won't have suddenly arrived at a request for adminship... Axad12 (talk) 03:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that from their first edits, Farmer4-89 was complaining about editor Adamston.97. That rings a bell to me, I could have sworn that there was a case on ANI months ago of a new editor who was harrassing Adamston.97 because they were reverting unconstructive edits. This sock farm also has intense feelings about their User talk page, calling it "my page" and complaining about notices placed there as vandalism or harassment. It would nice to have an umbrella to place this mixture of registered and IP accounts. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another ANI report where they say that an editor who reverted them was threatening their family, with no evidence to back it up (that was User:92.15.149.196). They are not adverse to coming to project pages to complain about editors they have disputes with. They keep saying they are quitting but a week or so later, they are back. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, the issue with Adamstom.97 (raised by Farmer 4-89 on 10th May here [85]), probably related to edit warring that occurred directly beforehand at She-Hulk: Attorney at Law involving user Doctor Strange19 (contribution history here [86]). My assumption would be that all of the subsequent activity relates to disruptive socks set up by that user. Axad12 (talk) 04:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The earlier ANI report that you mention (involving Adamstom.97) may have been the one involving Holydiver82 [87], blocked as NOTHERE on 21st August by user:Canterbury Tail and noted as having a strong interest in Disney films. Can the Disney link be coincidental? Axad12 (talk) 04:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that Holydiver82 is unrelated. Holydiver's "not here" goal was to add negative things to pages related to Disney/Marvel releases that are seen as "woke": The Marvels, the director of The Marvels, and The Acolyte. Polywog/Farmer4-89/FishyTimes/whoever is a different person. Toughpigs (talk) 05:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that Holydiver82 had an altogether different agenda. Also there is no crossover between that account's activity and the articles that the sockmaster has been editing (where there is frequent crossover from one sock account to another). My mistake... Axad12 (talk) 05:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Axad12,the more I looked into this, especially noting when unrelated IP editors deleted content from registered editors' User talk page by mistake, I came upon at least 4 or 5 other IP accounts that I won't name here because this is just becoming unmanageable. I know, from SPIs I've filed, that at a certain point, checkusers say it doesn't even matter who came first or identifying all of the possible socks, it's just dealing with new ones that pop up. Still it would be helpful to hear from a checkuser or admin who helps out at SPI about this situation or from an admin who has dealt with range-blocks, too. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strattonsmith has collected a couple dozen warnings over the last few years, most ignored and a few met with hostility. I went on their talk page to leave a comment about their page creation, particularly the use of bare links and promotional tone, but I counted: 2 warnings about bare links, about 9 or 10 warnings about edit summaries, and several other misc warnings about repeated issues regarding sourcing, tone, and the Manual of Style. I checked their history for deleted warnings and found a few more edit summary warnings and transphobic comments after a GENDERID violation (from 2021). Since another warning would presumably be ignored, and they're still doing these things at a fairly high volume, I'm bringing the issue here. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of problematic edits please. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are not obliged to fully format citations or use edit summaries. I don't see anything obviously disruptive in their recent edits. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:47, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At a certain point not using edit summaries does appear to be against policy. See WP:UNRESPONSIVE and H:FIES. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Strattonsmith: You've made 40 000 edits and nearly 99% of them do not have edit summaries – at a certain point, it becomes disruptive. Ignoring the messages about it certainly isn't helping your case. You can enable an empty edit summary reminder under Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing. C F A 💬 14:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

114.10.100.0/22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can an admin please place a rangeblock on 114.10.100.0/22? The user behind this IP range has been causing rapid, wide, significant disruption to Indonesia football articles, without any sign of it stopping or slowing down, despite many warnings and reversions from other users. Just about every single last 500 edits from this IP range has been reverted.

Also worth noting that Achmad Rachmani has mentioned that this IP editor is actually a sock of id:Wikipedia:LTA/LAMPUNG, and this IP address/range is definitely listed in that LTA report (the /16 range is blocked for three years on Indonesian Wikipedia). — AP 499D25 (talk) 12:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, admins can. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 13:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it is not me. I do not edit Indonesian football articles Strattonsmith (talk) 14:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No one is saying you did. You likely responded to the wrong thread. (points at the next one uptopic.) Ravenswing 14:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AP 499D25 I've blocked the /22 for a month. Feel free to ping me if they go wider or or there are problems after that block expires. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you HJ Mitchell! Will do. Phew it's over. — AP 499D25 (talk) 00:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kabul madras (talk · contribs) keeps on adding OR to the article, and continued doing so despite being warned; broke the 3RR Abo Yemen✉ 12:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some interesting reading in the section at User talk:Kabul madras#September 2024 which indicates you were both blocked and unblocked bu JBW CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the block log, OP was unblocked 4 minutes later with the message Blocked in error, due to misreading the editing history, so OP's block history is irrelevant to this discussion. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You missed my point which was that they had both been unblocked because JBW had second thoughts. Look at Kabul madras block log they were also blocked and unblocked (Wrong account blocked by mistake). This then looks like a case of "other parent", especially when combined with the section that begins "@Abo Yemen and Kabul madras: First of all, my apologies for the block of Kabul madras". CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"My bad on participating in the edit war, but how is he allowed to add his original research on the article?? None of the sources that he cited says anything about how many people in Indonesia dispute or even reject outright the validity of Ba 'Alawi sada linkage with Islamic prophet Muhammad. In fact what do indonesians have to do with an Arab family?

He also used sources such as youtube polls, Indonesian youtube videos, used this script of "Sunan al-Tirmidi" (which doesn't verify what he claimed in the article), some familytreedna.com spreadsheets, and whatever the fuck this is supposed to prove."

The above is a post by @Abo Yemen on my talk page.

There are several issues between Abo Yemen and me.

1. The article states "The claim of the Ba Alawi clan's lineage connection to Prophet Muhammad SAW remains controversial due to the lack of contemporary sources that record Ubaidillah as the son of Ahmad al Muhajir". I have provided a relevant reference link for this section and, as far as I know, it is not original research and does not violate Wikipedia's rules for use as a reference. The content of the quote does have a conflicting view with other parts of the article, but I included it to make the information in the article neutral and unbiased. Therefore, I included a controversial paraphrase to explain that there are differences of opinion regarding their claim as descendants of Prophet Muhammad. I included this section at the beginning of the article because it explains the claim at the beginning. Abo Yemen objects to this.

2. The use of the words "some" and "many". I have included a reference to a survey of over 12,000 voters to explain that the number of those who do not believe this is indeed large and not small. In fact, this is a hot topic in Indonesia now.

3. The use of FamilyTreeDNA as a primary source in the article. According to Wikipedia rules, primary sources may be used cautiously with certain conditions, which I have met diligently. Therefore, I also included secondary and tertiary sources that explain the primary source in the following sentence.

4. The use of YouTube links as sources. As seen on the Sada Aba Alawi talk page, I initially raised this issue but received no response from Abo Yemen. Therefore, when forced to use other sources, I used YouTube sources too cautiously. And it should be noted that not all YouTube links were included by me, but also by other editors such as user @Buhadram (Tirmidhi, etc.).

5. In essence, what I want to convey in the article is that the claim of Sada Ba Alawi as patrilineal descendants of Prophet Muhammad is still controversial. Some believe it and some reject it. I want to include both sides in the article so that the article is neutral and unbiased.

Thank you. Kabul madras (talk) 00:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

your points just proves that you have done OR. Especially the youtube polls "survey of over 12,000 voters". Also the FamilyTreeDNA does not say anything from what is written in the article, you just added a link to a dna database in the style of a citation.

That entire section needs to be well sourced using reliable unbiased sources or it will be removed completely as that article should be treated like a BLP. Abo Yemen✉ 02:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the OR from FamilyTreeDNA. It doesn't say anything to reject the validity of Ba'alawi. I could not find result from the Youtube showing the voting statistics either. I am worried the edits are biased. (talk) 06:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A10slowburner (talk · contribs) May need no action yet, but this statement [[88]] given its a repsnse to beg told they can't insert OR into an article [[89]] gives me a strong feeling that at the very least they need to be kept an eye on. Slatersteven (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know they are a newbie, but that should be a suicide pact either. They (at the very least) need an admin to mentor them. Slatersteven (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TheGreatWhite99 (talk · contribs) seems to be related in some way. Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a pair of new accounts which appear to be here just to play around together. I have given both of them warnings that they are likely to be blocked from editing if they carry on as they have started. I think now we should wait and see. JBW (talk) 18:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fair, but this [[90]] may indicate we will not have to wait long. Slatersteven (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as soon as I had posted my message above I went back to check the two accounts for any more editing, and I found that A10slowburner had done more infantile vandalism, so I have blocked the account. TheGreatWhite99 may or may not soon follow... watch this space. JBW (talk) 19:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait why though TheGreatWhite99 (talk) 22:33, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page explains why, three experienced users have now wanted you to behave, and follow wp:policy. We do not want to waste our time dealing with silly edits or silly comments, we are not a social club for your amusement. Slatersteven (talk) 09:37, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2607:FEA8:1C03:BD00:30:ACE8:E6AE:B40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have made a lot of MoS-violating edits to Mufasa: The Lion King and List of The Lion King (franchise) characters, like in here, here, here, here and so on. I have to stop reverting because of WP:3RR and I'm not entirely sure is it "obvious" vandalism (though it is disruptive editing). The IP has be given four warnings but they have been ignored. Note that the IP only edits these two pages. Replicative Cloverleaf (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP has been blocked. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, while editing for the September 2024 drive for page patrolling, I came across this redirect. [91] Made by this user: [92]. @Mewuragap:

The redirect specifically says "Pajeetland" and redirects to India. For people who don't know, Pajeet is a racial slur intended against South Asians -- specifically Indians.

Requesting that action is taken on this user ASAP as they clearly are not here to contribute. Noorullah (talk) 21:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging this Administrator as they've interacted with this user before. @Clovermoss: Noorullah (talk) 21:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would this qualify for G3? If someone inserted this slur into an article, it would likely be considered blatant vandalism. Don't see why the same logic wouldn't apply to a redirect. C F A 💬 21:10, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G3'd and given a final warning. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do they really need a final warning? I try not too be too hasty but between these two incidents I think it's clear that they're WP:NOTHERE. Just my two cents. I felt like I was being lenient the first time telling them "don't do this" and probably should have used a higher warning level than I did. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeffed per WP:ZT They've been here for all of two days but know how to create a racist redirect? If they want to try to explain themselves, then they can open an unblock request. As of right now this doesn't look like someone we really need here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I spot checked a stone if their other edits, and they seemed reasonably constructive, so I went with the warning. No objection to the indef, though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz has nominated a pair of redirects for discussion involving some idiotic rounding of Nazi-related blocks in video games involving a 'nicer' and lesser-known English fascist named Oswald Mosely being rebranded as "Gamer Mosely"; Mewuragap also provided an edit for the National Indian Gaming Association which...read the acronym. They took out the "N" in 2022 though, so now that minor racist thorn is officially taken care of and now is under its current title of the Indian Gaming Association (note that I'm not actually linking to said word in the article of course). Ad Orientem's gut was correct in indeffing them. Nate • (chatter) 01:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be honest, I couldn't see any connection between a 20th century British fascist and gaming culture and was hoping that someone could clue me in. But I think it is some inside 4chan joke. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my God. Who would think that it would be okay to do that, and I'm not even gonna even show anything else, just, that is disgusting. mer764KCTV5 / Cospaw the Wolf (He/Him | Talk! • Contributions) 11:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

TRC891 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been continuing to re-add bold to Big Brother Naija season 9 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) after multiple warnings not to do so per MOS:NOBOLD. Warnings are on their talk page. I suspect they are not reading them.

removed by me. Diffs adding it back:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Big_Brother_Naija_season_9&diff=prev&oldid=1239815868
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Big_Brother_Naija_season_9&diff=next&oldid=1239906690
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Big_Brother_Naija_season_9&diff=1240076022&oldid=1240060377

a cleanup tag to the article made no difference.

Sciencefish (talk) 14:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]