Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

This is in response to the ANI notice by UserNumber (talk · contribs) (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1039#Disruptive_user_Chaipau) which I failed to notice in time since no notice was left on my talk page. In that ANI report they make voluminous accusations of "disruptive" editing by me. This is, of course, incorrect since I am trying to bring the article in line with standard Wikipedia policies and styles. The policies and styles with which Miya people is not aligned, IMHO, are given here.

• In the revert [7] UserNumber has violated a number of different policies and styles that guide Wikipedia.
  • WP:MOSIS
    - UserNumbers have inserted more Indic scripts into the Info-box and have cluttered the lead with meanings. This makes the article less readable.
  • WP:OR
    - UserNumbers has re-inserted a link to a dictionary that gives the meaning of Miya in Bengali. This is WP:OR because it does not say anything about the etymology of the word Miya in this particular case in Assam, given also that Miya is a widely used honorific in South Asia, which derives from Persian.
• In the revert [8], UserNumber
  • is trying to push for a POV by re-inserting a Bengali article, even as a citation in English already exists supporting the text. Bengali op-eds should be avoided for the following reasons (1)
    WP:NOENG and (2) the express opinion of a prominent Miya poet himself who says: "It is essentially an initiative to upset the amplified efforts made by some Bengali ultra-nationalists – with roots in West Bengal – on the Char Chapori Muslims of Assam to discard the Assamese language for Bengali. The campaign by these groups has been going on in our areas since 1991." ([9]
    ). As a result, in this article, we should be using op-ed type sources only to demonstrate an opinion that exists and not to assert any facts, if we have to use them at all.
  • is inserting predatory journal articles (from [10])

I have tried to discuss some these issues in

I request comments here to resolve which policies and styles are relevant here and how we could best implement them.

Chaipau (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • I will address this again. I added ONE Indic script (Assamese script) in the infobox of the Miya article. For most people groups-related articles such as Tamils, Punjabis and Bengalis, they have Indic script in the infobox at least. WP:MOSIS only applies if there are MANY Indic scripts which makes the article MESSY.

• • Secondly, the reason why I insert the dictionary definition is because the term "Miya" is used pejoratively towards the people to make it known that their origin is in Bengal. The Persian word is Mian, and it became Miya in Bengali. I am well aware that their language is Assamese, but in this specific case, Miya is a Bengali term which Assam's people use to discriminate Bengal-origin Muslims.

• • These are the only two problems I see here. I do not see any mistake I have made. Only one of these "problems" include me adding the words "Bengali" to the article and suddenly you accuse me of pushing POV. I wasn't PURPOSELY adding predatory journal articles, they were added by another user and perhaps came back whilst I was undoing your mischievous edits (which involves claiming Miya is Urdu etc.). UserNumber (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • Also, Admins please check this edit of Chaipau: here!, you will see he added Latin to the native name section, and also called Miya people as the descendant of "peasants". UserNumber (talk) 19:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@UserNumber:

• You are imagining
  WP:MOSIS; please read carefully: "Avoid the use of Indic scripts in the lead sections or infoboxes. Instead, use International Phonetic Alphabet pronunciation guides, which are more international. Exceptions are articles on the script itself, articles on a language that uses the script, and articles on texts originally written in a particular script." The result of this RfC
  is a clear "No" on the question "Should we allow for Indicscript/s in infoboxes?"
• The use of pejorative use of Miya is cited from Baruah 2019. You don't need a Bangla dictionary, which is WP:OR (are you trying to say something more than what the sources say?)
• I had to correct you on a number of occasions. Here you have inserted a link to indilens.com, a news portal to claim that the immigration started during the Bengal Presidency period ([11]) Assam left Bengal presidency ended in 1873/1874 and the immigration started around 1911. Here you have inserted "Bengali Muslim" whereas Miya people themselves make a distinction between that term and "Bengal-origin Muslims" ([12]) Either you are trying to push a current political agenda in Wikipedia or you are unaware of the nuances of the issues regarding the article. In any case you are clearly standing in the way of an WP:NPOV article.

Chaipau (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @
  WP:OR is a recurring issue when it comes to your overall editing.[13][14][15] These are some of the diffs I personally watched months ago and your messages show that these problems are not going to resolve anytime soon. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 18:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Chaipau is also adding promotional images (unreliable) to history of Assam. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Assam&diff=960745019&oldid=960732362 . 2409:4065:93:6D9C:15A6:1400:78FE:B4FA (talk) 19:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chaipau, you are now lying against me. These links were insterted in my edits during the merge and move of information from the

Na Asamiya article. These weren't even my original edits, I was just doing some merges. I have already discussed the "Bengali Muslim" issue and this discussion has been RESOLVED as I agree that Bengal-origin Muslims is better. Stop bringing old edits which I myself no longer agree with. You are doing the same as Aman Kumar Goel is doing, by bringing up past edits which have already been RESOLVED. UserNumber (talk) 20:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Chaipau, the only CURRENT ISSUE (we're not in the past) is Miya being a Bengali word of Persian origin. The only reason I am adding Bengali dictionary references is because YOU keep removing the fact that it is a Bengali VARIANT. In Persian it is MIAN. The reason why it is pronounced MIYA is because people discriminate these Muslims because they are of "Bengal-origin". UserNumber (talk) 20:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:RS (not someone's op-ed) that directly supports your claim. Furthermore, the Bengali romanization of the word is Miah; the Urdu romanization is Mian; but the romanization used here is Miya which is different from the Bengali romanization. In your edit here ([16]), you tacitly admit that Miya is not the Bengali romanization. Chaipau (talk) 21:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm not gonna try and guess who's in the right, but reading through these messages, I don't see any particular evidence of the "chronic, intractable behavioral problems" which would warrant opening a discussion here. A content dispute such as this would be far better suited for the Dispute resolution noticeboard. Opening tit-for-tat ANI discussions are not gonna lead to any sort of meaningful resolution.
Alivardi (talk) 00:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Alivardi: Thank you for your comment. I have not received any reply from UserNumber on policies and styles, even after I have pointed them out. Here they are reiterating the same argument they made earlier ([17]). If we have WP:IDHT then it means we will land up here again. Also, this was a response to an archived notice, not a new one. Thanks. Chaipau (talk) 01:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think WP:DRN will resolve the conduct issues with UserNumber since he is not understanding

WP:NPA). Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 03:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

It seems user:UserNumber is asking for help as he did here ([18]), and user:Alivardi responded in this section ([19]) I am not sure whether soliciting or offering help for a particular side in this situation is appropriate (

WP:IDHT) situation as we did in Miya people and we can move forward. Chaipau (talk) 14:42, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Last week I blocked Ythlev (talk · contribs) for a 3RR violation (they reached 9RR). Today I caught them socking with a new account Uconf (talk · contribs), which I also blocked. They are now editing from IPs; I blocked 114.137.46.249 (talk · contribs), but they have popped up again with ‎114.137.134.85 (talk · contribs). Is it possible to block them with a rangeblock? Alternatively, they have quite a narrow focus of edits (Taiwanese elections), so alternatively, all of them could be semi-protected. Cheers, Number 57 12:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a /16 range so it's possible but I wouldn't recommend it. From what I see, collateral is possible but unlikely and unless newer IPs on that range pop up, I would argue multiple IP blocks being a better mechanism. --qedk (t 愛 c) 13:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They are now reverting random edits I've made from another IP (114.137.206.26 (talk · contribs)). Beyond short-term blocks to stop them socking at the moment, I wonder whether longer-term sanctions may be required. Number 57 14:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or, you could start acting like an admin and actually fix the problem. 114.137.206.26 (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Every recent edit is them - there is no collateral damage. Since they aren't about to stop, looking at the comment above, I have blocked the /16 range for a month to match their block. Black Kite (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Would
  WP:3X be a bit too nuclear? Blackmane (talk) 02:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

WP:3X requires the socking to have been confirmed by a CU; CUs do not publicly link accounts to IPs. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 04:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm aware of that requirement (since I was the one that proposed it in the original RFC). In this case, it's clear

quacking and enacting a ban based on 3X would not be out of the question. Ythlev has been blocked once a month for edit warring for the last 3 months. Blackmane (talk) 00:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

This user consistently edits to push a pro-Aramean POV, and has frequently made personal attacks against myself. I have provided the evidence to demonstrate that in a modern context there is academic consensus that Arameans are considered coterminous with Assyrians, e.g. Ethno-cultural and Religious Identity of Syrian Orthodox Christians, Sargon Donabed & Shamiran Mako (2009), p. 72, UNPO: Assyria, Who Are The Assyrians?, Nicholas Aljeloo (2000), Ethnic Groups of Africa and the Middle East: An Encyclopedia, John A. Shoup (2011), p. 30, Routledge Handbook of Minorities in the Middle East, ed. Paul S Rowe (2018), p. 357. I have attempted to engage the user in discussion, but he has continued to push his POV.

• At Sharbel Touma, the user demonstrates he is advocating his POV contrary to the academic consensus with no evidence [26]. Note in my edit on this article, I did not change the assertion that the person is Aramean, but pointed to the consensus that they are considered part of the Assyrian people. This is also evident at Jasar Takak, [27].
• At Jimmy Durmaz, the user has replaced reliable sourced content (BBC) with a link to a YouTube video to assert the person has Aramean ethnicity [28]. At Bishara (singer), this user has asserted a living person has Aramean ethnicity without providing a source [29].
• At Stateless nation, the user has restored content by a confirmed sockpuppet, which is unsupported by the source provided [30].
• At Chaldean Catholics, the user has removed sourced content that is contrary to his POV [31].
• At Assyrians in Israel, the user blanked the article without discussion and manipulated the sources to assert his POV, despite the sources supporting the existence of an Assyrian community in Israel [32].
• At Arameans, the user restored content added by a confirmed sockpuppet. The user's "sourced content" is from the Aramean Democratic Organization, not an academic source, and a book named "The Arameans; and their diaspora" with no other details, and cannot be found anywhere. The user points to the variations in languages to support his argument that the Arameans are a separate ethnic group to Assyrians, but this is not accepted in academia, as demonstrated by the sources provided.

This user has been warned to not perform disruptive edits twice [33] [34]. Mugsalot (talk) 20:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi user:Mugsalot

As I already did let you know I did not POV anything on the edits I made. If you look at the sources I provided you can clearly see that the things I edited are stated by several historians, academici, and other objective websites etc and I did provide tens of sources.

I find it very sad that you are kinda trying to change the situation. Because in fact I see you together with other Assyrians editing several Aramean-related pages and remove the Aramean name of several of articles (See talkpage of Assyrian people

And again how can you state that I use a POV on Chaldean Catholics when I provide sources of objective Iraqi newswebsites? How can that be a POV?

As last I want to warn all Wikipedia moderators for Assyrian nationalists on Wikipedia. There is an ongoing Wikipedia war about Assyrian articles with their goal to strengthen the Assyrian nationalism. There is a reddit page called ‘Assyrian that has 2.5000 members and they called up everyone to make a Wikipedia account to strengthen the Assyrian cause. Please see the next link:

It’s clear that you are a pro-Assyrian if you look at the edits you made the past view months, this is not a personal attack, but facts that can be seen when someone watches your edits of the few past months.

(Redacted)

Note 3 of the 5 sources you provided in your text here above come from Assyrian nationalist who work for the Assyrian cause, that’s a POV. Sources like that cannot be used on Wikipedia. It’s a neutral place for sources with that are objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MixedButHumann (talk • contribs) 21:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: om pages like Jimmy Durmaz and Sharbel Touma the sources were already speaking about them identifying as Arameans. Yet Assyrian nationalist with a POV changed this into ‘Assyrian’. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MixedButHumann (talk • contribs) 21:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MixedButHumann (talk) 21:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

tendentiously. El_C 21:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi user: El_C

as I stated above the pages he mentioned, mentioned Arameans already and if you look on the pages you can see that the sources that are being used also use Aramean instead of Assyrian. It’s being changed by Assyrian nationalists.. please take a look at the sources mentioned in the articles, they all refer to Aramean people and not to Assyrians. Also isn’t a source of a person literally saying he’s Aramean in a interview more relevant than a source of a news website?

MixedButHumann (talk) 22:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

diffs. No, BBC is preferred to Youtube in almost 100 percent of the times. El_C 23:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

-Ok, so the topicstarter agrees Sharbel Touma and Jasar Takak being og Aramean descent.

-About

Bishara Morad

he’s a widely known young artist of Aramean descent if you look up on Google you’ll see him several times showing the Aramean flag with him.

-stateless nation I reverted this back because Arameans are being seen as the indigenous people of Syria and Turkey without an own state. The sources that were provided by another editor were valid.

-Chaldean Catholics I added the Aramean identity to the article, because there are Chaldean Catholics who besides Assyrian and Chaldean, identify as Aramean. I used a source of a telephone call with Ankawa.com one of Iraq’s biggest Christian news websites. The patriarch of the Chaldean church stated that the Chaldean Catholics are one people known under the Aramean name. [35]

-Assyrians in Israel I redirected the page with Arameans in Israel, because the sources in the article were all speaking about the Syriac-Aramean nations and the article consulted the same information as Arameans in Israel[36], even the file used on the page of Assyrians in Israel had an Aramean flag left above the church doors. [37]

Please, note that also the page Arameans in Israel was targeted by Assyrian POV that’s why it’s a protected page now.

-There is a wikiproject:Aramea that wanted to improve Aramean related articles, till now there was no page referring to the modern Arameans and there was the need to create one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MixedButHumann (talk • contribs) 23:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSN. El_C 00:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

To be honest, I don’t really get it. Even tho if it is the Status quo ante (who and When is this decided according to what?) how is it possible to identify someone with a name, that that person isn’t identifying him/herself with. That’s like erasing someone’s culture and identity? Or?MixedButHumann (talk) 00:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

focusing on content. El_C 00:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• At Stateless nation, that edit originally by a blocked user has one source. That one source does not support the content in that edit, e.g. there's no mention of the "Between 2,000,000 and 5,000,000" Arameans in that source [38].
• At Chaldean Catholics, this edit illustrates how the user is acting on the basis of his POV that Assyrians and Arameans are separate ethnic groups, contrary to the academic consensus [39].
• At Assyrians in Israel, the sources I explained to the user on his talk page, that were already on the article, demonstrate that they have no mention of Arameans ([40] [41] [42]).

The user is under the false impression that I am actively editing with an anti-Aramean bias, and it's clear I have provided references to support persons' Aramean identity where appropriate, or simply left their identity as Aramean if the sources support that, as shown at Sanharib Malki, Gaby Jello, Abgar Barsoum, David Teymur, and Daniel Teymur. Mugsalot (talk) 00:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think I understand the name mis/identification — it's about Aramean being called Assyrian. Anyway,

due weight. You are invited to get the attention of other contributors to the dispute at hand through the means described above. El_C 00:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

El_C are you going to place sanctions on the user? I have a suspicion if I were to restore content then he will simply continue to revert. Mugsalot (talk) 11:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mugsalot, not yet. Let's see if my comprehensive advise had an effect first. El_C 13:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

user:Mugsalot what is again the reason you just reverted all articles I edited? The edit on Arameans is because of the wikiproject: Aramea, there is a need about a page about the modern group that identifies as Arameans. Here above you stated that you agree Sharbel Touma and David Durmaz Being of Aramean descent, yet you reverted this edit again.

You also reverted the edit on Chaldean Catholics while I mentioned that their patriarch tried to unite the Chaldean Catholics under the Aramean name.

I agree with you about the reverting of

stateless nations as the sources weren’t relevant enough, but you can’t just revert all edits. user:El_C

please your opinion on this, because here is more going on from Mugsalot his POV than we think.

Note that all Wikipedia pages in other languages have seperate articles about Arameans and Assyrians. The group separated from eachother what makes that they have another history and culture. Arameans trace their origins back to the ancient Arameans while Assyrians trace their roots back to the ancient Assyrians. Organizations and other cultural aspects are different from eachother so a page about the modern Arameans is needed, as they both have another history, culture and even traditions.

MixedButHumann (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El_C I support the choice of the user redeeming himself but the above edit suggests his POV is the sole driver in his edits. The best summary of this debate is provided at Routledge Handbook of Minorities in the Middle East, ed. Paul S Rowe (2018), p. 357 that details that the Aramean identity emerged within the Assyrian community in the early 1980s, and reflects a disagreement over the choice of name to refer to the community across the whole, and does not suggest they are distinct, separate ethnic groups as argued by the user. Without some sanctions, I don't think the user is willing to accept this. Mugsalot (talk) 14:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

dispute resolution requests that are at your disposal for content disputes that otherwise reach an impasse (to bring more outside contributors to the dispute). There is no magic bullet — I am not going to decide on the content dispute myself. Either you do it right, or it's probably not going work out. Again, bring high quality sources that fairly represent the scholarly and mainstream consensus to the table, or there's simply not much left to talk about. Thanks and good luck. El_C 17:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

user:El_C Ok Thankyou, I’m going to try to provide high quality sources to Arameans and will try to enlarge the participating members on the wikiproject:Aramea to improve Aramean-related pages with ofcourse relevant sources.

MixedButHumann (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from User talk:ToBeFree

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to deal with this, so directly bringing the issue to you. The ip 78.1.13.211 was blocked because of personal attack towards me that too just 2 weeks, then its sock puppet 78.0.161.90 been range blocked due to similar personal attack and unacceptable rude emojis here and just now 93.143.70.88 another sockpuppet made exactly same commentary here and again another of it's sock is also there 93.143.76.66. Now you will ask me why I didn't opened a SPI, as I kind lost faith in SPI and felt total waste of time after that last obvious SPI failure here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/78.1.13.211/Archive, the closing admin just concluded it as not sock puppet when the first case was clear evidence of sock puppet. I am staying out of those article for sometimes but it seems like the user behind the ip is hounding me again and again. I hope you can help me out in this, blocking all these ip ranges. Drat8sub (talk) 03:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI instead of my talk page for further requests about similar issues. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Regarding the SPI,

WP:AIV is only for obvious cases, and as AIV often receives complex lists of diffs that seem to be way more fitting for a SPI page. If SPI is the wrong venue for such a report, I can understand this decision; I just need to know. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

ToBeFree, thank you anyway for bringing it here, I think you know what is best for the case.Drat8sub (talk) 15:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much of the ip thing, how it works, but one thing that I have noticed, since 78.0.161.90 was range blocked, the user couldn't use those similar ip starting with 78.....it seems like the user have 2 different connection one with ips starting with 78 and another with 93. Nether of the ips starting with 93 had a block so, its using ips starting with 93..... still it's just an assumption out of no knowledge. So, I think admins are better to decide how to end this repitition of incivility. Thank you. Drat8sub (talk) 15:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ToBeFree, the first IP used had stopped editing, the second had been blocked, and the third - well, at that point it looked like it would be the beginning of a game of Whac-A-Mole with IP addresses. In User talk:Drat8sub/Archive 4#Away from SPI... I advised Drat8sub that page protection on the relevant pages might be a more effective solution, but with the caution that it might be seen as an attempt to skew the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ATK–Mohun Bagan. My reading of the situation was that Drat8sub was stoking the flames rather than making good faith attempts to discuss the one-club two-club issue and achieve consensus.

two. As soon as the second of those was resolved Drat8sub was reviving this issue on ToBeFree's talk page - Special:Contributions/Drat8sub. The AN3 complaints also raise the matter of how other editors address Drat8sub. I see a common thread between these issues. Cabayi (talk) 16:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Cabayi, I want to correct you, the third ip was not blocked before you closed the SPI, and thats why I opened the SPI, otherwise there was no need of the SPI. I did not stoke any flames regarding anything, my attempt was clear, until and unless anything official comes from the clubs nothing will be added in any articles. Because lot of rumours going on regarding the issues. Secondly, kindly and please care to read the AN3, and find out one thing where I has done anything remontely like stoking flames. That user was abusing editing privileges and still doing even after multiple times the matter is addressed regarding another article for which the AN3 was opened. That AN3 is totally different case, where the user is adding totally unsourced materials, and the second AN3 was just a revenge AN3 which does not have any substantial base becaus emy edits were per 3RRNO. Drat8sub (talk) 17:16, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re your corrections

"the third ip was not blocked...", and I didn't say it was. As I said on your talk page, page protection was likely to be more effective in dealing with the issue.

"one thing where I has done anything remontely like stoking flames", that would be "repeat after me 3 times" which I'd find aggressively condescending if said to me.

"the second AN3 was just a revenge AN3", which resulted in both of you being warned. Cabayi (talk) 18:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Bridger (talk) 19:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Phil Bridger, by saing "until and unless official annoucement comes from club" does not mean I am saying I own any article, I am asking for absolute fact not rumours. Before someone wins an election we don't annouce someone victorious based on opinion polls, do we??? Same here, more than that the clubs themselves told the name and all other thing will be annouced soon and the artcle was too soon. And we could have wait for that annoucement for any move. A article should not have been created in the first place based on rumours. Fake news a big issue in India, Press freedom index goes down to 142 and we live here and deal with this every second. Rumours are spread like wild fire, and the same happened here. And FYI any one can write in goal.com, khel now through freelancing, where that ministry thing was written, a half truth. My suggestion was to wait for an announcement, I don't think I have asked any illegitimate thing. Now the ip concerned here itself now saying that "still fake article, insult for common sense" here, however, along with disruptive editing, removing the discussion template persistently. I will not say much and let this disruptive editing or edit war continues in these two articles, if thats how the norms are. Thank you. Drat8sub (talk) 01:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I just got dinamic ip nothing of "sockpuppets". This drat is in deed dangerous man deleting article based edits so has to be fought all allowed ways...dont put (personal information removed ~ToBeFree) in this. told you afc is my life and will beat you in such online vandalism acting! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.143.113.214 (talk • contribs)

(non-admin comment) Cool story, bro, whatevah it was you just said. Narky Blert (talk) 22:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ip user, your are going good, ad hominem attack and name calling one after another, now I become dangrous man !! Absolutely, on right track. Drat8sub (talk) 00:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At the technical level, all of the IPs involved here belong to the same ISP and are in the ranges Special:Contributions/78.1.0.0/19 and Special:Contributions/93.143.0.0/17, both of which are sufficiently large that rangeblocks would probably cause a fair amount of collateral damage. I don't think either editor has particularly clean hands here, but I'm more concerned with the IP editor's attitude and harassment. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty concerned about that as well,

outing as something non-oversightable can be. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

User:VenusFeuerFalle is repeatedly attempting to misrepresent very fringe opinions with regards to the Islamic view of Angels as being one that is or was widely held. This user explicitly states on their page: "I don't like edit-wars. However, if I am certain that something is wrong, I will feel the need to clarify something." I've been primarily trying to resolve this issue with regards to the page

I agree with

WP:Bias, Venus then decides to report me for WP:Vandalism (when he himself is guilty of that ([43] [44], despite repeated warnings from me ([45] [46]) that he can't just go round deleting reliable sources to support his POV, not to mention that he is nearly edit-warring with me), and without a prior notification on my talk-page. Leo1pard (talk) 08:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC); edited 08:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I have not accused you of sockpuppin. If I do this, I will report you both here:

WP:SPI. The issue here is, that pretent to reason with me on the talkpage but ignore all my responses. I repeatedly told you, that the sources state. nevertheless you ignore the sources in the Harut and Marut and Iblis article. In both cases it is the common denial of fallen angels within Islamic beliefs. Since Islam scholars currently insist that there are no sinning angels and that the devil is a jinn, while simultaneously Iblis as angel (not a jinn) and Harut and Marut as sinning angels was a common motif within Islam, I suspect religious bias among both Users. These facts are all well supported within the corresponding articles. Although the users use reliable sources, their edits do not reflect the content they are citing. Instead, their edits reflect their opinnion on religious texts (here: Quran) about a certain vers.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Seriously, what is it with genres? EEng 04:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Armando619 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Disruptive editing; overcategorization; deliberately ignoring warnings. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To cite diffs, here are diffs made by User:Armando619 here: [47] and here: [48]. Both add unneeded content to the page. However, the edit summaries also mock people so they could be having a secret list of enemies? {{3125A|talk}} 11:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User Neeraj Puru is

Previously, they tried to add Sainian in a village's name, but it was succesfully moved to its actual title: see Talk:Bir Mangaoli#Requested move 22 May 2020. Yesterday they again created the article with that unsourced title: [50]. Similarly, they previously created an unsourced article about a supposed clan of Saini caste – see here – which was rightly moved to draft space: [51]. But yesterday they again created that unsourced article: [52].

In short, the are not here to build an encyclopedia. And something needs to be done to stop their damage to this project. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There only interest seems to be to add Saini everywhere. I've blocked them as

WP:NOTHERE.--regentspark (comment) 21:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to file a complain for the way user User:J Milburn spoke to me in the Talk:Aleister_Crowley#RfC:_How_should_we_present_the_claims_that_Crowley_worked_for_British_Intelligence_in_this_article? which I think certainly breakes all the rules of Wikipedia:Etiquette as can be seen here. Things like "Are you lying, or are you just confused?" or "We follow what the reliable sources say, not what angry people on talk pages say." by far break the guidelines of etiquette. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's blunt, it's forward, and it's terse - but it's not a personal attack or "by far" a break of civility policy.--v/r - TP 22:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I Agree that J Milburn can do better.

WP:UNCIVIL. Editors should focus on content. Lightburst (talk) 22:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@

biographies of living people policy). But you want to say that I can do better because I am asking him whether the untruths he repeats are lies or the result of confusion, or for referring to him as "angry". I think I have displayed quite considerable patience; YMMV. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Speaking of lying, well Josh Milburn is doing it right now. I have answer all his questions, is just that or he doesn't read them or he doesn't like the answer. He claims I edit wars, how? I make like two reversions one from a tag that was eliminated without my consent despite been the tagger and another when I considered that the re-adding of bogus claims was incorrect and in both cases I stop immediatly after another user reversed me again and took the things into the talk page, how is that "edit waring"? --Dereck Camacho (talk) 08:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dereck, you accuse me of lying here, yet you posted minutes ago on the talk page apparently agreeing with me. In that post, you seem to accept that your claims about others calling this pseudoscience were false. These were the claims my "Are you lying, or are you just confused?" question referred to. And you seem to accept that the policy doesn't say what you claimed it said. The question of which policy said this was the key question I said you were avoiding; you said above that "I have answer all his questions, is just that or he doesn't read them or he doesn't like the answer." So which is it? I'm getting seriously mixed messages from you. This is why I have said I am disengaging; there really is very little point talking to you. (As for edit-warring: here and here. Your claim that "I stop immediatly after another user reversed me again" is false. Your tags were removed by one user, and you reverted. Your tags were removed by another, and you reverted again. And your explanations in the edit summaries are hardly clear.) Josh Milburn (talk) 09:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Milburn what you consider I agreed with you is that I mentioned that no, no policy says that the disputed information has to be in one special section, I myself admitted that, what I was doing was making my own suggestion on how to solve the issue. I mention several times on the talk page that this was just my suggestion not extracted from any specific guideline, that's all. I don't know if that answers your question once and for all. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You now say that "no policy says that the disputed information has to be in one special section". This is what I was asking about. I was asking what policy said this. Yet you accuse me of lying when I say you didn't answer. You very explicitly did claim that a policy says that the content needs to go in its own section: "...locating the fringe unproven statement on a special section as proposed and as the guideline and policies demand" and "The policy is to locate fringe theories on the bottom and not giving them the same space than non-fringe theories". I think it's pretty clear, then, that I was not lying about your failure to answer the question of which policy or guideline supported this, as you now accept that no policy does support this. Given that you now accept you were wrong about that policy and the BLP policy, perhaps you could have a little more care and modesty when it comes to making claims about what Wikipedia policies and guidelines demand. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Milburn I remember you that I said, and quote: "Josh Milburn locating this disputed and unproven claims (and in some cases slanderous) in a special section is my suggestion in order to reach a compromise, as what should be done is remove them, however I was trying to suggest something less radical just to be polite. Unfortunetly nor even that reasonable suggestion was accepted and this is why we're having this discussion." You accuse me of no answering but I did answer you that that was my suggestion not something from a specific guideline. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 19:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I am not sure we are going to get anywhere here; I have said what I am going to say. I can show you why I am finding you difficult to talk to, but I cannot make you see. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dereck Camacho, were you hoping we would not notice that you started the escalation by accusing J. Milburn of lying? What I see in that debate is a civil statement of fact, which escalates due to your obdurate refusal to accept that it is, in fact, fact. J. Milburn made clear that he has no particular dog in the fight, but that the scholarship should be enough to convince us that this is the subject of a serious debate between the relevant experts, and not "pseudoscience", "pseudohistory", or "ludacris [sic]".

This appears to be a question on which reasonable people may differ, and you give a strong impression of trying to browbeat everyone into agreeiong with you, 100%, or else.

Beware the

WP:BOOMERANG. WIthdraw this complaint, calm down, and go and work out a consensus wording on Talk. Guy (help!) 13:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

DRN or a civility dispute resolved here, rather than arguing in both places. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

BLP policy. Don't get into a hole by arguing a non-existent policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Robert McClenon although I don't see the relationship among the two issues because here I'm reporting what I considered was rudeness and breach of the rules of conduct (but apparently is not) and has nothing to do with content dispute and the DRN is about content dispute, this thread is as far as I understand closed already isn't it? I'm just responding because I was mentioned. If the case is already close, can I still answer when I'm accused of something and give my version or should I remain in silence? I'm asking honestly, I don't know if once close I shouldn't edit in it anymore. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm a humble IP editor who shows up on and off over the years. Usually I correct issues of bias that stand out to me, such as the summary of a research paper I saw on the Goldendoodle page. Admittedly, my edit is poor from an English/grammar point of view but at the least it summarizes both the positives and negatives rather than cherry picked negative details.

I then went over to the page on Dog crossbreeds and was immediately mortified. I made one minor change to a sentence that was irrecoverable and proposed a rewrite in the talk page while mulling over a proposal by Cavalryman. Ultimately I disagreed with his proposal, but woke up to find the discussion closed and already implemented, which was odd since his proposal was only a week old and on a fairly minor page. Since my vote made the second vote and the proposal had only been up for a week on a fairly minor article, I reverted it and reminded Cavalryman that I had just voted and that we should keep discussing first. I made the good faith assumption that he simply missed my vote and forgot to take it into consideration or didn't notice that I had only started editing those pages.

I then made a different proposal that we push the Poodle crossbreeds to the List of dog crossbreeds as a clean redirect since a large portion of the listed crossbreeds are "poodle crossbreeds" in any case. Cavalryman followed me to this page and instantly closed my discussion and proposal, despite that it was a different proposal from the other one, and refuses to allow any discussion at all in these pages as if he owns them. If I disagree, he just says he will call up his admin friend. I don't see how this could possibly be conducive to good faith editing and discussion in the long term. Following me to other pages and "closing" my discussion with edits is also incredibly inappropriate, as is basically using an admin for token support in these settings.

Good faith requires that we take each other into consideration. These aren't huge pages with massive views, there's no reason for an admin to come in and prevent discussion and force changes while I, someone new, is just getting started in contributing. This isn't the first time this has happened, I can go through Cavalryman's history and point out other example of this sort of chronic behaviour and bullying towards new editors and stifling of discussion. Pre-empting an "edit war" argument to stop/prevent discussion on the talk pages is particularly inappropriate. So he can delete or push aside my comments even in the talk pages, how can I share my views or thoughts?

Hoping I can get some consideration here. No idea what to do when I come in as a fresh editor, get ignored, and the big response I get is: "You can't do anything, I'll just call my admin friend William Harris who calls all the shots around here." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.144.120 (talk) 02:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You must notify any user you bring up in your grievance. 331dot (talk) 02:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified both Cavalryman and William Harris in their respective talk pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.144.120 (talk) 02:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly related: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1038#User:LeoRussoLeo. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 02:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: At the base of this,
  closure procedure. The other close also seems to be a different proposal (same source, different target) and so could be left open.

  Just don’t close discussions as an involved editor and talk the content dispute out; there probably isn’t much else to this. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

WT:DOGS, then I closed this discussion after a week had passed. It is hard to discern what the IP is seeking, and they seem more interested in slugging it out than engaging in discussion. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 03:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC).[reply

]

Further, the IP's recollection of events is distorted, this proposal was closed ([53]) a full 17 hours prior to their !vote ([54]). Cavalryman (talk) 03:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I distorted nothing. I made specific note that you had closed the vote shortly after I started editing the talk page (less than one day) but before I entered my vote. I also made specific note that even after I reopened the vote, instead of taking my vote into consideration you moved it to an unbolded less visible location and accused me of edit warring when I would not allow that to continue, while implementing your own changes. The only measure that slowed you down was opening this incident report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.144.120 (talk) 06:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, you’re right that the MERGECLOSE wording does suggest that anyone can close merge proposals. In this case, opposition came soon after the proposal was self-closed, so one should probably just let it reopen at that point. The opposition demonstrated that the proposal was controversial (and therefore really only close-able by an uninvolved editor) and came soon enough after the close that it was reasonable to not enforce the discussion’s close (if it came a month later, that would be a different story). — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Puzzlement

"You can't do anything, I'll just call my admin friend William Harris who calls all the shots around here." Huh?

Fact 1: On 16JUN20 I voted to support the merging of poodle crossbreeds into dog crossbreeds

Fact 2: On 25JUN20 I received a "Notification of involvement in an incident" leading to here

Someone needs to explain the logical connection between Fact 1 and Fact 2, in addition to the quote taken from above in this section.

William Harristalk 04:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@William Harris: I think that the IP inferred (incorrectly) an attempt to bring an admin onto his side from: Pinging William Harris as the other contributor to the discussion. in this edit. I don't see any other explanation for that. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was simultaneously accused of edit warring while Cavalryman told me his was bringing in the admin, in response to me disagreeing with a redirect proposal. Completely inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.144.120 (talk) 06:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I still do not know what this has to do with me. I am not an admin, never have been, and never will be. You will need to explain to me why you called me to this page, and why you made the very strange comment that you did. William Harristalk 06:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cavalryman brought you up while attempting to remove my vote from a talk page. As you are involved in this incident, I was required to notify you. If you aren't an admin, I'm unsure of who Cavalryman was referring to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.144.120 (talk) 06:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I made contributions to the talk pages in all of the mentioned articles and Cavalryman did not respond to any of them. Zero discussion or reply to anything I have stated in the talk threads, only deletions or accusations of "edit warring" with him because I reinstated my comments in the talk pages! Even after undoing his deletions and marking my changes with a request to him to discuss things in the talk pages, he does not. In this thread/incident report here, note he simply accuses me of engaging in a "slug fest" and says I'm not interesting in discussing things! I'm the one actually making detailed talk page edits and trying to discuss things. The edits speak for themselves. His edits involve blanking out other peoples replies in talk pages or pushing them aside and adding flags around them to tell them that their votes don't count. I see no contributions to the talk pages or discussions that do not involve baseless accusations rather than specific content in the articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.144.120 (talk) 06:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your issues with another editor are not my concern. I await your explanation for the very strange comment that you have made, and which you appear to be avoiding, i.e. "You can't do anything, I'll just call my admin friend William Harris who calls all the shots around here." William Harristalk 08:19, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the last time, you were notified as it was required. To answer your other question, it was Cavalaryman's explicit comments in the talk section of the dog crossbreed wiki accusing me of edit warring while saying he'd welcome input from an admin and was pinging you, who given the context I assumed was an admin. The evidence of these claims is literally pasted on the talk pages and in Cavalryman's edit history while he attempted to blank out and remove my votes on a merger proposal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.144.120 (talk) 11:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I offer my view on this matter, which I draw from the written record:

• On 16JUN20 at Talk:Dog crossbreed#Merger proposal:Poodle crossbreed, editor Cavalryman proposed a merge of the article Poodle crossbreeds into the article Dog crossbreeds
• On the same day I supported that merge, which ends my involvement in this matter - I have no watch on this page nor further interest as to whether the article is merged or not
• On 24JUN20 you oppose the merge, and then you and Cavalryman enter into whatever issues you have with each other
• At 1:20 25JUN20, Cavalryman states: "Further, per your edit summary at Poodle crossbreed I would welcome the input of an Admin, your edit warring is not appropriate, the above discussion should be re-closed as that action was done per policy, your subsequent objections are being discussed here now. Pinging William Harris as the other contributor to the discussion." (My bolding, it appears that I am the only other contributor to the proposal)
• From this statement, it is my opinion that you then inferred (a) that William Harris is an administrator, and (b) that William Harris can be called upon on Cavalryman's behalf
• At 2:24 you opened a section at WP:ANI titled "Harassment, edit warring, controlling behaviour with an admin friend", where you write the very strange statement: "You can't do anything, I'll just call my admin friend William Harris who calls all the shots around here." This provides evidence that you believe that I am the "admin friend", the one that you believe Cavalryman might attempt to establish "controlling behaviour" through
• At 2:36 you are advised that "You must notify any user you bring up in your grievance"
• At 2:45 you reply "I have notified both Cavalryman and William Harris in their respective talk pages", which provides evidence that you believe that you have a grievance with me
• At 4:14 I ask why I have been called to ANI and the meaning of your strange comment
• At 6:04 I state that I am not an administrator, and am not clear why I was brought to ANI
• At 6:14 based on my statement immediately above, you have a rethink and respond "Cavalryman brought you up while attempting to remove my vote from a talk page. As you are involved in this incident, I was required to notify you." Only I am not involved in this incident, and have no interest in it, even if I was pinged by Cavalryman. I believe that the reason that you brought me here was because you thought that I was involved in the "controlling behaviour with an admin friend"
• Additionally you state: "If you aren't an admin, I'm unsure of who Cavalryman was referring to." Which provides further evidence that you thought that I was an administrator, else you would have been unsure of who Cavalryman was referring to and would not have been in a position to have made the following statement: "You can't do anything, I'll just call my admin friend William Harris who calls all the shots around here."
• You then attempt to redirect the conversation through a tirade against Cavalryman for the next paragraph, which is irrelevant to the matters that I have raised. Your issues with another editor are your issues and not mine.

You seem confused. I was literally required to notify you as a matter of policy because your name was mentioned in the original report. This is a matter of Wikipedia policy. All mentioned parties must be notified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.144.120 (talk) 11:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On this evidence, I believe that I am owed an apology by the IP for his incorrect inference that I am an administrator who can be called upon by Cavalryman, and excused from further attendance at ANI concerning the matter of "Harassment, edit warring, controlling behaviour with an admin friend". William Harristalk 11:16, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Randam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been posting defamatory information about critical journalists from Turkey. Despite removal of his earlier edits, he AGAIN edited the page about Abdullah Bozkurt, a critical Turkish journalist and placed defamatory statements attributed to sources from Turkish government which jailed the largest number of journalists in the entire world according to reputable organizations such as CPJ, RSF and others. He edited one about Yavuz Baydar, another Turkish journalist, which triggered discussion and removal of the page. His track record shows he is overtly pro-Turkish government and has been editing entries favorably about Turkish President Recep tayyip Erdogan, his son'in.law Berat Albayrak and other issues that are important for the Turkish government. He was blocked for editing Turkey's neighbor Greece on Covid-19 response with unverified data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Researcher Turkey (talk • contribs) 08:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Researcher Turkey: In the future, please follow the instructions and notify users when starting a thread about them. Please sign your posts. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand how it is defamatory. These are the 'defamatory' edits (1 and 2) in question. I'm not writing "person X is Y". I write "person X is being accused of Y in/by Z", including words like "allegedly", followed by sources. The allegations exists. That doesn't mean the allegations are true or false. It's not our job to decide that.

The text on the article of Yavuz Baydar was removed because of copyvio tag, reviewed by an admin.

The other stuff I will not even reply to as it is just ad hominem attacks. Randam (talk) 12:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note, Researcher Turkey claims to be the subject of these edits per [diff]. As a result them editing and removing information about themselves is at least a COI. This doesn't mean their points don't have merit, though the sources seems reliably source to me but I don't know enough about it. Canterbury Tail talk 13:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Non-admin comment (
  WP:BOOMERANG. After a quick review of both user's edit histories, it seems obvious to me that Researcher Turkey is the one pushing a POV here, that is, the POV that the Turkish government is evil. Randam's edits do indeed contain the word allegedly as required. And, indeed, their edits are helpful. How else are we supposed to know why someone was exiled? Even if the charges are false, they still matter to the articles in question. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 13:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• One problem we do have here is sourcing contentious claims to Turkish media like the Daily Sabah and TRT World, which are effectively just Turkish government propoganda mouthpieces (the piece used to source the diff mentioned above by Randam was titled "How does FETÖ's mouthpiece in Sweden generate fake news?"). If an editor is removing statements in a BLP that are only sourced to such, without it being made very clear where that claim comes from, they should be removed. Black Kite (talk) 13:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]