Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1130
Reporting behavior of User:Brlob
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.
WP:V, of which they misunderstand it. I tried to warn them here and even pinged three admins so that they could help/intervene (well, I don't know if pings work anymore). Looks like their new 19 days old account (as of today) is solely for removing contents in pages in the name of so-called reference. My concern is that they keep on doing this and clearly, they have no idea about the pages they are removing contents from. --- Tumbuka Arch★★★
07:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- @WP:Preserve given their experience on here, so not pointing a newcomer towards it looks like biting to me. Just telling them that they're doing something wrong without pointing to the policy is not a good look. Nobody (talk) 08:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- @WP:Preserve but they simply choose their way, or not to. Tumbuka Arch★★★12:42, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- @
- Brlob seems to believe that content that's poorly sourced should simply deleted. WP:Preserve because I assumed they were already aware of it (judging from the existence of other conversations on their talk page). They were, however, told they were supposed to stop, and their failure to do so (and insistence that unsourced content must be removed) made me tell them to stop. Either way, this section blanking should stop. Someone would also do well to inform Brlob of the citation style of the past that lacked in-line links to sources. Sources may exist in articles even if some content appears unsourced. Nythar (💬-🍀) 17:25, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- My sense is that this is a new, conscientious, somewhat stubborn editor working to improve Wikipedia based on their reading of the content policies. We need people like this that can look at our articles and do some critical thinking. Our challenge is working with them to bring them along so they don't create problems. I don't think sanctions are the way to meet this goal; it would drive Brlob off or lead Brlob to plant his feet. Most of you all have been patiently explaining things and I encourage you to continue doing so even though I know it's hard.
- P.S. shout out to @Tumbuka Arch for all the work you're doing on those smaller Wikipedias! --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 17:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- They've just ) 00:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Jeez.
- I just took the liberty, as you’ve by now seen, of responding on your talk page to the deadline he gave you. I also left another note on his talk page.
- I don’t think he’s ever used an article’s talk page - that’s where he needs to discuss all his edits.
- If he doesn’t come around in his next edits, the next step may be to temporarily block him for several weeks from editing article. He could still edit article talk pages.
- We’ll see - I’d like to help him but you others have already been patient with him and he’s still pretty set in his mind. A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:00, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- @A. B., @Nythar, This user is not a newcomer, he is just a user in a new account, provided their stubbornness to follow direct polices and not listening from others. Newcomers listen to what they are being advised but this one doesn't. Wikipedia is not a game with timeout, everybody can take responsibility of it. Instead of removing some contents and giving timeouts, @Brlob can also take responsibility in finding sources online regarding the subject. Despite pointing them to Wikipedia polices, they still don't do what they are being advised. I suggest and strongly support the block idea for a few weeks till he puts himself together.
- A. B. your recognition of my activity on other wikis reassures me that my work has not gone unnoticed :) Thanks for that! Tumbuka Arch★★★ 05:59, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- They've just ) 00:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- It's a sock account, master is obvious. I've now filed a report and am confident it will be indeffed very shortly. — kashmīrī TALK 07:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Good catch. Both edit in Vietnamese:
- So much for my naivety.—A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 08:42, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- I wonder what his motivation is??—A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 08:43, 7 June 2023 (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.
Davey2010 editing contrary to COSMETICBOT
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.
WP:COSMETICBOT regarding edits that only affect the appearance of wikitext. Of their 56-odd edits made using the tool, I only found four that made reasonable changes to the rendered output of articles. I have included the full list of non-compliant diffs below, but three that illustrate the issue most clearly are these three ([1], [2], and [3]
) that only remove a single trailing space each.
When I raised this at Davey2010's talk page, they replied Then take your concerns up with the script maintainer/creator. That being said I see no issue with removing unnecessary whitespace from a couple of infoboxes
, then reiterated it (Or I will continue as I see fit and you can go to the script creator and get them to change the script
), and immediately thereafter blanked the section as "resolved".
I note that some of these diffs do include changes like the removal of underscores in the targets of piped links, and the replacement of HTML syntax for en- and em-dashes with Unicode characters, but they are all alike in making no difference to the rendered output and not including any substantive changes. I ask that Davey2010 be formally reminded of the community's expectations regarding purely-cosmetic edits, and to not be so dismissive when other editors raise policy concerns. Thanks. XAM2175 (T) 12:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Again I personally don't see a problem with removing whitespace from infoboxes and texts in the article and removing underscores from images (prior to the tool I would manually remove underscores anyway).
- I appreciate it makes 0 difference to the output however internally it tidies it up. That being said if this is such a problem then XAM should ask the tool maintainer/creator to remove the offending features.... I'm just doing what the tool allows me to do. Pointless thread imho. –Davey2010Talk 13:33, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- 14:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Schazjmd You're missing the point - If I'm not supposed to make such edits with this script then why does the script do such edits ?, Should it not be modified so whitespace is not touched ? or failing that shouldn't this script be deprecated ?,
- I'm not trying to be combative or obtuse but it's not a me problem - It's a script problem? (I acknowledge I'm responsible for the edits I make but respectfully I can't as far as I'm aware control what edits the script makes, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 16:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Davey2010, I think the key is in the wording on Wikipedia:AutoEd, where it says only. Removing whitespace and such as part of making substantive edits (that change the actual appearance of the article) are okay, but using the script to only perform cosmetic edits isn't. Schazjmd (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Schazjmd, Honestly, the further I delve in to this the less sense it makes - Why's it okay to remove whitespace from the infobox and bodys of text providing I'm making substantial edits with it ? .... That to me is just being very deceptive or intentionally finding a loophole in order to make those cosmetic changes ?, Doesn't make much sense to me?,
- Anyway whilst I'm not happy about it I'll mess around and will have the whitespace option removed. I will however still continue with the underscore replacements because I've been doing that since I've been here and no one has ever said otherwise but I will cease making whitespace and the "-" changes, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 17:14, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Davey2010, I think the key is in the wording on Wikipedia:AutoEd, where it says only. Removing whitespace and such as part of making substantive edits (that change the actual appearance of the article) are okay, but using the script to only perform cosmetic edits isn't. Schazjmd (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- 14:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
already explained above, no need to repeat it.
|
|---|
|
- The changes that do the fixing of links in wikitext, file links, and em dashes are good. I don't consider them cosmetic changes. But when the only change is adding or removing spaces, that isn't worth performing. SWinxy (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
May I say, for the record, that there is no other website in the world where fixing obvious errors in the formatting of source code requires engaging in ten-year-long arguments because the version control system is set up such that doing so spams the hell out of thousands of people? This is the dumbest thing in history. This is why we use a markup language from 2002, now ridiculous, and completely forgotten to the world. Good grief. jp×g 19:22, 7 June 2023 (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.
IP editor pushing conspiracy theories
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.
Please review [4] and recent disruption at 2023 Virginia plane crash. I have reported same IP to
) 23:07, 7 June 2023 (UTC)- Blocked for egregious personal attacks (accusing other editors of abetting deaths). --Golbez (talk) 23:20, 7 June 2023 (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.
Rotherham and the "large" Anon 86.142.202.235
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 anon is constantly readding "Large" to the lead article of Rotherham
WP:Editwarring when reverted and also got quite aggressive in one of their recent edit summaries. I think it's best to either warn this editor to stop or page protect Rotherham from anons. Large isn't required in the lead unless describing a shape or something. Large minster and market town Vs minster and market town. DragonofBatley (talk
) 22:38, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Wow, both of you are edit-warring and neither of you have used the article's talk page. Try that first? It's usually more effective than arguing via edit summaries. Schazjmd (talk) 22:42, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- I explained that twice or so to the anon but then they kept on disregarding them and got quite nasty in one summary. Hence why this has been bought up, I've tried telling them on their talkpage and they still ignored it and their tone was not acceptable. So hence this discussion has started and reported. DragonofBatley (talk) 22:55, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- This is a noticeboard of last resort. Suggest you try other things first. There are several alternatives- see the links at the top of the page. —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 23:02, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- You left them just one warning on their talk page - a final warning. Then you came here. That doesn't seem right.
- This is a noticeboard of last resort. Suggest you try other things first. There are several alternatives- see the links at the top of the page. —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 23:02, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- I explained that twice or so to the anon but then they kept on disregarding them and got quite nasty in one summary. Hence why this has been bought up, I've tried telling them on their talkpage and they still ignored it and their tone was not acceptable. So hence this discussion has started and reported. DragonofBatley (talk) 22:55, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:42, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- P.S. Irony alert: just this week in another discussion on this same page permalink, I was concerned an editor was being too tough on you.
- Edit wars take two to tango. When someone is continuing to edit war against a version you prefer, the answer is not to edit war back. As stated above, your next option is to go to WP:DR. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:52, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:I132i is still abusing user discussion pages
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:I132i after being blocked by User:Spicy for an indefinite period, he is still abusing the discussion page, including personal attacks on the administrator User:Spicy who blocked him. Please revoke his permission to edit the discussion page. Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 11:54, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- TPA pulled. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:58, 8 June 2023 (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.
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.
Trump was indicted today. His prosecution will not begin for months, likely in 2024. Any number of things could happen between now and then that precludes his prosecution. We can't know.
The article lead now begins with United States v. Donald J. Trump, but not "The Federal prosecution of Donald Trump is...".
I believe the article should be moved to "Federal indictment of Donald Trump," or alternatively United States v. Donald J. Trump, because that's where we stand right now. We can't presume a prosecution will actually happen.
Antony–22 has cited MOS to justify the current title. I challenge this. What do others think? soibangla (talk
) 02:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- I think this is not a matter for ANI and you should close this before you get nailed for wasting people's time. 2603:7000:1D3C:2289:4051:7F35:F5CF:1579 (talk) 02:42, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- To change the article's title, a move request is needed on that article's talk page. Nythar (💬-🍀) 02:43, 9 June 2023 (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.
Note on behalf of WMF Trust and Safety regarding emergency@
All, please excuse the insistent posting. I want to make sure this information reaches most individuals who report emergency situations.
As of June 2023, it has come to our attention that some messages sent to emergency@ wound up in our spam folder. This seems to be a backend issue with our email provider and we are currently reviewing the problem. If you do not receive a response to your message within 1 hour, please send a note to ca
wikimedia.org. Thank you. Best, JKoerner (WMF) (talk) 16:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- I've added an appropriate instruction to 03:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
An attempted WP:OUTING by User:Bethsheba Ashe
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.
She misidentifies me, but engages in outing here: [5]. Skyerise (talk) 22:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
She also discusses a living person's sex life and associations here: [6]. I sent it to oversight, but now it's relevant to the issues with this user's behavior. Skyerise (talk) 23:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Separate from the incivility/personal argument (wow that's a lot of text to read), it seems Bethsheba Ashe has some fundamental misunderstandings about how reliable sourcing and verifiability work. What started with a discussion about verifiability (where you, Skyerise, are clearly in the right) on Bethsheba Ashe's talk page apparently devolved into a rather long exchange of personal comments/aspersions (where neither participant is in the right).
- After the above-noted comments are cleaned up (if there is an outing issue)...it might be best for both involved users to disengage for a bit, and optimally a third (uninvolved) party can help explain the WP:RS and WP:V concerns for Bethsheba Ashe. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️🌈) 23:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
After viewing BA's page, I informed them of
OWN the article or "win" on the internet more than improve Wikipedia and adhere to its policies. GabberFlasted (talk
) 16:34, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- I have notified the alleged sockmaster about this report, as a matter of courtesy.—Odysseus1479 08:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Okay, I’ve blocked WP:OVERSIGHT, not here. Courcelles (talk) 00:24, 9 June 2023 (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.
Quick-fire edits
A month or two ago I reported an instance of an editor making numerous edits to seemingly unrelated, articles, all without explanation, within a very short space of time. I was admonished for not notifying the editor. I have just stumbled on another similar set of edits by User:Susanjenie, most of which I reverted with explanation. Most seemed arbitrary changes without improving the article and some changed the meaning of idiomatic language. Doug butler (talk) 00:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- I saw the edits. Some are good. Few are problematic. Anyway, this is not a bot; this is a newcomer goaded by our mw:Help:Growth/Tools/Newcomer Tasks. Instead of chiding them on their talk page, please perhaps revert your warning to them and leave a few words of motivation. Thanks, Lourdes 04:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thankes Lourdes. Did I come across as censorious? That was not my intention, but I will retract and suggest to the editor that they read the whole sentence to establish its intent and meaning before editing. I will have to investigate Newcomer Tasks further: are they calibrated to the user's interests and home country? The list of topics this editor attacked is bewilderingly diverse. Doug butler (talk) 05:47, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- See my comments at User talk:Gilliebillie#Thanks for helping us -- here are some things you especially qualified to help us with. This new, eager editor got tripped up by the same sort of thing. While fluent in English, it was not their first language. Getting little grammar and usage edits right is paradoxically harder in some ways than writing whole new articles. The point about Newcomer Tasks is a good one. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 16:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thankes Lourdes. Did I come across as censorious? That was not my intention, but I will retract and suggest to the editor that they read the whole sentence to establish its intent and meaning before editing. I will have to investigate Newcomer Tasks further: are they calibrated to the user's interests and home country? The list of topics this editor attacked is bewilderingly diverse. Doug butler (talk) 05:47, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
External links: concerns over copyrights and genocide denial
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.
Sabuhi from Baku (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I'm concerned that the many external links recently added by Sabuhi from Baku to books available for download on https://www.avetruthbooks.com (e.g., [7][8][9]) may be in violation of
WP:COPYVIOEL. I asked them to self-revert but they seem to believe it's not a violation
.
I'm not really sure whether adding links to sites of this type are in violation of policy or not (Avetruthbooks.com seems to be similar to libgen, z-lib et al.; if these are a problem they should perhaps be added to the policy section), so I would like to ask other editors to weigh in and to revert if appropriate.
There's also a separate concern voiced by HistoryofIran that the owners of Avetruthbooks.com are Armenian genocide deniers [10][11], which was not well received [12][13]. It may be that Sabuhi from Baku only wants to provide links to full-text downloads (e.g. [14]), which would perhaps render this a secondary issue, though edits like this would tend to contradict that. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Site administrators add tags that show what the post is about. The site itself does not impose its opinion in contrast to the user Historiofİran. Speaking about copyrights, you need to keep in mind tens of thousands of domains of similar placement, including archive.org, academy.edu and others. Why they can and this site can not. The owners of the site do not deny or promote anything. They host academic research (which is written in different languages and printed in different countries) in an electronic format. Sabuhi from Baku (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Looks like Apaugasma beat me to it. I have great concerns about Sabuhi, who uses the cheap and classical “you must hate our people” card (WP:NPA) because I’m against his addition of a genocide denying, pseudo-history loving, website. Not to mention his insistence/persistence on using this questionable website, going as far as adding it to countless websites and even edit warring. I’ll go into more details when I’m home. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- I did not add anything pseudo-scientific: and added a link from where you can download or read the book that was listed here as a source. avetruthbooks - it's just a site that provides access to scientific literature, maps, old (printed) books and manuscripts. You fiercely hate Azerbaijanis. You simply can't provide normal arguments and decided to go through a play on words about the topic of the Armenian genocide. Sabuhi from Baku (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Sabuhi should be indeffedfor this comment alone. 2603:7080:8F00:49F1:58B:3BD4:1DAB:AEB4 (talk) 18:26, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- I did not add anything pseudo-scientific: and added a link from where you can download or read the book that was listed here as a source. avetruthbooks - it's just a site that provides access to scientific literature, maps, old (printed) books and manuscripts. You fiercely hate Azerbaijanis. You simply can't provide normal arguments and decided to go through a play on words about the topic of the Armenian genocide. Sabuhi from Baku (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Looks like Apaugasma beat me to it. I have great concerns about Sabuhi, who uses the cheap and classical “you must hate our people” card (
- Putting other issue aside it certainly looks like Avetruthbooks is similar to Z-Library and shouldn't be linked to as it's a copyright issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:34, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- The other problem simply does not exist (intentionally invented to remove the link). I agree about copyright. But what about equality before the rules? Sabuhi from Baku (talk) 17:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- I explained the difference of archive.org and academia.edu on your talk page. Your answer there makes me wonder if you have the English skills necessary for editing enwiki. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- I can edit wikis in any language, I'm technically familiar with wikis. Registered here since 2009. I have been using archive.org and academia.edu for a very long time, I don’t need to explain what I know quite well. Is there a rule forbidding links to books or articles that have copyright, then they should be distributed to all sites. Sabuhi from Baku (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- As you can see, I haven't tried to edit the Enwiki before (just didn't want to). And now I did not touch the text, I only added a link to the source that is indicated in the articles. Sabuhi from Baku (talk) 18:56, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- I don't doubt you ability to edit a wiki, but that
"English is not my native language"
is very evident. I explained the difference on your talk page, your answer there is very confused and doesn't address what I said. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:10, 28 May 2023 (UTC)- Here are the books to which temporary access is provided: 1,242,425 results, and everything else is in full access, a huge part of these books have copyrights (which this site /archive.org/ does not have). At the academia.edu, there is a huge number of users (whether they are authors or not) who have uploaded thousands of works to which they are not related. And this is what I'm talking about. I understand what you wrote to me.Sabuhi from Baku (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Are you using Google translate to communicate? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:06, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- I ask because the sentence
Here are the books to which temporary access is provided: 1,242,425 results, and everything else is in full access, a huge part of these books have copyrights (which this site /archive.org/ does not have)
doesn't actually make any sense. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC) - I think you trying to say that archive.org and academia.edu have issues with copyright, but that isn't their intended aim. Wikipedia has issue with copyrighted material, but unlike avutruthbooks it isn't it's basic function. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:11, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- The number of posts (printed books, articles, maps, manuscripts, and so on) on the avetruthbooks.com website is more than 5 million; Absolutely majority (more than 95 percent) of the total e-books are not physically located on avetruthbooks.com but on archive.org + loc.gov + gallica.bnf.fr + davidrumsey.com, and so on. Not all material on the site is subject to copyright. The problem is that several users have become obsessed with precisely those materials (academic studies) that relate to the history / one way or another related to / Azerbaijan. In this sense, I am against his association with libgen, zlib (and similar sites).Sabuhi from Baku (talk) 08:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- If the works are actually hosted on another site, then that site should be linked to. If avetruthbooks is just a pass-through it doesn't need to be linked to at all, to do so does give the impression of trying to spam links to the site. However several of the works I checked are actually hosted on mega.nz a much less reputable site. Finally the fact that you against the association with libgen and zlib is of no importance, the site is obviously hosting or linking to copyrighted work and where it isn't the actual host should be linked. Either way links to avetruthbooks should be avoided. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:00, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- I am naive. I thought the rules were the same for everyone. I have nothing to do with the site. You can remove the links, I'm not going to wage an edit war (I don't have time for empty things). Sabuhi from Baku (talk) 15:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- If the works are actually hosted on another site, then that site should be linked to. If avetruthbooks is just a pass-through it doesn't need to be linked to at all, to do so does give the impression of trying to spam links to the site. However several of the works I checked are actually hosted on mega.nz a much less reputable site. Finally the fact that you against the association with libgen and zlib is of no importance, the site is obviously hosting or linking to copyrighted work and where it isn't the actual host should be linked. Either way links to avetruthbooks should be avoided. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:00, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- The number of posts (printed books, articles, maps, manuscripts, and so on) on the avetruthbooks.com website is more than 5 million; Absolutely majority (more than 95 percent) of the total e-books are not physically located on avetruthbooks.com but on archive.org + loc.gov + gallica.bnf.fr + davidrumsey.com, and so on. Not all material on the site is subject to copyright. The problem is that several users have become obsessed with precisely those materials (academic studies) that relate to the history / one way or another related to / Azerbaijan. In this sense, I am against his association with libgen, zlib (and similar sites).Sabuhi from Baku (talk) 08:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- Here are the books to which temporary access is provided: 1,242,425 results, and everything else is in full access, a huge part of these books have copyrights (which this site /archive.org/ does not have). At the academia.edu, there is a huge number of users (whether they are authors or not) who have uploaded thousands of works to which they are not related. And this is what I'm talking about. I understand what you wrote to me.Sabuhi from Baku (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- I don't doubt you ability to edit a wiki, but that
- I explained the difference of archive.org and academia.edu on your talk page. Your answer there makes me wonder if you have the English skills necessary for editing enwiki. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- The other problem simply does not exist (intentionally invented to remove the link). I agree about copyright. But what about equality before the rules? Sabuhi from Baku (talk) 17:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Norton also flagged up multiple intrusion attempts when I tried to access the site - so it looks like the site isn't safe.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- This is a pop ad. No viruses. Antiviruses block this type of ad: the site is completely safe. I don't use links without validation. Sabuhi from Baku (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
The site itself does not impose its opinion in contrast to the user Historiofİran
. As ever:
📎 ”Clippy” appears. ‘It looks like you’re a new user trying to report HistoryofIran. Would you like me to help by closing your browser?’ — Trey Maturin™ 17:42, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Did you write this to me? I have been a registered wiki user since 2009. I didn't understand what you mean (English is not my native language). The user you are talking about wrote something to me on my page. And I explained to him.Sabuhi from Baku (talk) 18:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I did. No good will come of your personal attack on HistoryofIran and you should
strikeit. Your reply to their message on your talk page – which stopped -> . <- this short of outright genocide denial, will not do. — Trey Maturin™ 18:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)- It is he who makes an attack on me, on the nation to whom I belong, whose personal opinion I have not demonstrated anywhere. Implants his opinion on another user (that is, on me). I do not care about him: he is not a problem for me, unless of course he himself stops. I don't know if it's correct to translate the translator: Это он делает нападение на меня, на этнос которому я принадлежу, моё личное мнение которого я нигде не демострировал. Насаждает свое мнение на другого пользователя (то есть на меня). Мне нету дела до него: он не проблема для меня, если конечно он сам перестанет. Sabuhi from Baku (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- I don't see an attack from HistoryOfIran there. You've suggested at least twice in this thread that he's attacking Azerbaijanis. There are a whole host of policy reasons why you shouldn't do that. Suggesting that a source, that is also Azerbaijani, denies the Armenian Genocide, does not amount to an attack on you, or the Azerbaijani people as a whole. Please either explain where the attack was, or strike your comments. I don't think you'll be asked again to do so. Mackensen (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- I'm tired of long correspondence. I posted a link, but you did not check it. He wrote the following: rv, the fact that the owners are genocide deniers (hashtags such as "#ArmenianGenocideLie") and hosts genocide denial books? (I have already taken screenshots). And (only) uses #HistoryofAzerbaijan in their twitter when referring to the Safavids and even uses that hashtag along with others regarding the Adil-Shahis in India? Despite the fact that the Azerbaijanis didnt even form an ethnonym back then. It's also quite suspicious that you insist on adding their site to loads of articles. and this is my answer: Our name (endonym) is Türk. Not Azerbaijanis, not Azeris. We as a people were formed around the 13th century. We mostly is a mixture of various Turkic tribal: Oguzes, Kipchaks and Uighurs. The term Azeri was coined by the French scientist Charles Barbier de Meynard in 1885, and the term Azerbaijanis was forcibly introduced by Stalin in 1936. Both terms are exonym for us. No one has the right to deny our existence before 1936. + In addition, look at the correspondence on my personal page, despite the fact that I explained why admins use such tags, he thinks that he is a judge or prosecutor who can accuse others or judge, forgetting that this is a wiki, not a court or police. Sabuhi from Baku (talk) 09:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- So where's the attack from me? Seeing how this discussion has turned out, and Sabuhi making even more personal attacks towards me, it seems it's not necessary for me to go into details. I think Sabuhi should be topic-banned from Azerbaijan-related topics at minimum due to their egregious attacks and lack of ) 10:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- The only way you could have made a personal attack in that comment is either Sabuhi from Baku owns/works for avetruthbooks, is the one making the genocide denial tweets, or both. Given their edits I believe they likely have COI with avetruthbooks. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- So let me get this straight: because HistoryofIran agrees with you that the term "Azerbaijanis" is relatively recent, and because he believes the owners of a website to be genocide deniers, he must "fiercely hate" the Azerbaijani people? You have two choices here: to apologize for your personal attack and withdraw it, or to give plenty of ammunition to HistoryofIran's assertion that you lack the competence to edit Wikipedia constructively and collectively. Neither this website nor you are synonymous with Azerbaijan or its people. Ravenswing12:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- Do not try to act like a judge, this is Wikipedia, not a court. Until then, I had not engaged in vandalism and edits war, for many years I had not offended anyone, and I will not allow anyone to impose their opinion on me. He tried to humiliate me and my people. I did not start and did not offend anyone: therefore I am not going to apologize. And that is all. Sabuhi from Baku (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- You are right, this is Wikipedia, and not a court. More specifically, it is a Wikipedia noticeboard where contributor's behaviour is discussed (in this case, yours), and if necessary sanctions may be applied. It is clear that you have not been subject to any personal attack. Nobody has humiliated you. Nobody has humiliated 'your people'. If that is all you have to say then it seems entirely reasonable to ask whether you should be permitted to continue to edit here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- (shrugs) No one here can force you to comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines governing acceptable and civil conduct, if doing so offends your pride. The remedies available to us -- as you are on track to finding out -- are limited to restricting your ability to use Wikipedia until such time as you do endeavor to follow those policies. Ravenswing 07:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- Do not try to act like a judge, this is Wikipedia, not a court. Until then, I had not engaged in vandalism and edits war, for many years I had not offended anyone, and I will not allow anyone to impose their opinion on me. He tried to humiliate me and my people. I did not start and did not offend anyone: therefore I am not going to apologize. And that is all. Sabuhi from Baku (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- So where's the attack from me? Seeing how this discussion has turned out, and Sabuhi making even more personal attacks towards me, it seems it's not necessary for me to go into details. I think Sabuhi should be topic-banned from Azerbaijan-related topics at minimum due to their egregious attacks and lack of ) 10:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- I'm tired of long correspondence. I posted a link, but you did not check it. He wrote the following: rv, the fact that the owners are genocide deniers (hashtags such as "#ArmenianGenocideLie") and hosts genocide denial books? (I have already taken screenshots). And (only) uses #HistoryofAzerbaijan in their twitter when referring to the Safavids and even uses that hashtag along with others regarding the Adil-Shahis in India? Despite the fact that the Azerbaijanis didnt even form an ethnonym back then. It's also quite suspicious that you insist on adding their site to loads of articles. and this is my answer: Our name (endonym) is Türk. Not Azerbaijanis, not Azeris. We as a people were formed around the 13th century. We mostly is a mixture of various Turkic tribal: Oguzes, Kipchaks and Uighurs. The term Azeri was coined by the French scientist Charles Barbier de Meynard in 1885, and the term Azerbaijanis was forcibly introduced by Stalin in 1936. Both terms are exonym for us. No one has the right to deny our existence before 1936. + In addition, look at the correspondence on my personal page, despite the fact that I explained why admins use such tags, he thinks that he is a judge or prosecutor who can accuse others or judge, forgetting that this is a wiki, not a court or police. Sabuhi from Baku (talk) 09:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- I don't see an attack from HistoryOfIran there. You've suggested at least twice in this thread that he's attacking Azerbaijanis. There are a whole host of policy reasons why you shouldn't do that. Suggesting that a source, that is also Azerbaijani, denies the Armenian Genocide, does not amount to an attack on you, or the Azerbaijani people as a whole. Please either explain where the attack was, or strike your comments. I don't think you'll be asked again to do so. Mackensen (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- It is he who makes an attack on me, on the nation to whom I belong, whose personal opinion I have not demonstrated anywhere. Implants his opinion on another user (that is, on me). I do not care about him: he is not a problem for me, unless of course he himself stops. I don't know if it's correct to translate the translator: Это он делает нападение на меня, на этнос которому я принадлежу, моё личное мнение которого я нигде не демострировал. Насаждает свое мнение на другого пользователя (то есть на меня). Мне нету дела до него: он не проблема для меня, если конечно он сам перестанет. Sabuhi from Baku (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I did. No good will come of your personal attack on HistoryofIran and you should
- I just racked up 142 edits in removing the links to avetruthbooks added by Sabuhi from Baku. Given the fact that these were all of Sabuhi's 2023 mainspace edits (their last edit before that goes back to 2017), and given their sheer number, I understand that this must have been a little painful. This should probably be taken into account when evaluating Sabuhi's reluctance to comply with my request to self-revert and their generally defensive attitude. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- I have nominated avetruthbooks.com for blacklisting at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#avetruthbooks.com. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Proposal to tban Sabuhi from Baku
Due to there obvious
WP:IDHT issues I propose that Sabuhi from Baku be topic banned from Azerbaijan and Armenian topics broadly construed, and from adding links to avetruthbooks (This seems a minimum if they are not blocked for their persistent personal attacks against HOI). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords
° 16:05, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support – I'm a little disappointed that Sabuhi from Baku still does not appear to understand the problems that adding links to copyrights-violating websites can cause to Wikipedia, though perhaps they would have understood by now if their addition of such links had happened in a less sensitive subject area. Obviously, editing Azerbaijan and Armenian-related topics causes them a great deal of stress, and the way they immediately and repeatedly personalized a dispute with HistoryofIran about the subject ("You personally have a very strong intolerance towards Azerbaijanis" [16]; "Wikipedia is not the place to express your hatred towards other people or nations" [17]; "You can not express personal grievances and hatred on Wikipedia" [18]; "You fiercely hate Azerbaijanis" [19]) strongly suggests that a topic ban is in order.I don't think that any kind of block should be in the cards, because there is no evidence of misconduct in other topic areas, and because some aspects in their handling of this stressful situation (e.g., their willingness to stop and discuss) suggest to me that they may very well be a constructive and collaborative editor in other topic areas. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support - After reading through this discussion, I would have to agree with ActivelyDisinterested and Apaugasma. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support per Apaugasma. Sabuhi from Baku has shown that they either don't understand or don't care about copyvio policy. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 02:58, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- Comment So far, the content problems relate to an odd promotion of the avetruthbooks website. While I can see the plain AA2 vibes here, I question whether a topic ban should be imposed given they haven't really edited in the area. CMD (talk) 03:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- I was thinking exactly this after I wrote my !vote above. But the thing is that almost every time I've followed that rationale (this editor's conduct really looks problematic, but they haven't edited problematically so let's just wait and see) I have come to regret it later. Especially in ) 15:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support: per Apaugasma. If Sabuhi from Baku not only feels, as they indicated above, that the provisions of WP:NPA do not apply to them, but that no judgment of their conduct can be tolerated, then it's plain that we should relieve them from the burden of editing in such a fraught topic area. Ravenswing06:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support Well, it goes without saying for me. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- Three times Sabuhi has been asked in this thread to step back from accusations and unhelpful editing, and three times they have doubled down. A t-ban might get them back on track. — Trey Maturin™ 12:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support more than merited based on the evidence provided. (t · c) buidhe 04:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support - The above comments by this user show they are spoiling for a fight and not going to take advice on board. This topic ban seems to be the best way to encourage them to move on to other topics & hopefully learn to collaborate better. Once the website in question is blacklisted, that should hopefully deal with the copyvio issue, but any further violations should be strictly dealt with, should they occur.
- — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:11, 6 June 2023 (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.
Non Partisan Election Maps Dispute
Not quite sure how this works but I've been having an issue with the user AveryTheComrade. He continues to post partisan election data for a non partisan election on 2022 California Superintendent of Public Instruction election. I've tried to start a conversation about it on the talk page but he ignores it and just reverts my edits when I change the color scheme back to nonpartisan. I've looked at other articles on the non partisan election page and they have similar color schemes like 1975 Boston mayoral election and 2021 St. Louis mayoral election. I don't know why he insists on using partisan data for a non partisan election but it goes against the standards used here in the past. Also no notable news networks have used the partisan democratic and republican colors for this race.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AllSportsfan16 (talk • contribs)
- This is probably not the correct avenue for such content disputes, see header above. Also, please use "they" when referring to the user in question. Thanks. —twotwofourtysix(talk || edits) 06:38, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- AllSportsfan16, not to worry, continue discussions on the talk page of the article and go by consensus. AveryTheComrade how have you been doing? Give some leeway and do join in the comments on the article talk page which are tending to be opposite to your edits. Let me know if I can help in anyway. Just to let you both know something that you already may have known (3RR and stuff). Rest, come back if this explodes. Lourdes 08:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hi, I'm doing fine, and I have not voiced opposition to @AllSportsfan16's attempt to add a non-partisan colour scheme, I've just asked them to change it properly and not remove maps. AveryTheComrade (talk) 20:43, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- I have no idea how to change it. You could just do it since you created it. Is that so much to ask. AllSportsfan16 (talk) 05:23, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hi AllSportsfan16, part of the above statement/tone of yours exemplifies the issue here. If you were to ask this in a civil manner, without pushing the tendentious "is that so much to ask" statement, it would have been so much better. Please do try and desist from poking other editors, in as much as Avery too should do that. But here, it's your undoing clearly. So please refrain from such a tone. Thanks, Lourdes 06:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- I have no idea how to change it. You could just do it since you created it. Is that so much to ask. AllSportsfan16 (talk) 05:23, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hi, I'm doing fine, and I have not voiced opposition to @AllSportsfan16's attempt to add a non-partisan colour scheme, I've just asked them to change it properly and not remove maps. AveryTheComrade (talk) 20:43, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Scottywong's bullying of ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ
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.
So I noticed earlier today that MalnadachBot hasn't edited in over a month, this seemed rather unusual to me because that bot is one the main lint error fixers on the site. Looking a bit further it appears the bot's operator hasn't edited in nearly the same time period, and one of the last things they did was engage in a talk page thread with Scottywong. It appears that Scottywong has bullied ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ off the site with some grossly inappropriate comments.
I include some of Scottywong's comments towards ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ here for context.
Extended content
|
|---|
|
How on earth is this an appropriate manner for an administrator to be interacting with another user? Even more concerningly every single policy reference Scottywong gives does not support what they claim it does.
- How is it appropriate for an administrator to be engaging in childish, purile name calling and refering to other editors with names like
Mr. Squiggles
oruser with non-English characters on the English Wikipedia
. - How on earth is "you have a username in a script other than Latin" evidence of a CIR issue? Policy explicitly allows for non-Latin usernames (WP:NONLATIN) and this editor is using their real name. Frankly this just comes across as racist - "your name is foreign so you're incompetent" is a grossly inappropriate thing to insinuate.
- How on earth are three edits made over the course of an hour evidence of a meatbot violation? The edits were not being made at a rapid pace, were not made with an automated tool and the editor has repeatedly gained consensus for making them, including in an RFC that Scottywong started.
- Why was Scottywong playing stupid, passive aggressive games with the nobots template instead of just asking the editor not to edit their archives.
- Why is Scottywong claiming that the fact that ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ didn't pick up on the fact that they were using the nobots template as passive aggressive nonsense as evidence of a CIR issue?
- How is "you have a border on your userpage" evidence of a CIR issue? What part of policy would support blocking someone because they added a decorative border to their userpage?
- How is "I don't like the font on your userpage" evidence of a CIR issue?
- What on earth are they referring to when they say
your bot's historical performance record
is evidence of a CIR issue? The performance record that lead to MalnadachBot being given the go ahead to fix any lint error on the site?
Scottywong's messages seem completely out of line. The name calling and tone are extremely inappropriate, especially coming from an administrator, a position that requires that editors behave in a respectful, civil manner (
WP:ADMINCOND). It is deeply concerning that Scottywong doesn't seem to have read or understood any of the policies they quote, and misuses them in grossly inappropriate ways (how is it acceptable to threaten to CIR block a user for having a non-Latin name?). And how on earth is that first message a reasonable reaction to an editor making two edits in your userspace? 192.76.8.65 (talk
) 19:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Mr. Squiggles
oruser with non-English characters on the English Wikipedia
alone would make me question an admin's temperament to continue to be an admin. The fact that Malnadach's name is on his user page makes this even worse. Looking at Malnadach's page and contribtions, it seems he is one of the few people who has deep knowledge of html and does linting on this site. Their work makes converts what would be gibberish for those using screen readers and other alternative browsing methods into a usable site. spryde | talk 19:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)- I'll admit that I was frustrated with the behavior of ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ, and my messages to them expressed that frustration in a way that was admittedly a bit blunt. And for that bluntness, I apologize. The issue in question has a long history that I won't take the time to go into here, suffice it to say it wasn't just this single isolated incident that frustrated me. Contrary to the Oxford IP's claim, I never resorted to name-calling or personal attacks of any kind. Referring to the user as "Mr. Squiggles" or "user with non-English characters on the English Wikipedia" were not intended as name-calling or insulting in any way, but instead were simply my attempts to come up with a pronounceable moniker that I could use to refer to this editor, and a way to highlight the difficulties in both communication and relationship-building posed by choosing a username with non-English characters on a site that is dedicated to generating and maintaining English language content exclusively. Jumping to the conclusion that my messages triggered the user to stop editing is clearly not supported by any evidence, as they continued editing for several weeks after the conversation, and it has only been about 3 weeks since their last edit. People take wikibreaks. In my opinion, there was no reason to bring this conversation to the drama board. I won't be monitoring this thread, so please send a message to my talk page if there is anything else that urgently requires a response from me. —ScottyWong— 20:54, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- Ugh. It's increasingly hard to live with people like this. I guess the best I can come up with is that I will block you from editing if you do this kind of xenophobic mocking again. It seems silly to resort to threats, but you've made it clear you aren't interested in feedback. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- I've lost confidence in ScottyWong's judgement and temperament to be an admin.
- Also, I note that ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ has 94,000+ edits on this Wikipedia plus more on others. In all this time, nobody's seen a need to block him for his user name, his user page or anything else. Perhaps he should be the admin.
- --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 21:36, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- If we had a working community desysop protocol, this manner of belittling another user would be worth using it over. Seriously, SUL has been a thing for well over a decade. Courcelles (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
on a site that is dedicated to generating and maintaining English language content exclusively
. The Wikimedia foundation runs projects covering 320 languages and ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ contributes to projects in multiple other languages. Why should they have to use an English/Latin name? 192.76.8.65 (talk) 22:27, 31 May 2023 (UTC)- If you contribute to multiple language wikis, there is no requirement that your username must be the same on all wikis. No one has to have an English/Latin name on the English Wikipedia, but it certainly facilitates communication to do so. If I can't pronounce your name, how will I remember it? If my keyboard doesn't support typing your name, how will I navigate to your user talk page? These aren't just issues that apply to me, they apply to all non-Kannada speakers on the English Wikipedia, which is likely more than 99.99% of en-wiki editors. Maybe I'm crazy, but it seems to me that it's counterintuitive to create an account on the Japanese Wikipedia and choose a username comprised of Sanskrit characters. Is it allowed? Of course. Is it a good idea? In my opinion, no. This is not an inherently xenophobic viewpoint; if it is, then I guess xenophobia is enshrined in WP:ADMINCOND), which reminds us that "Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect." I'm admitting my mistake here, while attempting to explain the rationale behind my comments for the benefit of those that have misinterpreted them. If that doesn't do it for you, or if you believe you've found a pattern of xenophobic behavior in my editing history, then by all means, block me and/or ship me off to Arbcom immediately. Otherwise, there isn't much more to say. —ScottyWong—23:30, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- Suggestion: for non-Latin names, I just copy and paste. For example, ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ. As for how to pronounce a word like that, I just don’t worry about sounding it out since I read silently.
- English is definitely easier for me but this is a polyglot community. —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- And if you really need to know? just throw google translate at it, which has a pronunciation feature. In this case, I got this. Hi Malnadach! --Licks-rocks (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Or, if you don't want to use google translate, ask them! Redacted II (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- And if you really need to know? just throw google translate at it, which has a pronunciation feature. In this case, I got this. Hi Malnadach! --Licks-rocks (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- If you contribute to multiple language wikis, there is no requirement that your username must be the same on all wikis. No one has to have an English/Latin name on the English Wikipedia, but it certainly facilitates communication to do so. If I can't pronounce your name, how will I remember it? If my keyboard doesn't support typing your name, how will I navigate to your user talk page? These aren't just issues that apply to me, they apply to all non-Kannada speakers on the English Wikipedia, which is likely more than 99.99% of en-wiki editors. Maybe I'm crazy, but it seems to me that it's counterintuitive to create an account on the Japanese Wikipedia and choose a username comprised of Sanskrit characters. Is it allowed? Of course. Is it a good idea? In my opinion, no. This is not an inherently xenophobic viewpoint; if it is, then I guess xenophobia is enshrined in
- Ugh. It's increasingly hard to live with people like this. I guess the best I can come up with is that I will block you from editing if you do this kind of xenophobic mocking again. It seems silly to resort to threats, but you've made it clear you aren't interested in feedback. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- I'll admit that I was frustrated with the behavior of ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ, and my messages to them expressed that frustration in a way that was admittedly a bit blunt. And for that bluntness, I apologize. The issue in question has a long history that I won't take the time to go into here, suffice it to say it wasn't just this single isolated incident that frustrated me. Contrary to the Oxford IP's claim, I never resorted to name-calling or personal attacks of any kind. Referring to the user as "Mr. Squiggles" or "user with non-English characters on the English Wikipedia" were not intended as name-calling or insulting in any way, but instead were simply my attempts to come up with a pronounceable moniker that I could use to refer to this editor, and a way to highlight the difficulties in both communication and relationship-building posed by choosing a username with non-English characters on a site that is dedicated to generating and maintaining English language content exclusively. Jumping to the conclusion that my messages triggered the user to stop editing is clearly not supported by any evidence, as they continued editing for several weeks after the conversation, and it has only been about 3 weeks since their last edit. People take wikibreaks. In my opinion, there was no reason to bring this conversation to the drama board. I won't be monitoring this thread, so please send a message to my talk page if there is anything else that urgently requires a response from me. —ScottyWong— 20:54, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- Obviously the comments are unacceptable, but it's always been amusing to me how upset some people get about fixing LINT errors. If the edits are, seriously, "trivial cosmetic non-issues," then why get so worked up? ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 21:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- Because of histories like these. It took us more than a year of begging to get this botop to even attempt to combine edits like (I'm not exaggerating here) fixing <font color="blue"> and <font color="purple">. Doesn't excuse making up belittling nicknames for a user one's in conflict with, but the bad blood here is fully justified. —Cryptic20:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- I mean, I've had my own technical disagreements with Malnadach (which IMO we've resolved through collaboration) but this is far beyond that. I don't think it matters if the bad blood is justified or not, it's a recurring pattern that Scottywong ends up with grudges and then goes past the line of what is acceptable (see 2019 thread). Legoktm (talk) 23:13, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Because of histories like these. It took us more than a year of begging to get this botop to even attempt to combine edits like (I'm not exaggerating here) fixing <font color="blue"> and <font color="purple">. Doesn't excuse making up belittling nicknames for a user one's in conflict with, but the bad blood here is fully justified. —
- And Malnadach Konkno gives their transliterated name on their userpage. <facepalm>. Jahaza (talk) 22:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- I would like it if people used pronounceable latin-character handles on here too. I'd also like it if communism worked in real life rather than just on paper and that homophobes had their pubic hair permanently itch. I'm not getting any of that in reality and I'm aware that my preferences in this regard are ludicrous, which is why I've never asked anyone to abide by them, on here or anywhere else.
- But especially not on an international worldwide project like Wikipedia, for very obvious reasons. WTF, Scotty?
- Also, to make such a weird posting to someone and when challenged in the place designated for such challenges to announce
I won't be monitoring this thread, so please send a message to my talk page if there is anything else that urgently requires a response from me
is conduct unbecoming. If that truly is your only response, then your resignation will be acceptedhere. — Trey Maturin™ 23:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC) - I just came across this thread while stalking ANI cause I was completely bored. I certainly agree that Scottywong's behavior here is absolutely unacceptable for an administrator and just plain rude, incivil and xenophobic. And what the heck does disliking another person's user page have to deal with of the Starlit Sky00:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Referring to someone with a non-latin script username as "Mr. squiggles" is grossly unbecoming for an admin. ScottyWong should do the dignified thing at this point and resign, and if he does not an ArbCom case should be considered. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Good freaking grief. It's "hard" to use "ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ" as opposed to some insulting nickname? Hardly. I just cut-and-pasted it. Elapsed time: two-thirds of a second, or about a tenth as long as it took me to type this sentence. That's poor judgment for someone we trust to be an admin, and ScottyWong compounded it with that I'm-not-going-to-bother-with-this-thread response, something we'd consider misguided at best (and childish at worst) coming from a newbie with a hundred edits. Nor am I mollified by his pseudo-apology, somewhat negated by his if-you-don't-like-it-go-screw ending. "I had a bad day, I said some dumb things, I'm very sorry I did, I won't do it again. The end." Was something of the sort so very difficult to say? Ravenswing 01:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Pretty appalling communication, especially from an administrator, compounded further here by the "admittedly a bit blunt" handwave. At minimum, a blunt acceptance that this language is unacceptable and a similarly blunt (uncaveated) apology to ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ would be in order. CMD (talk) 02:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Scottywong may think that
In my opinion, there was no reason to bring this conversation to the drama board
, but literally everyone (12 editors) who has commented believes he was wrong, and I agree with them. The notion thatyour username that uses non-English characters, to the hideous font on your user page, to the annoying rainbow border on your user pages,
is evidence of ) 05:04, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Scottywong should be ashamed. To refer to a constructive editor like ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ as "Mr. Squiggles" is very disrespectful, and definitely goes against WP:ADMINCOND. I'm not impressed in the slightest with his half-assed apology either. He should resign to save ArbCom some time. LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 06:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- I am not yet prepared to call for Scottywong's resignation, but to say that I am appalled and deeply disappointed with this behavior is an understatement. Wikipedia and Wikimedia Foundation projects operate in hundreds of languages and with many different scripts. Editors are free to move from project to project as they see fit, especially if their preferred work is gnoming. An administrator berating an editor with such vitriolic contempt is never acceptable, but when the insults focus on irrelevant trivialities like signature scripts, talk page borders and fonts, that is beyond the pale. There is no policy, guideline or community consensus forbidding fixing lint errors. That's not how I choose to spend my editing time, but Scottywong, it is utterly unacceptable for you to go into an enraged full-blown attack mode against an editor who has chosen to work on fixing errors. Your response, in my view, has been inadequate to date, and I encourage you to engage in some serious self-relection, and then offer a more appropriate response to the community's concerns. Cullen328 (talk) 08:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- The original comment wasn't great, especially from an admin. But ScottyWong's 2 posts here are hard to read without cringing. A simple I'm sorry, frustration got the better of me etc would have fixed it. DeCausa (talk) 12:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- There has just been an impersonation attempt against scottywong see here. Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Not surprised, trolls will do anything to mislead others. 47.227.95.73 (talk) 13:04, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- The arrogance displayed in the comments that led to this thread and in the responses here are well below the standards we have for an administrator. The misreading of User:Floquenbeam's comment is amusing, the "confession" that their tone was "borderline rude" is revealing. Drmies (talk) 13:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- I have my reservations about Malnadach's editing style, and editing the userspace of an editor you've disagreed with (when they've explicitly prohibited your bot from doing so) is poor form, but Scotty's comments are disgraceful. I'm appalled that an admin would think that's an appropriate way to communicate and then just brush it off as being "too blunt". The berating tone I could just about look past with the half-arsed apology as long as there was an undertaking to bring issues to this board in future, but the borderline racism/xenophobia needs to be addressed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- I don't believe this is a one-off thing from ScottyWong, at least not the contention against Malnadach. This goes back for a while. ScottyWong has had problems with MalnadachBot since at least January 2022, when he proposed its removal as an active bot, per the WP:COSMETICBOT policy. Most of his arguments were reasoned and in-depth, but certain comments may inform his current frustration (apologies for not giving diffs, the archive pagedidn't retain them):
If this bot operator claims that he is not capable of fixing all the errors on a page in a single edit, or that his code is so inefficient that it produces "false positives" and requires him to manually supervise every edit, then I think we should find a different bot operator.
I realize I'm probably being annoying by continuing to complain about this bot operator and the tasks he's carrying out, but it really is supremely annoying to me.
The vast majority of this bot's work is not worth the disruption it's causing to the project.
- Of course, everyone has the right to be frustrated, and the point of bringing this up is not to say don't ever be upset about things. Rather this is to provide context as to how this confrontation built up to begin with. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:19, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Could we close this thread now? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- With what action taken against whom? Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:37, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think any action is needed. Everyone have learned something from the thread, so no need to prolong it further. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- I disagree strongly. The admin behaviour decribed here is appalling, as is the "digging in" response we've had. I think we need to see some genuine reflection along the lines Cullen328 suggests, or I think further action is needed (by the community or by ArbCom). No way should this just be closed at this point. (And, I mean no offence CactiStaccingCrane, but I think you've misjudged it badly.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- As much as it might be desirable to avoid building a mountain out of a molehill, closing this now would give the impression that a long-time admin can shrug off complaints of uncivil behavior. That isn't the message we really want to send around here. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- I also don't think it should be closed, at least while Scottywong is sticking their head in the sand, refusing to engage with this conversation and not admitting that their actions were not acceptable. I'm not calling for a desysop here, unless there is a complete and utter lack of awareness and actions (which while they refuse to engage is heading that direction.) I think Scottywong needs to reengage with this conversation and read the room. Canterbury Tail talk 13:58, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- My question here is that is it really worth it to keep the ANI thread open though? Closing the thread does not mean "ScottyWong has a free pass on his behavior", rather it is giving time for everyone to think about the issue. I don't think that bashing on people's mistakes and then making use of their angry temperament (OooOoH they don't sorry about their bad bad behavior), accusing them of being incompetent and then ban them is helpful. If you want to sanction ScottyWong, make a separate thread about that. Otherwise, it's helpful for all of us to drop the stick and let ScottyWong take time to learn the lesson here. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:01, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm aware that he is an administrator, but administrator are human too. Humans do make mistakes, lots of it. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- And if a person in a position of trust continues to make more than an acceptable number of mistakes, what should we do then? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:19, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Take to ArbCom or make another thread. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- Another thread? That's what this is, after previous ones! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:32, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- Take to ArbCom or make another thread. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- And if a person in a position of trust continues to make more than an acceptable number of mistakes, what should we do then? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:19, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm aware that he is an administrator, but administrator are human too. Humans do make mistakes, lots of it. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- My question here is that is it really worth it to keep the ANI thread open though? Closing the thread does not mean "ScottyWong has a free pass on his behavior", rather it is giving time for everyone to think about the issue. I don't think that bashing on people's mistakes and then making use of their angry temperament (OooOoH they don't sorry about their bad bad behavior), accusing them of being incompetent and then ban them is helpful. If you want to sanction ScottyWong, make a separate thread about that. Otherwise, it's helpful for all of us to drop the stick and let ScottyWong take time to learn the lesson here. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:01, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think any action is needed. Everyone have learned something from the thread, so no need to prolong it further. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- With what action taken against whom? Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:37, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- As difficult as it is to express contrition amongst the uproar of criticism here, and while I feel that I've already apologized twice in my comments above, it seems that my words aren't being interpreted as genuine, so I'd like to try one last time to clear things up: I'd like to formally retract the messages I posted a month ago on ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ's user talk page. Those messages were written while I was in a frustrated state, and I said some things I shouldn't have. Particularly, the "Mr. Squiggles" comment about this user's non-English username, while not intended to be insulting, belittling, or xenophobic; was still insensitive and an unnecessary addition to the primary topic I wanted to discuss with the user. Therefore, again, I apologize to ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ for the rude comments. I would post this apology on the user's talk page, but they've asked me to refrain from posting on their user talk page, and I've always intended to respect that request. If anyone else feels the need to link to or copy/paste this apology to the user's talk page, I'd be ok with that. —ScottyWong— 14:07, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Well, those half-arsed apologies above for being "a bit blunt" didn't come close, especially coupled with your digging-in on the username issue. And, I know it's not nice to be exposed in public like this. Now, this apology is a lot better, and a good start. But there's a few things that still trouble me. Firstly, one specific - I'd like to hear you fully accept that it's entirely acceptable for users to have usernames in any script that's allowed by policy on this multi-national project. More generally, you've had angry episodes like this in the past, and it's just not acceptable for the community to have such a hair-trigger potential anger response from an admin hanging over our heads. In between, you do some fine work, and you've made some great contributions - and I want to keep that. But we just can't have any more of these episodes. So, do you have any ideas of how you might try to manage your anger in the future? I do hope so, because I really do think we need to see some serious long-term reflection here. And sorry if any of this comes across as patronising. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- You're not helping the situation. Don't try to force an apology. It's better to respect a person's pride and let it be. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Good point. If there was a simple way to de-sysop Scotty, it would be worth pursuing. But there isn’t. So we either go to ArbCom or live with Scotty. Either approach has a cost to the community in terms of time and tension.
- If we’re going to live with Scotty as an admin, I think we’ve collectively made our point here.
- if we’re not, then take it to ArbCom. Further discussion in this venue just degrades the community zeitgeist. —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 15:12, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- CactiStaccingCrane, Again, I think you are misreading this badly, and you have completely failed to understand my points. I am not trying to force an apology - I never would, because a forced apology is not an apology at all. But we absolutely should not "respect a person's pride and let it be" in a case like this. If we have serious reservations about someone's aptitude for a role, how can you even think that's a remotely acceptable approach? The community has a concern with an admin's attitude, and you think we should priortise the admin's pride? I'm almost speechless. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- You're not helping the situation. Don't try to force an apology. It's better to respect a person's pride and let it be. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- The reservations I'm seeing here—and one that I share—is that you haven't shown an understanding of why this is a problem. At the top of the post, you seemed to indicate that this was a trivial or harmless matter, and that you thought that this was within acceptable limits of admin conduct. It's this dismissiveness that brought it from an unfortunate mistake to a question of whether you understand the issue. It was only after a strong negative response and threats of desysopping that you gave the issue any attention. Whether this is the case or not, it may give the impression to the community that you're just "going through the motions" of expressing remorse without actually taking into consideration why messages like this are unhelpful in a collaborative environment, let alone from an admin. There are venues for solving disputes with editors like this. Going to their talk page and calling them incompetent (for any reason, let alone for having a foreign username or a customized userpage) is not one of those venues, and we should be able to take it for granted that admins know this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:20, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
It was only after a strong negative response and threats of desysopping that you gave the issue any attention
As much as I believe this demanded a response, you can't move the goalposts and insinuate that a now-given apology doesn't matter because it wasn't given prior to all of the criticism. That's unfair and you need to give someone a chance to properly atone and reflect on their own actions. If that's unacceptable, then A. B. is right that there's really no choice but to close this down and make an ArbCom request. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)- Yep, I mostly agree with User:WaltCip here. We can't demand that someone respond to feedback, and then condemn them for not responding before we made the demand. We really should allow time for cooling off and thinking - the proper response should not be judged on how quickly it was or was not made, but on how sincere it is in the cold light of time. Saying that, I don't think we're at "ArbCom or nothing" yet. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- The gist of my comment is this: "your initial response doubled down on the more problematic behavior, and you recanted that after the non-apology was heavily criticized, but you still haven't shown an understanding of why it's an issue, which is what we actually wanted." Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Boing! said Zebedee, "I won't be monitoring this thread, so please send a message to my talk page if there is anything else that urgently requires a response from me"--like this isn't important. *sigh* Drmies (talk) 01:46, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- Well, those half-arsed apologies above for being "a bit blunt" didn't come close, especially coupled with your digging-in on the username issue. And, I know it's not nice to be exposed in public like this. Now, this apology is a lot better, and a good start. But there's a few things that still trouble me. Firstly, one specific - I'd like to hear you fully accept that it's entirely acceptable for users to have usernames in any script that's allowed by policy on this multi-national project. More generally, you've had angry episodes like this in the past, and it's just not acceptable for the community to have such a hair-trigger potential anger response from an admin hanging over our heads. In between, you do some fine work, and you've made some great contributions - and I want to keep that. But we just can't have any more of these episodes. So, do you have any ideas of how you might try to manage your anger in the future? I do hope so, because I really do think we need to see some serious long-term reflection here. And sorry if any of this comes across as patronising. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- I suspect I would be indeffed without a conversation if I called another editor Mr Squiggles because of their name. Do admins get like 3 free racisms before other admins act? Very Average Editor (talk) 15:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- So I've refrained from commenting since this morning hoping Scotty would come back with a grovelling sincere apology .... Indeed their latest apology is sincere however in that apology they state "Particularly, the "Mr. Squiggles" comment about this user's non-English username, while not intended to be insulting, belittling, or xenophobic; was still insensitive and an unnecessary" which to me is utter bs.
- You don't take the mick out of someone's name unless you're intentionally trying to be insulting, belittling, or xenophobic ? (Of course friends can have a laugh over each others names but these 2 aren't friends nor quite clearly was it intended as a joke). Maybe I'm reading it wrong but their apology also reads like they're sorry they got caught out not sorry for what was said but again maybe I've read it wrong.
- Either way Scotty should resign or this should be sent to Arbcom, Not that I ever would but if I made such a comment like Scottys I would expect a very long block for it. –Davey2010Talk 16:25, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Scotty's comments were stupid, and so was his "I'm not monitoring this thread" (ANI flu?) And then non-apologies, and then an apology sandwiched with sniping at
the uproar of criticism here
(so criticizing an admin for calling a constructive editor "Mr. Squiggles" is uncalled for, but said admin's comments aren't?) I say give him one more chance at an apology that addresses the inappropriateness of his comments and acknowledges why theuproar
, and otherwise take it to ArbCom for a desysopping. Heavy Water (talk • contribs) 03:52, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- I've also noticed Malnadach's and their bot's lack of editing and wondered why that was. If it really is because of Scotty's comments that is not only sad but a loss to the project. Scotty has for a while now tried to stop or block Malnadach's bot in everyway possible and when after each one failed, tried from a different angle. That lead to childishly reverting edits that fixed lint issues on their talk page. Even if Scotty's admin isn't taken away, they should at minimum be banned from anything Lint related as they've clearly shown this issue is too much for them. And yes, that also includes no reverting Lint fixes. Gonnym (talk) 08:15, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- Although Malnadach's departure from the project is definitely coincident with Scotty's abusive message, it's hard for me to preponderance of the evidence standard if brought before a judge, but it's not proof. This is notwithstanding the remainder of the content in your message which I feel is absolutely correct. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- Although Malnadach's departure from the project is definitely coincident with Scotty's abusive message, it's hard for me to
- Scotty should be ashamed of his comments and actions, and his insincere apologies only make things worse. He also doesn't seem to recognise exactly why this is an issue. Scotty should resign as an admin lest he face an ArbCom case. Frankly if this wasn't a tenured admin I think the punishments for making such comments would have been far more severe. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 09:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- These comments are, frankly, absolutely disgusting and entirely unbecoming of any editor, let alone an admin - regardless of your opinions on linting fixes (in my opinion they're fairly useful but still), this kind of attitude and behaviour is deeply offensive and concerning. (talk)13:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- Just a question: can ADMINs be blocked indef? Cause Scotty needs to be.
- I'm 100% not an expert with Wikipedia policy, but I've seen people be banned for less. Redacted II (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, but in practice an admin wouldn't get blocked indefinitely unless they're community or arbcom-banned. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 20:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- Clearly the community is not happy with Scotty's comments or his string of apologies. No further point is served by the continued pile-on of angry rebukes. Either propose a sanction below or take it to ArbCom. This venue does not exist for the purpose of letting y'all get in your free shots at this week's latest target, no matter how guilty they are. It's time to move this forward with an aim toward a constructive resolution. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:02, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- Scotty having (as multiple people indicated) lost the trust an admin/sysop is expected to keep, hia resignation or removal as sysop would seem an obvious step. Unfortunately the "removal" process appears to have become "broken" (as also indicated here). I don't know what it would take to fix that, but the idea that admins/sysops can go bad without anyone being able to take that bit away strikes me as frightening. – .Raven .talk 02:22, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- How is the removal of adminship "broken"? Not one editor in this thread who thinks Scottywong should not be an admin has filed an arbitration request at the time of my comment. No one has even tried to remove his sysop bit. Lightoil (talk) 03:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- I suspect many editors would like to see a case request filed, but really don't want to be the one to do it. — talk · contribs] 04:05, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- That's it precisely. ArbCom is a grueling, demanding process that opens people up to insane levels of speculation & scrutiny. So people don't want to go there unless the problem is absolutely intractable, or else they have seriously damning evidence. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:51, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- I suspect many editors would like to see a case request filed, but really don't want to be the one to do it. —
- How is the removal of adminship "broken"? Not one editor in this thread who thinks Scottywong should not be an admin has filed an arbitration request at the time of my comment. No one has even tried to remove his sysop bit. Lightoil (talk) 03:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Scotty having (as multiple people indicated) lost the trust an admin/sysop is expected to keep, hia resignation or removal as sysop would seem an obvious step. Unfortunately the "removal" process appears to have become "broken" (as also indicated here). I don't know what it would take to fix that, but the idea that admins/sysops can go bad without anyone being able to take that bit away strikes me as frightening. – .Raven .talk 02:22, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Does Scottywong have a history of these sorts of comments, or is this a one-off? BilledMammal (talk) 04:10, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- There's this 2019 thread about this comment and this edit summary, and this uh 2014 thread. So, kinda? Other editors may have more examples.I like to believe that if an editor whose million-edit bot I found annoying and useless, which I had tried multiple times to get consensus to shut down, and which I specifically ignored by name on my watchlist and tagged my talkpage archives to skip, had decided to edit those talkpage archives with their main account, I would at least have deleted that first paragraph that comes off as super racist, and not called their competence into question over their userpage aesthetics, but I would imagine myself feeling deliberately provoked (and probably would passive-aggressively revert my talkpage archives to their prior, lint error generating state).Scotty has said some dumb and mean things, and doesn't appear to grasp why people are so upset about them, but I don't believe everyone here grasps why he was so upset in the first place. I don't believe ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ was deliberately baiting Scotty, but given their history the choice to edit Scotty's talkpage archives was certainly an audacious one, and I am curious as to why he felt it necessary.Not excusing Scotty's comments or his evident inability to realize that unintentionally racist still counts as racist, but ignoring the context and history here doesn't seem like the route to the right outcome. Kindly, Folly Mox (talk) 07:24, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Off-topic discussion
|
|---|
|
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.
Proposal for a one-way IBAN for Scottywong with ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ
While, from ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ's tone, they were not driven off the project by Scotty's comments, as some above have postulated, the comments are no more acceptable for it. This is basically the bare minimum action, and I would advise Scotty to agree to a voluntary one-way IBAN and avoid ArbCom (or a CBAN, even?) Heavy Water (talk • contribs) 23:02, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support as nom. Heavy Water (talk • contribs) 23:02, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- (If you didn't see the middle of the discussion and think an IBAN is not warranted for a supposed lack of long-term problems: Special:Diff/1158020095.) Heavy Water (talk • contribs) 23:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- IBAN is Indefinite Ban, right? (I really don't know the acronyms)
- If so, then,
- SUPPORT Saying such xenophobic statements as Scotty used is unacceptable for even the newest editors. For an ADMIN, it's just indescribable. Redacted II (talk) 00:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- No, IBAN is ) 00:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Then:
- OPPOSE We can't let Scotty get away with how they treated ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ. The bare minimum is an indefinite ban. Just because Scotty is an ADMIN doesn't mean that they shouldn't be held accountable for their actions. Redacted II (talk) 00:46, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Actually, an indefinite ban is the maximum. I don’t know what more you could do anything more to him after banning him from the site forever. —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:50, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- I dunno, a community ban isn't as bad as someone taking away my right to eat cookies. BTW, the proposal for an IBAN is pretty silly.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- True, but in a case like this, the minimum "sentence" (in lack of a better word) is the maximum sentence: indefinite ban. Redacted II (talk) 00:57, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Actually, an indefinite ban is the maximum. I don’t know what more you could do anything more to him after banning him from the site forever. —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:50, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Scotty's comments are horrible, and an IBAN is not enough. At the very least, Scotty should lose his admin status. I'm pretty sure ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ has been driven off the site, as they haven't edited since early May. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 02:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support as a bare minimum, without prejudice against more severe sanctions and/or an ArbCom case request. I agree that this is insufficient given the severity of the PAs, but that doesn't strike me as a good reason to oppose this sanction. Sanctions are meant to be preventative and it seems to me that, should ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ return to editing, this sanction would provide such a function. — talk · contribs] 03:31, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- An IBAN for a single interaction seems unnecessary. BilledMammal (talk) 04:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Comment: What is the point of banning any interaction between two users when their only interaction (written interaction) involved ScottyWong posting two comments at Malnadach's talk page? What is this supposed to achieve? Nythar (💬-🍀) 05:06, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Nythar, it is a one-way IBAN on Scottywong, first off. While the incidents mentioned here are not in themselves particularly uncivil, they show Scottywong has an issue with ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ, and the comments which are the focus of this discussion show he will make offensive comments to ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ and only sort of apologize. Ergo, it seems reasonable to expect further disruption from such.
- And then again, the IBAN was proposed to encourage movement towards sanctions of some kind by presenting the bare minimum option. Heavy Water (talk • contribs) 06:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose seems pointless to me. The prior interaction from 2022 shows that Scottywong didn't like how ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ operated their bot, but that's hardly grounds for an iban. If a sanction is appropriate, this is not the correct one. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 05:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- SamX understood this. Additionally, ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ could have temporarily stopped editing for any number of reasons, this incident being one. Heavy Water (talk • contribs) 05:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- In light of my comment that preceded this proposal, I do appreciate your rationale for proposing this sanction even if I don't agree that this is the correct path forward. I'll admit that I'm conflicted as to how this should be handled. I understand the calls for Scotty to be desysopped, but -- unless I'm missing something, which is certainly possible -- this doesn't seem to involve his use of the tools. I'm aware that admins can and have been desysopped in cases that did not involve misuse of the tools, but in this case I feel that the calls for desysop have an unattractively punitive flavor. While it is natural to be angered at boorish behavior from an admin, I'm not comfortable with the mob mentality that I've detected here. We don't desysop people to punish them or to get our pound of flesh. If we want to desysop Scotty because we've genuinely lost faith in him after this one incident that was reported a month later by an IP who made no effort to address this with Scotty before escalating it to ANI, then fine. Perhaps we are right to lose faith in him. And perhaps we are right to judge his apologies harshly, even if it is probably true that most of us would respond poorly if we were ambushed by an ANI thread like this one. When I reread Scottywong's comments, I see very little to defend. But something about the way this thread has been conducted just doesn't feel right. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 06:15, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- I just want to add a comment here (not sure if there's somewhere better, but LEPRICAVARK's comments do strike a note) "But something about the way this thread has been conducted just doesn't feel right": Yes, for sure, I feel the same way (even though I also see little to defend in Scottywong's comments). Trial by ANI is a horrible way to deal with issues like this, and it can make it sound like the accused is the devil incarnate. An angry outburst in public is really a very poor thing by which to judge a fellow human - and I say that after having met people who I like a lot in real life, but who have been excoriated here at ANI (and even blocked/banned/desysoped). When does community discussion and concensus become a knee-jerk baying mob? I'm not saying that's happened here, but I've definitely seen occasions when it's come too close for comfort. So what should we do about a contributor who, with hindsight, might not be a good fit for admin after all, but who is fundamentally a decent person who just has too many off days? I really don't know. I just wish there was something better than this. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- I just want to add a comment here (not sure if there's somewhere better, but
- In light of my comment that preceded this proposal, I do appreciate your rationale for proposing this sanction even if I don't agree that this is the correct path forward. I'll admit that I'm conflicted as to how this should be handled. I understand the calls for Scotty to be desysopped, but -- unless I'm missing something, which is certainly possible -- this doesn't seem to involve his use of the tools. I'm aware that admins can and have been desysopped in cases that did not involve misuse of the tools, but in this case I feel that the calls for desysop have an unattractively punitive flavor. While it is natural to be angered at boorish behavior from an admin, I'm not comfortable with the mob mentality that I've detected here. We don't desysop people to punish them or to get our pound of flesh. If we want to desysop Scotty because we've genuinely lost faith in him after this one incident that was reported a month later by an IP who made no effort to address this with Scotty before escalating it to ANI, then fine. Perhaps we are right to lose faith in him. And perhaps we are right to judge his apologies harshly, even if it is probably true that most of us would respond poorly if we were ambushed by an ANI thread like this one. When I reread Scottywong's comments, I see very little to defend. But something about the way this thread has been conducted just doesn't feel right.
- Oppose - I am satisfied with Scottywong's latest apology and I am sure he will not try anything further with ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ, as obviously, harsh consequences await there. starship.paint (exalt) 07:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Oppose since IBANning against someone who appears to have left the project is pointless. Contrary to the half baked apologies above, Scottywong has said in Wikipediocracy today that there is no evidence that Malnadach was "sufficiently offended" by their messages. This indicates to me that Scottywong doesn't really understand the problem with their comments, which would cause them to behave the same way with other editors. This IBAN does not address the core problem, which is Scottywong'sWP:ADMINCOND failure and behaviour which is unacceptable in a diverse project like Wikipedia. Send this to Arbcom please. 58.182.35.249 (talk) 07:53, 3 June 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 22:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Opposeas insufficient. If an admin needs an IBAN from someone, that just shows they should not be an admin. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:14, 3 June 2023 (UTC) -- Switch to Support per Tamzin's reasoning below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:31, 3 June 2023 (UTC)- (edit conflict) @Boing! said Zebedee: Makes sense, but I would like to point out Ritchie333 received a two-way IBAN with Praxidicae from ArbCom (when already an admin). So it's not unprecedented. Heavy Water (talk • contribs) 15:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Support. I do not see how any further communication from Scottywong to ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ could be constructive. — Freoh 15:36, 3 June 2023 (UTC)- Support, without prejudice against further sanctions. I dismiss out of hand any opposition based on the fact that Malnadach currently isn't editing. Maybe they'll return tomorrow, or in a year, or in 10 years. Whenever they do, maybe Scotty will still be editing then, and will have still not put the stick down about these linter fixes. (FWIW I've shared some of those concerns, but the point is that Scotty isn't able to express that without getting incivil, it seems.) Or maybe an IBAN would hasten Malnadach' return. It's the latter possibility that drives me to support more than anything, because I think that, as a practical matter, if Scotty were to say anything remotely incivil to Malnadach in the future, there are a number of admins who would be willing to make that block, with or without an IBAN. But in terms of signaling to Malnadach that the community won't ignore harassment of them, and signaling the same to all editors who might be in a similar situaton, I think an IBAN is more powerful than a mere lurking block threat. If further community or ArbCom sanctions are warranted, so be it, but that's never been a reason not to take the first step. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 18:11, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Rosguill's concern below is reasonable. I'd have no problem with a provision that Malnadach can unilaterally terminate the IBAN at any time. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 22:12, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support. I'm on the fence about what sort of response this warrants, and I think both the "this is unacceptable" and the "avoid an angry mob" camps have good points. But I find Tamzin's argument convincing. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:17, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose 1-way IBANs can often be burdensome even for the person "benefited" by the ban, as they would now have the burden of not acting in ways that could be interpreted as griefing against the IBANed editor. IBANs are only called for in cases of protracted harassment, when the affected editor is themselves in favor of the arrangement. I don't think imposing this with Malnadach in absentia is appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 22:09, 3 June 2023 (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.
Proposal: Send to Arbcom [Result: Sent]
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.
In the main thread above, more than two dozen editors have criticised Scottywong for his comments and there is unanimous agreement that his comments are incompatible with how admins are expected to behave. This indicates that Scottywong has lost the trust of community to continue to hold adminship. Since desysopping someone is not within the remit of AN/I, the thread should be closed and an Arbcom request should be filed. 58.182.35.249 (talk) 08:24, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support as proposer. Since his last comment in this thread on June 1 and claiming to not monitor this, Scottywong has continued to discuss this on Wikipediocracy (members only thread) and making comments which are contrary to his apologies above. He has claimed in Wikipediocracy that there is no evidence that Malnadach was "sufficiently offended" by his comments, that it is "pure bullsh*t" that anyone would infer his comments as racist or xenophobic. This shows that his apologies above are not sincere; he is just pretending to show remorse onwiki to escape sanctions. If we had a community based desysop procedure, this would have been more than enough to invoke it. However in absence of that, we should file a formal request for arbitration. 58.182.35.249 (talk) 08:24, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support. I do actually think Scottywong's apology is sincere, at least in part. I think he does feel remorse for the way he spoke to ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (whose name, incidentally, I copied and pasted in just a few seconds). But I don't see a full appreciation for how unaccpetable his conduct was, and continues to be, as an admin in response to criticism. So I think this should go to ARBCOM, for a couple of reasons. One is that we've seen a problematic aggressive attitude from Scottywong a number of times now (which can be brought up in evidence if there's a case, I don't want to relitigate them here). We've seen some sort of regret/apology in past cases too, but I see a repeated anger/aggression issue. That aggression, even if it shows rarely, is not compatible with being an admin. Also, Scottywong is still railing (at another site) against Wikipedia's policy of allowing multiple scripts/alphabets in usernames when communicating on the English language project. Now, he can dislike it - I'm sure we all have policy aspects that we dislike. But unless he can change it via consensus, he has to accept it. In fact, I'd say he committed to upholding it by accepting the admin role - or, at the very least, not openly attacking other editors for doing something
perfectlyin line with that policy. That his dislike for a piece of policy can trigger such anger (and more than a hint of arrogance) also makes Scottywong unsuitable for admin, in my view. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:50, 3 June 2023 (UTC)- Respectfully,
perfectly in line with
is an overstatement.WP: LATINPLEASE (in Wikipedia:Username policy) does say To avoid confusion and aid navigation, users with [usernames that are not spelled using the Latin alphabet] are encouraged to use Latin characters in their signature. Policy "encourages" a lot of things that are considered best practices, and it's a vague term that covers varying strengths of consensuses, but my reading is that User:ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ would need to add a transliteration of his username to his signature in order to be perfectly in line with policy.I'm also minded of a courtesy blanked RfA from a few years ago where about half of the opposers took issue with the candidate's non-Latin username, so I'm feeling what Scottywong attributes to accessibility concerns may have some level of community buy-in. I disagree cos I can copypaste. Respectfully again, just in case it got lost in the nitpick, Folly Mox (talk) 11:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC)- OK, perhaps not "perfectly", fair enough. But if something is allowed by policy, attacking people for being in line with it like that is just not acceptable, in my view. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:08, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- We're in tangent mode here, but FWIW, IMO the main accessibility issue with non-Latin names isn't addressing them in conversation, it's finding them when you're trying to look for their edits or ping them. It's all easy enough to do a 2 second copy-paste or type out Malnadach in this conversation, but if I'm trying to find their user page next month to follow up with them on something, it's going to take me a significant amount of scrolling through page histories to find them even if I can remember how to say their name out loud. signed, Rosguill talk 22:23, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Respectfully,
- Support. Non-Latin name users should not suffer discrimination (especially due to SUL) let alone being driven out of the project. ibicdlcod (talk) 11:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. Referal to Arbcom is not merited for this, very poor, interaction between and Admin. and a user. FWIW, I am opposed to non-Latin user names but the frustrated interaction here was out of order. There has been an puerile outburst of frustration and a largely defective apology. In the wider scheme of things, while sub-optimal, it is more of a strike along the lines of 3 strikes and you're out, rather than an gross violation requiring immediate action. On balance, warnings given, acknowledgement of the errors and assurances for the future seems an appropriate way forward. Leaky caldron (talk) 11:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- One doesn't need permission to send a request to ArbCom, because in the end, the ones granting permission will be the arbitrators and not the community. The Wikipediocracy comments disturb me, at any rate. I now no longer feel the apology has any standing. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:08, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support - I hold no trust or confidence in this admin and if what the IP is saying is true then his apologies really do mean nothing, Given he seemingly doesn't want to resign, this should then go to Arbcom. –Davey2010Talk 13:59, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Personally, I don't understand why we allow IPs to make proposals such as these. SN54129 15:25, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Why shouldn't we? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support. I am extremely disappointed to see Scottywong's xenophobic comments at ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ's talk page. Comments like those are unacceptable, and Scottywong has lost my trust as an admin. People are right about their reservations of the apology above. Repeated emphasis on his intention, and how he wasn't "trying to be racist or xenophobic" didn't help a bit in making him come across as being genuinely remorseful. That kind of logic is equivalent to saying "it was a joke guys" after making racist remarks. The issue is not on whether he meant it as insulting or not, it is about whether he had the slightest idea on how his comments are seen as such. The comments at WPO continue to show his inability to get the point. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 15:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Wikipedia administration is a privilege, not a right. Scottywong has demonstrated that he has never fully grasped Wikipedia's five pillars. — Freoh 15:36, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- You realize that this is not a way to send anything to ArbCom? The next person coming here to post a meaningless "Support" in boldface should instead file a case request. CandyScythe (talk) 16:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- There's nothing wrong with checking to see if there's a consensus first. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Consensus for what?—Alalch E. 17:31, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Consensus, or general agreement, that this needs to be taken to Arbcom - what else did you think I meant? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- There was nothing else, I just wanted to be sure as it didn't quite make sense. Basically, I disagree that there's nothing wrong. That decision is not subject to consensus under arbitration rules. Anyone can submit this request and a plurality of editors can't decide about that on another's behalf, so as to prevent or dictate that it be done. This discussion creates a distorted image of how the process operates. It could actually prevent someone from filing a report because they are waiting to see what the outcome could be and the outcome could be procedural. This should probably stop.—Alalch E. 19:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Further, this is basically a list of people who would like someone to submit a request but don't feel confident writing it themselves, so it evokes the question of why are they not confident. If so many people appear reluctant, it could influence someone who otherwise would have done it to also become reluctant.—Alalch E. 19:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Ah, got you, I understand what you mean now. I can see why someone might want to check if there's support first - but yes, anyone can just go ahead with it. (And I suspect there might be an element of "I hope someone else will do it to save me the effort" ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Consensus, or general agreement, that this needs to be taken to Arbcom - what else did you think I meant? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Consensus for what?—Alalch E. 17:31, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- There's nothing wrong with checking to see if there's a consensus first. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support: But I still think no one should oppose the IBAN because it "doesn't go far enough" — the arbs may reject this case, or they may choose to simply warn Scotty, but we can always have the IBAN as a safety net. Heavy Water (talk • contribs) 17:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support that it is the rough consensus of the community that ArbCom should consider whether Scottywong should be desysopped. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:54, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Weak support I think I generally agree with Leaky caldron's analysis here, but the continued whingeing at the other website (which I have not read myself) appears to be giving a lot of people pause. If editors genuinely feel that they have lost confidence in Scottywong's ability to use admin tools, an ArbCom request is the correct path forward. signed, Rosguill talk 22:19, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support ScottyWong has lost the confidence of the community in his admin abilities. They have bullied an editor off the project. Why should they still be an admin? JML1148 (talk | contribs) 23:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support and filed - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Scottywong ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 23:52, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you, GhostOfDanGurney, for doing this. This ANI thread has long outlived it usefulness especially since there's no provision for community desysopping. ArbCom's a more appropriate venue for deciding if that's called for. A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:36, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
A Policy Suggestion
It is pointed out that the community doesn't have the authority to send a case to ArbCom. The community only has the authority to state that it requests that ArbCom take up a case that the community is unable to resolve. There are at least two types of cases that the community is unable to resolve. The first is loss of confidence in an administrator. Although the administrator is an administrator because the community had confidence in them, the community does not have the power to withdraw that confidence. The second is editors whose conduct divides and polarizes the community. I suggest that the community, which elects the ArbCom, should have the authority to instruct the ArbCom to take up a case. I am mentioning this here, and am aware that
WP:ANI isn't the forum to act on this idea. Robert McClenon (talk
) 19:54, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- This seems similar to the recent RFC at WP:VPP, now at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 181#RfC on a procedural community desysop. It's not a complete match but seems somewhere between the second and third alternative proposals. The only proposal that passed was the first alternative, which doesn't seem to apply here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:15, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- There's no reason why it can't. ArbCom members needn't give any special weight to a 'community consensus' requesting a case be heard, aside from any normal weight they would give to statements made on the case request. The main benefit of this 'referral' is really that a neutral closer would be filing the case request, which immunises any single person from the difficult position of being the case filer. There's not really a policy issue with that. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:24, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Given that ArbCom members are all volunteers, I don't see any way to compel them to do anything. And I really don't see any need anyway. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- (edit conflict × 2) I'm not sure a policy change is needed. The community can propose and enact a motion to call for anything. We could have a community motion that dogs are better pets than cats, if we wanted. And if the enactment of a resolution would involve notifying some other body, that's something that can be done by the closer, with a link back to the discussion. "I am filing this arbitration request as closer of an AN/I discussion, which resolved that $issue merits ArbCom attention to look into <claims of admin misconduct|an intractable dispute>. Here is a basic summary of the facts..." The only issue would be if the receiving body sees a problem with that approach, but I don't think that's very likely in the case of ArbCom. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:29, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Scottywong. I recommend closing this thread now that this ArbCom request has been made. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:42, 4 June 2023 (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.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Khirurg
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I would like to introduce
User:Khirurg. I've added some historical context in the article of Albania. Namely, that Pyrrhus (who was of Greek origin) was raised in Illyria in the court of Glaucias of Taulantii [1]
which is located in nowadays' Albania).
However, the user does not seem to like this one (WP:IDL). He says that it is irrelevant to the article [2], thought the Taulantian kingdom exactly lies in the Albanian territory. He further explains that "there is a gap of some 23 centuries between the time of Pyrrhus and the creation of the Albanian state". Should every page about countries on Wikipedia remove content that "doesn't have to do anything" with their modern country? I do not think so. It's not only that, the user keeps reverting my edits and following me ([3] [4] [5] [6] (in less than 5 hours) without opening a discussion in most of the cases, except for Pyrrhus [7]. But that wasn't on the articles page either, it was on my talkpage. I responded with "Stop boming my talkpage and discuss on the talks of articles" he responded and accused me of "I'll stop when you stop the nationalistic POV-pushing across multiple articles.". It gets even worse, he's accused me of "crude nationalistic POV-pushing" [8]. Oh man. All of that in less than one day after he was inactive for a few days. This has been going on for a while. And yes, he has already been sanctioned [10] once.
The user is know for being "unwilling to reach a consensus" [9], as pointed out by RoyalHeritageAlb.
This report is about both reporting a user as well as a content dispute. -- AlexBachmann (talk) 21:48, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support procedural close Content disputes should go to WP:DRN.
- Support procedural close Content disputes should go to
- 81.214.107.198 (talk) 21:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- I've already explained that this report isn't only about a content dispute. "This noticeboard is for content disputes only" (WP:DRN). Similar issues have been processed here, there's no reason to close it.AlexBachmann (talk) 22:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- Your edits adding Khirurg (talk) 22:44, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- That's incorrect. The kingdom was located in Albania, why shouldn't it be mentioned? There is no nationalistic POV editing. You also said that I was "trying to influence the readers that he was Illyrian" which is false. This clearly rests on WP:IDL. I've contributed a lot on this project, I am (just as you) interessted in certain topics. If that's nationalistic POV, you would be doing the same. AlexBachmann (talk) 22:57, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- No, it is you who is incorrect, and I have explained this to you many times, including the article talkpage and your own userpage. Even a cursory glance at articles such Khirurg (talk) 23:21, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- When we're talking here, you say Ancient Epirus was almost entirely in Greece, which is false. The territory up to Dhermi and the Ceraunian Mountains was Epirote. Apart from that, we're talking about the Taulantian kingdom that was completely in Albania. And that was where Pyrrhus was raised. That's a fact. But let's let someone else decide whether it is relevant or not. AlexBachmann (talk) 01:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- What is definitely a fact is that you are misusing this board to re-hash the same factually incorrect points you made in your talkpage and the article talkpage (i.e. for the third time). Khirurg (talk) 02:42, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- Again, let's let some else decide. AlexBachmann (talk) 12:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- What is definitely a fact is that you are misusing this board to re-hash the same factually incorrect points you made in your talkpage and the article talkpage (i.e. for the third time).
- When we're talking here, you say Ancient Epirus was almost entirely in Greece, which is false. The territory up to Dhermi and the Ceraunian Mountains was Epirote. Apart from that, we're talking about the Taulantian kingdom that was completely in Albania. And that was where Pyrrhus was raised. That's a fact. But let's let someone else decide whether it is relevant or not. AlexBachmann (talk) 01:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- No, it is you who is incorrect, and I have explained this to you many times, including the article talkpage and your own userpage. Even a cursory glance at articles such
- That's incorrect. The kingdom was located in Albania, why shouldn't it be mentioned? There is no nationalistic POV editing. You also said that I was "trying to influence the readers that he was Illyrian" which is false. This clearly rests on WP:IDL. I've contributed a lot on this project, I am (just as you) interessted in certain topics. If that's nationalistic POV, you would be doing the same. AlexBachmann (talk) 22:57, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- Your edits adding
- I've already explained that this report isn't only about a content dispute. "This noticeboard is for content disputes only" (WP:DRN). Similar issues have been processed here, there's no reason to close it.AlexBachmann (talk) 22:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- Without regard to the question of whether this information is WP:DUE in the Albania article, all history of what is now Albania is relevant to include in sections about Albanian history, although the article could do a better job of citing sources that are explicitly about the history of Albania to ensure that all the content is relevant. I don't see evidence that OP is a "nationalistic POV-pusher", that type of accusation should only be made if there is abundant evidence to support it. (t · c) buidhe 08:01, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- The history section of country articles is meant to provide a brief overview per Khirurg (talk) 12:59, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Khirurg, I did not expect such weak examples. I provided sources to those claims and discussed in both cases; not to mention all the cases where you did not discuss but simply revert. Good idea to add Caesars arriving in Albania. Thanks for this one. I'll add the content as soon as this nonsense is over. AlexBachmann (talk) 13:19, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- It's also relevant to mention that you immediately reverted my edit on Albania without even finishing this discussion and ignoring the advice that was given to you above again. AlexBachmann (talk) 13:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Once again you show that you have no understanding about Wikipedia procedures and policies. This noticeboard is not for content disputes. You cannot just add whatever content you like without consensus. Khirurg (talk) 14:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Again, you are known for "unwilling to reach a consensus" It simply is impossible to add content that you don't like. That's why we're here as you've may noticed or not. Again, let's let someone else decide. And for the third time, this report isn't only about a content dispute. Similar cases have been processed here; that can't be used as an excuse to dismiss this report. AlexBachmann (talk) 14:46, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- "Unwilling to reach a consensus" according to whom? A user that has come within a hair of being blocked indefinitely for pushing nationalistic POV and socking? My contribs show perfectly well who is "willing to reach a consensus", as yours show who is the one pushing nationalistic POV. Khirurg (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Don't get into that consensus thing, I have provided evidence that you (in the most times) don't discuss at all. The fact that RoyalHeritageAlb has been sanctioned doesn't mean his statements are malicious. Personally, I wouldn't use that as an argument because you have already been blocked too. AlexBachmann (talk) 20:21, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- What? I "don't discuss at all"? Then what's all this [27]? Maybe you should be blocked for disrupting this noticeboard with blatantly false statements. Khirurg (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- At first, you can't ignore the evidence that I've provided. Secondly, I've said in the most times. We don't need to discuss about this more, let's let a admin take a look in our discussion and decide whether there's actual malice in our statements. AlexBachmann (talk) 22:03, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- You haven't provided any "evidence", in fact the only evidence there is that of quite a bit of nationalistic POV-pushing by you. You have made numerous baseless accusations and now blatantly false statements. Khirurg (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- We both know that we're not going to agree on anything. AlexBachmann (talk) 11:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- Okay, stop with accusations of nationalistic POV-pushing. Unless you have stronger evidence than presented above, this constitutes a personal attack. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite19:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- You haven't provided any "evidence", in fact the only evidence there is that of quite a bit of nationalistic POV-pushing by you. You have made numerous baseless accusations and now blatantly false statements.
- At first, you can't ignore the evidence that I've provided. Secondly, I've said in the most times. We don't need to discuss about this more, let's let a admin take a look in our discussion and decide whether there's actual malice in our statements. AlexBachmann (talk) 22:03, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- What? I "don't discuss at all"? Then what's all this [27]? Maybe you should be blocked for disrupting this noticeboard with blatantly false statements.
- Don't get into that consensus thing, I have provided evidence that you (in the most times) don't discuss at all. The fact that RoyalHeritageAlb has been sanctioned doesn't mean his statements are malicious. Personally, I wouldn't use that as an argument because you have already been blocked too. AlexBachmann (talk) 20:21, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- "Unwilling to reach a consensus" according to whom? A user that has come within a hair of being blocked indefinitely for pushing nationalistic POV and socking? My contribs show perfectly well who is "willing to reach a consensus", as yours show who is the one pushing nationalistic POV.
- Again, you are known for "unwilling to reach a consensus" It simply is impossible to add content that you don't like. That's why we're here as you've may noticed or not. Again, let's let someone else decide. And for the third time, this report isn't only about a content dispute. Similar cases have been processed here; that can't be used as an excuse to dismiss this report. AlexBachmann (talk) 14:46, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Once again you show that you have no understanding about Wikipedia procedures and policies. This noticeboard is not for content disputes. You cannot just add whatever content you like without consensus.
- It's also relevant to mention that you immediately reverted my edit on Albania without even finishing this discussion and ignoring the advice that was given to you above again. AlexBachmann (talk) 13:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Khirurg, I did not expect such weak examples. I provided sources to those claims and discussed in both cases; not to mention all the cases where you did not discuss but simply revert. Good idea to add Caesars arriving in Albania. Thanks for this one. I'll add the content as soon as this nonsense is over. AlexBachmann (talk) 13:19, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- The history section of country articles is meant to provide a brief overview per
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.
Boulton and Park
Does anyone know what this string of edits? is about? It seems there's a content dispute raging, and these edits archive lengthy discussions which have mostly happened in the last ten days - which I don't think is what archives are meant to be for. I would have reverted, but I wondered if this was an admin action for some reason so I brought it here. I'm not involved in the actual dispute and I don't have an opinion. But the dispute doesn't look so heated that it needs suppression. AndyJones (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- A content dispute perhaps, although it’s pretty trivial. An ANI issue, I doubt. KJP1 (talk) 21:10, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
WP:OUTING by 10bucchr
I believe this edit by
16:07, 7 June 2023 (UTC)- Why is it a legal threat, I made no threat at all?
- In what way is it an outing? The vandal (RabbitWolf) admitted to being Ian Erasmus - see his talk page: "I do have the official charge sheet in my possession. And I do know this case inside and out as I am the one who built this case." He has a major conflict of interest as he was fired by the company and has stated that is in legal proceedings with it.
- An administrator has already reviewed it and upheld my removal of the vandalism. 10bucchr (talk) 16:43, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not sure this amounts to outing, and "warning" is too vague to count as a legal threat. Your comment here, however, really clouds the issue and forces me to act. 10bucchr, this is not the internet: you can't just throw accusations around. I've already asked you to disclose any conflict of interest you might have, and you failed to do so, and you continued here to make accusations. I will leave it to another admin to decide if you should be sanctioned; for now I find it difficult to see how you are a net positive for Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- And if all this wasn't clear to you: do NOT name people. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- ( 16:59, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Apologies x2 to @Drmies and @WikiDan61, I didn't get to stating my conflict fast enough. I used to be employed by Sasol but no longer have any connection, but I guess it still counts as conflicting interest. I won't edit that page again.
- I again disagree with the legalistic complaint but do apologize about the naming - I realize not knowing the rules is no excuse. Although my initial (and only) interaction did not identify him - it only associated him? Is that still against the rules? 10bucchr (talk) 17:06, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- ) 14:07, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- ( 16:59, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Disruptive edit and removal of content in the name of edit warring by user Kautilya3
I was recently editing page on Greater Nepal for neutrality and adding reference that had long been tagged. Within few hours of the edit user:Kautilya3 came and reverted the edits giving blant explation as whitewashing. I really doubt the editor even read the added references or text. However, this is not only the incident. The same editor rapidely reverts any edits that seems are related to disputes between India and neighbouring nations, sometimes even when referenes are provided when such edit is not favouring the Indian side. Because the user is very familier with the wiki policies,he uses it harass new editors. I think no one can do anything at matters of black harassment, however, I suggest community work towards it. nirmal (talk) 00:22, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- @) 01:29, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Titus Gold - Civil POV Pushing and Disruptive Editing. Possible Sock Puppetry
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.
We need to talk about Titus Gold.
Yesterday he moved the page
WP:POINTy
and disruptive.
It is by no means the first disruptive page move, though. So far this year Titus Gold has moved 113 pages plus their associated talk pages, and this year is not unusual. Very many of these have been reverted, For instance, this one from earlier this month.[28]. Some of the page moves are uncontested, but even then, disruption arises, for instance, where a whole RM is required some time later to put back an unnoticed problematic move.[29].
The theme of contested moves (and many are contested) is usually separation of mention of England alongside Wales, as the editor has clear issues with
WP:NPOV
on this point.
NPOV behaviour is not limited to page moves, and Titus Gold has tested limits of editor patience, e.g. in this discussion:[30]. A very clear case of
Civil POV Pushing
.
There have been many informal attempts to address this behaviour. On WikiProject Wales, there is this thread which raised many serious issues, and in which Titus Gold appeared to be engaged: [31]
Yet problems persisted, and calls for a topic ban were reiterated: [32]
Indeed, a tour through the WikiProject Wales archives has a litany of threads dealing with issues arising from this editor.
He does not archive his talk page, but there have been many attempts to engage and assist on that page. This snapshot [33] is typical, and has three of the issues that keep arising, being:
- Undiscussed page moves (despite him saying he will take it into account, he continued to make such moves)
- Neutrality of articles (and his repeated acting without establishing consensus - in that case in removing a maintenance template)
- His attempts to remove any mention of “England & Wales” together on Wikipedia.
Another talk page snapshot [34] shows examples of other problems: recreating pages that were recently deleted at AfD, the fact that many of his creations have to be taken to AfD, creation of categories that also need addressing, etc. All of these issues arise from a transparent Welsh nationalist POV.
On Talk:Water supply and sanitation in England and Wales he attempts to relitigate the exact same proposal that was declined just 2 months ago, eliciting the same answers but consuming more editor time. On this occasion, though, he appears to be socking (see below).
He edits disruptively. Just one example: when he created a POVFORK of a page and it was taken to deletion, he attempted to move the page to draft, removing the deletion tag and placing it on another page. See that deletion discussion. [35] , and the other page he attempted to delete, by later replacing the moved template with a proper one: [36]. Socking
In an RFC which was clearly going against his preference, a new user suddenly arrived, ProfBlue12, to support Titus Gold.[37]. This was a brand new user whose first edit was to join WikiProject Wales [38], which Titus Gold has also joined. They then somehow found and !voted on this RfC. They then went away to do nothing until suddenly, yesterday, they returned to !vote on the relitigated split proposal mentioned above. [39]. I tagged the comment as an SPA, and only after I tagged it did ProfBlue finally make a (single) mainspace edit [40]. Those edits were at 19:29 and 19:51. Titus Gold had been active earlier (14:08) and returned to editting at 20:18[41].
After the !vote on the RFC, I opened a sockpuppet investigation.
Duck test
at that stage, was content to let it go, as hopefully a single abberation that would not change the outcome of the RfC. This second !vote, however, is clearly the duck quacking again.
I should say, however, that I am not looking for short bans for this editor based on socking, and if admins still feel the evidence is not conclusive of socking, that is not really my concern. I do not want Titus Gold banned from Wikipedia, but I do think that the protection of the encyclopaedia demands that we address the core issue: Titus Gold is a civil POV pusher with a non neutral point of view on all articles relating to Wales.
I therefore propose an indefinite community topic ban be imposed on Titus Gold from articles relating to Wales, broadly construed. Should the community agree, he would be in a position to appeal such a ban in 6 months, but would be required to address the problematic behaviour.
A second ban might also be considered from conducting undiscussed page moves. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- I was under the impression that bold moves are permitted by Wikipedia.
- The feathers are referred to as the "Three feathers" usually in Welsh media and recent research by myself have found reliable sources showing that the feathers are technically those of the heir apparent, not the Prince of Wales, although in my edits I recognise the association of course.
- The Water split proposal is not the same as the page move proposal previous to that. They are different proposals although albeit similar in some ways.
- I'm not sure why you're referring to another user. Are you suggesting this is another account made by myself? If so, I can assure you that is not the case although I don't know how I could prove that.
- With regards to claims of civil POV pushing or POV because I have made edits and contributions of differing viewpoints. It's unclear what is being suggested here. I do not at all dispute the fact that I have made a number of edits separating England and Wales. This is merely updating Wikipedia following the extensive change in the structure of the United Kingdom over the last 25 years with devolution in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Note that I have not at all changed pages such as e.g England and Wales, Green Party of England and Wales etc. because there is clear evidence to support these pages staying as they are. Justice is not devolved in Wales and the Green party remains an England and Wales party.
- I'm happy to learn or improve as an editor and acknowledge that I have made occasional mistakes. Titus Gold (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- I tried to add this, but editors had replied so, adding as a new comment: Titus Gold also edit wars continually for his POV, without waiting for any consensus. Just one example, these are all reverts to re-assert something he wants in the article: [42], [43], [44], [45].Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- You'd think someone with two blocks for edit warring on their account already would know about edit warring by now, seems like a WP:IDHT and the rules don't apply to me because I'm right attitude. Canterbury Tail talk14:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- You'd think someone with two blocks for edit warring on their account already would know about edit warring by now, seems like a
- I tried to add this, but editors had replied so, adding as a new comment: Titus Gold also edit wars continually for his POV, without waiting for any consensus. Just one example, these are all reverts to re-assert something he wants in the article: [42], [43], [44], [45].Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support a topic ban as per the nominators proposal. I come here very reluctantly because my strong preference is to welcome all sincerely felt views when appropriately supported by RS. In this case however, I have felt unable to continue contributing to many pages dealing with Wales or Welsh issues because of the persistent strong nationalistic editing by Titus Gold. Wales is my home and I am personally a strong supporter of matters Welsh, but I try my best to steer a POV free line in my editing. Many of the edits by this editor do poor service to the country and misrepresent the wide view. Whether this is intentional or unintentional I cannot guess, but the outcome is undoubtedly detrimental to Wikipedia. Velella Velella Talk 14:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support admin intervention. I too come here very reluctantly, as I am concerned about the non-neutral point of view of Titus Gold, and having to closely read all of their edits for PoV is in effect disruptive. I don't see that a ban is necessary, but some form of administrator intervention must be. Perhaps Titus Gold should take a voluntary break to consider whether they do have a nationalistic bias, and if so, what they should do about it in relation to editing on Wikipedia. Tony Holkham (Talk) 14:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support topic ban per proposer...Oh please yes. TG has wreaked havoc in Wales-related articles for over a year now. The proposer has outlined some issues. Moving articles and creating WP:BLUDGEON thrown in. It's just exhausting trying to keep up with his tricks. I was going to pull together some diffs, but I think I need a good night's sleep before attempting. DeCausa (talk) 16:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- Footnote: I'm wondering if theres some sort of CIR issue involved. A minute ago he's just made this edit which is smack in the middle of the issue that prompted the opening of this thread. ) 16:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- And he's also just gone 5RR so I've made a report to AN3 here. DeCausa (talk) 16:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support topic ban This is a quite clearcut WP:CFORK existing ones.To my memory I first encountered TitusGold at Talk:Wales/Archive 18#Recent edits in May 2022, which followed a slew of bold and in many cases quite blatantly POV edits (eg. removing main and see also links that mentioned the United Kingdom). This conversation stretched across multiple subsequent sections in that archive, and resulted in all their edits being rolled back. Despite this, they continued with the same sorts of edits, and even edit warred them in. It's hard to go diff by diff, but the edit history shows how overwhelming and relentless this was. In July 2022 I brought up some of the repeatedly edit warred parts on Talk:Wales/Archive_18#Recent insertions, which had not gained consensus in the previous discussion. In August 2022 TitusGold raised exactly the same things again in a new section Talk:Wales/Archive_18#Police and Military. Having not obtained consensus there, they raised in again in December 2022 at Talk:Wales/Archive 19#Armed forces and veterans in Wales: should be mentioned. The same things were then raised, again, in April 2023 at Talk:Wales#Potential to add some sections similar to Scotland. Each time it was raised at if it was a new issue.Another article I interacted with them on was International relations of Wales. This was created by them on 13 April. This was moved back to draft on 15 April, with many issues being pointed out at Talk:International relations of Wales. After a period of inactivity and the issues with the page not being fixed, TitusGold unilaterially moved it back into mainspace on 8 May. In both of these cases the clear pattern can be seen of pushing a POV, and then when there is pushback and it is clear there is no consensus, simply waiting and then trying again.Their statement in this report of "I was under the impression that bold moves are permitted by Wikipedia" is entirely disingenuous: they are perfectly aware their moves and edits are controversial. It is, as with the repeated Talk:Wales posts, a pattern being deliberately presented as discrete and unrelated acts. It is also concerning how these pushes are often hidden behind innocuous edit summaries. Take the most recent move, the Prince of Wales's feathers article Sirfurboy opened this discussion with. The change of that article name was slid into the Wales article with the edit summary "slight re-word to sentence".If it was just the POV that would be one thing, but the clear lack of care for community consensus or any sort of collaboration has made all these edits utterly disruptive. After responding to this AN/I report, TitusGold has gone straight back to editing the page the prompted the opening of this AN/I. Edit warring with multiple users, ten open talkpage sections, and an open AN/I report are all apparently not enough to bring about even a moment of pause. A topic ban is needed. CMD (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Support admin intervention, it was only a matter of time before this was raised at ANI. A very large amount of time has been spent by several editors, including me, unpicking and repairing (and sometimes deleting/redirecting) TG's edits. TG has largely been civil since I've come across them last year and promises to take advice on board, but the problematic behaviour usually continues i.e. constant moving and renaming of pages, often whilst they are under discussion, as well as creation of content forks, POV "Controversy about..." and "Campaign for... " articles and large scale duplication/copying of info across Wales topics. Depending on the outcome of the sockpuppetry allegations, maybe some sort of break from editing Wales topics would be beneficial for reflection. Sionk (talk) 16:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- Strongly Support topic ban, as per nominator. As a follower of Welsh-related pages, I have watched TG’s activities with some dismay for some time, and have previously called for some community sanction. They edit with a strong POV and are not interested in Neutrality. They are incapable of/unwilling to understand/take on board other views. They are incapable of collaborative editing, although they pay lip service to it. Sock puppetry would not surprise me at all. In short, their passion to promote a Welsh nationalist POV far, far outweighs their wish to build a neutral encyclopaedia. KJP1 (talk) 17:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Note I've just blocked Titus Gold for one week purely for the current active edit warring they're performing on the Prince of Wales article. This is purely for that specific edit warring, and does not prevent further sanctions from the outcome of this thread, though they will be no longer able to participate in it directly (not that they were showing any inclination to do so really anyway.) Canterbury Tail talk 17:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support topic ban and suggest that it be extended to cover pages broadly related to devolution and nationalist movements in other UK nations as well as Wales. I've observed similar civil POV pushing behaviour on pages such as Potential breakup of the United Kingdom, Proposed second Scottish independence referendum, United Ireland to mention but a few. Rosbif73 (talk) 20:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support topic ban on Wales broadly construed. Unlike many of the editors commenting above, I have no special knowledge or interest in the Wales topic area, but the ongoing disruption must stop. Titus Gold should be warned that any tendentious editing related to Scotland or Ireland will lead quite quickly to additional sanctions. Cullen328 (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- I don't have an opinion on whether a topic ban is justified, but I wasn't impressed with their editing in Welsh fiscal balance. I do get the feeling that this editor has a pro-Wales POV and sometimes it interferes with editing according to policies and guidelines. (t · c) buidhe 23:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- Reluctant Support topic ban on Wales broadly construed, per KJP1 and others - which is a pity as I think this is the only area he is interested in editing. He seems to be getting worse too. Johnbod (talk) 01:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support topic ban extended to cover pages broadly related to devolution and nationalist movements in other UK nations as well as Wales as suggested by Rosbif73.SovalValtos (talk) 07:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Comment - Someone has today left some rather nasty porn on my Wikidata talk page. The user, created today, is [46]. I have reported on the admin noticeboard there. However, this has never happened before, and the user's only edit is on my page. I rarely upload there, so I doubt this is random. The timing is such that I would like to know whether a sock puppet investigation is possible across Wikis. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Sirfurboy - Sorry about that and hope it wasn’t too unpleasant. The timing makes it unlikely to be coincidental and with luck some cross-Wiki investigation will be possible. KJP1 (talk) 17:41, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Sirfurboy: I wouldn't jump to conclusions. If there is a connection with this thread (and there may not be a connection) I know from previous experience that LTAs target participants here for reasons best known to themselves. DeCausa (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Ah, yes.. True. OK so probably no need for an investigation. Sorry. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Sirfurboy: I wouldn't jump to conclusions. If there is a connection with this thread (and there may not be a connection) I know from previous experience that LTAs target participants here for reasons best known to themselves. DeCausa (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Sirfurboy: Funnily enough - I had the exact same thing with a brand new user on my Wikinews talk page a couple weeks ago despite not editing there for months. I also haven't been involved in this discussion, so I don't think it's about this. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 04:15, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- Admins at wikidata also suggested it happened before too. Odd timing, but happy to accept there is no connection with this case. No need to investigate that further nor take it into account. This case stands on its own. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:21, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- Sirfurboy - Sorry about that and hope it wasn’t too unpleasant. The timing makes it unlikely to be coincidental and with luck some cross-Wiki investigation will be possible. KJP1 (talk) 17:41, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Request for Uninvolved Admin I don't want this to get archived off and forgotten about. Do any uninvolved admins want to take a look at this and see about actioning if needed and closing this? I think it's had time enough and Titus Gold had plenty of opportunity to respond prior to their continuing editing warring and temp block. They were also given the opportunity to respond on their talk page, but instead blanked everything so clearly have no intention or interest in doing so. Canterbury Tail talk 13:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Comment from Titus Gold's Talkpage - Since they are unable to participate directly, they made a post to their talkpage that I'm copying (with their permission and request) directly below.
- @Canterbury Tail I don't think this ANI has properly considered the evidence at all. I haven't had enough of an opportunity to respond and in the meantime other editors have responded without me being given a chance to answer any concerns. I think the ANI should be re-started with me being able to respond.
- In hindsight I can see that I may have drifted into edit warring on the Prince of Wales article. Edits I made were generally different and cited in an attempt to meet the comments/suggestions made by the reverting user. I would point to a paragraph I wrote about Owain Gwynedd which was removed without the source having even been read. At the time, it seemed as though some editors were pushing a POV and and reverting my edits without explanation. In hindsight, I could have gone about this in a better and more patient manner and so I apologise for that.
- With regards to Sirfurboy's incident, I can assure you that was nothing to do with me.
- Generally, some of the accusations of civil pov pushing are unfair and lack clear and definitive evidence. I have fully acknowledged that I have made some attempts to separate England and Wales joined pages because they were out of date and had not caught up with 2023 levels of devolution etc. but have left other pages as they are e.g England and Wales, because justice is not devolved. By now, virtually all the major updates that were needed on Wales related articles have been done. (The final split proposal being the England & Wales water related articles. I will of course respect the outcome of the split proposal.)
- I would urge editors to reconsider a topic ban as that would be massively disproportional. I'm happy to make further changes to my editing style and look forward to working with other users in future.
- Thanks for your time Titus Gold (talk) 15:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- I would like to add that I've also created many good quality articles and made significant high quality additions to articles and I think that this should be taken into consideration as well. Thank you @Canterbury Tail Titus Gold (talk) 15:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think this begins to deal with all the issues raised here. I do accept that you had nothing to do with the wikidata talk page incident I mentioned above. I had not considered that trolls were probably watching this page and that is why they would have targetted me, so again, happy for that incident to be completely ignored and forgotten. The civil POV pushing concerns have not come from nowhere. These have been expressed by many editors in many contexts over a very long period. Is a topic ban disproportionate? It has been mooted before (in the evidence above and no doubt elsewhere) and any kind of ban is there for the protection of the encyclopaedia, and is not punitive. You edit pages in a rush and move on, leaving editors in your wake to clean up. As I said in my first post, an indefinite topic ban need not be forever. It can be appealed in 6 months, but the appeal will require you, the editor, to address the reasons for it. If you were to edit in other areas of the encyclopaedia and demonstrate you can do so in a collegial manner and with a neutral point of view, and can see why the torrent of bold page moves, the copy and pasting of content from page to page, the continual re-assertion of challenged content etc., have caused these issues, and that you have changed as a result, then I will be among the first to support lifting of the topic ban at that point. I promise you that much. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- I would like to add that I've also created many good quality articles and made significant high quality additions to articles and I think that this should be taken into consideration as well. Thank you @Canterbury Tail Titus Gold (talk) 15:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- "I have fully acknowledged that I have made some attempts to separate England and Wales joined pages because they were out of date and had not caught up with 2023 levels of devolution etc" is breathtakingly specious. It's so obviously wrong from at a slight glance at the article creation list that it's hard not to see it as deliberate dishonesty. List of Nuttall mountains in Wales represents the devolution needs of large mountains, and the Flora of Wales were glad to have received political autonomy from other flora. There's a series of Wales-related nobility articles I can't look at as they're deleted, but presumably they refer to nobility established by the Government of Wales Act? The list goes on. "In hindsight I can see that I may have drifted into edit warring" is similarly remarkable given the history, and a prime example of how patterns are excused as discrete and unrelated acts.In fact, this is so non-discrete that this whole message is has been seen before. See here in July 2022. Compare then, "I don't fancy an unnecessary "ban" and I'm here to co-operate and listen if you want to make any suggestions. I don't think there are any more pages that need creating anyway and my "customary energy" has been used up!", and now "By now, virtually all the major updates that were needed on Wales related articles have been done...I would urge editors to reconsider a topic ban as that would be massively disproportional. I'm happy to make further changes to my editing style and look forward to working with other users in future.". This is a long-term and highly repetitive pattern that many many previous discussions have not changed, and that is why a preventative topic-ban is needed. CMD (talk) 02:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I think Sirfurboy has given an entirely reasonable response to Titus Gold's rather vague reaction to the serious criticisms about their editing. I would like to know what Titus Gold means by "happy to make further changes to my editing style'. Right now, having them blocked from editing has come as a huge if temporary relief from their edits which is in itself significant. I'm keeping a watching brief on this, but am not optimistic of any change. Tony Holkham (Talk) 10:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- I'm with Sirfurboy and CMD on this. And I entirely understand Tony Holkham's expression of "huge if temporary relief from their edits". It does rather feel that the year-long POV-tornado has just passed through ... at the moment anyway. Hopefully, the unanimity of editors' view of TG will result in some speedy admin action to conclude this, as requested by Canterbury Tail above. DeCausa (talk) 11:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I think Sirfurboy has given an entirely reasonable response to Titus Gold's rather vague reaction to the serious criticisms about their editing. I would like to know what Titus Gold means by "happy to make further changes to my editing style'. Right now, having them blocked from editing has come as a huge if temporary relief from their edits which is in itself significant. I'm keeping a watching brief on this, but am not optimistic of any change. Tony Holkham (Talk) 10:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Another response from Titus Gold. Reposted from their talk page.
- Thanks. Here is a response to later comments;
- With regards to the quote, some of the responses at the time seemed to be about me making more radical changes to the Wales article and my own inadequacies in following processes which were unfamiliar to me at the time. Since then I did come across more articles that needed an update. By now, I'm quite confident that the major changes that were required have been done. I'm not aware of any major further changes needed.
- I know I have previously said this but I think I should be clear that yes I have made an attempt to separate England and Wales as this is an out of date grouping under most circumstances based on the Laws in Wales Act 1536. However, when there is reasonable justification for this grouping e.g in justice, I have not altered e.g England and Wales and in others like Green Party of England and Wales, they have been appropriately left as they are. I have also made contrasting improvements to contrasting articles, e.g both Unionism in Wales and also added arguments against and for e.g Welsh independence.
- Of course I agree that I am focused on Wales related articles, and there is nothing wrong with that and some of the evidence presented about a POV is a little unfair. In hindsight I agree that I have been impatient more than anything else and made bold moves without waiting for response. I have recently began using the RM which I was previously unaware of. When it comes to RMs I have accepted the outcome when a clear consensus is made. In fact I am often proactive in making the change against my own preference. I have also attempted to address templates and points of improvements brought about by other users.
- My proposals for self-improvement
- With reflection, I need to be much more patient and make use of discussion processes more.
- I have only more recently become aware of Requested Moves. I'm prepared to use this more frequently and avoid bold moves if there is an indication of controversy. I accept that some previous bold moves could have used the RM process and I have previously been impatient.
- I'll avoid edit warring by being more patient with reverts to my edits. I'll properly review the reverts and go to comment section as I maybe rushed past these a little recently (which I have apologised for). I apologise for my frustrations at what seemed like unexplained removals recently.
- The Water in Wales and England is genuinely the last major split that I wanted to propose, after trawling through many Wales related articles. I will of course accept the result of the discussion either way.
- May I suggest a fairer discipline measure such as extending the general block to two weeks, rather than a 6 month topic ban which seems disproportionate. I will consider a refreshed approach to my editing following such a period.
- Generally speaking, my plans were on improvement to Welsh TV and cinema and addressing any article requests on WikiProject Wales but became sidetracked by a merging of an article I had created.
- Thanks for your patience
- @Sirfurboy @Canterbury Tail Titus Gold (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- So TG says "I have only more recently become aware of Requested Moves". Yet he's participated in requested moves before now - see this in 2020 (when his account was called TG11TG15). What's interesting about his participation in that RM was that there was the very characteristic TG manoeuvre of moving the article while the Requested Move was ongoing and when challenged that that to do so was a breach of the RM process innocently explains it away with
Yes I know. This is merely a temporary change. As it stands, it seems the title "Senedd" is the most strongly supported
. DeCausa (talk) 21:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC)- (Additional comment crossposted) Canterbury Tail talk 12:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Canterbury Tail @DeCausa Additional comment.
- I didn't recall that comment on an RM three years ago (I didn't actually start any RMs at that time) and must've been inexperienced with the rules. I wasn't using Wikipedia much at all back then and didn't really start as a regular user until early 2022 I think. I only realised they were an option when Sirfurboy (I think) mentioned them recently.
- I've only recently began using the RM system but I will commit to using them more, particularly in potentially controversial moves. Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 23:36, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- You may not have recalled that RM you were involved in in 2020, but what about the one you started in November 2022 regarding renaming the Snowdon article?[47]. Surely you remember that, yet that was before my comment to you in March about using RMs. In any case you continued to make bold page moves after that comment on your talk page, and by my count, 10 of your bold page moves were reverted from late March until the one that kicked off this thread. And to be clear, bold page moves are just one of the many issues, which come down to an issue with a lack of neutral point of view. Another example (of so many) is Welsh crown jewels, which is itself a POVfork, you began with the less than neutral
The Welsh crown jewels refer to the royal relics of the Kingdom of Gwynedd that were stolen by King Edward I of England following the murder of Llywelyn ap Gruffydd
[48]. Ghmyrtle twice attempted to make the language more neutral in that article, [49] and [50], but some of it still found its way back in there. POV is the issue. The RM issue is a symptom. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- You may not have recalled that RM you were involved in in 2020, but what about the one you started in November 2022 regarding renaming the Snowdon article?[47]. Surely you remember that, yet that was before my comment to you in March about using RMs. In any case you continued to make bold page moves after that comment on your talk page, and by my count, 10 of your bold page moves were reverted from late March until the one that kicked off this thread. And to be clear, bold page moves are just one of the many issues, which come down to an issue with a lack of neutral point of view. Another example (of so many) is Welsh crown jewels, which is itself a POVfork, you began with the less than neutral
- (Additional comment crossposted) Canterbury Tail talk 12:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- So TG says "I have only more recently become aware of Requested Moves". Yet he's participated in requested moves before now - see this in 2020 (when his account was called TG11TG15). What's interesting about his participation in that RM was that there was the very characteristic TG manoeuvre of moving the article while the Requested Move was ongoing and when challenged that that to do so was a breach of the RM process innocently explains it away with
Support topic ban This discussion already resembles the fog that I have come to associate with Titus Gold’s editing, so I hope an admin will do something about this ANI soon. Titus Gold's latest responses, as previous ones, are entirely consistent with their wordy and adversarial editing style we see on articles and talk pages (Prince of Wales being a prime recent example). This style of editing, with its often lack of nPoV, is in my view disruptive, so I am coming off the fence and advocating a full topic ban of all Wales-related articles. Their "proposals for self-improvement" are anything but, and even include an attempt to negotiate the length of the block. Tony Holkham (Talk) 13:25, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- (Additional comment crossposted from Talk:Titus Gold)
- @Canterbury Tail @Tony Holkham
- I am willing to change my approach and use RMs and discussions more. I don't know what else I can say to show this.
- What would you like me to do?
- Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 14:59, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- (response from Tony Holkham)
- I'm afraid it's not up to me, as I didn't open the ANI, which has to be dealt with by an admin. All I can say for now is that I'm pleased you are aware of the difficulties other editors perceive they are having with you. I hope they can be resolved to allow you to continue to contribute.
- Tony Holkham (Talk) 15:28, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
WP:FRINGE works by 'Morien' Morgan. Titus Gold cited modern scholar Marta Vandrei as supporting this theory, but her Queen Boudica and Historical Culture in Britain not only doesn't support Morien's theory and isn't even about whether the representations she studies are true, but also describes Morien's work at length and with some amusement as a "sensationalist view of Welsh history", "picturesque" and "conjecture", and discusses how "Boudica was a singularly useful figure for Morien".It takes time to unpick such edits and makes me fearful about whatever other articles they've edited. NebY (talk
) 17:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
I’ll be blunt. This is more TG bollocks. Walls of text / promises to change their approach / assurances of collaborative editing in future / claims that all the work they wanted to do has now been done. Those of us who follow the relevant Welsh pages have read every word of this before… and it was as untruthful and dishonest then as it is now. I really hope that this can be promptly resolved by an uninvolved admin. If it can’t, we have a bigger problem than TG. KJP1 (talk) 20:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- I count 13 editors (could be off by one) making well-argued cases for editing restrictions. With one, TG themself, arguing against. Could the community consensus be any clearer? KJP1 (talk) 21:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Support topic ban for Wales topics, preferably expanded to UK topics. While I admire TG's passion, TG has repeatedly failed to edit collaboratively, and, whether intentionally or not, often edited with an apparent Welsh nationalist (or anti-English/British) POV. Llwyld (talk) 22:49, 7 June 2023 (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.
Roxy the dog
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- The result is: WP:NOTAVOTE). As also mentioned, there is roughly two proposals: CBAN, and less severely, GENSEX TBAN. However, I found that many in the latter camp had failed to meaningfully address their opponents' arguments. To recall, there were two principal problems highlighted: a longstanding pattern of personal attacks and incivility, generally, and bigotry (adjacent and outright), specifically.
- The result is:
- On the general, take for example a user who stated
Support temp block for personal attacks, which should be made indef if they continue after unblock
(emphasis added), and then contrast it with Canterbury Tail's pointthat this is a continuation of a very very long period of incivility, insults, belittling and personal attacking of other editors
(emphasis added). So the strength and quality of these two opposing arguments are obviously not the same.
- On the general, take for example a user who stated
- As for the specific (bigotry both adjacent and outright), I made it clear in the brief consultation phase that I am "highly sympathetic" with trans and non-binary editors who do not wish to share the editing ecosystem with, as SamX had put it,
people who invalidate [their] very existence
. Another important argument distinguishedWP:GENSEX as a topic area from transphobia, overall. This was most succinctly expressed by the OP herself (on her talk page), when she pointed out the folly in). Either way, I found there was general agreement that a clear and unambiguous commitment to improve, in both aspects, was lacking.taking transphobia to be a topic area problem rather than bigotry unacceptable everywhere
(diff
- As for the specific (bigotry both adjacent and outright), I made it clear in the brief consultation phase that I am "highly sympathetic" with trans and non-binary editors who do not wish to share the editing ecosystem with, as SamX had put it,
- When I cited the excerpt by RtD
admitting [his] failings
, I wanted to gauge the views of trans and non-binary editors especially, as to whether that comment, at least to start with, was enough for them to reconsider the CBAN. It's obvious, however, that their response to this was a resounding no. Probably the most charitable view was that by Sideswipe9th, who called itthe beginning of an apology
, but also commendably left thedoor open to [RtD] should he desire it
to engage the matter further. An opportunity which I highly encourage RtD to take her up on, not least as I'd wager it is likely the only way a future appeal might succeed (I'd recommend waiting a minimum of 6 months before filing one, in any case).
- When I cited the excerpt by RtD
- I realize it might be seen as controversial to close this complaint as rapidly as the WP:IBAN, etc., I think that ship has sailed for now, and that if applicable, these should be proposed in the framework of an appeal (conditional to it and so on).
- I realize it might be seen as controversial to close this complaint as rapidly as the
- At a time when trans rights are under unrelenting widespread attack, especially in the American political landscape, I personally believe that decisive action is needed to combat that bigotry. To try to diminish transphobic bigotry from other forms, like racism or misogyny or ethnocentrism and so on — I found there's general agreement (though I wish it were more universal) against this. Combatting bigotry has always been a major challenge on the project. As an admin approaching 10K blocks, it has been my number one autofill block summary for many years (screenshot). When its source, however, is a veteran editor, it's crucial that it be nipped in the bud, which is my read of the prevailing consensus here. Thank you all. El_C 10:05, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Hardly deadnaming, Manning was very well known, and still is, by both his pretransition and her posttransition names. A bit of an over reaction Maddy. [emphasis added]
This comment may seem relatively innocuous to the unfamiliar, but it is a part of Roxy the dog's long history of transphobic editing. See in particular this arbitration enforcement thread and this topic ban and the connected history on Lia Thomas and Roxy the dog's user talk page.
This issue falls under
WP:GENSEX, but I am filing here because another topic ban is not the right remedy here. Transphobia must not be tolerated, whether the topic is transgender athletes or Siamese hairless cats. Roxy has been given so many chances to improve both in this area and others. It's time to say enough is enough. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH
) 10:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Well, not the right time to say enough is enough, eh. Roxy is just presenting why SilkTork may have made a mistake. Roxy isn't claiming that people who change their names should be forcefully referred to with their past names. Don't get me wrong. I have no love lost for Roxy. But this is not his to take the blame. Lourdes 10:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Addendum - Roxy's absolutely misplaced 'transexual hounding' comments nukes this whole theme I was peddling. I will support an indefinite exit from Wikipedia for this individual in any manner whatsoever. A topic ban will not be enough as the person will end up spewing such vitriol in other topic areas and we will be back to where we are. Lourdes 04:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- I had just mentioned this, though Shibbolethink walked through it a bit just below. I think we do need to be really careful about misrepresenting RtD on that quote, especially in terms of WP:NPA. It does appear the claim by RtD that Maddy from Celeste was hounding them related to trans topics with this ANI had some merit based on discussion below, but instead it has been spun into claiming RtD thinks all trans people are hounders.
- Now would be the time to get clarification from the person who said it with a pitchfork handy rather than throw it first and ask questions later. I still think RtD absolutely needs to be out of this topic one way or another, but that quote really needs to be addressed so we can be sure we aren't casting aspersions or violating ) 05:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- I think that's a very, very generous interpretation of the comment, KoA. First, it requires us to assume the "standard" refers to, what, such hounding being standard for the topic area? Since, if RtD's (unsubstantiated) allegation was that hounding is standard for Maddy, RtD would presumably have said "standard Maddy hounding". But if what is meant is that it's standard for the topic area, I mean, who phrases that that way? The logical thing would be to say "standard GENSEX hounding", "standard trans-issues hounding", something like that; "transexual" isn't a topic area. If I felt hounded on a UK article, and felt such hounding to be systematic, I wouldn't call that "standard British hounding"; setting aside offensiveness it's just a phrasing that makes no sense. For someone with no history of offensive comments in the GENSEX area, maybe there's be room to assume they just picked a very strange phrasing, but at a certain point we can only assume so much good faith. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 05:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not the only one who's noticed it, but I'm pretty big on making sure we aren't blatantly misrepresenting someone in a large degree when it seems a fair chance of it happening. That's especially since people have been "confused" by RtD's shorthand language for mundane things in the past like X750's comment below. Still really sloppy on RtD's part (that's being generous) if I'm right and not something the topic area needs to be working with, but I am really cautious of putting words in their mouth, especially ones that would fall into major NPA territory on our part. If it were obvious it was in the other direction and the context didn't match how it currently does, then I'd also be saying more than a topic ban was needed. KoA (talk) 06:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Roxy has made eight comments since being blocked, including in direct resonse to requests to clarify what "standard transexual hounding" means, and has so far declined to do so. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 07:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not the only one who's noticed it, but I'm pretty big on making sure we aren't blatantly misrepresenting someone in a large degree when it seems a fair chance of it happening. That's especially since people have been "confused" by RtD's shorthand language for mundane things in the past like X750's comment below. Still really sloppy on RtD's part (that's being generous) if I'm right and not something the topic area needs to be working with, but I am really cautious of putting words in their mouth, especially ones that would fall into major NPA territory on our part. If it were obvious it was in the other direction and the context didn't match how it currently does, then I'd also be saying more than a topic ban was needed. KoA (talk) 06:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- I think that's a very, very generous interpretation of the comment, KoA. First, it requires us to assume the "standard" refers to, what, such hounding being standard for the topic area? Since, if RtD's (unsubstantiated) allegation was that hounding is standard for Maddy, RtD would presumably have said "standard Maddy hounding". But if what is meant is that it's standard for the topic area, I mean, who phrases that that way? The logical thing would be to say "standard GENSEX hounding", "standard trans-issues hounding", something like that; "transexual" isn't a topic area. If I felt hounded on a UK article, and felt such hounding to be systematic, I wouldn't call that "standard British hounding"; setting aside offensiveness it's just a phrasing that makes no sense. For someone with no history of offensive comments in the GENSEX area, maybe there's be room to assume they just picked a very strange phrasing, but at a certain point
- I had just mentioned this, though Shibbolethink walked through it a bit just below. I think we do need to be really careful about misrepresenting RtD on that quote, especially in terms of
- Addendum - Roxy's absolutely misplaced 'transexual hounding' comments nukes this whole theme I was peddling. I will support an indefinite exit from Wikipedia for this individual in any manner whatsoever. A topic ban will not be enough as the person will end up spewing such vitriol in other topic areas and we will be back to where we are. Lourdes 04:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't think this is particularly egregious, despite past reports about the user. The initial link in question was talking about the discussion around Chelsea Manning when she was still known by her deadname, which the article was named at the time, and something we even include in her article to this day. Indeed, Roxy used "he" to indicate pre-transition but "her" to indicate post-transition. That distinction might be clumsiness on Roxy's part, but I don't think it's malicious. If Roxy had continued to refer to post-transition Manning by "he" then I'd agree it's an issue. — Czello (music) 10:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)- Addendum I retract this in light of Roxy's later comments. — Czello (music) 21:09, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- To accuse me of transphobia really is a most unsavoury personal attack that should not be tolerated. - Roxy the dog 10:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- To me this doesn't looks like "clumsiness", but like an anti-trans editor taking any chance to sneak in transphobic comments. AGF is not a suicide pact, and I refuse to believe Roxy the dog is acting in good faith after:
- Special:Diff/1090072324 – making a grossly transphobic comment (Roxy later "apologized for any offense taken" while insisting it was an "innocent remark" at AE: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive305#Roxy the dog)
- User talk:Roxy the dog/Archive 12#February 2023 – edit-warring BLP violations into an article about a transgender person not once...
- User talk:Roxy the dog/Archive 12#Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction – ...but twice. Note also the grossly incivil behaviour here and in edit summaries on Lia Thomas, and the general agreement that Roxy should have been indeffed already then.
- The only sincerity I see here is Roxy the dog's sincere commitment to attacking trans people.Regardless of what you may believe about their motivations, it doesn't actually matter that much. If Roxy the dog is unable to edit without unintentionally attacking trans people, that is no better than doing so intentionally. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 14:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
No action needed per Czello.starship.paint (exalt) 14:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)- This should have been handled via a talk page discussion, not here. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:11D2:27F5:DBAB:DA77 (talk) 14:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think this is enough for a community site ban, but I'm surprised that an editor with as much experience in this area as Roxy doesn't yet know that they should not be using 'he' to refer to Manning unless she has indicated she prefers it which AFAIK she has not. Nil Einne (talk) 14:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- (EC) In fact, from Roxy's posts, it's not even clear to me that Roxy understands that it's not acceptable to refer to Chelsea Manning by her deadname on Wikipedia unless she has indicated it's fine (which again AFAIK she has not), no matter how common it is, with the exception of where it's needed for discussion or in articles in accordance with MOS:GENDERID. (Which is very very rare for any editor comments.) Again maybe not enough for a community site ban but I can understand why Maddy is so concerned when an editor with as much experience in this area as Roxy still does not understand that. Nil Einne (talk) 14:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Take it to WP:ROPE. EvergreenFir (talk)14:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- EvergreenFir makes good point but ) 15:11, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- I totally agree, but Special:Diff/1090072324 was from a year ago. I assume that's already been handled? EvergreenFir (talk) 15:13, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Update: I thank Roxy the dog for dispelling any further doubt over whether they should edit Wikipedia: Special:Diff/1158676382. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 15:15, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
No action needed.Some editors above appear to be digging up years ago comments that were already discussed in detail at the time, and have very little bearing here. At issue is whether or not these most recent comments are problematic, and I do not find them to be. It appears like a good faith effort from an editor to discuss the thorny issues of pronouns pre and post transition with attention paid to the sources.I see no violations of policy in these most recent comments. At most, I would support a two way IBAN for these editors (maddy and Roxy)Edit (18:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)): I have been persuaded by many of the comments elsewhere in this thread re: our differential treatment of gensex and race/ethnicity/religion issues. I would support a broad gensex TBAN but I don't think this issue rises to the level of an indef site block, not yet anyway. Blocks are meant to be preventative and should be tailored to the area of disruption. As far as i can tell, this behavior doesn't extend outside of this topic space, so a TBAN is the most appropriate sanction here imo. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)- What part of this does not violate policy? -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 15:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- It appears to be a critique of your behavior, alleging that you are hounding Roxy by bringing up minor infractions at ANI. Which is allowed (and indeed encouraged) on user talk, if the allegation has, at minimum, potential merit. (per ASPERSIONS). I'll grant you that it does paint all transgender users with a single broad brush, which is wrong. And probably merits a warning for that. But it doesn't rise to the level of sanctions imo. I would tell you to be careful not to BLUDGEON this discussion by responding to every comment and argument. If your arguments have merit (which they do, they at least deserve discussion and consideration imo) then others will take up that banner and argue along those lines without you personally having to do it. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- You think it's okay to say I'm doing "standard transexual hounding of people they dont like"? -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 15:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
I'll grant you that it does paint all transgender users with a single broad brush, which is wrong. And probably merits a warning for that.
— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:24, 5 June 2023 (UTC)- No it merits a site ban. It's one thing to criticise an individual. It's completely another to blame that individual's actions on some aspects of their identity or to suggest that it's someone all such members with that identity do. Nil Einne (talk) 15:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- I would add that it's also a particularly dumb comment as such comments normally are. I am one of the ones who called Roxy out on the issue. Yes only after it came here but they were responding at least in part to me. While IDGAF if people think I am, the simple reality is I am not transgender or trans-sexual. I'm sure there are a number of editors who are transgender who do not feel the same as me. (Not an editor, but a well known personality comes to mind.) So blaming my calling them out on my trans-sexuality is just dumb. Nil Einne (talk) 16:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oh I read the comment as actually referring to Maddy and not you, Nil Einne. But I think on further review, as I say above, that it is egregious enough in the context of all the rest of this that RTD should probably be GENSEX TBAN'd. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:00, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- I would add that it's also a particularly dumb comment as such comments normally are. I am one of the ones who called Roxy out on the issue. Yes only after it came here but they were responding at least in part to me. While IDGAF if people think I am, the simple reality is I am not transgender or trans-sexual. I'm sure there are a number of editors who are transgender who do not feel the same as me. (Not an editor, but a well known personality comes to mind.) So blaming my calling them out on my trans-sexuality is just dumb. Nil Einne (talk) 16:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- The definition of transphobia. Isabelle Belato 🏴☠️ 17:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- No it merits a site ban. It's one thing to criticise an individual. It's completely another to blame that individual's actions on some aspects of their identity or to suggest that it's someone all such members with that identity do. Nil Einne (talk) 15:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- You think it's okay to say I'm doing "standard transexual hounding of people they dont like"? -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 15:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- It appears to be a critique of your behavior, alleging that you are hounding Roxy by bringing up minor infractions at ANI. Which is allowed (and indeed encouraged) on user talk, if the allegation has, at minimum, potential merit. (per ASPERSIONS). I'll grant you that it does paint all transgender users with a single broad brush, which is wrong. And probably merits a warning for that. But it doesn't rise to the level of sanctions imo. I would tell you to be careful not to BLUDGEON this discussion by responding to every comment and argument. If your arguments have merit (which they do, they at least deserve discussion and consideration imo) then others will take up that banner and argue along those lines without you personally having to do it. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- The anti-trans stuff doesn't extend outside the area of trans people? That makes sense, yes. The general incivility that they've been warned for by arbcom wasn't related to trans people, though. I'm not sure what
this behavior
you mean exactly. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- What part of this does not violate policy? -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 15:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- While I agree with EvergreenFir that this is better handled at AE, I'm not sure I agree that this is not actionable. Roxy is already subject to a partial GENSEX TBAN for similar issues on the Lia Thomas article and associated talk page. They should know that this type of contribution has gotten them into trouble just three months ago, and that any further examples of it are likely to be seen in a massively unfavourable light. With regards to sanctions, at minimum I think we need to broaden the existing topic ban to encompass all GENSEX content. It's pretty clear that Roxy is not able to set aside their prejudices against trans people, including making further deliberately provocative comments (ie
standard transexual hounding of people
) shortly after this discussion had opened. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2023 (UTC)- I think Tamzin has also made a good point here. Hate is disruptive, and the "hounding" statement by Roxy is pretty clearly in that territory. As a comment it was directed both at an individual editor (Maddy), and the broader group of trans and non-binary editors, disparaging both for who they are. We shouldn't allow that anywhere, either on-wiki or off. So I agree with Tamzin and Nil Einne that we should indef siteblock, in addition to a broader topic ban. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- I think Tamzin has also made a good point here.
- Support site ban with a minimum of 2 years before any appeal. Referring to something as "transexual hounding" is no more acceptable than referring to something as feminist hounding. Roxy the dog can (Personal attack removed), preferably for the rest of their life, but at least for 2 years. Nil Einne (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Why two years? Why no appeals? I'm curious to the reasoning here because I don't see a lot of calls for bans/blocks with an altered period before appeals. GabberFlasted (talk) 15:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Because such an utterly disgusting comment deserves it. I'd say the same for someone who treats all black people, or other LGB, females/males, as showing a typical hounding pattern. NB I said feminist in my comment, I really should have said female or black or something of that sort since it's far closer to what Roxy actually said. In some ways I'd prefer if Roxy never came back, but since people can change, that isn't fair. But I'm thoroughly unconvinced that 6 months is enough to change such a disgusting mindset. From other comments here and I suspect this is because they only said something transphobic, I also feel there's too much of a risk they'll be let back in prematurely than if they'd said something racist or misogynic, or probably even homophobic if the wrong people happen to be the main ones to notice the appeal. So better to ward that off from the get go. (Or to put it a different way, there are a lot of cases where 6 months is really just something we don't modify since it isn't needed. It's clear there's no way in hell the person will be allowed back in in 6 months. Unfortunately while that should also be the case here, it isn't.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- With regard to "can fuck off from Wikipedia", also said to Roxy here: [52] as "you can fuck off", it seems incongruent with calling for refraining from insulting people. I hope we can arrive at a reasoned decision without such a high temperature. (Maybe such strong language arises from the indignant certainty that one is right, but that's just doing what Roxy also did.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- So let's get this straight: You, a self-professed wiki-friend of Roxy, not once publicly called them out for their behavior, at least not in the last month that I can see. But someone tells them to fuck off and that gets your hackles? --Golbez (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Well, you might want to get your facts straight. I could compile a list of diffs of me telling Roxy exactly that, but this isn't about me. (The reason that it hasn't come up in the past month is that Roxy spent much of that month in the hospital.) And I'm quite capable of keeping two thoughts in my mind at once: that "fuck off" is not a good way to discourage people from insulting one another, and that Roxy needs to be topic banned, as I endorse below (despite my friendship). The most important part of my comment above is that I hope that the community can come to a thoughtful resolution without overly escalating the discussion. If, instead, you think it's a good idea to get huffy with me just because I called out someone for saying "fuck off", that's on you. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- No, editors should not tell each other to "fuck off". WP:CIVIL is one of the five pillars for a reason; it doesn't have an escape clause for if someone really deserves it. This is not because everyone on Wikipedia for the last twenty years was just too naive to realize that there were contentious political issues, it's because they are obvious and fundamental principles of collaborative work. If we want to roll around in our own feces and call people nasty words, we have every other website in the world to do that on; Wikipedia is meant to accomplish something, which involves not having every surface of the website covered in puke and blood and shit. jp×g20:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Golbez, Telling someone to fuck off certainly raises my hackles. It is unacceptable behavior for any editor, especially an administrator. I believe you should apologize immediately or resign. — Jacona (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- So let's get this straight: You, a self-professed wiki-friend of Roxy, not once publicly called them out for their behavior, at least not in the last month that I can see. But someone tells them to fuck off and that gets your hackles? --Golbez (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- With regard to "can fuck off from Wikipedia", also said to Roxy here: [52] as "you can fuck off", it seems incongruent with calling for refraining from insulting people. I hope we can arrive at a reasoned decision without such a high temperature. (Maybe such strong language arises from the indignant certainty that one is right, but that's just doing what Roxy also did.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Because such an utterly disgusting comment deserves it. I'd say the same for someone who treats all black people, or other LGB, females/males, as showing a typical hounding pattern. NB I said feminist in my comment, I really should have said female or black or something of that sort since it's far closer to what Roxy actually said. In some ways I'd prefer if Roxy never came back, but since people can change, that isn't fair. But I'm thoroughly unconvinced that 6 months is enough to change such a disgusting mindset. From other comments here and I suspect this is because they only said something transphobic, I also feel there's too much of a risk they'll be let back in prematurely than if they'd said something racist or misogynic, or probably even homophobic if the wrong people happen to be the main ones to notice the appeal. So better to ward that off from the get go. (Or to put it a different way, there are a lot of cases where 6 months is really just something we don't modify since it isn't needed. It's clear there's no way in hell the person will be allowed back in in 6 months. Unfortunately while that should also be the case here, it isn't.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Just to aide any closer, I'd also support a GENSEX topic ban and frankly a BLP one too as an obviously far less preferred option. Likewise any other lesser sanction. And obviously the 2 year minimum is not a prerequisite for my support for a community site ban Nil Einne (talk) 12:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Why two years? Why no appeals? I'm curious to the reasoning here because I don't see a lot of calls for bans/blocks with an altered period before appeals. GabberFlasted (talk) 15:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Warning per Shibbolethinksequel to Special:Diff/1158676382, which I'd consider incivil hounding. But if we're just looking at just the comments that brought about this ANI report (Special:Diff/1158630150), then no action needed per EvergreenFir and Czello. This is probably better handled at WP:AE anyway, but I don't think Roxy meant to be transphobic in Special:Diff/1158630150, I think they were just being inattentive. This one comment doesn't sufficiently show a "long history of transphobic editing" to me; Roxy used a pretransition pronoun when directly referring to a pretransition name, which doesn't seem malicious, just clumsy. 〜 Askarion ✉ 15:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)- Changing to support a 3-month site ban and indefinite GENSEX topic ban in light of Roxy's later comments and conduct, though I still question if Roxy's WP:AE or the talk page, Roxy's highly aggressive comments have no excuse (including calling someone a "worthless piece of shite liar"), and I'm not sure they have a future in this community if this continues. Their block log shows that past disciplinary action hasn't been enough to deter this behavior; perhaps it's time to look towards stronger actions. 〜 Askarion ✉22:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Changing to support a 3-month site ban and indefinite GENSEX topic ban in light of Roxy's later comments and conduct, though I still question if Roxy's
- Roxy should abide to MOS:GENDERID to every namespace(i.e. editors talking) rather than article's mainspace (recently an Arb corrected an accidential misuse of pronouns after editors brought up). Correct me if I made the wrong observation. ibicdlcod (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- The logic would be that it falls under WP:BLP which does apply in all namespaces. EvergreenFir (talk)15:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Whoa, that makes sense. But I want to ask people familar with transgender topic: at what point of transitioning do the previous name/pronoun becomes unacceptable? ibicdlcod (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- The previous name is fine if and only if they were already notable, and should be relegated to a clarifying mention (ex: “bob smith (formerly Alice smith) is a…”). Pronouns are as far as I know and am concerned Are immediately and completely changed. Dronebogus (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- The guideline allows for using contemporaneous pronouns pre-transition if that's what the subject requests, but I'm not aware of Manning requesting that. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 17:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- The previous name is fine if and only if they were already notable, and should be relegated to a clarifying mention (ex: “bob smith (formerly Alice smith) is a…”). Pronouns are as far as I know and am concerned Are immediately and completely changed. Dronebogus (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Whoa, that makes sense. But I want to ask people familar with transgender topic: at what point of transitioning do the previous name/pronoun becomes unacceptable? ibicdlcod (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- As EvergreenFir said, BLP applies to all name spaces so in the case of any living person which applies to all examples that have been discussed here, it's an automatic issue. But also Wikipedia isn't a place for idle talk. Discussion between editors should generally be focused on improving Wikipedia. We allow some off-topic discussion to help build the community here, but not at the expense of either living persons or the well being of the community. Editors who intentionally deadname or mis-pronoun people are being offensive to many of their fellow editors. And so even when it isn't at the expense of a living person, it is as the expense of the community wellbeing. They are free to do what they want in their personal lives, but when on Wikipedia they should not be intentionally offensive. If they want to be intentionally offensive, there's a whole wide internet out there for them to do so. Twitter in particular seems to be open to such nonsense nowadays. 15:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC) Nil Einne (talk) 15:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- The logic would be that it falls under
- It's baffling to me that someone already under a partial GENSEX topic ban – and especially someone who was formally warned by ArbCom to "remain collegial in editing and interacting with others" – would think it was okay to accuse another editor of "standard transexual hounding". Agreed with Sideswipe9th that at a minimum the TBAN should be upgraded to the full GENSEX topic area. DanCherek (talk) 15:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: lunatic charlatans", and where the language used at times in the sub-culture ("pseudoscientist", "woo-monger", "loon", "lunatic charlatan", "fanboi", "troll", and the occasional "FU") is similarly lacking in sensitivity and decorum. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs16:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- User:Guy Macon/Yes. We are biased. is a good read. (Note the author, perhaps deliberately, decided not to include any modern geopolitical disputes, and the gender-themed conflict we are discussing, as areas where bias are legitimate) ibicdlcod (talk) 16:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- One might even say that being a transphobe means that one is being a bad skeptic.... talk) 23:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- It certainly means one is going against the consensus of relevant experts. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:47, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- One might even say that being a transphobe means that one is being a bad skeptic....
- User:Guy Macon/Yes. We are biased. is a good read. (Note the author, perhaps deliberately, decided not to include any modern geopolitical disputes, and the gender-themed conflict we are discussing, as areas where bias are legitimate) ibicdlcod (talk) 16:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Upgrade partial topic ban to broadly construed. The claims which brought us here don't appear particularly actionable but the subsequent comment on their user page [53] is honestly shocking, I have a lot of respect for Roxy the Dog but perhaps thats because I primarily interact with them outside of this topic area... If it wasn't that respect and history I wouldn't be here supporting a topic ban, I'd be here supporting a community ban. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Upgrade topic ban. Roxy contributes a lot of good content, but it seems that their opinions are impacting their ability to edit collegially; we have had similar issues in the past with skeptic editors accusing trans editors of being unable to ever edit impartially and treating all such editors as a bloc, which is corrosive to dispute resolution and collaboration (beyond that, it's pointlessly antagonistic and uncivil.) If they cannot contribute in those areas effectively, then they should be forced to give it a wide berth. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:00, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Note: I have blocked Roxy the dog for 2 weeks for the "standard transexual hounding" comment (my explanation here). This is not intended as a conclusion to this thread, as further remedies may still be appropriate. – bradv 17:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Extend siteblock to indef. I have great respect for Bradv, and understand why he erred on the side of caution in a block when sanctions were already being discussed at AN/I, but come on...
What Maddy is doing is standard transexual hounding of people they dont like.
- Would we tolerate that for any other community? "standard black hounding"? "standard female hounding"? "standard Jewish hounding"? This is not an editor expressing a heterodox opinion on gender. This is an editor singling out a colleague's transgender status to deligitimize their opinion. A temporary block will not remedy that. A topic-ban, which is about the encyclopedic topic of gender-related disputes, not interactions with editors who are trans or nonbinary, will not remedy that. We have a way to deal with editors who harass others on the basis of minority status: We indef them. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 17:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- I was hoping that the original faux pas was based on ignorance rather than malice, but that quote shows that my hope has not materialised. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Check some of the links above, Roxy has actually in the past specifically stated they are a TERF. This isn't an ignorance thing. Canterbury Tail talk 18:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Ah jeez upgrade my vote to a STRONG blockban Dronebogus (talk) 18:10, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Check some of the links above, Roxy has actually in the past specifically stated they are a TERF. This isn't an ignorance thing. Canterbury Tail talk 18:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Concur with Tamzin and Nil Einne. --Golbez (talk) 17:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Good lord. It hasn’t been three months since I imposed the partial GENSEX ban. I was trying to be tailored and reasonable to the immediate problem, but that clearly has been inadequate. I remember when I topic banned and blocked in March that Valereee said Roxy was lucky I got there first due to a pretty egregious topic ban. (Long story, I’m not a big fan of single admin indefs of long term editors, but that’s irrelevant to this discussion.) at a minimum, the topic ban needs to be expanded to the entire GENSEX area. A CBAN, I can see it, especially in the context of this being yet another example of treating other good faith editors poorly. Courcelles (talk) 17:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Indefinite block-ban Roxy has no problem with saying horrible things to other users (back in march they called someone a “worthless piece of shite liar”) and no problem using bigoted remarks to belittle and bully other users. Simple violation of WP:JERK. Dronebogus (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- To clarify: as noted in a diff above, Roxy responded to my March 2023 template message and note with "You are a worthless piece of shite liar, who is officially banned from this page. I hope you choke on your lies" at 13:46, 21 March 2023, and at the Lia Thomas article, reverted my removal of disputed content with the edit summary: "Restore well sourced, removed by liar" at 13:47, 21 March 2023, and then added an edit-warring notice with the comment
A liar is a despicable human being.
on my user Talk page at 13:51, 21 March 2023. Beccaynr (talk) 18:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Crikey. Skepticism (and this may be an extension of that) may be a noble aim, but belligerence, militancy and vigilantism of any persuasion is toxic and should have no place in Wikipedia. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- To clarify: as noted in a diff above, Roxy responded to my March 2023 template message and note with "You are a worthless piece of shite liar, who is officially banned from this page. I hope you choke on your lies" at 13:46, 21 March 2023, and at the Lia Thomas article, reverted my removal of disputed content with the edit summary: "Restore well sourced, removed by liar" at 13:47, 21 March 2023, and then added an edit-warring notice with the comment
- Indefinite block-ban' if continue after 2-week-block Roxy has been blocked for 2 weeks. If they continue I support an indef for harassment and personal attacks. Dinoz1 (chat?) (he/him) 18:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Indef siteblock, and if they return a broadly TBAN on GENSEX I read through the diffs and frankly they are just plain discriminatory, period. Transphobia isn't, and will never be, compliant with a collaborative project like Wikipedia. -- talkcontribs18:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Update siteblock to formal siteban now that I've seen their block log. -- talkcontribs20:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Update siteblock to formal siteban now that I've seen their block log. --
- Indef If I'd gotten here first it would have been, I have no time for transphobic comments, racist comments, sexist comments, the list goes on. If this has been comments about race rather than a gensex topic they'd sure have been blocked, not sure why we'd treat such broad strokes exclusionary commentary any different no matter the group. And just remember, indefinite does not mean permanent (though maybe it should in some cases.) That way they 100% need to convince the community they will avoid areas, abide by any restrictions, commit to improving their behaviour etc before someone unblocks them. Some blocks should just go straight to indef and a justification is needed to regain editing rights. Canterbury Tail talk 18:10, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Indef Regardless of the fact that Wikipedia, like much social media, treats the transphobic (oh sorry, "gender critical") far more leniently than racists or homophobes - as you can see from some of the comments above - there is still, hopefully, a line that can't be crossed. And unfortunately (because RTD is a good editor in many areas) it has been here. Black Kite (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
And unfortunately (because RTD is a good editor in many areas) it has been here
I agree the behavior here crosses a line. I think some sort of sanction is now appropriate. But given what you say here (that RTD is a good editor in many other areas), wouldn't a TBAN from GENSEX, broadly construed, be more appropriate than an indef? My impression was that sanctions should be narrowly tailored to prevent the disruption they seek to remedy. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)- Have you seen Roxy's block log? Their general attitude, personal attacks and harassment A) isn't new and B) isn't confined to just GENSEX topics. Canterbury Tail talk 18:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Part of the problem is they are now a poisoned well. You could say "If they don't edit trans stuff then no one will know they hate trans people," but I'm pretty sure that will also leak into anything else they do. Their presence on an article is a chilling effect on anyone who is or supports trans people. If we wouldn't say "just let the anti-semite edit articles that don't involve Jews", I'm not sure why the same treatment isn't relevant here. Their only option is a massive mea culpa and acceptance that they fucked up. --Golbez (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- The only way to stop them from being transphobic is to ban them from anything that mentions transgender people or topics AND interaction ban them from all transgender users. Dronebogus (talk) 19:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- What, do you want all transgender editors editors to have to state they're transgender on their user pages just so one editor, who has proven they can't stop harassing people no matter the area, can avoid them? No, you remove the people who are not capable of treating other editors like human beings. Canterbury Tail talk 19:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was going to say something similar here. While in theory a one-way IBAN with all trans and non-binary editors would theoretically address some of the chilling effect, many editors don't want or otherwise feel a need to declare they are trans or non-binary on their userpages. It would be pretty much unworkable without requiring those editors to out themselves, which opens the door to all sorts of other harassment issues that many openly trans and non-binary editors face.
- At some point it becomes more expedient and efficient to just show the disruptive editor the door. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- I was being hyperbolic and rhetorical Dronebogus (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- ANI is not a great place to be hyperbolic and rhetorical if the idea is to deescalate and lower the temperature of the discussion. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:53, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- What, do you want all transgender editors editors to have to state they're transgender on their user pages just so one editor, who has proven they can't stop harassing people no matter the area, can avoid them? No, you remove the people who are not capable of treating other editors like human beings. Canterbury Tail talk 19:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- The only way to stop them from being transphobic is to ban them from anything that mentions transgender people or topics AND interaction ban them from all transgender users. Dronebogus (talk) 19:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- @WP:HATEDISRUPT on this topic. The important difference, to me, is between content disruption and disruption that also affects editors. If an editor is going from article to article pushing an anti-trans (or for that matter pro-trans) POV, but it isn't clearly meant to be hurtful, and the editor is otherwise productive, I personally have no problem with a mere TBAN. But we have to remember that most trans editors don't just edit about trans topics. 18+1⁄2 of the 22 articles I've written are outside the GENSEX topic area. If an editor complains about "standard transexual hounding", and then shows up at one of my 4+1⁄2 non-GENSEX GAs and aggressively starts some content dispute, do I have to then have that whole interaction wondering if I'm being targeted or not? To worry that if I piss them off they'll resort to the same rhetoric they got away with against another editor? What if I run for 'crat (lmao, thought experiment, bear with me) and they show up to oppose? Once they're known to be in favor of singling out trans editors, how do we assume good faith there? And not just me, of course—I've dealt with worse and survived—but any trans, nonbinary, or gender nonconforming editor (maybe even, as we saw with Athaenara, editors who state pronoun-indifference without labeling themself any which way). There's a chilling effect on a significant subset of our editors just to be around that.I always think it's very important to not let these GENSEX conduct threads turn into sanctioning anyone just for having "the wrong opinion" (unless it's a very wrong opinion, like one that advocates violence). I pride myself on an even-handed record on both content disputes, and disputes about editors' conduct in content disputes, in the GENSEX area. But when it's about editor-on-editor conduct, that's where I draw the line and say no, if we allow this, we make the encyclopedia an unsafe place for a lot of people to edit, and lose far more than we gain from one person's contributions. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
But we have to remember that most trans editors don't just edit about trans topics. 18+1⁄2 of the 22 articles I've written are outside the GENSEX topic area. If an editor complains about "standard transexual hounding", and then shows up at one of my 4+1⁄2 non-GENSEX GAs and aggressively starts some content dispute, do I have to then have that whole interaction wondering if I'm being targeted or not?
I would argue that a broadly construed GENSEX ban would also prevent RTD from commenting on the transgender-ness of any other editor in the same way that a TBAN about weather would prevent a user from discussing cloud-related userboxes on another user's talk page. If I'm wrong on that, I would be happy to be corrected, of course.And an IBAN from Maddy would be enough to prevent any further disruption from that dispute. I don't necessarily see a site ban as worthwhile here, as the pros of RTD's beneficial editing in other areas outweighs the costs of watching their behavior more closely in those other areas moving forward. That's just my assessment, though. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:51, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Indef I don't think anything good can come out from this editor at this stage. Editorkamran (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Upgrade TBAN to Gensex broadly construed, not just
one pageathletes, oppose indef. Before this ANI discussion goes fullWP:DEFARGE, I want to focus on what will, and what will not, accomplish some good. First of all, I'll stipulate that I'm a wiki-friend of Roxy. On the other hand, I've repeatedly warned Roxy not to do this sort of thing, and yet, here we are once more. I also feel the need to point out that this incident started when Roxy was simply trying to defend something that SilkTork had done inadvertently and in good faith. On the other hand, it got worse from there. Also, Roxy has been dealing with some very real health problems lately. On the other hand, he is still responsible for what he posts. But a site ban is going too far. Roxy does contribute positively with respect to fringe topics (and there may be a bit of piling on happening from editors who don't like that). However, I see no way around the fact that gender is a topic where Roxy simply cannot control himself, and we are past the point of warnings on that. So, despite my personal friendship, I believe that he needs to be TBANed from gender and sexuality, broadly construed, and in all name spaces. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)- I'm not directing this at anyone in particular. I linked just above to WP:DEFARGE. I hope that whoever determines the consensus here will evaluate this discussion with that essay in mind. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Tryptofish Purely as a point or order, while the topic ban calls out (the article) Lia Thomas, it’s only because it was the immediate flashpoint. It continues …” well as making any edits about transgender athletes, broadly construed.” which is considerably broader than a single page. Courcelles (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, my mistake, now corrected. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- "and there may be a bit of piling on happening from editors who don't like that" is a assuming a lot of bad faith there, broseph. "On the other hand, I've repeatedly warned Roxy not to do this sort of thing, and yet, here we are once more." It sounds like you agree that there's no reforming them, since even a self-professed wiki-friend couldn't change their mind. "Also, Roxy has been dealing with some very real health problems lately." We've all got shit going on, mate. That doesn't excuse hating trans people. I stand by my earlier statement - if we wouldn't allow an anti-Semite to continue editing so long as they don't interact with any Jews, we shouldn't allow this to continue either. --Golbez (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- You're an administrator, and you just called me "broseph"? Well, what a lovely way to advocate for editors being kinder to one another. I was talking about serious health problems, scary ones. I get it that we all have, um, stuff going on. That's why I also said "he is still responsible for what he posts." You are making it sound like you think I'm arguing for no sanctions. But I said that "we are past the point of warnings" and a broader TBAN is needed. The TBAN will stop him from making any of the comments that are so troubling, and I agree that they are troubling. Treating Roxy simply as a transphobe is overly reductive. He is actually someone in the LGBTQ+ group of people, and there are complex issues going on with him and his views of at-birth versus chosen gender identities. People are complex. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- If he’s not a transphobe why does he act like one unrelentingly? Being severely ill is not an excuse, being gay or bisexual is not an excuse, being “complex” in ways we never see is not an excuse. You fuck up this many times, you’re out. Dronebogus (talk) 21:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Don't confuse an explanation with an excuse. They are two different things. Don't confuse treating him "simply as a transphobe is overly reductive" with "not a transphobe". And this isn't baseball, with three strikes. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- So he is a transphobe. And he’s racked up a helluva lot more than three strikes. Dronebogus (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I can't resist linking to this: [54]. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- So he is a transphobe. And he’s racked up a helluva lot more than three strikes. Dronebogus (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Don't confuse an explanation with an excuse. They are two different things. Don't confuse treating him "simply as a transphobe is overly reductive" with "not a transphobe". And this isn't baseball, with three strikes. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- I have some concerns that my comment here will just set off another barrage of WP:DEFARGE, but perhaps more thoughtful editors will take what I'm saying in a thoughtful way. There's already been a link above to an earlier AE thread. I'll link here to Roxy's statement within that thread: [55]. I'm not saying that it's perfect. And I'm not pretending that some editors won't use it as an opportunity to take some short snippet of it in isolation, in order to engage in performative indignation. And most importantly, I'm still saying Roxy should be broadly topic banned. But if you read it responsibly, you will see a complicated human being, one who is not reducible to an online caricature as a hater, and one who is, in fact, capable of recognizing that he made a mistake and feels badly about it. This is why I ask editors to recognize that people are complex. If you read it differently than I have, don't bother snarling at me, because that says more about you than it does about me. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
one who is, in fact, capable of recognizing that he made a mistake and feels badly about it
I don't know about this Tryptofish. In the post block discussion on Roxy's talk page, you have given Roxy advice to this regard. That he should reconsider what he's written, understand the concerns raised here, and make a commitment to do better. Instead however it seems as though Roxy is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic by focusing on whether something relating to the block is a trope, trend, or something else.- It is possible that Roxy will take action based on your second attempt at the same advice tonight, but if Roxy does not, then at least some of what I've quoted above seems not to be true. For this to be true, in one of his next comments, Roxy needs to recognise why what he said was an attack, not only on Maddy but the entire community of trans and non-binary editors, and make a commitment to be better. Otherwise he is either incapable or unwilling to recognise that he made a mistake. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:16, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Obviously, I agree with you that he should follow my advice. Another editor pointed out below that some of that may be a defensive reaction to being criticized, so let's not be in too much of a rush to assume that he doesn't recognize his mistake. I'm also seeing an awful lot of comments below that make the jump to characterizing his comments as being "hateful", thus attributing a motivation that is not really what has been going on.
- Let me also suggest that editors look at Andrew Sullivan#Transgender issues, and recognize that, as I have said, real people do not reduce to caricatures. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- I don’t know what the point of this whole section is besides trying to hammer the vague-wave claim that “it’s not what you think”. Dronebogus (talk) 01:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- If he’s not a transphobe why does he act like one unrelentingly? Being severely ill is not an excuse, being gay or bisexual is not an excuse, being “complex” in ways we never see is not an excuse. You fuck up this many times, you’re out. Dronebogus (talk) 21:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- You're an administrator, and you just called me "broseph"? Well, what a lovely way to advocate for editors being kinder to one another. I was talking about serious health problems, scary ones. I get it that we all have, um, stuff going on. That's why I also said "he is still responsible for what he posts." You are making it sound like you think I'm arguing for no sanctions. But I said that "we are past the point of warnings" and a broader TBAN is needed. The TBAN will stop him from making any of the comments that are so troubling, and I agree that they are troubling. Treating Roxy simply as a transphobe is overly reductive. He is actually someone in the LGBTQ+ group of people, and there are complex issues going on with him and his views of at-birth versus chosen gender identities. People are complex. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not directing this at anyone in particular. I linked just above to
- Upgrade to GENSEX broadly construed, oppose site ban (for now) I think Roxy should be given one last chance, but these comments show that they need to be banned from GENSEX broadly construed. Any further comments like this should warrant a site ban. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Indef, Their block log showcases that a topic ban upgrade will probably not actually stop personal attacks and harassment. Lavalizard101 (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support indef or CBAN, bumped into this editor on a fringe medical topic once (Feldenkrais method) regarding the reliability of an author (which eventually turned into the reliability of the source), I got stonewalled so hard I went to the wikiproject talk, asked the same question, answered promptly and with reasoning by someone else. Simply saying "the source [journal] is unreliable" (which was already a non-answer since I asked about the credibility of an author) without giving reasoning is just plain unhelpful, not all of us are altmed regulars and it surely would not hurt to just explain. In addition to the litany of god-awfully egregious violations of the civility on their talk page (just because it's true doesn't mean you should say it) and block log longer than the Great Wall of China I think the rope has been extended enough. This User really needs to reconsider whether their habit of snarky remarks is really suitable for the encyclopedia and for collaboration. Using pejoratives such as "despicable", especially when referring to other editors (implied or otherwise) is just simply not the way to go. X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over?21:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- I took a look at the talk page, and it looks like you were hounding Roxy with pings, who was being curt in responses as a way of minimizing interaction. You really were splitting hairs over journal vs. author when Roxy was talking about the journal paper. That conversation comes across as WP:SEALIONING on your part. When someone is being pedantic as you were along with tone, you do have to expect that editors will be short. That interaction looked pretty benign and I didn't see any lashing out etc. from them that would really be evidence here. KoA (talk) 22:24, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Nothing wrong with being curt, however, in retrospect the pings were indeed unnecessary but construing it as hounding I think is unfair. The rest of my point still stands, though. X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 22:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- I took a look at the talk page, and it looks like you were hounding Roxy with pings, who was being curt in responses as a way of minimizing interaction. You really were splitting hairs over journal vs. author when Roxy was talking about the journal paper. That conversation comes across as
- Support 3-month site ban for this. This is an attack on certain editors for an arbitrary characteristic, in this case being their status as transgender, that should not be tolerated in a place where anyone can edit. No demographic group should painted with that sort of brush. Now, I acknowledge it was just one comment, so I think a limited site ban is optimal. In my judgment, an indefinite full site ban is excessively punitive. Furthermore, I support an indefinite GENSEX topic ban for historical and persistent disruption in the GENSEX area along with a displayed POV that apparently interferes with Roxy's capacity to edit the area productively and without bias. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 22:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- You should check Roxy’s block log and reconsider the length Dronebogus (talk) 22:24, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Part of my thought process is I've seen a lot of editors here (who I trust) say Roxy is productive outside of GENSEX areas. Working under that assumption, I concluded we need to get Roxy's attention (with a time-limited site ban) while allowing
herhim to go back to productive editing in areas outside of GENSEX. I think that's a reasonable course of action in this case. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 22:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)- I thought roxy went by male pronouns? Dronebogus (talk) 22:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Ok, I'll correct it. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 22:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- I thought roxy went by male pronouns? Dronebogus (talk) 22:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Part of my thought process is I've seen a lot of editors here (who I trust) say Roxy is productive outside of GENSEX areas. Working under that assumption, I concluded we need to get Roxy's attention (with a time-limited site ban) while allowing
- You should check Roxy’s block log and reconsider the length Dronebogus (talk) 22:24, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- I don't like any situation where we lose an active contributor, but it's behavior like this which, if tolerated, discourages other editors and creates an environment prone to personal attacks against specific groups, in this case transgender people. At some point, users who engage in personal attacks hit a threshold where the contributors they push away or otherwise discourage outweigh their own contributions to the project. We are evidently far beyond that point, and I support an indef/CBAN. Regards, Vermont (🐿️—🏳️🌈) 22:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Arbitrary section break 1
- Strong support for broadening TBAN, support for Indef. I was pretty deep into looking into the details of the report here, and refamiliarizing myself with the previous discussions where sanctions were proposed, and was generally leaning towards a warning approach before I saw the "standard transexual hounding of people they don't like" comment, which, frankly, recontextualizes everything else. If I were to judge Roxy's conduct in this particular area absent this comment, it would be substantially more difficult to interpret the balance of the scales. Some of the very discussions the OP and others wished us to review for context here were closed as content disputes that had inappropriately been brought to behavioural spaces. Others included a clear community consensus of biased or disruptive activity on some articles connected with trans issues. Looking at particular behaviour on individual talk pages also paints a complex picture. On several of these articles, activity by Roxy that has been intimated as biased or transphobic does not necessarily clear that hurdle for me: on WP:CIV. They have been brought to ANX and AE no small number of times along the same grounds, and been warned about their acerbic or outright aggressive comments on a non-trivial number of occasions. Clearly due warning was given here, and embraced (if at all) in a highly selective fashion.So, I have to agree that "enough is enough" is the appropriate call here: I don't think we should let the boiling frog effect blind us to just how problematic the invocation of the "frothing at the mouth trans person" trope is, in a community that is meant to be open and inviting to all editors of good faith, with rules based on a rational analytical framework. Therefore, I cannot see any alternative to an indef. I support the TBAN first and foremost because I think it is important it be implemented parallel to, and irrespective of, an indef; in the unlikely event that Roxy is not indeffed (or the probably unlikely in the short term, but still quite possible event that they are given a second chance down the line), the TBAN should be implemented as a secondary restrain on Roxy ever contributing to areas where they have evidenced a clear inability to act with neutrality and proper perspective. SnowRise let's rap23:09, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support upgrading t-ban to GENSEX broadly construed, oppose block/c-ban – The "standard transexual hounding" comment crosses a line which makes it clear that a full GENSEX t-ban is needed. However, my impression is that this comment, made after this ANI report was initiated (with rather weak evidence), results from a specific frustration rather than from systemic hate. I believe that Roxy may be frustrated over having a different opinion on gender issues than most other editors do around here, and over feeling targeted for that (as in this ANI), rather than harboring a genuine hate towards transsexual people.This sets the current issue apart from Roxy's chronic problems with incivility, where ironically Roxy is usually on the majority-opinion side, and it's their victims who get the rough treatment for (sometimes just seemingly) having the 'wrong' opinion. It also sets this issue apart from cases where a t-ban may not be sufficient to contain the hate, because hate often spreads over several topics, and because even if it is limited to one topic strong hate will always disrupt editorial processes. I don't believe such hate is present here.All that said, it is merely my impression, and I could be wrong. I realize there's a royal dose of AGF here, but I do think that is warranted when it comes to sensitive topics. I do hope with Bradv here that Roxy, preferably after some reflection, make an effort to explain themselves in this ANI report. I would like some affirmation that indeed no civility problems –none at all– will occur after the t-ban is enacted and they are unblocked. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:57, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- "results from a specific frustration rather than from systemic hate." If Roxy had said "standard Jewish hounding," would you be so quick to discard it as a mere specific frustration? --Golbez (talk) 03:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Transphobia, you see, is just a difference of opinion on the value of other humans, not hatred. (Sarcasm) Dronebogus (talk) 12:51, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- This has been discussed a bit above by KoA below and by KoA and Tamzin above. I'm reading this as perhaps meant to signify "standard trans-issues hounding". In other contexts "standard Jewish hounding" or "standard British hounding" or "standard skeptic hounding" might be meant to signify, coming from a frustrated and unduly generalizing editor, 'hounding by editors on Jewish topics', 'hounding by editors on British topics', 'hounding by editors on skeptic topics'. All of these would be pretty bad, and betraying a certain prejudice to say the very least, but they would not necessarily qualify as hate speech. They may, in context, be reactions to a perceived pigeonholing of editors with unpopular views.And yes, I choose to AGF in presuming that an unpopular view lies at the basis of this, rather than hatred. Humans have a natural tendency to brush off views they disagree with as either malice or lunacy. The narrow-mindedness that often results from this may be acceptable and even desirable in certain contexts, but is completely out of place on an encyclopedic project like Wikipedia. Any intellectual enterprise needs a window of discourse that is broader than the Overton window, not narrower. We as WP editors need to be far more tolerant of people with different views, including views that we perceive as extreme, than we would be on any other medium. Sure, there are limits to that, and I very much respect and understand the view of others here that these limits have been crossed in this case, it's just that my personal preference would be to stretch AGF a bit more, both in this case and cases similar to it. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:13, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- If you spend any time in WP:PIA you will regularly encounter people that use "Zionist" as an epithet for "Jew". Most recently (with no action) at ANI: [56]
- It's always somewhat annoying to see someone bring up antisemitism like anything remotely similar of a standard is being applied w.r.t. that form of bigotry. One wonders where all this outrage is at ANI threads where someone actually complains about other editors being Jewish, rather than incorrect pronoun usage. Chess (talk) (please
mention me on reply) 17:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Because some of us are limited to 24 hours in a day and don't see everything on ANI. But, "most recently" is 9 months ago? I was about to block on sight for what I read but finding out about it nine months later really puts a damper on that. It would also really be nice if you didn't disregard the terror directed at trans people as simply "incorrect pronoun usage," especially since that's not even what this section is about. --Golbez (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- When I first read the comment, I understood "However, my impression is that this comment, made after this ANI report was initiated (with rather weak evidence), results from a specific frustration rather than from systemic hate" to be refering to frustration over finding that there was an ANI complaint. It's not unusual for editors to initially react with feeling upset upon learning that they have been taken to ANI. Taking the comment as a whole in that light, I find it reasonable. The performative outrage expressed by some editors in response, not so much. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- I've been upset by being taken to ANI but I somehow didn't use that opportunity to disgustingly insult a portion of the audience. Performative outrage? Here's a phrase you've learned well: (Personal attack removed) --Golbez (talk) 22:15, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Tryptofish I understand and respect the desire to want to protect your friend. But Roxy has been given ample opportunity to explain exactly what he meant by the hounding comment, and apologise for it, and has so far refused to do either. I don't think it is fair to anyone, least of all Roxy, to describe the reaction to the comment as
preformative outrage
. A plain reading of the words is that it is a pretty egregious attack that was directed to both an individual (Maddy) and an entire cohort (trans and non-binary) of editors. I would strongly urge you to strike that part of your reply. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC)- Sideswipe, then let me be clear: what I was describing as performative outrage are the comments that were directed at Apaugasma. I should have said that more clearly. But there are some comments above that seem to imply that Apaugasma condones bigotry. That's not appropriate.
- And I stand by that. Golbez, I said to you earlier that we should focus the discussion on Roxy, and not one another, and that we should do so civily and thoughtfully. However, you have instead doubled down, and now spread the message of inclusiveness by telling me to fuck off. [rest of this post redacted by Floq; I *think* per policy but maybe per IAR. I hope and suspect Tryptofish is, with hindsight, OK with this. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)]. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- @WP:GENSEX is enforced to the point where people will start ANI threads like this one based on using "he" instead of "she" on a user talk page. In contrast, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland closed last month after an academic paper discussed "Wikipedia's Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust" was released, and the title tells you all you have to know about what has been tolerated w.r.t. antisemitism onwiki. I would consider it "performative outrage" to tell an editor who actually contributed evidence to that ArbCom case [57] tome on reply) 01:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
fuck off
, and to claim that others might tolerate antisemitism (e.g. you wikilinked Kristallnacht below as an example ofwhere the kind of TERFy rhetoric leads
). If you're not going to wade into the exciting shitshow that is Holocaust history on Wikipedia (and I think you should, because one point I took away from the case is that there's a shortage of admins willing to deal with the drama), you shouldn't criticize people for hypothetically not taking a strong stand against antisemitism/hypocrisy with respect to that area of bigotry. Chess (talk) (please mention- Sorry that I'm not involved in 100% of discussions on Wikipedia, I'll be sure to invent a 96 hour day so I can slot into your favored topics. I never said people might tolerate antisemitism, in fact quite the opposite, but sure, read whatever you want into it. I think we're done here. --Golbez (talk) 13:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- When I first read the comment, I understood "However, my impression is that this comment, made after this ANI report was initiated (with rather weak evidence), results from a specific frustration rather than from systemic hate" to be refering to frustration over finding that there was an ANI complaint. It's not unusual for editors to initially react with feeling upset upon learning that they have been taken to ANI. Taking the comment as a whole in that light, I find it reasonable. The performative outrage expressed by some editors in response, not so much. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Because some of us are limited to 24 hours in a day and don't see everything on ANI. But, "most recently" is 9 months ago? I was about to block on sight for what I read but finding out about it nine months later really puts a damper on that. It would also really be nice if you didn't disregard the terror directed at trans people as simply "incorrect pronoun usage," especially since that's not even what this section is about. --Golbez (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Transphobia, you see, is just a difference of opinion on the value of other humans, not hatred. (Sarcasm) Dronebogus (talk) 12:51, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- "results from a specific frustration rather than from systemic hate." If Roxy had said "standard Jewish hounding," would you be so quick to discard it as a mere specific frustration? --Golbez (talk) 03:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Since this has come up in the replies above: I did not take any reaction to my comments here as implying that I condone bigotry, but to clear any doubt I should perhaps be explicit. I am a male-bodied person who casually and regularly wears skirts and dresses, as well as on occasion make-up, hairpins and other 'female' regalia. I get stared at on the streets, occasionally harassed. I do not condone bigotry of any kind, but when it comes to trans issues I'm rather kinda on the receiving end of it (I say 'kinda' because I'm a 'transdresser' rather than a transsexual, and though I doubt whether actual bigots care much for such differences, there is a big gap in experience because I always have the option to 'cisdress' in situations where I expect to be uncomfortable).My own views on gender issues are complex, and having been a feminist for +25 years I know from experience that there are many different feminists out there, each with their own subtly different views. I disagree with most
. However, I've always had the biggest problem with TERF' is taken as straightforward evidence of bigotry. As encyclopedists I think we have a duty to be more nuanced, and to reject the polarized views which are so widespread elsewhere on the internet. This is in line with my wider views on Wikipedia, which I firmly believe should be more conservative than its average editor, including my rather progressive anarcha-feminist self) 04:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉
- Support site ban I have seen this editor snarling at editors around the project and at DYK. The arbcom formal warning regarding civility was ignored and the editor is pushing other limits. If the editor is successful getting a site ban lifted they should be subject to an upgraded t-ban GENSEX broadly construed. Lightburst (talk) 00:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support TBAN, oppose CBAN or siteban or whatever it's called as that's not fixing the problem, it's vindictive punishment. It's like returning hate with hate. Let's try to show some love to all, not just those we agree with. Jacona (talk) 00:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Tolerance paradox— transphobia is not a difference of opinion, it’s unacceptable behavior. “Love” is not fixing anything here. Also it’s hardly vindictive, it’s preventative after years of evidence that wrist-slapping is ineffective. Dronebogus (talk) 00:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Dronebogus, I guess we have come to a difference of opinion then. Can you find it within your heart to accept that others see it differently? — Jacona (talk) 01:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- I’m not intellectually incapable of understanding that other individuals have different opinions. So yes, I guess. Dronebogus (talk) 01:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
to accept that others see it differently?
is such an intellectually dishonest comment. "We agree to see things differently" applies to pineapple on pizza or being a Mets fan rather than the Yankees. it doesn't apply to tranpohbia. Zaathras (talk) 02:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Can you find it within your heart to accept that others see it differently?
- No. As others said, this is not merely a difference of opinion, and we would not tolerate a difference of opinion on race. RtD has made it very clear that he is going to insult and harass anyone who is trans or supports trans rights. That is unacceptable, and incompatible with Wikipedia's values. I will never accept such behavior, and neither should anyone else. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:04, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Dronebogus, I guess we have come to a difference of opinion then. Can you find it within your heart to accept that others see it differently? — Jacona (talk) 01:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Blocking someone for continued incivility after years of incivility is not "returning hate with hate", it's preventative conduct enforcement. Additionally, "show[ing] some love" to people who harass and insult other contributors does nothing but alienate the victims of their attacks, and is disruptive to the project. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️🌈) 00:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support indef/siteban largely per the editor's extensive history of edit warring and personal attacks. IMO the recent personal attack is bad enough for an indef in its own right, but Roxy the dog's extensive block log leaves little doubt that they've been unable or unwilling to correct course despite a dozen or so blocks and an ArbCom warning. I think it's particularly noteworthy that, although their conduct in the GENSEX topic area has certainly been subpar, there has also been plenty of problematic conduct unrelated to GENSEX. If the siteban doesn't pass, I support a full GENSEX topic ban, broadly construed. — talk · contribs] 00:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: Roxy has been a useful editor in many articles, but sadly does not get the point that some opinions are unwelcome at Wikipedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support indefinite site ban. Calling this ANI thread
transexual hounding
? You must be kidding me if you think anything but a site ban is the way to go here. LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 01:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)- To anybody opposing sanctions: I'm sorry, but saying "I'm a TERF" is blatant transphobia. We desysopped and blocked Athaenara for similar comments... and she was an admin. You know how admins get free passes? If Athaenara got desysopped and indeffed, then Roxy should also be indeffed. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 22:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support indefinite site ban per others. I do not think that transphobic comments have a place here, in the spirit of ) 02:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support topic ban to GENSEX, oppose indef per Trytofish and Apaugasma. Roxy just isn't a fit for this topic, and I've faceplamed quite a few times seeing times when they clearly should have just voluntarily walked away. It sounds like they are just too close to this topic IRL, which I wasn't aware of, but also explains why they had trouble walking away. That's a clear cut case for a topic ban to get them back to working in other areas where they are productive, like fringe/medical topics. A site ban is pretty premature though, in part because I'm concerned about the pile on effect going on that's generating more heat than light that's making it hard to really sort things out, nor would it be preventative when the key problem area is transgender topics.
- I am concerned about their comments being misrepresented though in many of the indef !votes. The
standard transexual hounding
comment pretty clearly comes across as describingWP:SEALIONINGbehavior in context, which is perfectly fine to address as long as it's not an aspersion (haven't been able to dig into the interaction history much yet) as Shibbolethink mentioned near the start. It's not the most precise phrasing, but it would be like me saying "standard disability hounding" for a recent case I saw. There, someone was being disruptive, warned for it, and then they claimed they were being discriminated against for their disability. Instead, they were interjecting their disability (a neurologic disorder) and sealioning about it. Something like that isn't atypical, so that's why Roxy's comment comes across as sealioning rather than jumping to thinking they're talking about all trans people. - I'm not seeing evidence presented that would clearly qualify for a site ban though. The initial diff had no significant issues in context where it seems like Roxy is addressing issues when a person is known well before and after their transition. Tackling nuance there with Roxy's bluntness though? Not a good idea (no, a really horrid idea with all their red flags already to step back), especially in a tense topic. If I'm reading things right though, this is the most recent issue in the initial filing? Everything else is from old diffs that were already addressed at AE, etc. It seems pretty clear a full ban/indef would violate ) 04:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Comment In addition to above oppose !votes, reading their talk page it seems they have a poor grasp of the English language (
Actually, I just looked up Trope (literature) and Trope (disambiguation) and the word Trope clearly doesn't mean what I thought it meant. It is a bit sloppy, but perhaps we could settle on the word trend instead?
). Ban them, and allow them to return only when they are capable of expressing themself and understand others. ibicdlcod (talk) 07:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Thinking about it, Roxy might be from a community that despies Western identity politics. It's like some time ago a user was brought to ANI for borderline Armenian genocide denial, and they defended themself by stating they are a Turk and are just following 80% of their compatriots. I don't know their eventual fate.Support TBAN, Neutral on indef (apparently Roxy is a TERF, making this conjecture useless) ibicdlcod (talk) 07:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support topic ban to GENSEX, oppose indef This editor has clearly crossed the line in this topic area, and needs a very long time out. But this editor is an iconoclast who has interesting and provocative things to say, and has made useful and incisive observations about other matters while this conversation has been going on. Many's the time that I wished that this editor would dial it back, but many other times, I found a useful kernel of truth buried in their unique style of expression. I totally understand the sentiments of editors who are saying "enough is enough already" but I recommend WP:One last chance. Cullen328 (talk) 07:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- I don't know, Cullen, I'm generally inclined to extend wp:rope whenever we can, but here's the problem I run into with that here: I have no good response to any of the comments above noting that if we changed the operative labels here (if the comment in question was "typical Irish troublemaking" or "typical jewish conspiring" or "typical black exaggeration") we would not be seeing anything like the current amount or manner of equivocation about what to do here. And I feel that anything short of consistency with what our response would be in those situations for "typical transexual hounding" is going to send a message to every trans editor on this project as to just how much we value them on this project and are prepared to make it welcoming to them. A message I just don't want to be a part of sending. SnowRise let's rap09:16, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- One last chance? Vermont (🐿️—🏳️🌈) 14:25, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- I don't know, Cullen, I'm generally inclined to extend
- Support topic ban to GENSEX, oppose indef Roxy is a useful contributor who needs to be kept away from problems, not punished. Johnuniq (talk) 08:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- support indef, I personally believe an editor who categorises other users in this way will have a hard time contributing constructively in other topic areas as well, especially when encountering other editors subject to their prejudice in such a topic area. However,
I am willing to extend theWP:COAL to avoid this fate going forwards. --Licks-rocks (talk) - support indef per "standard transexual hounding of people they dont like" comment. The point of an indef, rather than a fixed term, is that it doesn't suddenly become all right after 2 months or that we hold out hope this was a one off and a wee holiday will fix things. As others have noted, this is a pattern of behaviour rooted in clearly stated beliefs. Not going to change baring some Road to Damascus thing. While it does make a difference that someone is a longterm useful editor rather than some random newbie who turns up to hate, this is a clear "line crossing" incident, and the attempts to keep a "useful" editor by suggesting topic bans seem desperate and frankly embarrassing. -- Colin°Talk 09:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- I am pretty involved with Roxy so I won't be making a bolded !vote, as I think editors without a history with someone (as adversaries or friends) are the best to determine if sanctions are necessary. That said, I'm less than impressed by the
needs to be kept away from problems
,isn't fit for this topic
,vindictive punishment
, and similar comments. Roxy has a long history of incivility and editing issues that are not confined to gensex topics, but rather any topic that they edit. This behavior has been chronic, and has not changed. They have had a half a dozen or so blocks for personal attacks before this point, a block for BLP violations, and a few blocks for edit warring. The vast majority of these blocks were not placed for any behavior in gensex. Roxy was also warned by arbcom for their behavior. Despite this, Roxy continues the same behavior. Is there actually a real belief that the problem is the topic area, or that with just one more chance their behavior will change?Moving on to the recent comments, a lot is being made of thestandard transexual hounding
which, as has been explained, is pretty bad. I'm even more concerned with I'm not sure I want to take part in a discussion on this subject on the talk page though, as without question I am a TERF. This wasn't a comment made in jest, and is explicitly admitting to bigotry. Roxy later went on to say I am aware of my bias here in the same way I am aware of my bias in ALT_MED. Yet, despite that self-declared bigotry, the warnings, and the blocks, Roxy continued to get involved in the topic area. Knowing their bias, after warnings about and a block for their editing, they edit warred on the same article they were blocked for violating BLP on. This edit warring included more personal attacks, showing that they attacks come when they're in a disagreement, not because of any particular topic. It's also another clear demonstration that blocks and warnings are ineffective.So we're looking at an editor with a years long history of personal attacks, incivility, and edit warring across multiple topics that doesn't adjust their behavior based on warnings or blocks, who has admitted to bigotry and used bigoted language. This isn't aisn't fit for this topic
situation. It's not that theyneed to be kept away from problems
. Their editing is the problem. It is notvindictive punishment
to indef an editor that has had years of warnings and blocks and has not changed their behavior, and has recently made bigoted attacks against an entire group of people. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)- FWIW while I'm very uncomfortable with bigots editing I also do feel there is a risk of the infamous slippery slope once we start banning or blocking simply for self-admitted bigotry. There is the fact they brought it up on wiki, as I said above if you want to talk such stuff elsewhere well whatever but when you bring it here we have to consider the harm that comes to the community when we allow people to say it here. But even with that I'm not certain I'd support a site ban simply for self admitting bigotry. I'm always in two minds about NONAZIS for the same reason and have never been particularly supportive of it. For me the transexual hounding thing is far worse since you're attacking others in a bigoted way. So it's no longer simply a case of being a bigot but you've demonstrated you will make vile attacks because of it. While this case isn't quite as bad as the other infamous one during an RfA, it isn't that far off IMO. (Likewise if there is any indication from the editor they intend to try and push their bigot views in articles.) Nil Einne (talk) 12:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- One of my concerns with an excellent long-time contributor. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- @WP:HATEDISRUPTS a while ago to address the shortcomings of NONAZIS etc. There's a subtle but very important difference between "We'll block you if you're an X" and "We'll block you if you let on that you're an X", and I felt that NONAZIS dangerously conflated the two. We shouldn't sanction people for being transphobes; we should sanction them for acting transphobically, because acting transphobic is disruptive. HATEDISRUPTS argues that it's blockable to self-out as a bigot, but I'm actually not sure whether I think "I'm a TERF" qualifies as that. As Colin says, the word means a lot of things, and for better or for worse some of those things are within the Overton window. To the extent that it's relevant here, I think it's more relevant in establishing that the offensive things said weren't accidental. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 15:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Was that essay deleted or is that a typo? Appears to be a redlink to me. — Czello (music) 15:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- I agree, and having read over your essay WP:HATEDISRUPT, I agree with most of its principles. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:51, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- @
- I'm a bit uncomfortable about using the word "bigot" (which in normal circumstances would be a personal attack) because someone has claimed to be a TERF (no problem with using the word because of their other remark, though). TERF is a rather technical jargon that has become a term of abuse that few now are willing to own and prefer something like "gender critical" instead. We need to remember that recent YouGov polls in the UK have only 38% think trans women should be considered both socially and legally women. So when you've got essentially two-thirds of my country with beliefs that could be described as gender critical or TERF-aligned, then throwing the "bigot" word around is going to hit a lot of targets. I've interacted with editors who seem very much careful not to associate themselves with a label, for fear that alone will be used against them, when their statements and edits "out" them quite obviously. WP:NONAZIS is often cited, though that is pretty much exclusively on racism with only a brief "other inappropriate discriminatory groups" tagged onto it. The community obviously should discuss when "discriminatory" crosses that line, but it is a hard case to argue that gender critical beliefs have crossed that line, when most of the UK, where I live, are on the "wrong" side of it. -- Colin°Talk13:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Godwin's Law is so useful), we cannot and should not block for status reasons. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Remember a decade ago when gay marriage wasn't legal, or when interracial marriages were illegal? Or maybe when people of certain backgrounds couldn't own land? Or women couldn't vote? Popular opinion isn't the measure of when something is right or wrong.I'm also not suggesting the issue is that Roxy said they were a TERF, what I'm saying is that if you admit to bigotry, admit to bias, get warned and blocked because of it, then continue editing in that topic area without adjusting the behavior it is an issue. I didn't sign onto the NONAZIS page because if someone has shitty or bigoted views and it doesn't leak into their editing I don't really care, but when someone admits to something like that and edits in the topic with their bias clearly showing, it is a problem. Combined with their history of general incivility and not changing their behavior, why would I have any reason to believe their behavior would improve now? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- I concur. It would be a valid discussion on "prosecuting thoughtcrime" if we were banning editors who we merely suspected of holding unsavoury views, but I don't think that the community is anywhere near doing that and in any case that's not what's happening here. XAM2175 (T) 15:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Remember a decade ago when gay marriage wasn't legal?
To extend on this, if we're measuring views based on popularity among English speakers, the four countries with the most English speakers after the USA [58] are me on reply) 02:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Personal attacks are personal attacks irrespective of the target group's political status. We're at ANI discussing this not because Roxy holds these ideas, but because those ideas manifested in the form of broad-stroke personal attacks, which are inherently disruptive to the project. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️🌈) 14:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- @
- It's not just that they said they were a TERF. It is that they said they were a TERF, and then edited as they did. They didn't end up blocked for BLP violations and topic banned because of their good behavior in the gensex topic. They said they were bigoted and then painted all trans people with a broad brush. To beat the examples given above a bit further into the ground, if someone had said "I'm pro-civil rights, but excluding Jews" and then edit warred and made BLP violations on articles of Jewish people, then when called on it said "typical Jewish tricks," we wouldn't be having this conversation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Well, them saying that they were a TERF is, according to you, "explicitly admitting to bigotry". And I'm not sure how one comes back, relationship-wise, from calling someone a bigot. I mean, a dictionary definition is
"a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group."
. But I stuck my comment under yours and WaltClippers when it also applies to a couple of those further down, who seem convinced that admitting to being a TERF is sufficient for an indef. - The problem I have is that right now, in the UK, two thirds of the population don't think gender critical beliefs are "unreasonable". In fact they call them "common sense" and "biological facts" and have not only the backing of the current government but also His Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition. I don't think your "I'm pro-civil rights, but excluding Jews" example is equivalent (in the UK anyway) to being a TERF/gender-critical. (They would argue that a trans woman is fully entitled to all the civil rights of the biological man that they actually are, so there's no discrimination at all). If someone made the claim in your example, I don't think we'd be hanging around waiting to see what bad edits they make. Your "typical Jewish tricks" example is better aligned with the "standard transexual hounding of people they don't like" comment and seems to me to be a clear line crossed.
- I think we both agree that their beliefs explain their behaviour and their behaviour is what got them here. I just wanted to say really that those beliefs alone are not I think sufficient at this point in time (even if I strongly disagree with them). -- Colin°Talk 15:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- "of the biological man that they actually are" you just couldn't resist, wow. Also funny how you ignore the existence of transmen but sure go off. Just because 2/3 of terf island is wrong doesn't mean we have to coddle them for it. --Golbez (talk) 15:47, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Can I just say that Roxy is probably British based on their dialect? Dronebogus (talk) 16:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Colin, transphobic rhetoric like “trans women are actually biological men” is the last way to defend an editor accused of transphobia. Dronebogus (talk) 16:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- I don't know which part of "They would argue that...." you are trying to associate with me, but I suggest you read what I wrote again. Oh, and based on comments elsewhere, I suggest Dronebogus take this page off your watchlist and go do something else. Golbez, perhaps you missed my indef block vote. I'm not coddling anyone. -- Colin°Talk 17:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hrm. Fine. I can assume good faith. But surely you can see how that statement, without being attributed to someone else, comes across as your own words. Especially the use of the phrase "they actually are", we have no way of knowing if that was your words or you paraphrasing someone else. That being the situation, as you say, then I apologize for piling on. --Golbez (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for the apology. I did "attribute[] to someone else", that's what "They would argue that..." means. That I am paraphrasing what someone else would argue. Do you really think any editor with half a clue would wade into a GENSEX AN/I dispute and openly say in their own words "trans women are actually biological men". It isn't just AGF you need but a degree of common sense. -- Colin°Talk 19:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hrm. Fine. I can assume good faith. But surely you can see how that statement, without being attributed to someone else, comes across as your own words. Especially the use of the phrase "they actually are", we have no way of knowing if that was your words or you paraphrasing someone else. That being the situation, as you say, then I apologize for piling on. --Golbez (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- I don't know which part of "They would argue that...." you are trying to associate with me, but I suggest you read what I wrote again. Oh, and based on comments elsewhere, I suggest Dronebogus take this page off your watchlist and go do something else. Golbez, perhaps you missed my indef block vote. I'm not coddling anyone. -- Colin°Talk 17:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- "of the biological man that they actually are" you just couldn't resist, wow. Also funny how you ignore the existence of transmen but sure go off. Just because 2/3 of terf island is wrong doesn't mean we have to coddle them for it. --Golbez (talk) 15:47, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Wrt your
"Popular opinion isn't the measure of when something is right or wrong."
I'm not saying it is. All those things are wrong and were wrong then, but we do have the benefit of hindsight. Not everything that bright people believe turns out to be a good idea. A hundred years ago lots of really bright people thought eugenics was a super idea. Someone linked to Overton window. Wikipedia's views on what is acceptable are community-led and so are at the mercy of what the community believe today. -- Colin°Talk 15:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Well, them saying that they were a TERF is, according to you, "explicitly admitting to bigotry". And I'm not sure how one comes back, relationship-wise, from calling someone a bigot. I mean, a dictionary definition is
- One of my concerns with
- I would like to note the self-awareness and contrition shown in Roxy's reply here, which is exactly what we hope to see in a situation like this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- FWIW while I'm very uncomfortable with bigots editing I also do feel there is a risk of the infamous slippery slope once we start banning or blocking simply for self-admitted bigotry. There is the fact they brought it up on wiki, as I said above if you want to talk such stuff elsewhere well whatever but when you bring it here we have to consider the harm that comes to the community when we allow people to say it here. But even with that I'm not certain I'd support a site ban simply for self admitting bigotry. I'm always in two minds about NONAZIS for the same reason and have never been particularly supportive of it. For me the transexual hounding thing is far worse since you're
- support indef. roxy has literally called themselves a terf - a literal transphobe. the fact that people are even opposing an indef block boggles me. lettherebedarklight晚安11:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support indef. I think the comments that focus on the idea that a block is "punishing" Roxy have it the wrong way round. The priority is the other editors on the project, especially those who are transgender or non-binary. There is no argument for Wikipedia accommodating an openly transphobic editor. Mackensen (talk) 12:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Roxy has asked that I copy the following explanation here (context: User talk:Roxy the dog#Blocked):
– bradv 12:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Clearly the community has decided that I am unsuitable to be making any contributions in the Gensex area of the project. I cannot but accept this. I note that I haven't done so since my much more narrowly constructed Topic Ban.
My comment to Maddy on Silktork's talk page bears examining as ST just didn't deadname her. Her pre and post transition names are well known and in her article here, in the first sentence.
Perhaps an examination of the reason I was at the Silktork page may bring some enlightenment. See User talk:CompromisingSuggestion That admittedly minor example and the vast majority of my 30k odd contributions over many years surely speak in mitigation. I have been and would like to continue be a positive contributer to the project. Roxy the dog 07:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- If the
30k odd contributions over many years surely speak in mitigation
, then this proceeding should also take note of the broader picture of Roxy the dog's interaction over those same years, not just the most recent comments. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 12:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC) - I do not understand the second paragraph. A deadname is still a deadname even if it is publicly known. talk) 13:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- I suspect the verb "deadname" may have been conflated there with the verb "out" (verb), as in thinking it means "expose the prior name" rather than "use the prior name", so you can't have deadnamed if the prior name was already public knowledge. This is of course not how the word is defined in the Wikipedia article about it, nor in the dictionaries I've seen by Googling "define deadname". – .Raven .talk 18:11, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- If the
- Support indef. Can't not comment at this point. Mainly per Colin. Even if Roxy isn't hateful and transphobic, the language (specifically the hounding comment) being used is, and the block would be preventative at this point for the members of our community being hurt. Scribolt (talk) 12:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- No action needed - This was pointing out the obvious, This was a personal attack and should be struck, I'm not seeing anything that warrants blocking. –Davey2010Talk 12:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Did you READ Rox’s block log? Or his “I am a TERF” comment? Do you even care how horribly bigoted “standard transsexual hounding” even sounds? Dronebogus (talk) 12:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not bothered about the terf comment, And no I don't care although as I said it should be struck for being a PA. –Davey2010Talk 12:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oh for goodness sakes, stop going after !votes that oppose your position. As one who myself supports indeffing, you've done it multiple times and it's getting aggravating. I think anyone who has come to this discussion can be assumed to have read most of the salient points without you having to keep hitting on them. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yes Dronebogus please stop your bludgeoning and persistent responses to everything on ANI. You've been blocked from ANI previously for doing exactly this and I've noticed the last month or so you're doing it again, and jumping onto people's talk pages to wind them up as well. I know this isn't about you, but it comes across as you're just running around looking for the next controversy to get involved in. Please stop it. Canterbury Tail talk 13:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Did you READ Rox’s block log? Or his “I am a
- Support indef - Not just for this incident, but a very, very, very long-running pattern of incivility and belligerency towards other editors. --Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support TBAN or indef. As well as the thoroughly-discussed "standard transsexual hounding" comment (which RtD seems to have double down on on their talkpage), I am unimpressed by their doubling down on the claim that "ST just didn't deadname [Manning]" here: as XOR'easter points out above, whether a name is publicly known or not has nothing to do with whether or not it is a deadname. Equally I am unimpressed by their need to shoehorn the claim that they are "axiomatically correct" about trans issues into a talkpage discussion with no previous relation to GENSEX.
Undecided on the indef: SFR makes the case above that issues with Roxy's editing are not confined to GENSEX, but without diffs, and I'm torn on whether or not a GENSEX Tban would be sufficient if the only current problems are GENSEX-related, though I'm leaning towards supporting following the arguments of e.g. Tamzin and SnowRise.Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC) Edited 18:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)- As one example, in March 2022, Roxy was formally warned by ArbCom to "remain collegial in editing and interacting with others" in the 2022 Skepticism and coordinated editing case decision. From my view, this history helps show how the concerns about ongoing personal attacks discussed here are not 'confined to GENSEX' - there appears to be a broader conduct issue that is not limited to nor a function of the GENSEX topic area. And to be clear - editors who are openly trans on this site are not part of the GENSEX topic area - Maddy is not a 'GENSEX topic,' they are a person and an editor, and just as protected by our civility and no personal attacks policies as all editors should be.
- Had this been a matter of editing issues in one or two contentious topic areas by a seasoned editor who by now we would expect to know better, e.g. edit-warring (part of the reason for the March 2023 block) to add content over a good-faith BLP objection in the GENSEX topic area, after previously being blocked in February 2023 for a BLP violation in the GENSEX area, then from my view, this would more readily appear to be conduct that could be addressed by a TBAN. However, despite the broad March 2022 warning from ArbCom, personal attacks by Roxy continued, and previous warnings and sanctions do not appear to have worked to prevent further harm to the collegial editing environment. Beccaynr (talk) 14:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks Beccaynr for clarifying my thinking on this. You are correct: the problem is not just Roxy's involvement in the GENSEX topic area, but Roxy's interaction with trans editors, and I think you are right that simply expanding the scope of the TBAN will not address this issue. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- "Axiomatically correct"? Good grief. talk) 17:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose any action until two weeks are up at least. This happens all the time, you see. Someone gets blocked, is unable to answer back, there's a sudden rush of blood to the head, and there you have it: people start calling for indefs and Cbans, etc. Calmez vous. But, there's no rush. Not for two weeks. See what effect Bradv's block has. Blocks aren't punitive, and there's no need for this to turn into a battlefield any more than it is already; another interesting phenomenon is how, when the main protagonist is removed from the argument—as the Dog has been—everybody starts fighting each other.BTW, if Dronebogus replies to this, you may consider me a support for an indef from the inevitable ANI Tban that they will doubtless face. SN54129 14:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Serial Number 54129, you note Roxy is
"unable to answer back"
, as though Roxy's response to this ANI thread being created was not a transphobic attack, as though there has not been significant engagement by Roxy on their talk page, and as though Bradv had not posted a statement from Roxy merely five messages above yours. We have seen, demonstrably, that blocks do not work with this user...I understand the want to give another chance, but that is a risk, and we as a community have given a lot of rope already. Best, Vermont (🐿️—🏳️🌈) 14:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC) - Negative refactoring, WP:ECHO for why your attempted ping to me failed. But, my best to you all the same, and with due respect. SN5412914:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- The refactoring was me, @MOS:INDENTMIX fixes and interpreted your postscript as being meant as a reply to your own post. I've now left your restoration of the original formatting as-is, but removed the signature from the first part (before the para break) because it fools Discussion Tools into allowing the insertion of replies between the two parts of your post. XAM2175 (T)15:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- @XAM2175: Thank you for sorting that out for me, I appreciate the techno-fixes as it's the sort of thing that can be important but I'll be the first to admit I often don't realise—cheers! And, Vermont, please accept my apology, if you can, for wrongly accusing you; it was clearly ill-founded, as a look at the page history would have told me. Sorry! SN54129 15:56, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- The refactoring was me, @
- rope that he could lay it down and have it go around the Earth three times. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 23:15, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- I am unlikely to be reminded of much by a 16 month old account; but thanks anyway. SN54129 23:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Then how about a 19 year old account reminding you of same, young'n? --Golbez (talk) 23:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- And if I had tried to patronise you and tried to teach you how things worked, that would be a perfectly reasonable response. But unlike the 16-monther, I didn't, so it isn't. SN54129 14:11, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Then how about a 19 year old account reminding you of same, young'n? --Golbez (talk) 23:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- I am unlikely to be reminded of much by a 16 month old account; but thanks anyway. SN54129 23:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Serial Number 54129, you note Roxy is
- Support indef and TBAN. Snow Rise and ScottishFinnishRadish have said everything I would have. XAM2175 (T) 15:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support indef per Tamzin. Legoktm (talk) 15:53, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Indef editing isn't a right, but editors have a right to not have to face transphobic rhetoric here. This is not a new editor who didn't know better, this is same old bullshit from the usual suspects. Anyone but Roxy would have used up their last chance long ago. Star Mississippi 16:42, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support upgrade to TBAN, 3-month site ban. I've worked in this area, though I haven't worked with RTD before (at least per my recollection). On the other hand, I have worked with and have a great amount of respect for a lot of the editors here, though those editors seem largely split between endorsing just a TBAN or an indefinite site ban. As I understand it, RTD's TBAN was previously confined to transgender athletes. Roxy made a comment about MOS:GENDERID to conclude that someone who was notable pre transition does not have a deadname. Alone, I probably would've said that the comment was misguided and great evidence of why the current tban should continue, but RTD subsequently accused an editor (Maddy) of "standard transsexual hounding". That's problematic for two reasons: first, it's a clear identity-based personal attack against the editor in question (who, not that it matters, was actually correct as to the meaning of deadnaming), and, second, it's an aspersion against trans people writ large.17:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
For the latter issue, I think upgrading the TBAN is the obvious consequence, and I think a GENSEX TBAN for such comments by editors who have, in other areas, been productive is pretty standard. For the former comment, I think a 3-month ban is called for. I don't think we can ignore that this was an identity-based attack motivated by some of the same thinking that lead to RTD's initial tban. Ideally, a temporary site ban would make clear to RTD what the current tban apparently did not. At the same time, blocks are supposed to be preventive, and it's worth noting that a GENSEX tban would, as I understand, bar RTD from commenting on Chelsea Manning, which is how this began. I also think it should be clear that another identity-based personal attack will be met with an indef ban.--Jerome Frank Disciple
- In March 2022 as a result of the Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing, Roxy the dog was
warned to remain collegial in editing and interacting with others.
See warning here. - In the enforcement section, it reads:
0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.
See: Enforcement of restrictions. - Is that arbitration ruling still in force, and enforceable in light of recent comments? Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 17:25, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Speaking as a former arbitrator, a warning is not a sanction that is enforceable, that boilerplate enforcement language is for topic bans, which there was one passed in that case. Courcelles (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Speaking as a sitting arb, though also only speaking for myself, if asked I would have found SilkTork's December block of Roxy citing the arbcom findings to be in keeping with the case and appropriate enforcement of it. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks to you both. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 16:58, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49I agree that that block was warranted, and the warning issued basically amounts to “shape up or get blocked, and if you come back here for the same things expect a site ban to be voted on.” Just meant the warnings don’t (or at least didn’t used to) come with enforceable protected blocks, the kind you undo and expect a L2 desysop with your morning coffee. Courcelles (talk) 18:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Speaking as a sitting arb, though also only speaking for myself, if asked I would have found SilkTork's December block of Roxy citing the arbcom findings to be in keeping with the case and appropriate enforcement of it. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Speaking as a former arbitrator, a warning is not a sanction that is enforceable, that boilerplate enforcement language is for topic bans, which there was one passed in that case. Courcelles (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- In March 2022 as a result of the Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing, Roxy the dog was
- Support GENSEX TBan per the previous discussion at large. On the main flashpoint of
"standard transsexual hounding"
: that really does not look good, but I'm not convinced it was intended as a PA, per KoA (I also wish Roxy could respond or clarify, but they're blockedtheir Talk page discussion is a great venue for them to have explained, and they haven't as of yet). Regardless of that, though, this editor apparently has a history of poor editing in this topic area - I don't think a topic ban is unwarranted at this point. Also, Oppose indef block/site ban, primarily based on their block log: Since November 2018, I see 4 blocks for edit-warring/content policy reasons, mostly separated by 6+ months. From that, I see an editor who probably has chronic issues adhering to that policy, but typically cools off after a block and edits productively (and steadily) for a while afterward. Repeated infractions probably warrant longer blocks, and eventually an indef, but I'm not sure we're there yet on this front. I don't read a persistent lack of civility across all topic areas from the block log - I think the topic ban would be effective at limiting future civility infractions. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)- The block on May 22 was for edit warring and personal attacks [59] after this comment. - Bilby (talk) 18:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- This IS a
repeated infraction
though. If you can say "They've been blocked multiple times before but let's only escalate if they repeat this." when is enough enough? It doesn't matter if theycool off
because the damage being done is disruptive itself. What's the alternative? They go on a disruptive rampage of vandalism for a month? GabberFlasted (talk) 18:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support Indef and require GENSEX tban for any future unblock - The transphobic comments by RtD are just beyond the pale, and we cannot allow this to continue. Anything short of a site ban is just allowing this user to continue harassing and hounding trans Wikipedians, and should not be tolerated. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:36, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support indef. I've read through the various comments above, and, so far as the most recent and relevant behavior is concerned, see enough for that. There have been some fellows of the opinion that an indefinite ban might be too drastic and that a topic ban is sufficient, taking into account Roxy's useful contributions to other aspects of the project. Respectfully, I don't think that's appropriate or relevant. Roxy is a self-admitted TERF, ergo transphobe, and as a result of that has demonstrated transphobia on this project. Trying to silo them into useful and non-useful parts in this particular respect is horrific policy. It's not acceptable to allow an open racist or misogynist to contribute and be part of a community so long as they avoid open discussion about race or sex. The topic ban proposed effectively says that transphobia is a lesser phobia than other discriminatory actions and attitudes. Iseult Δx parlez moi 22:09, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support gensex TBAN for user's history of gleeful anti-trans behavior - user seems essentially incapable of productive contributions in the topic area. Support temp block for personal attacks, which should be made indef if they continue after unblock. --Equivamp - talk 23:04, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support indefinite block While I do not think not accepting gender theory should automatically result in an indefnite block, Roxy's comments clearly hinder collaboration and are incompatible with Wikipedia's values. talk) 23:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support indefinite site ban and indefinite GENSEX topic ban - Noting here that Roxy and I were both opposite parties to an arbcom case where Roxy was warned (and I reminded) to. 00:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
remain collegial in editing
due to interactions between us. I'm continually disappointed in Roxy's inability to improve their conduct and to recognize the benefits to the community they could bring if they weren't so immensely high-maintenance. However, Wikipedia does not need them and if they are unable to learn how to collaborate constructively they should face a site ban. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum - Support indef CBAN with indef topic ban from GENSEX as a requirement for unblocking per self-admittance of being a TERF. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 01:55, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I still subscribe to WaltCip's viewpoint. Also this section in WP:HATEDISRUPTis good read:
Under this essay, bigoted editors are not blocked for their ideologies; they are blocked for their behavior. It just so happens that their ideologies correlate nearly 1:1 with a tendency toward disruptive behavior, especially given that the very act of self-identifying as a member of a hate movement is disruptive behavior.
This distinction is important. Non-bigoted editors outside the political mainstream, both on the right and the left, may read NONAZIS and reasonably worry that their ideology is next. Others may infer a political or geographical bias in the focus on right-wing extremists in Europe and the core Anglosphere. Focusing on ideology, in justifying blocks, raises many difficult-to-answer questions, needlessly complicates things, and leads to drama every time a block is made citing these essays. The real answer is simple: Hate is disruptive. We block people for disruption. We block people who say and do and align with hateful things.
This only sounds controversial if you go out of your way to make it sound controversial.
ibicdlcod (talk) 13:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Here's a tangent that doesn't need to go any further. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
|
|---|
|
- Support indef site ban per above. No signs of growth seeing error of ways. Can return at some point. -- GreenC 15:05, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support topic ban to GENSEX broadly construed, oppose indef per Tryptofish, Cullen, KoA and others. I agree with what SFR wrote above (
if you admit to bigotry, admit to bias, get warned and blocked because of it, then continue editing in that topic area without adjusting the behavior it is an issue
), and it is an issue that requires Roxy to be banned from editing/commenting anywhere within the GENSEX area. But I am also, perhaps naively, hopeful that this indicates a (new?) level of both self-awareness and an awareness of others that will result in a much improved editor going forward. I really hope I am not wrong about that. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2023 (UTC) - Support indef and topic ban Like c'mon, this is an editor who has a long history of incivility in general and a record of outright bigotry in this specific area. I am astounded there are any editors that don't support an indef. Loki (talk) 17:43, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose site ban, not there yet, and we usually give productive editors (which Roxy most certainly is in medical content) a chance to make right whatever is wrong, particularly when their controversial edits occurred during a period of bad health. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Arbitrary section break 2
- Comment On this thread several users have pointed to Roxy's statement they are a "TERF" to be sufficient grounds for a permanent ban in itself. Have I missed a meeting here? Has it been decided that people who self-define as Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists are not tolerated here? This is outside of the other facts of the case, the "transexual hounding" comment seems very hard to defend against charges of transphobia, it has been convincingly stated that swapping in almost any other minority demographic here would be considered hateful. --Boynamedsue (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- I don't disagree that this argument makes sense (though I think the pronoun thing here is not enough for sanction on its own), but it's not what people are saying. Boynamedsue (talk) 21:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Indef site ban - And we should ensure the entire community knows this behavior is not acceptable here. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:37, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support topic ban to GENSEX area (broadly construed), oppose indef. There are many other areas of this encyclopedia, where this editor may be (and is) productive. Limited block and broad topic ban are the best outcome for the project. Pavlor (talk) 05:28, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
pre-Closure consultation
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.
In my many closures, I've never done this before, but I'm gonna make an exception in this case. Per
WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS
. Anyway, the GENSEX TBAN side brings up RtD's long years of productivity; whereas the CBAN side emphasizes the bigoted comment highlighted, in addition to RtD having a long history of personal attacks and incivility (including recently), which is reflected in their lengthy block log. As well, there's the matter of trans editors being forced to share the same editing ecosystem with someone self-described as exclusionary. I am highly sympathetic to this viewpoint, and normally this would all just be in my closing summary. However, a few hours ago, the following exchange occurred on RtD's talk page:
So that's it then. I am a hateful transphobic bigot, condemmed by the community. I am very sorry, and I hope the community will allow me to continue to contribute in areas outside GENSEX, where I have already accepted I am not able to contribute in a positive way. I have contributed and would wish to continue to contribute in a positive way in many other areas of the project. -Roxy the dog 08:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- The statement I am a hateful transphobic bigot will be used against you by irony-immune users. If I was in your place, I would strike it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you Hob. This is unfortunate, because this was me admitting my failings, acknowledging what I have done and the condemnation of the community. I was not being ironic. This was the accused admitting his guilt. Your good faith misenterpretation only serves to illustrate how difficult it is for me to achieve clarity in my responses. At this stage, everything I say is being picked apart, it is heartbreaking for me to acknowledge my failings in this way. Thank you once more. - Roxy the dog 09:55, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [Emphasis added in bold]
So, in light of that, I ask those who favour a CBAN: how do view this latest comment by RtD? Does it count as a genuine admission to the extent worthy of downgrading the CBAN into less severe sanctions? There are no wrong answers here, and those who still prefer to review contrition in an appeal six months or a year from now — I consider that to be a totally legit position. What I'm trying to determine, however, is if anyone has changed their minds in light of the excerpt quoted above. And if not, could it still be changed, and what would it take for that to happen. Thanks. El_C 19:43, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- I'm out of this discussion for obvious reasons so I just want to change my vote to "whatever comes out of this El_C chat." I respect you and have faith that what you pick will be the best. I'm good with downgrading, etc. Not because of the exerpt, but only specifying that because you did. --Golbez (talk) 19:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Personally, I always have more respect (in relative terms) for people who will acknowledge their views for what they are. If I had to pick between spending time with an avowed neo-Nazi or a guy who just thinks Jews maybe have too much influence in banking, I'd pick the former, because at least he's being honest about what he is. (Pardon the reductio ad Hitlerum, but I think it gets the point across.) That said, that personal view, that honesty deserves some respect, doesn't translate to thinking that such a person should edit here. Roxy's honesty means I probably wouldn't have a problem grabbing a pint with them, but it doesn't change the fact (and indeed exacerbates the fact) that their presence in this wiki creates a hostile editing environment for trans/nonbinary/gender-nonconforming editors. If this admission is the first step toward self-reflection that leads to a disavowal of these views someday, I'll be the first in line to support an unban. But as stands a ban remains necessary, or is even more clearly necessary than before. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:59, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Change their minds? I doubt it. I think people who want to understand Roxy oppose siteban already. In the support siteban section there is strong indication that this is too little too late for them. But I think there is not yet rough consensus for siteban. ibicdlcod (talk) 20:06, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Shoot, this is tough. I've been aware of RtD's comments on their talk page for some time, and I have reconsidered my position with them in mind. I really don't want to support an indef/siteban for RtD—it's obvious that they've done a lot of good work here, and a lot of editors have had positive interactions with them and hold them in high regard. As I write this I'm painfully aware of talk · contribs] 20:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- I find RtD's prior comment,
I follow the science, I am not any of those hateful things.
open to interpretation and (at his own admission) his words are open to misinterpretation. Perhaps he will set the record straight on that? If it means the same as "Whatever. God is on my side" (and means not just his scientific skepticism but the trans stuff as well), I find it questionable and it might tip me from my earlier !novote comment to a ban, not only for his most recent comments but also for his prior interactions, though much mitigated by his work in other areas. I think he was lucky at ArbCom to have simply been warned to remain collegial, because the atmosphere around fringe topics has at times become a battleground. And I say that as a moderate and hopefully open-minded (UK) liberal democrat who has played a bit part in the fields of physics, electronics, and software engineering. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 20:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC) - I certainly haven't changed my mind. I am a non-trans man myself, but I find it difficult if I know that the person that I'm editing with could have such an attitude to me personally, whether that attitude is admitted or not. Let's not fall into the trap of regarding such people as just the "good ol' boys". Phil Bridger (talk) 20:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- I haven't offered an opinion on a sanction because I figured I would be viewed as involved because I was subject to this [60] from Roxy. However, I have not viewed this discussion as focused on, as Roxy puts it, identifying "a hateful transphobic bigot, condemmed by the community" but instead on conduct that has continued to be disruptive and harmful despite warnings and sanctions. So I leave it to the community to decide whether it is okay for someone to behave toward other editors as Roxy has, and then be permitted to continue editing anywhere without acknowledging the harm caused to editors and the community. Beccaynr (talk) 20:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- I've tried to disengage from this thread, but I think now that this is approaching closure, and given the nature of this subdiscussion, my comment may be of use.Roxy the dog's statement is worthless. It amounts to: "Yes, I'm a transphobe. Now let me edit." No attempt to apologize or other moves towards reconciliation. No, thanks. I guess it funnily resembles the arguments of the participants opposing a siteban. Compare this to their response where they at least offered some form of apology, and yet here we are. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 21:00, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- No change in opinion. If they actually wanted to “admit guilt” they’d renounce their transphobic beliefs instead of doubling down with the addendum that they (claim to) feel terrible about being a bigot. If it feels so terrible why are you still a bigot? Dronebogus (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Plus I know firsthand that people getting aggressively fried under a magnifying glass tend to be hyperbolically self-flagellating even if they’re not truly “ironic”. Dronebogus (talk) 21:28, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- I don't believe Roxy's message is meant to say what Maddy above thinks it says. But then I don't think I understand what it says either. This is a problem with Roxy's communication style in general, that it's often utterly opaque, which becomes a huge problem when they start offending other editors. I've been there with them, where they wrote something to me that if read the wrong way sounds awfully close to 'go kill yourself', and I couldn't even get them to engage about it (this incident was probably instrumental in the later Arbcom warning).I !voted against a c-ban expressing the hope that Roxy would explain themselves and somehow assure that we will see no more civility problems from them. Ibicdlcod writes above that those who are on the oppose siteban side want to understand Roxy, and that's indeed the main reason why I !voted the way I did. Unfortunately, despite closely watching their talk, I still do not understand. I personally refuse to believe that there's any real bigotry or hatred there, but Roxy needs to convince a large majority of editors of this too. If they cannot do that, it's probably in everybody's best interest that they are indeed banned from editing here. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:07, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- The problem here is that an editor is consistently uncivil in their communication style and is simply incapable of moderating this, as they have been consistently tolerated to a much greater degree than most users. This has led to a situation where their incivility has finally collided with a topic where large numbers of users are unwilling to tolerate insensitivity. I have some sympathy for RtD, as how were they to know this was the place the line was drawn? Perhaps the lesson here is to start to apply the same rules to everyone, rather than making allowances for the "big beasts"... I know if I'd done a quarter of what RtD had, I'd have been out on my arse.Boynamedsue (talk) 22:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, that example is pretty bad. These are the sorts of interactions I was referencing when I said that RtD's conduct has been
corrosive to a collaborative editing environment
. I really don't want to volunteer along with someone who habitually does that sort of thing. I'm not even referring specifically to Roxy the dog here, either. If I need to worry that I'll be faced with stonewalling and personal attacks whenever I challenge someone's edits, I don't want to edit here, period. It's just not worth it, and I'm saying that as a cishet dude—I can't even begin to imagine what it must be like to face people who invalidate your very existence. —talk · contribs] 22:37, 7 June 2023 (UTC)- The "long walk, short pier" quote is a really pertinent example. It is not actually that bad a thing to say in older people's British English, almost a little joke. But the moment you realise someone has taken it to heart you have to clarify, a. because it's right, b. because it could be misconstrued as incitement to suicide by the community. RtD just chose not to because he (correctly) thought he would get away with it.--Boynamedsue (talk) 22:53, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- It probably won't surprise anyone, and it probably won't change anyone's mind, that I read Roxy's latest comments as genuinely reflecting that he feels awful about what he said, and that he will abide by the community's wish that he not only not edit about the topic, but not make any comments to editors that reflect the attitude that got him here. I'll also point to WP:NOTAVOTE, and advise that this consultation should not boil down to counting up the number of editors who have changed their minds, and the number who have not. It needs to reflect the overall consensus over the length of this discussion, and that's not a vote either. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- I read it as you read it, which is why I mentioned it above. I believe it was honest, and the weight of a community you've belonged to for a long while crashing down on you can lead to legitimate reconsideration of your views. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- I think people need to take into consideration that this isn't just a few instances of transphobic comments (though I'm not absolutely trying to diminish that) but that this is a continuation of a very very long period of incivility, insults, belittling and personal attacking of other editors as evidenced by a huge block log and the evidence of many continued chances that haven't changed anything. At the end of the day it's not just the transgender community that Roxy is doing damage and performing insults against, it's all editors and has been for a long long time. The point I'm making is this is just a final straw, on a long career and history of insults and incivility that can strike at any member of this community. This is why I don't think a GENSEX ban is the answer, but an actual indefinite block. I am also going to be quick to point out that indefinite does not mean permanent. However I do strongly believe that Roxy needs some time away from here and that when they return they need to convince the community as a whole, after that long period of cooling off, that they are no longer a disruption or attacker against other community members before regaining their editing privileges. Canterbury Tail talk 23:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Despite everything that has been said, despite being blocked from his talk page, I would love nothing more than to sit down with Roxy and to try and help him understand why the science is not on his side. I would love to help him understand what it feels like when the sex you are assigned at birth is incongruent with your own internal sense of self. I would love to help him understand why TERF rhetoric and ideas harm not only trans and non-binary individuals, but also cisgender people. And I think regardless of what happens next, I would like to leave that door open to him should he desire it. El_C has asked if this most recent comment is enough for me to reconsider my !vote for a indef. And honestly, I don't know. I feel like this is the beginning of an apology, it's acknowledging that he has said harmful things. But. I think Maddy and Tamzin have this right. For me it's the start of an apology, but it's missing the key steps of acknowledging specific harms (eg, the hounding comment, Roxy's incredibly hurtful and targeted comments about Beccanyr), and a commitment to become a better person. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:50, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- I note User talk:Roxy the dog#A proposed resolution, and I'd like to suggest seeing what comes of it, before closing the discussion here. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:34, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- Just want to make sure I understand: Roxy has already said they'd accept a topic ban, correct? So the proposed resolution is that they'd also accept a IBAN w.r.t. Maddy?--Jerome Frank Disciple 00:38, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- Well, you're reading the same thing that I am. I would assume that it also hinges upon what exactly Roxy says in response, and how he says it. I note what Sideswipe says just above, that his comments above sound like "the beginning of an apology", and that it might matter to some editors whether he can take it further, and if so, in what way and with what kind of attitude. (I'm trying to answer your question without coaching Roxy on what to say, because I really think that falls entirely on him.) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- No, that's totally fair! I had seen a few posts disputing whether Roxy had agreed to the topic ban, so I figured I'd check.--Jerome Frank Disciple 00:54, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- Well, you're reading the same thing that I am. I would assume that it also hinges upon what exactly Roxy says in response, and how he says it. I note what Sideswipe says just above, that his comments above sound like "the beginning of an apology", and that it might matter to some editors whether he can take it further, and if so, in what way and with what kind of attitude. (I'm trying to answer your question without coaching Roxy on what to say, because I really think that falls entirely on him.) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- According to Roxy, they had already been acting under a defacto topic ban and wasn't editing in the GenSex area. I don't see how a new topic ban would change things if the previous one didn't. 130.220.8.162 (talk) 01:12, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- As I understand it, this would extend to never commenting to (or about) other editors about anything having to do with the subject, not just staying away from pages in the topic area. But I think it's probably best not to speculate until we see what Roxy actually says. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- I think we consider the offer before we have a reply. But as someone who is well aware of Roxy's actions, do you really think that GenSex is the only area of concern? - 130.220.8.162 (talk) 01:33, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- I've already commented on that, in my original comment in the discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:39, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- So it is a ban on GenSex, and a hope that Roxy has got the point in general. Got it. - 130.220.8.162 (talk) 01:43, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, just for the point of continuity—I'm not asking you to out yourself, but can you clarify if you were one of the IPs who participated above? I tried to figure out what the context for these comments were, but your contribution page says these are your first 4 edits ever. (I used to move around a bit as an IP, so I understand if it's just switching up on you!)--Jerome Frank Disciple 01:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- So it is a ban on GenSex, and a hope that Roxy has got the point in general. Got it. - 130.220.8.162 (talk) 01:43, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- I've already commented on that, in my original comment in the discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:39, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- I think we consider the offer before we have a reply. But as someone who is well aware of Roxy's actions, do you really think that GenSex is the only area of concern? - 130.220.8.162 (talk) 01:33, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- As I understand it, this would extend to never commenting to (or about) other editors about anything having to do with the subject, not just staying away from pages in the topic area. But I think it's probably best not to speculate until we see what Roxy actually says. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- Just want to make sure I understand: Roxy has already said they'd accept a topic ban, correct? So the proposed resolution is that they'd also accept a IBAN w.r.t. Maddy?--Jerome Frank Disciple 00:38, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- I also read Roxy's comments as Tryptofish does. I do not believe they meant the level of offense that some are seeing in the comments. As such I do not support a CBAN. Springee (talk) 02:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- No change Surprising that ELC wants us all to reaffirm our ivote as they are usually quick on the draw. The editor has a long history of being uncivil and the site ban is needed. I do not care what kind of positive contributions a person makes, we simply cannot have the long term snarling. Aster multiple blocks, a warning at Arbcom and an easy consensus above we still have to vacillate here with ivote reaffirming. Lightburst (talk) 03:02, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- RE:
usually quick on the draw
: as mentioned, minimum duration per BANPOL is 72 hours, which will be ~7 hours from now. El_C 03:41, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- RE:
- I'm not changing my !vote. This was the final nail in the coffin for me. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 03:05, 8 June 2023 (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.
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.
Cahnc
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.
- Cahnc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
New user with some good faith contributions that seems suddenly intensely focused on removing sourced content regarding the Catholic identity of largely Italian persons. After being warned and notified of several policies that their editing was running up against, the editor proceeded to continue reverting, violating the 3RR rule at least twice, including once after being notified of the rule. Request action to catch their attention, as they have responded to warnings by blanking their talk page and carrying on with their
DEing. Actions may be those of a sock, considering the relative familiarity of editor with some other policies. ~ Pbritti (talk
) 06:07, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- User:Pbritti seems suddenly intensely focused on undoing my edits. This included repeatedly restoring extremely poor English like "He started also a collaboration...". They are clearly not really looking at what they are reverting. The fact that the majority of Italians are Catholics is not remarkable, and there are very few articles about Italians, or anyone else, where their religion needs to be stated. I have not made more than three reverts at any article. Cahnc (talk) 06:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- You are engaged in edit-warring, ignoring requests to adhere to policy regarding both sourced content and MOS (the latter referring to ) 06:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- What is the policy regarding sourced content that I am not adhering to? And why have you claimed that I broke a rule which I have at no point broken? Cahnc (talk) 06:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- The WP:BRD). I'm using 3RR as shorthand but more appropriately I should have linked WP:Edit warring, as that was the behavior you were undertaking despite my repeated efforts to encourage you to discuss, both in edit summaries and on your talk page (which you repeatedly blanked). ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- You clearly wanted to have an edit war; you were the one who started indiscriminately reverting my edits. And now when I ask for what policy you think I am not adhering to, you link to a page which says This process is not mandated by Wikipedia policy. The changes I have made were basic common sense. I did not expect anyone to attack me for them as you have done. Cahnc (talk) 06:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- The
- What is the policy regarding sourced content that I am not adhering to? And why have you claimed that I broke a rule which I have at no point broken? Cahnc (talk) 06:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- You are engaged in edit-warring, ignoring requests to adhere to policy regarding both sourced content and MOS (the latter referring to ) 06:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
BRD is an explanatory essay on paragraph three of BOLD's lead. I am not attacking you, though I do suspect you of policy-violating behavior despite apparently knowing more than the average new editor about policy. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:43, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Pbritti, some of the edits of Cahnc are good. Can you please list the exact diffs you have problems with? Lourdes 08:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Lourdes: several are linked in my first post but additionally: [61], [62], and [63]. There are other articles and on every article it was multiple reversions but the basic gist is that Cahnc deleted referenced statements about people's religious identity (and a bolded alternative name) then refused to engage even when policy was cited. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hi dispute resolution, such as opening up talk page discussions in the articles concerned? (Edit summaries don't equate to discussions; neither do talk page conversations on user talk pages, when the issue is related to particular articles). I will suggest that you open up talk page discussions and also use the standard DR route to sort out editorial issues here. And try to be congenial in your discussions with them. In case consensus is ignored after following DR, come back here with a link to this discussion. Thanks, Lourdes05:00, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- There is no mandate that you can only look at diffs that are linked, and even then I linked several example diffs when they crossed thresholds or responded adversely to being notified regarding standing policies and guidelines. Additionally, you may have misunderstood: this is about many articles (which were linked in the diffs), not just a particular article. This is disruption, not a content dispute. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:30, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Pbritti, if some other administrator wishes to do a wider investigation, they will do. The three diffs you showcased do not show any disruption and show lack of initiating talk page discussions from your side. If there are other many articles, list the diffs here please and I can review them. For sorting out issues related to religious identities' issue of Cahnc en masse, open up a discussion on the relevant noticeboard. Lourdes 06:19, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- Lourdes, linking all the diffs probably wouldn't convince you given I've already detailed the problem and provided easy access to many of the pages involved. If someone else wants to provide input, that would be appreciated. Also, I figure you do it as a polite courtesy (thank you!), but I'm watching this discussion so you don't have to tag me. I should've mentioned that before, sorry. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Pbritti, if some other administrator wishes to do a wider investigation, they will do. The three diffs you showcased do not show any disruption and show lack of initiating talk page discussions from your side. If there are other many articles, list the diffs here please and I can review them. For sorting out issues related to religious identities' issue of Cahnc en masse, open up a discussion on the relevant noticeboard. Lourdes 06:19, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- There is no mandate that you can only look at diffs that are linked, and even then I linked several example diffs when they crossed thresholds or responded adversely to being notified regarding standing policies and guidelines. Additionally, you may have misunderstood: this is about many articles (which were linked in the diffs), not just a particular article. This is disruption, not a content dispute. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:30, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hi
- @Lourdes: several are linked in my first post but additionally: [61], [62], and [63]. There are other articles and on every article it was multiple reversions but the basic gist is that Cahnc deleted referenced statements about people's religious identity (and a bolded alternative name) then refused to engage even when policy was cited. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
I've blocked Cahnc, this is 18:23, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- Well, that makes me feel a little better about my sock radar going off. Thanks for looking into this, Ponyo and Lourdes! ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:51, 8 June 2023 (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.
IP continuing transphobia after account was blocked
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- 165.1.159.49 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
After
WP:AE thread, where they, like in their edit summaries, use language similar to Homme's. I posted on AE already, but haven't gotten a response, and the disruption is ongoing. Sock or not, I think they need blocked. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH
) 10:28, 9 June 2023 (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.
Sockpuppets of Belteshazzar (yet again, again)
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.
Sorry to be a nuisance. I'm sure that everybody is fed up with this so I'll keep it quick. Please could somebody head over to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Belteshazzar and block the two IPs in the second report? Disruption is ongoing at a low level so it would benefit from action. Thanks. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:40, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- I am in communication with the WMF. They emailed me to say they are investigating but I believe it could be a long time via the investigation which I would like done faster. I had to put up with his stalking for over a year and a half so I want a global ban as soon as possible. Another issue is that many of the proxy IPs he is using are blocked for 1 or 2 weeks, that is not enough as he ends up just going back on them. They should be blocked 6 months or a year, they are proxies. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:28, 9 June 2023 (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.
Copyright issue
I recently uploaded an image to wikimedia, the logo for The Americna Battlefield Trust a non profit. I wasnt sure how to properly label all the fields to allow wikipedia to use it. I tried comparing it to other nonprofit/chairty logos on this site, but I cannot figure it out. Can someone help me out or point me in the direction of instructions on how to properly do this before the image is deleted? Thanks. Here is the image in question: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:American_Battlefield_Trust_logo.png Friedbyrd (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- We have no powers over Wikimedia Commons, who are a linked but very different project to us. If you visit the links in the template on the page you posted there's advice on what to do to make a file compatable with their licensing regime. — Trey Maturin™ 18:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Trey is right that we have no power here over Commons, but it looks as if the image can't be hosted there because it is copyrighted. You might, however, be able to host it here if you make a valid claim of fair use in a particular article, see Phil Bridger (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Ah ha! Yes, I was looking at it from the other direction. Now you point it out, Phil, it's obvious what the actual question was. Yeah, Friedbyrd, this Wikipedia does allow non-free content within very strict rules. Commons, and many of the other Wikimedia projects, do not at all.
- You'll need to brush up on our policies on logos and other non-free material, re-upload the file here directly, then clearly and directly specify why a copyrighted image can and should be used, and where. The file upload wizard can help – select Upload a non-free file when asked and fill out the details is requests from there. The leftover file at Commons will be automatically deleted later. — Trey Maturin™ 18:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks! I just did that instead of spending hours trying to figure out the commons thing. I didnt even know you could just upload images straight to wikipedia lol. Friedbyrd (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hello. I am the admin who deleted the file on Commons. The reason that the file was deleted on Commons is that the file was uploaded on Commons under a Non-free image rationale}} template; that template may well be fine to use in certain instances on the English Wikipedia, but Commons does not accept files based upon mere claims of fair use. Commons only accepts files that comply with its licensing policy, which requires that content be uploaded under allowing re-use by anyone, anytime, and for any reason.
- Going forward, if you're unsure about the copyright status of a file, please feel free to create a thread at the noticeboard for media copyright questions; there are plenty of people on that board who are happy to help answer questions about copyrights and image licensing for Wikimedia projects.
- — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hello. I am the admin who deleted the file on Commons. The reason that the file was deleted on Commons is that the file was uploaded on Commons under a
User:R_bnks section blanking
The user R_bnks seems to be on a section deletion campaign against articles about musical instrument brands and models.
They have excised sections about notable players of particular models or brands, and have included the same edit summary "unverified/poorly verified namedropping, list of names without encyclopedic (but only promotional) relevance" for all of them.
This also comes after a
WP:COI
.
Agentdoge (talk) 19:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- I don't like the look of this. They've gone on a spree of removing sourced content that adds worth to the article, and has completely ignored A.B's comments on their talk page. I think they're annoyed that their likely-COI edits didn't work, and they're taking their frustration out on articles. I think the ) 09:32, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- This user has not edited since I left them the first of my 3 notes. I'd like to think I was a persuasive peacemaker; more likely this editor found something better to do.
- I hope they'll come back and make useful edits.--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 21:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Those looked like useful edits, at least the ones I checked. Alice Cooper's guitarist used a particular model of guitar for an EP? That is undue. Maybe worth a mention on that EPs page... Sort of sad someone removed fan cruft from some articles, and was pushed away from further edits. Very Average Editor (talk) 22:10, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
IP posting Nazism
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.
) 21:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- A subsequent edit by the same IP contains a racist slur. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2023 (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.
NOTHERE POV pusher
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.
talkcontribs
23:05, 11 June 2023 (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.
AlhyarJy and maintenance templates
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.
AlhyarJy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is persistently removing maintenance templates from Robert Budi Hartono without resolving the issues they relate to, despite a couple of warnings at User talk:AlhyarJy#June 2023. Can someone have a word? Cordless Larry (talk
) 16:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- AlhyarJy, final chance to explain before getting blocked. Cordless Larry, why wasn't a discussion started at the article talk page? Thanks, Lourdes07:39, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- It was quite a while ago that I originally added the template, Lourdes, but I wasn't aware that a talk page post was necessary - the template doesn't mention it and what's required to address it is pretty self-explanatory, I'd have thought. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Cordless Larry thanks for the response. A talk page discussion (or at least your opening of it) leaves no doubt that you tried to discuss the issue with the person. Edit summaries, reverts are not self-explanatory as they carry very little context, especially when users are new or of non-English backgrounds. In such a case that you had opened up talk page discussions without any participation from the other party, they would have gotten blocked without my having to give them another chance to explain. That's it. Thanks, Lourdes 06:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Indefinite done for now. Once they respond positively on their talk page, we'll extend a lifeline. Thanks, Lourdes 06:28, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Cordless Larry thanks for the response. A talk page discussion (or at least your opening of it) leaves no doubt that you tried to discuss the issue with the person. Edit summaries, reverts are not self-explanatory as they carry very little context, especially when users are new or of non-English backgrounds. In such a case that you had opened up talk page discussions without any participation from the other party, they would have gotten blocked without my having to give them another chance to explain. That's it. Thanks, Lourdes 06:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- It was quite a while ago that I originally added the template, Lourdes, but I wasn't aware that a talk page post was necessary - the template doesn't mention it and what's required to address it is pretty self-explanatory, I'd have thought. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:28, 10 June 2023 (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.
Block consideration for Saucysalsa30
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.
bludgeoning editors who disagrees with them and serious concerns about this editor's overall behavior were previously raised back in December on the Administrators Noticeboard. The discussion there was quite long so be sure to go to the end where several admins including myself strongly advised Saucysalsa30 to improve their behavior. Today I noticed that Saucysalsa30 was again bludgeoning editors in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palace of the End along with making assorted other accusations against editors there. In response I gave Saucysalsa30 an official warning for their behavior. Saucysalsa30 responded to this by accusing me on multiple pages (see diffs 1, 2, and 3) of hounding them, implied I was defending an acquaintance in the previous ANI, and that I have been canvassing against them. Saucysalsa30 previously received a 60 hour block for edit warring and I believe they now need a longer block for violating the civility policy. However, because Saucysalsa30 has made false allegations against me, to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest I am raising the issue here and ask other admins to make a decision on this. For the record, I have not been hounding or canvasing against Saucysalsa30 and I have had only a few interactions with the editor Saucysalsa30 is calling my "acquaintance." To my knowledge my only previous interactions with Saucysalsa30 was in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zainab Salbi and the ANI discussion linked above resulting from that AfD, both of which took place in December 2022. I also thanked Saucysalsa30 in January 2023 for starting this successful AfD and raising awareness of a case of possible COI editing.--SouthernNights (talk
) 23:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hounding is a serious matter, and accusing someone of it should not be done without strong evidence (WP:AOHA). Saucysalsa30, do you have any evidence of hounding, or was this a personal attack? - SchroCat (talk) 07:27, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- All explained here. [66] I asked specifically what was "disruptive" of giving a single reply to address a comment making false information, and the admin response completely ignored it. I'm hoping I can get a response to that. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- 24 hours for now. Thanks, Lourdes 07:31, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: After being blocked bludgeoning the discussion. In addition Saucysalsa30 recently made another accusation of canvassing in a separate AfD. And after researching this more it's obvious there is a long history of such behavior by Saucysalsa. In November 2022 Saucysalsa30 was given a six-month topic ban on Kurds and Kurdistan. The arbitration discussion included concerns about Saucysalsa30 falsely accusing editors of hounding and making other personal attacks. In addition, another admin User:EvergreenFir previously warned Saucysalsa30 about making personal attacks. In short, a number of admins and editors have warned, cautioned, and counseled Saucysalsa to improve their behavior and follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines, in particular with regards to civility, but it doesn't appear to be having any effect.--SouthernNights (talk) 12:39, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- SouthernNights, my response on my Talk page was not misleading, but instead was addressing this misleading ANI section, including giving context as to why the ANI section was made. Also, when I asked so that I can learn from it, the other admin didn't have an explanation for how a single reply to a couple editors making provably false statements in a discussion is "disruptive editing", which is what you claimed here. This doesn't make for a good case.
- I accepted what I did wrong where I did it, as in the response on my Talk page and I apologized twice for that, but misleading claims against me are problematic.
- What happened in Jan 2021 since you bring it up, EvergreenFir was undoing copyright violations and disruptive editing by Qahramani44 and TheTimesAreAChanging. . That is why he got involved. EvergreenFir warned everyone collectively in order to be fair[67] and I can't find where I made any "personal attacks", but in terms of actions, EvergreenFir only took action against TheTimesAreAChanging and Qahramani44's editing. A few among other examples [68][69][70][71] He got involved in the first place because of continuous disruptive editing and incivility by the others.
"falsely accusing editors of hounding and making other personal attacks"
- This couldn't be more wrong. I'm sorry but if you actually read through it, I diffed and quoted evidence for all of this.
- To give a few examples, also provided on that arbitration discussion, calling someone "remarkably extreme pro-Iraqi Ba'th Party partisan editor [72], a "small child mocking an adult"[73], and making up an egregious lie that I somehow know his address and mailed him a threat when I reported his behavior to ANI[74] are all personal attacks. Nothing false about that.
- Regarding the topic ban, a main reason for it was that Acroterion got what I did confused with what the person who reported me did FYI. Here is one evidence of several.[75] See the part starting with
"Acroterion has the ArbCom situation mixed up too, because I didn't provide "private evidence". The accuser did"
provided with diffs. Admins make mistakes. The irony in that case is an entire consensus on the relevant article's Talk page was with me, against the person reporting me. One of the editors Novem Linguae apologized to me for not taking more of a stand against the reporter's disruptiveness. Most of the Talk page content was @Buidhe and I discussing improvements to an article in terrible shape and we implemented them, while TheTimesAreAChanging was alone bludgeoning against consensus by several other editors. We were making constructive improvements and a single other editor was trying to disruptively edit and bludgeon. At the same time, everyone else was rallying and complaining against his disruptiveness. - Most !votes in that AfD were "She may be notable", verbatim, and FYI I showed it to an admin in IRC and they said comments getting this specifically repetitive is not an uncommon sign of canvassing. I've seen the same on others.
- Anyways, I was already blocked for the complaint in the ANI section before I could say anything. I accepted that block but I wanted to give context and details since misleading claims as far back as 2020 are being made against me. Thanks. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I notice in their recent comment on their Talk page, Saucysalsa30 appears to allege I
had engaged in disruptive editing and personal attacks
and then says Iapologized to [them] so [they] withdrew the ANI section
, but does not link to my actual apology at ANI or my later clarification during the ANI discussion about how "I tried to clarify how I was not "repeatedly trying to get [you] for violating a tban even after an admin told [me] there's no violation", by expressing regret for not being more clear about clarifying the scope of the Tban, which from my view, is different from asserting a Tban violation and requesting a block."
- I also notice in the recent AfD noted by SouthernNights above, one of Saucysalsa30's comments includes
Disclaimer: The above "keep" commenter is an active member of WikiProject Musical Theatre, a sister of WikiProject Theatre. Both WikiProjects are dedicated to creating, improving, and like in this case, keeping theatre-related articles. They have an interest in keeping any theatre-related article, including non-notable entries.
at 06:00, 5 June 2023. Also, while the AfD is pending, Saucysalsa30 continued to remove content from the article over an objection to doing this during the AfD, with the edit summary "I can't find any policy to back up this statement. I understand the WikiProject motivation to keep any article in the topic area, no matter how non-notable like this, but with or without this content, no notability is shown." at 06:08, 9 June 2023. Beccaynr (talk) 13:39, 10 June 2023 (UTC)- Hello, I'm sorry again for having reported you in December for disruptive editing and personal attacks. I can see you're still not happy about that, tracking me to ANI and making this comment. My report was in good faith, and I withdrew it when you apologized. I'm sorry an uninvolved editor reverted my withdrawal. I see it as a resolved personal issue between us. Do you?
- There is no policy that says you can't change an article if you nominated it. I assume you are not claiming it is true by bringing it up. I was correct and Ssilvers was mistaken. You left out that I made a Talk section about content[76], which in response this non-existent guideline was brought up unrelated to the Talk section.[77] There's no problem with pointing out what every WikiProject is for. In the case of AfDs, WikiProjects usually have pages like this [78] to alert members to AfDs. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Saucysalsa30, from my view, your comments did not read as a
resolved personal issue between us
, because the comments appeared to be continuing to make allegations of misconduct against me on your Talk page. However, I appreciate your apology, and I think a way to help resolve this issue and to avoidappropriate forums, with evidence. - Also, I am concerned about your Wikiproject-related comments, because some of the comments remind me of comments previously made about members of Wikiproject Women in Red that were discussed in the December ANI, and the advice you received. Also, one of the problems with focusing on the contributor, not the content is: "Bringing up conduct during discussions about content creates a distraction to the discussion and may inflame the situation." Beccaynr (talk) 23:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Beccaynr, in the single comment on my Talk page mentioning it, I was doing nothing more than giving context to a misleading statement that SouthernNights had made that I was making false statements that she hadn't showed up in other places I was active. The rapid response (first comment) on the ANI section I had made was one of the examples that this was not so. It was not meant as an attack on you if you somehow interpreted it that way. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 01:22, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Saucysalsa30, from my view, your comments did not read as a
- Comment. Now that the block has expired this editor has repeatedly removed other editors' comments (including mine) from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Jajeh. Instead of providing evidence to support their accusations of canvassing (which are still in place) they're deleting comments challenging the accusation. This behavior is unacceptable. pburka (talk) 23:34, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Pburka, you and another editor have been casting aspersions and mass pinging me on that AfD while providing no constructive comments. Your behavior has been reported here.[79] Saucysalsa30 (talk) 00:59, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
I think this looks like a
boomerang
in flight.
And looking over their recent edits, I think a
topic ban from XFD/Prod processes might well be appropriate. - jc37
00:51, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Saucy does not appear to understand how to interpret and use sources, especially in this area where they appear to be very emotionally invested. Per Jc37, I would agree on a topic ban concerning all Iraq- and Kurd-related articles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:05, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Ssilvers is casting aspersions (WP:PA) and is not aware there was a topic ban and that it expired. The ANI section is not re-proposing it, and there's no case to be made for it. Please re-read this ANI section carefully. Even the original topic ban included the involved admin mixing up who did what, which had been proven.
- I ask Ssilvers to explain why they make up non-existent editing policies[80], that a nominator cannot edit an article, which they still have not provided where this policy exists. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 01:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Ssilvers is casting aspersions (
- No, it is a legitimate case of reporting mass pings, off-topic comments, and personal attacks, unless you are saying that is acceptable discussion behavior, which I hope not.
- You may have missed that the ANI report was already actioned[81] before I or anyone could comment. I responded on my Talk page[82]. Despite directly asking how a single reply to a spurious comment making provably false claims is "disruptive"[83] (which is what the block was for), I received no response. Even this ANI section was created for asking someone to stop following me. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 01:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Being pinged a few times isn't something that is disruptive and doesn't violate any policy or guideline. Phil Bridger & pburka wanted to know casting aspersions if not supported with evidence) is neither a personal attack nor an off-topic comment. Nythar (💬-🍀) 01:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- The mass pinging was only one issue. Ignoring the other issues is misleading. So was their bludgeoning because I had a vote that was not in line with their remarkably weak argument (she could be notable in the future) for keeping that an admin criticized, casting aspersions, off-topic comments, and threats.[84]
- All of that because I bothered to make the only argument on the AfD with any substance to it. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 01:29, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Being pinged a few times isn't something that is disruptive and doesn't violate any policy or guideline. Phil Bridger & pburka wanted to know
Looking over more of their edits, and seeing things like this, this, and this. I think there may be broader behavioural issues here needing to be addressed. This looks like this has been going on for some time. - jc37 01:29, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- I must admit I'm impressed you spent a lot of time digging up everything as far back as 2020 you could find, but it wasn't worth your time.
- First: The new account (but not new editor) I warned, Gilgul Kaful, was created on July 31, 2022 mostly for mass reverting hundreds of edits. Arado Ar is not an admin, but an admin did get involved. On August 14, 2022, admin Bbb23 asked Gilgul Kaful about their unusual activity and what other accounts they use.[85] Not surprisingly, 3 days after admin questioning, the account went inactive except for 1 edit in April 2023. That situation had already been addressed at the time. The comments from the thread you linked were more related to another removed comment, for which Novem Linguae apologized to me,
"I would like to apologize for restoring your first talk page removal. I now believe keeping that comment was a net negative for the page, evidenced by the fact that I had to collapse the whole section."
. - Second: Yes, this has already been discussed in this ANI section in full. I had made an ANI report, and then withdrew when the person in question apologized. It was already addressed in substantial detail at the time across multiple pages. I have long since "dropped charges" against the person, if you're trying to bring them up again.
- Third: From 2020. Phil Bridger mass removes PRODs, to the point of disrupting cleanup of mass article creation that someone was blocked for.[86] Yes that issue was addressed. I took that article to AfD, and Phil Bridger joined and agreed the article he removed the PROD from should be deleted after he did hours of research, which indicates that he would not have removed the PROD in the first place had he known better and that I was right in doing so. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 03:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- First: The new account (but not new editor) I warned, Gilgul Kaful, was created on July 31, 2022 mostly for mass reverting hundreds of edits. Arado Ar is not an admin, but an admin did get involved. On August 14, 2022, admin Bbb23 asked Gilgul Kaful about their unusual activity and what other accounts they use.[85] Not surprisingly, 3 days after admin questioning, the account went inactive except for 1 edit in April 2023. That situation had already been addressed at the time. The comments from the thread you linked were more related to another removed comment, for which Novem Linguae apologized to me,
Blocked indefinitely until they can showcase evidence that they understand the issues and will not repeat it going forward. Drmies, fyi... Thanks, Lourdes 04:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC)- Thanks to everyone who took part in the discussion, especially Lourdes and Drmies.--SouthernNights (talk) 13:11, 12 June 2023 (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.
Editor using two IP addresses to avoid a block
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.
136.34.132.39 (talk · contribs) and 65.28.77.182 (talk · contribs) are almost certainly the same person. Both are located in Kansas City, Missouri. Both make edits almost exclusively related to radio stations. For years they have made edits, many unsourced. Both have multiple blocks. After each block the tag-team edits to articles related to radio stations resume, with no change in sourcing. They make no attempt to communicate or respond to warnings. There was a previous ANI report. If it only involved one or two articles, I would request page protection. But the number of articles edited is quite large. Thanks for any help. Sundayclose (talk) 17:49, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Blocked. Watching their talk pages. Lourdes 11:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)r
- One may wish to keep an eye on 172.58.63.16 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) as well… this IP user was restoring changes made by the other two IPs last night. (It's a T-Mobile IP, so no guarantee they'll stay there; one should keep an eye out for any other IPs that might make similar edits in this topic area as well.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:14, 12 June 2023 (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.
Disruptive editing by Norprobr at Korean War
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.
- Norprobr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Korean War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Through February 2023, a discussion occurred at Talk:Korean War/Archive 12#Chinese casualties regarding the reporting of military casualties in the infobox. From this, it is reasonable to conclude a consensus to remove military casualties from the infobox. This was done here (18 Feb). This has remained stable until now, with Norprobr making the following edits starting 09:02, 11 June 2023. Pleas see diffs for edit summaries.
Norprobr has then added US military casualties to another section of the infobox.
Norprobr's most recent edits appear to be
WP:ONUS. Cinderella157 (talk
) 01:45, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Norprobr notified here. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:47, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- It is not reasonable to conclude that there is sufficient consensus for the mass removal of sourced content, especially when it has been added by multiple editors, but only one user agrees to its removal. Cinderella157's removal of the U.S. casualty figures, claiming it was unsourced, and subsequent removal even after a source was added, clearly indicates an agenda at play. Furthermore, Cinderella157's accusations of others being disruptive lack credibility given their own violation of the 3-revert rule with four reverts in less than 24 hours. Norprobr (talk) 02:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- I suggest the two of you sort this matter out with the other editors at Talk:Korean War, not here. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Both blocked for now. Relentless edit warring/3RR issues. Lourdes 07:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- I suggest the two of you sort this matter out with the other editors at Talk:Korean War, not here. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:12, 12 June 2023 (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.
Alper sm
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.
Alper sm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Well, no one can get through to this new user, who keeps altering sourced info [92] [93] and adding unsourced stuff [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99]. Some of their edits have even been outright vandalism [100] [101] [102].
Can something please be done to get their attention? --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:24, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Done. Lourdes 10:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks! --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:33, 12 June 2023 (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.
Blocked proxy needs their TPA revoked
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.
2001:67C:2660:425:25:0:0:285 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This proxy has been blocked since August 2022, and for some reason, today someone decided to use it to edit the talk page (probably an LTA with a particular dislike of several admins). Please revoke their TPA. Thanks. —Nythar (💬-🍀) 10:46, 12 June 2023 (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.
Triantares (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Elive (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
WP:SPA for Elive, which barely surved Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Elive_(3rd_nomination), by withdrawal. I have attempted to be as helpful as I can be, but am not getting through, and they are only making it more personal. I think a block from at least Elive
is fitting.
- deleted info from lead that is consistent with a cited review summarized in body.
- personal attacks on my Talk, if mediocre compared to some.
- adding uncited info to article. (reverted)
- adding uncited info
-- Yae4 (talk) 13:07, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Yae4, thank you for your report. I see Triantares engaging in talk page discussions civilly. What might be the issue? The diffs you have provided don't seem to have anything wrong.
- deleted info from lead -- I don't see any reliable verifiable source backing the claim that was deleted. Deletion seems appropriate here (please let me know what I am missing).
- personal attacks... -- I see an unrequired statement where Triantares accuses you of vandalising articles, once. Beyond that, there is no personal attack in the statement.
- adding uncited info -- Just one day before this edit, the article talk page had a host of editors showcasing the reference for this information; and you also participated in the same one day before. Why would you call this "adding uncited info"?
- adding uncited info -- Same query from me.
- I will wait for your answers as I don't see any disruption here. Thanks, Lourdes 08:44, 8 June 2023 (UTC)r
- Thanks and sorry for being here. FYI, More background on WP:MEAT: mentioned at deletion discussion, and quoted at Triantares Talk. Off wiki, in Elive forum, for years, the same usernames, Triantares, TheTechRobo3641 (signing as TheTechRobo) , and Thanatermesis the Elive developer discussed how to go about ..."abusing WP for PR (which in fact you are :shocked: )" a statement made by Triantares. Regardless, Triantares refuses to acknowledge having COI at Elive. To their credit, Technorobo and Thanatermesis have declared.
- Deleted info from lead: Article says, "In 2010, ... However, this version required a payment for installation to hard disk which seriously impacted the initial popularity and was subsequently changed " and "Jesse Smith of Distrowatch had difficulty and delay obtaining a no-cost download," The lead statement summarized these sourced criticisms.
- Personal attacks: "You made a point of searching critical articles and selectively quoting those" - false, personal, assumption; accusation of vandalizing -false, personal; more serious, hounding accusation: "most certainly hounding me as a person." - false, personal; "Your disdainful, condescending comments there and elsewhere". I reflected on how I would receive the comments I made about the history of the Elive article, if I were Triantares, and concluded they take what I said about the article history, and wasting time (with years of failed drafts and AfDs, personally because they are, without doubt, closely connected with Elive, personally.
- Adding uncited info, and "host of editors" on article talk page: The link is to a self-published, brief announcement at Elive. It could be used as a primary source, sure, but on that basis alone they want to add a large portion of that announcement to Wikipedia, and also add it to the lead? Host of editors: TheTechRobo3641 (TheTechRobo) is a self-declared moderator for Elive, Triantares, and me, makes 3.
- I considered attempting to mentor or guide them, or refer them to ) 10:21, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks and sorry for being here. FYI, More background on
- Comment and revised suggestion: at Triantares user Talk in response to being notified of ANI, they said, with other mild insults, "I doubt anybody is going to really read into your points/links there in and will probably 'OK' your demand, as it's the easiest path to take." Let's consider this a warning, and drop this ANI (and prove them wrong, again). -- Yae4 (talk) 16:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yae4, quick suggestions.
- If Triantares has refuted his CoI with Elive, it's not your or my place to mention this CoI again in any other forum except the COIN desk. So would request you to desist from mentioning the connect. You can quote your points about SPA there.
- Second, the statement deleted from the lead has no reliable source backing the claim. So irrespective of the statement being one that summarised the article, there is no reason it should stay (unless you can point the reliable source).
- Third, Wikipedia has a higher tolerance for statements that you have quoted, which are not personal attacks literally. They are presumably false statements and bad faith and Triantares should not make them. And repeated statements without backing with diffs may get them escalating warnings and perhaps a later block if that continues. But this is just a hypothesis (in case they aren't able to showcase diffs backing their allegations against you).
- Fourth, your claim of "adding uncited info" goes against your acceptance that there was a primary source backing the claim. Of course, primary sources cannot be used in most cases. But that is an editorial decision to be taken up by discussions on the talk page, not administratively.
- Lastly, why did you withdraw your AfD nomination of Elive which was on its way to be deleted? May I suggest take the article to AfD once more quoting this message of mine? And this time, I would request you to please not withdraw the nomination which was bound to be deleted. I will chip in with my comments there once you raise the AfD. Thanks, Lourdes 05:51, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- "Second, the statement deleted from the lead has no reliable source backing the claim." I don't know why you say this unless you don't consider the two Distrowatch cites reliable; I do, usually. No source is perfect.
- Thanks for the other advice.
- Why withdraw Elive AfD, several reasons:
- Primarily, as stated there, I learned there are several review citations listed at Distrowatch[103], which were not in the article. One is LWN,[104] which WP:RSN is recently, with few participants, judging mostly reliable. LWN was harshly critical - "Beautiful but disappointing", and "It's a pity that the commercial purpose of the distribution is covered up", and thus was not cited at Elive. Plus 3 Distrowatch reviews over the years. I had not initially seen those, because originators of the drafts and articles had only vaguely referenced Distrowatch and the authors' reviews in other publications, and I hadn't looked carefully there. After I did, I changed my opinion.
- Wikipedia has numerous other Debian-based distros with articles, and most of them are nearly as poorly sourced. Yes, I understand that is said to be a different issue.
- Observing how other similar articles, on products of major companies, like MagicOSrecently, get posted to Wikipedia, and mostly tolerated. Yes, different issue (and I will probably remove the Prod if no one else does).
- I've seen another editor who explicitly said they use AfD to motivate article improvement. That's not my preference, or hadn't been, but it does seem to get results, somewhat, sometimes.
- AfDs IMO seem random in outcome, depending on who happens to take an interest, and how they feel about the article, usually without any quantitative methods of rating articles or sources.
- I felt some empathy for the developer and supporters, who don't understand why they can have Wikipedia articles in 17 other languages, with nearly zero citations, but cannot have an article in English Wikipedia. I now think I understand. Many other languages represent smaller markets... Maybe small companies should also get a break at English WP, even if they can't afford large enough advertising budgets to get into more widely recognized publications.
- Yae4, quick suggestions.
Rangeblock for HazemGM
Blocked user HazemGM (talk · contribs) is socking, they essentially admit so here, list of IPs used at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of HazemGM across two ranges - can we get range blocks please? GiantSnowman 17:03, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
- They have been editing within the last 20 minutes as 154.180.42.95 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). GiantSnowman 07:59, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Editing earlier today as 154.180.176.155 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). GiantSnowman 18:05, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- Also editing today as 41.35.94.159 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). GiantSnowman 18:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- Now at 154.180.194.118 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). GiantSnowman 18:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Editing in last 10 minutes as 154.180.99.177 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). GiantSnowman 17:00, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- We should also consider a third IP range of HazemGM as well, this IP has began editing the day after GiantSnowman blocked the recently included IP. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 09:00, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, we appear to have 1-2 different IPs a day, from two different ranges. GiantSnowman 17:51, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- Rangeblocking 41.35.80.0/20 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), I think, shouldn't be too much of a problem, all edits since 17 May surely belong to the sock. But a few of the football editors on Wikipedia know about persistent IP hopping every 24 hours or less. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:18, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Now at 41.35.83.170 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). GiantSnowman 18:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- We should also consider a third IP range of HazemGM as well, this IP has began editing the day after GiantSnowman blocked the recently included IP. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 09:00, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- Editing in last 10 minutes as 154.180.99.177 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). GiantSnowman 17:00, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Now at 154.180.194.118 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). GiantSnowman 18:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Also editing today as 41.35.94.159 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). GiantSnowman 18:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- Editing earlier today as 154.180.176.155 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). GiantSnowman 18:05, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
legal threat of user:Flamelai
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.
Flamelai (talk · contribs)'s edit on Special:Diff/1158520327 was making a direct legal threat against user:331dot, Please revoke TPA. Thanks. -Lemonaka 16:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- They reverted the legal threat just a minute later. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Per their own comments on talk page, I still believe that this reverted legal threat can still be taken as a threat. -Lemonaka 17:14, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Which other comments make you believe that? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:20, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Previous "western watchdog" callings and User talk:Flamelai#Statement, even we have explained why their behaviour is not appropriate on this project, they still let out such threat. -Lemonaka 17:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- There is nothing else on their talk page (or anywhere else I can see) that even hints at legal action. And come on, someone makes a legal threat and then immediately reverts it, and you think the appropriate action is to stomp on them with TPA removal? What else should someone do if, in the heat of the moment, they make a comment that they quickly realise is a mistake? At the very least, shouldn't you ask them if they still mean the threat before demanding the hammer? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Anyway, I will take a step away if you believe this is appropriate. I still keep my opinion that any comments should be considered twice before letting out or clicking the publish button. -Lemonaka 17:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- I have the same opinon as you. But if you can find anyone who claims they have always done that and have never commented too heatedly, I'll show you a liar. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:36, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, Phil Bridger (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Anyway, I will take a step away if you believe this is appropriate. I still keep my opinion that any comments should be considered twice before letting out or clicking the publish button. -Lemonaka 17:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- There is nothing else on their talk page (or anywhere else I can see) that even hints at legal action. And come on, someone makes a legal threat and then immediately reverts it, and you think the appropriate action is to stomp on them with TPA removal? What else should someone do if, in the heat of the moment, they make a comment that they quickly realise is a mistake? At the very least, shouldn't you ask them if they still mean the threat before demanding the hammer? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Previous "western watchdog" callings and User talk:Flamelai#Statement, even we have explained why their behaviour is not appropriate on this project, they still let out such threat. -Lemonaka 17:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Which other comments make you believe that? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:20, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Per their own comments on talk page, I still believe that this reverted legal threat can still be taken as a threat. -Lemonaka 17:14, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- WP:NOTHERE indef'd by Courcelles.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:51, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, but that was weeks ago on the 18th of May. This is about user talkpage comments they made while they were blocked. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:13, 10 June 2023 (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.
2 articles about the same subject
I would like you to pay attention to these two articles.: Varosi (Edessa) and Varosi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.43.65.244 (talk) 23:56, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- We have Varosi, which appears to be translated from el:Βαρόσι (Έδεσσα), and Varosi (Edessa), a copy of the former, now tagged for deletion as a content fork, while the original article is flagged as a copyright violation. I'm not clear on the violation. Translating articles from another project is fine, it just needs to be attributed. If the original article on el.wp is itself a copyright violation then that's a different matter, but we need more information. I will notify MarVas83 and VasiliadouMps. Mackensen (talk) 02:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- On Talk:Varosi, an IP asserts that the Greek article of which this is a translation is "based in copyright violation"; it isn't at all clear what it is meant to be a copyright violation of. The url listed in the copyvio template is to Earwig's copyvio detector ([105]) which is not returning any evidence of copyvio to me. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:17, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- However, there doesn't seem to be acknowledgement of the translation anywhere, which will need adding – if I understand WP:CWW rightly, that needs to be in an edit summary (presumably this can be done retroactively with a dummy edit?) and it would probably also be worth sticking {{translated page}} on the talkpage? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- I would do as you suggest and remove the copyvio banner, except that it says in big, bold letters "do not restore or edit the blanked content on this page until the issue is resolved by an administrator, copyright clerk or VRT agent", so it seems that I am not qualified to do so. Should the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" place such restrictions on who can perform certain edits? Phil Bridger (talk) 10:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- The link to Earwig is out of date, as the copyvio at elwiki has already been dealt with. Using Earwig on the diff before the deletions looks like this, an 80% match to a page on Edessia.gr. Both enwiki articles were created by the same editor who added the copyvio at elwiki. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:22, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- 31 files used on Varosi have been deleted by User:Túrelio as copyvios, so that could indicate a wider problem. Also a report at Wikipedia:Copyright problems should have been filed when the article was tagged as a copyvio, but this was not done. TSventon (talk) 10:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Because the copyright problems page is semi-protected and it was an IP making the report. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- 31 files used on Varosi have been deleted by User:Túrelio as copyvios, so that could indicate a wider problem. Also a report at Wikipedia:Copyright problems should have been filed when the article was tagged as a copyvio, but this was not done. TSventon (talk) 10:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- The link to Earwig is out of date, as the copyvio at elwiki has already been dealt with. Using Earwig on the diff before the deletions looks like this, an 80% match to a page on Edessia.gr. Both enwiki articles were created by the same editor who added the copyvio at elwiki. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:22, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- I would do as you suggest and remove the copyvio banner, except that it says in big, bold letters "do not restore or edit the blanked content on this page until the issue is resolved by an administrator, copyright clerk or VRT agent", so it seems that I am not qualified to do so. Should the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" place such restrictions on who can perform certain edits?
- However, there doesn't seem to be acknowledgement of the translation anywhere, which will need adding – if I understand
- the copyvio gives 1% copyright for Βαρόσι (Έδεσσα). Please restore the article Varosi Edessa VasiliadouMps (talk) 07:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- On Talk:Varosi, an IP asserts that the Greek article of which this is a translation is "based in copyright violation"; it isn't at all clear what it is meant to be a copyright violation of. The url listed in the copyvio template is to Earwig's copyvio detector ([105]) which is not returning any evidence of copyvio to me. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:17, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
I have deleted the copy at Varosi (Edessa). It is not OK to respond to a copyvio concern by creating a new copy of the same content. I have not investigated the validity of the original copyvio claim. —Kusma (talk) 10:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- The topic appears to be notable, so I have replaced the text of Varosi with a new referenced stub. This entailed removing the copyvio template, but the old version is also far too close to this web page. So I hope my mucking about doesn't interfere with revision deletion of the versions up to this one (VasiliadouMps requesting speedy deletion). Yngvadottir (talk) 02:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- the the original copyvio pf Βαρόσι (Εδεσσα) is 1% coryright. please restore the article Varosi Edessa VasiliadouMps (talk) 07:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, VasiliadouMps, I don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying your text was not copyvio? Meanwhile, I've struggled through the instructions for the template asking for earlier versions to be revision-deleted. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Yngvadottir: I guess what the user really means is that the Varosi (Edessa) article gets restored and the Varosi one gets deleted instead. Regarding the corpygith violation, now, please allow me to clarify a few things. Indeed, upon its creation in el@wiki the article in question had a surprisingly high copyrights violation percentage of around 87%, per Earwig's copyvio detector. However, VasiliadouMps, spent quite some time working on it, arriving to a point where copyrights violation percentage dropped down to around 1%. Meanwhile, the account that you're mentioning at the beginning, "MarVas83", was indefinitely blocked in el@wiki as it belonged to the same user, according to their own claim and evidence. Of course, this is not sock puppetry case, but just a new-beginner user who needs some time to learn and adapt to Wikipedia and its different rules, policies, guidelines etc. 🙂 🏺 ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ 🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 08:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- thank you VasiliadouMps (talk) 08:41, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for explaining, Εὐθυμένης. I've just looked at the history of the article on el.wikipedia, and I don't see any revision deletions, and since I can't read Greek, I can't tell whether there are statements in edit summaries about scrubbing copyvio. I assume the English article created by MarVas83, who you say is an undeclared alt of VasiliadouMps, was a translation of this version or a slightly earlier one? Can you tell us whether that version had been scrubbed clean of copyvio? However, while copyright violation is obviously a serious concern on all the projects, we operate independently and what matters here on en.wikipedia is whether there's copyvio text in the history of the English-language article. I saw overly close paraphrasing and some actual copying, hence I wrestled with that template and it's now up to the patrolling admin to determine whether to delete the revisions. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Yngvadottir: I understand your concern, however, please allow me to explain that, unfortunately, this is not a common practice among most el@wiki admins (btw I'm part of the local admins of the said language version). I know that we should be doing this, however, we mostly prefer (?) to insist on the basics, meaning speedy deletion of problematic articles and files or strong push for them to be properly treated in a short timeframe in order for them not to qualify for speedy deletion. Of course, I'm oversimplyfying things here, however, I'm trying to explain why there were no deleted revisions of the article in question. In general, since we're rather a small community, that alone helps us - admins - to keep things at bay, without necessarily going as far as to delete article or file revisions. Provided, of course, that everything gets in order shortly after us informing the involved user(s) regarding the possible copyrights violation. Now, regarding the article version that you're mentioning and providing me, unfortunately, I'm afraid to tell you that the similarity report is a... surprisingly high 93,7%. 😶 However, the current version of the article drops this percentage down to... 0%. 😶 In practice, this, possibly, means (?) that this version of the article could possibly be translated-brought over here. 🏺 ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ 🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 09:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- (derivative work. My Greek is very poor, but I'm satisfied that the Greek-language page contained copyvios right from the start (from here in the first revision, here in the second). Our page also contained what appeared to be copying from some English-language web pages. I've revdeleted all but the last few revisions of the page. VasiliadouMps, please take care not to copy any non-free content into Wikipedia, even if you intend to modify it later. Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:45, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks. Εὐθυμένης, in principle, yes, if it's not copyvio, but it would have to be in clear English and especially not a machine translation, so in practice it's easier to write an English-language article from scratch. Those websites can be used as references. If nobody else gets around to it, I'll expand my stub a little bit, but it would obviously be better done by editors who can read Greek to find better sources. My concern was that we were about to lose an article on a notable topic because of the copyvio, so I made a placeholder to serve as the basis for future work (and demonstrate notability). Yngvadottir (talk) 10:00, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Yngvadottir: Of course, you're quite right about this one, as there are quite a few sources in Greek that could be used for this article. 🙂 As for the rest, please allow me to ask for the renaming of the article to "Varosi (Edessa)" or "Varosi, Edessa", depending on the prefered typo, as "Varosi" as a term is quite often used for different old town neighbourhoods across Greece (some examples that I can think of are, notably, Trikala and Ioannina), with the exact origin of this term dating back from Byzantine (or medieval if your prefer) times. 😇 🏺 ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ 🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 10:13, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- i promise. has the article "Varosi Edessa" been restored yet? i can not see it. do you know when it will be restored? thank you VasiliadouMps (talk) 12:59, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Εὐθυμένης: My search for sources turned up one in Famagusta. The article could be moved, but there's no reason for disambiguation; we don't have any other "Varosi" articles (nor does el.wikipedia so far as I can see, although I see Wiktionary has an entry for the Hungarian városi). So better for someone who can read the sources to note in the article that there are other neighbourhoods called Βαρόσι. @VasiliadouMps: I'd feel better responding to you if I were an admin and could see the deleted first article with my own eyes, but if it was the same text, it was also copyvio. So it can't be restored. The new one should be expanded with new wording. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:59, 10 June 2023 (UTC) (fixed pings) Yngvadottir (talk) 22:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks. Εὐθυμένης, in principle, yes, if it's not copyvio, but it would have to be in clear English and especially not a machine translation, so in practice it's easier to write an English-language article from scratch. Those websites can be used as references. If nobody else gets around to it, I'll expand my stub a little bit, but it would obviously be better done by editors who can read Greek to find better sources. My concern was that we were about to lose an article on a notable topic because of the copyvio, so I made a placeholder to serve as the basis for future work (and demonstrate notability). Yngvadottir (talk) 10:00, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- (
- @Yngvadottir: I understand your concern, however, please allow me to explain that, unfortunately, this is not a common practice among most el@wiki admins (btw I'm part of the local admins of the said language version). I know that we should be doing this, however, we mostly prefer (?) to insist on the basics, meaning speedy deletion of problematic articles and files or strong push for them to be properly treated in a short timeframe in order for them not to qualify for speedy deletion. Of course, I'm oversimplyfying things here, however, I'm trying to explain why there were no deleted revisions of the article in question. In general, since we're rather a small community, that alone helps us - admins - to keep things at bay, without necessarily going as far as to delete article or file revisions. Provided, of course, that everything gets in order shortly after us informing the involved user(s) regarding the possible copyrights violation. Now, regarding the article version that you're mentioning and providing me, unfortunately, I'm afraid to tell you that the similarity report is a... surprisingly high 93,7%. 😶 However, the current version of the article drops this percentage down to... 0%. 😶 In practice, this, possibly, means (?) that this version of the article could possibly be translated-brought over here. 🏺 ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ 🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 09:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Yngvadottir: I guess what the user really means is that the Varosi (Edessa) article gets restored and the Varosi one gets deleted instead. Regarding the corpygith violation, now, please allow me to clarify a few things. Indeed, upon its creation in el@wiki the article in question had a surprisingly high copyrights violation percentage of around 87%, per Earwig's copyvio detector. However, VasiliadouMps, spent quite some time working on it, arriving to a point where copyrights violation percentage dropped down to around 1%. Meanwhile, the account that you're mentioning at the beginning, "MarVas83", was indefinitely blocked in el@wiki as it belonged to the same user, according to their own claim and evidence. Of course, this is not sock puppetry case, but just a new-beginner user who needs some time to learn and adapt to Wikipedia and its different rules, policies, guidelines etc. 🙂 🏺 ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ 🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 08:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, VasiliadouMps, I don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying your text was not copyvio? Meanwhile, I've struggled through the instructions for the template asking for earlier versions to be revision-deleted. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Canvassing & edit warring by User:BobNesh
BobNesh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
BobNesh has appeared at Talk:Battle of Bakhmut recently and is engaging in generally disruptive editing. However, today I noticed they canvassed editors to a discussion they started to change the stated outcome of the battle to "Russian victory" (the discussion; the canvassing at their talk page). They selectively did not notify users with opposing viewpoints (e.g., didn't notify those in Talk:Battle of Bakhmut#No, who disagreed that the battle was over). I warned them on their talk page about canvassing, and noted their canvassing at Talk:Battle of Bakhmut. BobNesh then reverted my note with "Added after the discussion was closed."
There is nothing wrong with the comment that I added, which I was typing before the discussion was closed; User:Fieari, the editor who closed the discussion, themselves said "Added comment was relevant to the closure of the discussion, and acceptable for being added."
BobNesh's deletion was reverted (by me and Fieari) three times, and BobNesh has now passed the 3RR limit and is edit warring (all four reverts: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th).
This is not the first time BobNesh has engaged in edit warring; they've received countless warnings on their talk page since 2016, many of which are related to edit warring (in addition to two recent ones they've removed: this and this). They've been blocked for edit warring multiple times, most recently in 2022. I will note that this is not a content dispute. I have no solution for a canvassing, edit warring user who has received numerous warnings and has been blocked multiple times, and who refuses to listen to others (removing my warning and note from their talk page, warning me twice on my talk page (for something that isn't wrong) even though I didn't do anything between both warnings). Nythar (💬-🍀) 05:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- First of all, it's he/him. Please, respect my pronouns. Second, the rules can't be more clear, as they are mentioned twice:
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- If the discussion is closed, then it is closed for everyone and no further edits should be made by anyone. Otherwise, the person mentioned should also have the right to respond in the closed thread. Plain and simple. I wasn't happy that my topic was closed, but I didn't want to respond in closed topic. Yet, Nythar made disruptive edits in closed topic that clearly violated the policy, then restored it after the disruptive edits were rightfully deleted. Nythar also refuses to listen to others (removing my warning and note from talk page) and openly threatening me: ″Delete my comment at Talk:Battle of Bakhmut one more time and we're off to WP:ANI.″
- BobNesh (talk) 06:08, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Ah, so when a discussion is closed, nobody is allowed to post anything, regardless of whether a comment was being written before the discussion was closed, and regardless of the opinion of the closer (who accepted the comment and themselves did not revert it); it then becomes acceptable to violate ) 06:21, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
PerWP:CANVASS, and warnings on your talk page suggest a long history of edit warring and other issues, including not one but four blocks. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 06:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)- Well, I also maybe had relevant comment, but the topic was closed. I respected that fact, and ) 06:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Also, I didn't make this report, I have never reported anyone, although there were numerous opportunities for that. So, ) 07:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Making unsubstantiated claims of canvassing and/or sockpuppetry is a very bad idea on an admin noticeboard where people can and often do block for those sorts of comments. I've never edited on Talk:Battle of Bakhmut, nor have I interacted with Nythar outside of AfD. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:21, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- That is correct. In addition, there is no policy in Wikipedia that categorically states comments added after a discussion is closed can be treated as vandalism (meaning 3RR can be violated). I am not aware of any policy that states comments may never be added after a discussion is closed either. Nythar (💬-🍀) 07:36, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- I have blocked BobNesh for one month for edit warring. His last edit warring block was for two weeks, and he freely chose to violate the policy again. I think I got his pronouns right. Cullen328 (talk) 07:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Just realised that this has been closed. I've re-opened this because I don't think this block goes far enough. This is his fifth block, and fourth for edit warring. After five blocks, I don't think BobNesh is capable of editing constructively, and as such I propose an indef block for him. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 00:43, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- I have blocked BobNesh for one month for edit warring. His last edit warring block was for two weeks, and he freely chose to violate the policy again. I think I got his pronouns right. Cullen328 (talk) 07:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- That is correct. In addition, there is no policy in Wikipedia that categorically states comments added after a discussion is closed can be treated as vandalism (meaning 3RR can be violated). I am not aware of any policy that states comments may never be added after a discussion is closed either. Nythar (💬-🍀) 07:36, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Making unsubstantiated claims of canvassing and/or sockpuppetry is a very bad idea on an admin noticeboard where people can and often do block for those sorts of comments. I've never edited on Talk:Battle of Bakhmut, nor have I interacted with Nythar outside of AfD. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:21, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Licks-rocks: I undid your close because it failed (probably a template in the middle of the discussion caused that). Could you also keep it open until the canvassing has been addressed? Thank you. Nythar (💬-🍀) 11:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- of course! I just left a comment on your talk page pointing out that I'd noticed the same problem. If you feel there's still an issue to be addressed, I'll leave the discussion open. ^.^ --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:20, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
40.138.115.208
IP consistently vandalizes across multiple years. [106][107]
199811✶
01:39, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- I blocked 40.138.115.208 (talk · contribs) for a week. Is this an LTA? If you notice further problems from this IP, let me know. Johnuniq (talk) 02:55, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Their issues are generally spread out across years and its only happened four times. As someone unfamiliar with tugs it took me a while to realize the edits were vandalism and while the David issues were confusing, quick checking between season articles convinced me to rollback. 199811✶02:54, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Their issues are generally spread out across years and its only happened four times. As someone unfamiliar with tugs it took me a while to realize the edits were vandalism and while the David issues were confusing, quick checking between season articles convinced me to rollback.
Unblock appeal of CompromisingSuggestion
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.
The following is the unblock appeal of CompromisingSuggestion, who has requested a community discussion. I am strictly doing this as a courtesy, and not only make no endorsement in doing so, but with my standing by my decline of a prior appeal. 331dot (talk) 16:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
I'd like for this to be a community appeal. My appeal is based on Wikipedia:Appealing a block Type 1 form of appeal. Please don't ask me to ask for clemency but address the points I'm making and judge according to the best of your abilities. Thank you.
Reasons for appeal:
1. A Threat according to Wikipedia is defined as having intent and been done knowingly. The threat Cullen alleges to have happened was never intended to be a threat, let alone knowingly.
2. The reason why there was no intent was that it was an obvious analogy intended to clarify a previous statement which Cullen did not understand . Please if you're going to give this a serious hearing, at least read the context of that short exchange between us. Though I encourage you to dig further if you have the time and energy. Also please note that the statement was, as is expected from an analogy, hypothetical using the phrasing "IF" I were to sue you. Further clarifying that it's a hypothetical was the preface "even mortal enemies" which by any stretch of the imagination me and Cullen weren't and still aren't.
3. Cullen was asked to himself clarify how he could have perceived it as a threat in my talkpage. He has had 10+ days to do so but has not. This despite according to policy him being expected to do so. Thus either he does not takes his own accusation seriously himself or he has no good answer. Note that he has been active since then, making edits every day totaling well over 100 edits since I made the request for clarification.
Thanks for your attention. CompromisingSuggestion (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- For reference, this is the legal threat that CS refuses to withdraw because, it seems, it's not a legal legal threat, merely a chilling effect legal threat. — Trey Maturin™ 16:29, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Simply put, unblocking them is going to open another can of worms that will result in them being blocked again, lather, rinse, repeat. The Wikilawyering is off the charts with them. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:38, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock. The original NLT-violation that led to the block was plausibly a matter of poor communication that would have been pretty easy to resolve, as 331dot and several other editors have repeatedly pointed out to CompromisingSuggestion. But the subsequent inability/refusal to get the point seen on the user's talkpage show that even if the apparent legal threat is explicitly withdrawn, the IDHT and battleground conduct that led to the NLT-vio is very likely to recur and that the editor is not a good fit for this project. Errors and miscommunications are inevitable and excusable; not being able to resolve, learn and move on is not. Abecedare (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock The way to unblocking has been pointed out repeatedly. A simple statement was all that was required. Instead, we see a torrent of personal attacks, snide remarks and (inept) wikilawyering. And these non withdrawals are non withdrawals. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:47, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose no indication they've learned from and therefore won't repeat the behavior that led to the block. Clear case of a block being preventative-their behavior and wasting the community's time. Star Mississippi 20:44, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose I do not see that the legal threat has been retracted, and even if it were, this looks like someone who believes in bulldozing everyone else to get what they want, which always results in a permablock for being not here. Lets not borrow the trouble of drama knowing how it ends. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:05, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support Kvetching aside, this user has said repeatedly that they did not actually mean to make a legal threat. I get that their appeals have been quite combative and a headache for the admins, but blocking is not supposed to be a ) 18:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment). User appears to have exited voluntarily since this thread was opened. Folly Mox (talk) 19:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User engaged in serial personal attacks doing it again
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Despite having been blocked multiple times for personal attacks, including a few days ago, Davey2010 (table caption and column and row semantics. I solicited him to reconsider this language and he declined and posted the same rude personal attack. It seems like he's not very inclined to be collaborative and assume good faith and instead repeatedly resorts to this kind of base, crass, inflammatory, and needless attack. See the relevant block log and a number of threads on his talk currently explicitly asking him to stop name-calling and escalating petty conflicts, where he refuses repeatedly. @El C and Ingenuity: as admins who have blocked him for personal attacks recently (including a few days ago). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:07, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Correction: I sourced the award table that you felt it was necessarily to delete twice without even bothering to attempt to fix it. Also no I didn't remove any of the table gubbins - VE had (un-beknowing to me) done that as that's what I had been using the whole time so take your concerns re that to them.
- Also I said "Why be a productive editor when you can be a useless one" (linking useless to you) - Your concerns were valid but let's be real for a sec you could've quite easily sourced the majority of that table but instead you chose to delete it and leave it for everyone else to do thus essentially being useless. –Davey2010Talk 21:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not going to engage with most of this, but to answer your question: yes. Note that user edited his comment to remove the question that I answered. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Davey, I'm sorry, but what are you doing? Calling an editor "useless" isn't close to appropriate. And, on top of that, the tone you keep employing is obviously counterproductive: If you're in a dispute with an editor and you call them useless in an edit summary, do you actually think that editor is more likely to agree with you? Because I actually bet it's likely to make the other editor more entrenched in their own position. And then, if they bring you here or anyone else notices, you have to spend time explaining why you feel compelled to make playground insults, which plainly violate WP:CIVIL, in your comments and edit summaries, and sometimes you have to serve a block.
- On May 28, 2023, two editors, one of whom you're apparently friendly with, told you your tone was problematic, with your friend noting it was leading you "into dangerous waters". Two days later, an admin gave you advice regarding your language choices—specifically criticizing your decision to call another editor "
a coward
". You responded, "I've [taken] your feedback on board
." On June 7, you were blocked after telling another user to "Fuck off" on this noticeboard. Several editors spoke up in your favor, though almost all of them called your tone and comment unfortunate. In the immediate aftermath, you responded by saying, "Pathetic block
" and insisted you had been provoked. A day later, you apologized "for the attack
" to the user who you told off, saying you were mistaken about him poking you. You also said, "I'll be honest it has been a wake up call and Floqs comment as well as my Commons-indef block have made me realise if I don't stop my EN 'career' is too going to end up the same way as Commons - indeffed.
" - On the one hand, you're spending a lot of time on this site and making some great edits. So it seems like you want to be here. But you need to demonstrate restraint. Ideally, that would mean just engaging as you currently do, minus the insults. But if you just can't resist tossing out an insult in the heat of the moment, then you have to have the restraint to not respond in the heat of the moment: wait 24 hours before responding to someone, do anything else. I really think it'd be a shame to lose you over something that you, by now, must know you have to control. Yet, for whatever reason, you seem incapable of controlling it.--Jerome Frank Disciple 00:47, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
My previous block/comment is wholly irrelevant here. Calling someone useless is nowhere near to telling someone to f off.- Anyway back on topic Instead of removing that table Koavf could've sourced it or atleast attempted too, I even stated to the guy I would source it in due course but no that wasn't good enough - Of course I understand BLPs need to be sourced but was it that urgent that he had to remove it there and then and then disallow anyone from working on it after?, No of course it wasn't,
- Even if he added one source that would've been better than basically saying "This table is unsourced, I'm going to remove it per x,y,z and I'm not going to bother trying to source it " - Would you say his actions were those of a productive person or a useless one ?.
Side rant: It leaves me dumbfounded when people instead of putting the work in and getting stuff done they simply delete it and expect others to do the work for them It does my head in. I mean I'm not the sharpest tool in the box (we all know that) yet if I of all people on here can source things than so can others. It's just laziness and like I said it does my head in. –Davey2010Talk 01:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)- Davey, I think you're a very valuable editor, and I don't want to see you blocked again. But I would argue that calling someone useless is even more hurtful. Besides, if my memory serves, didn't your block from a few days ago occur because you snapped at someone because you thought they had called your edits useless or worthless or something to that effect? I'm not asking this as some sort of 'gotcha' question; I'm just genuinely taken aback. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's something I noticed as well while following up the diffs. It very much feels like Davey was exorcising some outrage at how they felt they were overjudged in the former situation by paying that insult forward to someone else; in other words, about as clear a violation of 03:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- That's a very fair point LEPRICAVARK I did indeed kick off for what I thought was someone calling my edits useless - I wish I had thought of that before I made that comment, I guess the word I was really looking for was Unhelpful,
- @and that's what I should've said, You're a productive editor like everyone else so I do apologise for that comment, Thanks –Davey2010Talk11:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you kindly for that. I also disagree that my edit was unhelpful, but this is not a forum for debating the utility of my edits. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:29, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Davey2010 understands this and he also understands that content needs to be sourced. Look at this edit from a few hours previously where he removed unsourced content: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kochu_TV&diff=prev&oldid=1159512468 ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Davey, I think you're a very valuable editor, and I don't want to see you blocked again. But I would argue that calling someone useless is even more hurtful. Besides, if my memory serves, didn't your block from a few days ago occur because you snapped at someone because you thought they had called your edits useless or worthless or something to that effect? I'm not asking this as some sort of 'gotcha' question; I'm just genuinely taken aback.
- Well, bluntly, it's something you are going to have to wrap your head around, because in many contexts, the WP:ONUSfor supplying sourcing and otherwise justifying inclusion of content typically falls upon the party advocating for it. The burden of proof has to fall on someone in order to have workable policies on a collaborative project of this magnitude, and for various pragmatic reasons, this community has chosen to generally place that burden such that there is not a presumption that all content is appropriate until proven otherwise, but rather the opposite test.
- Well, bluntly, it's something you are going to have to wrap your head around, because in many contexts, the
- Will this sometimes (in fact, quite frequently) lead to situations where people remove content that it might take them only a trivial amount of time to retain with some legwork? Well yes, but in a word: tough. Because while we've all been in a situation where we'd have preferred someone to have been proactive in shoring up content rather than just removing it, there's just no feasible alternative approach in terms of where to place the burden, and your "they expect me to do their work for them" complaint actually turns the normal/community presumption of "whose" work it is completely on its head: if you want to include content, you have the responsibility of making it conform with policy, and no one else is compelled to fill in those gaps for you before proposing to remove (or actually removing) content that isn't policy consistent. Getting to the level of upset you got in this case because your work was temporarily removed raises serious questions about temperament and perspective that, if unaddressed, could rise to a WP:CIRissue.
- Will this sometimes (in fact, quite frequently) lead to situations where people remove content that it might take them only a trivial amount of time to retain with some legwork? Well yes, but in a word: tough. Because while we've all been in a situation where we'd have preferred someone to have been proactive in shoring up content rather than just removing it, there's just no feasible alternative approach in terms of where to place the burden, and your "they expect me to do their work for them" complaint actually turns the normal/community presumption of "whose" work it is completely on its head: if you want to include content, you have the responsibility of making it conform with policy, and no one else is compelled to fill in those gaps for you before proposing to remove (or actually removing) content that isn't policy consistent. Getting to the level of upset you got in this case because your work was temporarily removed raises serious questions about temperament and perspective that, if unaddressed, could rise to a
- All that said, it is (despite being relevant info you should find a way to resolve yourself to) kind of irrelevant here, because frankly several of the comments diffed above (including most definitely the edit summary raised by the OP) are brightline violations of WP:CIV, regardless of the context in which they occurred. Honestly, it's a real issue that even days after a block for the same kind of behaviour, and immediately after a statement made after apparent self-relfection that this is not an approach that is serving you in your pursuits in Wikimedia communities, you still made such an aggressive, insulting, and plainly non-constructive comment to another editor just for the sake of venting your frustrations, and then attempt to rationalize it with excuses you must know are insufficient to justify such behaviour. If recent discussions at ANX are any indication, the community is entering into a period of decreased patience with editors who habitually violate basic civility guidelines and repeatedly ignore community warnings, and I have to tell you that some of your behaviour as demonstrated just in the diffs above is not exactly what I would describe as edgecases. So I seriously suggest you take your own (clearly well considered) advice and start to eschew any and all personalization of disputes.
- All that said, it is (despite being relevant info you should find a way to resolve yourself to) kind of irrelevant here, because frankly several of the comments diffed above (including most definitely the edit summary raised by the OP) are brightline violations of
- Because whether or not describing another user as a "useless editor" is as bad as telling a fellow community member to "fuck off" is a debatable matter, but the fact of the matter is that continuing with either habit is a very short path to another block--and this one almost certain to be longer than the last, coming right on it's heels and involving essentially the same behaviour. SnowRise let's rap 03:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- SnowRise's points are mostly well made, but I'll go for a mildly shorter summary with apologies for what may feel like excessive hammering of a point home:
- i) Yes, it's a pain in the arse when someone reverts a slightly flawed improvement a little work would have resolved. But. WP:BEFORE is almost the only case where there's even a rough obligation to look first.
- ii) You need to either react more calmly when annoyed or delay until not annoyed. If you pick the latter, I suggest either doing non-wikipedia stuff or change to a completely different field for a bit - one where you come across this issue less.
- iii) If you fail to change, the aggravation any significant block will cause you as a productive editor will be huge. For your own happiness alone, please avoid that outcome. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Nosebagbear, I'll be honest unlike other comments I hadn't said this in the heat of the moment .... I was genuinely p'eed off for 9 hours over their actions yesterday - I couldn't understand where the urgency was to delete the table and to me their actions irrespective of policy were a net-negative to the project but still calling someone useless really wasn't the way to go and I do apologise for calling them that. Anyway thank you for your comments and advice. Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 13:59, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- I realize my comment above was mostly negative, so, here, I want to emphasize that I think your contributions to Wikipedia are great. You're clearly dedicated and passionate, and those are great attributes to have. And don't get me wrong, I sometimes get too heated or two involved in a dispute—I really do get it. But staying mad for 9 hours over part of a Wikipedia article isn't healthy. My best advice is that you follow WP:NOCON. If you can take some time away and then consciously make efforts to be civil (or at least make efforts not to be uncivil), I think you can avoid these issues in the future.--Jerome Frank Disciple14:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- I realize my comment above was mostly negative, so, here, I want to emphasize that I think your contributions to Wikipedia are great. You're clearly dedicated and passionate, and those are great attributes to have. And don't get me wrong, I sometimes get too heated or two involved in a dispute—I really do get it. But staying mad for 9 hours over part of a Wikipedia article isn't healthy. My best advice is that you follow
- @Nosebagbear, I'll be honest unlike other comments I hadn't said this in the heat of the moment .... I was genuinely p'eed off for 9 hours over their actions yesterday - I couldn't understand where the urgency was to delete the table and to me their actions irrespective of policy were a net-negative to the project but still calling someone useless really wasn't the way to go and I do apologise for calling them that. Anyway thank you for your comments and advice. Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 13:59, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Because whether or not describing another user as a "useless editor" is as bad as telling a fellow community member to "fuck off" is a debatable matter, but the fact of the matter is that continuing with either habit is a very short path to another block--and this one almost certain to be longer than the last, coming right on it's heels and involving essentially the same behaviour. SnowRise let's rap 03:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Looking at the sequence. Koavf removes a table full of awards. Davey restores, saying he awards are all sourcable..... will do in due course
. An hour later, Koavf removes the table again citing WP:V (I'll get to this). At that point Davey calls Koavf useless. Koavf requests an apology; Davey tells him to "be useless elsewhere". In the meantime, Koavf repeatedly accuses Davey of "making the site hostile to the blind" (when apparently it's just Visual Editor doing its thing).
I think I would be frustrated in Davey's situation, too, promising to do the work Koavf couldn't be bothered with, with Koavf edit warring and making accusations about accessibility. On the substance, I'll take a different perspective from e.g.
WP:WEIGHT
, but we're talking about an extremely famous actor (Uma Thurman) and extremely well known awards (like the Academy Awards). It would be trivially easy to simply grab a reference from any one of the linked articles to cite that nomination, or about 6 seconds with a Google search. In short, I don't buy that there was reason to challenge its verifiability or weight. Removing it isn't just useless, it's lazily detrimental. I don't think that's typical of Koavf's work, to be clear, and am not trying to make this about him, but this one edit (made repeatedly) was yes, useless.
Davey's mistake, which is an all-too-common mistake for him, was to lash out at the person rather than the content, which is neither appropriate nor deserved. Koavf is not useless at all, even if this was not a good edit (we've all made a bad edit now and again). Davey is one of a handful of people who is too consistently quick to attack -- typically in the course of being correct on the merits. He is also someone who is relatively quick to realize his error in a way that typically strikes me as sincere, which I appreciate and suspect is what has saved him from being indeffed over the years. In this case, with such an apology in the books, I know my comments here come after the issue is mostly resolved. Sorry for drawing it out. I just wanted to jump in with a take on the actual dispute, since I don't agree with the pile-on seemingly agreeing with Koavf. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Removing unsourced information and adding accessibility features that make the site easier for the blind to navigate is not "useless". Please also see WP:V and burden of proof (philosophy): it's not my responsibility to prove or disprove someone else's claims. "I don't agree with the pile-on seemingly agreeing with Koavf": this thread is about Davey2010's comments, not my edits. Everyone is agreeing that he once again broke the rules about personal attacks. Do you disagree with the actual purpose of the thread? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:49, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- That's a response that ignores everything I wrote. (Although I will grant you that yes, obviously accessibility is not useless; we can take your word for it that your edit warring against the default editing interface is actually the proper way to accomplish that, but that's would've happened with anyone editing the table and the only reason there's content for which we can even consider accessibility is because Davey rescued what you couldn't be bothered to). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Of course I ignored most of what you wrote, because most of what you wrote is irrelevant. No matter what I did or didn't do, Davey2010's actions are unjustified. Also, per WP:V) but it's not Davey's fault for what he chooses to write over and over again or for the edits that he chooses to make reverting helpful contributions? You're lucky that I ignored most of your comment. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:24, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Davey said he was going to add sources. You did not give him a chance before reverting. That's on you. Should he have lashed out? No, as everyone in this thread, including Davey, has agreed. So you can stop bringing that part of it up because Davey has already apologized and you have supposedly accepted his apology. Also, this is not about the
literal millions of unsourced claims, hoaxes, lies, rumors, and general off-topic noise on this site
. This is about one table on one page, and your unwillingness to show the bare minimum collaborative spirit by giving an editor a few days to add the sources they said they were going to add. It was suggested above, in polite and non-accusatory terms, that it might have been better if you had not done that. Was it criticism? Yes. But it was a very mild criticism, and it is frankly ridiculous that you've gotten your nose so far out of joint because a few people won't kowtow to your extremely rigid enforcement of policy that evidently leaves no room for exercising a little bit of common sense. So maybe drop the attitude.LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:46, 12 June 2023 (UTC)- Did you even look at his edits? He immediately started working in a sandbox (where I also edited, helping him very minor-ly in spite of your untrue claim "your unwillingness to show the bare minimum collaborative spirit"; maybe drop the attitude, Lepricavark since you don't know what you're talking about). Per WP:V: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." That is why it shouldn't be in the main namespace and he's actually still re-added unsourced claims that I haven't reverted because I'm not going to get into some protracted revert-war with a serial abuser on this site but I had every right to 1.) remove unsourced information in the first place and 2.) revert when it was added back. It is the responsibility of Davey2010 to provide inline citations for his claims and he has failed to do that. "This is about one table on one page": weird how it's okay to derail about one thing but not another thing. It's not my responsibility to prove anyone else's claims and as I see unsourced claims, particularly in biographies of living persons, I will continue to remove them. If you have a problem with that and think that it's wrong of me, please do start a thread here complaining about how I'm removing unsourced content. I would love to see how that goes and see everyone leap to the defense of retaining rumors, lies, hoaxes, and various unsourced claims about living persons on Wikipedia. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Where to begin?
weird how it's okay to derail about one thing but not another thing.
An editor with as much experience as you should be well aware that the OP doesn't get to dictate the scope of an ANI thread. If you bring a matter here for review, you should expect that other participants will dig into the background context to develop a greater understanding of what happened and why it happened. This is perfectly reasonable behavior; it is not derailing. You, on the other hand, created a strawman by claiming that youcan't be bothered to justify the literal millions of
blah, blah blah. Nobody asked you to do that. When you edit a single page, you are responsible for your contributions to that page. You can't excuse your actions on one page on the grounds that there are millions of other pages. In your rush to quote-bomb the same line from WP:V half-a-dozen times, you've failed to engage with the quote from WP:EDITING (also policy) about seeking to preserve content. Besides, I wasn't even criticizing your initial removal, so I have no idea why you think I would open a thread complaining about that (another of your strawmen; it would seem you never bothered to try to understand my point in the first place). My complaint was that you shouldn't have reverted again after another editor promised to add the sources. And when I say another editor, I don't mean an IP, or a newbie, or a POV-pusher. Davey, for all your dismissal of him as a serial abuser (arguably a personal attack), is clearly a credible editor in content space. If he says he's going to add the sources, AGF would tell you to give him some time to add them. A little bit of common courtesy would have gone a long way, and so would an ounce of humility in admitting that you may not have handled this situation 100% perfectly. Or, on the other hand, you can quote the same passage from WP:V for the umpteenth time, continue to ignore the equally relevant quote from WP:EDITING, and take the opportunity for another cheap shot at Davey. I guess your next response will tell the rest of us a lot about your willingness to engage in self-reflection.LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:51, 12 June 2023 (UTC)- "When you edit a single page, you are responsible for your contributions to that page" Exactly, which is why Davey2010 was responsbile for adding inline citations and he didn't. My edits were justified. "My complaint was that you shouldn't have reverted again after another editor promised to add the sources.": he can do that later: there is no justification for adding (re-adding, reinserting, etc.) unsourced claims. Why do we need unsourced claims right now and they cannot possibly just be removed until or unless they are sourced? I did not dismiss Davey, please don't make up things that are untrue. I'm not engaging in the rest of your nonsense, so if you really want to pretend like your comments are reasonable and on-topic, that's for you. Look at the diffs above and see what he's done and tell me if it's justified. Otherwise, if you want to act like I'm a bad guy for removing unsourced claims and keep on writing untrue things, I don't really have time for that noise. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Otherwise, if you want to act like I'm a bad guy for removing unsourced claims and keep on writing untrue things...
Oh, the irony.LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:05, 12 June 2023 (UTC)- What irony? Are you actually going to defend this comment or just leave drive-by cryptic noise that in no way helps anyone? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:36, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- "When you edit a single page, you are responsible for your contributions to that page" Exactly, which is why Davey2010 was responsbile for adding inline citations and he didn't. My edits were justified. "My complaint was that you shouldn't have reverted again after another editor promised to add the sources.": he can do that later: there is no justification for adding (re-adding, reinserting, etc.) unsourced claims. Why do we need unsourced claims right now and they cannot possibly just be removed until or unless they are sourced? I did not dismiss Davey, please don't make up things that are untrue. I'm not engaging in the rest of your nonsense, so if you really want to pretend like your comments are reasonable and on-topic, that's for you. Look at the diffs above and see what he's done and tell me if it's justified. Otherwise, if you want to act like I'm a bad guy for removing unsourced claims and keep on writing untrue things, I don't really have time for that noise. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Where to begin?
- Was Davey2010 in the wrong when he removed unsourced content: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kochu_TV&diff=prev&oldid=1159512468 or is it just me? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:59, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- You complain and whinge about me calling you useless yet here you are calling me a serial abuser ..... I'm lost for words truly I am. –Davey2010Talk 22:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- You have serially used abusive language, so my claim is justified. Have you provided any evidence that I am "useless"? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Davey2010: How is this edit justified and any different than what I did? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kochu_TV&diff=prev&oldid=1159512468 How is it you are not "useless" for removing unsourced claims? I would absolutely love to see you explain away this. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- I removed unsourcable programming created by a sock farm - The article isn't of a famous tv channel or person, none of the programmes on that tv channel were picked up by news reporters and no one came by saying they'd source it later (which if they did I would've let them crack on with it as opposed to reverting). –Davey2010Talk 22:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- So it's fine to remove unsourced information? And since WP:V says "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution", then that means whoever adds the information is responsible for adding inline citations, correct? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Can someone please block Justin for disruptive editing - He yet again removes another award table[108], I begin to source it just to be reverted[109][110] twice thus being unable to edit the table.
- The lack of sourcing in that table now is abysmal and truth to be told looked no different to when no sources were even in the table. I'm done for the night before I say something I seriously regret. –Davey2010Talk 23:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- lol, look at your malformed edits. Use the preview function in the future, stop adding unsourced information, and stop removing accessibility features. And stop blaming your choices on VisualEditor: if you can't competently edit with it, then don't use it anymore. I've never used it and I also never have problems inserting "CAPTION TEXT" and removing alt text with sweeping reverts. It's really simple to do and you are choosing to not do it, as well as actually removing sources that I added to the article. Honestly, Davey, get it together. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:13, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- So it's fine to remove unsourced information? And since
- I removed unsourcable programming created by a sock farm - The article isn't of a famous tv channel or person, none of the programmes on that tv channel were picked up by news reporters and no one came by saying they'd source it later (which if they did I would've let them crack on with it as opposed to reverting). –Davey2010Talk 22:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- You complain and whinge about me calling you useless yet here you are calling me a serial abuser ..... I'm lost for words truly I am. –Davey2010Talk 22:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Did you even look at his edits? He immediately started working in a sandbox (where I also edited, helping him very minor-ly in spite of your untrue claim "your unwillingness to show the bare minimum collaborative spirit"; maybe drop the attitude, Lepricavark since you don't know what you're talking about). Per
- Davey said he was going to add sources. You did not give him a chance before reverting. That's on you. Should he have lashed out? No, as everyone in this thread, including Davey, has agreed. So you can stop bringing that part of it up because Davey has already apologized and you have supposedly accepted his apology. Also, this is not about the
- Of course I ignored most of what you wrote, because most of what you wrote is irrelevant. No matter what I did or didn't do, Davey2010's actions are unjustified. Also, per
- When you bring a matter to ANI, all aspects of the situation are open to scrutiny. I had refrained earlier from getting into the underlying content dispute, but I do feel that your revert barely an hour after Davey said he would add sources was not the best course of action. If someone says they are going to add sources, I don't see the harm in giving them a little bit of time to do so. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Okay, we're starting to get into the weeds here, after a moment where we had a partial meeting of the minds between you two, so I'm going to try to bridge the gap here, including by re-contextualizing some of my own strong concerns expressed to Davey above. To inject some awkward mathematics here in order to quickly explain how nuanced the editorial issues are here, let me say that I am 40% supportive of the devil's advocate / "we all do better to reach to the middle ground" argument Rhododendrites supplies above, while also being 60% concerned by how it kinda-sorta shifts the burden. I also think the timing was maybe not ideal for his argument, but clearly it came from a good-faith effort to somewhat sympathize with Davey's outlook and try to move his perspective that way.
- "
- That's a response that ignores everything I wrote. (Although I will grant you that yes, obviously accessibility is not useless; we can take your word for it that your edit warring against the default editing interface is actually the proper way to accomplish that, but that's would've happened with anyone editing the table and the only reason there's content for which we can even consider accessibility is because Davey rescued what you couldn't be bothered to). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Look, are you on stabler ground here than Davey, insofar as 1) his PA was clearly unacceptable under any circumstances, and 2) you had the benefit of core policies on your side in the content dispute? Undoubtedly that is the case. However, it doesn't make your conduct flawless here. At the end of the day, both of you lost site of WP:PRESERVE.
- Look, are you on stabler ground here than Davey, insofar as 1) his PA was clearly unacceptable under any circumstances, and 2) you had the benefit of core policies on your side in the content dispute? Undoubtedly that is the case. However, it doesn't make your conduct flawless here. At the end of the day, both of you lost site of
- But notice my phrasing there: technically you had the benefit of community consensus on all the editorial issues here. But also, you had an opportunity in the same moment, to extend some courtesy to a fellow editor and show them the respect of valuing what they could bring to article with some leeway, over reflexively enforcing policy immediately. Those moments can make all the difference for the experience of individual editors in the trenches, and lead to all manner of positive knock-on effects in terms of improving the experience and the content as a result. Were you required to soften your stance on the underlying editorial issue? No. Can I tell you that you did the wrong thing editorially by sticking to your guns? No, I suppose I can't say that either. Was Davey's reaction when you didn't grant him that courtesy completely unacceptable? Oh yeah, I think I've made my perspective on that clear. But none of that necessarily means you chose the optimal path here, which I take it is Rhododendrites' ultimate point above. You're missing the forest for the trees, and though I think the most important outcome of this discussion has to be a firm warning to Davey that their behaviour on this project needs reforming in key respects (lest we lose a productive contributor), we would also be sending you away with the wrong lesson if we said your approach was in all respects ideal.
- At least that's how I feel about it. Pick your battles, and their timing: would the project (or even that article) have come crashing down if you had just decided not to invoke the policy that justified your concerns immediately? Couldn't you have said "I understand you are working to resolve this, but I'm concerned about WP:V/WP:OR here, so I'm going to force the issue next week if you can't meet the sourcing guidelines"? Might your next couple of day have been at least marginally less stressful and markedly more productive in terms of spending time on content and not a personal dispute, if you had? I think that's food for thought. Anyway, I don't think we're getting anything useful out of continuing this thread much further. We've leveled all the warning I think we can for Davey in light of the fact no one has chosen to take initiative to block him (which easily could have happened here, but let's presume its for the best that it didn't). And I think everyone is on the same page about what the black letter policy actual says about the underlying dispute. I think that's the best you're going to get. Is there any chance that is enough for the two of you figuratively shake hands (or at least grumble assent that this might have been handled differently), and chalk this up to a learning experience? SnowRise let's rap 23:18, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- "Is there any chance that is enough for the two of you figuratively shake hands (or at least grumble assent that this might have been handled differently), and chalk this up to a learning experience" - We tried that earlier and look where it's got us ..... Long walls of text over literally nothing, a near edit war over the same issue and more childish/poking comments[111],
- @Snow Rise You may also want to see this comment which is very clearly trying to poke me. If I told him to fuck off right now I would be banned so why should that crap be allowed to stand ?. I apologised, he forgave me, I thought everything was fine but at the moment it's been nothing but insults, pokey comments and general whinging from them yet if I bite back I'm the bad one. –Davey2010Talk 00:21, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- lol "he tried to poke me" in response to "someone please ban this guy immediately from the project!" Come on. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:27, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Ingenuity, Do you find this and this acceptable ?, Like I said above if I tell him to fuck off someone would be quick to block me so why should this be allowed to stand ?, At this point I firmly believe he's trolling here. –Davey2010Talk 00:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- What do you think is unacceptable about this? It's in no way trolling: it's pointing out how silly and histrionic you're being. It's not rude to say that someone else is rude and it's not inappropriate to say that someone else is inappropriate. My eyes can only roll so far when you demand civility from others and refuse to give it yourself and when you demand that everyone else's edits are perfect, yet you blame VisualEditor for your choices. It's just ridiculous, Davey. You find it "poking" when I point this out, but your reverts and demands that I'm blocked from the project entirely for removing unsourced information and undoing your malformed edits isn't "poking"? Read this thread and tell me who you think is trolling, if anyone. Come on, man. You know that you made bad edits and you also know that you need to provide sources. You could have taken five minutes to put it in your sandbox and edit instead of putting this malformed table live on the Web or once again removing accessibility features and semantics to insert "Caption text". You act like you just can't control yourself: "Ah, he's going to make me flip out on him" and "VisualEditor forces me to make bad edits", but the truth is, these are your decisions. No one is compelling you to be rude and name-call and be provocative to others and if you look at your talk page, you can see how editors have brought up this same concern many times over many years and yet here we are again with you talking about how you're a victim and you're going to be provoked to do some awful thing if others criticize your bad edits. You messed up: just admit it and move on or you can double-down and expect everyone else gets blocked and pretend like you're a victim somehow. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Ingenuity, Do you find this and this acceptable ?, Like I said above if I tell him to fuck off someone would be quick to block me so why should this be allowed to stand ?, At this point I firmly believe he's trolling here. –Davey2010Talk 00:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- lol "he tried to poke me" in response to "someone please ban this guy immediately from the project!" Come on. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:27, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Of course, human beings are complex, so "you had an opportunity in the same moment, to extend some courtesy to a fellow editor and show them the respect of valuing what they could bring to article with some leeway" is germane. I tried to give him the opportunity to be a respectful, rational person, talking in a calm and logical manner. He chose to not. I have had run-ins with him before over these exact same issues and I chose to talk to him with respect and restraint in spite of his lack of both. He chose to continue, therefore, I had to escalate it. I also don't want to lose productive editors and I don't have a problem with the content of his edits in general, but this project can and must jettison users who are hostile to others and no amount of productive edits justifies abusive behavior. If you think that I have engaged in unreasonable or unfair picking on anyone, I'm happy to have the criticism. Otherwise, I will continue to be extremely aggressive in responding to uncivil attacks on others as they are complete poison and there are many users who get a pass on their rude, aggressive, sociopathic, etc. behavior (not saying who or to which extent Davey is any of these) because "well, their edits are assets". Their attitudes are liabilities and no one in his right mind wants to stick around a place where someone gets to be a jerk: normal editors will leave and this place will devolve into a handful of hostile editors who are technically competent, which is a bad thing. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- At least that's how I feel about it. Pick your battles, and their timing: would the project (or even that article) have come crashing down if you had just decided not to invoke the policy that justified your concerns immediately? Couldn't you have said "I understand you are working to resolve this, but I'm concerned about WP:V/WP:OR here, so I'm going to force the issue next week if you can't meet the sourcing guidelines"? Might your next couple of day have been at least marginally less stressful and markedly more productive in terms of spending time on content and not a personal dispute, if you had? I think that's food for thought. Anyway, I don't think we're getting anything useful out of continuing this thread much further. We've leveled all the warning I think we can for Davey in light of the fact no one has chosen to take initiative to block him (which easily could have happened here, but let's presume its for the best that it didn't). And I think everyone is on the same page about what the black letter policy actual says about the underlying dispute. I think that's the best you're going to get. Is there any chance that is enough for the two of you figuratively shake hands (or at least grumble assent that this might have been handled differently), and chalk this up to a learning experience? SnowRise let's rap 23:18, 12 June 2023 (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.
Persistent addition of unsourced content at Royan Institute
There is an ongoing issue at Royan Institute; User:Katrina masbin has repeatedly inserted unsourced, improperly sourced, and promotional content. Most recent diff: here, particularly the section "Industrialization of Research" and content on cooperations in "Research Institute". The user was previously blocked temporarily for inserting unsourced content. They also show a disregard for applicable policy, as evidenced by the discussions on their talk page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Actualcpscm (talk • contribs) 11:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- The article has seen multiple sock and meat puppets and protection and has been overly promotional since many years. There is no credible notability that is evident amongst the overly promotional material that has been put in. I have speedied the article for now. Thanks, Lourdes 06:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not none of them, I'm just going to provide information about the Royan Institute. That's all; I'm not going to advertise and Please tell me about some sources that were unclear to you so that I can explain about it and about the part of it that mentions about my issues.
- Please help me and return the page . Please give me a chance .Katrina masbin (talk) 12:55, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Please believe me that I didn't and don't intend to add any kind of advertising issues and I only want to inform, and about "Industrialization of Research ", it was only a part of informing about Royan Institute and its tasks and so on. Please tell me about some sources that were unclear to you so that I can explain about it and about the part of it that mentions about my issues.
- Please help me and return the page . Katrina masbin (talk) 12:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Forget the page, move on to other pages that can be created. If you are convinced that the institute is notable and you are totally invested in creating this and only this article, then share the reference details with me on my talk page, so I can assess whether there's weight in your request. Thanks, Lourdes 16:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hi.
- I send my issues with sources in my sand box.
- You make me happy if you check it. Katrina masbin (talk) 19:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Forget the page, move on to other pages that can be created. If you are convinced that the institute is notable and you are totally invested in creating this and only this article, then share the reference details with me on my talk page, so I can assess whether there's weight in your request. Thanks, Lourdes 16:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Comment by IP 2001:8003:2964:AF00:EC5F:C189:8DB0:6EE2
Please check comment by user 2001:8003:2964:AF00:EC5F:C189:8DB0:6EE2 on Talk:Fraser Island. 203.8.131.32 (talk) 23:54, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- Sounds like an upset elderly resident. Other editors have explained Wikipedia’s approach and mission. Not sure what more can/should be done. There isn’t any overt racism or hate in their comments. Park3r (talk) 02:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
One editor has made approx 700 language code changes (so far) on articles today
Leobadboy has made approx 700 language code changes (so far) today on articles. Some have been reverted. I don't have expertise in this area. I posted on their talk page....no immediate response but it's been only about 20 minutes. Should this be reviewed/paused? North8000 (talk) 21:32, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Looks like they're trying to update usage of the Lang template to use the standard 2 letter codes for the languages rather than 3 letter codes. I believe it's better to use the 2 letter codes rather than 3, and the template instructs to use the two letter codes, but whether there's an actual technical reason to do it I'm not sure. Canterbury Tail talk 21:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- It's actually preferred practice to use the two-letter codes for languages that have them, for what it's worth. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- There are much worse problems to be tackled in the world of lang templates (namely them not being there, and people messing up with combined ones like {{nihongo}}), but these changes seem fine to me, as long as they're keeping the use of two-letter codes consistent within each article. small jars
tc22:45, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
User:Kunhistory at Wat Phnom
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.
- Wat Phnom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Kunhistory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
WP:CIR to name a few. Their editing has introduced text that is essentially unreadable in its use of poor grammar and run on sentences. They have cited sources that have nothing to do with the material at hand. They have eschewed the use of Wikipedia standards (e.g. saying that Wat Phnom is "about 650 years old" rather than stating the exact date of construction (1372)) and standard conversion templates. They have argued about Wikipedia bias in their edit summaries. They have constantly restored their preferred version of the article (see [112], [113] and [114]). They have refused to engage in discussion, despite several requests to do so (see [115] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWat_Phnom&diff=1159957137&oldid=1120618337). I ask that this user be blocked, at least temporarily, from editing this page to prevent further disruption to the project. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!!
17:27, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- I will point out that Kunhistory's version of the article appears identical to the Google translation of the 18:17, 13 June 2023 (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.
Community ban for User:Projects
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.
Self explanatory. Long term abuse, banned by the WMF etc. 107.77.224.190 (talk) 14:09, 14 June 2023 (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.
IP Block exemption request
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello Admins, Please i will like to request for an IPBE for the following users who are looking forward in contributing to the Africa Day Campaign. Users with no account can be created automatically by an admin. NB: Please do not unblock any indefinite blocked user if there's one since i am unable to check this from my end and nothing as such shows on their talk pages.
- Alooissah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Royalesignature (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Bida Thomas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Ridzaina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- James Rhoda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- marviie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Fortsolace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- B.Korlah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Khardyj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Joycelin 24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- csam85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- David Nii Quaye (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Mukadas Maltiti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hope this issue will be resolved as soon as possible. JDQ Joris Darlington Quarshie (talk) 08:14, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- I've responded to what I assume is ostensibly the same request on my talk page. To avoid split discussion anyone can opine about the request or my response there, if they like. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Solidandrewsister keeps defaming me
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
i want to ask if any of you could please give me your advice, i'm going through a difficult situation due to a user who has been wanting to ban me ever since i created my page, i had an issue with two other users months ago that was thankfully clarified and we all finished to agreed with one another, but he's using that past conflict to say and accuse me of edit warring and many more things, the user is unexperienced and only has had over 25 contributions but he consistently disruptives articles and fights with other editors if they revert his edits, i left an edit warring warning on his talk page but he didn't like it despite being well intentioned, and he reported me instead and started accusing me of being a bad user with a bad reputation, he's defaming me and left a message saying that he just reported me, now he is here saying i kept harrasing here and victimizing himself when it was a simply message of advice on his talk page, i just want to ask if this behaviour is worth of reporting or blocking cause i never did anything wrong, i simply told him that there was no excusable or good reason to revert the edit of a contributor who's edit was well researched and backed up with reliable sources, yet he still kept on reverting just because he didn't agree with it. Lightlylove (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Related discussion: WP:ANI#User @Lightlylove keeps harassing me. Also, @Lightlylove, you are required to notify the editor you are reporting on their talk page. There are instructions at the top of this page explaining how to do so. Schazjmd (talk)21:13, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for your help❤ Lightlylove (talk) 21:20, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- (edit conflict: I have done so) Elemimele (talk) 21:18, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- The edit conflict wasn't because of my fault, just let me clarify that. Lightlylove (talk) 21:19, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- ... and may I make a non-admin recommendation to both of you? Sales figures of popular bands are an emotive and argumentative area, liable to a lot of conflict. Since both of you are fairly recent editors, you might find life less stressful if you edit in a safer area for a while? Elemimele (talk) 21:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for the advice but i have already done that, i left WP for a while in fact i have i think like a month without editing and that i stopped caring with these users who are willing to involve me in trouble, i just recently comeback and tried to be fair and do something right but it turned wrong against me, this is the only place where this happens for real. Lightlylove (talk) 21:31, 13 June 2023 (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.
Emmanuelope returns with a deliberate WP:PERSONALATTACK
- Emmanuelope (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
As reported prior via Emmanuelope comes again without consensus nor discussion, this user has returned to Wikipedia yet again, ignoring recommendations and other calls for gaining consensus, and opted to deliberately personally attack my character.
I have neither claimed ownership for any article—at all—nor a cluster of articles. I am a member of several WikiProjects, however, which focuses on U.S. geography—and maintaining high quality standards for encyclopedias. Nonetheless, back to the elephant in the room; this contributor has had their contributions reverted by other contributors as well for their lack of engagement and seemingly sound reasoning. In exhibit A—one of their contributions—the current imagery on the Dallas article was culled for these outdated, low-quality images which they somehow considered updated (behold, exhibit A); for exhibit B, we see in this standing contribution, up-to-date imagery (minus Arlington); exhibit B is a long-standing contribution (behold, exhibit B); finally, in exhibit C—their contribution—they deemed the imagery dated more recent than the ones they implemented as "outdated" and used imagery they deemed "up-to-date" including uploading a copyrighted file (now deleted) alongside a 2006 image of Downtown Dallas in contrast with the more recent one in the mid 2010s (behold, exhibit C).
In many other prior contributions, they've simply utilized old, grainy imagery which does not represent many places they've edited on Wikipedia, nor reflected their current standings. This contributor even went as far as—in December of 2022—threatening to bring someone to an administrator and be blocked for reverting this very unconstructive edit using obviously poor imagery. Again, without consensus; by their latest remarks, they are seeming to simply be stating, "I lived here my entire life. I know everything better than anyone else." So, now, I beg the question: when will this end? After being warned in their talk page prior to it being culled for edit warring initially, this continues to barrel downhill with no end in sight. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 14:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- @TheLionHasSeen: Most of your message here is about a content dispute even though this noticeboard is supposed to be used only for behavioral concerns. You won't find any help here litigating which photo should be used here, whether that image is too low quality, etc. And really, it doesn't sound like you actually need any help on the content. Anyone who makes a contentious edit against established consensus should get reverted. You know this, of course; that's the reason you've undone all four of Emmanuelope's article edits this year.
- I agree with you that they made three (arguably four) clear violations of 03:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- Honestly, I never thought of it like this @CityOfSilver. Thank you. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 12:42, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- Honestly, I never thought of it like this @
Block Evasion by Anon
User in Question:
- Current IP range: 2600:1007:B03E:3864:FCF5:B901:2D17:A531/40 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- Previous IP range: 2601:408:C181:8B80:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
Anon user was previously blocked for persistently adding unsourced and unconstructive material as the outcome to a previous ANI The user was then subsequently blocked two more times following the same pattern of behavior.[116] The user has now returned with a new IP but is exhibiting the same pattern of behavior and is still unresponsive to other editors. I am near-certain this is the same user given their editing style and articles they are targeting. Their old range is still blocked.
Any assistance or input would be appericated -- StarScream1007 ►Talk 13:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Drmies, your inputs requested. Warmly, Lourdes 11:08, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Any update on this? Or is this something that should go to WP:AIV? The anon still is active. Thanks. -- StarScream1007 ►Talk13:29, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- Lourdes, I don't know what I can add: seems like the same person, so just go ahead and block em. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- Any update on this? Or is this something that should go to
- Thanks Drmies. StarScream, done. Lourdes 05:54, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Return of S201050066: Electric Boogaloo
Previous discussion : Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1127#The return of S201050066S201050066 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
166.48.226.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
S201050066 is back being disruptive with re-adding Canadian provinicial items to an international page. Can we please get the pages semiprotected? Please let me know if a comprehensive list should be provided. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:36, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Update: The IP has been blocked. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:39, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Apologies, ) 20:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Persistent passive-aggressive communication style of Blackgaia02
I am not a saint at all and myself became one of the troublemakers here, but I got the feeling that the user Blackgaia02 is simply not aware of any rules of communication on the project as a whole. For example, I just received this message from him where he directly uses obscene language in my address, threatens me in case I "meddle with his edits" and use Karen's derogatory term at me, clearly trying to attack me for questioning his actions in the past. It is noteworthy that I received this only because I canceled his edit earlier and simply offered another option as a compromise. I thought that the user would be fine with this, but it seems that he took it as hostilely as possible. I was recently banned for an edit war, so I would have easily gone to them to discuss this, but the user simply chose to attack me. This is not the first time this has happened, like this a user reacted in the past to my attempt to discuss the description of spoiler information in article (the user actually came to the thread at my invitation, but limited himself to this answer and ignored both my answer and the questions of other users). Similar passive aggression, getting personal and treating any disagreement or doubt about his edits as hostility towards him. This is where the user's participation in the discussions simply ends, as he either ignores the messages on his discussion page, or ignores the discussions after such one-time answers. Judging from similar responses to other users, I'm not the only one. I beg you to pay some attention to this, because being an emotional person and already affected because of this in the past, I am afraid of being overstepped by continuing such a response to me. Solaire the knight (talk) 02:44, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Your problem is that you kept on reverting edits that I made that the info is confirmed in the anime itself, I was minding my own business there. And about the spoilers, gatekeeping them is stupid since right now the wiki is been laxing rules regarding spoilers in every single media. You actually kept on totally bickering that they should be removed when the things confirmed are already confirmed on the anime. And why would I want to compromise when its gonna be more restraining my freedom on editing itself. I get your point but your problem is that you're too controlinng on what info needs to be included on a GUNDAM anime. BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 03:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- I literally opened the topic and offered to discuss the boundaries of this. As in the article about this show, and in general. And several times invited you to discuss it. But you chose to leave passive-aggressive comments and then refuse to discuss. As far as I can see, you have not even read these threads, because you are not aware that I never suggested deleting this information, but only how to more reasonably describe it. While remembering how we argued about exactly how to interpret things, you should have been aware anyway that I didn't advocate removing it. I can't simultaneously try to remove something and discuss how to describe it at the same time. This is not to mention the fact that using devalued vocabulary and labels in my address or directly saying that you refuse to compromise "so as not to limit your freedom" is quite problematic to put it mildly. Solaire the knight (talk) 03:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Because I don't want to for my own. I don't like a go on a point of view that I never liked the most. I don't like it even if its gonna make it into another generic article. And how the fact do you describe the whole "more reasonably describe it" when the series needs its own terms. Clones in that series are called Repli-Child and you still don't want that term nor just naming the suits in their canonical name. I can't stand it. BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 03:46, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is a collective project, you cannot defiantly refuse any discussions if they do not imply full acceptance of your views on the article. It seems to me that a person with your experience should already understand this. The terms in this case are just a formality, because we are still talking about clones and cloning. Even other users noticed this and directly asked about the reasons for this on your part, but you simply refused to discuss it and the topic died out, as we see, leading to another conflict after a while. Not to mention other little things where you didn't realize that as a clone of Eri, Suleta had the same father or that information about her father was a legend before then. Clones don't start work differently if the show uses a different word for it, unless it's explicitly stated. What was not. And I still want to remind you that even if you disagree with other users, this does not give you the right to label them or speak to them in a similar tone. Solaire the knight (talk) 03:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- How wikipedia handles this is just forcing me to do thing I don't like, especially to people far worse. All I want is to contribute on my own terms, with no interference from people that would drag me down because of all of that mental stress everyone is giving.
- To answer your question: She is a clone but the writers use different terms and different methods, it is not like how real life cloning works. Its a clone but it doesn't need to be called in that generic name. BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 04:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Stop. Did I understand you correctly? Are you now directly stating that you refuse to discuss and seek consensus, because it prevents you from "editing Wikipedia on your terms"? I just don't know what to answer to that. Going back to the clones, all it's different at the moment is a different name. Which also clearly copies the word replicant with obvious intentions. I don't know where you got that it works differently. Just because she wasn't called a clone outright? Solaire the knight (talk) 04:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Well how should I get to your consensus then? Should I surennder my own freedom of editing to this site and be like everyone else? Just because you want me to agree on your consensus on the site? Fine then. BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 04:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Erm, consensus is a collective thing, it can't just be my opinion or yours. It's a collective decision that should be accepted by as many people as possible in order to resolve a difficult issue and avoid conflicts. It's not about "freedom" or who is "right". Solaire the knight (talk) 04:31, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Well how should I get to your consensus then? Should I surennder my own freedom of editing to this site and be like everyone else? Just because you want me to agree on your consensus on the site? Fine then. BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 04:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Stop. Did I understand you correctly? Are you now directly stating that you refuse to discuss and seek consensus, because it prevents you from "editing Wikipedia on your terms"? I just don't know what to answer to that. Going back to the clones, all it's different at the moment is a different name. Which also clearly copies the word replicant with obvious intentions. I don't know where you got that it works differently. Just because she wasn't called a clone outright? Solaire the knight (talk) 04:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is a collective project, you cannot defiantly refuse any discussions if they do not imply full acceptance of your views on the article. It seems to me that a person with your experience should already understand this. The terms in this case are just a formality, because we are still talking about clones and cloning. Even other users noticed this and directly asked about the reasons for this on your part, but you simply refused to discuss it and the topic died out, as we see, leading to another conflict after a while. Not to mention other little things where you didn't realize that as a clone of Eri, Suleta had the same father or that information about her father was a legend before then. Clones don't start work differently if the show uses a different word for it, unless it's explicitly stated. What was not. And I still want to remind you that even if you disagree with other users, this does not give you the right to label them or speak to them in a similar tone. Solaire the knight (talk) 03:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Because I don't want to for my own. I don't like a go on a point of view that I never liked the most. I don't like it even if its gonna make it into another generic article. And how the fact do you describe the whole "more reasonably describe it" when the series needs its own terms. Clones in that series are called Repli-Child and you still don't want that term nor just naming the suits in their canonical name. I can't stand it. BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 03:46, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- I literally opened the topic and offered to discuss the boundaries of this. As in the article about this show, and in general. And several times invited you to discuss it. But you chose to leave passive-aggressive comments and then refuse to discuss. As far as I can see, you have not even read these threads, because you are not aware that I never suggested deleting this information, but only how to more reasonably describe it. While remembering how we argued about exactly how to interpret things, you should have been aware anyway that I didn't advocate removing it. I can't simultaneously try to remove something and discuss how to describe it at the same time. This is not to mention the fact that using devalued vocabulary and labels in my address or directly saying that you refuse to compromise "so as not to limit your freedom" is quite problematic to put it mildly. Solaire the knight (talk) 03:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Solaire the knight, instead of leaving messages on user talk pages, you are expected to initiate discussions on article talk pages. I have blocked User:Blackgaia02 for personal attacks this time for 24 hours. I am not commenting on editorial issues here (I don't agree with some of your edits; but that's for another day). Focus on article talk page discussions. (e.g. Talk:List of Mobile Suit Gundam: The Witch from Mercury episodes is totally empty. Why? If you have such a contentious edit issue, then take the first step and open up talk page discussions). Thank you, Lourdes 07:08, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- It is empty because the discussion was started by me on the discussion page of the anime itself. I started this here because the original controversy arose from discussions of characters before they were a standalone article. I also asked other users to look at the user's contribution in the theme project talk. As for the episodes, this page is mostly written by another user, and with him we reached an informal consensus that they will simply comment on edits more often to avoid misunderstandings and disputes. I thanked them for a couple of edits and don't touch anymore. Solaire the knight (talk) 07:53, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- This is a rare case where OP is aware their participation is flawed and still made the right decision to raise the case.
All I want is to contribute on my own terms, with no interference from people that would drag me down
is a horrifying sentence. I hate to tell you this @Blackgaia02:, but Wikipedia isn't a personal blog, it's a shared project with 120,000 current active users. Refusing to engage in any discussion over content (or, at least, refusing but wanting your edits to stand) is simply not an option the project offers. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- +1. If neutrality, for that matter). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:40, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- It's unfair. It's always not fair for me. BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 00:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- +1. If
- Block extended to a week for being unable to understand the pillars of Wikipedia. Thanks, Lourdes 05:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Repeated policy violations/abuse, personal insults, and likely tag-teaming at Boulton and Park
There is an enormous amount of detail in this situation. I am willing to be exhaustive if it will help, but for now I am going to list my two primary complaints as concisely as I can. I'm going to list them in perceived order of severity, which is reverse-chronological.
1. Third Opinion process
After a long period in which SchroCat and I were the only editors involved, but only shortly after I requested two Third Opinions, two users well-known to SchroCat showed up in the thread. One, User:Tim_riley, contributed nothing but insults and weak appeals to the status quo; the other, User:Ssilvers, was civil and gestured at good-faith discussion, but didn't make very concrete claims or offer any evidence, and never returned to the thread when asked to follow up. Immediately after that, SchroCat made this edit at the 3O page, claiming that now that others were involved, the dispute no longer qualified.
Of course I can't literally prove that this is what happened, but the timing and behavior of all parties is astonishingly suspicious. Even if SchroCat did not explicitly invite the other users to the thread for this purpose, using their presence to immediately subvert my attempt to follow policy to the letter once it was clear our dispute was not making progress seems, on its own, flagrantly inappropriate. At no time did SchroCat offer an alternative avenue for dispute resolution, instead making authoritative statements like "This is done. Time to move on." and "Don't you think it's time you Wikipedia:DROPTHESTICK?".
A third user, User:Serial_Number_54129, who participated in the FAC review and thus was also clearly quite familiar with SchroCat, then archived the entire discussion just over two hours after SchroCat's 3O edit above, with no discussion or rationale.
At this point I knew there was no actual discussion to be had, and started exploring my options for escalating the issue. I posted to the Help Desk on the 6th, trying to figure out the right venue for escalation. Then on the 8th, possibly having seen the above behavior called out in my post, Tim reverted the archival. SchroCat, however, doubled down on their belief that it was appropriate to unilaterally close an in-progress discussion before the clearly most substantive edit had been discussed at all.
Which leads me to
2. SchroCat repeatedly reverted my good faith edit with no explanation whatsoever
I read the Boulton and Park article with interest, and, as I usually do, fixed up a bunch of grammar as I went. This time, however, I also encountered a larger issue with the structure of the Historiography section. This section presents the claims of two scholars as diametrically opposed, when in fact their works make no reference to each other, and their claims are obviously mutually compatible and not even really related. The bulk of my initial edit is cleaning this section up, disentangling these arguments from each other and fixing a couple sentences that didn't make sense.
SchroCat immediately reverted almost the entire edit, with the summary "A poor set of edits: bad punctuation, poor grammar and removing cited information". In addition to various other problems, this summary notably does not address this most substantial part of the edit at all.
In accordance with
WP:BRR
, which states in part "Another case where the re-revert may be necessary is when an incumbent editor reverts without justification in the edit summary, which is a form WP:Status quo stonewalling.", I reverted this change, and requested that SchroCat improve or discuss my edits, rather than unilaterally reverting them with no stated reason.
SchroCat responded by reverting again and accusing me of edit warring on my talk page. Humorously, they also said "See BRD" in their edit summary, even while flagrantly violating it.
Once they reverted a second time, I wrote a long post on the talk page going through the separate edits I had made one by one, providing my justifications for them, and requesting that they state their objections if any. They didn't like how long the post was and yelled at me a bit, so I offered to go through the points one at a time instead, which seemed slightly more palatable to them. We even made a bit of progress, though not without them resorting to personal insults in the edit summary. However, the discussion quickly got out of hand, leading to the 3O requests mentioned above. The whole thing was then fully derailed and archived without my consent well before we had gotten to the substantial part of the edit.
Please note that my very first post on the talk page justified that portion of my edit in detail; at no time has this been acknowledged by anyone in any way.
There is quite a lot of other incidental bad behavior that happened along the way, but this is the meat of it from my perspective. The article is obviously flawed, and the person who has appointed themselves its guardian has not so much as acknowledged that at attempt was made to address a flaw, instead repeatedly reverting without discussion or rationale, resorting to personal insults and authoritative statements about what will or won't stay in the article, and, finally, bringing in a bunch of friends to disrupt a good-faith effort to resolve the dispute via neutral third parties. I don't know what remedy is appropriate here, but I hope there is one that can allow me and other wikipedians to improve this article without encountering this kind of obstructionism.
Thank you for your time! Personman (talk) 08:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Arbitrary break (Boulton and Park)
- That's the concise version? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:02, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- What a tissue of half-truths and outright lies we have here, all interwoven into yet another whopping WP:WALLOFTEXT.
- Firstly, if you “
can't literally prove that this is what happened
”, the. You should not me making false accusations. That falls underWP:CIVIL, which you’ve been breaching since our first interaction. - You accused me of bad faith in our first interaction, which was not just uncivil, but also a lie. When you edit warred and I asked you to use the talk page instead, you then accused me of ownership. That's a second incivility and a second lie. Just because someone reverts your edit because it isn't an improvement, it's neither done in bad faith, nor ownership: it's because your edit wasn't good. If you start a thread with a 2,000-word whinge fest containing incivility and half-truths, don't expect the rest of the conversation to be full of sunshine and happiness.
- Firstly, if you “
- I "almost certainly engaged in bad-faith tag-teaming in order to intentionally subvert the Third Opinion process"? Do you have any evidence to back up such an extraordinary claim, or are you just intent on smearing people who disagree with you? All three of the other editors had been active on the talk page in the days before your 2,000-word wall of text appeared (Tim riley and Serial Number 54129 on 1 June; SSilverson 2 June). Before throwing out such untrue accusations, has it crossed your mind that they may have the page on their watchlists? Or is it because they disagreed with you that means I must have engaged in tag-teaming?
- According to you, I edited the 3O page to claim that since there were now more than two parties involved, it was invalid: yes, I left a message on the 3O page to say that there were four people involved in the thread – 3O is designed for when there are two editors who can't agree, not when one editor doesn't like the consensus of three editors against them. Again, this isn't the sign of some dastardly plot.
- WP:TAGTEAMing? Bollocks. Four people disagreeing with you is not tag teaming: it is four people disagreeing with you, nothing more.
- You'll have to ask WP:IDIDNTHEARTHATand relitigating petty points over and over is just time-wasting and disruptive.
- I “repeatedly reverted my good faith edit with no explanation whatsoever”. You provided no decent rationale for most of your edit at the first instance, and disagreed with it, so I reverted per BRD. The face you continued edit warring to force in some sub-standard changes, including deleting valid and sourced information, shows a contempt for other editors and the process you should have followed. You have thrown out uncivil accusations of bad faith since our first interaction, ignored the consensus of the previous review process and that on the talk page and shown no attempt to listen to other editors. - SchroCat (talk) 09:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- I "almost certainly engaged in bad-faith tag-teaming in order to intentionally subvert the
- ps. As you’ve falsely accused three other individuals of bad behaviour in this thread, you should also be leaving them the appropriate ANI message. - SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- On most of these points I think the observable facts and my first post speak for themselves. There are two things here though that I feel merit a response.
- 1. "You provided no decent rationale for most of your edit at the first instance, and disagreed with it, so I reverted per BRD."
- You've repeatedly made this counterclaim as though it has some basis in policy, without providing any evidence that it does. BRD is very clear that the onus is on the reverter, not the bold editor, to provide a rationale for the revert. You did not and still have not done this. I had no obligation to provide a full justification for the improvement with my initial edit, but I have done so since and have to date received no response. Part of my hope in opening this case is that I will receive some authoritative guidance on how to proceed without getting in trouble — since you've reverted me once without reason and ignored multiple requests for discussion, I'm not sure what else to do besides just making the edit again, or, well, coming here.
- 2. As you’ve falsely accused three other individuals of bad behaviour in this thread, you should also be leaving them the appropriate ANI message.
- The wording at the top of the page says "When you start a discussion about an editor..". I don't think anything those other people did rises to the level of an ANI-worthy infraction; it is your conduct I'm here to discuss. If an admin lets me know I'm misinterpreting this, I'm more than happy to leave them the notice, but it seems unwarranted to me based on that wording.
- — Personman (talk) 10:44, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- What you have posted has little to do with “facts”, and more to do with your a misguided and bad-faith misinterpretation of the facts.I provided a rationale. You edited an FA in a poor manner, leaving it in a worse state than it was previously, thus the revert. The rest has been your belligerence in not accepting the existing consensus or the subsequent one. - SchroCat (talk) 11:57, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Sigh. Is this guy still doing this? Yes, ShcroCat summarises my motives 100%: the discussion—such as it was—had long since turned into a battlefield, with all the concomitant bludgeoning you might expect when four editors have told you you are mistaken but you're desperate to make a point. See Wikipedia:Guy Macon's story. Which needs expanding! That discussion was done. It was going around in circles. It was kipping on its back. I closed it: Mea maxima culpa. I guess it was an IAR edit from the guy who never invokes IAR. And, indeed, that seemed to settle the matter—except for the fact that Personman has deemed it a valuable use of their and our time to relitigate the issue here after nearly a week has passed.Incidentally—and talking of priorities—of their last 50 edits (06:46, 17 April 2023–11:49, 11 June 2023), only five are not related to Boulton and Park. I think WP:STICK might apply if nothing else. I'll leave it up to others to decide whether this ~obsession has crossed the border into WP:DE yet. SN54129 14:40, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- This seems to be pure verbosity, rather than WP:BLUD. While I don't think Personman is behaving perfectly, they've basically been correct in most of their observations about the article, and SchroCat has also behaved questionably:
- The use of "what" in
Many of the papers included leaders that were indignant that homosexuality—what was considered a foreign habit—was being practised in England.
is so obviously ridiculous and archaic that it is worrying that SchroCat restored it with all-caps text in the edit summary. [117] - The relevant part of Joyce 2018, emphasis my own, is
A recent history of male homosexuality in the nineteenth century, H.G. Cocks’s Nameless Offences (2010), suggests that the interpretation of Fanny and Stella “has gone through distinct phases,” but I want to suggest one way that it has been entirely consistent over the past thirty-five years.
So, it is not exactlyWP:SYNTHto place these side by side (so I disagree with Personman that Joyce needs to be put in his own ¶) but the level of opposition between them is clearly exaggerated in the article when it saysThe historian Harry Cocks states that the interpretation of history of the Boulton and Park arrest and trial "has gone through distinct phases"; although Simon Joyce, a professor of English, argues the interpretation has been consistent.
- I agree that it's weird to drop the limerick into the article without giving any analysis based on secondary sources, and that this suggests that its inclusion may be based on nothing but comedic value at the expense of the subjects of the article.
- The use of "what" in
- small jars
tc18:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)- ”What” is acceptable in BrEng, thus the revert, and there is nothing “ridiculous” in the revert, given it was a point under discussion at the time it was edit warred out by Personman. You’ll note the summary wasn’t “all caps”, but one small part, which was yet another request to stop edit warring, which has been a problem. You’ll also note that I subsequently self-reverted a short time after that point.
- I agree there is no SYNTH (another false claim), but I disagree there is opposition in the way it is framed. Either way, the re-working was wrong and a small tweak (which I have undertaken) should satisfy things, rather than the poor reworking.
- I disagree with the point of trying to censor the limerick, as did the consensus of FAC and the two on the talk page. - SchroCat (talk) 19:36, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry. My brain processed "what" as if it came from some 18th century treatise. I'm not used to seeing it written, but living in the UK, I have to admit that I'm used to hearing it spoken. I think it is a weird thing to use here anyway, and the connection to spoken English slid right past me because I always imagine it spelled as "wot". It seems that this is resolved now anyway.
- It is at least misrepresentative of Joyce to say that he "argues the interpretation has been consistent." No. He argues that there is one thing about it that is consistent: namely that none of the previous interpretations considered Boulton and Park to be trans. Roughly speaking, Joyce goes on to argue that they are. So this is more of a framing for his interpretation than a statement about the homogeneity of all previous ones.
- The easiest compromise would just be to add appropriate commentary from secondary sources, which should exist in the two it is cited too. small jars
tc20:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)- I concur with small jars’ assessment. —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 23:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- This seems to be pure verbosity, rather than
Another arbitrary break
- I'd like more detail on what historian Harry Cocks says about male homosexuality in the nineteenth century. EEng 00:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- LOL. Okay, putting aside arguably the most hilarious case of nominative determinism ever, let's also acknowledge that there's a set of parents out there with either zero self-awareness or a truly epic sense of humour and a willingness to let their child take a huge hit for the team. Seriously, can you imagine the childhood? SnowRise let's rap 03:57, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Looking him up on Google scholar, given his extensive work on sexuality and his apparent preference to be cited as “HG Cocks”, I think he knows his power. signed, Rosguill talk 06:57, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- I wonder how long his parents debated whether the H should stand for Harry, or Hugh. EEng 09:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Or Halvel, or Halvis, or Hilarius, or Hiro, or Hurtis, or Hunter (for the potential in surname-first contexts)... Good grief, I'm pretty sure I've lectured Eeng about "one joke too many" / WP:NOTAFORUM here at ANI at least once in the past. What a hypocrite I've become. Well, whatever, this place needs some levity of late. Wait! ...Horatius (hurray 'tis) Cocks--hehehehehe! SnowRise let's rap 10:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- I wonder how long his parents debated whether the H should stand for Harry, or Hugh. EEng 09:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Looking him up on Google scholar, given his extensive work on sexuality and his apparent preference to be cited as “HG Cocks”, I think he knows his power. signed, Rosguill talk 06:57, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- LOL. Okay, putting aside arguably the most hilarious case of nominative determinism ever, let's also acknowledge that there's a set of parents out there with either zero self-awareness or a truly epic sense of humour and a willingness to let their child take a huge hit for the team. Seriously, can you imagine the childhood? SnowRise let's rap 03:57, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Increasingly erratic and aggressive behaviour from Malaysia Skyline
Malaysia Skyline (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is engaging in increasingly erratic and aggressive attitudes against other editors in the talk page of George Town, Penang here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:George_Town,_Penang#Should_we_update_the_2010_population_data_to_2019/20's_data?
That was despite the user's block for edit warring and another discussion raised on the Neutral Point Of View noticeboard here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Hierarchy_of_metropolitan_areas_in_Malaysia
The user's aggression is uncalled for and goes against WP's spirit of consensus and
) 08:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)- Are you talking about yourself, too? Do not delete the conversation in the talkpage, they are all recoded the the page's history. Let them see how aggressive you have been, including accusing other people's level of education and poking fun at others' mental ability! Malaysia Skyline (talk) 08:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Multiple disruptive editing? No consensus building? Ignores editors' verified input? Arbitrary removal of comments and notices? Engaging in arguments with aggressive punctuation and spamming, that goes against any civilised or business conversation norm? Who started all that? Take a look at your own replies with all the other editors first. Corncaker (talk) 08:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- What talk page deletions are you referring to? I don't see deletions on the article talk page unless they're hidden by simultaneous additions. If you are referring to the deletion on WP:OWNTALK. Amongst other things as you yourself acknowledged, there is a record in the history so there's no reason it's a problem. I don't think using an edit summary like 'removing spam' [118] was helpful especially since it looks like your message was a compulsory notification, OTOH your notification was also unnecessarily aggressive rather than a simple notification of starting a discussion on them. And you also earlier mistakenly posted on their user page instead of their talk page [119] Nil Einne (talk) 09:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- I'm on mobile so can't be bothered with diffs but frankly looking at the current discussion at ) 09:58, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- WP:RS (and to that effect, joint research studies by World Bank and researchers are quite common and regarded quite well on reliability). Corncaker, statements such as
"OMG! Can't even do simple reading! Is that your level of education?... It only speaks how you are unable to do a simple Google search then!...If you still have the mental capacity..."
will get you blocked for a long time if you repeat these. Believe me, this is the final chance. Stop such disruptive drivel please. Malaysia Skyline, same to you. I understand your outburst started after Corncracker's poke. But you should know better. Anyway, final warning. Don't repeat this.
- Please continue discussions on the NPOV noticeboard. Please follow C.Fred's guidance properly and do not cross the advise. Thanks, Lourdes 10:28, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Noted, I will take the warning. I completely understand the reliability and authority of World Bank's research, but what we are currently seeking is an official statement from the government domain, since that will be more representative of a country's internal policy and planning.
- Thanks for your advice! Malaysia Skyline (talk) 10:57, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- No Malaysia. "What we are seeking" is a misrepresentation again. You are disregarding World Bank sources for your definition of what is reliable or not. That is not acceptable. Anyway, it is not the mandate of this board to undertake editorial decisions. Follow the discussions with C.Fred and do not ignore his advise. Thanks, Lourdes 11:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Noted, Lourdes. Apologies for any inconveniences caused. Malaysia Skyline (talk) 11:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- No Malaysia. "What we are seeking" is a misrepresentation again. You are disregarding World Bank sources for your definition of what is reliable or not. That is not acceptable. Anyway, it is not the mandate of this board to undertake editorial decisions. Follow the discussions with C.Fred and do not ignore his advise. Thanks, Lourdes 11:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Request to block user: “thenightaway” due to vandalism on “Sulaiman Al-Fahim” page
Sulaiman Al-Fahim (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Dear Administrator,
User “thenightaway” is removing informative writing and credible sources on “Sulaiman Al-Fahim” page. This is vandalism and has been done so by this user before on this page. Please may i request to have user “thenightaway” blocked from making edits on “Sulaiman Al-Fahim” page as they are removing texts with no plausible reason or cause.
Thank you for your time and assistance, awaiting your response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobmicheal232 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- This is a content dispute. Thenightaway has reverted your edit once, and neither of you have yet discussed it on the article's talk page. You posted on their user talk page about fifteen minutes ago then came here. Please try to resolve your differences through discussion first. Schazjmd (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Jacobmicheal232, I also see that just about every edit you've ever made to that article has been reverted (not just by Thenightaway), yet you've never tried to discuss your concerns with the article at Talk:Sulaiman Al-Fahim. That page is where these disagreements should be discussed. Schazjmd (talk) 17:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Jacobmicheal232, I have informed Thenightaway about this thread as you appear to have forgotten to do so. — Trey Maturin™ 17:11, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Jacobmicheal232's edits were reverted because they added poorly sourced puffery to the
WP:COI editor. The Sulaiman Al-Fahim page has a history of extensive COI editing. Thenightaway (talk
) 17:32, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- I concur with Thenightaway that Jacobmicheal232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is clearly a SPA with a probable COI. They've only ever edited Sulaiman Al-Fahim, despite their editing spanning over a year. The edits have an obvious promotional tone. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Theonewithreason's behaviour on WP:STONEWALLING, either dishonesty or competence issues, making false claims and baseless accusations
I made this edit on
Wp:undue, see lack of this assertion in other countries i.e USA,Russia,United Kingdom,Germany etc″ here
.
I was a bit baffled how a mere link could be ″undue″, so I started a discussion on
WP:DUE
in account Serbia does have notable instances of crime, such as being behind only Russia in Europe when it comes to organized crime rates, and two highly reported on mass shootings recently taking places within days of each other etc.
I rather quickly sensed the discussion wasn't going anywhere, with TOWR claiming it is already ″covered″ because the Serbia article contains a link to
MOS:BUILD when there is already a relevant section on the article. Because of this, I started an RfC in hopes of more uninvolved input. Eventually another editor responded and made the same point I had made above about the ″law and criminal justice″ section and ″law of Serbia″ link, I respond to them confirming that is how I was thinking as well, and that was the point where for whatever reason TOWR decides to claim that I was not, instead insisting I was still advocating for the link to be added to the ″see also″ section at the bottom″. Like most others, I don't like people misrepresenting what I say, and thankfully Wikipedia has an excellent page history feature making it easy to fact check who said what, so I replied that they're wrong and my stance has been from almost the beginning that the link should go to the relevant body section, when they doubled down it started to become increasingly difficult to assume good faith but I figured possibly there's language issues, which they also denied and threw in a baseless false accusation of ″gaming the system″
(for adding a link to a crime article in a section covering law and criminal justice, seriously?). If it isn't a language barrier, it's either lying or competence issues, so when I continue to call out their false claims about what I am advocating for they start accusing me of ″personal attacks″. I find it bizarre behaviour to lie about what someone is saying, and then suddenly victimize yourself and accuse them of personal attacks when you call out their lie, then again the whole situation is bizarre in general.
Overall, I suspect nationalistic motivations are getting in the way of easy access to relevant content for Wikipedia readers, which is what it should be the priority, not pretending countries are crime free. This behaviour over a link I think is a sign of a
WP:TENDENTIOUS approach to editing the article, not to mention interacting with others during content disputes. I have included the more notable diffs but I think the full discussion(s) should be read for a full view of the gymnastics being performed to keep the link off the article. --TylerBurden (talk
) 21:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- This should go as WP: Aspersion against me. Thank you.Theonewithreason (talk) 21:22, 06 June 2023 (UTC)
User TylerBurden personal attacks
WP:Personal attack issues, since I am entitled to add my vote however I choose without being attacked so I would like that someone addressed this. Thank you. Theonewithreason (talk
) 21:23, 06 June 2023 (UTC)
- dispute resolutionspace.
- I would suggest to both of you to take it easy, let the RfC continue. Discussing about why crime (or a link thereof) should or should not be included in a country's Wikipedia page, is an editorial decision, not administrative. Don't use terms like lying, tendentious, nationalistic, unless you mean to evoke a negative response. There are alternative terms that can be used diplomatically to convey the same meaning. But you know better Tyler. Come back, any of you, if the issue escalates to the level of ANI. Thanks, Lourdes 08:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Lourdes I don't make accusations lightly much less reports, it is not so much the content dispute itself that is the issue but Theonewithreason's attempts to misrepresent the situation and accuse me of "gaming the system". Those are both behavioural issues, and then playing victim and complaining about personal attacks when that behavour is called out is problematic also, especially on an article like Serbia that is under contentious topics. Note how TOWR in response to this report simply continues the same behaviour, not actually addressing their misrepresentation of my suggestion and instead doubling down on their "victim of personal attacks" approach. If they had apologized when they made false claims about my suggestion, this escalation wouldn't have been necessary. But it is one thing to make a mistake, it is another to double down, deny it and make more false claims when confronted about it. TylerBurden (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hi TylerBurden, you were accused of gaming (or a reference to gaming was given) after you made this remark. You alluded to lack of language skills, CIR, lack of ability to read the title...etc all in one go against the other editor. You are an experienced editor and your RfC is well-placed and logical. You also know why we should comment on the content and not character of people. At this point, if you had come to this desk with clean hands, where your discussions took the higher ground and the other editor was the one throwing accusations, the discussions out here would be different. But that is not the case. I will again suggest that take the higher ground in discussions; don't verbally duel or accuse other editors of being liars (character) but call out lack of factual basis (content), don't accuse other editors of being not able to read (character), but perhaps mention that they may have misunderstood the focus of the RfC (content). And so on. I am not trying to patronise you as I am no guru of executive communication. But the next time you come back here and we are able to assess that you followed this guideline and the other editor did not, we'll take appropriate warnings/actions. Thanks, Lourdes 04:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Lourdes I am not sure if you are actually looking at the situation, because I did try to assume good faith and brought up the possibility of a language issue being the cause of misunderstanding, which was denied straight away. Why does this editor have a right to misrepresent me? Do you see that the editor openly said the link shouldn't be added because "it makes Serbia look like it has more crime than other countries"? That is maintaining image, which if anything would be "gaming the system" through tendentious editing. I never called them a liar, because I don't know them, I said that they lied in this instance, which is what appears to be the case since they denied misunderstanding it. So what else are they doing then? Please provide diffs if you are going to support this editors accusations towards me. TylerBurden (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hi TylerBurden, you were accused of gaming (or a reference to gaming was given) after you made this remark. You alluded to lack of language skills, CIR, lack of ability to read the title...etc all in one go against the other editor. You are an experienced editor and your RfC is well-placed and logical. You also know why we should comment on the content and not character of people. At this point, if you had come to this desk with clean hands, where your discussions took the higher ground and the other editor was the one throwing accusations, the discussions out here would be different. But that is not the case. I will again suggest that take the higher ground in discussions; don't verbally duel or accuse other editors of being liars (character) but call out lack of factual basis (content), don't accuse other editors of being not able to read (character), but perhaps mention that they may have misunderstood the focus of the RfC (content). And so on. I am not trying to patronise you as I am no guru of executive communication. But the next time you come back here and we are able to assess that you followed this guideline and the other editor did not, we'll take appropriate warnings/actions. Thanks, Lourdes 04:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
RFC
WikiProject Crime would probably be helpful. Do User:TylerBurden and User:Theonewithreason want to resolve a content dispute via an RFC, or to argue about conduct? Robert McClenon (talk
) 00:00, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- The RfC should not have been started. TylerBurden is obviously correct about including the link, but it's always possible to encounter opposition, even when doing obviously correct things, and he didn't know how to deal with the issue more constructively. This led him to start an RfC about something that can't realistically be decided against (editors simply can't form a consensus on an article talk page to essentially censor a relevant internal link); instead he should have pursued more discussion and sought help from other editors. He then requested a DRN which doesn't normally work with an ongoing RfC (but DRN could have, perhaps, been a reasonable thing to try down the line), and then started this ANI section. But in reality, the issue here is the idea that it's possible to enforce removal of this link from the Serbia article. It is not a possibility, and not a normal editorial decision.—Alalch E. 23:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- @WP:ONUS etc to keep content they don't like off articles, even if it's something as simple as a link. That is made even easier to do when you can just start talking about personal attacks in the hopes for some hasty administrator call the moment that behaviour is called out. But yes you're right, obviously relevant links isn't something you should need to jump through hoops to add, it's against everything this website is meant to be. TylerBurden (talk) 20:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Lourdes Thank you for stating obvious fact and giving us an advice, I have listened it and let the RfC run, but as you can see I don′t see any productivity from TylerBurden, editor continues with their own passive aggressive behaviour, accusations etc. As for you TylerBurden, I am not the one who is abusing the system, since I know the rules of Wikipedia, you were rushing to remove me with this ANI report, instead letting RfC does it′s job. Frankly I don′t see what exactly you were trying to achieve with this since you were the one attacking me, and yet again I am going to repeat, my opposition was based on several reasons, balancing being the first, since we don′t have this link on other countries, another fact was posted by other editors in the meantime which I did not noticed because I did not read Crime in Serbia article, that it is poorly written, with lots of opinions, outdated sources etc. I don′t see what does this has to do with nationalism and so on. Theonewithreason (talk) 21:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- All of your arguments, including the article being "poorly written" were debunked by myself and others in the talk page. There is no reason from a policy or guideline perspective of censoring the fact that the article Crime in Serbia exists, and it really doesn't matter how much you claim that I "attack" you. Your misrepresentation and denial of any misunderstanding is blatant and the reason for my report here, something you still have not addressed. TylerBurden (talk) 22:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- No that is were you are wrong, nothing is debunked by you since others also gave opposite opinions. As for me addressing your report, it was addressed with counter report, please stick to the subject not a character, something that was also already explained here. Theonewithreason (talk) 22:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Clearly there is no point in interacting with you, to the admin, consider these remarks from TOWR such as "I don′t see any productivity from TylerBurden" when taking into account their accusations of personal attacks. TylerBurden (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Same thing I can write to the closing admin, please see above comments, that my comments were 1."debunked", that my 2."misrepresentation and denial of any misunderstanding is blatant" and also indirect ones such as 3. "people abuse the system and policies like WP:ONUS etc to keep content they don't like off articles, even if it's something as simple as a link. That is made even easier to do when you can just start talking about personal attacks in the hopes for some hasty administrator call the moment that behaviour is called out" - all stated against me.Theonewithreason (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Same thing I can write to the closing admin, please see above comments, that my comments were 1."debunked", that my 2."misrepresentation and denial of any misunderstanding is blatant" and also indirect ones such as 3. "people abuse the system and policies like
- Clearly there is no point in interacting with you, to the admin, consider these remarks from TOWR such as "I don′t see any productivity from TylerBurden" when taking into account their accusations of personal attacks. TylerBurden (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- No that is were you are wrong, nothing is debunked by you since others also gave opposite opinions. As for me addressing your report, it was addressed with counter report, please stick to the subject not a character, something that was also already explained here. Theonewithreason (talk) 22:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- All of your arguments, including the article being "poorly written" were debunked by myself and others in the talk page. There is no reason from a policy or guideline perspective of censoring the fact that the article Crime in Serbia exists, and it really doesn't matter how much you claim that I "attack" you. Your misrepresentation and denial of any misunderstanding is blatant and the reason for my report here, something you still have not addressed. TylerBurden (talk) 22:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Lourdes Thank you for stating obvious fact and giving us an advice, I have listened it and let the RfC run, but as you can see I don′t see any productivity from TylerBurden, editor continues with their own passive aggressive behaviour, accusations etc. As for you TylerBurden, I am not the one who is abusing the system, since I know the rules of Wikipedia, you were rushing to remove me with this ANI report, instead letting RfC does it′s job. Frankly I don′t see what exactly you were trying to achieve with this since you were the one attacking me, and yet again I am going to repeat, my opposition was based on several reasons, balancing being the first, since we don′t have this link on other countries, another fact was posted by other editors in the meantime which I did not noticed because I did not read Crime in Serbia article, that it is poorly written, with lots of opinions, outdated sources etc. I don′t see what does this has to do with nationalism and so on. Theonewithreason (talk) 21:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- @
- As discussed, civil means you comment on content and not the character of editors. I don't want this to look bad -- but consider this the final warning to both of you. The next negative/offish comment on character by either one of you, will get you blocked. The question of who-started-it-first would not matter; nor would matter the correctness of your editorial logic. There is no excuse for any continuing comment on character, TOWR and Tyler. You are strongly advised to let the RfC continue (Tyler, you could have gone to the NPOV noticeboard to get inputs on this link and stuff... or a simple consensus poll on the talk page would have been enough. RfCs are a bigger weapon... But that's for another day, now that this RfC has opening (or has it? Have you listed it as per the RfC process?). You are both strongly advised to maintain the civil decorum on other pages too. Please do not take this lightly. Thank you, Lourdes05:14, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
User @Lightlylove keeps harassing me
User @Lightlylove has received multiple warnings from multiple editors, but she hasn’t stopped her behavior even after taking a break from Wikipedia.
On June 12, she sent me a warning on my Talk page, falsely claiming that I engaged in edit warring. [124]
When I responded to her, she argued that I accused her of edit warring last month. Lightlylove also made accusations that I am engaging in disruptive editing on the List of best-selling girl groups article. [125] She even went so far as to accuse me of playing the victim and being a hypocrite. [126] However, what I said last month was not an accusation but was based on what other users noticed about her. [127] She also received multiple warnings that substantiate her actions. [128] [129]
To emphasize, the “accusation” that she mentions occurred last month. It’s unfair for Lightlylove to use that as an excuse to retaliate and falsely accuse me of edit warring this month.
Despite multiple complaints from users, she shows no concern and continues to harass any editors who oppose her behavior. Solidandrewsister (talk) 09:24, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you. WP:CIVIL and open up talk page discussions and stop issuing warning letters to each other; rather, discuss these issues on the talk page. I hope this is crystal clear. Lourdes09:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reminder. I was wondering if you could let me know what I can do if she keeps doing the same things, not just to me but to other users too. Any suggestions or ideas? Solidandrewsister (talk) 10:41, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Solidandrewsister, please read my response above. You both need to take the higher ground and be civil in interacting with each other, even if the other party crosses the line, and you both need to initiate talk page discussions in article talk pages and not just leave edit summaries. Thanks, Lourdes 10:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Lightlylove's personal attacks, accusations of edit warring (after one revert on an article) and incivility is ridiculous. After multiple warnings from multiple editors, I think the best thing to do is what Lourdes said, try to sort everything out on the talk page and/or/if failed block Lightlylove for violating (he/him) 14:06, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- I never violated WP rules or personally attacked him, its such an incredible a nerve the way he's portraying himself as the victim, he's been wanting to ban me from WP ever since i created my article in fact i've never had problems with him, he got involved in a conflict regarding me months ago which wasn't his problem but he got there to insult me and defame me, this time i simply left a warning message of edit warring on his talk page and he didn't like it despite being well intentioned and accused me of harrasing and now he's victimizing himself, how can you defend this behavior Lightlylove (talk) 20:57, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- And he had the nerve to ask you what he can do if i keep on doing these things? Doing what? I have never ever accused someone here on WP of something they have never done in fact its all the opposite, ever since i started here its me who has been accused plenty of times of doing things i have never done, you can confirm this by reading my talk page, its him who has been accusing me since along ago and i never did anything about it cause i was always well educated and tried to keep it civilised, in fact he's the first user i have ever left an advice message on a talk page and see how was my first time. Lightlylove (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Lightlylove's personal attacks, accusations of edit warring (after one revert on an article) and incivility is ridiculous. After multiple warnings from multiple editors, I think the best thing to do is what Lourdes said, try to sort everything out on the talk page and/or/if failed block Lightlylove for violating (he/him) 14:06, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Solidandrewsister, please read my response above. You both need to take the higher ground and be civil in interacting with each other, even if the other party crosses the line, and you both need to initiate talk page discussions in article talk pages and not just leave edit summaries. Thanks, Lourdes 10:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for your understanding, i simply left a well intentioned edit warring message on his talk page because he was reverting edits that other users were contributing ignoring the fact that those edits were well researched and backed up with reliable sources, but he didn't like the advice and replied telling me that i was accusing him without evidence but on the page List of best-selling girl groups you can clearly see him reverting back to back and edit warring with user @Flabshoe1 who simply made a good contribution to the page and discussed kindly with him and never re-added her edits back after being reverted by him multiple times, that's why i left an advice message on his talk page but he didn't take it well and now he's saying that i am harrasing him like what, i have never crossed word with him other than this time and other time where he said that i deserved to be banned and that i cause chaos here on WP which are all defamatory claims against me, he said that trying to defend two other users i had a conflict with months ago but thankfully the conflict was clarified and we all agreed with each other that it was just a misunderstanding, yet he's using that to defame me and said that i keep on harrasing him which is a blatant lie, "harrasing" is a big word and holds a big meaning, this can even get to me in my personal life and he doesn't realize the danger of his words, he's trying to harm me but the evidence that is not true is well archived here on WP. Lightlylove (talk) 21:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Lightlylove: I'm not really sure what edit you're referring to as a good edit, but from Talk:List of best-selling girl groups#Blackpink sales figures, it seems another editor has disputed at least one of Flabshoe1's edits. Also another editor has found one of their edit's problematic [130]. Flabshoe1 themselves admitted they missed out a source in one of their edits. To your credit, you have engaged in discussion on that talk page as has Flabshoe1 which can't be said for Solidandrewsister. However you need to continue with that discussion, giving time for other editors to respond. Potentially you could try pinging Binksternet if they haven't responded in a few days and you're sure that your figures add up and are supported by the sources you are using. Nil Einne (talk) 05:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reminder. I was wondering if you could let me know what I can do if she keeps doing the same things, not just to me but to other users too. Any suggestions or ideas? Solidandrewsister (talk) 10:41, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Lightlylove, Solidandrewsister, thank you for your points above. Let me reiterate the obvious here. It's actually quite easy to be civil to each other. "Comment on content and not character", is the golden rule, which will mostly keep you both free of any action from us. Unfortunately, it's easier to be uncivil to each other too. I am sure both of you have had your say out here. So please take this as a final advise. If there is any disparaging comment on each other's characters by any of you, and if you leave unrequired warning notes on each other's talk pages without first starting talk page discussions on the actual article talk pages (and/or without waiting for the other party to give their clarifications), you will be blocked. Like I said, please take this as a good-faith advise rather than a warning. Lightlylove, please do note that I have blocked a sock that was supporting you and attacking Solidandrewsister. I would request you to be careful here, without mincing any further words. I hope you all the best -- but do come back if there is any infringement to this advise. Thank you, Lourdes 05:43, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
IP vandalism and personal attacks
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.
86.19.27.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Clear case of
WP:NOTHERE. One edit including incorrect nonsense ([131]), two repeated vandalizing edits on the same article ([132], [133]), and two personal attacks against another editor on the user talk page ([134]) and in their second vandalizing edit ([135]). R Prazeres (talk
) 18:06, 15 June 2023 (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.
IP continuously adding false information to mockbuster articles
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.
talk to me!
14:05, 15 June 2023 (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.
Talkpage Vandalism from blocked IP 144.121.246.250
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 IP 144.121.246.250 keeps vandalizing his talkpage. This IP has been blocked before and his talkpage access revoked previously. Somehow he is now able to access it and persistently blank the page. Would recommend revoking access to his talkpage
𝑭𝒊𝒍𝒎𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔 (talk) 13:17, 15 June 2023 (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.
False copyvio allegations by User:זה לא יצחק
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.
- זה לא יצחק (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Xpbuild2504 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Special:Undelete/Draft:Windows 95 build 116 (admin-only link)
User:זה לא יצחק has been creating false copyvio allegations against me by accusing me of plagiarism. I did no such thing, I don't know what vendetta they have against me, as all I have done is create draft articles for builds of Microsoft Windows. I have done nothing wrong, and I have ensured that I did not violate any copyright, so what זה לא יצחק is doing is that they are trying to get me falsely blocked. Please block them for harassment. Xpbuild2504 (talk) 04:40, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- It appears that material copied from https://betawiki.net/wiki/Windows_95_build_116 was added by Xpbuild2504 to an article they had newly created. Someone nominated WP:CSD#G12 deletion as a copyvio, and User:Anthony Bradbury carried out the deletion. Whatever actions may eventually be taken against Xpbuild2504, it appears that the copyright complaints about them are valid. These copyright violations might be cured by proper attribution but we would need the editor to understand the need for it. A second question is how many of the early builds of Windows95 are important enough to justify their own Wikipedia articles. EdJohnston (talk) 05:24, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Xpbuild2504 was already indef'd by the time I saw this thread for spam/username. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 05:27, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Both OP and reported editors have a connect with betawiki. Both accounts created within a week of each other recently. Both dabbling in Microsoft related articles. Both found each other out, ANI and the likes within this time... We need a new term aka BKFIP for possible tag teams taking our time out here. Coincidences are possible too though... Lourdes 05:40, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- I have absolutely nothing to do with that editor. 2 days ago, an IP posted on my talk page asking if I was 763004 on Betawiki. I've had quite negative interactions with other accounts that I suspect to be sockpuppets of the IP. It's likely that they have stalked me on Wikipedia and are trying to harass me. Note: Another editor has made an SPI report: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Winbytedemo Yitzhak | זה לא יצחק (talk) 19:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- So now you're bringing up accusations of sockpuppetry? Judging from your contributions on BetaWiki, you're the one who's harassing Xpbuid2504. Winbytedemo (talk) 20:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- I never accused you of sockpuppetry, nor was I harassing Xpbuild. But given that both accounts were created within days of eachother, make the same edits and have similar usernames, it looks quite suspicious. Instead of discussing it here, go to the SPI report. Please don't raise WP:ASPERSIONS on me like that. Yitzhak | זה לא יצחק (talk)21:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Well 763004 replied to that IPs question and they said that they aren't you. Winbytedemo (talk) 21:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- I never accused you of sockpuppetry, nor was I harassing Xpbuild. But given that both accounts were created within days of eachother, make the same edits and have similar usernames, it looks quite suspicious. Instead of discussing it here, go to the SPI report. Please don't raise
- So now you're bringing up accusations of sockpuppetry? Judging from your contributions on BetaWiki, you're the one who's harassing Xpbuid2504. Winbytedemo (talk) 20:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- I have absolutely nothing to do with that editor. 2 days ago, an IP posted on my talk page asking if I was 763004 on Betawiki. I've had quite negative interactions with other accounts that I suspect to be sockpuppets of the IP. It's likely that they have stalked me on Wikipedia and are trying to harass me. Note: Another editor has made an SPI report: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Winbytedemo Yitzhak | זה לא יצחק (talk) 19:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Both OP and reported editors have a connect with betawiki. Both accounts created within a week of each other recently. Both dabbling in Microsoft related articles. Both found each other out, ANI and the likes within this time... We need a new term aka BKFIP for possible tag teams taking our time out here. Coincidences are possible too though... Lourdes 05:40, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- I have some concerns about this CSD tagging. WP:CSD G12 states:) 06:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
This applies to text pages that contain copyrighted material with no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a compatible free license[ emphasis mine], where there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving.
Looking into the licensing of betawiki.net according to https://betawiki.net/wiki/BetaWiki:Copyrights they appear to use CC-BY-SA 4.0 as their content license, which is the same content license we use since the recentish TOS update, and so can be reused here with proper attribution. Xpbuild2504 has been notified of the attribution requirement after the draft creations, although I am unconvinced they understood given this. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk- It is worth noting that BetaWiki still counts as a self-published source as it is freely editable by others. Furthermore, it is not as thorough in keeping track of references and a big part of its content base is original research, so any reuse of its content should be examined to make sure that it is backed by reliable sources according to Wikipedia guidelines. --Raito wa Kira desu (talk) 23:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [disclaimer: I am BetaWiki staff]
- It is worth noting that BetaWiki still counts as a
- Xpbuild2504 was already indef'd by the time I saw this thread for spam/username. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 05:27, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Blocked a series of suspected socks including Xpbuild2504, Winbytedemo and Tetadřvo. זה לא יצחק has been added to the suspected sock list at SPI. Holding off on blocking them pending final confirmation. Lourdes 11:32, 13 June 2023 (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.
Tendentious IP
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.
- 142.189.112.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (also used 184.147.108.166)
This user inserted original research into
competence (repeating the same link and not knowing one editor from another). Requesting action. ~ Pbritti (talk
) 05:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- I noticed that at WP:DR and will watch LGBT rights in Ukraine for a while. I did not see quite enough to semi-protect the article but it is not far off. I can't take action now because your latest edit (diff) missed the point of the IP's edit summary, namely that "Same-sex marriage remains limited to heterosexual couples ..." is confused wording. My advice would be to not worry too much about responding to the IP's every move. I will protect the article or otherwise prevent the SPAs from overwhelming it if needed. Johnuniq (talk) 05:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Johnuniq: I linked edit warring, spurious accusations, harassing tagging, and incompetent edits. Saying you
can't take action now
does not make sense: the IP deleted material from the lead that is well-sourced and even has its own article, so I added it back. Not sure what point Imissed
in the IP saying "Confused concept of same sex marriage and marriage. Illogical." You can absolutely act now and you have well more evidence than you need. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:36, 10 June 2023 (UTC)- Please read the text I quoted. It does not make sense. Perhaps "marriage remains limited to heterosexual couples" was intended (omitting "Same-sex"). It's trivia but the IP was correct in that the sentence was junk regardless of sources. Wikipedia is frustrating but please be patient. I am watching. Johnuniq (talk) 06:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- "Limited to" here clearly contextually means "exclusive to". I will assume you meant "trivial" and that same-sex marriage being prohibited in Ukraine isn't
trivia
on the article LGBT rights in Ukraine—to not do so would be pedantic. Please act on the abundance of existing evidence. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)- The problem is in the combination of "same-sex" and "heterosexual". The sentence is paradoxical; Johnuniq is right. Step back and re-parse it. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:31, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- While it's
technicallytheoretically possible that same-sex marriage could remain limited to heterosexual people, I don't think any country has ever done that since it makes little sense. It's clear this isn't the case in Ukraine where same-sex marriage isn't allowed even when the people are heterosexual. Note I avoided the term "couple" since there may be some debate whether two people getting married should be considered a couple if there's no romantic or sexual pairing. Nil Einne (talk) 12:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC) 12:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)- Marriage is limited to a man and a woman in Ukraine in article 51 of the constitution.
- Same-sex marriages are banned. This is exactly the problem with the entire article.
- Why insist it be written in such an obfuscated manner? 142.189.112.124 (talk) 12:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Elmidae@Johnuniq@
- Hello and respectfully, thank you for your time.
- LGBT rights in Ukraine is a needlessly long article and should be divided into subpages. It seems to be obfuscating plain facts about UA and its LGTB community with a bias towards protecting practices of discrimination attribution of fault towards a party with whom UA is currently at war as opposed to the current government who is not making the changes because of popular sentiment. Human Rights Watchers would struggle to find highly relevant and referenced justified content in the page that is worded clearly and concisely.
- In a neighborhood discussion, one of my neighbors of Ukrainian descent and member of the community discussed in the article, pointed out the edit they had made on this site. Their comment was that Wikipedia is extensively being targeted by propaganda or biased editing with the effect of covering up the plight of LGBT community in UA. We both have extensive experience in matters of Diversity. Assuring them to take a look, that is when I became aware the information being deleted from the page. Including the information from 184.xxx.xxx.xxx which was a summary with 5 key takeaways. Perfect, in my view, for the top of the lead.
- The content added was thoroughly checked. References were added to the European Union funded Rainbow Europe research, which includes research by the EU on Ukraine's constitution, legislation and practices in this regard. It is the organization consulted for LGTB matters when considering entry in to the EU as I understand it.
- Concerns consistently and politely responded to, however, rather than fixing formatting issues an edit war was kicked off by repeatedly deleting the addition of the factual 5 takeaways. It appears the use of revert was triggered by the inability to separate emotional bias from logic and facts. I ask that the article be restored to the last post before Ponyo reverted for the last time. I will help to ensure any edits after that time readded if the edits were legitimate.
- Please review the article talk page for the timeline I provided.
- Also, please review my IP talk page for the threats I received.
- Thank you. 142.189.112.124 (talk) 12:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- If you try to add the 5 key points again you're likely to be blocked or otherwise stopped from editing the article. It's not something suitable for an encyclopaedia article. As I mentioned on the article talk page, you're welcome to include the information in a Rainbow Europe information article where such a thing might be more suited but if you're going to edit here, you need to write content suitable for encyclopaedia articles. Nil Einne (talk) 12:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- As an additional point, content should not be added to the WP:lead if it isn't already in the body. While it's sometimes still helpful to) 12:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC) 12:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
addadd references to the lead, this means it's should not be particularly important whether you added RS to support whatever you were adding as you should not having been adding it unless it was already the body. If it was not already in the body you needed to add it to the body with references either before or at the same time. Nil Einne (talk - Please consider the policy direction here.Summary style and Wikipedia:Writing better articlesneed to write for multiple readers.
- "The lead section is the first part of the article; it comes above the first header, and may contain a lead image which is representative of the topic, and/or an infobox that provides a few key facts, often statistical, such as dates and measurements."
- These comments are specifically counter to the direction given by Wikipedia. Repeatedly threatening with blocking people for following the guidance of wikipedia in a contentious topic, should have consequences. 142.189.112.124 (talk) 12:49, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Nothing in the text you cite in any way supports the addition of numbered points to the lead section. If you read the guideline properly it
clearlysays
A numbered point isAs a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate, although it is common for citations to appear in the body, and not the lead.
clearlynot a well-composed paragraph. I suggest you take a look at at our best articles, ourWP:edit war because you've misinterpreted something a guideline says and continue to misinterpret it and insist you're right even when every experienced editor is telling you you're wrong, yes you will be blocked. New editors who make mistakes but recognise they are new and so are willing to learn are welcome here. New editors who make mistakes but think they know everything and refuse to learn are not. Nil Einne (talk) 13:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)14:31, 10 June 2023 (UTC)- @Stonewallingwith this technique with the assistance of the group including an admin. Essentially using bullying to deny relevant concise information to which no content objections have been suggested or could be supported. The "better articles" specifically calls for "an infobox that provides a few key facts, often statistical, such as dates and measurements" You measure human rights policies by the statuses in the five key points. This was repeatedly pointed out as an objective of the content. An objective to help measure human rights status in UA. That is consistent with bullet points and the concise and clear wording.
- I suggest to find consensus, the wording in the first paragraph be changed as follows. Heading to be used "5 Key facts on LGTB Human Rights Status".
- The LGTB community in Ukraine does not have constitutionally protected rights. Same sex couples are legally banned from adopting children. Same sex marriage is constitutionally excluded. Gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals can perform military service. Partners of gay, lesbian and bisexual military personnel killed in war cannot claim Military Death Benefits for Family.
- This suggestion is consistent with 142.189.112.124 (talk) 14:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- I would like to remind people posting here, that it was during the first world war that woman's suffrage made large gains because their treatment was exposed. 142.189.112.124 (talk) 14:42, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- @
- Nothing in the text you cite in any way supports the addition of numbered points to the lead section. If you read the guideline properly it
- As an additional point, content should not be added to the
- If you try to add the 5 key points again you're likely to be blocked or otherwise stopped from editing the article. It's not something suitable for an encyclopaedia article. As I mentioned on the article talk page, you're welcome to include the information in a Rainbow Europe information article where such a thing might be more suited but if you're going to edit here, you need to write content suitable for encyclopaedia articles. Nil Einne (talk) 12:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- While it's
- The problem is in the combination of "same-sex" and "heterosexual". The sentence is paradoxical; Johnuniq is right. Step back and re-parse it. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:31, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- "Limited to" here clearly contextually means "exclusive to". I will assume you meant "trivial" and that same-sex marriage being prohibited in Ukraine isn't
- Please read the text I quoted. It does not make sense. Perhaps "marriage remains limited to heterosexual couples" was intended (omitting "Same-sex"). It's trivia but the IP was correct in that the sentence was junk regardless of sources. Wikipedia is frustrating but please be patient. I am watching. Johnuniq (talk) 06:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Johnuniq: I linked edit warring, spurious accusations, harassing tagging, and incompetent edits. Saying you
- ...what the hell is going on here. Gotta love arguing with people who are invested up to their armpits, to the point that they can't grasp grammatical problems anymore. IP, here is the dumbo version: let a homosexual couple be represented by AA. Let a heterosexual couple be represented by AB. The original sentence "Same-sex marriage remains limited to heterosexual couples" thus reads "AA marriage remains limited to AB couples". That's ALL I'm saying. This is clearly not what is meant, clearly a minor grammatical screw-up that can be resolved by replacing "same-sex marriage" with "marriage", and not an invitation to write a page's worth of finger-pointing and high dudgeon. Now please calm the fuck down. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:58, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- That is what I was saying. Pbritti insisted on the illogical wording.
- Here is what they wanted deleted.
- 5 Key facts on LGTB Human Rights Status
- The LGTB community in Ukraine does not have constitutionally protected rights. Same sex couples are legally banned from adopting children. Same sex marriage is constitutionally excluded. Gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals can perform military service. Partners of gay, lesbian and bisexual military personnel killed in war cannot claim Military Death Benefits for Family. 142.189.112.124 (talk) 00:51, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- ...what the hell is going on here. Gotta love arguing with people who are invested up to their armpits, to the point that they can't grasp grammatical problems anymore. IP, here is the dumbo version: let a homosexual couple be represented by AA. Let a heterosexual couple be represented by AB. The original sentence "Same-sex marriage remains limited to heterosexual couples" thus reads "AA marriage remains limited to AB couples". That's ALL I'm saying. This is clearly not what is meant, clearly a minor grammatical screw-up that can be resolved by replacing "same-sex marriage" with "marriage", and not an invitation to write a page's worth of finger-pointing and high dudgeon. Now please calm the fuck down. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:58, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Ok, but then that's just ) 14:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Also, c'mon, I told them not to ping me and there it is again. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:50, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Who is insisting on illogical, obfuscated, factually incorrect content to influence public opinion?
- One may not like what it says about Ukraine, but it is the truth and the truth should be the only thing that takes the spotlight on Wikipedia. If you disagree with the content it is within your rights to find and support opposing views of equal or greater weight. 142.189.112.124 (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- ping}} me in replies) 19:30, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- I suggested reformatting as a paragraph. Not inventing something new, just following Wikipedia:Writing better articles
- 5 Key facts on LGTB Human Rights Status
- The LGTB community in Ukraine does not have constitutionally protected rights. Same sex couples are legally banned from adopting children. Same sex marriage is constitutionally excluded. Gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals can perform military service. Partners of gay, lesbian and bisexual military personnel killed in war cannot claim Military Death Benefits for Family. 142.189.112.124 (talk) 00:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Are those all key points mentioned elsewhere (and sourced elsewhere) in the article? If so, then the sentences could, with editing, be added to the intro. The "5 key facts…" fragment does not belong in the intro.However, the way to get the sentences added is through collaborative discussion at the article's talk page. I share the concern raised by other editors that the IP has neither demonstrated that sort of collaborative behaviour nor that they understand the Manual of Style and other guidance for writing articles. —C.Fred (talk) 04:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- @C.Fred Thank you and agreed the sentences should be added as they are referenced from material in the article, although they appear to be unclear in their sentence structure.
- Regarding the use of the title 5 key facts, this comes specifically from the Wikipedia:Writing better articles guidance. Here is a quote ""The lead section is the first part of the article; it comes above the first header, and may contain a lead image which is representative of the topic, and/or an infobox that provides a few key facts, often statistical, such as dates and measurements."
- I leave it to the group to express their views on how that might help with the guidance given in WWBA guidance. I suggest it does. 142.189.112.124 (talk) 15:01, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- I would further suggest that the articles passages which contain these facts be clarified to be consistent with the suggested clearly stated 5 key facts from the article. 142.189.112.124 (talk) 15:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- It now sounds like the IP is more insistent on pushing in this "5 key facts" text than actually improving the article. The behavioural issue is now sufficiently demonstrated that, if they continue to disrupt the article, sanctions are in order. (To be clear, these would be "ordinary" sanctions for disruptive, tendentious editing, not anything related to a contentious topic.) —C.Fred (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- @C.Fred Your comment is completely bogus. I specifically said I leave it to the group whether that should follow the Wikipedia:Writing better articles. I cannot understand why this group is so against making the plight of the LGTB community in Ukraine unclear. 142.189.112.124 (talk) 03:07, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- It now sounds like the IP is more insistent on pushing in this "5 key facts" text than actually improving the article. The behavioural issue is now sufficiently demonstrated that, if they continue to disrupt the article, sanctions are in order. (To be clear, these would be "ordinary" sanctions for disruptive, tendentious editing, not anything related to a contentious topic.) —C.Fred (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- I would further suggest that the articles passages which contain these facts be clarified to be consistent with the suggested clearly stated 5 key facts from the article. 142.189.112.124 (talk) 15:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Are those all key points mentioned elsewhere (and sourced elsewhere) in the article? If so, then the sentences could, with editing, be added to the intro. The "5 key facts…" fragment does not belong in the intro.However, the way to get the sentences added is through collaborative discussion at the article's talk page. I share the concern raised by other editors that the IP has neither demonstrated that sort of collaborative behaviour nor that they understand the Manual of Style and other guidance for writing articles. —C.Fred (talk) 04:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
As I originally said: tendentious. We will never convince this IP that they aren't right. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Pbritti your comment is disingenuous, dishonest and flat out wrong. You have been told over and over again by others yet you continue to insist and flasify the record.
- Johnuniq told you on June 10th, you were wrong and you argued with him.
Please read the text I quoted. It does not make sense. Perhaps "marriage remains limited to heterosexual couples" was intended (omitting "Same-sex"). It's trivia but the IP was correct in that the sentence was junk regardless of sources. Wikipedia is frustrating but please be patient. I am watching. @Johnuniq (talk) 06:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- In the interest of not being to lengthy, I will not go in to additional evidence. should I need to take the next step to make sure the article has relevance to the plight of the LGTB community in Ukraine, I will. 142.189.112.124 (talk) 02:55, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- IP, see another editor's comments on this, as they indicate my sentiments (in full). How is pinging someone a half-dozen times after being told to quit it not merit a block on its own? ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:26, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- The fact that even now you cannot acknowledge the error is a concern. Someone writing a screed about the IP's rants says nothing about the fact that you restored a junk sentence. Everyone makes mistakes. The trick is to acknowledge them so we can all move on. If you are not willing to do that, please at least stop responding to the IP. Clearly the IP has strong opinions and likes to talk about them. Passing the time of day with them will only drag this out with more pointless waffle. If I miss any disruption at the article or its talk, let me know and I will stop it. Johnuniq (talk) 03:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Johnuniq: I acknowledge that I missed the grammatical error someone else inserted (and I inadvertently reverted late at night) by linking the relevant diff. If an IP says "I'm going to vandalize" while harassing another editor, you should act. Your failure to act on the IP's repeated bright-line disruption is a concern. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:09, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- This is again unfounded. I have no idea on what basis you are claiming that I intended or did vandalize the article. I tried to defend the very clear and concise key facts added by 184.xxx.xxx.xxx . Calling for action, should have consequences. You have threatened blocking as a consequence of your repeatedly deleting things admins told you were wrong.
- I agree with the admins, this process is frustrating. My only goal is clear accurate information on the status of LGTB in Ukraine. 142.189.112.124 (talk) 05:41, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- The last edits at WP:NOPUNISH is a core policy and the IP will not be sanctioned for something that may have happened more than three days ago. Johnuniq (talk) 08:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- "The LGTB community in Ukraine does not have constitutionally protected rights. Same sex couples are legally banned from adopting children. Same sex marriage is constitutionally excluded. Gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals can perform military service. Partners of gay, lesbian and bisexual military personnel killed in war cannot claim Military Death Benefits for Family."
- Please add the above to clarify the status of the LGTB community in Ukraine. No one has made any objections to its inclusion on the basis that it is untrue. The information is verifiable and accurate.
- Should anyone like to propose improvements, I look forward to those.
- @C.Fred @Johnuniq 142.126.93.175 (talk) 18:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Johnuniq: I acknowledge that I missed the grammatical error someone else inserted (and I inadvertently reverted late at night) by linking the relevant diff. If an IP says "I'm going to vandalize" while harassing another editor, you should act. Your failure to act on the IP's repeated bright-line disruption is a concern. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:09, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- The fact that even now you cannot acknowledge the error is a concern. Someone writing a screed about the IP's rants says nothing about the fact that you restored a junk sentence. Everyone makes mistakes. The trick is to acknowledge them so we can all move on. If you are not willing to do that, please at least stop responding to the IP. Clearly the IP has strong opinions and likes to talk about them. Passing the time of day with them will only drag this out with more pointless waffle. If I miss any disruption at the article or its talk, let me know and I will stop it. Johnuniq (talk) 03:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- IP, see another editor's comments on this, as they indicate my sentiments (in full). How is pinging someone a half-dozen times after being told to quit it not merit a block on its own? ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:26, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
@
WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE. Also, do you consider C.Fred to not be an admin? Because they commented fewer than three days ago. Just above you in this thread. ~ Pbritti (talk
) 12:58, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Maliciously wrong and unsupported. I ask that every accusation and request to block be investigated and the evidence from these comments be vetted. This behavior is unprofessional and negligent. 142.126.93.175 (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2023 (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.
Personal attacks from an IP address
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.
146.0.20.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Can any admin look into this IP address's behavior? Clearly
話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！
) 16:32, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- I'm crying sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much for my misbehaving 146.0.20.171 (talk) 16:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- Blocked. And anyway how can a font be illegal? At the end of the day this is just basic run of the mill schoolkid vandalism. Canterbury Tail talk 16:40, 16 June 2023 (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.
Behavior of User:Willbb234
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.
If you have ever interacted with be before, you will know that the last place I ever want to be is ANI. I hate it. But this is important. Willbb234 has displayed unsatisfactory behavior for awhile now, but their most recent post on an RFA was very out of line. It shows a lot of prejudice about IP editors and is very condescending. diff. In contains statements like “ Everything you said is wrong.” and “We don't need you to tell us.” Given the users large history of edit warring and uncivilized behavior, (see block log), I believe some action is needed. And I know someone will come for me with something like “Oh they just do this for the oppose voters, but the supporters get off fine”, which is entirely untrue and not why I started this. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 14:08, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- It's smarmy, certainly, but very far from ANI-worthy. You see a fair bit more caustic comments just from regulars here in ANI threads. For someone who claims to hate ANI so much, you've picked rather a threadbare complaint to take here. Ravenswing 15:57, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
@Illusion Flame: I would recommend re-reading the comments here before proceeding with this. I don't think you are in a position to be commenting on my RFA behaviour. Willbb234 15:43, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- At least I can remain civil in my remarks. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 15:45, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- Do you really think that there are so few eyes at WP:RfA that you need to haul editors here to complain? Or is this a way of getting around the multiple requests that you stop bludgeoning Novem_Linguae's RfA? The IP expressed their opinion and Willbb234 disagreed with it. Why is this here?-- Ponyobons mots15:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- Do you really think that there are so few eyes at
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.
Unblock review - Timmy96
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.
Last month, I unilaterally unblocked Timmy96 who was arguably
WP:LTA/BKFIP, raised this as a concern here and so I bring it to the community in case the community believes my unblock was inappropriate. I will notify 109.144.21.141 and will notify JBW, as they placed the block on Timmy96 prior to me placing the checkuser block. I don't believe it was inappropriate for me to lift my block but am certainly open to community criticism. --Yamla (talk
) 12:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- I've been looking into this, having seen the IP's comment on your talk page. I didn't find an associated sockpuppet case, and only one confirmed sockpuppet. There's apparently an IP range the block evading editor was using as well [141]. I presume this was the combination of two that was needed to support application of WP:UNBAN for how to proceed. Also, you haven't logged the topic ban they agreed to at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:05, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for notifying me of this, Yamla. I have looked into the history of this, and I have some concerns, but right now I am short of time, and rather than posting a hasty and possibly misleading account of those concerns, I will try to get back to it when I have more time, which may be in a few hours. JBW (talk) 14:42, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- I don't see that the requirements of 3x were met. The master and User:VietnamJ25 were CU-blocked by you at the same time. That would be the "initial" block. There's nothing to indicate any subsequent CU blocks, and even if IPs were CU-blocked, AFAIK, they can't count as "confirmed" as to do so would be a privacy violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:47, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- They were already indefinitely blocked when they evaded using VietnamJ25. They also evaded their block on June, 2022. I noted that, but without specifics (for privacy reasons). They also self-admitted to evading, as 2A00:23C8:899B:801:0:0:0:0/64. This is not an obvious case where WP:3X unambiguously applies. My position is that a checkuser can confirm block evasion via logged-out editing without specifying which IP address was involved and that I did not specify the IP address(es) involved here (though Timmy96 did). --Yamla (talk) 15:04, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
This is not an obvious case where ) 15:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- I concur with Yamla's assessment here that the editor self identified the IP editing [142], not Yamla. I think the conditions of 3X were met with that self acknowledgement. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:12, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- They were already indefinitely blocked when they evaded using VietnamJ25. They also evaded their block on June, 2022. I noted that, but without specifics (for privacy reasons). They also self-admitted to evading, as 2A00:23C8:899B:801:0:0:0:0/64. This is not an obvious case where
- I don't personally view WP:3X as a concern, whether the criteria were satisfied or not, but I have other concerns. Firstly, an issue which is not relevant to whether Yamla's unblocking was right or not, but certainly relevant to whether the block should be reinstated. Yamla unblocked on the basis of an agreement from Timmy96 to a topic ban on footballers. Timmy96 had previously, at least twice, admitted to block evasion using the IP range 2A00:23C8:899B:801:0:0:0:0/64: see this edit. Since the unblock on the basis of the topic ban, that IP address has made 13 edits about footballers: Special:Contributions/2A00:23C8:899B:801:0:0:0:0/64. I don't think anyone could reasonably doubt that this is Timmy96 blatantly evading his topic ban by editing logged out. As far as I am concerned, that is enough for both the account and the IP range to be blocked again, the account indefinitely and the IP range for a long time. I would do that myself right away but for the fact that this discussion is taking place, so it's better to see what others think.
- There is another matter, of far less importance, but I still think it worth mentioning. In his post starting this discussion, Yamla said "I don't believe it was inappropriate for me to lift my block" (my emphasis) and subsequent comments seem also to be based on the view that he was merely reversing his own actions. However, Timmy96 had been continuously blocked since I applied an indefinite block; what Yamla had done was to change the record of the block to mark as a CU block. To me, that means that Yamla undid my block: undoing his own action would merely have been removing the mark as a CU block, thereby restoring the status of the block as I had placed it. Do the other participants above disagree with that view, or did they merely not notice in the block log that the block was placed by me? Above, Yamla said that he would notify me "as [I] placed the block on Timmy96 prior to [Yamla] placing the checkuser block"; I would have liked to have been at least notified when the block was removed, if not consulted before it was removed. As I have already said, this is far less important than the matter of ban evasion which I mentioned above, but I would be grateful for any other opinions as to whether I am right, or whether my interpretation is considered mistaken. JBW (talk) 17:11, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- JBW, I concur with you that we have to assume the edits at Special:Contributions/2A00:23C8:899B:801:0:0:0:0/64 are indeed Timmy96 and on that basis, the block should be reinstated. I say this without using checkuser data. I am not immediately reintroducing the block so as to allow for further discussion. You also raise a good point. In hindsight, I should not have lifted the block without consulting you, the original blocking admin. I am sorry I did so and will be more careful in the future. I agree, my block modified yours rather than superseding it. On another topic, I did monitor this user's contributions (but not those of the IP address range) after lifting the block. Of course, that doesn't help if they are doing logged-out editing. --Yamla (talk) 17:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- I concur that we have to assume the edits from the IP are from Timmy96. I don't see anything in the IP's edits that would lead me to believe they are not the same person. However, I disagree that the block should be re-applied. This is now a nearly week old topic ban violation. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. There is no ongoing disruption to prevent, and none of the topic ban violating edits have been reverted as problematic, nor can I see that they are in fact problematic. That doesn't justify the topic ban violation, but it does support that there is no ongoing disruption that needs to be prevented. Timmy96 should be given a final warning that any further topic ban violations...on any account or IP that they use...will result in a restoration of their indefinite block. Overall, was this a perfect situation? No. Were errors made? Yes. But, let's not let the medicine be worse. We don't have to sanction Yamla, we don't have to re-ban Timmy96. We do have to monitor for resumed disruption. Barring any such resumption, this matter doesn't need further attention to protect the project. Ultimately, that is our goal, is it not? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hammersoft Almost everything you say there is true, but there is one point where I fundamentally disagree. That is your belief that a block at this time would be only punitive, not preventive. We are dealing with an editor who has an extended history of dishonesty, including repeated block-evasion. He has indicated that this time will be different: he will accept a topic ban, and will not repeat any of the unacceptable practices of the past. The very next editing that he has done has been contrary to those assurances. Yes, he has made sure that the block-evading edits are not in controversial in their what they do, but that is what editors in this situation do: gently push the boundaries. A small step that you hope nobody will object to this time, a bigger step next time. Time and time again over the years I have seen this pattern. You say whatever it takes to get unblocked; then you very gently step over the edge of what you know is acceptable, such a short distance over the edge that you hope nobody will take any action. Sure enough, nobody takes any action: they let you get away with it, because it was only a small technical violation, and didn't really do much harm. That confirms your belief that you can get away with flouting your ban and anything else. A previous time you got away with it by IP block-evasion, before that by using sockpuppets, now by making false promises about your future editing. Next time, you will try to get away with it by... well, who knows? We are not dealing with an editor who once stepped slightly out of line, we are dealing with an editor who has an extended history of flouting policies, blocks, etc. Much as I would prefer to be able to take the optimistic view that if we tell Timmy96 nicely that he mustn't do it again, and if he does he may get blocked, then that will be the end of the matter, unfortunately experience over the years has shown that it doesn't work that way. He has already been told that he mustn't do it again, and if he does he will get blocked, and that was after so many other times when he got away with it, at least temporarily. Repeatedly finding from experience that no matter what people say, you actually can get away with ignoring what has been said, does not teach you that if someone says to you yet again "don't do it again or this time you really will be blocked" then this time they mean it: what it teaches you is that you can in fact get away with carrying on with the same dishonesty, and next time push a bit further, rather than barely stepping over the edge. On the other hand, finding that if you blatantly ignore your ban then you won't get away with it is the one thing which stands any reasonable chance of persuading an editor with this kind of history to stop. It therefore very much does stand to be preventive, not punitive. JBW (talk) 18:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- (ec) It seems to me that any editor who has been disruptive long enough to have 3X applied to them (or considered to be be applied to them) is an ongoing problem, and that it is preventative and protective of the project that they be re-blocked. Looking at it another way, if Yamla hadn't unblocked, and the editor had filed an appeal to the community to have their block lifted, I am pretty darn sure that such an appeal would have been turned down flat. In this situation, a return to the status quo ante is the proper response, and Timmy96 should be re-blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:00, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hammersoft Almost everything you say there is true, but there is one point where I fundamentally disagree. That is your belief that a block at this time would be only punitive, not preventive. We are dealing with an editor who has an extended history of dishonesty, including repeated block-evasion. He has indicated that this time will be different: he will accept a topic ban, and will not repeat any of the unacceptable practices of the past. The very next editing that he has done has been contrary to those assurances. Yes, he has made sure that the block-evading edits are not in controversial in their what they do, but that is what editors in this situation do: gently push the boundaries. A small step that you hope nobody will object to this time, a bigger step next time. Time and time again over the years I have seen this pattern. You say whatever it takes to get unblocked; then you very gently step over the edge of what you know is acceptable, such a short distance over the edge that you hope nobody will take any action. Sure enough, nobody takes any action: they let you get away with it, because it was only a small technical violation, and didn't really do much harm. That confirms your belief that you can get away with flouting your ban and anything else. A previous time you got away with it by IP block-evasion, before that by using sockpuppets, now by making false promises about your future editing. Next time, you will try to get away with it by... well, who knows? We are not dealing with an editor who once stepped slightly out of line, we are dealing with an editor who has an extended history of flouting policies, blocks, etc. Much as I would prefer to be able to take the optimistic view that if we tell Timmy96 nicely that he mustn't do it again, and if he does he may get blocked, then that will be the end of the matter, unfortunately experience over the years has shown that it doesn't work that way. He has already been told that he mustn't do it again, and if he does he will get blocked, and that was after so many other times when he got away with it, at least temporarily. Repeatedly finding from experience that no matter what people say, you actually can get away with ignoring what has been said, does not teach you that if someone says to you yet again "don't do it again or this time you really will be blocked" then this time they mean it: what it teaches you is that you can in fact get away with carrying on with the same dishonesty, and next time push a bit further, rather than barely stepping over the edge. On the other hand, finding that if you blatantly ignore your ban then you won't get away with it is the one thing which stands any reasonable chance of persuading an editor with this kind of history to stop. It therefore very much does stand to be preventive, not punitive. JBW (talk) 18:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- Reblocked as reinstatement of the CBAN. There’s plenty of evasion of the condition, which I can’t link to for obvious reasons, but CUs can, of course, look at my checkuser log of the last 15 minutes to see. Even if Yamla’s unblock was valid (I don’t think it was), Timmy96 has been logged -out socking significantly to avoid it, more than the edits non CUs will see documented above. Courcelles (talk) 22:57, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- WP:SO, rather than a deliberate oversight. Rest, Courcelles has done the packing up of this discussion, which can be archived possibly... Lourdes05:30, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Just an afternote to this; perhaps this should have gone to Wikipedia:Administrative action review rather than here? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, that would probably have been the right venue. Thanks for pointing it out, I've added that page to my watchlist. --Yamla (talk) 13:07, 16 June 2023 (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.
Block repeated offender and user that isnt learning The History Wizard of Cambridge
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.
- In this edit to biographies of living personspolicy.
- In this edit to George Jackson (activist), he added personal POV commentary inside the article.
- In this edit to Robert Conquest, he stated that
Much of Conquest's work was covertly sponsored by the Information Research Department (IRD), a propaganda wing of the UK Foreign Office which he also worked for.
While Conquest worked for the IRD until 1956, where is the source that "much of his work" later was sponsored by them? In another [143] edit he called him an "IRD propagandist". That is not neutral language. - In this edit to Black Panther Party, he claimed that the core policy of the organisation was open carry copwatching. This sounds dubious, and again presented without a source. Later, in the lead, it is cited that their core policy were social programs (not copwatching). He also claimed, without a source, that FBI infiltration was the sole reason for in-fighting in the organisation.
- In this edit to Halford Mackinder, he added that Mackinder is a "serial killer" to the lead and said that
Halford became infamous after murdering eight of his Arican porters during his expedition of Mount Kenya
. While Mackinder died more than 50 years ago, strong words require explicit coverage in reliable sources. Who classifies him as a serial killer? Also, is it not inappropriate to say he murdered eight porters, when he ordered or may have ordered their execution? Calling him a serial killer and using the word murder would imply he did more than just order their execution.
WP:AE, where you could be sanctioned by an administrator. Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk
) 23:20, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
At this point Mass killings under communist regimes has such a terrible reputation for editors edploiting wikipedia's guidelines as a tool for silencing others that I welcome the attention of more administrators. I edited wikipedia for over a year with few problems until the very hour I first made edits to that terrible page I was falsly flagged for breaking wiki guidelines and forced to change my username, with my ban (the first I have ever had on wikipedia) lasting almost a week. A quick look at the talk page shows many other editors who have had similar experiences. So I'm not at all surprised by your bullying tactics. For any administrators readng this TheTimesAreAChanging has the worst habit of randomly undoing people's work, upholding blogs and historians which vae already been widely discredited by other historians such as infamous Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, and making it near impossible to make any positive change. I'm considering just deleting my account because I know that people like TheTimesAreAChanging can successfully tie me up in a web of complex jargon and a machine gun of tricks and accusations that will waste everyones time as a method of blocking change. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 01:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
On further looking at his talk page; there is a repeating history of warnings, bans, the user being reported on the admins noticeboard, for edit warring/ biased editing/ slander/ not referencing. It seems he has an agenda, and is extremely aggressive.— Preceding unsigned comment added by CptJohnMiller (talk • contribs) 12:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
The user consistenly violates our WP:UNDUE policy, our WP:NOTNEWSPAPER policy, and our WP:NOCRIT, as seen on his edits on 'British Army Training Unit Kenya', '40 Commando', 'British war crimes' and 'Duke of Lancaster's Regiment'
His edit of
edit summary
. —
The users edit history is consistent edit-warring, agenda pushing and just general aggressive uncooperative behaviour. He deletes words such as terrorist for being "not very encyclopaedic language", yet makes slanderous claims of people being serial killers, inciting mass shootings and being far right.
He also deletes information that is critical of communism, saying "The Black Book of Communism is not a reliable source for history articles" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crimes_against_humanity_under_communist_regimes&diff=prev&oldid=1140084339
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/The_History_Wizard_of_Cambridge
- @ 11:51, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks. Will do that now CptJohnMiller (talk) 11:58, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- In other news, while it's excellent that you are concerned with potential BLP violations, your talk page suggests you...
Dislike communists and lefty snowflakes
. Of course, that's better than it has been, and it's equally good to see you have decreased your ire against weaklings and scroungers, compared with previously. SN54129 12:06, 15 June 2023 (UTC)- Don't we all dislike them haha. Don't see how that's relevant though CptJohnMiller (talk) 12:11, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- Blocked as a
Confirmed sockpuppet of Militaryfactchecker. Courcelles (talk) 12:19, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- *facepalm* I don't know why I bother. Thanks Courcelles! SN54129 12:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- Blocked as a
- Don't we all dislike them haha. Don't see how that's relevant though CptJohnMiller (talk) 12:11, 15 June 2023 (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.
Building Wiki pages for POC who do not have much existing press in order to create citations
I would like help building a Wiki entry for a musician of color—Willie Cantu, drummer for Buck Owens and His Buckaroos at the height of their fame.
The issue at hand, is that, because he has historically been overlooked in Country Music, he doesn’t have much in the way of existing press to cite/reference back to.
I have been interviewing him across two years. I’ve recorded our video interviews. I am now in the process of editing and transcribing several hours of interviews.
How can POC build wiki pages for POC who do not have much in the way of press for information confirmation? Once I have all of the video footage up, it will unfortunately be the only media I can cite to build the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maehem (talk • contribs) 04:07, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) I don't think this is the appropriate venue for this. Please try a help desk such as the 04:18, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed. But I predict the reply will be "you can't". Interviews mean little for notability in and of themselves ( 04:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hello, Maehem. The notability guidelines for musicians of color are identical to the notability guidelines for white musicians. Wikipedia already contains a massive number of articles about notable musicians of color worldwide. Notable musicians of any color are those who have received significant coverage in reliable, independent published sources. Find the coverage first, and then write the article. It's that simple. Cullen328 (talk) 08:21, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- I found a couple of sources I put on Maehem's talkpage. Might be doable. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:55, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed. But I predict the reply will be "you can't". Interviews mean little for notability in and of themselves ( 04:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- For the interested, Willie Cantu. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:06, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- cheers! --Licks-rocks (talk) 19:44, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Suspect changes
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.
Should Special:Contributions/2600:8805:9017:EE00:93E:EC4D:5F06:C5FD/48 be nuked? Note that I do not either support or oppose nuking, I list it here for discussion. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
- I've nuked the more recent edits and blocked for a week. Oddly, some of the older (but still recent) edits don't appear to be completely egregious. Black Kite (talk) 17:53, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User
IATA code of Chittagong Int'l Airport to CHI for no reason. This is not true. Additionally, since August of 2020, this user has been warned three (four including the deletion of a bogus redirect) other times for problematic edits, as seen here. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk)
22:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- The user made related bad edits at both CHI[146] and List of airports by IATA airport code: C[147] on the same day as that one, May 30. I just reverted them. Largoplazo (talk) 23:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Wallacevio has been introducing alternative facts into Wikipedia for quite a while. Three years ago they created a new article, Palermo, Argentina, based entirely on the fantasy that the Palermo sector of the city of Buenos Aires was a city in its own right. That page now redirects to Palermo, Buenos Aires, as is appropriate, after I'd posted a merge tag, and Wallacevio overrode that by redirecting the title outright. (I decided that was fine as it was the author themselves opting not to have any content merged, assuming that any of it was suitable for merging.) Largoplazo (talk) 23:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- No evidence of responding ever in their time out here. LTA behaviour. Blocked indefinitely till they respond clearly on their talk page. Lourdes 10:58, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- This editor has 405 edits we should probably check for hoaxes. For starters, these may or may not be legit:
- Manhattan, California
- Japão - no corresponding article exists on pt.wikipedia
- This editor has 405 edits we should probably check for hoaxes. For starters, these may or may not be legit:
- Wallacevio created one of the deleted copies of the now-salted Thon, Pennsylvania hoax article.[148]
- This previous version of an article also seems suspect but I can't tell. It was an under-referenced article about the founder of a pseudo-scientific physics theory:
- Ricardo Carezani - now redirected to Autodynamics since 2021 [149]
- This previous version of an article also seems suspect but I can't tell. It was an under-referenced article about the founder of a pseudo-scientific physics theory:
- An earlier version
- Irehdna (talk · contribs) has similar interests; there may or may not be a connection. Irehdna and Wallacevio both edit airline and airport articles. Irehdna created an article similar to the dodgy Manhattan, California article above:
- Harriton, Pennsylvania - there's a Harriton High School but no town where this Philadelphia suburb is reported to exist.
- Irehnda created Thon 2019which was subsequently PROD'd and redirected.
- Irehdna reverted one of Wallacevio's edits, so maybe they're not related and just share some interests. Maybe they're friends at Penn State Universityand are just bored.
- Irehdna (talk · contribs) has similar interests; there may or may not be a connection. Irehdna and Wallacevio both edit airline and airport articles. Irehdna created an article similar to the dodgy Manhattan, California article above:
- If these are bad faith edits (and I think they probably are) then they're subtly so.
- --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 22:28, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Manhattan, California prodded. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- The link to the redirecting seems broken; see talk) 18:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 22:28, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Vandalism and POV edits by Poiupoiu80
Poiupoiu80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Account is being used purely for unexplained deletions with an apparent nationalist POV. This includes
- Removing mentions of defeats relating to Libya's predecessor states; e.g. [151], [152], [153].
- Removing or replacing mentions of other ethnic terms; e.g. [154], [155].
- Other nonsensical deletions like this and a truly ludicrous edit-war over deletion of the word "Roman" at Severan dynasty: [156], [157], [158].
Two warnings on their user talk page have gone ignored and they haven't provided a single edit summary this whole time. Their edit-warring continued today, after the last warning: [159], [160].
Other context: this also looks like a clear case of
WP:BLOCKEVADE related to blocked sockpuppet Las Davas and their sockpuppeteer Samira819. I reported it to SPI two weeks ago with evidence, along with other suspected socks, but unfortunately things there are so backed up that many cases haven't been touched since. I'm hoping this account, at least, can be blocked in the meantime, given the clear pattern of vandalism, which is getting tedious. R Prazeres (talk
) 23:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- R Prazeres, for the sock thing, please raise at SPI. For now, I have blocked for a week pending a response that they understand the issue. Thanks, Lourdes 07:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, that helps. The SPI is already open, I'm hoping for a long-term solution there. R Prazeres (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Extended to indefinite until they respond on the talk page. Thanks, Lourdes 06:05, 13 June 2023 (UTC)a
- By the way, can WP:BLOCKEVADE? Or does that still require an SPI? They're literally repeating the same deletions (compare [161], [162] with [163], [164]). Even their attempt to justify it after breaking silence ([165], [166]) is nonsensical and misleading. R Prazeres (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yes. Done for 2 weeks. Thanks, Lourdes 06:47, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- By the way, can
- Extended to indefinite until they respond on the talk page. Thanks, Lourdes 06:05, 13 June 2023 (UTC)a
- Thanks, that helps. The SPI is already open, I'm hoping for a long-term solution there. R Prazeres (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Edit warring at WP:POINTy stuff as a result
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have two issues that admins should take a look at. They are two different things, but the first leads to the second, so I hope it's OK for me to make a single section about it.
First, there is some edit warring going on over tagging User:Roxy the dog's user page (tagging as CBANed). I originally reverted, but at this point it's just going on and on, and I think it's best for an uninvolved admin to decide how to handle it, whichever way that is. Just whatever the right thing is, tagged or not tagged, policy-wise.
And the second is a mean-spirited and
WP:POINTy reaction to my reverts by User:Horse Eye's Back, which just seems like retaliation rather than a sincere attempt to improve anything. See: [167], [168], [169]. If someone wants to disagree with what an essay says, that's OK (and I'm fine with some constructive edits that he made after that), but putting something on it asking readers to look for misconceptions is not constructive, and reverting it back in crosses a line into disruption. --Tryptofish (talk
) 17:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Input from admins has already been requested, see lemmings commit mass suicide is a misconception? I don't believe that reverting a misuse of rollback is disruptive, wouldn't the disruption be the misuse of rollback? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- I think you know the answer to your own question. My concern is not over lemming behavioral ecology. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Then why not just remove the second sentence? You removed both, including the one which was purely about lemming behavioral ecology. You didn't mark the misconception or correct it in any way (were you at some point intending to? Or did you intend to continue misleading readers of the essay?). I also asked two question. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- As someone not involved, I can see horse throwing around a straw man argument to muddy the waters. Editors should strive to be honest and civil. Very Average Editor (talk) 17:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Can you elaborate on what the straw man you see is? I don't believe I've ever had significant issues with either honesty or civility (nor do either appear to be at issue here) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Sure. They were concerned about potentially pointy behavior, but you are pretending they argued about the behavior of lemmings, and challenged them to continue discussing something about the behavior of lemmings. None of this is about how lemmings behave. Very Average Editor (talk) 23:10, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- The addended sentence was "Lemmings act as a group, sometimes with self-destructive results. Wikipedia editors should think for themselves." and it served as a caption for an image of a lemming. As you will find if you go to the linked article the idea that lemmings act as a group with self-destructive results is a common misconception. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Sure. They were concerned about potentially pointy behavior, but you are pretending they argued about the behavior of lemmings, and challenged them to continue discussing something about the behavior of lemmings. None of this is about how lemmings behave. Very Average Editor (talk) 23:10, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Can you elaborate on what the straw man you see is? I don't believe I've ever had significant issues with either honesty or civility (nor do either appear to be at issue here) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- As someone not involved, I can see horse throwing around a straw man argument to muddy the waters. Editors should strive to be honest and civil. Very Average Editor (talk) 17:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Then why not just remove the second sentence? You removed both, including the one which was purely about lemming behavioral ecology. You didn't mark the misconception or correct it in any way (were you at some point intending to? Or did you intend to continue misleading readers of the essay?). I also asked two question. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- I think you know the answer to your own question. My concern is not over lemming behavioral ecology. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Tryptofish took offense to an edit made by Horse Eye's Back. HEB apologized. Unless someone has concerns over the Tryptofish's use of rollback, is there any reason to keep this open? Schazjmd (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- I'd like some clarification of the user page tagging. And I think that uninvolved admins should evaluate for themselves what they think about the "apology", when taken in context of the subsequent comments here, and the conduct that surrounds it. (And don't frame it as me taking offense. The issue is whether the conduct was appropriate.) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- It's also worth noting that User:Lettherebedarklight jumped on to RtD's user page in this diff. Not so much the revert, however unnecessary, but see my user name as in the edit summary. Childish trolling, I agree, but it's worth nipping such behaviour in the bud early. SN54129 17:50, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- it was a typo lettherebedarklight晚安 17:51, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Nice try, but that's a negative. When you hit undo, you would have seen:
Undid revision 1159648081 by Serial Number 54129 (talk). You would have physically needed to change it yourself to achieve:Undid revision 1159648081 by serial bumber 54129 (talk). In markup: Undid revision 1159648081 by [[Special:Contributions/Serial Number 54129|serial bumber 54129]] ([[User talk:Serial Number 54129|talk]]). And there you have it. SN54129 18:07, 11 June 2023 (UTC)- i was trying to change it to lowercase lettherebedarklight晚安 18:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Why? — Trey Maturin™ 18:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- gah! i type in all lowercase! lettherebedarklight晚安 18:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Okay, but you see that this vanity has caused you to insult another editor deeply and you promise to stop with this nonsense in future, yeah? — Trey Maturin™ 18:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- i make one typo and you both harp on me like this. lettherebedarklight晚安 18:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- I think this shows why it might be a bad idea for editors who were not directly part of the ban enactment to go around adding or restoring the tags. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- well, i'm done here. lettherebedarklight晚安 18:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- like a steak, lettherebedarklight :) SN54129 20:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- well, i'm done here. lettherebedarklight晚安 18:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- I think this shows why it might be a bad idea for editors who were not directly part of the ban enactment to go around adding or restoring the tags. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- i make one typo and you both harp on me like this. lettherebedarklight晚安 18:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Okay, but you see that this vanity has caused you to insult another editor deeply and you promise to stop with this nonsense in future, yeah? — Trey Maturin™ 18:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- gah! i type in all lowercase! lettherebedarklight晚安 18:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Why? — Trey Maturin™ 18:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- i was trying to change it to lowercase lettherebedarklight晚安 18:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Nice try, but that's a negative. When you hit undo, you would have seen:
- Are we having a "see who can assume the least good faith" competition? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- it was a typo lettherebedarklight晚安 17:51, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Well, the essay in question is about ANI threads that get off track, so I'll try to get this back on track. (1) There is starting to look like the beginning of a consensus at WT:Banning policy#Avoiding pointless ban-tag wars that the tag on Roxy's user page doesn't need to be there. I'm not going to touch it, at this point, but maybe an admin might want to remove it, at least for the time being. (2) HEB does not need to apologize for offending me, but do they understand that
Can you find any other misconceptions on this page?
is completely inappropriate outside of talk or user space? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware that humor was banned from essay space. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- You think that was the problem? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- That is what you are currently objecting to unless I'm missing something. You didn't think that an edit explicitly marked as humor was funny, now we're at ANI. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- You think that was the problem? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware that humor was banned from essay space. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Going back over it, I see that there's something additional. After falsely accusing me of WP:OWN on the essay talk page, I explained to HEB that his edit was POINTy: [170]. He then did this: [171], removing something that clearly did not need to be removed (and which I had added in response to another editor asking for it on the talk page), for no apparent reason other than to say "seems a bit pointy" as a sarcastic edit summary. He's going to a lot of effort here at ANI to pretend that he is simply confused as to what I want, but I think it's very clear what is really going on. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC) Bold font added in response to the comment just below. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- It was not sarcastic, in light of your recent spirited defense of our mutual friend Roxy it did seem a bit pointy. This page was linked in that discussion so it seemed that you were trying to insert something which supported your behavior and POV there "Don't hesitate to refute a flawed argument. Don't shy away from defending and comforting a good-faith editor who was unfairly maligned." appears to be incredibly relevant to what was occurring on the drama board. "Then did this" is also not accurate, perhaps you mean "later did this"? There are numerous intervening edits. What do you want Tryptofish? A ban? A block? A more groveling apology? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- I can't find the section where the text "Don't hesitate to refute a flawed argument. Don't shy away from defending and comforting a good-faith editor who was unfairly maligned." was proposed, is it in the archives or on another page? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- I see that lettherebedarklight has just self-reverted the user page tag.
I hope that we can let that be.--Tryptofish (talk) 19:11, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
I updated the text to WP:SNOW of the talkpage discussion. Then also as an uninvolved admin, I added the userpage notice. The user has an active talk page, and, as far as I know, still has talk page access, and so per the guidance, we should not confuse incoming editors. If User:El C (the admin placing the ban), wants to revert, they are of course welcome, with no need to let me know. - jc37 19:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Note: Reverted WP:SNOW, or otherwise. - jc3700:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
At this point, I think everything about the tagging of Roxy's user page has been successfully resolved. What I still have not seen is HEB demonstrating that he understands why the look-for-misconceptions edits were disruptive. This isn't about apologizing to me, and my feelings are not the issue. The issue is disruptive editing. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Drop the WP:STICK 2603:7000:C00:8B66:D568:EAD5:4869:DEB6 (talk) 02:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- One could almost predict that ^ would happen! Anyway, what I see is HEB continuing to edit, and I've seen arguments about the fact that anyone can edit an essay, which was never the issue, about the need to correct a myth about lemming behavior, which was never the issue, about the fact that humor can be permitted in essays, which was never the issue, that this is about my supposedly hurt feelings, which was never the issue, and who knows what else that was never an issue. It isn't difficult to understand why inserting "Can you find any other misconceptions on this page?" on something that is intended as a serious discussion of editing culture is inappropriate (thought experiment: imagine doing it on a serious policy page). And it shouldn't be difficult to demonstrate that one understands that. This ANI thread could be brought to a close and everyone could move on, with just a simple acknowledgment of understanding that, in order to demonstrate that we don't need to prevent it from happening again. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:49, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- I agree that HEB's "humorous" edit to the essay was inappropriate and would like to see them recognize that. Isabelle Belato 🏴☠️ 18:51, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- I agree that it's pretty apparent HEB has a
- If it were really about lemmings, a non-pointy editor would have just simply said the lemmings aren't a great analogy IRL (though good from a story perspective) and been done with it without this degree of badgering and pinging going on. If they can recognize that and right course, then there's no reason left for this thread, but it is very fair to say this needs to be nipped in the bud now since it's been perpetuating up to today's comments even. KoA (talk) 21:45, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, both of you. I've been watching the discussion at the essay talk page that KoA links to, and I've been intentionally staying out of it. Unlike KoA, I am not reading it as aspersions against me. But what does give me concern is that HEB, who is obviously aware of this ANI thread, has not responded, while continuing to comment at the essay talk page, and appears to be doubling down on the claim that this was just about lemmings (something I dealt with by this: [174]). Just now, HEB actually posted this: [175] (sort of sounds like he admits that he never thought there were "other misconceptions" but just thought it was funny). I appreciate that it can take editors a bit of time to come around (been there myself recently), so I'm willing to give HEB a little more time, but I really think the burden is on him to show that he gets it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- I agree that HEB's "humorous" edit to the essay was inappropriate and would like to see them recognize that. Isabelle Belato 🏴☠️ 18:51, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- One could almost predict that ^ would happen! Anyway, what I see is HEB continuing to edit, and I've seen arguments about the fact that anyone can edit an essay, which was never the issue, about the need to correct a myth about lemming behavior, which was never the issue, about the fact that humor can be permitted in essays, which was never the issue, that this is about my supposedly hurt feelings, which was never the issue, and who knows what else that was never an issue. It isn't difficult to understand why inserting "Can you find any other misconceptions on this page?" on something that is intended as a serious discussion of editing culture is inappropriate (thought experiment: imagine doing it on a serious policy page). And it shouldn't be difficult to demonstrate that one understands that. This ANI thread could be brought to a close and everyone could move on, with just a simple acknowledgment of understanding that, in order to demonstrate that we don't need to prevent it from happening again. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:49, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Why was there no notice on the essay talk page that this had escalated to AN/I. I was attempting to deal with HEB on the talk page unwaware of a simultaneous action here. I think we've all wasted too much time on this nonsense, irritable behaviour, rollback misuse, edit warring over "humour", AN/I escalations and so on by both editors. Suggest it be closed and both Tryptofish and HEB take a break. -- Colin°Talk 15:05, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Because everyone who would be subject to administrative intervention was already made aware of it. No one has been contemplating any actions towards you. And I think that you already know that you are the wrong person to be telling me to take a break. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
In any case, I think that we have our answer, and it's a disappointing one. With my thanks to jc37, who directly asked HEB at HEB's talk, HEB has answered that he is actually proud of the "other misconceptions" edit, and sees it as a matter of standing up to my supposed "fringe POV pushing": [176]. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:06, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Please stop this, it means I am proud of my overall conduct which includes apologizing to you for any offense caused by my edits. I'd also note that I've been accused of both badgering and failing to respond enough putting me in a bit of a catch-22... Unless anyone new has a question for me this will be my last comment here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for responding, and I know that you apologized for any offense to me, and I've said that. I also appreciate that it's unpleasant to be caught between criticism over failing to respond, and over responding too much, and in fact have been there myself. But multiple editors here, not just me, have been posting a specific question to you. I really hope that you will answer it, and if you do so in a self-aware way, I'll be delighted to drop this. Do you understand that posting "Can you find any other misconceptions on this page?" was inappropriate, especially when you knew that there were no other misconceptions? Not a matter of pushing back against fringe content, and not a matter of hurting my feelings. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Inappropriate in what sense? Was it WP:INAPPROPRIATE? No. Was it disruptive? No. Was it mean spirited? No, certainly not my intention... I had actually intended the exact opposite, you will note that the AGF implication of "especially when you knew that there were no other misconceptions?" is that I intended to get people to actually read your essay through not that I intended to insult you. As I explained on the talk page I meant it to be fun and textbook-esque which is appropriate for an essay in mainspace. Was it in hindsight the best choice of wording? Of course not, thats why it isn't currently the wording on the page and we've gone with something else (but importantly not the original text). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:04, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- If you've gotta ask, you'll never know. But I'm actually going to read between the lines, and take account of human nature, and conclude that you really do know, because I think that you are smart enough to know. In my opinion, nothing good is going to come of drawing this out any longer, and nothing good would come out of any sanctions against HEB. In my opinion, HEB has read what I and others have said here, and is unlikely to do this again, regardless of what he keeps insisting. It's fine with me if an uninvolved admin closes this thread now, with no action. But I do have a strong request to the closer. I would like for the closing statement to say explicitly that HEB is cautioned against making such WP:POINTy edits in the future. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:20, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not comfortable with closing this myself, so I really hope that an uninvolved admin will read what I said ^ . This discussion has been quiet since I posted that, so I don't think anyone else wants it to stay open. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- If you've gotta ask, you'll never know. But I'm actually going to read between the lines, and take account of human nature, and conclude that you really do know, because I think that you are smart enough to know. In my opinion, nothing good is going to come of drawing this out any longer, and nothing good would come out of any sanctions against HEB. In my opinion, HEB has read what I and others have said here, and is unlikely to do this again, regardless of what he keeps insisting. It's fine with me if an uninvolved admin closes this thread now, with no action. But I do have a strong request to the closer. I would like for the closing statement to say explicitly that HEB is cautioned against making such
- Inappropriate in what sense? Was it WP:INAPPROPRIATE? No. Was it disruptive? No. Was it mean spirited? No, certainly not my intention... I had actually intended the exact opposite, you will note that the AGF implication of "especially when you knew that there were no other misconceptions?" is that I intended to get people to actually read your essay through not that I intended to insult you. As I explained on the talk page I meant it to be fun and textbook-esque which is appropriate for an essay in mainspace. Was it in hindsight the best choice of wording? Of course not, thats why it isn't currently the wording on the page and we've gone with something else (but importantly not the original text). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:04, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for responding, and I know that you apologized for any offense to me, and I've said that. I also appreciate that it's unpleasant to be caught between criticism over failing to respond, and over responding too much, and in fact have been there myself. But multiple editors here, not just me, have been posting a specific question to you. I really hope that you will answer it, and if you do so in a self-aware way, I'll be delighted to drop this. Do you understand that posting "Can you find any other misconceptions on this page?" was inappropriate, especially when you knew that there were no other misconceptions? Not a matter of pushing back against fringe content, and not a matter of hurting my feelings. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2023 (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.
Large-scale misuse of the PROD tag
The user
) 08:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC)- Looking at a talk page comment left by SnowFire (talk · contribs), it seems that there may have been other redirects that were PROD-tagged, but should have been sent to RfD. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- I found only one additional redirect from List of Suikoden IV characters with a different rationale; all are now reverted. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:57, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- I found only one additional redirect from
- Did this really need to be sent to ANI? I think it would have been better to reach out to the user on their talk page and explain that, per WP:PROD,) 16:00, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Proposed deletion cannot be used with redirects, user pages (except user books), drafts, templates, categories, or pages in any other namespace.
Hey man im josh (talk
Blaxoul
- Karabakh Khanate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Blaxoul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I would usually give more
WP:ROPE
in this instance. But then I had some sort of epiphany, as you would 2 AM at night; this type of stuff is really not okay, and should really be less tolerated. I guess I'll let you guys be the judge of that. For some reason, the Armenians got thrown under the bus in the second attack, unless the user thinks I'm also Armenian...
Using armenian sources to push your agenda is pathetic.
I did already warn them before they made the second attack [177]
--HistoryofIran (talk) 00:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Edit history is full of ) 10:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hi HistoryofIran, thank you for getting this to our notice. Just out of curiosity, why is it that Bournoutian is quoted so many times? Not my place to understand this deeply, but Blaxoul's makes his arguments worse off by using tendentious words -- although the point he is making is strong. Lourdes 10:45, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- That's because the majority of works about the Karabakh Khanate (including publication and translation of primary sources to do with them) is from him, and his work usually provides the most details, and he's also arguably the author with the best credentials in this field. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- That is how a non-NPOV view develops. I would suggest take heed of the suggestion being placed by Blaxoul and other editors. On the talk page, while other editors are opposing this author, you are (very strongly) backing the author. I don't want to get involved in editorial deliberations, but it's just a suggestion that prudent editors like me view your argument as being sub-optimal (I may be wrong). Rest, we shall wait for the other editor to respond here before taking any further step. Thanks, Lourdes 10:59, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- I don't want to derail, but I would like to say this as a final comment: I get what you mean, but with the current avaliable literature it's unfortunately the best I can do. It's still a pretty obscure field, largely being only taken care of by Bournoutian. Without him there is barely any literature about the Karabakh Khanate, perhaps it could be compared to the importance of Herodotus for understanding the Greco-Persian Wars. For example, the only English publications of the 1823 Russian survey and History of Karabakh are by him. Imo it would be helpful for the other users to say what precisely they find problematic, then we could take it from there. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks HistoryofIran. Using one source so many times is problematic, which is what others have already mentioned multiple times in majority on the relevant talk page. Like I said, I'll leave it to your discretion to make this better. Thanks and best, Lourdes 11:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- I apologize from you guys, first of all from HistoryofIran for being emotional. I am not an active user so I didn't really know the community rules. Blaxoul (talk) 15:07, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- I think majoritiarinism can speed up the editing process and allow for quicker resolution of issues. If most people here think that Bornotunian is biased, why is the opinion of the minority accepted? Blaxoul (talk) 15:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- WP:DEMOCRACY. And you need to have an actual good reason on why Bournoutian is allegedly “biased” and how, not just because he’s “Armenian”, which is in itself a biased statement. Also, you dont have to know the rules to have good manners against your fellow human. EDIT: It seems that every sourxe Blaxoul doesnt agree with is “biased”, this is concerning [178]. HistoryofIran (talk) HistoryofIran (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Virtually, there is little to none Azerbaijani sources regarding topics about Azerbaijan. In the contrary, there's plenty of Armenian sources used both about Azerbaijan and Armenia. That's what's concerning, not me saying that Bournoutian is biased. If you want to balance things out, you should allow both sides to express their views. Blaxoul (talk) 16:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- I cant speak for other articles, but that’s not a requirement in the Karabakh Khanate. This article is ultimately not about Azerbaijan, as neither it nor the Azerbaijanis existed back then (WP:RS, which makes it hard to use Azerbaijani “sources” (User:HistoryofIran/Sources#Historical negationism/revisionism). HistoryofIran (talk) 17:46, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- How an Armenian source is more reliable than a Azerbaijani one? Both sides tries to falsify the history. Blaxoul (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Do you have some WP:BLP at least few times by now. And Bournoutian is still not "Armenian", he's Iranian-American. The fact that you keep focusing on his ethnicity is concerning. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Do you have some
- In fact, It is related to Azerbaijan. These khanates were referred as "khanates of Azerbaijan" by multible credible academicians. Azerbaijanis also did exist, a nation of this size did not suddenly appear on the stage of history. Blaxoul (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- So you've no got WP:RS, I'm not surprised - and please don't put words in my mouth again - if anything, being Armenian clearly means that they're biased according to you, it's literally here for everyone to see. As for the rest; That's a very weak argument; Azerbaijanis did not exist, that's a fact and general consensus amongst scholars [179] [180] [181]--scholars you keep dismissing and even randomly accusing of being "biased". I think I have wasted enough time here, I think this behaviour is extremely concerning, and I've seen users blocked for less. What do you guys think? --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- In your response you are calling Azerbaijani sources "sources" which shows your intention. I criticized these scholars for being biased, you are saying that all of Azerbaijani sources are not credible. You have not made a single valid point. You are the one who must be blocked, not me. You are trying to get people blocked for not agreeing with you, I don't see how that's a good behavior. Blaxoul (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- So you've no got
- How an Armenian source is more reliable than a Azerbaijani one? Both sides tries to falsify the history. Blaxoul (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- I cant speak for other articles, but that’s not a requirement in the Karabakh Khanate. This article is ultimately not about Azerbaijan, as neither it nor the Azerbaijanis existed back then (
- Virtually, there is little to none Azerbaijani sources regarding topics about Azerbaijan. In the contrary, there's plenty of Armenian sources used both about Azerbaijan and Armenia. That's what's concerning, not me saying that Bournoutian is biased. If you want to balance things out, you should allow both sides to express their views. Blaxoul (talk) 16:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- I think majoritiarinism can speed up the editing process and allow for quicker resolution of issues. If most people here think that Bornotunian is biased, why is the opinion of the minority accepted? Blaxoul (talk) 15:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- I apologize from you guys, first of all from HistoryofIran for being emotional. I am not an active user so I didn't really know the community rules. Blaxoul (talk) 15:07, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks HistoryofIran. Using one source so many times is problematic, which is what others have already mentioned multiple times in majority on the relevant talk page. Like I said, I'll leave it to your discretion to make this better. Thanks and best, Lourdes 11:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- I don't want to derail, but I would like to say this as a final comment: I get what you mean, but with the current avaliable literature it's unfortunately the best I can do. It's still a pretty obscure field, largely being only taken care of by Bournoutian. Without him there is barely any literature about the Karabakh Khanate, perhaps it could be compared to the importance of Herodotus for understanding the Greco-Persian Wars. For example, the only English publications of the 1823 Russian survey and History of Karabakh are by him. Imo it would be helpful for the other users to say what precisely they find problematic, then we could take it from there. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- That is how a non-NPOV view develops. I would suggest take heed of the suggestion being placed by Blaxoul and other editors. On the talk page, while other editors are opposing this author, you are (very strongly) backing the author. I don't want to get involved in editorial deliberations, but it's just a suggestion that prudent editors like me view your argument as being sub-optimal (I may be wrong). Rest, we shall wait for the other editor to respond here before taking any further step. Thanks, Lourdes 10:59, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- That's because the majority of works about the Karabakh Khanate (including publication and translation of primary sources to do with them) is from him, and his work usually provides the most details, and he's also arguably the author with the best credentials in this field. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hi HistoryofIran, thank you for getting this to our notice. Just out of curiosity, why is it that Bournoutian is quoted so many times? Not my place to understand this deeply, but Blaxoul's makes his arguments worse off by using tendentious words -- although the point he is making is strong. Lourdes 10:45, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Tone down the rhetoric please, both of you. Please resume discussions on the talk page of the article and please ensure you conduct seek dispute resolution). Blaxoul, rather than using nationalistic terms and pointing out ethnicity of authors, focus on the content and the reliability of it. A scholar who has dispassionately documented his research may be accepted as a reliable source; but again, the editors' consensus on the talk page of the article should decide this. Please do not let this discussion take both of you down an aggressive path, which finally does not have a good ending. Thank you, Lourdes06:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- I concur. @) 06:49, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- I will certainly try do more content creation. Thanks guys for not blocking me. Have a great day! Blaxoul (talk) 07:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- I checked the edit history of @HistoryofIran and he seems to dislike anything that praises Turkic peoples. He calls every article about turkic peoples Pan-Turkic. There was an article about historical Turkic dynasties that included dynasties in India, China etc. And the article is now apparently deleted? Why? This guy has so much power, I am literally done with Wikipedia. I will mind my own business. What you can clearly see that he is pushing Pan-Iranist narrative. Just look at the talk pages of any article related to Azerbaijan. He is ignoring sources that oppose his ideas. Blaxoul (talk) 10:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- Blaxoul, your comments such as
"I checked the edit history of HistoryofIran
,"he is pushing Pan-Iranist narrative"
will be considered disruptive statements and tendentious unless you can support them with a list of diffs that can support these attacking points, or these statements should be removed/scratched. Even if you have/had such diffs, it would have been better if you had focused on the edits than on the editor. Do not continue with this aggressive tone. Lourdes 07:11, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- Blaxoul, your comments such as
- I can't say I wasn't expecting this. This is what I deal with almost daily. I'll be blunt; I think they have received enough WP:ROPE. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:56, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- Okay, these are some of the things that I found: "Azerbaijanis are Iranians that speak a Turkish language and i have added sources"; "Removed the Turkic dynasties category, because this was not a historical Turkic empire, but it was ruled by Turkic people who later became Persians"; "Removed Pan-Turkic nonsense"; Stop deleting information with no reason or you will be blocked"; and so on and so forth. Also I have pretty strong suspicions that @HistoryofIran actually created sock account @Şahanşah of History who got banned in 11 may 2022 . Their names are pretty similar (Şahanşah is related to Iranian history as we know). You just change the word "Iranian" with "Şahanşah" and change the order of words. Now, you have got yourself a new name. Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Qajar_dynasty&action=history. Blaxoul (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- I can't say I wasn't expecting this. This is what I deal with almost daily. I'll be blunt; I think they have received enough
- Blocked for two weeks. Let's see how it goes from here. Thanks, Lourdes 05:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
User:Mwholt, casting aspersions, vandalism accusations, and taking the disagreement to Twitter.
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.
So here's the jist:
- I start a cleanup on Caddy (web server) due to what comes off to me as heavily promotional content, and upon further investigation find that the author of the software was a major contributor (and is still involved!)
- I have to go for a bit, and forget about what I was doing (this is my fault and I take full responsibility.), but when I come back, I'm greeted by vandalism accusations by the software author for removal of said promotional content, alongside lying about their involvement with the project (which is evident by the account name and also Matt Holt's recent activity on twitter with them publicly calling me a vandal. This is likely where the surprise IP editors came from.)
- User:Mwholt makes statements like `I noticed you are a contributor to the Apache web server Wikipedia page. That's interesting.`, showing A: They went through my contribution history over this and B: They're looking for ways to discredit me, in this case presumably implying I have ties to Apache (I do not, I'm a game developer and have minimal web development experience).
- WP:CANVASINGas campaigning against me on external media, which is not appropriate wiki etiquette. I was made aware of this by a friend on Discord, as I do not follow Caddy's development, userbase, or developers. also fun sidenote most of the replies misgender me heavily, but this has no real bearing on the complaint here.
I am unsure of how to approach this but I am quite certain Mr. Holt here is not acting in good faith, is in violation of
WP:HARASS
too but I'm not certain about this.
—moonythedwarf 13:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Also worth noting: I am currently dealing with some health issues, and may disappear for a few days. If something needs my immediate attention, an email is appreciated. —moonythedwarf 13:42, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Well at a minimum Mwholt, who is self admitted to be the same user that created Caddy, should be COI blocked from the article. Whether money is exchanging hands or not right now, they're clearly unable to be neutral and impartial in this having gone off to complain of vandalism (hint it's not vandaism) to their Twitter followers because their clear unencyclopaedic content was removed. Canterbury Tail talk 13:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Involved editor, I recently put this article up for deletion and the few arguments to keep were based on the now-removed (unreliable) content. Should the AfD go back up? Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Id recommen waiting until this is resolved first, but yes. 2603:7000:CF0:7280:58B:3BD4:1DAB:AEB4 (talk) 14:24, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Involved editor, I recently put this article up for deletion and the few arguments to keep were based on the now-removed (unreliable) content. Should the AfD go back up? Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Well at a minimum Mwholt, who is self admitted to be the same user that created Caddy, should be COI blocked from the article. Whether money is exchanging hands or not right now, they're clearly unable to be neutral and impartial in this having gone off to complain of vandalism (hint it's not vandaism) to their Twitter followers because their clear unencyclopaedic content was removed. Canterbury Tail talk 13:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Has anyone check to ensure that all that added Corp wasnt in violation of copyright policies? Usually when that much BS goes into an article it’s lifted verbatim from someplace else that has a big copyright disclaimer for the info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B18F:4946:9DA5:3602:9E0D:30C6 (talk) 15:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- I can't locate anything. Looks like legitimate first use wording here to be honest. I understand the concern, but I can't find any copyvios in there. Canterbury Tail talk 15:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Comment The posts on Twitter are absolutely unacceptable. It's unfortunate to see people with these platforms misusing them. It's definitely in violation in WP:HARASS, and could escalate to doxxing if we're not careful. IMO, this guy should be immediately indef blocked. Caddy (web server) should probably also be semi-protected to deal with anybody that tries to restore the content. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 06:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Indef done... and some more Lourdes 11:20, 13 June 2023 (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.
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.
Obviously not the user who created the encyclopedia here. (
WP:NOTHERE). Disruptive and alternative uploading of files, because this behavior is blocked indefinitely in common. Fumikas Sagisavas (talk
) 09:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Geraldo Perez: Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 09:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- Blocked for a week, but will keep a track. Thanks, Lourdes 10:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- Also deleted the AIV report I made about persistently re-adding copyvio images to articles. See Special:Diff/1160389682. Also was indef blocked on Commons for not following Commons rules, where he also deleted AIV reports. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Lourdes: Evading block by editing as Special:Contributions/172.116.29.35 Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- Blocked for a week, but will keep a track. Thanks, Lourdes 10:37, 16 June 2023 (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.
Blocked IP needs TPA revocation
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.
46.48.226.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Whoever is using this IP is apparently employing some sort of bot. Anyway, please revoke their TPA. Thanks. Nythar (💬-🍀) 06:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
- This was dealt with just slightly before this ANI was made. – 2804:F14:80F5:5E01:70AF:B667:BC91:3B3B (talk) 06:53, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:DavidMM1989 / Draft:Swiss Impact Investment Association
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.
Could someone competent (which clearly excludes yours truly!) sort out a bit of a mess, please? There was a draft at Draft:Swiss Impact Investment Association, which DavidMM1989 created, and later moved around a couple of times; it now lives at Draft:DavidMM1989. I got involved with my AfC hat on, but didn't realise it had been moved (I'm not even entirely sure at which point in the sequence of moves I did get involved!), and ended up making things even messier... at least that's what I think happened. The draft should go back to its correct title at Draft:Swiss Impact Investment Association, with the various redirs straightened out so they don't cause further confusion. Thanks in advance, and sorry to have made such a pig's ear of it! --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:45, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
- I think I've handled it; let me know if any more redirects need to be deleted. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 12:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks @Ingenuity, appreciate it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:55, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
CIR and IDHT from Dester13
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Dester13 started editing on June 10th, and has spent most of their time trying to make grammar or wording changes to various articles. This wouldn't be an issue except that Dester13 clearly is not an English speaker, instead using Google Translate for all their comments. They've wasted a tremendous amount of volunteer time on various talk pages; see Talk:Railway track, Talk:Volcanic plateau, Talk:Apostrophe#Dester13, Talk:Lock (water navigation)#Dester13. They spend lots of time arguing against everyone else and pushing nonsensical viewpoint, such as that the name of Railway track isn't right because Okay, but in sandbox games such as Minecraft, it’s just simply named “Rail” and it’s variation. No matter what i can say. Do we have to agree with this in Minecraft sure.
They've invoked Minecraft five times in a row despite everyone else at the talk page explaining why that is irrelevant.
Dester13 is also trying to change the meaning of Apostrophe based on Google Translate: Okay then all users. So here the first answer of ['] is commonly Apostrophe which we all name it, and second answer is Single Quote that i just recently heard it from Google Translate and it's a term. So four of users you should heard it too by enter it's website, type ['], then listen to it to see if you're right. And then we will think about putting a term on the Apostrophe article. Clear sure?
Their use of translation tools for all replies makes it near impossible to understand them, and they have zero interest in listening to others; anything that the many editors who have objected to their edits says just goes in one ear and out the other. All messages on their talk page have been blanked. They've also edit warred at
WP:IDHT issues. Trainsandotherthings (talk
) 16:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
- On top of the English difficulty, this may be a young person, and I hate to discourage them. But I don't believe this editor has made even a single useful contribution; quite the opposite in fact. And I see no prospect of that changing ever. EEng 17:58, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
- Dester13 - blanking this thread does not help your case, please do not do that again. firefly ( t · c ) 18:35, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
- Dester13 blanked this thread again after my warning - I've blocked them for 72 hours, without prejudice as to a longer block on the wider merits of the issues here. firefly ( t · c ) 18:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
- If anyone wants to deal with an informal unblock request, see User talk:Dester13#Dester13 and scroll to the bottom as there’s multiple sections called ‘Dester13’. Fork99 (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
- They also keep blanking their user talk page (see diffs: here, here and here), which implies that they understand the notices given to them, but clearly they really don’t. And oddly, they replied to ClueBot NG’s messages as if it’s a person (see Talk:Volcanic plateau#Dester13 to a Bot and diff from their user talk page). Fork99 (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for reporting this message Firefly and Trainsandotherthings. Dester13 is clearly not an English speaker and was being blocked for making disruptive edits for these reasons, such as adding a "Single Quote" in Apostrophe article from Google Translate, threatening users to put "Rail" term in Railway Track after he saw the name from Minecraft, inMaterialWorksping me! 01:49, 18 June 2023 (UTC)- So you’re now evading a block by using a different account? For definitive proof because why not: @Juner13, are you the same person who has access to the account @Dester13? Fork99 (talk) 21:07, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
- Are Dester13 and Juner13 the same person? Does the pope shit in the woods? Did Rose Kennedy have a black dress? EEng 21:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
- DFO waves at the ever eloquent EEng -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:12, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
- Are Dester13 and Juner13 the same person? Does the pope shit in the woods? Did Rose Kennedy have a black dress? EEng 21:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
- So you’re now
- If anyone wants to deal with an informal unblock request, see User talk:Dester13#Dester13 and scroll to the bottom as there’s multiple sections called ‘Dester13’. Fork99 (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2023 (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.
Derby de Lisboa: SpaceEconomist192, SLBedit
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.
Original heading: "User:SpaceEconomist192's hypocrisy" ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:38, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
At
talk · contribs) at first reverted my changes ([182] [183] [184] [185] [186] [187] [188]) because they were "subjective", unsourced, original research, while asking me to cite sources. But now that I've added several reliable sources supporting the information I added – "the biggest football derby match in Portugal" – he just removed them without explanation. SLBedit (talk
) 18:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
- Sounds more like a content dispute. – Callmemirela 🍁 19:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
- Well, the user doesn't comment on the article's talk page and simply reverted with a lie: "unreliable sources". Diário de Notícias, Expresso, O Jogo have never been considered unreliable on Wikipedia, while Futebol 365 seems to be reliable. I have reverted the user with "rvv" (vandalism), and will continue to do so until explains why they are unreliable. SLBedit (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing out a conduct issue in this dispute: Calling good-faith contributions "vandalism". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
- Well, the user doesn't comment on the article's talk page and simply reverted with a lie: "unreliable sources". Diário de Notícias, Expresso, O Jogo have never been considered unreliable on Wikipedia, while Futebol 365 seems to be reliable. I have reverted the user with "rvv" (vandalism), and will continue to do so until explains why they are unreliable. SLBedit (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
User has been reported at WP:3RR. SLBedit (talk) 21:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
- WP:3RRN. Administrative attention sought and received; both blocked from editing the page for 2 weeks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:33, 17 June 2023 (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.
Some sort of sock puppetry, meat puppetry going on
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.
Editors User:Serralia, User:Hiltrum, and the two IPs (possibly others) have been been making edits in a similar editing area (religion and Punjab-related) within a small span of time (a minute) raising some concerns, possibly sock/meat puppetry or some sort of Wiki:Hounding. Although WP:SPI might be the place, but I'm not sure.
The interaction → [189]. Some of the pages I've encountered them
- [190] [191]
- [192] [193]
- [194] [195]
- [196] [197]
- Notice the unsourced addition of religion here by Serralia[198] [199] and here [200] by one of the IPs.
- [201] by Hiltrum and [202] by Serralia
- Substantial editing in this article. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
- Checking. Courcelles (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
- This is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rajputbhatti Courcelles (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
- Results posted on SPI. We can likely continue over there. Courcelles (talk) 16:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks Courcelles. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:50, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
- Results posted on SPI. We can likely continue over there. Courcelles (talk) 16:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
- This is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rajputbhatti Courcelles (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2023 (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.
Ishaq Dar: edit warring and potential sockpuppetry
- Edit warring.
- I made a fairly substantial edit to Ishaq Dar (some copyediting, some removal of puffery). The edit summary linked to a comment I had made on the talk page explaining my thinking. The IP user 119.157.101.51 reverted them reverted without discussion. I subsequently invited discussion on the talk page (22:53, 11 June; all times UK time for ease of reference).
- Fiction2Facts then reverted again again on 12 June at 3:21, and at 6:08 replied on the talk page. I reverted their edit again and pointed out that
- their comment did not refer to any of the content of my edits or any policy, so it wasn’t a meaningful attempt to engage; and
- it appeared that Fiction2Facts was using 119.158.101.51 as a sockpuppet: in particular, both used the term ‘mala fide vandalism’.
- Fiction2Facts then replied on the talk page, again without any specific reference to the content of the edits, but promising a 'detailed response' later. They then reverted again at about midday on 12 June.
- I replied that a promise of a ‘detailed response’ wasn’t a response itself, and that they had still failed to meaningfully refer to the content of the edits in dispute and/or policy. I then reverted again. I also said I would take this to ANI. I did not have time to write this up for a few days.
- Today, IP user 202.165.236.224 (another sockpuppet, I believe—see below) reverted my edit in turn. There was no justification in the edit summary or on the talk page; I therefore reverted it.
- Potential sockpuppetry. The reverts in question were made by IP user @119.157.101.51, @Fiction2Facts, and IP user @202.165.236.224. The vast majority of Fiction2Facts’ edits are to Ishaq Dar. Fiction2Facts also has a history of reverting other edits on the page Ishaq Dar: e.g. [203], [204] which arguably amount to edit warring. All of 119.157.101.51’s edits are to Ishaq Dar and reverted my edits. Both use the term ‘mala fide vandalism’. All of 202.165.236.224’s Special:Contributions/202.165.236.224's edits were to Ishaq Dar. I therefore judge that all are the same user. None of the users in question has directly responded to my questions under Talk:Ishaq Dar#Puffery.
- Aside. It has proved impossible to elicit explanations for their edits, for which reason I have reverted each edit. Obviously if there had been a meaningful dispute about the content of the edits I shouldn’t have made these reverts. It would also be helpful to have more comment, so I shall request a third opinion at the same time.
Docentation (talk) 18:29, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- I find it quite suspicious how both IPs geolocate to Pakistan. Dinoz1 (chat?) (he/him) 18:41, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- I left a strongly worded message at Talk:Ishaq Dar#Puffery reinforcing all that Docentation has already told him.
- @Docentation, you've done a great job dealing with this guy!
- --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:23, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- Since the editor, Fiction2Facts (talk · contribs), ignored A. B.'s warning/advice and continued the edit war (this time using 103.197.47.234 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), I have semi-protected the page for two weeks and blocked the user from the article indefinitely. They are welcome to use the article talkpage to propose and discuss changes to the article. Abecedare (talk) 06:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- I’m beginning to suspect that the matter is a question of competence. Their latest edit shows no signs of actually understanding their non-compliance with Wikipedia rules or the need to make a comprehensible case for their proposed edits. I’ve attempted to work out what they mean, again; but I’m not sure this will work, or whether futile efforts will be sustainable. In two weeks the semi-protection will expire and I suspect that IP editing will continue; I suppose all I can do is request edit protection again if that happens. Docentation (talk) 21:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- @) 21:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- I agree the edit on the talk page is not a problem. The question is what happens when semiprotection expires—their socks will presumably resume. But I’m not busy at the moment so I’ll be around to check.
- I suppose one other point is that I ought to be careful to distinguish the reverts we’ve seen from bona fide edits that happen to favour Ishaq Dar. There are many Pakistanis who in good faith would want to change things and of course that would have to go through the usual process of talk page debate, whether or not they’re right. That’s a question for another day though. Docentation (talk) 23:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- And thanks for reminding me of WP:NLT; I’d quite forgot. Docentation (talk) 23:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- And thanks for reminding me of
- @) 21:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
| Withdrawn by proposer |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Vandalism-only account/ WP:CIR problems with User:Parmin_khosravi
- Parmin khosravi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I came across this account after noticing this long-standing bit of vandalism, and looked into their contributions. Basically every one of their edits have been reverted either for being poorly-source nationalistic claptrap, or just outright terrible english.
Examples:
Even if we AGF and assume the user isn't a vandal, their nationalistic editing and inability to write in proper English is a liability and are probably long overdue for a
Wikipedia:CIR block. 2603:7000:CF0:7280:ED79:1427:B28:5B1A (talk
) 16:18, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- The edit you cited as a long-standing bit of vandalism doesn't look vandalistic at all -- it looks like it was made in good faith. So please don't call it vandalism.
- As for the other edits, Parmin khosravi's English is poor but I don't see vandalism.
- I left them a note telling them about this discussion. I also referred them to WP:5P and encouraged them to slow down and use the article talk pages.--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:40, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
- P.S., I understand this person's edits have been vexing, even if not vandalistic. Hopefully, if they use the article talk pages, that will fix most of our frustrations. So far they've made 288 edits on the Farsi Wikipedia without getting into much trouble.
- But I realize, it may not. Also, I'm just a bystander here, not a "decider" (admin). They make the final call.
- --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:57, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Romanian/Turkish IP addresses edit-warring
Page: Ferrari 499P
Focus of dispute: Power output in infobox, parameter | Power =. Romanian IP(s) insists on re-adding incorrect figure (939 bhp (952 PS; 700 kW)). IP is not communicating.
Attempt at communication: Special:Diff/1160012300
Context: This page in question is attracting a lot of traffic recently due to it winning the 24 Hours of Le Mans. These IP addresses have taken it upon themselves to add in what they believe to be the correct power output for the car. On first glance, it seems to be correct, 671 plus 268 is 939. However, as stipulated by FIA regulation (Le Mans Hypercar regulations Appenxdix 4b, Maximum Power Train power), the maximum output of the entire powertrain (motor or engine) cannot exceed 500 kW (680 PS; 671 hp).
Suggested remedy/course of action: Temporary page-protection.
Other notes: I did not take this to AIV as I did not feel like this was a clear-cut case of vandalism, it needs more context that what can be filed in an AIV report. I also accept that I may have violated 3RR and whatever sanctions that may bring. I also did not notify the IP as there are several of them. Below is a list.
- 79.114.77.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 185.53.198.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 79.114.77.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 46.2.27.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 37.251.223.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Any assistance would be nice. Thank you. X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 01:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
If you’re after Page Protection, wouldn’t this fit better at
08:57, 16 June 2023 (UTC)- Yes, it still is :). Anyway, the disruption is stretched out over some days, and all in all not really heavy enough to warrant semi-protection. Dispute resolution might be needed, and I wouldn't shy back to use the IPs talk-page(s). Communication via edit-summaries is rarely productive, if it is seen at all (Wikipedia being the complex thing that it is, regular and oldtimers like me tend to forget that others might not be used to its nooks and crannies). Lectonar (talk) 09:08, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- No problem. The dispute has died down now, so this need not be actioned. I will go to RFPP in the future, totally forgot about that. Thank you two both. X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 01:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry accusations, aspersion casting, and edit warring by User:AlanS
Yesterday, I came across the page
WP:AN3RR, where they were later blocked
.
- Another user (the one this report is about), AlanS, was blocked for edit warring on 5 June at the same page, Ben Roberts-Smith. He was also edit warring when I came across the page (08:40, 13 June 2023 and 12:56, 13 June 2023 and 09:15, 14 June 2023). I decided to not report him, though, because he hadn't violated 3RR, (even though 3RR doesn't have to be violated for a user to be considered edit warring). I decided instead to warn him for edit warring at his talk page. AlanS, however, seemed to be a bit too unhappy with my notice, and decided to comment at the AN3RR page (where I had reported that other user). He denied edit warring (which wasn't really necessary since the report wasn't about him anyway):
"Nythar might have thought I was up to three reverts myself if they disregarded the fact that one of my reverts was reverting a sock and therefore I was up to two."
It is true that one of the reverts he made to that page removed a sock edit. However, at the time, there was no evidence that the user was a sockpuppet, and his edit summary didn't show he was aware of that:"Discussion is taking place in talk and sources were removed that were identified as not supporting lead. Edits were performed in line with discussion"
. Even if that edit is entirely not considered, his behavior on that page (trying to force his preferred version into the article here and here days after being blocked for edit warring) can still be construed as edit warring. - He also accused me of sockpuppetry, specifically being a sock of Gugrak, a now-blocked sockpuppet who was edit warring at that page:
"Nythar decided they would drive by tag my usertalk for edit warring or I wouldn't be aware of this. can an admin please do a check if they are User:Gugrak."
He did not present even a bit of evidence to support this claim. AlanS later stated,"I have just had a look at the Ben Roberts-Smith talk page and I have not seen a single comment in there from User;Nythar. I note that when they made this report they falsely claimed that they had tried to resolved this dispute on the Ben Roberts-Smith talk page and that in fact has not occured."
I'm not sure why AlanS thought I was required to engage with him before reporting 3RR violations to AN3RR; both he and the other user were edit warring simultaneously as they were discussing the topic with other users at the talk page. - AlanS also accused me of "abusing [the] process", and stated
"I find their accusations of me and others edit warring and them engaging in drive by tagging when they made no attempt to enter into dispute resolution to be offensive."
The "drive by tagging" was simply an edit warring notice to their talk page, and I hadn't claimed that I had engaged in dispute resolution: in my report, I simply linked to places where dispute resolution was taking place. Nothing that I did violated any policy, and yet AlanS continued to accuse me of abusing the process:"This report is an abuse of process and I request admin sanctions on User;Nythar."
--"I do find you coming from nowhere and bringing this up quite abusive"
--"Their claim to have attempted to enter into any sort of dispute resolution at all in any sense of the word is false and misleading. Admin sanctions are required for lodging a report containing false information."
--You should reframe from your abusive claims of edit warring. ... I suggest you drop your abusive claims.
After I warned him to refrain from referring to my claims as "abusive" (along with an explanation for why you don't have to violate 3RR to be edit warring), he again referred to my claims as "abusive":"You shouldn't be so fast to throw around abusive accusations towards other editors"
. - These accusations of abusing the process are blatant aspersion-casting. WP:Casting aspersions states "An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe." AlanS didn't provide any evidence that I had abused any process, instead relying on the notion that 2RR or 3RR somehow are not edit warring (see the relevant diffs). I do not have the ability to deal with such behavior. I will also note that this is not a content dispute: I am reporting AlanS to this noticeboard because he is edit warring, accusing me of sockpuppetry without a shred of evidence, and is casting aspersions of bad-faith actions. Nythar (💬-🍀) 06:01, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
As per the preceding report, user has been edit warring to include contentious BLP material into the article and has been blocked for the edit warring.
I would like to add the following points.
- User has a history [205] of edit warring, having been previously blocked three times for edit-warring. While the blocks were from 2014, I note that user has made very few edits each year between 2014 and now [206].
- I was involved when the user initially started to edit on the article.
- In the below edits [207], [208], user refused to address their edits by claiming that the reverting user was required to gain consensus for content removal ("Take it to talk if you disagree"), violating WP:ONUS. User only went to the talk page after a second user reverted. Afterwards, user made multiple edits in other sections related to similar BLP issues.
- In two edit summaries [209] [210] used by user in the above diffs, user made personal attacks against the reverting editor by casting aspirations. While the user "withdrew" the first PA, they made a second PA in the following edit summary.
- The user returned to the page right off his first block, making the same edits [211] during the edit war for which he was blocked for. The user has claimed that there is consensus for the edits, despite replying to another users substantive objections just a few edits prior [212]. While the edits were not discussed in the same conversation, but the issues/concerns are essentially the same between the two conversations [213][214].
- I further note the borderline uncivil tone which the user uses in his replies. In summary, I find this users WP:BATTLEGROUNDattitude to be of concern.
Carter00000 (talk) 06:54, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- Was writing something similar to this, but no point restating things. I also don't like the look of Talk:Ben Roberts-Smith. I propose a 1RR rule for AlanS and a block of some length, perhaps 1-2 weeks. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 06:57, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- It is almost 24 hours since my last edit on the page and that edit was a minor edit. Any accusation of edit warring towards me is quite stale, particularly considering what accusation there was consisted of me undertaking 2 reverts with my accuser liking to throw in another two which were undertaken against a sock. Continuing this on now is abusive especially considering some of my accusers have unclean hands in regards to not following talk09:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- I did not accuse talk09:49, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
can an admin please do a check if they are User:Gugrak
In what world is it misleading or bad faith to say that is an accusation? It's as obvious an accusation as you can get without opening an SPI! 37.245.41.86 (talk) 10:42, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC)- IP lookup says that your location is UAE. Your new hobby is stalking me now is it talk10:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- If you have evidence, file a report at casting aspersions. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:19, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- Somehow I don't think random IPs which geolocate to the UAE randomly showing up in Ben Roberts-Smith and other places I'm editing including in other wiki namespaces cuts it? talk11:24, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
He's not talking about your response to me is he, he's talking about your earlier behaviour 37.245.41.86 (talk) 12:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- @EducatedRedneck: the IP has been blocked, it turns out it was actually a banned user harassing AlanS. Maybe we should all try to give them a little bit of the benefit of the doubt? They are clearly being harassed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- Somehow I don't think random IPs which geolocate to the UAE randomly showing up in Ben Roberts-Smith and other places I'm editing including in other wiki namespaces cuts it?
- If you have evidence, file a report at
- IP lookup says that your location is UAE. Your new hobby is stalking me now is it
- When one enters a report of edit warring at the Administrators Noticeboard/Edit warring the form specifically states "You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too" followed by "Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:". talk09:56, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- Any person with a reasonable understanding of relevant policies will know that AlanS doesn't seem capable of engaging with others in a non-battleground manner. I don't think even a 2 week block is enough. Their block from 10 days ago didn't prevent this disruption, so a 14-day block will probably do nothing. Nythar (💬-🍀) 10:07, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- pot kettle black. Again this is all very stale and I've substantiated you not following process when you lodged the edit warring report. talk10:15, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- My apologies for moving my comments earlier. I'd realised that I'd put them under Carter's comment when I'd intended them to be above. As long as you can logically follow, I guess it doesn't really matter. talk10:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- pot kettle black. Again this is all very stale and I've substantiated you not following process when you lodged the edit warring report.
- Stating that I have made very few edits is false and misleading information while I may not edit as much as I did at one point in time I casually edit. Bringing up what happened in 2014 is stale in the extreme. You have unclean hands in this regards talk10:10, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- Any person with a reasonable understanding of relevant policies will know that AlanS doesn't seem capable of engaging with others in a non-battleground manner. I don't think even a 2 week block is enough. Their block from 10 days ago didn't prevent this disruption, so a 14-day block will probably do nothing. Nythar (💬-🍀) 10:07, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- AlanS, hi. Thank you for controlling your edits to the page in question post the last block. Also, thank you for engaging in discussions on the article's talk page. Having said that (and without commenting on the actions of other editors here), I want a confirmation from you -- Are you okay to confirm that from hereon you will discuss issues non-aggressively with other editors? (That means avoiding words accusing others of being "abusive", having "unclean hands" etc). Don't get me wrong -- I believe your one-minded editorial drive to title the subject as a "war criminal" is something I would have supported emotionally, but sadly, it goes against page consensus (I don't know how you read page consensus, but your reading could be different from mine). Whatever has been reported above is not a blockable offence. And fortunately, you did not self-destruct in your comments above. But you would need to move away from the edge; and that is where comes the question I have asked above, which I request you to please answer in a straightforward manner -- Are you okay to confirm that from hereon you will discuss issues non-aggressively with other editors? Thank you, Lourdes10:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hi talk11:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oh, so no word on the multiple times you've accused me of being a sockpuppet and the multiple times you've accused me of abusing Wikipedia processes? No word on the aspersion-casting? Nythar (💬-🍀) 11:24, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- Apologies if you took it as me accusing you of being a sock. talk11:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- That's a terrible apology. You did accuse effectively accuse them of being a sock with:
"can an admin please do a check if they are User:Gugrak"
- asking an admin to CU check them (additionally in an inappropriate forum) obviously carries with it the assumption and presumption that they are a sock, and you were saying it to their face.Iskandar323 (talk) 14:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- That's a terrible apology. You did accuse effectively accuse them of being a sock with:
- Apologies if you took it as me accusing you of being a sock.
- Oh, so no word on the multiple times you've accused me of being a sockpuppet and the multiple times you've accused me of abusing Wikipedia processes? No word on the aspersion-casting? Nythar (💬-🍀) 11:24, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hi
- AlanS,11:26, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
"it may very well be the case with one particular user shopping around in other places to draw in users"
is a personal attack in the very line that you wrote you are okay to do as I am requesting. Please confirm you understand the question -- Are you okay to confirm that from hereon you will discuss issues non-aggressively with other editors? Do let me know. Lourdes- Hi talk11:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you AlanS. That solves it. All you need to do is not be aggressive. It doesn't matter what your pov is; just don't revert consecutively and always discuss issues as you would with friends. Look at the nice conversation you have had with me, over a block that you just avoided. Please do understand the power of words, and go edit productively. Nythar, thank you for bringing this to our notice. We'll keep a watch. Let's close this discussion here. Warmly, to both of you, Lourdes 11:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- This is not an adequate response. In the comment you quoted, AlanS was referring to a specific user who took the page Ben Roberts-Smith to multiple fora. That is not the reason AlanS was reported here. AlanS has not retracted their claims of sockpuppetry and abuse, and is instead insisting that the comment
"can an admin please do a check if they are User:Gugrak"
isn't a sockpuppetry accusation, which it very clearly is. So, no retraction of the aspersion casting, it seems. Nythar (💬-🍀) 11:44, 15 June 2023 (UTC)- Nythar, don't come off at the wrong end here. My reading of the situation sees the grey area that AlanS was in when he asked admins to check sockpuppetry; and claiming abuse is a knee-jerk reaction, which AlanS has confirmed they won't do. If you want anything more, it is not happening here. Thank you, Lourdes 11:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- AlanS has not confirmed he won't claim abuse; I will repeat, his comment above were about the multiple discussions pertaining to Ben Roberts-Smith; he has not retracted his aspersion-casting. He continues to claim the sockpuppetry accusations were acceptable. Nythar (💬-🍀) 11:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- Nythar, you are now sounding odd.
" I can confirm that from here on out I will discuss issues with other editors in a non-aggressive manner."
is all you're going to get here. This is enough for tracking future intransigence. Thank you, Lourdes 12:11, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- Nythar, you are now sounding odd.
- AlanS has not confirmed he won't claim abuse; I will repeat, his comment above were about the multiple discussions pertaining to Ben Roberts-Smith; he has not retracted his aspersion-casting. He continues to claim the sockpuppetry accusations were acceptable. Nythar (💬-🍀) 11:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- Nythar, don't come off at the wrong end here. My reading of the situation sees the grey area that AlanS was in when he asked admins to check sockpuppetry; and claiming abuse is a knee-jerk reaction, which AlanS has confirmed they won't do. If you want anything more, it is not happening here. Thank you, Lourdes 11:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- This is not an adequate response. In the comment you quoted, AlanS was referring to a specific user who took the page Ben Roberts-Smith to multiple fora. That is not the reason AlanS was reported here. AlanS has not retracted their claims of sockpuppetry and abuse, and is instead insisting that the comment
- Thank you AlanS. That solves it. All you need to do is not be aggressive. It doesn't matter what your pov is; just don't revert consecutively and always discuss issues as you would with friends. Look at the nice conversation you have had with me, over a block that you just avoided. Please do understand the power of words, and go edit productively. Nythar, thank you for bringing this to our notice. We'll keep a watch. Let's close this discussion here. Warmly, to both of you, Lourdes 11:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hi
- This type of argument and edit[215][216] is WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- Noting that AlanS is continuing to WP:IDHT by claiming that he had "aspersions cast" on him due to his "good faith discussion" in talk [217], while continuing to litigate his previous contentious BLP edits and opening a RFC. Carter00000 (talk) 13:30, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- Can you please put your signature after your comments please?talk14:45, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- Apologies, I've now signed my previous comment. Carter00000 (talk) 14:49, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- AlanS has not retracted his accusations of sockpuppetry and has demonstrated that he does not believe the comment "can an admin please do a check if they are User:Gugrak" is a sockpuppetry accusation, stating "Apologies if you took it as me accusing you of being a sock." His comment that he "can confirm that from here on out I will discuss issues with other editors in a non-aggressive manner" was not a retraction of his accusations of sockpuppetry and accusations of abuse of Wikipedia processes; he was referring to other disputes surrounding Ben Roberts-Smith (which is indicated by this comment where he discusses the content dispute and also states
"it may very well be the case with one particular user shopping around in other places"
, where he is referring to this discussion at WP:BLPN, where a user accused Iskandar323 of "WP:FORUMSHOPPING"). AlanS is clearly aware that his discussion is taking place, and even after Iskandar323 informed him that his comment of "apologies if you took it as me accusing you of being a sock" wasn't a good apology, AlanS seems to have ignored it, instead responding later to a different comment. Nythar (💬-🍀) 16:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC) - When AlanS was blocked for edit warring, the report was brought to the edit war noticeboard by Gugrak. Gugrak was later revealed to be a sock and had made eight or more reverts on the Ben Roberts-Smith page in 24hrs only a couple days before they reported AlanS. Assuming good faith, I gave Gugrak a heads up on their talk page about 3RR rather than reporting them to any noticeboards. Gugrak even violated 3RR the day AlanS was blocked, but an admin made the decision to let them to self revert rather than sanction them. Socks/IPs from the same master have continued to give AlanS grief and edit the BRS article.
- Given this and the fact this is a distressing topic (murder, domestic violence, war etc), I think we can afford to cut some slack for some sock paranoia and forthright editing and language. Vladimir.copic (talk) 05:09, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
- @) 05:17, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
- My comment was just to give some context. Lourdes already some good advice above that I concur with so I won't say anymore. Vladimir.copic (talk) 05:35, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
- @) 05:17, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Revert war
There is a difference between the
indic alphabets ड and द and I have told Kwamikagami about it - see this and this and had mentioned the correct pronunciation as per the Hindustani phonology (see this and this), yet he has re-instated the wrong approximations for the indic alphabet द at the Help:IPA/Marathi and Help:IPA/Sanskrit IPA help pages - see this and this and at the Help:IPA/Hindi_and_Urdu Hindi and Urdu IPA help page, he has re-instated the wrong approximation for the Indic alphabet थ - see this. I asked him to self revert them, but he refused - see this and this. This calls for some sanctioning as these guides for pronunciation are used by many and it has to be as accurate as possible and he is likely going to re-insert (he already has, as of now) his wrong approximations if he remains unsanctioned.-1Firang (talk
) 15:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- While waiting for Kwamikagami to respond, 1Firang might do well to read WP:BOOMERANG. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:44, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hate to say it (and I'm generally not quick with this), but WP:CIR is also applicable here. I actually have been in this content dispute with 1Firang for a longer time than kwami and have also asked for community input in a related WikiProject[218].
- I have over and over explained (starting here) why certain of their proposed approximations don't work, with detailed references to scholarly works that form the base of Help:IPA/Hindi_and_Urdu (they're cited in Hindustani phonology), but 1Firang insist on their proposals mostly based on arguments that betray an egregious infamiliarity with general phonetics, IPA and the different realizations of certain sounds in various accents of English. I assume good faith on their part, but not much willingness to listen and to read reliable sources; they have picked random websites in support of their proposals, and when they use reliable sources like the Cambridge Dictionary, the content of the latter totally contradicts what they try to "prove". I know that CIR is not sufficient grounds for a TBAN (an option I'm considering to propose here if things don't change) if not paired with disruptive behavior, but some of their edits (i.e. when changing content claiming "consensus" even when no consensus has been reached yet) are bordering on the disruptive, also when they do micro-edits and reverse the principle of onus, telling us to explain why their edits are wrong, but without giving a substantial argument as to why we should change the status quo in the first place. –Austronesier (talk) 17:01, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- What you describe there would appear to be more or less a repeat of similar behaviour regarding e.g. the Coerced religious conversion in Pakistan article: Persistent use of poor sources, claiming a 'consensus' that clearly doesn't exist to justify edits, etc. And note also a similar tendency to make demands that contributors edit on their behalf. Given that 1Firang had moved on elsewhere, I took no action at the time, but if this is part of a recurring pattern, in someone who has been given advice on appropriate behaviour by multiple experienced contributors, it may need to be taken into account. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- For your information (to the admins), I accepted the edits by Austronesier and did not edit war with him. I have not even reverted the last edit of Kwamikagami as I know that he will revert it again and instead brought the case here.-1Firang (talk) 18:10, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- You haven't brought a 'case' here. Or at least, nothing recognisable as such. Instead, you have pointed to a content dispute with an experienced contributor. One you seem to be attempting to win not on the basis of anything they have done, but instead on the basis of what you think they will do. Which is not only absurd in of itself, but indicative, in my opinion, of a general lack of cluelessness on your part. One that might well lead people to ask whether you are competent to edit here at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- For your information (to the admins), I accepted the edits by Austronesier and did not edit war with him. I have not even reverted the last edit of Kwamikagami as I know that he will revert it again and instead brought the case here.-1Firang (talk) 18:10, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- What you describe there would appear to be more or less a repeat of similar behaviour regarding e.g. the Coerced religious conversion in Pakistan article: Persistent use of poor sources, claiming a 'consensus' that clearly doesn't exist to justify edits, etc. And note also a similar tendency to make demands that contributors edit on their behalf. Given that 1Firang had moved on elsewhere, I took no action at the time, but if this is part of a recurring pattern, in someone who has been given advice on appropriate behaviour by multiple experienced contributors, it may need to be taken into account. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- Not sure any response by me is required. 1Firang made a series of BOLD edits, and was reverted by Austronesier. They then started an edit-war based on TRUTH, and I stepped in and reverted. They then continued the edit-war. They did start a discussion, which is good, but their proposals have been rejected by everyone involved, yet they continued to edit-war. Their idea seems to be that if they repeat the same rejected (and disproven) claims, we must concede they're correct and allow the changes. Granted, they didn't break 3RR (unless you count making the essentially the same edit on 3 similar articles and then implementing it on a fourth), but the onus is on 1Firang.
- BTW, I did make one non-revert change (to "width") that was a compromise with 1Firang, one that Austronesier accepted but later reverted as part of a restoration to status quo ante. I'm happy with whatever Austronesier chooses here. — kwami (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with the illustrious Mr. Grump that there are serious CIR problems with 1Firang's contributions. I've seen them in a few places around the project, at a minimum I don't think they should be editing in the India/Pakistan topic area, though the quality of their contributions elsewhere is also lacking.
- They repeatedly try to present Islamophobic conspiracy mongering and pro-Hindutva propaganda as "truth", see this ridiculous, biassed, suggestion for a plot section [219], this attempt to present the movie as a "real story" [220] or this attempt at loading up a sentence with as many attacks on Muslims as possible [221].
- They have gamed extended confirmed rights in order to edit in this topic area, at the end of May they made hundreds of edits to inflate their edit count, copyediting articles one letter/word at a time or doing utterly useless stuff like removing whitespace from articles [222] [223] [224].
- They have repeatedly stated that articles should include information portraying Muslims in a negative light because they are "pissed" about it being removed [225] [226]. "I'm pissed" obviously has no basis in content policy and is not a valid reason to restore material, especially when other editors have raised BLP concerns about the content.
- They have repeatedly attempted to canvass support and bring other editors into disputes that agree with them [227] [228].
- Their edits outside this topic area also seem to have problems, e.g. this edit introduced a factual error [229] (PM is not an honorific suffix) and this edit is ungrammatical [230] (
who is serving as the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Leader of the Conservative Party since October 2022.
is not correct). 192.76.8.93 (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC)- I.P., I can report you for logged out editing - see ) 03:45, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- Firang, that is blatantly untrue, you technically could open an SPI over it but I highly doubt that would move forward with no more evidence than "this ip is making comments I disagree with", in addition, LOUT does not in any way, shape, or form state anything about reporting IP editors. Googleguy007 (talk) 04:26, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- Under what part of WP:LOUT would you report me? That part of policy says nothing about reporting people - it's instructions on how people with accounts can deal with accidental logged out edits. We don't block people just for editing as an IP, and I've never used an account. 192.76.8.93 (talk) 09:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- As an editor who has been dealing with firang for a few months ATP I agree with everything you are saying here IP, however I am especially concerned about the mass minor (seemingly intentional) copyedits, I thought of those as weird a few times while checking page histories but never connected the dots. I recall seing them make an edit on a talk page, then follow up by making three or four minor copyedits, obviously this could be a coincidence, but when it is repeated that often it seems unlikely. If any passing admins notice this post, would you mind letting me know if working around the EC in a manner like that is permitted? Googleguy007 (talk) 04:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- @WP:PGAME). 192.76.8.93 (talk) 09:31, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- Some notes here. In Indian English, "an alphabet" refers to an individual letter in a script (technically a "glyph"), not an entire alphabet. Writing about phonology without an understanding of International Phonetic Alphabet would appear to me to akin to writing about chemistry without an understanding of the periodic table.--Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 11:42, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- @
- I.P., I can report you for logged out editing - see ) 03:45, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- Kwamikagami, hi. You have significant editing experience and I can understand the frustration when you are faced with edits you and others may disapprove. But you need to be calmer in your discussions, especially with editors who are new here. I appreciate that your addressing of them as "stupid" was redacted by you, but usage of words such as "nonsense" is tendentious (I know, "bullshit" is bullshit, but you address that to someone's work multiple times -- that will come off bad). I am confident you understand that this advise is not to take any credit away from your work here. It's just that on this Board, we strongly suggest calm negotiations. Please do take this to heed for the future and please don't repeat this again.
- 1Firang, thanks for raising this. This is predominantly a content issue. You can read up on our dispute resolution process and follow the steps written there, in case talk page consensus is inconclusive. If you face any personal attacks, please feel free to come back here. At the same time, I appreciate your not re-instating anything that has been reverted by the other editors on any of the pages. Edit warring will not lead you to anywhere good. But am confident that you understand this. Thanks again for the report. Come back for further administrative assistance later. Warmly, Lourdes 06:13, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- Where did I use the word "bullshit" on this board? I don't see it. — kwami (talk) 06:17, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- While reverting. Not on this board. I don't see your addressing the issue of aggressive discussions. Please address and confirm you understand. Lourdes 06:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I know I should be more diplomatic. But there's a difference between a newbie who doesn't know the rules, and someone who insists against all comers they're correct even when their own sources prove them wrong. That has nothing to do with being a newbie, it's a matter of basic competence. What 1Firang writes is nonsense (I see now that's the word you were objecting to), and it's entirely appropriate to call them out on it.
- And BTW, 1Firang has edit-warred over these items. — kwami (talk) 06:40, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Kwamikagami, thank you for your response. While I am not conversant with the editorial bent of the topic, you have to confirm you will not use tendentious statements like "nonsense" again. There are other diplomatic words to push your point. Please don't consider this badly, you need to now confirm that you will not use tendentious words again. To the point of Firangi's edit warring, we have warned him and if their are repeat issues from any editor, administrative action may be taken. At the same time, we do not respect any editor meeting out bad treatment to even incompetent editors, not that I am alluding to Firangi as one. Sorry for pushing this point of your behaviour -- but we are at a crossroads where you choose the path. Do please respond. Lourdes 06:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- I can't promise I won't use a particular innocuous word in the future. That's ridiculous. (Or is that word also banned?) Others have also used the word "nonsense" for this editor, because what they say is demonstrable nonsense. Can I say they're "wrong"? Because if I say they're wrong about something they believe is right, I'm implying they're stupid. To what level of euphemism do I need to descend when calling out nonsense?
- If words like "nonsense" are banned on WP, then we need a guideline of banned words. Then we can argue over which words should be on the banned list, so that people know where the line is. — kwami (talk) 07:26, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- The usage of such words is not banned. However, and unfortunately, using words such as "bullshit" while reverting and using words such as "nonsense" repeatedly only ensures that the interaction environment becomes toxic. If others follow the same path to make the collaborative environment regularly negative, there may be administrative action against them too. Your aggressive opinion about what is nonsense and what is not nonsense is not something that everyone may subscribe to; others may believe the edit to be a good-faith editorial mistake (if at all it is an error). You are free to question editors on CIR and request for action on that. You are not free to bring down people's contributions by asserting your opinion that something is bullshit and another is nonsense. I am blocking you for 48 hours, and will hope you choose the more collaborative discussion path. Thank you, Lourdes10:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Lourdes This is an utterly ridiculous block.
- WP:No personal attacks states
Comment on content, not on the contributor
. Kwamikagami was quite clearly commenting on the content of the edits, not the editor who performed them. A personal attack or harassment has to be directed at a person, the content of an edit cannot be harassed. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:27, 16 June 2023 (UTC)- (Non-administrator comment) Agreeing with the IP editor above. Assuming we're talking about the edit summary for ) 13:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- Kwami is a former administrator and knows how to behave and how not to. Despite this, Kwami has a long history of being aggressive and edit warring, having been blocked quite a few times and warned against it other times. To be frank, I think they've gotten more chances than most would have, and I think the short block is appropriate to remind Kwami that they need to consider how to appropriately communicate with other users. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- How does using the edit summary
rv. nonsense
justify a block for personal attacks? What part of that edit summary was an attack on another user? Criticising the content a editor adds is not an attack on that editor. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 14:41, 16 June 2023 (UTC) - This block is absurd. No, strike that, this block is bullshit. It is self-evident that the thread here was started by a contributor that has a history of trying to game the system. A contributor who has repeatedly invented bogus 'consensus' to try to push through POV-pushing edits, A contributor who's entire concept of 'consensus' revolves around intentionally misrepresenting what others say. A contributor who started this thread by asking for Kwamikagami to be blocked not for anything they had done, but to prevent an imagined 'edit war' that had yet to occur. A contributor who's continuing presence on Wikipedia is a net negative. This block rewards improperly-motivated rulemongering to the detriment of Wikipedia. We aren't here to be 'civil', we are here to create encyclopaedic content, and if telling those who clearly aren't that their edits are nonsense or bullshit is necessary, we should do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- How does using the edit summary
- Unblock. The content is bullshit, which is what they indicated. If that's the barometer for an NPA, I think we'd lose all editors to a block. I know I've referred to bullshit as such.
- Star Mississippi 16:17, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- Just to add on the pile, this block was a direct violation of WpWS16:36, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- The usage of such words is not banned. However, and unfortunately, using words such as "bullshit" while reverting and using words such as "nonsense" repeatedly only ensures that the interaction environment becomes toxic. If others follow the same path to make the collaborative environment regularly negative, there may be administrative action against them too. Your aggressive opinion about what is nonsense and what is not nonsense is not something that everyone may subscribe to; others may believe the edit to be a good-faith editorial mistake (if at all it is an error). You are free to question editors on
- Hi Kwamikagami, thank you for your response. While I am not conversant with the editorial bent of the topic, you have to confirm you will not use tendentious statements like "nonsense" again. There are other diplomatic words to push your point. Please don't consider this badly, you need to now confirm that you will not use tendentious words again. To the point of Firangi's edit warring, we have warned him and if their are repeat issues from any editor, administrative action may be taken. At the same time, we do not respect any editor meeting out bad treatment to even incompetent editors, not that I am alluding to Firangi as one. Sorry for pushing this point of your behaviour -- but we are at a crossroads where you choose the path. Do please respond. Lourdes 06:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- While reverting. Not on this board. I don't see your addressing the issue of aggressive discussions. Please address and confirm you understand. Lourdes 06:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- Where did I use the word "bullshit" on this board? I don't see it. — kwami (talk) 06:17, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Lourdes: I too think your block of Kwamikagami was incorrect. I don't have the expertise in IPA that kwami and Austronesier do but even I could see that this was a Wikipedia:Randy in Boise situation. Would recommend an unblock. Abecedare (talk) 16:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Abecedare: You nailed it. –Austronesier (talk) 17:31, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- Add: I'm involved in the discussions with 1Firang and share every observation/assessment made by kwami about them even when choice of words differs, so I won't comment on the block. But I want to remind the outraged the community that the net harm to this project created by the 48-block is nothing when compared to the non-action (not even a stern warning) about the conduct of 1Firang in the last few weeks. After 48 hours (if not unblocked earlier), kwami can edit as before, but 1Firang is still bludgeoning the talk pages of four IPA keys trying to have their way without a basic grasp of phonetics that is necessary to make meaningful contributions to these keys. I think that when they call other editors' well-argued explanations "wrong" without any substantiated reason that's at least as rude and uncivil as kwami calling their contributions "bullshit" for very clear and objectifiable reasons which I have tried to explain patiently in all detail to 1Firang ad nauseam. –Austronesier (talk) 19:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- Ad nauseum is correct, which is why I refuse to play their game. 1Firang refuses to even attempt to understand our explanations, so I figure it's a waste of time to repeat those explanations more than, say, four or five times. We could spend that time improving some of the many, many things on WP that need improvement. — kwami (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- Of course it's pearls before swine and an utter waste of time. I could write up a long pamphlet to ask for a TBAN for 1Firang in this specific topic area, but I'm too freaking worn out for it at this point. –Austronesier (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- Ad nauseum is correct, which is why I refuse to play their game. 1Firang refuses to even attempt to understand our explanations, so I figure it's a waste of time to repeat those explanations more than, say, four or five times. We could spend that time improving some of the many, many things on WP that need improvement. — kwami (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- Note that, based on the concerns raised by multiple editors above that the block was excessive and incorrect, and the fact that the blocking admin went offline shortly after making the block, I've unblocked Kwamikagami. Note that Lourdes also specifically stated that any reviewing admin could unblock without further discussion with her.-- Ponyobons mots 19:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- Update I have topic-banned 1Firang from India and Pakistan-related articles and discussions (which IMO would cover the Hindu, Urdu, Sanskrit IPA pages) under the IPA CTOP. If the CIR, tendentious editing and bludgeoning issues with 1Firang's editing spread to areas not covered by the topic-ban, a site-wide block should be considered. Abecedare (talk) 20:53, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- Ponyo, Abecedare, thank you for stepping in and intervening. I am perfectly okay with the actions and have taken into consideration responses here. Thank you, Lourdes 09:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)