Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1132

A user named

As an uninvolved editor, I didn't see any personal attacks in that conversation from the user you mentioned. This noticeboard is for intractable issues, and you may want to consider withdrawing this before others click that link and review your behavior in the conversation. Very Average Editor (talk) 17:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

You may want to consider seeing the personal attacks in that conversation. Cinephile4ever 17:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I would support a

WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Very Average Editor (talk

) 17:32, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Nice support Cinephile4ever 17:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

BangaloreNorth filed a checkuser request on Cinephile4ever:

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MovieBuffIndia

That one talk page section, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force#Technical Fact Finding, is over 2500 words long - a great gray text wall of vexation and dispute.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

It was after these two edits ([1], [2]) that @Cinephile4ever stated they were attacked so one can assume that either they feel attacked by @BangaloreNorth stating they will be blocked in a few days because of the SPI investigation or because @BangaloreNorth accused them of twisting other editors words. --ARoseWolf 19:09, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

In this edit of their own words they updated one of the above diffs with "Have you lost that last bit of shame and self respect?" and then proceeded to call the OP by the name of the suspected master/sock they are accusing them of being. I do think this constitutes an attack on the editor but I understand @BangaloreNorth's frustrations with the OP who may have been

WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion. Either issue could be left up to interpretation. --ARoseWolf

19:21, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for seeing and acknowledging that user's personal attack on me. Cinephile4ever 00:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

How did this user personally attack you? By pointing out an investigation? Or saying that you arent worth their time and energy? I think the real issue here seems to be that you weren't able to resolve the issue the way that you wanted, and instead of just putting your ego aside and going about your day elsewhere, you decided to go on a power trip to try and get him "punished" in some way. XD3vlLx (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

You might want to consider using your eyes. "Why are you twisting the words of other people to suit your agenda? Have you lost that last bit of shame and self respect?" is a

personal attack by any definition we employ. Ravenswing

22:15, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Cinephile4ever 01:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• Cinephile4ever, you need to inform BangaloreNorth about filing a report here. This is mandatory. Lourdes 10:27, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  I informed them in their talk page before reporting here. But they have undid that. Please check their edit history of their talk page. Cinephile4ever 11:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  This is belaboring the issue. Please show the diff where you clearly informed the editor that there is an ANI discussion going on. Lourdes 03:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  Here's the diff: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1161554162 Cinephile4ever 04:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  Will any administrator take action against the user who personally attacked me? Cinephile4ever 04:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  I'll close this issue here. Your notice is not a notice. You should have perhaps mentioned clearly that there is a report on ANI, and preferably linked this report. You may please do that now, and wait for the reported editor's response here, before administrators review this. Thanks, Lourdes 11:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  That user has been notified now. Cinephile4ever 12:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Edit This ip user calls me "war-mongerer named Beshogur". Beshogur (talk) 15:51, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

2 Reverts each at Khagan, so no 3RR. On the contribs side, The IP’s first edit is to try to correct an editor who’s been here 16 years, including some knowledge of policy, so I’m immediately suspicious. _{(but hey, I’m suspicious on a lot of things.)}

I’d be curious to see how the IP reacts, if it got into another ‘revert’ situation, see if they make a habit of bad faith, as their other edit summaries seem fine.

Alsoooo, mandatory ANI Notice to the IP? MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 18:34, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Yes, doesn't matter who, you have to give the notice. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Online) 18:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

IP notified. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Online) 19:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Thought I replied that I gave them a {{uw-npa1}}, but I guess not. Also gave them an ANI notice. got beat to it! CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 19:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 19:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

• Yae4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Yae4 is currently involved in a conflict with me and a few other editors over Libreboot. Instead of accepting their opinions do not hold consensus, they are now increasingly resorting to disrupting the normal editing process by:

• Repeatedly tagging an opponent as a
  WP:SPA: Special:Diff/1160298043, Special:Diff/1160302499, Special:Diff/1160303915, Special:Diff/1160387206
• Opening a frivolous sockpuppet investigation against everyone who disagreed with them on Talk:Libreboot: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Libreleah
• Collapsing active talk page discussions where consensus is heading against them: Special:Diff/1160565668
• Reopening a recent AfD in connection with the content dispute: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libreboot (2nd nomination)
• Making a plainly unfounded accusation of edit warring following a
  WP:BOLD edit they didn't like: Special:Diff/1160724278, Special:Diff/1160724386

-- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 11:15, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I think we should start declaring Libreboot a contentious topic by now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Yae4, to start with an easy decision: Your "3RR" (edit warring) accusation in [3] is absurd; the cited part of the policy against edit warring is meant to prevent exactly your type of argumentation. Making multiple edits, no matter how much text they delete, consecutively, is one single revert that could have been done in one single edit without changing the result. Maddy from Celeste has never edited the article before, so they can at maximum be at "1 revert" objectively and without this being subject to discussion. As a first step, I'd like you to acknowledge that your accusation was incorrect. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

By the way, look at this page too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Open-source_firmware

This is more evidence of Yae4's non-neutral editing. He repeatedly insisted that libreboot.at be present on the Open-source firmware page, and other editors disagreed, saying that there should just be 1 link to the main libreboot article. This, also despite the fact that there was no grounds under wikipedia sourcing rules for doing so (the article is not specifically about Libreboot, instead it is an aggregate of links to other Wikipedia articles pertaining to the subject of the article in question).

PhotographyEdits recently changed it back to only linking the Libreboot article, but the difference now is that Yae4 is under investigation and thus under more scrutiny. Yae4 responded by subjecting that article to AfD, without proper justification (EDIT: initially wrote "with", meant to write "without"). Accordingly, almost every editor on that page has voted Keep in the AfD.

Correlation does not equal causation, but other people in *this* ANI page have noted the same pattern, whereby Yae4 responds on a personalised and even vindictive basis when he doesn't get what he wants. (while using specious arguments and tactics seemingly to drive away "competing" editors).

I was advised by ToBeFree not to submit to this ANI unless I have something useful to contribute to the discussion. Indeed, I believe the above contribution may shed some light on the matter. Libreleah (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, that same Open-source firmware page was created by PhotographEdits, who Yae4 has frequently warred with on the Libreboot article. Again, correlation not causation, but look at the pattern. Yae4 seemingly has "enemies" and uses such crude methods against them. The speed at which Yae4 operates, and the general tactics used, seem to suggest an intent to intimidate other editors, though in a way that would not be so obvious to admins without sufficient context given, as has been provided by the contributors to this ANI. Libreleah (talk) 18:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

See also:

☖

17:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I had that in mind when I wrote "contentious topic", but I didn't link it because the wall of text there mostly distracts from the concise, clear list provided by Maddy from Celeste above. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, after that, this looks like forum shopping.

I was preparing some suggestions for Talk:Amateur radio. That literally has been disrupted by this.

Words above like "conflict" and "opponent" succinctly illustrate the complainer's attitude and behavior.

@

WP:SPAMPAGE, i.e. "Advertisements masquerading as articles", as it was for years. In one quick swoop, the complainer, appearing as a proxy for Libreleah, undid most (~50%) of those numerous expansions and rewrote the article to a preferred, biased version. That sure feels like a bunch of undoing another editor's many changes quickly. If you want to say technically that was only one revert, OK fine. My revert of all those changes was only one too (I was concerned about that), but the warning was sincere. If you'd also observed how many times the complainer has quickly undone other trivial things like collapses of ridiculously long walls of Talk text, and accurate SPA tags, you should understand why a warning seemed appropriate. It was a warning and revert, not ANEW. -- Yae4 (talk

) 19:22, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Why the sudden rush to this article, after a few previous RfCs and failed attempts to stimulate methodical discussions? This is a pattern in some barely or not-really-notable articles. A small business owner, in this case Libreleah, fears their income will be reduced, or their reputation diminished, or something, and gets associates to rush to "their" article. What happens next is the

WP:SPAMPAGE

, will each say they support the complainer's changes, or take turns reverting.

My edits at Libreboot: Nemo_bis said

"recent edits by Yae4] are prima facie an improvement in terms of sourcing. Given there are some ongoing developments, it makes sense to have sections focused on the past tense, as we don't necessarily have good sources for the events of the past few months. When more and better sources appear, we'll hopefully be able to describe Libreboot's connection to GNU/FSF, mention any relevant forks etc. We don't need to decide that now..."

That gives me a little too much credit, because I retrieved and summarized deleted sources from previous article history.

SPI of "everyone who disagreed": False. User DFlhb,

WP:MEAT. User:Cruzdoze, another SPA that participated in an RFC at Talk:Libreboot

and disagreed with me was not on the list. It does look a lot like User Libreleah, however. SPA Edidds (mild disagreement at AfD) is not on the list.

SPI and

WP:MEAT issues than SPI, let me know. On 24 May 2023, I did a talk page RfC; there was minimal involvement (included SPA Cruzdoze). On 26 May 2023, PhotographyEdits did a talk page RfC; There were a couple new commenters. On 28 May 2023, I started a Talk page "AfD or Merge" discussion. Minimal involvement other than (significantly) Nemo_bis, and a self-declared connected user Arzg, and an IP that writes similar to User Libreleah. Libreleah user page self-describes as a "passionate nut". 92.40.218.255 said "I think Leah's nuts...", sound similar? 9 June, the article gets attacked by a couple SPA or Socks, and IPs get blocked... 15 June Libreleah account re-activates. The complainer becomes involved by reverting a SPA tag: "this does not appear conductive to a constructive discussion". Same day User Rlink2 becomes involved. Next day User DFlhb becomes involved (after discouraging a related RfC at RSN

on 13 June). Random coincidence? Doubtful.

SPA tags were accurate, and the complainer reverted all or nearly all, falsely claiming Pointy or other excuses. The

WP:SPA tag informs readers like admins of the facts of the account's activity up to that time - few or no edits outside the topic. User Libreleah account's first edit in 5 years, or ~8th edit since account creation, was a 22 000 byte treatise criticizing me and my expansion and changes of Libreboot. At my last look, User Libreleah had 33 edits at Talk:Libreboot, more than anywhere else, three times as many as the 11 edits at the #2 article.[4]

Apologies for length. -- Yae4 (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Yae4, I'm currently not worried about "the complainer's attitude and behavior"; please don't use it as a tu-quoque-style argument.

You spent over 200 words on something that boils down to "okay, technically, fine". Not technically, though: People are encouraged to

casting aspersions

in a discussion about your behavior.

Where did you take "small business owner" and "income" from? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I will try to "explicitly refute the central point" of who began disruption, at Talk:Libreboot: The complainer here, and user Libreleah are primarily responsible for disruption and aggression at Talk:Libreboot.

Complainer first edit at Talk:Libreboot: reverted a valid SPA tag with comment "this does not appear conductive to a constructive discussion". User Libreleah had few edits outside Talk:Libreboot at that time.

Complainer 2nd and 3rd edits were aggressive and inaccurate regarding my efforts at the article and its talk, saying "Alright, @Yae4 and Libreleah: cut this bullshit." and "And Yae4, disrupting this discussion isn't going to help. Both of you need to stop casting aspersions at each other. Attacking each other like this is not going to help you. Wikipedia articles are built using consensus, not by whoever can throw the most shit at the others." With this introduction, who wants to read the rest of the "advice"?

Complainer Next edit at AN: "I'll translate: There are two versions of the libreboot software project, and three editors are at each other's throats fighting over which one gets to be the legitimate one. I've told them to stop it and given some advice on the content dispute..." Mis-characterization, vague, insulting, demanding; see next.

There were seven, recent, open or unanswered discussions at the time Libreleah posted a 22 000 byte, out of place, disruptive "Persistent vandalism, or otherwise disruptive, non-neutral editing with clear conflict of interest for those involved": "AfD or Merge?", (scroll down from there) "LWN.net", "Libreboot.AT, again", "Name of the project", "Discussion of FossForce.com as a source", "ItsFoss, TuxMachines, and FSF and GNU as sources", and "Official Links". While there was disagreement, it was nothing like what followed. IMO, a non-disruptive editor would give opinions on open, un-resolved discussions, not be demanding and try to take over and control (disorganized, rambling) discussions, starting with their own aspersions casting (see above).

@ToBeFree:

I thought I saw a warning along the lines of: when someone brings a complaint like this, they should expect their own behavior to be scrutinized.

> Where did you take "small business owner" and "income" from?

Account Libreleah is the first connected user listed at Talk:Libreboot (pre-dating my involvement). The "declared" link goes to where user Libreleah said "Hi. I'm Leah Rowe of the libreboot project. Wikipedia article "libreboot""... "I need you to unlock the libreboot article, and/or allow me (user account libreleah) to edit the libreboot article, so that I can change the author name back to Leah Rowe." More recently, at Talk:Libreboot user Rlink2 asked for proof "that you are Leah Rowe", and user Libreleah responded "Yes, I certainly can prove it..." followed by a claim of proof. Based on bits and pieces in cited, previously cited, or potential sources, Rowe operated a series of non-notable small companies, websites and brands selling computer hardware with Rowe's versions of Libreboot included, and argues aggressively to maintain a link from the article to Rowe's version of Libreboot, which links to Rowe's company for sales. -- Yae4 (talk) 05:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay, so

WP:COITALK

does pretty much apply: "No editor should be expected to engage in long or repetitive discussions with someone who is being paid to argue with them."

It's also clear that describing others' actions as "bullshit" is inappropriate.

Both said, my primary concern in this discussion here is still your behavior, Yae4, and your accusations towards others distract from a few issues you haven't properly addressed yet. For example, you have described DFlhb and Maddy from Celeste in ways that imply or even directly accuse them of meatpuppetry. These two are experienced users with thousands of contributions. Describing them as meatpuppets just because they agree with each other on an issue is inappropriate; you accuse them of misbehavior without proper evidence of misbehavior. Your proven-wrong accusation of edit warring (or a 3RR violation even) towards Maddy from Celeste brought us here in the first place.

Yae4, I think the issue can be summarized as "unnecessary personalization of content disputes", and it has been demonstrated in this discussion here by your own messages already. I agree that you should be blocked to prevent this from continuing. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

As outlined with dates above, and seen in

WP:RSN, and this subsequent exchange at DFlhb user Talk looks like recruiting or canvassing for support by PhotographyEdits. Looks like it worked. I can only show the pattern; I can't make you see it. With all due respect, it's obvious what's happening here. -- Yae4 (talk

) 07:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

When told to stop making baseless aspersions, it's a good idea to stop, not double down. DFlhb (talk) 14:07, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

My initial post on Talk:Libreboot represents my first reaction at the whole situation there. With hindsight, I do agree a more civil choice of words couldn't have hurt. As for Libreleah, I considered bringing her editing up here, but it seems to be explained by her being not yet being familiar with how we raise concerns over content here. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 07:17, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@ToBeFree

so Libreleah seems to have a financial conflict of interest. She isn't paid to edit Wikipedia. She owns an open source project, which would mean

WP:COI applies and not the paid version. Rlink2 (talk

) 11:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Rlink2, a financial conflict of interest does not necessarily imply compensation for editing itself. You have a financial conflict of interest, for example, if you completely voluntarily and anonymously, without any hope of ever getting rewarded for this, clean up your employer's Wikipedia article from what you perceive as libel. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:45, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

ToBeFree, hi: I said I wouldn't engage here, but I only came to say this one thing: yes, I declared my conflict of interest for libreboot.org and thought that was enough; it did not occur to me to also mention financial interests. I assure you this is not an intentional "deception" on my part, and I've now written about it in full on my user page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Libreleah

That said, I'm not the only person who has complained about Yae4's behaviour. Many other people editing the Libreboot article, and indeed other articles in the past, have complained in the exact same ways.

One thing people need to know about me is that I do actually try to be neutral about my own work. Most businesses have a sort of monopoly-like pride about their business, but my business model literally is giving away source code and knowledge for free to the public; I've actually helped my commercial competitors many times, for example, helping them fix bugs, because besides getting paid I also care about the quality of the software I release. When I first started Libreboot I didn't even have a viable company at the time; people noticed what I was doing and it just sort of accidentally happened from there.

I digress. None of this is relevant to Wikipedia policy. I apologise for the lack of foresight on my part. I hope the changes I've made to my user page are enough and if you have any feedback on it, I'll happily take it. Libreleah (talk) 11:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

People sometimes think I'm naive because of that, but it's never steered me wrong. Some of my commercial competitors are even listed as contributors to Libreboot, on the Libreboot website. I support freedom, that's why I do free software. If I didn't have Libreboot I'd just do something else. Libreleah (talk) 11:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

ToBeFree, there is one more fact that I feel is important to mention: the editors on the Libreboot article (and the talk page) are all intimately familiar with who I am, and about my company; both are, or have been, written about prominently on the Libreboot article.

This is also evident in what they've written about, both on the article and the talk page, indicating that they knew my connection. So I don't think the discussion may have been skewed or perverted in any way. The updated entry on my own user page just removes any such possibility in the future.

Once again, I apologise for this oversight on my part. That's why I never mentioned it so explicitly before, because I knew that everyone there knows who I am. (I *did* mention my connection specifically to libreboot.org, in the talk page, from the very moment I first posted there recently) Libreleah (talk) 12:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I think Libreleah is working in good faith here. One of the issue heres that Yae4 will take words and policies out of context to support his viewpoint. Rlink2 (talk) 12:30, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Libreleah, thank you very much. The additional disclosure now made in [5] looks very well done to me; it clearly describes that there is a financial conflict of interest, and even explains where it comes from. This resolves my concern. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry again. Although I did register my account in 2016, I only used it briefly back then. I'm still learning the ropes. If you spot anything else that I need to sort out, please don't hesitate to let know. Thanks! Libreleah (talk) 17:55, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

No worries. Sure. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Glad this could get resolved the right way. Sometimes we need to take a step back and realize what a waste of time arguments like this can be. Life is short and precious, and people spend way too much time putting energy into what are essentially power trips on here. Sometimes we just need to put our egos aside and let go. If someone takes the time to add genuine information to a page, removing it is disrespectful. Talk about errors or inaccuracies, but this hill wasnt worth climbing. Hopefully we can just use this as a learning lesson for the future. XD3vlLx (talk) 17:52, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• Anyone who thought that making software free would make everyone nice and friendly and cuddly will be seriously disillusioned by this discussion. Can't you people (and that is directed at everyone involved) just thrash things out on the talk page like we do for articles where there is real disagreement, such as those on Middle Eastern politics?
  Phil Bridger (talk
  ) 19:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  This isn't about disagreeing but about "disruptive editing" by User:Yae4. Having undergone a similar experience with said user/editor on the Elive page. Clearly this editor's modus operandi is one-sided edits, repeated deletions/undos and threats of blocking when meeting any resistance. Accompanying disdainful and condescending comments clearly aren't very helpful if it were about setting errors straight. On the contrary, this kind of behavior will scare almost every aspiring editor/submitter away from Wikipedia which I presume isn't what WP is about in the first place. Triantares (talk) 07:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  Replying to myself as I noticed I wasn't as explicit as others posters here about the unsavory behaviour @Yae4 has.

  In short the Elive page has been edited, undone and revised so often by said editor that there are only 2 sentences left of the original text. Every positive review has been consistently removed or in one case, cherry picked to show only, out of context notes of criticism or replaced by quotes from critical reviews that are either extremely outdated or almost impossible to find in any other way than the direct link provided there. Any edits of mine to try and restore some sort of balance there were immediately undone and accompanied by threats. Just going through the history there is cringe-worthy in itself.

  In relation to "condescending and disdainful" I preferred asking @Yae4 on his talk page to stop these actions (opposed to starting an ANI) and quoted some of his previous remarks in that sense. The bland denial as answer to the plea (and the quotes) says it all. Triantares (talk) 21:50, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support block for neon-bright
  WP:CIR
  and incivility, which is persistent and worsening.

• These aspersions and sockpuppet/COI accusations against opponents aren't new. Warned by El_C in Jan 2020 (then did it again) and by Mr. Stradivarius in Sept 2020. It continued: diff diff diff diff diff diff diff.
• Also not the first frivolous SPI against opponents: 2020 (result: "Unrelated"), 2022 ("Ostensibly unrelated").
• Edit wars at Libreboot to add an FSF press release, diff diff diff. Blocked for edit warring to add primary-sourced WP:OR about GrapheneOS licensing, diff diff diff diff, blocked, then resumes days after the block expires, diff diff. Edit wars to misuse a secondary source: diff diff diff diff diff diff diff (later consensus to remove). Edit wars to add primary-sourced info about Libreboot.at: diff diff diff diff diff. Edit wars to add coatrack, diff diff diff diff (against 3rd opinion, diff).
• WP:CIR, aptly-described back in April 2020 (which led to a climate change TBAN, but only shifted the disruption to FOSS articles).
  • After Yae4's failed edit war to add 'negative' WP:OR to GrapheneOS, they decided to add comically POINTy in-text attribution (diff diff), remove various secondary sources because they parrot Twitter (diff diff diff diff diff), misuse sources (section), add negative BLP info sourced to junk sources (diff), and act phenomenally pointy about citing the official site (diff).
  • For products Yae4 likes, we see the opposite: user-generated content is reliable, and a forum has editorial oversight (section), dozens of primary sources are not actually primary (diff diff), an FSF press release email is due (RSN discussion), reddit, "alternativeto.net" and user forums are fine and dandy (diff diff), and unlike at GrapheneOS or Libreboot, the official site is fine (diff diff).
  • This diff is representative of the overall quality of Yae4's edits. Yae4 misunderstands sourcing, as others noticed time and again. Doesn't understand COI (as Mr. Stradivarus said), or MEAT (which they accuse me of for being nice to Maddy), or 3RR, or NPA. The bludgeoning walls of text you're seeing above should surprise no one, since El_C already noted it in August 2022 (WP:BLUDGEON and WP:IDHT [...] I found them to have been exhausting to deal with). Yae4 drove away two editors just this past week, diff diff.

DFlhb (talk) 21:45, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I only checked the last statement. It is questionable at best.

> Yae4 drove away two editors just this past week, diff diff.

This is un-justified hypothesis. User Arzg was irritated because "the edit warring and namecalling and someone pinged me on my talk page?! are testing my patience." (not me) and was irritated by 92.40.218.255's preceding insults and diatribe (similar to user Libreleah, IMO). Also said, "I have a COI, having been involved with the project briefly in 2017". Maproom could equally well have been satisfied with the discussion and not particularly interested. -- Yae4 (talk) 06:52, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@DFlhb: Yes, it is a struggle to follow Wiki-rules. They are convoluted, or "nuanced". The presentation of diffs above is misleading and biased, but that won't matter, because you can get away with anything, if no one looks too deep, and they usually don't.

> only shifted the disruption to FOSS articles

No. My first edits in August 2019, at /e/_(operating_system) - another contentious "FOSS article" because of similar issues as here - led me to write on my user page

Tries to be neutral, but dislikes advertising and popularity contests driving Wikipedia. Will support deleting advertising, and adding criticism. The truth shall make you free.

> sockpuppet/COI accusations against opponents [your word, not mine] aren't new.

Partly true, but you conspicuously did not list the first one in 2019 when two sockpuppets were blocked. It's at the top of my Hall of Fame list; how could you miss it? Yes, meat and sock puppetry, and biased editing, and flocking together to a friend's or hero's article, is common in barely or not-really-notable articles, like this one, and that causes disruption. I accept responsibility for getting involved. I've primarily focused on article content, asked for outside help with RfCs, and only secondarily, asked for help dealing with the group with common cause(s) at the article, who targeted me here. "Patience is a virtue" you said. Between the lines, unstated, we'll get that editor. -- Yae4 (talk) 16:43, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

• Almost a year ago (June 2022), I blocked Yae4 for 3RR on a different open source software article,
  WP:BLUDGEON remaining a problem. El_C
  21:47, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry to see bad feelings persist. Since you mentioned

  WP:YouTube to be summarized? -- Yae4 (talk

  ) 06:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I do not have "bad feelings," I have an articulated critique. Nor do I have an opinion on the content (though I do like Rossmann). But I do have an opinion about you deflecting from what is actually being discussed—your repeated misconduct as raised by multiple persons. And that opinion, I'm sorry to say, is not great. El_C 10:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I am sorry to be here, partly because of still mis-understanding 3RR; the previous block was a simple, careless mistake of mine, and I accept responsibility. Climate change is a whole other story; I learned that lesson and have avoided the topic after being un-banned. People who flocked together to support their friend's or hero's version of an article, and here, is a different thing, but thanks for your articulated critique. Not to deflect again, but I'd appreciate an answer to this question on 3RR. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

(sent in [7]) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:34, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I've collapsed the above text that I wrote, text that is now adapted for WP:COIN report against Yae4: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Suspected_COI_by_User%3AYae4_on_Article%3ALibreboot Libreleah (talk) 08:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Last comment by Yae4 (hopefully) Mostly @

I'm primarily surprised by the amount of words used to sugar-coat "DFlhb seems to be stalking me". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Throw enough shit at the wall, see what sticks? DFlhb (talk) 00:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the Library suggestion. It didn't work for me. I don't remember why. Probably my error. I understand some people like getting thanked, so I hit the Thank button now and then. I do not care about being thanked. I care about article content. Thank you for when when we've interacted productively.

A central point, again: 14 June:

WP:RSN. I was getting a bit annoyed by everthing." DFlhb says "Patience is always a virtue. I'm also not familiar with that particular dispute." and then becomes involved. Looks like recruiting to Libreboot

.

> I didn't know there was any beef.

> I could tell you didn't like me, and I stayed out of your way.

> Despite seeing Libreboot on May 31, I stayed away.

A 2nd central point: ^This is "unnecessary personalization of content disputes".^

I do not like, dislike or feel anything about DFlhb. We've agreed. We've disagreed. You've misled in your presentations above, but I understand you're making a case, and are not being neutral or objective. I'm sorry you felt personally offended when I said your earlier positions looked biased to me; nothing personal was intended then. Nothing personal is intended now. It looks like you and a few other Libreleah supporters converged on Talk:Libreboot, to support cutting the article in half to a billboard again, while ignoring WP:RS, "WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:BLP issues" in the process. -- Yae4 (talk) 04:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Yae4, may I try to reassure you re "Libreleah supporters", meatpuppets, socks and whatever?

WP:AN. The timing of their arrival doesn't indicate that they are doing so in bad faith; please don't worry about that and indeed, please don't keep making such accusations. NebY (talk

) 14:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I get it, but it's not just timing. What would you think when 3 newly involved, relatively experienced editors all support, in essence: ignore reliability of sources, defend a financially connected editor who has few or no edits outside this topic, let them be heavily involved in discussing what the article should say, and include (biased) BLP info citing one of the most questionable sources. Then, let's go see if we can crucify that one editor who won't go along with all this? -- Yae4 (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Even if I agreed with those characterisations, which I would fear to be the product of seeing editors as a malicious gang and thus of circular reasoning, I would not deduce a conspiracy from them. The guidance in

WP:DROPTHESTICK can save us from ourselves (and if we have enemies, from them too). NebY (talk

) 22:59, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

@NebY: Good advice. I remind myself of AGF and not-a-battlefield fairly often. I should remember DropTheStick more. Thanks. -- Yae4 (talk) 04:20, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Curious that repeated personal attacks over mere disagreements are "nothing personal", yet leaving you alone to avoid these personal attacks is "unnecessary personalization". DFlhb (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Break

One more thing I don't know if DFlhb used: 12-13 June: At Helpdesk I sought uninvolved advice on resolving differences. It's long, but about article issues, not editor(s). Feedback included "your discussion is already in the correct place, the Talk Page" and "I tend to go for the Project route unless there is some real drama and lack of WP:AGF evident in the discussion, which doesn't seem to be the case here." I went about posting neutral RfC notices... Crux: Libreleah started some real drama. This caused the disruption. -- Yae4 (talk) 19:54, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I did no such thing. I simply raised objection to the disruptive nature of your editing, whereby you demonstrate a clear pattern of disregard for other editors; I regard you as a bully. Such has been corroborated by numerous other people here, and elsewhere, over many years. Detailed analysis of your history reveals a clear tendency on your part to harass and intimidate other Wikipedians, to reduce any challenge to yourself; this too has been articulated by other editors on Wikipedia.

No, what you call "drama" is simply accountability. You are being held accountable for your misdeeds. If I didn't challenge you, someone else would have done so at a later date. It's simply that you stepped on too many people's toes, over the years, and it's finally catching up with you. Sooner or later, the chickens always come home to roost.

I think you deserve to be banned from Wikipedia, but I'll leave that up to the admins. Libreleah (talk) 20:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

It is not up to admins to ban, in the sense that

WP:PBLOCK

), since the latter allows up to ten pages to be technically restricted (unlike ABAN and TBAN which are adhered to on faith), and which any admin may impose as a regular block (block-lite, even). But, either way, I don't think either ABAN or PBLOCK would be that useful here, so as an aside.

So that is as far as the range of sanctions that might be pertinent here. But the problem is two fold: first, the material seems rather technical, certainly for me. And secondly, it is always easier to sanction more egregious misconduct that happens once or thrice than that which merely skirts the line, but does so repeatedly, for years. As well, those problematic users of the incremental variety usually trend towards the long-winded, which is an immense barrier for review (the inability to condense, to be concise), though, you haven't been particularly concise, either, to be fair, Libreleah. Of course, the extra length may also be a product of the incremental featuring many more components than the singular. I am also aware of the irony seeing as this very post isn't that brief.

That isn't to say that Yae4's

WP:TEXTWALL thread that isn't clear and succinct, are likely to just <skip>. Which isn't unique to Wikipedia necessarily, but to be clear, there is no requirement for a thread on this board to come to some conclusion; there isn't even a requirement for nominal engagement. So threads here often fizzle out for a variety of reasons (some of which I alluded to, some I didn't, some are even random). Anyway, regardless, hope I was able to educate you on the reality of the situation. Because who knows how this thread will be concluded, if at all, so it's perhaps best to temper expectations with these procedures and processes in mind. El_C

04:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree that it's hard to go through. The bulk of the case is in Maddy's opening post and my first reply, which shows a history of incessant aspersions and failing to understand policies to the point of CIR. DFlhb (talk) 11:56, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

DFlhb, by all means then, feel free to propose any sanction or sanctions you deem suitable. El_C 17:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• Holy wowzers, what a gigantic section. My personal experience with user is at a couple of recent AfDs, for libreboot and open-source firmware. In both of these discussions there appears to be some great personal investment by Yae4, who is making many long comments that do not seem to make sense (referencing a consensus at
  WP:WAX for example). I don't have any opinion on whether or not this person should be blocked or banned. However, unjustified or vexatious AfD filings are a serious issue that wastes time, destroys content and stresses everybody out. I would like for them to not do this any more. jp×g
  18:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  Yae is being disruptive, bit its troubling that Libreleah, who is the very definition of a COI editor is being given so much leeway here. 2603:7000:CF0:7280:58B:3BD4:1DAB:AEB4 (talk) 13:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  Libreleah has declared their conflict of interest and has never edited the article directly. If anybody has suggested that they violated our

  COI guideline, I've missed it in the enormous walls of text above. Do you have any evidence of Libreleah doing anything troubling? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk

  ) 15:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• It seems like Yae4 has seemingly quit Wikipedia, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Yae4&diff=prev&oldid=1161304913 . No telling if its a temporary or permanent retirement. Rlink2 (talk) 16:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  Complete with conspiracy theory nonsense claims, to boot. Can't say I'm disappointed they're leaving. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  @El C @Rlink2 @DFlhb Still, the claim they are leaving should not impact our potential decision to block them. We don't know if this is temporily, they might come back after a month. PhotographyEdits (talk) 13:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  Yae4 has exhibited the same abusive behaviour and been warned many times, over many years, as revealed by diffs shown here by several people. Each time, Yae4 fails to take responsibility, and just repeats the same behaviour when the heat dies down. We've seen Yae4's intimidation tactics, taking over articles. Now that the heat is on, he suddenly "quits".

  No, I believe this is a ploy by Yae4. It's a stunt, designed to inspire sympathy so that the admins take no action, or take lighter actions if any. Indeed, Yae4 was quite active right until the very last moment, so I think Yae4 will be back. The stunt itself is evidence of a failure to take responsibility; has Yae4 apologised, and is he likely to?

  I stand by my assertion that Yae4 should be blocked. Wikipedia will be a better place without him. Libreleah (talk) 21:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Despite racking up two Contentious Topics notices, multiple warnings for POV editing, and a warning for edit-warring, Leke23 (talk · contribs) has again reinstated (for something like the dozenth time) their POV edit to List of Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign primary endorsements, where they assert that Simon Ekpa is a "prime minister of a government-in-exile" on the same level as the Prime Minister of Hungary. Yet none of the sources the user has put forward even remotely back up their claims that Ekpa is some kind of official elected politician; they merely describe him as a "self-styled" leader of a movement that considers itself an exiled government.

This user's Wiki career to date has consisted pretty much exclusively of this edit-warring, coupled with miscellanous POV-pushing while attacking others for supposedly failing to remain neutral. There's also the small matter that they are very likely a sockpuppet of a blocked user.

I submit that Leke23's

Support as I would also like to note that their first edit on Simon Ekpa and that they have not edited anything other thing except for Simon Ekpa. PS: They’re probably going to talk about neutrality here. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 11:14, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Comment First, disclosure: I started a section on that talk page trying to seek a compromise. I actually think there might be a good-faith confusion issue here ... because I was a good-faith little confused! Now, as to Leke23, while I think his edit warring should be addressed, I am a little hesitant to throw the

WP:SPA at him and indef. To be clear: I'm not disputing that all of his edits so far have related to Ekpa. But he's also, aside from a few talk page edits in February/April, only been editing for a month. I don't feel particularly strongly on this, but I want to at least suggest that an appropriate remedy would be a short term block to address the edit warring issue and an indef topic or page restriction limiting or prohibiting Leke's edits related to Ekpa (and, assuming Leke can abide by such a restriction and demonstrates interest as to other areas, an appeal would be appropriate). Frankly, we could use more editors interested in Nigerian history, and I think the resolution I propose would, while certainly not guaranteeing success, make it more likely that we ultimately end up with a good editor.--Jerome Frank Disciple

12:21, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

• In case anyone agrees that the edit-warring should be addressed: they're now at 4 reverts on List of Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign primary endorsements in less than 48 hours. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 14:37, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

  I reverted and left a message on the talk page detailing

  WP:3RR and suggesting that the 4 edits in 48 hours will likely be found in violation of it. (I actually missed a date yesterday and originally thought that the user was in violation of 3RR at the time this notice was posted—sorry if I indicated that!)--Jerome Frank Disciple

  14:57, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

  Editor had already received an initial EW warning and a final EW warning; reported to AN3. Schazjmd (talk) 14:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Bbb23 @SuperMarioMan this is probably a return of the Ebuka19 (talk · contribs) / Seok jimmy (talk · contribs) / Odinaka1 (talk · contribs) / Anyinchukwu (talk · contribs) sock farm who were dedicated to writing spammy promotion about Simon Ekpa. I suspect 1st Contributor (talk · contribs) is also a sock/meatpuppet, based on their creation of a draft on the "exiled government" [9], their upload of Simon Ekpa's "official portrait" and the addition of it to the article [10] and their copyediting of content on Simon Ekpa added by User:Leke23 [11] [12]. 192.76.8.66 (talk) 21:15, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

  Welp I definitely take back my "let's give some rope" suggestion.--Jerome Frank Disciple 21:18, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

  Fwiw, that pic has been online since 2017:[13]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

  l have no idea who those people are. This is 1st Contributor, a different contributor. 1st Contributor (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

  Some of their contributions:[14] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps admins should consider

I requested it at

WP:RFPP, and it got declined by Daniel Case. I still think it is appropriate, though. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs}

) 00:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Per their own request.

The timeline goes

• [15] + [16], where they delete part of Jayen466's
  WP:NOTBURO
  '.
• [17] I revert and leave a warning [18]
• While I leave that warning, they re-delete Jayden's comments [19]
• [20] I restore the comments, pointing to my warning
• A discussion occurs (see also [21]), which seemingly goes nowhere.
• They then defiantly re-delete Jayden466's comments, asking to be taken to ANI. (and here we are)
• Jayden466 restores their own comments

There's also some civility issues to be addressed, with uncivil comments directed at both me ("Are you jobless? Like, go write an article." which they later struck) and Jayden466 ("entertain me with a new round of wikilawyering").

I'm not sure a block is needed, but this is highly

• I will add to this story strangely being at the receiving end from TrangaBellam, and as I have not received a reply or acknowledgement from TrangaBellam to my post on their talk page. In summary, they addressed me first as an "idiot"[22] (which I perceive is blockable) and then after about 8-9 hours changed the word to address my actions as "idiocy"[23]. Their talk page and also the talk pages of articles and forums where they interact, are replete with editors requesting TrangaBellam to pipe down their aggression. They seem to be a good editor, so it would be good to have their acknowledgement that they will try and reverse this tendentious trend. Thanks, Lourdes 05:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  Ah, idiot was a typo; I apologize unconditionally. I changed it to "idiocy" when I spotted it, unprodded.

  I reply to my t/p messages, often very late. Unless there is an aspect of urgency. See my t/p history. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• I am not impressed with TrangaBellam's behavior over the last two weeks. In addition to the above, here are some things I've observed recently.
  • Personal attacks against Lourdes at the edit filter noticeboard: [24]. You are indeed horribly wrong, as is (regrettably) often the case — 1, 2, etc., with links to two incidents that surely sting for Lourdes to read and that have nothing to do with edit filters. Refused to strike.
  • Personal attacks against Lourdes at the edit filter noticeboard: [25]. Okay - I could not care less about your support. Later struck after I asked them to do so on my user talk page.
  • Canvassing 5 editors to an RSN discussion, with user talk page messages stating please do !vote. [26][27][28][29][30]. Discussion of the canvassing issue at RSN, which showed no remorse and eventually led to the RSN discussion being closed early and restarted.

–Novem Linguae (talk) 05:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• You understand that those five editors — every one of them — had taken part in this this relevant discussion? Now, did I miss any editor who partook in that discussion? Did I ask them to !vote in any particular way? If the answer to either is in affirmative, please go ahead and sanction me for violating CANVASS. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:38, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• If I'd seen this while it was going on, I'd have blocked. A couple days later, I'd say this ANI complaint is the equivalent of a final warning for edit warring to remove others' comments, incivility, personal attacks, and pretty much everything else going on here. But it looks like we've got a case of ANI flu here, so I doubt there's going to be any further disruption in the next 24 hours. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  No, not really. My editing pattern has been sporadic for months; Xtools is a click away. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  Editor appears to have 2 entries in the AE log from this year. Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2023. One of them is a warning for combative discussion style –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  Novem Linguae, this is well-found. The AE warnings show how this has been a recurrent and continuing problem with the editor. Here, in their responses, they have skirted the issue of personal attack ("idiocy" as being okay substitute for "idiots" to address my orientation), and refactoring. I do find justification for their argument on canvassing. But their reasoning for replying late (they kept editing but did not find time to respond to a personal attack notice) is flimsy. And I find no confirmation that from them that their personal attacks and arbitrary refactoring and similar aggressive posture will not continue. I find other names on the editor's current talk page such as Bookku and ScottishFinnishRadish who are facing/have faced such behaviour. But Abecedare, who has more experience with this editor, may have a better view. Lourdes 03:30, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Lourdes

Anyways, on side note, the definition at the article

Talk:Sengol#Article title naming and scope mismatch may prove to be of constructive help. Bookku (talk

)

@Lourdes: I am hoping that TrangaBellam is listening to the feedback here and realizing that their combative approach and lashing out in disputes is unpleasant for everyone involved, sets up an escalatory cycle with others (understandably) being less inclined to be collaborative, and is unproductive as more time is eventually spent discussing process and behavior than the underlying content/source/policy issue. On the positive front: TB is, afaict, knowledgeable of the subject matter in the areas they edit and dedicated to the project. So if they can dial down the aggression, they can be be more productive and cause less agita. Hope they'll take that path. Abecedare (talk) 19:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Behavioral issues aside, probably there are content issues as well. Yesterday I stumbled into a recently created article and I removed the striking, absolutist remark that a (very) controversial book received critical acclaim in Italy. Out of curiosity I digged a bit, and I noted the claim was added here by TrangaBellam. Apparently TrangaBellam turned the sentence "The book has been generally panned by the critics as a completely insufficient and fallacious analysis" into "received critical acclaim in Italy" and appended a source that does not support the claim (as noted in my edit summary it only says: "In its original Italian version, Anatomy of the Red Brigades won a major prize in 2010, presumably demonstrating that its argument suited the mentalité of Berlusconian Italy"). Also, they marked such a massive and problematic change of content with a misleading edit summary of "Ce" (copyedit). I haven't dug further, but this edit alone makes me question their good faith and their suitability to edit an encyclopedia. --Cavarrone 10:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Meh - half the editors, active over Orsini's t/p thinks that I am too biased against the subject, while you allege the opposite. However, nice catch about the edit-summary; though I will emphasize that the "completely insufficient and fallacious analysis" was unsourced, meriting a BLP del. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:00, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Tobias Hof, while reviewing the English Translation in quite unfavorable terms:

Orsini's original Italian version was mostly well received and was awarded the prestigious Acqui prize in 2010.

There are other reviewers who make the same point. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Putting an unsourced negative claim is problematic, replacing it with a brazenly positive claim (mis)using a random source that does not support the text is not less problematic (at best it is a

WP:CIR issue). About Hof's questionable claim, it is apparently the first and the only relevant result by searching the string "well received" "red brigades" "Orsini" on Google. Not that looking now for sources that might, in retrospect, partially support an improper edit is too relevant to my criticism or would justify/make such an edit acceptable. About talk page discussions, as I have written above I haven't dug beyond that edit, so I don't know about the background and your other contributions to the page, and I only hope it is an isolated incident. Cavarrone

16:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

• Point taken; I acknowledge to have been in the wrong when I edit-warred to refactor Jayen's comments. I felt it to be a good case of
  WP:IAR but evidently, it is not. Additionally, this was a one-off blip — though that doesn't lessen its ramifications — and I do not believe that anybody else has accused me, ever, of refactoring their comments. Moving forward, I plan on being more pleasant and non-combative; I do plan on replying to Lourdes' message at my t/p within the next 48 hours. Fwiw, I do not think that ScottishFinnishRadish has any history with me; I assume that he has been a well-meaning t/p stalker for a while? TrangaBellam (talk
  ) 12:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  Appreciate the response TrangaBellam. Do please stick to these commitments. Thanks, Lourdes 03:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

They're now blocked from here- considering how active they are on other Wikis, I would suggest a global block/lock as well. They've already been warned (and blocked before) on Malaysia Wikipedia. Magitroopa (talk) 13:25, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you (@

Fram (talk

) 13:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@Iwao24 has been acting in bad faith on the Korean influence on Japanese culture page. They have removed tens of thousands of bytes of sources content without consensus, and reverted repeatedly without discussion and very poor explanations.[42][43] I then left them a warning in their talk page.[44] They then left the weirdest racist-sounding message on the arcticle's talk page,[45] which I reverted.[46]

They said, "Google have to explain the reason why this article is being protected. For what reason this article is being protected?"

"Only those poor Japanese who cannot accept the fact that they were taught by Koreans before, is distorting the history. This nasty characteristic of Japanese is not new as a matter of fact. You keep doing distorting the history from your funatic nasty nationalism and you will only get bad reputation for that."

"When I deleted it, I was told to "discuss" and the article was revived

Who am I supposed to argue with on this empty board?

This is the claim of the person who wrote this article.

Wikipedia, editors

are we monkeys".

At this point, I just can't take more of their crap. They are obviously are inserting their own stupid bias into the article and claiming a conspiracy that doesn't exist. They have obviously every read WP:AGF, WP:CIVILITY, or WP:EDITWAR.

I left them a warning for their talk page comment, but I am concerning this behavior may continue. I am calling upon Iwao24 to explain themselves, and for others on here to see the evidence and give their thoughts. Professor Penguino (talk) 01:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah they were initially reasonable on the talk page but quickly deteriorated. I'm surprised this is at ANI though with how he's only made like 9 edits. I figure a short term block might be good. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 01:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Sounds

WP:NOTHERE to me. -- Deepfriedokra (talk

) 02:09, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

One thing I want to note is he has seemingly made a lot of ip comments and edits. This is not abnormal on Japanese wikipedia as I understand it and shouldn't be held against him. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 02:55, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

If we wanna give them any more AGF, how about we give ‘em a

WP:ROPE. Thoughts? MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories)

08:30, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. They continued to be a bit of a nuisance after I put the edit warring template on their talk page, but they didn't listen until I gave them yet another warning. My concern was that this behavior would not be confined to just this one incident, and might happen again in the future if the rules are not properly explained to them. Professor Penguino (talk) 19:10, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

i remember you.

I explained to you in detail why Japanese swords, magatama, the emperor, and politics are not of Korean origin.

You suddenly changed the subject and said, "Yakiniku is made in Korea," right?

Yakiniku is a Korean dish. Similarly, Japanese swords are also Japanese. Iwao24 (talk) 05:13, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think you get how cultural influence works. Japanese swords, magatama, emporer, and politics are not Korean -- they have been, at times, influenced by Korea. What is so hard to understand here? Professor Penguino (talk) 20:27, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

It seems that I was reported as a nuisance user, so I will write a counterargument. The person who wrote that article discriminates Japanese against monkeys. The article that pointed it out was also deleted.

I am not a revisionist historian. I have no intention of denying the sins that the Japanese empire did to Korea. We must apologize again and again for the comfort women issue, colonial rule, and discrimination against Koreans living in Japan.

But Japanese swords, politics, magatama, the emperor, laws, and ancient tombs are not from Korea. Iwao24 (talk) 03:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, most aren't. But some of them are. You can't just go around deleting reliably sourced material. Also, what do you mean by "discriminates Japanese against monkeys"? That doesn't make any sense. Do you mean that there's some racist element in the article? Professor Penguino (talk) 03:52, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, you seemed to imply before that there was some anti-Japanese conspiracy. "Only those poor Japanese who cannot accept the fact that they were taught by Koreans before, is distorting the history. This nasty characteristic of Japanese is not new as a matter of fact. You keep doing distorting the history from your funatic nasty nationalism and you will only get bad reputation for that." I am not Korean. I am unbiased on this topic. You also refer to "the author" of the article, yet don't seem to understand that dozens of different editors have worked on the article. There is no single author. I think you need to read

WP:NPOV. Professor Penguino (talk

) 04:00, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

These are the words left by the former editor, not mine.

The person called Japanese people M, a discriminatory term. Iwao24 (talk) 04:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I just don't understand what your point is. Yes, calling Japanese people monkeys is racist. Can you provide a link that shows the person typing such a statement? Professor Penguino (talk) 04:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Some of the people who wrote that article discriminated against the Japanese by calling them "monkeys."

Can I paste that statement here?

I use a language translation program. Sorry for the poor English Iwao24 (talk) 04:31, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

No worries. Just remember to put it in quotes. Professor Penguino (talk) 04:34, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/782520269 Iwao24 (talk) 05:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I pasted the URL. There is a sentence in this

"This is the answer.

Japanese monkeys gave some money to Google, and make them protect this article that has distorted history produced by Japanese monkeys.

Poor Japanese..." Iwao24 (talk) 05:12, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes that comment is racist, but it was a comment from 2017 by an IP who's only edits to articles was to Taekwondo. Assuming it's still relevant, you it's likely you could revert whatever the IP did to Taekwondo. But otherwise, what relevance is it to our article Korean influence on Japanese culture's current content or your disputes with various accounts in the here and now? Nil Einne (talk) 05:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

The editor of the article contains an obvious racist. At least he was involved, right?

And if the article is correct, why is it different from the specialized page?

For example, the Japanese sword page on Wikipedia does not say that "Japanese swords came from Korea."

Could it be because the page where the racist was involved is skewed?

Also, don't get me wrong, I'm not a historical revisionist. I think that the crimes committed by the Japanese Empire, such as the comfort women system, should be atoned for. But Japanese swords are not Korean Iwao24 (talk) 06:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Japanese swords are not Korean, yes. But a few swords do have their roots in Korea. Professor Penguino (talk) 22:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

"Could it be because the page where the racist was involved is skewed?" But how was the racist involved? They didn't make a single edit to the main article. Professor Penguino (talk) 22:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

If you look at their edit history, they haven't edited the article once, and just left that talk page message. That's right -- they never touched the main article. Professor Penguino (talk) 20:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Can we conclude that there is only one user account? A person who "calls Japanese monkeys" has appeared, and there are articles that are clearly wrong.

For example, the article states, ``Swordsmiths were kidnapped by Hideyoshi's invasion of Korea, and their skills improved the technique of Japanese swords.''

Japanese swords have existed since before the 16th century, right? It is also used for trade, and Ouyang Shu, a politician in the Song Dynasty of China, wrote a poem called "Japanese Sword Song" and praised Japanese swords highly.

Other errors and inconsistencies are noted on the discussion page of the article.

Penguin, I can't speak English. The only way to fix the article was to delete it. I apologize for bothering you

Could you please correct the article? Iwao24 (talk) 09:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Saying Korean swordsmiths improved Japanese swords which already existed is sourced info. And no, the user you mentioned has not edited that article ONCE, only its talk page, which is a completely separate thing. You are complaining about an issue that doesn't exist and deleting sourced info. The article never says the word "mokeys" once, never states that the Japanese royal family started in Korea, or anything of that sort. Professor Penguino (talk) 20:24, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

The article states that Japanese swords, magatama, law, emperors, and burial mounds are of Korean origin. Why don't you ask if you came from Korea on each specialized bulletin board? Iwao24 (talk) 09:31, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

So you think I came from a specialized bulletin board? I don't. Also, the article doesn't state that all of Japanese culture came from Korea. It talks about how Korea has influenced Japan... because it has. The same thing goes for the other way around. If you're still upset, then cite the specific parts you have an issue with. My main problem was that you deleted an entire reference section and damaged a few templates. Whether that was a mistake or not, it damaged the article. I'd be willing to close this discussion nd we can discuss this further on the article's talk page. Professor Penguino (talk) 20:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Japanese sword

Japanese swords were not brought in by immigrants. The curved sword is inspired by the Ainu people of Tohoku.

law

Japanese politics and law are modeled after the laws of the Sui and Tang dynasties in China, and have been modified to suit the climate of Japan.

Katakana

Katakana is directly derived from Kanji

magatama

In Asia, jade, which is the source of magatama, is found only in the westernmost part of China (Tibet) and Japan. According to the latest inspection, the Korean magatama is also derived from the ruins around Itoigawa in Japan. The Japanese have been making magatama since primitive people in 5000 BC

ancient tomb

More than 5,000 have been excavated from Japan. If burial mounds are of Korean origin, why are only a few dozen burial mounds unearthed from South Korea?

emperor

Although the mother of the 50th emperor is of Baekje descent, the imperial family itself did not originate in Korea. The king of Korea also had a Japanese spouse, but the first king of Korea will not be Japanese.

Finally, as a Japanese person, I do not intend to deny crimes against Koreans. We must apologize repeatedly for the comfort women issue, colonial rule, and discrimination against Koreans in Japan. However, Japanese culture and history are not Korean.

Please delete the article or at least correct it. Iwao24 (talk) 09:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Excuse me. I'd like to reach a consensus on the article soon, but is there any theory, including Mr. Penguin, that my claim is wrong? If not, I would like you to write it in the article,

Even if there is, since Wikipedia is neutral, shouldn't we write both "However, there are such opinions"? Iwao24 (talk) 15:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support page ban I don't see any chance of this user editing the article constructively, because he doesn't read English well enough to understand what's written in the article. What he is criticizing either doesn't exist in the article at all, or else is a misreading of the article. He's complaining on the talk page that the article says "tumuli (kofun) were of Korean origin", but it doesn't say that, it says the opposite. He's complaining that the article says "Hideyoshi stole a Korean sword, and Japanese swords prospered because of this technique", but the article doesn't mention that in any way. He's complaining that the article says "the imperial family started in Korea", but the article doesn't say that. He's complaining that "it would be wrong to say that without Korea the Japanese would have turned into monkeys", but the article doesn't say that. I could go on and on, but my point is that this user shouldn't be editing an article that he can't actually read.Homemade Pencils (talk) 17:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  sorry. It may have been my misunderstanding. My only excuse is that "Nihonzaru" is a term often used to insult Japanese people. That's what I've been told in real life and online.

  ``Japanese swords were imported from Korea ``Katakana was invented by Koreans ``The first emperor was Korean ``Kofun was made in Korea ``Magatama is a Korean culture

  If the article doesn't say this, then I'm wrong. sorry. However, if there is, could you please correct it or write both dissenting opinions?

  The source is attached to the discussion

  sorry for the inconvenience Iwao24 (talk) 21:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  No worries. Just be more careful next time. Glad we could work out this little misunderstanding. Have a nice day. Professor Penguino (talk) 02:33, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

• Temporary oppose page ban. They continue to claim that there are things in the article, which, simply put, just aren't there. They say that the article asserts that Japanese swords are Korean -- it does not. I think this is more of a misunderstanding of what is written in the article, as the main article was never edited once by the person Iwao24 thinks wrote the entire thing. Professor Penguino (talk) 20:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  I do not speak English. Because I am using a translator, I may have misinterpreted something. I apologize for that. It is also wrong to be written as a monkey and become emotional. I would like to ask you one more thing.

  Doesn't the article say something like this? If it's not written, it's completely my quick jump. sorry. However, if it is written, I would like to add another opinion

  ``Japanese swords originated in Korea.'' ``Kofun came from Korea.'' ``Magatama came from Korea.'' ``The imperial family originated in Korea.'' Iwao24 (talk) 21:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry if I overreacted. This seems to be an honest misunderstanding. I have done a thorough search of the article for the passages you have cited, but I have been unable to find those quotes. If they were in the article, they have long been removed. Professor Penguino (talk) 22:51, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  Simply put, if you're using Google Translate or another automatic translation system, you should not be editing English Wikipedia. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:13, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  Google Translate can produce respectable first efforts between European languages, but with Oriental languages it can be bizarre. My favourite, of a sentence from jawiki, was "My wife, Mr Yamamoto, ix an imposter". (I gave up.) Narky Blert (talk) 14:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

• Jesteron27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

If you look at this user's talkpage you will see a litany of warnings about unsourced content from me and other authors. This one I posted in April was a level 3 warning. Now they are still adding stuff like a purported Miss America person here. There have also been other unreferenced changes, not noted on their talkpage, like this claimed national contest winner, and issues addressed by other editors, like this.

This has to be addressed by an administrator, I'm afraid. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Hear me out.

The explanations behind those edits:

1. For the case of the Mister Supranational 2023, these kinds of pageants are not (or are rarely) published by news papers or articles. Instead, I would have to rely to the posts and announcements done by their national organizations on Instagram, which I did. But Wikipedia doesn't take Instagram lightly, so where else could I look? Poorly-sourced, yes. But are there any available resources for them? No. The latter doesn't mean that the edit is straight for the bin, as the national organization itself confirms it. Why deny the announcements the national organizations made on their official Instagram accounts, when it is an official statement?

2. Grace Keller, as I've researched on Miss America pageants over the past few years, have indeed participated in the 2022 edition. See Miss America 2022 and find her name there. Additionally, here's a link of her win to confirm: [[47]]. It wasn't purpoted in any way, I just did my research, which was also indicated in her Instagram bio.

3. I was watching it live, that's why there are no sources available yet for Miss Grand Colombia 2023 that time. It was a real-time update, and a real-time update such as that has rare-to-none available sources.

4. The last one was a mistake I've done. She wasn't appointed, like I initially thought.

Also, I would like to call out Bri for removing subnational flags on Miss Teen USA, which has been in every Miss USA and Miss Teen USA pages for a very long time, which I found perflexing since it has been there ever since. They had done this twice. And even to Miss Earth, they applied

MOS:OVERLINKING

to the countries in the "Contestants" section, which is very unnecessary since, like I've said, had been there and then even before me and them joined Wikipedia. Why change the rules now? Why not way back then? Reverting it to the way it was before would be an appropriate course of action for them.