Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1150

Hello, all, I'd like to shine a light on

Seeing this, I reverted these edits and left a warning (among others placed by other editors), with a note not to do this kind of mass change again without consensus at the talk page. The ensuing conversation was not particularly constructive; I was hoping they would stop, but they took my message rather literally and posted a message to every talk page. Again, the question of whether to capitalize "white" and "black" is a valid one, and constructive conversations have been spurred amongst other editors, such as the one on the reverse racism talk page, but AppGoo has not been a particular asset to those conversations, insisting that not capitalizing "White" is incorrect, with ridiculous justifications like it might mean "people painted white". I feel like this edit is a pretty strong indicator about why this is all happening (if it wasn't already obvious).

Today, I notice that, rather than pursue the talk-page conversations or a wider change of consensus at MOS:RACECAPS, they've returned to the mass-changes, though admittedly with a token effort to include capitalization of "Black" as well. Nevertheless, I think this behavior needs to actually stop, and would appreciate some other eyes on how to proceed. Thanks, Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:22, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Between their hobbies comment and this,

WP:NOTHERE coming through loud and clear. @AppGoo0011 knock it off unless you want to be blocked. You're headed that way right now. Star Mississippi

23:42, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

In response to this ANI thread, this user has just sprung the "but I'm Black!" defense by placing this userbox on their user page. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

A few things.

1. Thank you for capitalizing my race.
2. You're misquoting again. I never said those exact words.

AppGoo0011 (talk) 00:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I know you think "white people" can mean "a person dressed in all white or painted white" (???), but surely you don't also think quotation marks can only be used for verbatim quotes! InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

It can, theoretically. It's shorter than saying "people dressed in white" or "people painted white." While with just "White" – so long as it's not at the beginning of a sentence – there's no confusion. AppGoo0011 (talk) 00:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh, please. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:04, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I never thought there'd be such severe opposition to one capital letter. AppGoo0011 (talk) 01:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Ha, you should see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Capitalization of NFL draft article titles. But no one is "opposing" capitalization here, only raising eyebrows at your bizarre reasoning and frowning upon the disruption you're causing. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

The only disruption I see is the mass reverts of my edits. Nobody mentions that many articles have a mix of uncapitalized and capitalized usages of the terms (in the racial context) already, even outside sentence beginnings and quotes. I am improving the pages by resolving such inconsistencies. AppGoo0011 (talk) 01:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

...Except that there's nothing intrinsically wrong with that mixed-caps usage, so your edits are not automatically an improvement. The very MOS link you like to throw around specifically says that there is no consensus to implement a rule [...] against mixed use where editors at a particular article believe it's appropriate, and you're presumably aware that the talk page section you started is in fact trending towards a consensus to use that exact mixed-caps style for that article. So no, you are incorrect to say that removing such "inconsistencies" is necessarily an improvement. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not referring to deliberate mixed usage (which is biased, btw) I'm referring to the articles that have at least one instance of white instead of White or black instead of Black (again, outside of a sentence start or a quote.) AppGoo0011 (talk) 02:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

AppGoo, the "severe opposition" isn't to "one capital letter", it's towards your multiple questionable edits. You can't just run roughshod over a delicate and complicated issue that has pitted Wikipedia editors of good faith against each other, with no real solution in sight other than we're trying to be considerate of the various communities and their various opinions. Someone who goes through capitalizing "white" but not "black"--yeah, don't be surprised if editors suspect your motives. Posting the same question all over various talk pages without seeming to have an interest in the answers, never mind in consensus, that's just trolling. You want to say, stop making absurd arguments (I'm white and not of the painted kind, obviously) and stop with your pointy edits. Just to make sure, here's the link:

What hit me in addition to general activity was Whites are actively demonized for forming racially exclusive groups, Blacks are not.[3] which shows a degree of insensitivity and unfamiliarity (trying to be polite) that suggests they don't belong anywhere near articles related to race. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Cases like this are why I wish the previous RfCs regarding RACECAPS had ended with a clear-cut consensus for some standard for this touchy subject. That's what an MoS is for, after all. "No consensus" is just inviting edit wars and talk-page drama. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

That statement alone should result in a

WP:NOTHERE block. The user is clearly pushing an agenda. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite

18:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• Jishnu Raghav (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Maryam Noor26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please see this COIN report for User:Jishnu Raghav filed on the 21st. They continue to create a page for Jishnu Raghavan under different disambiguations to avoid detection. I filed the SPI at Helloo 68 last week but still awaiting CU. Since that time, I moved yet another disambiguation creation (Jishnu (actor) to draft which was just moved back to mainspace by newer user Maryam Noor26. Can we do a DUCK block on these and possibly protect yet another disamgiation version? --CNMall41 (talk) 05:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Can we blacklist the name? That should solve the repeated recreation attempts, which in turn should frustrate the sock - hopefully enough to stop coming back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B13D:12B7:549F:256E:933:DD82 (talk) 06:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I will never ever come to edit for wikipedia because for what i had came that has been completely fulfilled. I will be happy even if you block me and please don't delete Jishnu article protect his page and don't allow any unregistered user to edit his page. I'm not lying it's my god promise I will not come hereafter. BYE!! Jishnu Raghav (talk) 06:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

FYI to reviewing admins - user has threatened to never leave actually. Hence the multiple sock accounts they have created over the last few months. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

For reviewing admin: diff. NM 07:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Both users have been blocked. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Tagging admins User:The Anome and User:Cullen328 due to their previous involvement in this matter.

User:Angrycommguy has on numerous occasions edit warred and made edits against consensus and wikipedia policy regarding the article Death of Nex Benedict

Laying out specific issues:

MOS:GENDERID:

He has repeatedly deleted the use of they/them pronouns in the article because he considers it "non-neutral wording", despite editorial consensus in talk repeatedly and overwhelmingly being against him. [4]. This is done in favor of referring to them by no pronouns at all in the article and their assigned pronouns in the talk page despite every reliable source in the article and overwhelming talk page consensus agreeing that Nex preferred they/them pronouns, and not a single source apart from his own WP:OR saying anything to the contrary. When these changes are reverted per ONUS, GENDERID, BRD, and a million other regs, he edit wars them back and says that since there's no consensus (because he personally doesn't agree based on his OR), there should therefore be no pronouns at all and demands admin involvement before he allows pronouns (this is all done unilaterally).[5] He additionally then demands that Nex's assigned sex at birth be included despite no reliable source making note of it, due to needing to understand "the nuance" of them being beaten and then dying shortly thereafter (more on that phrasing in a moment) without having to "go dig for information".[6] When these edits are reverted per WP:BRD, he re-reverts them, calls anything to the contrary censorship, and posts in talk one variant or another of the saying 'facts don't care about your feelings'.[7][8][9](There's a lot more than these)

He also repeatedly demands in talk that Nex be deadnamed, posts their deadname in talk (since removed by other editors), and then refuses to WP:DROPTHESTICK in favor of WP:BLUDGEONING the process with claims of censorship, that anything to the contrary of his view is "self research" no matter how many RSP secondary sources are cited, and makes more 'facts don't care about your feelings' posts.[10][11][12]

WP:BLPCRIME

He has also, both in talk and in article edits, wrote that the deceased committed criminal assault over the deceased throwing water on someone, despite not even charges being filed. When this is reverted per BRD, ONUS, and overwhelming talk page consensus already having been against him on this exact point, he edit wars it back in[13][14] and calls anything else vandalism.[15][16]

When anyone tries to tell him that any of these things are a violation of wikipolicy, his response is "Are you an admin? You're not".[17]

The diffs cited here are not an exhaustive list, I should stress. For a fuller picture, look at the talk page. Really just look at the talk page in general.

Snokalok (talk) 23:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Tagging users @Sideswipe9th @LilianaUwU @Funcrunch @Firefangledfeathers @Callumpenguin Who can provide corroboration or refutation as needed Snokalok (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Methinks a topic ban is in order. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Topic ban for the subject or perhaps a 1rr revert restriction that forces them to gain consensus on talkpage. Unbroken Chain (talk) 00:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

A one-revert restriction wouldn't be effective in the slightest. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

User:LilianaUwU IMO it gives them rope. It allows them a voice while restricting article disruption. If the behaviors persist the sanctions increase. Looks like by my count they have breached 3 RR so that's why I was suggesting. I do not however hold a strong opinion here though, these are just my thoughts. Unbroken Chain (talk) 00:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Unbroken Chain, people who deadname trans and nonbinary people should not be given rope, they should be given an indef. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

User:LilianaUwU we allow all sorts of racists and POV pushers here, still need to be evenhanded in sanctions. What I was unaware of was the Enforcement warnings and arbcom case. Looks like they already had their rope and used it. Unbroken Chain (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

No, we don’t—and if we did, that would be a bug, not a feature. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

They do not need to be allowed a voice when it's being used for transphobia. C.f.

WP:NONAZIS BLP applies to recent deaths @Unbroken Chain. I'm not going to overrule @ScottishFinnishRadish who is more well versed than I in CT/DS, but I think the INDEF has been earned. Star Mississippi

00:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Star Mississippi A person does however deserve to be given a chance to rectify their behavior before we go scorched earth. It's the whole basis of assume good faith. Daryl Davis is a great exemplifier of this IMO. Change the hate and misperception from the inside. You're entitled to your opinion though and I respect it. Hopefully the limited sanctions imposed today is enough to change that behavior. I try and avoid these subjects as much as possible because it's impossible to please either side or have balanced conversations because of the strong feelings it invokes. Hope one day both sides can actually talk about things rather then just vilify each other. Big eye opener for me was taking a gender and sexuality class in university, learned a lot. Thankfully there was people there that did not share your view on how to handle those with misplaced understandings. Unbroken Chain (talk) 00:40, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm extending a bit of AGF that they're simply not aware of the intersection of

WP:BLP, and perhaps they weren't trying to deadname, but instead follow primary sourcing they've reviewed. If there's a consensus that they should just be indeffed and be done with it, that is fine with me. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk

) 00:37, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

You're my favorite root vegetable, but no one is arguing in good faith that the use of "they" is confusing or removing pronoun entirely in good faith. This is straight up disruption Star Mississippi 00:44, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm conflicted because, on the one hand, I appreciated a system that errs on the side of mercy and reform; and new users are certainly prone to doing stupid things, so it's reasonable and even constructive to let them learn.

On the other hand, I can feel wrinkles in my face in places I didn't even know it was possible to get wrinkles from the stress of today.

If it was me, I would've gone down the middle with an indefinite gensex topic ban, especially in light of previous warnings by admins on the topic, but you're the admin acting here and you're vastly more experienced and well-versed than I will ever be, so, thank you for acting quickly. Snokalok (talk) 00:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

This was meant to be a reply to @ScottishFinnishRadish. Sorry1 Snokalok (talk) 00:47, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

If the behavior pops up anywhere else in the topic area it'll be taken care of quickly. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:53, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish has p-blocked. I was going to indef entirely. These edits and anyone making them do not belong here. Star Mississippi 00:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed if you straight up indeffed. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Appreciated. Snokalok (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Angrycommguy's editing behavior was causing me a fair amount of stress. Funcrunch (talk) 00:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm hoping that they can continue to make productive edits to military articles, cleanup any copyvio issues they've created in draftspace, and learn the applicable policies and guidelines. If the behavior spreads to other articles in the topic then I'd support a full topic ban or block. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:29, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I gave the editor some frank advice. They said they would probably stop editing the article but instead continued. I endorse the page blocks. Cullen328 (talk) 00:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Good p-block. I've been considering filing a request at

WP:AE, as their behaviour falls very short of what we'd expect in this content area. I'd probably have advocated for a TBAN though, give them a chance to be productive in what was previously their primary interest of the US Air Force. I'd have some concerns that this behaviour might spread to other GENSEX articles, but I can understand taking a lighter touch as they haven't edited any other GENSEX articles or talk pages. I suspect if they do continue this behaviour elsewhere though, other sanctions can swiftly be put in place. Sideswipe9th (talk

) 00:47, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

The spreading to other GENSEX articles is what I worry about also, especially because we've probably now pissed him off with *waves around* all this. Snokalok (talk) 00:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Ugh, great. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:51, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I might be a bit of a

baka, I read "The spreading" as "they're spreading". Oops. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions}

) 00:53, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

If the behaviour spreads to other articles, I'm sure an admin will be willing to do a GENSEX topic ban so I don't see a need to worry about this at the time.

I haven't not looked that carefully at the edits, but I'm not sure why editors think an indef would be normal in this situation especially since editors seems to be treating it as a goodbye forever or at least a long time type of indef. Even a GENSEX topic-ban is might be justified but seems unnecessary. Possibly some editors without any real history have been indeffed for something similar, but those are cases when we have no reason to think they can contribute productively elsewhere so do make sense and also those indefs are generally more in the form, well since we have no reason to think you can do so, please convince an admin you can, rather than a goodbye forever/longtime.

For example, I'm aware of at least one editor who's behaviour in violation of GENSEX is arguably worse and involved multiple articles and both pronoun and deadname related issues, and only received a 31 hours block. Incidentally they too didn't receive a topic ban, they're back to editing and so far seem to have stayed away from anything related (although it has only been a few days).

I'm also reminded of a massive blowup when a fairly well known editor was blocked and threatened with an indef for something vaguely similar pronoun related to what seems to be involved here. The editor retired after that but the whole thing was very controversial and there was never any suggestion we should already indef, just if the behaviour was repeated. Yes it involved an editor rather than a subject so GENSEX doesn't apply per se, but other guidelines policies do. And okay, the editor involved was fairly popular, and the editor they referred to was um controversial, and already indefed neither of that seems relevant. And yeah it was 3 years ago, but I think the other example is evidence it's not that out standards have changed so drastically.

Likewise, in terms of DEADNAME issues, there were problems recently at another article, but the editor seems to have desisted, without any block or topic ban, although they were warned.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

The problem with the absurd mass attacks on every instance of the word "they" in the article is that they obscure the fact that there are problems with a couple of sentences where there are two or even three possible referents for a pronoun that, speaking with my reader hat on, doesn't convey information to or confuses us readers. Uncle G (talk) 05:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Related

WP:TPO violation concern at Talk:Death of Nex Benedict

For example, Mustachio0 asked Should Nex's given name be included?, and in the comment underneath included the deadname; LilianaUwU redacted it, saying no you're not including the name.

When an editor asked them to refrain from this behavior, on the grounds that it was against TPO, they refused, saying You think I'm gonna let a flagrant GENDERID violation stand?

I don't know whether it would be appropriate to include the name in this case, but the correct location to determine that is the talk page, and it isn't helpful to censor those discussions - it makes it harder to hold the discussion, it makes it harder to look for pertinent sources, and it deters people from participating in the debate. I'm not sure how to address this, but I think it needs to be raised. BilledMammal (talk) 22:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Please (re)read

deadnames of trans and nonbinary people should not be included on Wikipedia, even on talk pages. Funcrunch (talk

) 02:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I was familiar with that policy when I undid the edit, but I originally thought it would not apply in this circumstance given its specification of "living". XeCyranium (talk) 02:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I was the editor who reverted the first two edits to that comment, I initially thought the usual BLP concerns concerning former names wouldn't apply, given the subject's death. I was informed of this recent RFC which found that BLP privacy restrictions should still apply even after death in all circumstances for an indeterminate but presumably reasonable amount of time. So as it is I think it was okay for editors to have redacted the name though I do think referring to that RFC in the edit summaries would have made things smoother. XeCyranium (talk) 02:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

You were misled; BLP does apply briefly after death, but

WP:BLP

and only applies to living individuals.

Further, there is a consensus that "Where the deadname appears in reliable sources, the question of whether to publish it on Wikipedia is one for editorial judgment", with there being occasional consensus to include the deadname of living individuals in contravention of GENDERID, such as at Isla Bryson case - it isn't appropriate for individual editors to decide that a discussion about whether a deadname should be included is a flagrant GENDERID violation, nor is it appropriate for them to unilaterally remove it. BilledMammal (talk) 03:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The provisions that a non-notable former name should not be included in any page, even if reliable sourcing exists, are founded on

WP:BDP

to its pre-2021 state where it automatically applies, BLPPRIVACY based provisions would apply to circumstances such as those for Nex Benedict.

It is also entirely possible to hold a discussion on inclusion of a non-notable former name, without actually mentioning that name in the discussion. You could quite easily ask the question "Should we include Nex' former name?" without having to include it in the question. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The provisions that a non-notable former name should not be included in any page, even if reliable sourcing exists, are founded on

WP:BLPPRIVACY

.

BLPPRIVACY doesn't say what you think it says. It pertains to full names, not former names, and it does so in the context of identity theft. Further, it provides an exception for when the name is sufficiently covered in reliable sources - and Mustachio0 question was whether we should include it on the basis of the coverage in reliable sources.

You could quite easily ask the question "Should we include Nex' former name?" without having to include it in the question You could, but it makes it extremely difficult to find relevant sources and it suppresses discussion - look at the RfC and post-RfC discussion on Talk:Isla Bryson case, and see what editors were able to find when the name was provided that they weren't able to find previously. BilledMammal (talk) 04:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

as a privacy interest separate from (and often greater than) the person's current name. Funcrunch (talk

) 05:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Come on, BilledMammal. Isla Bryon committed her crimes under her deadname - so it makes some sense that it is included, even if I disagree with it. Nex Benedict was not notable under their former name. This is the whole point of

MOS:GENDERID. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions}

) 04:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I haven’t considered whether Nex’s should be included in the article, and I suspect if I did I would find it shouldn’t - but what I have considered is that it isn’t appropriate for you to edit others comments in violation of

WP:TPO and generally shut down the consideration of that question. BilledMammal (talk

) 05:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Alright, let me ask this question: would you want my (currently private) deadname to be plastered all over the place if I died under mysterious circumstances? The exact same logic applies here. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

It depends on the specifics, but I suspect that I would oppose including it in the article. However, if it is reported in reliable sources and an editor raises the question of including it in good faith on the basis of those sources then we must be able to consider that question - Wikipedia is not censored. BilledMammal (talk) 05:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Don't trot out

WP:NOTCENSORED as an excuse here. We do censor all the time, hence BLP. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite

18:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

BLPPRIVACY doesn't say what you think it says. If that's the case, why does GENDERID link to it when it tells us that we should treat non-notable former names as a privacy interest that is both separate from and often greater than a person's current name?

You could, but it makes it extremely difficult to find relevant sources Having edited the article since shortly after its creation, I'm familiar with all of the sourcing for it, and there are no relevant reliable sources that exclusively use or mention Benedict's former name. All sources that contain their former name also contain their current name, with many having a correction notice for formerly including and using the wrong name. There are no reliable sources on Benedict prior to their death. This is nothing like the Isla Bryson case.

it suppresses discussion No. Discussion on inclusion of a non-notable former name is free to happen regardless of whether or not it is currently included on the talk page.

look at the RfC and post-RfC discussion on Talk:Isla Bryson case, and see what editors were able to find when the name was provided Do you mean the one discussion where there's a bunch of what appears to be unsourced original research? Because all of the sources provided in the subsequent discussion contained both Bryson's former and current names. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

GENDERID can link to whatever it likes, it doesn’t change what BLPPRIVACY says. BilledMammal (talk) 05:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Or maybe it's because the longstanding community consensus is that we treat non-notable former names as a strong privacy interest, per how BLPPRIVACY handles all other types of personal private information. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that there was ever such a consensus, but the most recent is that The community agrees that there is no rule that deadnames must be removed. Given the absence of such a consensus it is inappropriate to edit other editors good faith comments to remove them - and if you want to make such edits, get a consensus to modify BLPPRIVACY first. BilledMammal (talk) 06:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes the close of that discussion says that, but its in the context of revdelling and oversight. In this instance we're not talking about edits that have been revdelled or oversighted, just redacted by other editors. You were the only editor in that discussion expressing the same concern as you've done in this discussion, about removal stifling discussion, with others who were opposing saying that the non-notable former names shouldn't always be considered for RD2 or OS.

That close also states that the decision for removal is one of editorial judgement. In this circumstance, multiple editors have expressed that in their judgement removal is warranted.

The text on treating non-notable former names as a privacy interest that is separate from and often greater than the person's current name was added on 8 October 2020 as a result of this August 2020 RfC where similar wording was discussed. While there was subsequent discussion and an edit war on other text added around this time, the provision on treating the former name as a separate and usually greater privacy interest has remained in place since it was added. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIVACY is likewise irrelevant (for multiple reasons, not the least of which is that it appeared editors were attempting to evaluate sources in furtherance of reaching a consensus on whether to include or exclude the name from the article). A group of editors should not be able to completely derail a talk page conversation dealing with the very thing they're adamantly against having in article-space. It's disruptive. —Locke Cole • t • c

06:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

As others have said, there's absolutely no reason why we need to include the dead name in any discussions of whether to include it. Excluding any mention of it is perfectly normal and it's reasonable to edit other comments while making it clear this was done to remove it. It's also fairly common we do this with cases where it's not a dead name, but simply a real name with limited sourcing or where

WP:BLPPRIVACY may apply although in that case, there can sometimes be some confusion what name is being referred to so it can get iffy. (On the flipside, if there is insufficient sourcing oversight of this alleged real name be justified.) Nil Einne (talk

) 10:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

While the phrasing of LilianaUwU's edit summary was a little brusque, in light of the

talk

) 05:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Didn't say it didn't apply or that we don't adhere to it. But the language used in reverting wasn't a little brusque; it was deliberately provocative, from an editor with a history of warnings about needling. You can be in the right about an issue, but still not handle it well. Asking an admin to intervene is just as effective, and keeps things from unnecessarily overheating. Messing around with others' comments guarantees overheating, as I said. Grandpallama (talk) 06:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

It wonder if it is the case that deadnaming, on the talk page of an article with a recent history of editors committing

talk

) 07:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Of course it's not the case, unless one decides to pick a fight instead of seeking uninvolved admin help; in fact, "this is a sensitive topic" is an argument that reduces our tolerance for angry engagement. The inability to edit a topic or page without getting overheated (especially when combined with a

confrontational approach) is the classic Wikipedia rationale for TBANS and other editing restrictions. It's not lost on me that the editors with whom I'm most in agreement with from a philosophical and policy perspective are also exhibiting concerning behavior, but those behavioral concerns are real and justified. Grandpallama (talk

) 15:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• It's quite clear that MOS:GENDERID and BLPPRIVACY and many other related pages are in proper congruence with each other on this sort of matter and that includes discussions on talk pages. Particularly since there is no need to use such names even if one is discussing something about them. There's already been one person removed from the page from the discussion above and it seems likely that the several others pushing for the usage of the subject's deadname on the talk page are also pushing the same POV stick and will, in time, find themselves t-banned, if not worse. Best to nip this in the bud from the outset. Silverseren^C 06:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  Your comment is a little ambiguous; when you say "use", do you mean "mention"? - see Use–mention distinction. I don't know if other editors were using the deadname, but Mustachio0 was only mentioning it. BilledMammal (talk) 06:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  There are editors who have been using (not mentioning) the former name on the talk page, and advocating for its use (not mention) in the article. One of them has since been page blocked as a CTOP action. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• Can more admins keep an eye on the talk page? Beyond the gross misgendering and repeated use of the dead name of the person who died, some editors on the 'other side' (so to speak) have unfortunately let emotions get the better of them and are making the claim it was murder when there has been no charge let alone a conviction; and indeed AFAIK it hasn't even been found that it's a homicide yet. Nil Einne (talk) 18:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Nil Einne You do know we have admins in that very talk section saying the same thing: “kill”. We have an admin there saying that it was a kill. [18] Snokalok (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  That's a problem, and people on the talkpage need to cool it. Grandpallama (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Sir Knson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is indef blocked, has amazingly returned as Knson Gold (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), as well as multiple IPs 2A02:C7C:A739:F700:B919:232:A560:9B58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 2A02:C7C:A739:F700:BD92:7D5B:6E32:1CEF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 2A02:C7C:A739:F700:13E:82D7:30CF:2B35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) etc. I'd take it to SPI, but it seems perfunctory. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked by a few people, including me. IznoPublic (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

On the talk page of Dean Mahomed, @Bengal213x: is now engaging in legal threats against Wikipedia and myself following a reversion after he removed sourced content. Please refer to this diff:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dean_Mahomed&diff=prev&oldid=1210477551 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ixudi (talk • contribs) 20:37, 26 February 202 (UTC)

User blocked. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

This account is presumably the same as the several IPs that were likewise disruptively-editing this article a week ago, leading to a semi-protection at that time. DMacks (talk) 22:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Persistent creation of Indian election articles by Maphumor (talk · contribs)

1. 2027 Uttarakhand Legislative Assembly election
2. 2027 Punjab Legislative Assembly election
3. 2027 Gujarat Legislative Assembly election
4. 2027 Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly election

User has not responded to inquires about the mass creation of articles on their talk page, (see User talk:Maphumor#Mass creating new articles in mainspace with obvious errors, Diff) and these pages contain obvious errors such as Legislative Assembly elections were held in Uttarakhand on 2027 Nov to elect 70 members of the Uttarakhand Legislative Assembly. The votes were counted and the results were declared on 10 March 2022..

Further, their recent edits take to changing election information and results without sources, see Special:Diff/1210485401

Going further back, they recently frequently create Next election in xyz pages that are frequently moved to draftspace for the same concerns. Overall disruptive editing practice and failure to abide by

microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 21:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not familiar if this meets the threshold of

WP:NPP. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths}

] 21:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Further changes without sources as described above: Special:Diff/1210486763, Special:Diff/1210487748, and Special:Diff/1210488246. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 21:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Insertion of false information into articles is vandalism and this editor has received several warnings over the years. I think a week-long block is appropriate to prevent further vandalism, especially since this editor isn't responding. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I would also note the lack of response above at #Regular vandalism, edit warring by Maphumor. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 01:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I suspect they may be an LLM editor. My radar is going off on those Soni (talk) 01:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

• See additional discussion of this editor above. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Maphumor is continuously contesting in edit warring. He deletes Wikipedia informations without explanation according to his whims. He is seen continuously to impose his edits over other editors. If you see his edits, his edits are mainly of deleting information. Besides, he clearly seems to uphold or suppress specific specific political ideas (he probably does not like that is not my issue...His disruptions is making problems). His edits can be included in Vandalism, Disruptions, Edit Warring, Biased editing. Multiple editors @User:Dhruv edits, @User:Shaan Sengupta, @User:Happyjit Singh, User:XYZ 250706. Please take steps against his edits. A discussion regarding him was done here previously also with no outcome. User:XYZ 250706 (talk) 13:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

You need to provide specific

vandalism has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia, and false accusations can be considered personal attacks. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite

18:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Indian_National_Developmental_Inclusive_Alliance_candidates_for_the_2024_Indian_general_election&oldid=1210034588 Here he deletes Party names as per his wishes even many editors have said him not to delete them. XYZ 250706 (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2024_Indian_general_election_in_Tamil_Nadu&oldid=1209209948 Maphumor here deleted AIADMK party (major party in Tamil Nadu) without giving explanation or sources. XYZ 250706 (talk) 17:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Such activities are continuous. If he does not do such activities, many number of editors would not have to warn him continuously. XYZ 250706 (talk) 17:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• See additional discussion of this editor below. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Please see my talk page thread User talk:Maile66#WP:G7 I'm not sure what is involved to revert this delete, which I originally saw on Category: Candidates for speedy deletion. Could any admin step in and perform what this user needs? Thanks. — Maile (talk) 02:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your willing to help. However, this issue should have been posted to

talk

) 02:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Muhammad Jalal al-Din (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

New editor, registered today, removing references and making large numbers of unsourced changes, mainly changing the "creed" of individuals between

Timothy, thank you for taking this to the administer noticeboard, it is well needed. This new editor is coming with a malicious motive and hasn't learned our community guideline policy. He comes in and immediately takes the route of vandalism by disrupting long-standing content without notifying other editors and their contribution. He makes addition without adding any reference [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] and sometimes he removes longer established references and replaces it with unreliable sources [32] [33] [34] [35]. He also bluntly decides to engage in an edit-war with multiple users. [36] [37] [38] [39] It's clear this user is not here to respect the community or their contribution but rather he's here for an agenda. Ayaltimo (talk) 06:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

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

-

[40] (his 1st rv, reverted then by me)

[41] (his 2nd rv, reverted then by @HaeB)

[42] (3rd one, he'd rv Apaugasma's edit, reverted then by @Toddy1)

[43] (4th one, he'd rv Toddy1's reversion, was reverted then by @TryKid)

[44] (5th, rv some text)

[45] (6th, rv @DenverCoder19's reversion, was reverted then by @Toddy1)

-

[46] , [47] warned by @HistoryofIran

[48] by @Kuru

[49] by @Diannaa

[50] by @Isabelle Belato

[51] by @AhmadLX

[52] by @Gotitbro

[53], [54] by @LouisAragon

[55] by @Girth Summit

[56] by @Apaugasma

[57] by @Toddy1

-

[58] Pointed out by @AhmadLX

[59] (Including cherrypicking &

[60] Unsourced.

-

StarkReport was informed by Toddy1 [61], [62] that deleting text but leaving its sources is something that destroys verifiability. He replied with "alright" [63]. He had also been warned about something similar by TryKid [64]. However, just recently he overwrote some text but again left the sources of the text he removed [65]. Even though those abundant sources were for information that was very different from the text he just entered.

-

[66] Almost exact copy from [67] p. 6. (Compare the edit with [68] the parts I underlined, he merely added "According to the influential thesis of Ameer Ali" at the beginning of the passage.)

-

[69] Removed sourced content that

... Muslim world exporting as many as 17 million slaves to the coast of the Indian Ocean, the Middle East, and North Africa

[70] Again censorship (−1,061‎)‎. Warned then by AhmadLX [71].

Starkreport then proposed a draft on the article's talk page. However, @Apaugasma considered that his draft:

"is a lot worse than the original. What it trims are not needless details, but the context needed to understand how exactly the views of the different scholars differ. The proposed revision reads as if all these views are more or less the same. This not only misrepresents these views (since in actuality they are rather different), it also gives the paragraph –even though it is shorter than the original– an almost superfluous feel."

[72] Trying to remove this sourced material:

"Aisha also spoke her mind, even at the risk of angering Muhammad. On one such instance, Muhammad's "announcement of a revelation permitting him to enter into marriages disallowed to other men drew from her [Aisha] the retort, 'It seems to me your Lord hastens to satisfy your desire!"

- Again

Starkreport was told by Apaugasma on the

[80] Warned by @HaeB to "not throw around links to pages that do not mean what you claim they mean."

[81] Told by me that he was misrepresenting what Apaugasma said. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 02:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

1. Displaying revisions from over a year and a half ago, during a period when I was less experienced, all of which were successfully resolved amicably.

2. Misrepresenting the minor issues as significant ones.

3. Utterly false accusations and distortions like "Trying to remove this sourced material"[82] where as I merely discussed it with a senior user and he simply stated "I think it contributes a lot to our understanding of their relationship" and the end.

I absolutely refute this appaling fabricated evidence which has been manipulated to align with the perspective of a single user, Kaalakaa.

This is a clear-cut case of

WP:Bullying's False accusations and Misrepresentation

. Please tak action against this sort of behavior.

To the administrators, I respectfully request to ask those mentioned above like Apaugasma, @Toddy1, @Anachronist, and others about what do they think. StarkReport (talk) 05:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Again, you are trying to mislead people. The ones from 1.5 years ago are just a few of the warnings on your talk page, while the diffs about your behavior are mostly recent. And many of them are by no means minor. Anyway, I'm already tired of your incoherent bludgeoning. The evidence is there, let's just see what the admins have to say. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 22:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• Responding to pings. I'm sorry, but I don't have time for this. Both of you seem to seek out difficult and controversial Islam-related issues, yet neither of you seem to have a proper understanding of the historiography of Islam, nor the editorial skill to forge a consensus on thorny subjects.
  I was pinged to Talk:Aisha on 30 January, and responded that I wouldn't be investing a full week's time into this. Yet you both are still bickering there and elsewhere. Both of you, indeed StarkReport somewhat more than Kaalakaa, but both of you are causing serious timesinks for other editors.
  My advice for you two is to stop editing Islam-related articles, and to go and edit something on which you have less strong feelings and more expertise. My advice to the community is that if this doesn't stop, topic bans on Islam-related subjects should be considered. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

  Dear @Apaugasma, I apologize if you think of me that way. But on that article's

  WP:ORN [83] I simply pointed out the gross source misrepresentation StarkReport made in another article, which still doesn't get a response from him. There is indeed a difference of opinion between me and you (which is normal for people) regarding the treatment of a fringe theory about Aisha (you yourself agreed with me that it is a fringe theory [84]), which you have not responded to here. Maybe it's because you haven't had time, or maybe my concern isn't worth responding to for you. But if you think I should be given the same sanction as StarkReport, who I believe has done the violations I listed above, I think that is very unfair. I believe that I have always tried to write articles in accordance with our policies and guidelines. If you see problems with my other edits, feel free to point them out and I will try my best to answer or fix them. But still, I respect your opinions, even if I find them hard to accept. 🙂 — Kaalakaa ^(talk)

  00:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

  @

  WP:CIR

  is exhausting. And, despite my explicit clarification "Kaalakaa, my argument has nothing to do with including the views of Muslims scholars rather the content like however, elsewhere Tabari appears to suggest----- " which was made by consensus way before both of us "should not be removed under no circumstances" and yet you shamefully tried to manipulate it "But not long after that, he did it again" and tried to get me banned. But, to no avail.

  Wikipedia is not a

  WP:BATTLEGROUND and stop treating it as such. Else you will be sanctioned. StarkReport (talk

  ) 06:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

• Speedy close -
  WP:FORUMSHOP There was already a report of StarkReport ^{created by Kaalakaa 22:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)} at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Source misrepresentation and cherrypicking in History of Hinduism
  . It is best to deal with that complaint first.

The list of complaints by Kaalakaa (above) is over-long because it contain duplication. @StarkReport: would do him/herself a big favour if he used talk page archiving. With talk page archiving it would be easy to see that he/she had dealt with some (or most) of the warnings in an entirely satisfactory way. If he/she wants, I will set it up for him.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:38, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

The No Original Research noticeboard has a different purpose than this one (ANI). If an editor has engaged in multiple different forms of problematic behavior (e.g. misrepresenting sources on the one hand and e.g. edit-warring, battleground behavior, misrepresenting other editors' comments, or misrepresenting Wikipedia policies on the other hand), then I don't see why it should be prohibited to raise each in the most appropriate noticeboard around the same time.

In any case, concerning the NOR noticeboard thread you brought up (which Kaalakaa had already cross-linked above): Despite StarkReport's vocal but unspecific denial (Absolutely not. [...]), two other editors appear to since have agreed there that StarkReport has indeed misrepresented sources. Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Then kindly, also read ahead. The editor who also agreed has proposed this sentence "The Mughal kings of the golden age were known for their religious tolerance, and they actively patronized the arts and literature"

Now tell me is it really that different from what I wrote "Under the Mughals, India experienced a period of relative stability and prosperity. The Mughals were known for their religious tolerance, and they actively patronized the arts and literature." Is this what you call misrepresentation??

Nonetheless, I have already tried to address the concerns by removing the sources and providing alternative references days ago after the complaint. If the issue continues, I suggest to engage in a discussion on the article's talk page instead of magnifying it unnecessarily here and making a mountain out of a molehill. StarkReport (talk) 07:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@StarkReport: The source is far more specific than your summary of it. The difference in meaning is important - and is explained rather well by Kaalakaa at WP:NOR#source misrepresentation and cherrypicking in History of Hinduism. Please stop being defensive; he/she has shown that you should have read the source more carefully, and not just the sentence you were trying to summarise.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

There is also an element of spin in the above report. The claimed "edit war" consisted of a list of all the reverts he/she made to the page on Aisha between 30 January and 23 February.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

There is also an element of spin in the above report. The claimed "edit war" consisted of a list of all the reverts he/she made to the page on Aisha between 30 January and 23 February.

Isn't slow edit warring blockable? Like these cases, perhaps: [85], [86]

And the first four of his reversions, which I listed above, took place between January 30, 2024 and February 3, 2024.

WP:FORUMSHOP There was already a report of StarkReport created by Kaalakaa 22:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC) at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Source misrepresentation and cherrypicking in History of Hinduism. It is best to deal with that complaint first.

I'm not sure about that.

WP:ORN

is not a place to "report" on an editor's behaviour, it is a place to ask for input on possible original research. And the issue I raised there is just one of the many things I listed above. Also, I posted this report here because I saw the 6th rv by him.

The list of complaints by Kaalakaa (above) is over-long because it contain duplication.

Which part is a duplicate? Let me know so I can strike it.

would do him/herself a big favour if he used talk page archiving. ... If he/she wants, I will set it up for him.

That, I think, is a pretty good idea. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 17:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

This is one example of duplication.

• 107 by @Toddy1.
• StarkReport was informed by Toddy1 22, 23 that deleting text but leaving its sources is something that destroys verifiability. He replied with "alright" 24.

I have not checked to see whether there are others duplicates. If I were you I would also strike through the nonsensical complaint of edit warring above - if you look at the diffs: No. 1 & 2 are about one thing, No. 3 & 4 are about a different thing, No. 5 is about yet another thing, and No. 6 is about a load of different things. i.e. the six reverts done over a 25 day period are about four different edits. You are beating a dead horse. Both you and StarkReport are inexperienced. Just accept that you have made a mistake. We all make them. Be willing to accept advice. And if there is still an issue with StarkReport's behaviour after the other forum report is closed, wait two weeks and figure out which forum is best for it, and then make a report that applies the lessons about what was wrong with this one.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

This is one example of duplication.
*107 by @Toddy1.
*StarkReport was informed by Toddy1 22, 23 that deleting text but leaving its sources is something that destroys verifiability. He replied with "alright" 24.

The one above is in the list of warnings on his talk page, while the one below is my elaboration of one of his WP:CIR/WP:IDHT issues. So I don't think it's a duplicate.

No. 1 & 2 are about one thing, No. 3 & 4 are about a different thing, No. 5 is about yet another thing, and No. 6 is about a load of different things.

WP:EW

:

The term "revert" is defined as any edit (or administrative action) that reverses or undoes the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, and whether performed using undo, rollback, or done so completely manually.

the six reverts done over a 25 day period are about four different edits.

As I mentioned earlier, his first 4 reverts happened between January 30, 2024 and February 3, 2024. He had received an edit-warring warning [87] from Apaugasma after his 3rd revert. It was only his 5th and 6th reverts that took place on February 23, 2024. Perhaps this case of another editor can be used as a comparison. Their first 4 reverts happened between July 8 and July 13, 2013, while their 5th and 6th reverts happened on August 1 and August 3, 2013, respectively. But they got blocked for edit-warring, nonetheless.

the other forum report

Dear Toddy, like I already said,

WP:ORN is not a place to "report" on an editor's behaviour, it is a place to ask for input on possible original research. And the issue I raised there is just one of the many things I listed above. Also, I posted this ANI report here because I saw the 6th rv by him. If I only report it later after the issue I raised on WP:ORN is archived, I'm afraid it will be too late to report this edit warring case. 🙂 — Kaalakaa ^(talk)

03:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

How does an editor whose account was created in 2023 know about a WP:AN/3RR case from 2013?-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@Toddy1, If its any relevance, Kaalakaa has also been under suspicion of engaging in sockpuppetry. After @DeCausa asked him about it, he clearly refused to give a direct answer. See SPI investigation.

You are more informed about the necessity of initiating another more thorough immediate investigation if it is required. StarkReport (talk) 09:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I've only seen Kaalakaa at Muhammad. It's pretty obvious they edited extensively before this account and, for whatever reason, don't wish to disclose it. I don't know who they were previously so it's not something I would take to SPI. Don't know anything about the issues in this thread. DeCausa (talk) 09:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea if or by what account Kaalakaa edited previously, but as far as the linked SPI report goes, I am 100% sure that Kaalakaa is not Loverofediting (and trust me, I'm in a position to know that). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@Toddy1: Didn't you know that we had a search function? The results can be very random if you don't sort by date, though. Like the reason I got that case. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 10:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I haven't read through the whole complaint, but seeing StarkReport's behaviour around the time I had an eye on the talk page, I do see a pattern of obnoxious (civil?) POV-pushing. And now silly references to "battleground behaviour", "CIR", "IDHT" against the complainant here—pre-empting or mirroring descriptions of his behaviour? I'm not sure whether any adminstrative action is required though. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree that StarkReport shows a pattern of obnoxious but definitely civil POV-pushing (

'sealioning', though apparently more as a result of inexperience than of bad faith). I'm also not sure whether administrative action is required. I think that would get cleared up more easily if Kaalakaa's approach to dealing with the civil POV-pushing would be much more concise and a little less battleground-like. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉

) 15:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, when I initiated the discussion about the Aisha article, I envisioned a swift resolution with a few requests for improvements. Regrettably, I had no idea it would drag this long. StarkReport (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)