Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1049

Much as this is surreally entertaining, it is in the end nothing to do with ENWP. Black Kite (talk) 09:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

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

---

This is on the Swedish Wikipedia, Ternarius and EstrellaSuecia blocks me for off-topic chat on userpages. I'm new and didn't understand that.

Then i wrote one bad thing on Ternarius user page about their arttitude, i know it wasn't nice but (s)he provoked me.

As punishment, they not only blocked me for a while (which would be ok i guess) but also reverted by constructive and helpful edits on other articles.

For example here: [1] And here: [2]

I hope we will come to a resolution.

Regards

BertNorman

BertNorman (talk) 19:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello BertNorman, as this is an issue on the Swedish Wikipedia, we on the English Wikipedia have no rights to make any admin changes there. You will need to take the matter up there. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

For your information: BertNorman admited to being intoxicated during the affair, which was obvious from his many edits. The "constructive and helpful edit" removed from the latter of his examples was an instruction how to clean your forskin(!). / Ternarius (talk) 19:31, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Assuming the Swedish Wikipedia has rules similar to

WP:NOTHOW the removals were clearly justified.--76.67.169.43 (talk

) 19:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

See sv:Wikipedia:Vad Wikipedia inte är. Narky Blert (talk) 21:36, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, i didn't know about that rule about having too much information, i also saw the info i was adding was in a sub-article too, i didn't notice thta and apologize. The thing about the Swedish right wing/far-right tabloid and they being pro-lockdown was however a constructive and helpful edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BertNorman (talk • contribs) 22:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry i don't know how to make proper replies here

BertNorman (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh yeah? You changed the word "Estonian" to "Ethnical" and slipped it into a wikilink. Surely that was not a mistake.

I really didn't want to respond to this at all, since I believe this user is just trolling and I'm pretty sure I'm just feeding the troll here. However, as a new admin, I do feel the need to explain my perspective.

So the backstory here is two nights ago, I blocked an IP-vandal, and after that the same person kept coming back with new IP-adresses (open proxies) to harass me, Ternarius and others. One night later, another IP-adress (open proxy) from the same Swedish VPN-service (OVPN, whois 1, 2, 3, 4) asks Ternarius a vulgar question about gender on Ternarius's discussion. I blocked the IP and reported the proxy on Meta. Then comes User:BertNorman, whos first edit on Wikipedia is a comment on my discussion page, asking "None of your rules prevents one from asking questions about gender, age etc on their discussion page?".

Now this is all a little too conventient in my opinion, and very much in line with what a troll would do. And if that proof wasn't enough, Bert Norman was also vandalizing (Estonian -> Ethnical, the childish nonsense about cleaning foreskin) and the mean comment to Ternarius was just the icing on the cake.

So there you have it, hopefully that clears this up.

talk

) 23:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I was drunk, i thought the article meant ethnical as in ethnical nationalist. You know the Swedish word "etniskt" kan mean like "etnisk nationalist".

I am currently in a location with censored internet (pretty lightly but still). I actually got into the idea with creating an account because my grandchild called me the other day and told me he was planning to try his hand out and look for spelling errors on Wikipedia and just try it out generally. But then got banned for asking about gender (he's autistic) and had a tantrum and said some bad things. I don't wanna concern myself with him in that case, i think he maybe is a bit immature, so i don't wanna concern myself with your decision to ban him.

Regarding that VPN service, my son recommended it and even let me use his account. He has his whole family behind a VPN router to protect their privacy (especially of the their kids). He is an IT guy and really good with computers.

But i can absolutely pay for my own VPN account if you mixed me up with his family due to us sharing VPN accounts. I am sorry for the misunderstanding.

Regarding my behavior a night ago, well i understand if the stuff i said on talk pages makes you wanna block me for a while. I understand that.

I don't however understand the reason behind permanent block with the accusation i am just here to destroy the site. That is simply not true

Kind regards Bert Norman BertNorman (talk) 23:59, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

My formatting was really messed up, fixing it and trying again.

BertNorman (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Trying yet again, hope the formatting this time or i will just let it be i guess.

BertNorman (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Based on your contributions at time of block one would assume you were here to destroy. Your story really does not sound that convincing to me but in any case:

The account you are using now is permanently blocked and will stay blocked. However you can register a new username after a certain time has passed. I'm not sure on the exact timeframe, but I think it's just a couple of days. If you do want to contribute with serious edits to Wikipedia you are free to register a new account when that time has passed. However, you can not use a VPN service. No open proxies is a Wikimedia policy and applies to every Wikipedia edition. VPN-services use open proxies, and therefore they are not allowed.

This is the last thing I will say in this matter, I will not answer you again. Good luck.

talk

) 00:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I was tempted to just close this whole thing since I don't understand what any of it has to do with the English Wikipedia. However I felt I should correct a misleading claim in this latest comment. There is no Wikimedia policy forbidding the use of open proxies. Instead, because they are vulnerable to abuse, they will be blocked. This may seem like a distinction without a difference, but the difference does matter. Editing from an open proxy is not automatically a violation of some Wikimedia policy. The proxy is likely to be blocked once it is identified, but the editor hasn't done anything wrong just by using it. They've only done something wrong if there is something wrong with their edit. For example, if it's a violation of some other policy or guideline, such as policies against editing when you as an editor have been blocked or banned (block circumvention or sockpuppetry). Individual projects may have a stronger policy than the Wikimedia one, so you may need to consider that separately. In addition it also means, editors with an account who have good reason to need to edit from a VPN can do so. They need to request IP block exemption providing an adequate reason why it's needed and convince who they ask that they won't abuse it. This can generally be done locally or globally, although I have no idea the Swedish Wikipedia policy on this. All this is explained on the page linked above. If you've already abused open proxies such as to continually harass someone, you're not going to be granted an exemption; but that's different from whether it's possible in a different case. BTW, as an example why local policy matters, and why this shouldn't really be discussed on the English Wikipedia, here on the English Wikipedia, if your account has been blocked it's often better than ask for an unblock rather than just create a new account, even if your previous edits were all unconstructive. Especially if it's only 2 days later. There are cases like where your account was blocked for a username violation where it's different, but generally creating a new account when your previous one was blocked is more likely to get you into trouble. Nil Einne (talk) 04:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• I was just thinking we don't have enough complaining about blocks here and like magic, Swedish Wikipedia fills the void. Levivich, I'm thinking this might be a good thread for the ANI Hall of Fame: a complaint about a block on Swedish Wikipedia that was the result of intoxicated editing about instructions on how to clean your foreskin.
  Hopefully someone closes this before I get into trouble.   // Timothy :: talk  05:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

  Oh, um, I'm sorry, it's just... Swedish foreskin cleaning is above my paygrade. I don't have enough training hours logged yet to get the necessary clearances for that level of humor. I'll have to call in my supervisor for this one. Lev!vich 05:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

You pinged me out of bed for this? Levivich, you disappoint me. You can drag the tone of the conversation down several notches using the unfortunate conjunction of the phrases cleaning foreskin and icing on the cake alone. Now get to work or you're not going to like your next quarterly review, I can tell you that. I'm tired of holding your hand. Plus I don't know where it's been. EEng 07:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• Well that depends. Which hand? Lev!vich 07:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

  There are some doors man was never meant to open. EEng 07:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Cleanliness is important
And drunkeness as well
But the washing of a foreskin
Is a tale you need not tell
Burma-shave

For Levivich --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:44, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Is there anything that can be done about blocking a /28 range? Not sure as a lookup of a /28 range on Wikipedia tell that, "The requested IP range is larger than the CIDR limit of /32."

IP range has been super disruptive, persisting at articles such as Ollie's Pack, Lego City Adventures, and Looped (TV series) for months on end- and I'm sure many others- with no end in sight. Just take a look at the full history of Ollie's Pack here and do a search of "2804:d49", has been at that article since May and continues to this day.

Just a few of the IPs include:

• 2804:D49:4915:AA00:F82A:1BDC:4D42:5D4C (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2804:D49:4925:F800:15FC:E1:4E5E:9236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2804:D49:4927:FA00:E4C9:5717:359C:4E40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

...and plenty more than just those three. According to the WHOIS, it seems like the main source would either be 2804:d49::/28 or 2804:d40::/28. I tried using the rangeblock calculator for these three IPs, and it gave me '2804:D49:4915:AA00:F82A:1BDC:4D42:5D4C/42', so maybe that could be the source? Either way, is there anything that can be done about this easily, or would this need to be tackled by blocking quite a few ranges? Would love to put a stop to this, thanks. Magitroopa (talk) 06:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The /32 v6 block limit is a santity check, because blocks larger than /32 generally have unacceptable levels of collateral damage. Your proposed /28 rangeblock would block access for every customer of the third largest ISP in Brazil. I believe this is could be a sock of Ednei_Campos_De_Jesus_De_Brito, and I think a short block on the /42 (whilst still a bit heavy-handed) would stem the abuse until they get bored. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 09:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• So, if you're using a sample of a mere 3 IPs to calculate a potential rangeblock, that suggests the range you should get will be about as narrow as is practically possible. If you're sampling 3 IPs, and the smallest range you can narrow it down to is /42, then that implicates well over four million /64 subnets. And that's just based on three actually-disruptive IPs. That's a huge rangeblock to deal with one editor. If you factor in more IPs, the range will at best stay the same, and at worst grow substantially larger. And you're talking about blocking a /28 range, which involves nearly sixty-nine million /64 subnets. Once the ranges get that big, they're simply no longer a useful piece of data. At that point it becomes clear that disruption is not limited to a narrow range. The point of rangeblocking is to block disruptive IP-hopping individuals without blocking a greater number of constructive individuals. The goal is to prevent disruption without impeding the general public access. If we have to rangeblock, we only want to block the narrowest range possible, to avoid blocking this public access. Even when rangeblocking is indicated, it's only ever executed if the disruption outweighs the good and the neutral, and as a last resort. It's not something that's ever done lightly, no matter how small the range. You're talking about insanely huge ranges that the software will not even allow us to block. It's just not realistic. Having to block a /32 range is an extreme, last resort measure. If a /32 range is overwhelmingly disruptive, we can do so. I've never seen anything that extreme actually done, but it can be done. But when you talk about a /28 range, you're talking about an already-extreme /42 rangeblock, which is presumably the narrowest possible based on those three IPs, multiplied by more than 17. If you have disruption coming from a /28, then the range is simply not relevant. We will block, page protect, and document LTA all day, but rangeblocking thousands, hundreds of thousands, or even millions of people from editing, because of the actions of one or two or three IP-hoppers is not something that is ever going to happen. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I will state up front, this is not me looking for an alternative resolution to the ongoing content dispute. This is instead narrowly focused on

A while back, Buidhe and I began a content dispute and near-edit-war over a paragraph lacking sources at Internment. Buidhe removed it, I reinstated it, they removed it again, I reinstated it with sources, they removed it again, etc.

We went to the Talk page to discuss, which went nowhere. This included Buidhe repeatedly changing indenting style after being asked not to, reversing the wording of a source to claim it says the opposite. They also refused to reinstate the longstanding article text while under discussion, so after a couple days I reverted to the unsourced version from before the dispute, in the interest of fairness. All of this is super-low-level stuff that, individually, does not warrant being here.

When we went to DRN, where our dispute is currently open. The moderator (pinging Robert_McClenon) found both suggested versions of the paragraph in question to be factual. Despite this, Buidhe has repeatedly stated the sourced original version failed verifiability: [here], [here] (in referencing "content policies" and describing their own interpretation sources), and [here]. (ADDENDUM: the repeated the claim about lacking facts and verifiability in their RFC !vote, [here].)

While this DRN case is open and ongoing, Buidhe has now engaged in

Finally, they removed a part of my !vote, claiming it was "discussion", despite it being my own addendum to my own vote and not in response to any other editors.

This has been a long process of slowly-disruptive editing, culminating in forum-shopping and direct edits to talk page comments (in addition to removing parts of a !vote), and so regrettably, at Buidhe's insistence, I have decided to come here. I welcome a thorough look at my own conduct in this matter, because what I want is for a fair process to play out without undue interference.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 18:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment I am disappointed in Buidhe. I have not known them to be this tedious, messing with indent style and erasing other editor's comments. I agree that the behavior is maddening and disruptive. Lightburst (talk) 23:14, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I have closed the

second pillar of Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk

) 01:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

It is not accurate that I removed part of their vote or edited their comments. RfC survey sections are not for extended discussion, so I moved that to the discussion section.

I did not change the indentation of any other user's comments: Pinchme123 changed the indentation of my comments because they did not like it.[3] (and several other cases)

I am sure that any of you would be very frustrated if another user repeatedly insisted that their preferred version of content be used, even after it was pointed out that it failed verification and was inconsistent with what is stated in reliable sources.

Substantial edits to RfC questions should not be made when an RfC is underway and multiple users had already !voted. I thought that was fairly obvious?

Perhaps Pinchme123 is just upset that other users don't support their version at the RfC. (t · c) buidhe 02:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Since we're here perhaps admins care to examine Pinchme123's WP:OWN attitude at this article, where they recently blanket-reverted the removal of content for failed verification/unsourced reasons as they considered that to be "suspect reasoning". (t · c) buidhe 02:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I checked every edit:

• This edit was with the edit comment, "rm non-rs sources, unsourced claims, chronological order;" The supposed non-RS source was
  WP:RSP
  as an unambiguous RS and the supposed unsourced claims was the description, "German concentration camps before and during World War II," leading to a WP page about concentration camps in Nazi Germany from before and during WWII. (ADDENDUM) And the moved entry was already in its proper chronological order location, since the list is sorted by date of closure/ending first, then opening/beginning second.
• This edit was done with an arbitrary recentism cutoff of 20 years for its justification. Perhaps this definition could be established before being used as justification.
• This edit claimed more "failed verification" and was a removal of sourced entries. Both entries contained multiple RS, all of which supported their inclusion on a page for concentration/internment camps. One of these was also an entry where someone else reverted Buidhe for inappropriately claiming a source didn't support one of the claims, when that source did. This is my mistake and I apologize. Buidhe's edits are starting to blur together.

Hardly see how any of this is evidence of ownership. I do however believe saying "other users don't support their version at the RfC" is to imply retaliation and is an aspersion without evidence.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 03:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Opinion pieces in whatever newspaper are not reliable sources for anything but the author's opinion.

The unsourced claim was actually "US Civil War" on the list of internment camps.

The sources need to say that it was a concentration or internment camp, otherwise they fail verification.

The entire cause of this pointless dispute is the fact that your attitude makes it extremely tedious and tiresome even to remove blatant misinformation from articles that you watch. Otherwise the entire RfC and dispute resolution would be unnecessary. (t · c) buidhe 04:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Here is the supposed non-RS source, a news item from The Guardian: "Learning from the Germans: how we might atone for America's evils." This article is clearly filed under The Guardian's news section and not their opinion section. I am placing it here for all to see, rather than going around once again about inaccurately-described sources.

I see no good reason to leave "U.S. Civil War" on the list, but I hardly see my single innocent mistake in thinking Buidhe's edit summary also applied to their otherwise-unexplained change to the "German concentration camps" entry as evidence of

The "entire cause" of this content dispute is that editors are not given any opportunity to provide existing sourcing to challenged edits. Frequent claims that content "fails verification" are abound, yet I have yet to see Buidhe use either the "Fails Verification" or "Citation Needed" tags. Given their disruptive talk page editing, that their actions insulted the moderator at DRN who noted above how rude this action was, and their continued removal of strongly-sourced content and Reliable Sources, I think their conduct deserves a second look.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 05:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

1) It is obviously a book review, not a news article. Book reviews give the author's opinion of the book, therefore they should be considered opinion pieces.

2) I will try to quit this pointless thread, but it is simply completely false that I "insulted the moderator at DRN". I apologize to Robert if he thinks that it is "rude and insulting" to open an RfC when DR is not working, but it is not accurate that I insulted him.

3) The DRN moderator, quite contrary to claims, never said that it is wrong to check sources and state if they do not support the content. That is what "failed verification" means. There is no problem with raising such issues regardless of whether cleanup tags on the article are used. (t · c) buidhe 05:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

This is a request for administrative attention at

• Talk:The King: Eternal Monarch (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

There is an RFC in progress, which was started on 7 September: Talk:The_King:_Eternal_Monarch#RFC:_Second_Paragraph_of_Lede

I started the RFC in order to try to deal with a content dispute between

My apologies, there was no intention to bludgeon the process with

Phil Bridger, the series was received badly in Korea and even reliable western media reported it (see 1, 2, 3), and having to "sift through bad press" also proved that it was criticized more than it was praised. "Combatting a smear campaign" is advocacy

and is not the job of Wikipedia, Wikipedia's job is reporting, not state opinions. Other users already all voted for the same thing and repeatedly explained to Lizzydarcy2008 that, "if you think that sources, which have been categorized as reliable on WP, are biased and thus can't be used as a source, you need more than just your opinion that there is a conspiracy by detractors to defame the drama, you need other reliable sources that will show that. You cannot just dismiss reliable sources as "detractors" and thus say they can't be used as sources. As I have said before, I understand that you feel that this drama is being treated unjustly, but WP is built on reliable sourcing; you cannot simply make claims as to how you think the drama SHOULD be viewed, you have to summarize how the drama IS viewed by reliable, secondary sources."

The issue is that Lizzydarcy2008 refuses to "summarize how the drama IS viewed" and instead want to insert her opinion and make the page unneutral and gives undue weight to minority-held view (see previous edits where she removed reliably-sources text for no reason 1, 2, inserted her opinion without any sources 1, and edit warred over a section title she deemed is negative and should not be used as it is "nitpicking" and "a tool for a smear campaign"). Other users and I already told Lizzydarcy2008 that she should not be biased and discredit the majority-held view just because she is a fan and feel like the series should be viewed positively. Nangears explained things better than me on the series' talk page, so reading Nangears replies would explain it much more. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 11:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Phil Bridger, the reason I am requesting a change in the lede section is to make sure Wikipedia is not used as a tool for a smear campaign. CherryPie94 keeps insisting the reason I am doing this is because I am a fan, immediately tarnishing my credibility and clouding other editors' perception. She refuses to look at facts which are as follows: The series was aired in three ways: (1) through the domestic TV network SBS (2) Netflix (3) Wavve, a streaming service in South Korea. On SBS, the series started with high ratings but competition from Netflix and Wavve, as well as controversies and criticisms, caused the ratings to decline, though it still ended on solid ground. On Netflix, the series was successful, not only in South Korea but also internationally. On Wavve, it consistently topped the charts throughout the eight weeks of airing. So, it is not true that the series was received badly in South Korea. It topped the charts in Netflix South Korea and Wavve. It was only on SBS, and only after the premiere week-end, did the ratings decline, though not as low as it has been painted out to be. CherryPie94's lede section puts the SBS post-premiere low ratings on equal footing as the series' success on Netflix South Korea + Wavve + international market put together, effectively downplaying the latter. The nonequivalence is appalling. I am really tired of this dispute, but one of my goals as an editor is to safeguard Wikipedia's integrity and cannot allow a smear campaign like this to persist. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk

) 10:10, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Phil Bridger because Lizzydarcy2008 seems to be distorting the facts. Just because other people's opinions (votes) did not match her wishes, she called it a smear campaign. TheUntamedTVSeries

00:29, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Phil Bridger, I just realized why CherryPie94 and now TheUntamedTVSeries are accusing me of being a biased fan. Because the facts I presented could not be refuted, I was instead attacked personally. TheUntamedTVSeries can you tell me which of the items I mentioned distorted facts? I am a fan of many dramas and movies. But have I gotten into a discussion like this over the others? No, because I didn't see anything wrong in their writeups. The fact is that the lede section of this drama is more negative than what the facts present, so attempts to remove the negativity is seen as "nice" and "biased" by those who are not familiar with the facts. Compare the lede section of this drama with those of other kdramas and you will be appalled at how negative it is. I compare this page with those of other kdramas and not just with other types of shows because whether we like it or not, readers will compare this drama with other kdramas, as I did, which was how I noticed the negativity. A smear campaign is indeed serious, which is why I am taking this case seriously. I have explained the smear campaign and sabotage in earlier discussions and would most likely be accused of writing "walls of text" if I repeat them here, so please check the Talk section of this drama. Please also see this complaint of Rating sabotage in https://community-imdb.sprinklr.com/conversations/imdbcom/rating-sabotage/5f5fccf26880ca11de80de18. If you also care to read comments in MyDramalist, there are similar observations about fans of actors smearing or sabotaging dramas of rival actors (the site is triggering a protection filter so I cannot add the link here, but if you are curious, please see discussions 2 months ago in Backstreet Rookie). The comment section of The King on MyDramalist was infiltrated by saboteurs who loved calling it a flop. The internet is crawling with bad press about this drama, e.g. there are several articles saying the drama tanked on Netflix which is obviously false since it was successful on Netflix and the articles don't even attempt to give proof of the alleged poor performance on Netflix. If you search for this drama on google, the questions that appear on "People also ask" section are about this drama being a flop, indicating how bad the smear campaign had been. A newspaper called this drama a flop several episodes away from the finale, showing how eager some quarters were to label this drama and ignore its streaming success. It will be noted that both Backstreet Rookie and It's Okay To Not be Okay were faring even worse than this drama but rallied in the finale, indicating that until a drama has aired its finale, labelling it a flop is premature and malicious, effectively sabotaging that drama. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk

) 05:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:LISTEN, and you should really question whether your intensions are honestly to present facts or your opinion of how the series should be viewed. The series facing a "smear campaign" is your opinion and motive to edit the page, but that has not be report by any news media (reliable or not) to my knowledge and holds no ground on Wikipedia as that is advocacy and original research. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk

) 09:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Now that all points against me have been explained for the nth time, creating another distraction and generating more "walls of text", let's focus on the real issue. I have listed the flaws of version A of the lede section. What others may call "walls of text" are earnest attempts to explain those flaws and respond to the comments. Yet I still have not received point-by-point comments about version B as I had given on version A. I am still awaiting a thorough explanation of why a flawed version (version A) would be chosen over the result of research and critical analysis (version B). Instead of accusations of me being a fan as well as a litany of my past edits, which I had given explanations for previously and above, the focus needs to be on the merits and flaws of the two versions presented. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 23:38, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

neutral point of view are Wikipedia's core content policies, and you are going against them with your edits. Wikipedia doesn’t lead, it follows (parroting as you call it). CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk

) 06:56, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:WIKIVOICE that states, "Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources..." Careful and critical analysis is what makes human editors different from automated aggregator algorithms or parrots. Analysis does not mean coming up with your own opinion but making sure the finished product conforms to Wikipedia rules such as fairness, giving due weights to views, avoiding stating opinions as facts, using nonjudgmental language, etc. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk

) 07:12, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

listen, Nangears already answered you in the RFC of Second Paragraph of Lede, go read it there. As for the RFC on Reception section, users already wrote their opinion that they found version A more neutral next to their vote, they don't have to go point-by-point and explain it to you. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk

) 10:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

CherryPie94, Michaelelijahtanuwijaya left no comments. Nangears mentioned lack of balance of version B. From his arguments, there is a misconception that the weight of low domestic ratings is equivalent to the drama's success in Wavve + Netflix South Korea + Netflix international all put together. This is the nonequivalence that version A espouses. Please read my responses to his comments. Revolutionaery suggested another version that has acceptable first and second sentences, but succeeding sentences also suffer from the same nonequivalence, not to mention containing the word "claim" that you have a problem with. In addition, saying the drama "failed to impress audiences" is false considering the drama's success in Netflix and Wavve. Nangears and Revolutionery both gave suggestions on how to improve the paragraph that I partly agree with. However, the main issues that triggered this dispute in the first place - giving more weight to low ratings than warranted and downplaying the international success - are still not resolved. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 08:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Lizzydarcy2008, again, I think Nangears already talked about this point and explained why the TV rating is given due weight, so I will give a short answer. The problem is not “giving more weight to low ratings than warranted” as TV ratings was the most talked about aspect in reliable news, the problem is that you don’t want to accept that most reliable sources did extensively talk about it and it was given due weight on the page, while “international success” in Netflix (Wavve is Korean and can’t be used outside of Korea, so it is not international platform) news almost all come from unreliable sources and thus given undue weight because it has not reliable source backing it. I asked multiple of times in different noticeboards and was told not to use flixpetrol data or Netflix daily top 10 country charts and to wait for the end-of-year Netflix reports (still a few months and we will include Netflix success if they report it in January). For now, we include what is reliable and wait for more news, instead of adding unreliable claims and be biased in trying to make the series seem like it was the biggest success this year when reliable sources (Korean and western) criticized it and marked it as a TV failure compared to what was expected in term of viewership ratings.

All the people who votes in the RFC were all against your changes, so you should really

CherryPie94, first, you make a point of introducing me as a biased fan and putting a spin on my past edits, smearing my credibility. Second, editors who tried to remove the negativity of this page have been blocked. I don't mean the sockpuppets but naive editors like me who were unaware of power games played on Wikipedia and were tricked into edit wars and blocked, as you had tried to do with me. This is why I asked before, how sure are we that those who vote on surveys are impartial? Now I know. Getting through prejudices and misconceptions is the hardest thing in the world. Just now, you have blocked out everything I just said about the need of Wikipedia editors to analyze sources and not just parrot everything they see online, especially in this age of fake news and smear campaigns.

If Wikipedia editors just weigh the significance of items based on how many search results come up, it would be a tool of misinformation and smear campaigns. Even if we discount smear campaigns, logic still gives a reason for the "extensive talk" about the low ratings of this drama. This drama first aired from April 17 to June 12. This period is when the drama became most popular, thus generated most talk. At this point, nobody had an idea of why the show was "failing", so a lot of speculations abounded. Information about the main reason for the low domestic TV ratings, the surge of popularity of Netflix in April, as well as other well-sourced testaments to the international success of this drama became available only after the second quarter of the year, after the drama finale aired, after its popularity subsided. Armed with these new facts, why continue to sow misinformation?

Knowing what we know now about this drama, this paragraph is clearly negatively unbalanced - its international success is not only the last item in a super-long sentence but is in quotes ("hit Netflix drama") lowering its credibility. In addition, the lower-than-expected domestic ratings in the second sentence preceded by "On the other hand" puts it on equal footing with all the successes in the first sentence. As I had said, I don't deny that the domestic TV broadcast rating of this drama got lower after the premiere; I even mention it in version B. What I object to is the undue weight it is being given in version A. No matter how much you try to discredit this fact, it is plain for every unbiased and informed reader to see. Regarding sources, Version B does not reference Flixpatrol. It references reliable sources, notably testaments of the production studio itself about the streaming success of this drama. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Lizzydarcy2008 I did not put a spin to your previous changes, you actually did them and your edit history shows those biased disruptive changes. You were a sleeper account that came back just to blank the controversy section multiple times for no reason, how do you explain that then? You blanked it until you were warned by others about edit warring, you then disregarded the warning after a few weeks and even went on to edit war with me. No one was tricked to edit war, if someone is edit-warring it is their mistake, not other’s scheme. Everyone receives warnings before being banned, whether they ignore the warning or not is their own decision and they should face the consequences. Also, please do not discredit the people who took their time to vote and reply to you on the RFCs, simply, because they did not vote for your version.

Again, there was never a smear campaign against the series and you have no source backing that up. Saving the series from “fake news/smear campaign/hate” is advocacy and a biased reason you have been repeating for months, using it to make your changes seem neutral, while in reality it is all your false opinion which goes under original research and hold no ground on Wikipedia. As for the second paragraph about the rating and international success, Nangears and I already answered you about that on the RFC, so I will not bother repeating it, go read it there and stop repeating points you have already stated and has been answered multiple times. It is your problem if you want to

ignore the answers

given to you many times.

To the admins, “When

ignoring the opinions of others. When such behavior occurs over a length of time, advocacy is often the cause.” This is the case here and currently the discussion reached argumentum ad nauseam. I don’t think I will reply anymore unless an admin pings me here. We really need intervention, if either of us is wrong then tell us and end this 5 month-long dispute, so that we can go back to editing the page instead of this standstill. One of the RFCs already ended with a a unanimous decision and I want to edit the page and include the version with the consensus. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk

) 06:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

CherryPie94, please re-read my responses to the meanings you put (your spins) on my past edits. As I had mentioned several times, my main aim is to uphold the integrity of Wikipedia. I started editing this drama's page upon noticing its negative lean, especially after reading other web sources mention sabotage being staged against it. Please re-read my past comments about this. The controversies were among the tools used by saboteurs. You keep saying that the "smear campaign" is my personal opinion, ignoring my past comments about this. Guess what, smear campaigns don't come labelled as such. Here's a sample; google this drama and "tanked on Netflix". One of the search results is from "reliable" news site scmp.com. Note this is fake news since the series was in fact successful on Netflix. Read the article; it doesn't provide any proof of the allegation. Check out other "well-sourced" articles on this drama's Wikipedia page that did not mention the main reason, the rise of streaming platforms, in their speculations about the reasons for the low ratings. You keep accusing me of "advocacy", your personal opinion. Is it advocacy to make sure Wikipedia is not made a tool of smear campaigns? I am proud to declare myself an advocate of truth and up-to-date information. Regarding edit wars, you seem to have forgotten you started our last edit war by updating the title of a section while this dispute was going on, violating WP:DRN Rule A and WP:DRN Rule B. In fact you made other more massive edits in the middle of this dispute. Why you did not get reprimanded or subjected to other forms of disciplinary action is beyond me.

But we got sidetracked again with personal attacks, creating more "walls of text". May we focus on the drama please? At this point in time, these are the things we know about it: it was highly anticipated, had high premiere ratings on domestic TV network but competition from Netflix and Wavve as well as controversies and criticisms affected the domestic TV ratings in later episodes. It was a streaming success, both locally and internationally, and was cited as one of the factors for the record-breaking second quarter earnings of its production company.

Which of the two versions encapsulate this UP-TO-DATE summary? Please see my previous post for details about recent news about this drama. We need to make sure Wikipedia does not sow misinformation by getting bogged down in OUTDATED perceptions. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia only deals with published perceptions. If there is a reliable newspaper or magazine which documents a changing perception (say a critically panned movie later gets a cult fanbase) that can be included only if newspapers or magazines talk about it. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

The up-to-date information I mentioned were published by news sources such as Business Korea, Korea Times and Hancinema. Please see the references in the Reception section. Older references feature negative news including speculations on the low domestic TV ratings. More recent references are positive, including findings on the reason for the drama's perceived poor performance on domestic TV network as well as testaments to its streaming success that became available only after the second quarter of 2020. It will be noted that the average domestic TV ratings of this drama are better than those of its contemporaries It's Okay To Not be Okay and BackStreet Rookie, yet these latter dramas do not have their low ratings mentioned, much less blown out of proportion, in their lede sections. Many people had been conditioned to think this drama was a flop they find it hard to accept the fact that not only was it not a flop, it was a global success. Wikipedia should let go of outdated misconceptions and acknowledge up-to-date information. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 07:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

You should not conflate TV ratings with the production company sales, they are separate facts and are each mentioned on the article. Also, I might have phrased it badly on the talk, but in the article, it is written that the ratings are only “lower than expected”, not “low” TV-wise. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 04:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Read the production company reports closely. The sales figures themselves are not relevant to this discussion. What is relevant is that the reports cited the success of The King Eternal Monarch as one of the factors that contributed to the production company's record-breaking earnings. While the drama's global success had been reported before, the main source was Flixpatrol which was considered unreliable and was mentioned in Wikipedia with a dismissive "hit Netflix drama" cliche, including the credibility-questioning quotes. That TKEM was the first kdrama to be in the top 10 charts not only in Asia but in Africa, Europe, the Middle East, North America and South America could not be reported because the data came from Flixpatrol. But the production company's earnings report is undeniable testament to the extent of the drama's success. And for the nth time, I don't deny the drama had lower ratings than expected. The main bone of contention is that the second paragraph is worded in such a way as to blow the low ratings out of proportion and downplay the drama's success. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 15:30, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Admins, Lizzydarcy2008 already confessed to being an advocate (diff). Per

Currently, both RFCs ended as it been more than a month (bot removed the RFC template and there was no delaying to the bot or restarting the RFC by Lizzydarcy2008 so far), and no comments for 2 weeks as it reached

Used strikethrough on my request as the other user was blocked by an admin while I was writing my above message. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 10:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)