Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents |
---|
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page;
pinging is
not enough. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. ( archives, search) |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm probably too involved, hence I won't take administrative action but will leave it to others to decide. The users Panamitsu and Alexeyevitch don't get on with one another, which is a shame as they both live in New Zealand and their Wiki interests are similar. In December 2023, I told Alexeyevitch off for following Panamitsu around. My observation is that the warning was heeded, and Alexeyevitch stopped following Panamitsu's contributions. That hasn't stopped the bickering between those two editors. I do have the impression that Panamitsu is following Alexeyevitch's contributions in turn. To put a stop to that, I asked both users to stay away from one another earlier this month. Panamitsu is not listening, and openly admits that he goes through Alexeyevitch's contributions. That's WP:WIKIHOUNDING.
Panamitsu is a productive editor, but this hounding has to stop and he's not listening to me. I invite other admins to weigh in. Schwede 66 00:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Each time[Panamitsu]
would copyedit his[Alexeyevitch's]
contributions to Christchurch suburbs[...]
he would edit articles relating to the area, notably Paraparaumu College, presumably with the belief that[Panamitsu]
live[d]
there and[as]
a way to scare[Panamitsu]. If this is what's happening, I can't help but find such behavior disturbing.Banning Alexeyevitch from interacting with Panamitsu seems like a minimal sanction for such harassment. I would ask administrators reading this thread to remember that
"following another user around", if done to cause distress, or if accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 02:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles, which is what happened here. Endwise ( talk) 03:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
I (or schwede66)[...]
intended to fix them a day or two later -- we wanted to see if there was some-form of monitoring: What do these statements mean? Do you mean you (or even you and Schwede66?) privately collaborated to contribute edits contrary to MOS:TIES and MOS:ENGVAR as—what? Some deliberate 'experiment' to 'entrap' Panamitsu? Wikipedia is not a laboratory, and experiments that
negatively affect articles—even temporarily—are not allowed. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 04:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
confirmed I was stalked: Alexeyevitch, to be frank, all that seems confirmed to me is that you have been stalking Panamitsu and that along with that you've been deliberately introducing MOS:TIES/ MOS:VAR-contrary content into articles. As Endwise explained above, cases where using an editor's history is not considering hounding
includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In the 44 Parachute Regiment (South Africa), you changed "minimise" (British English spelling) to "minimize" (American English spelling) for an article about a South African military unit and in your edit summary you called it
fix[ing]
a spelling error. Some twelve hours later, Panamitsu restored the spelling of the word per MOS:TIES. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 05:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Alexeyevitch, if you're not prepared to use NZ English per
[1] then perhaps your time would be better spent not editing NZ articles.
Panamitsu This edit
[2] is not a good look. It takes two to edit war.
Daveosaurus (
talk)
05:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Do I read this right? Has an admin (Schwede66) deliberately tried to bait an editor by conspiring with another editor to deliberately make disruptive edits, and then brought the baited editor here for sanctions when they actually improved the articles by reverting the disruptive edits? If this is a correct summary, then please block and desysop Schwede66, as that is truly terrible behaviour. Fram ( talk) 08:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Alexeyevitch themself doesn't use New Zealand English, please consider using American English or the Oxford Spelling on their talk page. They might not to respond to comments deliberately avoiding this suggestion.(from the last diff in Panamitsu's comment: Good heavens, literally expressing an intention to ignore comments written in a variation of English not Alexeyevitch's own? Is there such a thing as linguistic chauvinism? This seems contrary to the Universal Code of Conduct's injunction to be collegial and empathetic with
Wikimedians of different backgrounds. And the word salad seems like an attempt by Alexeyevitch at
mockery, sarcasm, or aggressionagainst Panamitsu, mocking Panamitsu's use of New Zealand English spelling. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 13:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
I've had the impression that their[Alexeyevitch's]
contributions have been followed for quite some time; not just "in the past day"came from. As no diffs or examples had been provided, I'm not exactly sure where Schwede66 got this idea from so I don't know if I've addressed everything.
both editors commit to stop following each others edits. This way would avoid any bans and stop any further reasons for conflict.: This is premised on a false balance. What Schwede66 and Alexeyevitch call "following" and hounding has been Panamitsu noticing a widespread pattern of violating—in a few cases apparently deliberately, according to Alexeyevitch and Schwede66— MOS:TIES and MOS:ENGVAR and making fixes in accordance with an overtly permitted use of contribution histories:
Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles.Meanwhile, Alexeyevitch has mocked non-U. S. spelling, has expressed intent to ignore talk page comments not written in American English, and has harassed Panamitsu (more precise diff not possible because of an unrelated thread getting oversighted, but see the timeline of events I created) by following them to Paraparaumu topics seemingly after potentially coming to the belief that Panamitsu had an off-wiki connection to Paraparaumu.With this level of hostility toward non-U. S. English and this depth of attempted harassment against Panamitsu in play, I'm not convinced that asking for a mutual commitment will prevent future guideline and policy violations by Alexeyevitch. Getting Panamitsu off their back seems to be precisely what Alexeyevitch has wanted, so as to be able to eliminate New Zealand spellings from articles without scrutiny from an editor like Panamitsu. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 14:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
has been Panamitsu noticing a widespread pattern of violating ... MOS:TIES and MOS:ENGVARthis is exactly the content of my original response, I'm not disagreeing. I was just hoping to find an informal way to settle the dispute. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested « @» ° ∆t° 14:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
be able to eliminate New Zealand spellings– to be honest, I've never seen that myself. And if I were to see that, I'd put a stop to that straight away. There are plenty enough editors in New Zealand who would have zero tolerance to such antics. Schwede 66 05:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
I am not part of this extensive ongoing spat and I don't want to be. I will say though that I am trying not to be affected by Alexeyevitch's numerous changes to Christchurch suburbs and other articles. See today at Opawa and Heathcote Valley. I raised to topic on the Christchurch talk page, to no avail, and I'll raise it here again. His edits are of such a poor quality, in numerous different ways, that they all require a lot of work to put right. He's been an editor long enough to understand the basics of what to do, such as no original research. Look at his Opawa church section and see what the source says (I added a link). I think he should slow down and concentrate on some basic skills, if that is even possible. Unless something changes IMO his editing could be seen as disruptive. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 10:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
This has been an interesting thread to read through. The conclusion I'm drawing at this point is:
after the latest complaint to me via email, I gave Alexeyevitch some random (four, to be precise) articles to edit, asking to introduce little mistakes, can I ask if you would have given this advice on-wiki, such as on a talk page? Or would this advice not have occurred if it was in a public environment? BugGhost 🪲👻 11:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
“ |
|
” |
Avoiding all conflict between editors is not only impossible, trying to do so is way down on the list of objectives, while protecting what everyone has collectively built is at the top: I'd be rather hesitant to say that avoiding clashes is "way down" among the community's priorities. The Universal Code of Conduct includes striving for collegiality,
the friendly support that people engaged in a common effort extend to each other, and Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility is one of the five pillars, which I'm inclined to think are each equally important. As much as I think he's gone about things in rather the wrong way (I'd say I'm more concerned about how
laying a trap for someone is a betrayal of their trust that they will be treated as a colleague), I am sympathetic to Schwede66's belief that
we be more worried about editors getting on with one another. Without respect and collegiality, retaining editors is an uphill grind; and without editors, we have much less collectively built encyclopedia to protect in the first place. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 04:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Examples of his edits (more numerous than talk page discussions). I don't have the time to hunt for all of them. I have never looked at his contribs before, so I'm probably missing a lot. Basically every edit he does on Austronesian-related topics since our first interaction.
We first interacted in Square rig, where we fought over his insistence that the scope only applied to European ships during the Age of Sail (because apparently other sails don't have English names). I let that go since I was in the minority. Afterwards, he started specifically going after Austronesian articles and my contributions. The most egregious of which are multiple topics he opened in Talk:Austronesian peoples, which is still ongoing. Apparently something about the fact that Austronesians crossed oceans thousands of years before Europeans (which I mentioned in our first dispute) ticked him off, and he's been attacking that fact ever since. He has been challenging literally everything he can challenge, by any means. Examples of his behavior:
Some misleadingly follow a procedure. Tagging something, then removing the entire thing after no one notices it. Or removing a reference for unrelated reasons, then removing the then unreferenced sentence. Or opening a topic in the talk, then removing it when no one replies. Impossible to prevent and challenge in time, given the number of articles he does this on. Unless I dedicate my entire time here just following him around. Which is probably the point.
I initially replied to his challenges, which often involved rereading lengthy sources, only to find out he's just misinterpreting, synthesizing, or making up nonsense. This discussion on his changes in the pottery section is typical of his challanges and his tendency to move the goalposts. He first inserted a sentence that misrepresented a source by omitting certain details from the authors' conclusions. When I corrected it and gave another source for rebuttal, he then claims it's now "too long."
This isn't a mere content dispute, given the scale of what he's disputing. He's disputing everything that I've written or is relevant to what I've written. He's throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks. Once one does, or if he doesn't get replies, he then changes it everywhere else. It's not like he's validly tracking down the same errors on multiple articles. It ranges from sails, to boatbuilding techniques, the settlement of Guam, the Polynesian migrations, the settlement of Madagascar, pottery, dogs, pigs, and most recently, the domestication and dispersal of the banana. Some are valid that could have been fixed with a simple sourced edit, most are nonsense based on misreading sources or a general ignorance of the scholarship on the topic, some are outright based on nothing (often hyperfocusing on interpreting a single phrase from a single source). All are, comparatively, minor challenges that chip away one thing at a time (the caption dispute on the lakana for example), often with implied insulting assertions at my editing.
But they're all WP:TENDENTIOUS, with a very clear unifying theme: downplay Austronesian seafaring as much as possible. He has never contributed a single positive thing to the topic. Prior to our first interaction, he had no interest in articles on Austronesian seafaring, his main area of interest was and still is, unsurprisingly, European ships. I'm here to write articles. I have never once interfered with his editing. Until I checked his contribs prior to this report, I did not even know what he does usually on Wikipedia. I still don't.
I've read hundreds if not thousands of papers on this topic, writing much of our coverage on it over the years. Including the vast majority of articles like Austronesian peoples, Lashed-lug boat, Austronesian vessels, Outrigger boat, Domesticated plants and animals of Austronesia, and recently, the Maritime Silk Road. With extensive contributions to others like individual ship, plant, animal, and ancient seafaring articles. And that's only for these related topics ( in case you get the mistaken impression that that's all I write about). I've done my best with keeping with the policies on RS on all of them, as I've done with all my contributions over the last nearly 15 years.
All of that to be challenged repeatedly by the same person on every single thing, every month, who has at most read 10 papers touching on this topic.
I hate all of this. I don't even know what's the solution for situations like this is. Leave me alone. -- OBSIDIAN† SOUL 04:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Ok, I have actually read most of what was posted and looked at the diffs provided to boot; I am completely uninvolved and I do not know anything beyond basics about the subject. Set the sentiments boiling over aside, and this feels like a rather slow edit war, essentially an extended content dispute. My guess is the topic eludes most people, and I do not think ANI is the place to find people who are actually able to judge about content. So I would want to get more eyes on this, my first port of call being WP:3O. If there is an adequate project who covers this, ask there. Disputants should keep in mind to AGF, and even to AAGF. Lectonar ( talk) 11:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
"Ah yes. Of course. What did I expect from Wikipedia. Actually read?", criticizing the very people who actually made some attempt to respond to this. Wow. Just wow.
Not all the complete "failed verifications" were the result of edits by OS. Nevertheless, they seem ideologically opposed to any criticism of any reference that they support, whilst labelling any that oppose their views as "fringe" (an example is identified by a commenter above i.r.o. Atholl Anderson).
Perhaps the most concise (but still lengthy) example of OS's support for a poor quality source is that following this edit
[3] (and others similar edits made to a number of articles). The relevant edit summaries have a link to a review that is totally scathing. I received thanks from at least one other editor for drawing this to their attention. OS's reaction includes this
[4] with Shaffer being reinstated as a source with the edit summary ...one review doesn't invalidate an RS...
. If you read the review at
[5] you will see that this is not some bad write-up on trip advisor.
The edit that reinstated the Shaffer reference also reinstated Hourani's Arab Seafaring. In another testing interaction with OS
[6], we discover that they ...do not have access to that book
. Reading further on that talk page post, you will see that I finally realised that not only was Hourani a dated source, but the book makes no mention whatsoever of junk rig. This suggests to me that OS has never even read Hourani.
I don't know if I need to give more examples to make the point (you can find some on the talk page of Austronesian peoples), but it seems one has to check every reference they use (which, given the volume of their output, is well nigh impossible).
This is all coupled with an unhelpfully argumentative style, as can be found on any of the talk pages linked above. One in particular I find memorable: [7]. OS wanted an example of the sailing rig labelled "A" in [8]. The photo found on Commons is actually of the one labelled "B". To be fair, we were all at the mercy of Commons taking any picture that you can upload without breaching copyright, with any unverified caption you wish to use. But I think Commons's failing on verification allows us to do some WP:OR on the matter. There are ample videos(e.g. [9] which I have not watched to the end, but shows rig "B" being rigged) and pictures from Madagascar (a holiday destination for many at various times) that tell us exactly how the "old photo" rig works. There was never a word of thanks for finding the appropriate picture that is now in the article [10], which is very different from its predecessor [11]. Without the abrasive attitude, this would have been an engaging exercise in working out the correct content to put in Wikipedia. (OK, I appreciate that for those who do not have an interest in sailing rigs, this is a bit like reading the telephone directory!)
Clearly OS puts in many hours in editing Wikipedia. If only this would be done with a little more emphasis on both quality and co-operation. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 19:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
I didn't have to read much of the initial presentation to gather this, but this is definitely a series of content disputes, where you have one who thought they had articles settled being challenged by someone with other sources and interpretations of sources. Frustrating this more is a lack of editors overall and especially ones who understand these subjects to be able to weigh in. I think you both should slow down, pick one article, try to iron it out - and if you can't, use Wikipedia approaches like Third Opinion, Request for Comment, or involving associated WikiProjects, until your issues are resolved. Then move on to the next article. See also WP:DEADLINE. I don't think this matter is actionable by an admin at this point. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 23:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
But enough of that. If you actually listened to reason, we wouldn't be here. It would have been a mere content dispute. Meanwhile, everyone else here thinks I'm the awful one. While knowing even less than you about the topic. So they hilariously think that what you're saying and doing is actually reasonable. They refuse to understand even if I've actually tried to explain it, for the mindnumbingly stupid reason that "it's too long". And they actually act shocked that I'm angry at them too for responding without bothering to actually read anything.
If you didn't read it, can't read it, or don't want to deal with it, why do you then assume that I'm the one at fault based solely on the length of the complaint? To the point that you actually comment about it? Several of you did exactly that. You didn't read it. If I had known that putting more detail into the report would be a bad thing, I wouldn't have bothered posting this here and just quit. Since it's too complicated to explain briefly anyway. I respect the opinions of people who chimed in who actually read it. Or tried to read it. Even if they disagree with me. Why should I do the same for people who didn't?
ThoughtIdRetired has actually fully admitted now that he's pushing a certain viewpoint and NOT acting in good faith. Exactly like how I described it. And still you all think that's perfectly normal behavior. And my getting angry at his behavior is me being the problem.
This is the SECOND TIME my concerns have been treated as if I was some idiot newbie editor. As if my experience is still not enough to at least take me seriously. By people who insist on AGF-ing even the most egregious behaviors (oh, he opened twelve unrelated talk page sections one after another on a topic he never touched before he met me? Perfectly normal!), while fainting at the slightest sign of a fucking curse word. I'm not even asking you to agree with me, just asking if there's anything you can do to fix it. That's the same response I got a year ago when y'all permabanned me for calling out a racist editor. Yes. I've grown to despise Wikipedia because of this.
I've had enough of this.
You're completely correct, Hammersoft. None of us are paid to do this. You can dismiss this as WP:RAGE. A good chunk of my life went into Wikipedia, but I'm not delusional enough to think I'm irreplaceable. I just don't see the point in continuing. -- OBSIDIAN† SOUL 00:15, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Murmayo (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Diff 1
Diff 2
I hate adding sections to closed AN/I threads but I would also feel silly starting a new one that seems very much intertwined with the above before it's been archived. I felt this rose above typical vandalism as an account made in 2021 sitting unused until today when it GAMEd 10 edits in 3 minutes all to make a foul custom message box on OS's userpage (which they restored when removed) absolutely screams 'bad-hand sock' to me. I wasn't involved in this thread but OS seems to know what's going on with this, so I presume someone more involved with this thread knows whats going on here? GabberFlasted ( talk) 13:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Riposte97 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Please see Riposte97 at Talk:Kamloops Indian Residential School. Both sections are relevant but are relatively short. They should be read in order.
Also relevant:
Editor recently insisted on rewriting Canadian Indian residential school gravesites and Canadian Indian residential school gravesites based on the very flawed notions of verifiability, notability, and DUE demonstrated above. I estimate that if he stops now about two weeks of full-time work will be required to clean up after this episode.
I am unsure whether I am supposed to notify RSN particpants but I will notify Riposte97 now. Elinruby ( talk) 05:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
plan to add to it. That is not how these things are usually done at ANI, and otherwise you will keep pushing the requested rewrite of the OP down the page. I am going to give you a chance to fix that before I attempt to address your assorted misrepresentations. I'll note in passing though that you need to check the date on that block and also acquaint yourself with the {{they}} template. Meanwhile I am going to implement TarnishedPath's suggestion down the page in the correct chronological order. Elinruby ( talk) 12:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
@ Liz: Ok. It is all very complicated and rather inexplicable though, but here is my best attempt to summarize. Please bear in mind that I got instablocked the first time I tried to explain this, which may explain a certain reticence and tendency to be oblique. Please ask me a question if I am not explaining this well. I am nervous because I am being brave and stupid and trying to explain this again even though this editor is trying to intimidate me. ( talk page of the Kamploops article) [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] typo fix included for completeness
Someone quoted Canadian Indian residential school gravesites to me. [25] It had not said that when I was working on it at the time the gravesites were found. [26] On investigation I discovered, among other things, that this editor was reverting to support the insertion into the lead of a statement sourced to spiked.com [27] [28] [29]( similiar previous edit) that insinuates [30] that this recent national tragedy in Canada is a hoax, a la Sandy Hook, ie that those are not really graves, or they are empty. [31] Or something. [32] [33] [34] This is wrong on so many levels [35] that it is hard to know where to begin, [36] but another editor started the now-archived thread at RSN, where multiple editors participated, which started with parsing whether or not the source was better than the Daily Mail. [37]
I need to say that literally hundreds of RS are available,( [38] [39]]) and at least 30 pages of results at Google Scholar. [40] I reviewed the first three pages and posted the urls in the current RSN thread titled #Tne Pope and the Canadian House of Commons with a convenient subheader for easy finding. There appears to be a profound unfamiliarity with these events outside of Canada,(waves hand) and that post was an attempt to begin a discussion to change the apparently hard-wired resistance to using the word "genocide" on Wikipedia.(waves hand) So there are many more sources than that to support the history of residential schools; [41] [42] those are just the ones that call it a genocide. Anyway multiple editors tried to talk to the editor and Ivanvector in particular began to edit the article. [43] or perhaps already was.
I realized that despite the changes to the lede nobody had been updating the article and I began doing that for the various schools where underground radar was being used, or had been used, or where its use is being discussed. I also found some egregious misrepresentations of fact, which are mentioned toward the end of the archived RSN thread.
[44]
[45]. I do not know who was responsible for that;
I just now found this tho of Riposte97 removing material with gold star sources while claiming it was unsourced. I have not yet run Wikiblame. Riposte97 objected to something I had done in the article and
Pbritti pinged me at 20:16. By 22:37 I was abusing relevance tags
and separately refusing to engage in a talk page discussion
Another user appeared on my page to demand that I explain myself. I was busy researching one of the schools where much was being made of a first excavation not finding bodies.
[46] I want to avoid relitigating what followed because I think that it may be better suited to another venue, but I went to bed a few minutes little later after doing some other routine updates and woke up blocked. There was an ANI thread. I was blocked and could not speak.
That is not the point however; the point is that while
[47] I was blocked for a week that article was completely re-written
[48]
[49] to heavily insinuate wrongdoing by the
Tkʼemlúps te Secwépemc, on whose land the graves are.
Much cited material removed here.
A huge table disappears here. @
David Eppstein: called a source used at the Kamloops article a dishonest hit piece, attempting to cast the fact that a project of this size typically takes some time to get going as if it were a scam merely because they were allocated money, haven't produced immediate results, and won't talk to the hit-piece-writers.
(see
Western Standard thread)
Other editors protested the rewrite. [50] [51] [52] [53][ This thread removes material cited to the TRC with an edit summary of "added citation" Diffs in the AE thread about this editor document three different editors protesting [54], [55] (note date), [56], [57], [58], [59] (see p.39 for example), [60], [61], [62], [63] [64] [65], [66], [67], [68] [69], [70], [71], [72] {{refn| [73], [74] (note date), [75], [76], [77], [78] (see p.39 for example), [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91] [1] as the editor claimed to have policy and consensus on his side. If anyone is wondering, I posted them there in an effort to support a complaint by another editor about this editor's behaviour at Hunter Biden laptop controversy, but apparently Things Do Not Work That Way. But since we are discussing that AE thread, it also documents Ivanvector giving this editor a warning,[after being reverted by Ivanvector [2] [3] informal of course since Ivanvector had been editing the article and was therefore involved.
That is a roadmap, maybe? The three current RSN threads are each for a source used at the Kamloops article, which was recently edit-protected, so that may help. @ Fluorescent Jellyfish:, one of the recently-involved editors, says that they are a subject matter expert and and posted an explanation to the talk page of the Kamloops article why they think these sources are disinformation. [92] and was argued with and politely reminded Riposte97 of WP:ONUS] and was argued with some more. Having removed these sources from associated articles way too many times, I believe they are correct. And that is why I am trying to bring eyes to this even though, let's face it, this post is not recommended behaviour for an editor who was recently blocked for stating what is conventional wisdom in Canadian discourse and in the academic field, and warned not to do that again lest they be indeffed. But that there is not what this post is about. [93]]
This post is about some dubious something or other being perpetuated [94] using Wikipedia despite the best efforts of bog standard editors to prevent that.
I do not know why this has been happening for two years. I do not know why this user was one of the people making it happening. He is strangely stubborn about the reliability of really bad sources; from a quick skim there is a lot of POV now in the gravesites article that I have not addressed at all either here or there. This editor is very overbearing with other editors. The editors who were protesting his changes were told that they were being disruptive, this while I was blocked for "disruption", as removing the misleading material was described. At one point I would have evaporated also, so I don't blame them. But I beg you to keep in mind that the topic matter than is being manipulated here is the death of thousands of indigenous children. Please ask me or somebody a question if anything at all that I have said here is confusing. Elinruby ( talk) 10:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
PS: It seems important to point out [95] that the allied denialist Fraser Institute is currently the number one hit for the string "kamloops Indian residential school graves"
References
I'd be willing but I am obviously highly involved as the OP. But here is why I think it should happen:
That is my request. Elinruby ( talk) 04:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'll re-post this in a new topic, if it would be more appropriate, however I didn't want to clutter up the page with multiple topics relating to Riposte97.
- I would ask that Riposte97 be prevented from doing further editing on at least the Kamloops Indian Residential School wikipedia article, and preferably the article Canadian Indian Residential School Gravesites, as well.
- In real life I'm a researcher, and I've done extensive academic research on topics around disinformation, far-right conspiracies, the international and Canadian far-right, and the vast realm of Canadian far-right disinformation publications that spread conspiracy theories, etc.. I'd rather not directly doxx myself, and I understand if you don't take my word for it, but yeah - I'm very, very familiar with the topics at hand. Specifically for our discussion, I'm very, very familiar with anti-Indigenous racism and Residential School denialism as a far-right conspiracy theory, and how those conspiracy theories are featured and spread in far-right disinformation publications. And I'm very, very familiar with far-right disinformation publications in Canada, because I've spent years researching them (which is not fun, let me tell you!).
- The integrity and accuracy of articles about Residential Schools, especially the Kamloops Residential School, is very important, because Canadian residential schools are the subject of a major far-right conspiracy theory which involves anti-Indigenous racism along with what is often considered to be genocide denial. I don't want to write a whole thesis here, so I'll desperately attempt to be brief, but basically this conspiracy theory focuses around the idea of residential schools being 'not that bad' and hinting (or outright stating) that the possible graves discovered on the grounds of many residential schools are a hoax. Any sources used in these articles should be of extremely high quality, high reliability, and shown to not be written in a biased manner, because it is deeply dangerous to promulgate or lend credence to this racist, far-right conspiracy theory, or to lend credence (by citing them) to sources that are known sources of conspiracy, hatred, and disinformation.
- This brief excerpt discusses residential school denialism as a far-right conspiracy, and far-right publications that promote it. As well, it reflects narratives that appear in the content Riposte97 keeps trying to insert. From the article Saying what we mean, meaning what we say: Managing miscommunication in archaeological prospection, by Wadsworth, Halmhofer, & Supernant (2023):
- "...those who used the misconceptions to support and spread denialist misinformation and disinformation about the IRS system. Heath Justice and Carleton ( 2021, n.p.) define residential school denialism as ‘not the outright denial of the Indian Residential School (IRS) system's existence, but rather the rejection or misrepresentation of basic facts about residential schooling to undermine truth and reconciliation efforts’. Quoting French anthropologist Didier Fassin, Jones ( 2021, p. 104) also noted that denialism is ‘an ideological position whereby one systematically reacts by refusing reality and truth’....
- Responding to the GPR results from Kamloops, denialist narratives used various rhetorical strategies designed to distort facts, cast doubt and present alternative narratives. Denialist narratives focused on the terms used by the media such as mass versus individual graves, despite the quick correction of that language in most news outlets (Table 1). Targeting the GPR results, rhetorical strategies also repeatedly emphasized that ‘not one body has been found’, to try to undermine the thousands of archival documents that record the deaths of children. Demands for excavations and exhumations were also used to convince denialist audiences that without physical bodies, the GPR results should be considered a hoax. Additional rhetorical strategies focused on emphasizing that unmarked graves located in school cemeteries should not be surprising, as one would expect to find graves within a cemetery. These comments, however, served to distract their audience from the fact that no school should have a cemetery." (Wadsworth, Halmhofer & Suprnant, 2023).
- So. Now to Riposte97. Riposte97 has shown a continued pattern of removing well-sourced statements without adequate justification, inserting inaccurate and inflammatorily-phrased claims, and using unreliable, highly-biased, far-right sources to 'support' these deeply questionable changes. Upon discussion, Riposte97 refuses to acknowledge these issues, refuses to ameliorate their actions, and misrepresents Wikipedia guidelines. They appear to be inserting claims that are congruent with far-right conspiratorial narratives/claims into the wiki article for Kamloops Indian Residential School, and reverting - without adequate justification - non-conspiratorial edits, to preserve their chosen statements. This behaviour is highly questionable, and risks tarnishing Wikipedia's reputation.
- I'm at an event at the moment, so I can't dedicate a bunch of time to this, but when I added well-sourced info and removed information which comes from a known far-right publication, the Western Standard, he reverted my edit and insisted I prove that the Western Standard was unreliable, and when I did so, with many, many sources, he refused to replace my edit.
- For instance, he reverted my edit, saying:
- --> @ Fluorescent Jellyfish: I have reverted some (not all) of your removal of content sourced to the Western Standard. What is your basis for claiming it is not a reliable source? Riposte97 ( talk) 03:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- I replied:
- --> as it states in the page you linked about Wikipedia's guidelines for determining reliable sources, sources such as newspapers (which Western Standard would be counted as) have certain caveats relating to reliability. The page states that news reporting from "well established outlets" can often be considered reliable for statements of fact - Western Standard is not well-established; it was 're-established' in 2019 (see it's own About page: [96]) by disgraced right-wing politician Derek Hildebrandt, having originally been established in 2004 by extreme-far-right figure Ezra Levant. [97]
- But far, far more than not being well-established - it is a far-right [98] misinformation outlet. [99] It frequently publishes racist, transphobic, and homophobic stories (and has repeatedly had to retract stories, along with failing various fact checks by media- observers). It has also been a key player in spreading Covid-denial and anti-vaxx disinformation. [100] It is a promulgator of far-right conspiracy theories.
- From the (peer-reviewed) article The public, the pandemic, and the public service: The case of Alberta (Wesley and Ribeiro, 2024):
- "Organizations that exhibited high levels of bias, frequently skewed or misrepresented facts, did not use reputable sources, and engaged in promoting conspiracies or misinformation were categorized as fringe. Here we included Fox News, Western Standard, Rebel News, Sun News, and talk radio as fringe news outlets." [101]
- Additionally, just for a quick example:
- "The Western Standard, a conservative publication based in Calgary, amplified in early July a conspiracy theory that claimed fires were being deliberately set at farms around the world to make populations more dependent on governments." [102]
- "[E]xtremists from the far-right of the political spectrum, including the Canadian Yellow Vest movement and the Canadian chapter of the Islamophobic and anti-immigrant Soldiers of Odin. Their narratives are laundered and amplified by a well-established alternative media ecosystem, including outlets such as Rebel News, Western Standard, True North, and the Postmillennial." [103]
- In fact, in its previous iteration, the Western Standard was charged with two counts of hate speech! [104]
- And, lol, just two days ago, "[Derek] Fildebrandt, 38, who is now the publisher of the Western Standard news website, faces four charges of uttering threats to cause death or bodily harm, according to court documents." [105]
- It has a long history of anti-Indigenous racism. It promulgates a current far-right, anti-Indigenous conspiracy theory revolving around Residential Schools, elements of which were featured in this article until I had removed them. It is unfortunately not a reliable source, and I would appreciate my changes being accepted.
- Hope you have a good rest of your day! Fluorescent Jellyfish ( talk) 05:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Discussion continued, but he refused to accept my changes.
- Riposte97 inserted statements from unreliable source the Dorchester Review, another known far-right Canadian conspiratorial publication, which I then reverted. As I discussed on my talk page:
- So, one of the authors of the article he used as a source (the one from C2C) is Tom Flanagan. Tom Flanagan is a well-known Residential School apologist.
- For instance this article describes him as:
- "Tom Flanagan, a former adviser to Stephen Harper and a long-time critic of Indigenous rights who has described residential schools as a “visionary program.”"
- Here's another article discussing Tom Flanagan as part of the general far-right conspiracy to deny Residential School atrocities.
- And here is an article from the CBC discussing Tom Flanagan's book (which is a massive piece of residential school denialism and allegedly *genocide denialism*). The article focused on the reasons and circumstances around the book being denounced by Quesnel city council. (that's also a good article for or info re: the situation, particularly the UN's funding recommendations)
- I have to go, but yeah, I'd like to see him banned from editing this article as I believe he repeatedly inserts far-right conspiracy narratives - and sources - into the article, and is not editing in good faith with reliable sources. Fluorescent Jellyfish ( talk) 23:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
how on earth is citing the Western Standard (or the Dorchester Review, or SPIKED, or C2C) for the bare factual claim that exhumations have not taken place 'pushing a narrative'?Literally this exact question could be answered by rereading the post you're responding to. 100.36.106.199 ( talk) 16:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
"As of May 2024, investigations into the reported mass graves at the site have ended with no conclusive evidence of such graves". Notably when that information was removed, prior to your revert to re-insert it, by @ Fluorescent Jellyfish at Special:Diff/1227472046 they left the edit summary "
Removed questionable claims from a far-right, non-reputable 'source' (the Western Standard is not a reputable source - it is a Canadian far-right publication which is known for publishing disinformation". After your revert to re-include the denialist material supported by the unreliable source, you then proceeded to push the source at Talk:Kamloops_Indian_Residential_School#Western_Standard. TarnishedPath talk 02:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This thread is already quite lengthy and in the interests of coming to some sort of conclusion I'm going to propose a topic ban for Riposte97 from the indigenous peoples of North America, broadly construed.
TarnishedPath
talk
07:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
support for Elinruby oppose for Piposte97. P97 was just warned and it doesn't appear that they have done anything wrong since that warning. Conversely, Elinruby was recently blocked for BATTLEGROUND behavior and it seems they are continuing. Time sink? Look at how much of this that is Elinruby's own comments/commentary! Clearly they feel strongly about this topic but that isn't an excuse to attack editors who are acting in good faith. Additionally, when an editor brings a source that makes what on the surface it's a compelling argument it's more helpful to civilly explain why they are wrong (and saying they are borderline genocide denialist isn't the way to do it). If P97 continues the actions that resulted in a warning so be it. However no evidence has been presented that they haven't heard the warning. So no block is needed at this time. Springee ( talk • contribs) 10:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Riposte97 is warned to abide by the general bold-revert-discuss restriction that is present on Hunter Biden, per the consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE". I'm unsure why you are trying to conflate an entirely different issue to what is being discussed here. TarnishedPath talk 12:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
so long as they don't push in sources, ie edit the article itself, then proposals on the talk page are just that, proposals, the problem can persist. EducatedRedneck ( talk) 13:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
My childCool it. You have no right to talk down.
came here to get the other guy(s)/girl(s) blocked from editing and the community unexpectedly turned on meR97 did not start this discussion. ꧁ Zanahary꧂ 15:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Content discussion |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Please refer to Special:Diff/1231095889 for the editor editing to insert material which multiple editors have advised is unreliable. Refer to Special:Diff/1231097054 for the editor reverting to re-insert it after being reverted. This behaviour is egregious and requires action. TarnishedPath talk 13:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
In May 2024, Western Standard, a Canadian conservative social commentary media [1] claimed that investigations into the reported mass graves at the Kamloops Indian Residential School in British Columbia have end with no conclusive evidence of such graves, despite significant resources invested in various investigative efforts, including fieldwork, archival searches, and securing the school site, no human remains have been found. [2]
Carolane Gratton, spokesperson for the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations confirmed the allocation of $7.9 million for these endeavors. In a statement, the Tk'emlups te Secwepemc First Nation reiterated their focus on the scientific work required but declined to discuss the $7.9 million allocation. [3]
In May 2024, Western Standard, a Canadian conservative social commentary media claimed that investigations into the reported mass graves at the Kamloops Indian Residential School in British Columbia have end with no conclusive evidence of such graves, despite significant resources invested in various investigative efforts, including fieldwork, archival searches, and securing the school site, no human remains have been foundwith Time Now news as source for the citation. അദ്വൈതൻ ( talk) 15:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
the reliability of Western Standard as a whole is ongoing at RSN. The question here, what about using the reports by other news medias that made headlines on the WS's claims in a reported speech style" which I believe isn't solely a reliability issue that needs to be worked in RSN, I believe article's talk page is the place to discuss.
See as I said earlier, the new source having information related to issue is also been reverted citing unreliability."
See as I said earlier, the new source having information related to issue is also been reverted citing unreliability.15:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)" is this
Frequently reverting and undoing the contributions saying any citation is unreliable. By @ Elinruby @ TarnishedPath . Even a contributor has been banned on the topic.
Already reliability of Western Standard is going at RSN under the section Western Standard as a source for Canadian residential schools when Western Standard was quoted as citation [113]
When the WS' claim is added as a reported speech style, they reverted saying the secondary sources is unreliable too under the sub section Online publication in India as source for archaeological findings in British Columbia
Recently I contributed with another new source(The Catholic Register, which I got from RSN discussion under the sub section Western Standard as a source for Canadian residential schools)
, now that too is reverted saying this new citation is also unreliable without talking at the the article's talk page.
See the Diffs to reverting [114] [115]
The recently reverted contributions with citations.
According to a May 9 report by Blacklock's Reporter, the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations has not publicly disclosed how millions of dollars were spent on field work, records searches and securing the Residential School grounds for the Kamloops First Nation.
[4] The $7.9 million provided to the Tk'emlups te Secwepemc First Nation for their field work at the suspected site, represents a small portion of the $110 million allocated to Indigenous communities for searching and documenting burial grounds at former residential schools. The department has not released an audit of the contribution under the Access to Information Act. Carolane Gratton, spokesperson for the
Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations confirmed the allocation of $7.9 million for these endeavors. In a statement, the Tk'emlups te Secwepemc First Nation reiterated their focus on the scientific work required but declined to discuss the $7.9 million allocation.
[4]
At this point even if we ditch all the above sources citing unreliability and got information from other new sources unrelated to WS or any another aforementioned news sites(not even as secondary source quoting Western Standard.) about the issue another discussion will start on the reliability about that new citation.
See my latest contribution citing Catholic Register whose reliability hasn't been in question until now, has been reverted citing unreliability.
അദ്വൈതൻ ( talk) 15:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
since lots of high-quality sourcing indicates that something is due a lot of weight, while low-quality sources can indicate that it's not duewill not get to Wikipedia as it is from a low quality source)
In May 2024, Western Standard, a Canadian conservative social commentary media [1] claimed that investigations into the reported mass graves at the Kamloops Indian Residential School in British Columbia have end with no conclusive evidence of such graves, despite significant resources invested in various investigative efforts, including fieldwork, archival searches, and securing the school site, no human remains have been found. [5] Carolane Gratton, spokesperson for the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations confirmed the allocation of $7.9 million for these endeavors. In a statement, the Tk'emlups te Secwepemc First Nation reiterated their focus on the scientific work required but declined to discuss the $7.9 million allocation. [6]
According to a May 9 report by Blacklock's Reporter, the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations has not publicly disclosed how millions of dollars were spent on field work, records searches and securing the Residential School grounds for the Kamloops First Nation. [4] The $7.9 million provided to the Tk'emlups te Secwepemc First Nation for their field work at the suspected site, represents a small portion of the $110 million allocated to Indigenous communities for searching and documenting burial grounds at former residential schools. The department has not released an audit of the contribution under the Access to Information Act. Carolane Gratton, spokesperson for the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations confirmed the allocation of $7.9 million for these endeavors. In a statement, the Tk'emlups te Secwepemc First Nation reiterated their focus on the scientific work required but declined to discuss the $7.9 million allocation. [4]
unresolvedis entirely different from the claim Western Standard made
In May 2024, Western Standard, a Canadian conservative social commentary media claimed that investigations into the reported mass graves at the Kamloops Indian Residential School in British Columbia have end with no conclusive evidence
Your definition of the word is not exactly right. A denialist in this context says there are no bodies and/or graves
Ground penetrating radar does not find human remains — rather, it detects soil disturbances that are inconsistent with the surrounding area, which, combined with community knowledge, can help identify where there may potentially be unmarked gravessource.
The point you need to process is that bodies have been found at several schools but not in excavations
because the community is divided about whether to dig up its aunties who never grew upSo your point here is futile. And if first nation communities decides so, they are also at wrong here. As they are only probable unmarked graves and not definite and confirmed unmarked graves. അദ്വൈതൻ ( talk) 10:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
And if first nation communities decides so, they are also at wrong here.about their cultural practices than I would about yours.
As of March 2024, the Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc said that a decision to excavate the unmarked graves is "unresolved". TarnishedPath talk 08:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
User:Drbogdan is a prolific and good faith editor who on the whole seems to be sincerely attempting to be a positive force here. That aside, he seems to have an issue with low quality edits that have gotten to the point of becoming a problem (or they have been for a long time) and there's a general issue of WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK and WP:NOTBLOG as well. I spoke to him somewhat recently about editing in disruptive quantities of new New York Times articles on astronomy/space content and his primary response was to edit my comment on his talk page to get rid of the word “disruptive” citing WP:IAR for editing my own comment. I’m going to repeat some of the content here from that post, since the pattern of editing has continued past that discussion:
Extended content
|
---|
I understand you've been trying to engage with these topics in good faith, but it's gotten to a point where you're editing in New York Times articles on related articles which is creating a workload for editors who need to undo those changes. Recent edits to: Which were all reverted near identical edits made within a small window of time, and all reverted. Again, a similar situation played out at: And again at |
These are all massive strings of edits of identical content (editing in of very recent New York Times stories), all of which were reverted by me or other users. Recently this has continued with edits to Fast Radio Burst and Timeline of Mars 2020, where he's been adding in every observation by date as they arise and the latter article in particular, where he’s the primary editor, is a complete mess as a result of the daily additions. There's also, more troublingly, undoing reverts to add back in puffery to CDK Company and linking apparently WP:COPYVIO youtube links to Twyla Tharp. There’s also an updated database of every comment he has made on the New York Times, hosting his entire dissertation on wikipedia, and hosting literally dozens of personal photos and videos on commons, with an overwhelming majority of his recent contributions being exclusively to his userspace, and creating redirects to terms that don't actually appear to exist.
I don’t know what the right recourse is here, this is clearly someone active and engaged with Wikipedia in good faith, but at the same time it’s also someone editing in a way that’s creating a huge mess of edits to undo due to the frequent addition of New York Times/pop-science articles (sometimes with WP:PROFRINGE issues when it comes to dark matter in particular) to space-related topics. This all seems to be from a position of good faith and for certain he has created a lot of good content, but it’s creating a workload for those of us who edit in astronomy/planetary science topics, which is made more challenging by a larger percentage of his edits just being labelled “add/adj” as edit summaries.
An IP editor, user:35.139.154.158, seems to be involved here as well, mass-undoing Drbogdan's edits. I’ve since gone out of my way to avoid touching Drbogdan’s edits (minus removing the copyvio) after our interaction because I want to avoid coming across as harassing or hounding. That said, the low quality edits have persisted to a point that I think warrants bringing up here, especially after the puffery and copyvio issues in short succession. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 07:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
*Comment - As OA of several of the WP:Redirects noted above, it's *entirely* ok wth me to do whatever is decided in the final WP:CONSENSUS discussion - these WP:RDRs were made as a way of linking to Wikipedia from External Websites (like FaceBook), which drops the ending ")", this problem has been fully described and discussed [by me] on the WP:Village pump (technical) at VP-Archive204 (a Must-Read); VP-Archive180; VP-Archive162 - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 13:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)- yes - some of my edits could be better - and which I hope to improve even more over time and further practice - I greatly appreciate others helping to correct my unintentionally-made issues - as I have helped them correct their own editing issues over the years - in any case - hope my comments above helps in some ways - please let me know if otherwise of course - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 12:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
All Wikipedia pages and articles are edited collaboratively by the Wikipedian community of volunteer contributors. No one, no matter what, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular article (or any part of it). Even a subject of an article, be that a person or organization, does not own the article, nor has any right to dictate what the article may or may not say.- I think that is worthy - and relevant - at least to me at the moment - as Director of Hospital Laboaratories in the real-world back in the day, one of my biggest concerns was determining the issues of the laboratories - a matter of communication - I welcomed feedback from others - working collaboratively with others helps solve a lot of problems - and helps make a better quality outcome generally imo - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 13:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
when are you going to take your dissertation text and NYT clippings off Wikipedia as is required of you by WP:NOTWEBHOST?Phil Bridger ( talk) 13:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
I welcomed feedback from others
References
Drbogdan ( talk) 02:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
I have worked well with Drbogdan for years, and I have repeatedly defended him in the face of multiple attacks by many other editors making baseless accusations about his motivations.
In the United States, motion pictures published before 1978 are copyrighted for 95 years. You're not the first nor the last person to be confused about this, because the laws around copyright make no sense. Viriditas ( talk) 21:08, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
I would like to ask whether someone can summarize what if any administrative action is being requested. As we know, in Wikipedia there are content disputes and conduct disputes. This is a conduct forum. The content issues of whether to keep the dissertation and the New York Times comments are being dealt with at MFD. So is any other action being requested? One IP editor called for an indef, but I think that we can ignore it. Other than that, it seems that there are complaints that his writing about physics is problematic. He may, in good faith, think that he knows more about physics than the average reader, because -- a biochemist really knows more about physics than the average reader. However, he doesn't know as much about physics as the average physicist, and he may be trying too hard to explain dumbed-down physics to average readers in a way that real physicists know is wrong. Is that the problem? If so, is he willing to listen to the opinions of physicists? Is it necessary to topic-ban him from scientific areas outside biochemistry? If not, was this just a complaint session? Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
a biochemist really knows more about physics than the average reader... he may be trying too hard to explain dumbed-down physics to average readers in a way that real physicists know is wrong.
all my edits over the years were intended to be *good qualiy edits* - some editors may agree that my edits were *good quality edits* over the years - and some otherwise - my edits seem to be better than most in my own editing experiences compared with most other edits by Wikipedia editors afaik" - hope this helps in some way - Drbogdan ( talk) 12:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
edits seem to be better than mostwhile sort of outright refusing to recognize that multiple editors in science topics have chimed in here calling your edits disruptive and low quality to the point of warranting an ANI, regardless of the outcome of this ANI. There's a disconnect in what some of us here are saying and what you seem to understand the concern as. The NYT is a perfect fine and generally reliable source, that's not the issue. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
This all seems to be your opinion - I don't share your opinion - others may not as well- is there room for improvement - yes - in the sense that there is room for improvement for everybody of course - some more than others I would think - hope this helps - Drbogdan ( talk) 16:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
yes - seems that merging the edit more into the article prose may be better in a few of my edits - however - this hasn't always been possible for me for one reason or another (mostly real-world concerns)
Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page.Drbogdan edited the section heading that Warrenmck used on Drbogdan's User talk page. That sure looks like a WP:TPO violation to me. That said, the content of Warrenmck's comment was to raise the same concerns that this ANI thread has been about: low-quality edits in science articles. XOR'easter ( talk) 22:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
always preserves the original editor's meaning and intent. Changing the heading is the opposite of preserving meaning. Under "Concerns", that guideline writes,
Be aware that not every editor will agree with your refactoring or even of the refactoring concept in general. Provide links to the original, uncut version, so others can check your changes, and if necessary go back to the original to clarify what an author actually said. This combination of refactoring and archiving will often prevent complaints that information was lost. Make it explicit that you have refactored something so no one is misled into thinking this was the original talk page.Changing another editor's words and collapsing the meat of their comment [132] does none of that. XOR'easter ( talk) 22:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
If Drbogdan shouldn't have created Peekaboo Galaxy, what is stopping you from taking it to AfD?The fact that AfD is a time sink, and AfD's of pages with a superficial veneer of notability because they happen to be full of little blue clickly linky numbers are exceptionally tiresome. XOR'easter ( talk) 22:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
So apparently Drbogdan is the great image-adder. He added yet another image in Pluto. Drbogdan, would you mind... taking it slow?
Unclear about a specific problem heredespite diffs aplenty. While minor things in isolation, the puffery reverts in CDK Company and copyvio edits in Twyla Tharp are egregious:
re: the possible copyvio you noted at the Twyla Tharp article - unclear at the time of posting if the brief video clip (1976) was PD or not - clip was made 48 years ago - and may now be PD?
cite news |last=Bogdan |first=Dennis |authorlink=User:Drbogdanwhen linking to one of his own comments in that cite. You don't get that authorlink by accident from the autofill options linking NYT comments unless I'm mistaken. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
<ref>{{Cite news |last=Foer |first=Jonathan Safran |date=2020-05-21 |title=Opinion {{!}} The End of Meat Is Here |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/21/opinion/coronavirus-meat-vegetarianism.html |access-date=2024-06-30 |work=The New York Times |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331}}</ref>
. I don't think there's any way to get |authorlink=User:Drbogdan
and all that without deliberately typing it.
XOR'easter (
talk)
16:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
lack of admin attention here so far also speaks for itself. The message I'm getting from it is that this thread is less time-critical and involves subtler problems than most everything else on the board currently. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi, uninvolved editor here. Creating a new section so that we can more concisely discuss whether a WP:CIR and WP:PROMO indef ban for this user would be appropriate. The accusation of self promotional insertion of sources into Wikipedia is a serious one, if true and deserves a discussion and probably a 6 month indef with the home the user can take some time WP:HEAR the concerns raised. Allan Nonymous ( talk) 17:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
User:Michalis1994 refuses to cooperate to improve the article. He does not discuss with me, but reverts without explanation. The sources he cites do not correspond to what he writes, and his additions make the article look more like a libellus than a calm record of the facts. Here are some diffs https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Afroditi_Latinopoulou&diff=prev&oldid=1230703015
also remove my appeal for discussion
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Afroditi_Latinopoulou&diff=prev&oldid=1230638536 D.S. Lioness ( talk) 17:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
He is a user of bad faith. You can see here /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/D.S._Lioness is fraudulently trying to delegitimize my contribution. D.S. Lioness ( talk) 18:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
This is a bit of a mess, but it does look at first glance as if D.S. Lioness is attempting to whitewash the article to remove cited criticisms of specific politicians and political parties. For the record, Lioness, do not accuse other editors of "libel", as that can be construed as a legal threat resulting in you being blocked. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite— Preceding undated comment added 19:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
request for blocking to User:Michalis1994 per Wikipedia:NOTHERE and Wikipedia:Civilty see here https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Afroditi_Latinopoulou&diff=prev&oldid=1230879788 D.S. Lioness ( talk) 17:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Quick report on D.S. Lioness: she's been relentlessly axing articles and deleting cited content to push her own POV. Entire sections in Afroditi Latinopoulou, including academic articles, have been wiped out and replaced with dubious, unreliable sources. The same pattern is evident here (no reason given), here (no reason given, despite the MEP's history), and here (removed information about the town, without giving any reason at all). Michalis1994 ( talk) 08:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Personal attack (whitewashing), again. D.S. Lioness ( talk) 18:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
This seems strongly like a boomerang issue. User here seems only interested in censoring opinions that disagree with her.-- Insanityclown1 ( talk) 05:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
During a content dispute, it is more important than ever to focus on content, not editors- neither user here seems to be able to focus on the content rather than taking digs at the other. I don't think an interaction ban would be fair here unless it is accompanied by them both being unable to edit topics related to Afroditi Latinopoulou (including any politics related to that person) - so I think either a time limited topic ban or an indefinite topic ban (with ability to appeal after contributions elsewhere, as standard) would be better. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 06:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
See for yourselves. Enough is enough with your lies. D.S. Lioness ( talk) 00:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Now he's looking for my sandbox and he wants me to be blocked for what I WILL WRITE D.S. Lioness ( talk) 17:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Αs far as I am concerned I will abstain from the Latinopoulou article until the user check is completed. Τhen everything will become clear D.S. Lioness For a comprehensive update I leave this one here /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/D.S._Lioness D.S. Lioness ( talk) 17:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Comment: The assumption that D.S. Lioness will cease her vandalism is fundamentally flawed. Her disruptive editing and vandalism have now extended to other pages, such as the Alexis Papahelas article, where she removed cited content just a few hours after discussions began to address concerns about her contributions. This mirrors her previous behaviour on the Afroditi Latinopoulou page and is unlikely to stop there. This serves as a warning to anyone who believes the situation might improve or that her actions are confined to the Afroditi Latinopoulou page. Michalis1994 ( talk) 20:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
I think an interaction ban between the two would also possibly be appropriate. This sequence of threads is indicating to me that neither of the parties in conflict can simply leave well enough alone.-- Insanityclown1 ( talk) 09:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Because we are waiting check user results, i think the calmest solution is to "freeze" the issue )unless it is possible to accelerate the procedure) because it may turn out that this conversation is meaningless, just like the one below. D.S. Lioness ( talk) 17:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi admins/Experienced Editors. I don’t have complaints against anyone as I believe in collaborative work.Recent developments are pushing few questions in my mind.The user LukeEmily and Ekdalian are reverting my edits back to back inspite the information is well referenced.Please refer the page Karhade, Mohyal, saraswat etc.When I opposed this action, they launched Sock puppetry against me.May or May not be caste warriors but I request admins to instruct them not to interfere in well cited articles.I have carefully referred articles published in JSTOR for caste articles but was reverted please refer the edit history of all the above articles.I am not even involving in edit war instead giving page number explanation but sadly they are reverting like I am not a member in Wikipedia.I request admins to interfere in this issue and instruct them not to interfere in well cited articles. Thanks and Regards, RobertJudeson ( talk) 07:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Either someone must have put out the bat signal on one of the Apple fanboy sites, or someone is using a ton of proxies to edit, because this page is getting an enormous amount of attention from people trying to cast this person in the worst possible light and Apple in the best, mostly by selectively removing information and revert-warring any attempts to clarify the situation.
All of these IP addresses make 1 or 2 edits, then move on, and it isn't just CGNAT or some such because they are all over different carriers. In most cases there are very few/none at all recent edits from a considerable IP block around that IP (I'm using /20 for IPv4 and /48 for IPv6):
208.114.45.83 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) This edit in which they claim what "the sources say" without actually having read them, as later edits elucidate. No edits in 3 months from the entire /20 either.
2600:8801:2994:4900:2152:83C8:74DE:959D ( talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) This blanking edit, just pure vandalism with a false edit summary (the sources aren't in the lede, and none of the sources relevant to that particular edit were from AppleInsider, which suggests maybe I hit the nail on the head on the talk page in indicating some of the spam traffic is coming from a fanboy site like that). No edits in 2 YEARS from the parent /48.
2600:8801:1201:7200:F591:D785:87AF:8613 ( talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) This "warning" added to my talk page by an IP that has never, ever made an edit before. Only 5 edits from the entire /48 in the past 2 YEARS.
66.146.183.70 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) This reply on the article's talk page as if they were already involved in this article, yet the entire /20 shows no edits at all in the past 6 MONTHS.
I could go on but I think what's going on is obvious: either a mob being told to edit (and not by friends of Ms. Gjøvik, either), or someone very aggressively editing using proxies and throwaway IP addresses to evade WP:3RR. 76.6.213.65 ( talk) 09:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User User:Martinnewbold was indeffed for promotion, being a single-use account to promote his book. Since then the user has written several incomprehensible AI-generated unblock appeals and deletion review requests.
The latest message to their user talk page states that they have sent a letter to Wikipedia UK offices, it includes vague legalise (AI generated) which I interpret as a legal threat against Wikipedia.
In any case, TPA needs revoking. Qcne (talk) 09:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
To avoid me edit warring (I'm already at 2 reverts), can others please look at Vulcan, which is being hijacked by this new editor even after two ignored warnings? The hijacked version, which is completely unsourced, voices opinion and may be AI/LLM generated, is currently the "live" version of this disambiguation page. 92.6.27.15 ( talk) 20:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The edits by JojoeditsWiki are just a flood of do-nothing edits. I'm not sure how to request a mass revert of their edits. signed, Willondon ( talk) 21:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A Turkish IP editor has been making significant edits to the TDI (engine) page, Toyota WW engine page as well as many others, without leaving edit summaries or citations. I have been trying to revert them, but it’s usually ended in an edit war, so the IP saw a 24-hour ban. However, after their ban, they went straight back to vandalising, so the TDI (engine) got protected for three days. They haven’t edited that page since, but have vandalised other pages, leading me to bring this here. I’d appreciate all their edits reverted, and them seeing an extended ban. 750 h+ 23:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Kaalakaa recently
asserted that Muslims can't be reliable sources on Islam because they all supposedly have a conflict of interest. And this is not the first time they've categorically rejected Muslims as RS.
[137]
[138] Such a position has been roundly rejected by other contributors in
that discussion. Even worse is that they seem to attack the perceived religious beliefs of wikipedia editors. For example, when
Hemiauchenia
says: "I think Kaalakaa has been established to be in the minority in pretty much every discussion of this issue.
" Kaalakaa responds
with "This article is about the Islamic prophet, so it is only natural that the talk page is crowded with Muslims.
" They have also been accused of POV-pushing on the
Muhammad article.
[139]
[140]
Kaalakaa's userpage
states "I live in a country where "blasphemy" against a certain religion is a crime. If I suddenly revert many or all of my edits or request that my account be deleted, then there is a high chance that by then I have already been arrested or that my account has been confiscated.
" I feel bad for them, but unfortunately it seems they are on a mission to
WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. There was a
previous report about Kaalakaa on this board as well. It may be time to consider a
WP:TBAN on Islam-related topics.
VR (Please
ping on reply)
05:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
This article is about the Islamic prophet, so it is only natural that the talk page is crowded with Muslimscomment, expressed apparently to aver that once Muslim editors are ignored, Kaalakaa would cease to be in the minority in that discussion). This isn't the first time Kaalakaa has rejected feedback and pushed ahead against consensus, and because of behavior like this a topic ban is necessary as a preventative measure to prevent further disruption to the topic area. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 06:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Jonathan AC Brown and Tariq Ramadan are Muslims, and therefore they have a conflict of interest in writing their books, so I am not sure they meet our WP:SOURCE policy that tells us to "
Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."
If my understanding of WP:SOURCE and WP:IS above is indeed too extreme and incorrect, I deeply apologize and I will retract it. — Kaalakaa (talk) 06:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Regarding my comment that I am not sure if sources with a conflict of interest meet our WP:SOURCE policy, this is because the WP:SOURCE text itself states, "Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," and the word "independent" there is linked to WP:IS, which says:
An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective. Independent sources have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (there is no potential for personal, financial, or political gain to be made from the existence of the publication)."
Banu Qurayza violated the treaty with Muhammad" using those sources. However, several other secondary sources doubt that Banu Qurayza violated the treaty or even participated in a treaty with Muhammad. A primary source also reports that Banu Qurayza denied having a treaty with Muhammad (Tabari, vol.8 pg.15). That was why, I believed that because the authors of the books are Muslims, it had led them to present the claim from Muhammad and Islamic sources that "Banu Qurayza violated the treaty" as a fact. Nevertheless, I did not outright reject the inclusion of the statement, but said that it needed to be attributed to Muhammad or Islamic sources if included [143]. — Kaalakaa (talk) 07:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
but my recourse would be to convince the community to see it my way and establish a new consensus, not to edit war those sources out of articles.
I am not sure they meet our WP:SOURCE policy" in the WP:NPOVN discussion. But if I might have mistakenly done so, I apologize. — Kaalakaa (talk) 10:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Jonathan AC Brown and Tariq Ramadan are Muslims, and therefore they have a conflict of interest in writing their booksis harmful to the project of building an encyclopedia. On that principle, we would have to exclude many of our sources for articles such as Woman, Gender and Sexism because the authors are female and most of the rest for being written by men. The topic-ban is also required both for their disgustingly slanted rewriting of Battle of Badr [146] and for doubling down on that demonstration of utter disregard for our NPOV principles by presenting it in this very thread as a fine example of their work. NebY ( talk) 13:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. It means 'neutrally reflecting what the sources say. It does not mean that the article has to be 'neutral'." And that's probably why Robert B. Spencer is described as
anti-Muslimin his Wikipedia article because there are no sources that dispute that description. — Kaalakaa (talk) 13:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
The original citation was to William Muir, a 19th-century source." I had seen several editors taking issue with Muir because he was considered too dated [149] [150], and I more or less agreed with them, so I removed it. But if you have more recent sources, as you mentioned afterwards, "
but newer sources also affirm this," please feel free to add it back using those newer sources. And if there are conflicts between reliable sources, describe the disputes in accordance to WP:IMPARTIAL. Concerning the gory and inflammatory language, everything is based on the secondary sources cited, and I am sure it is also present in the primary sources because these secondary sources base their contents and analyses on those primary sources. — Kaalakaa (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Concerning the gory and inflammatory language, everything is based on the secondary sources cited: This goes to show why a topic ban is necessary. Upon receiving feedback about behavioral issues like POV pushing, Kaalakaa doubles down. A topic ban will be a preventative measure. Consider what Kaalakaa is saying next to some of the language Kaalakaa introduced to the article:
The Muslims slashed them as they fled
When Uqba pleaded, "But who will take care of my children, Muhammad?" Muhammad replied, "Hell."
licking their lips like snakes(this referring to Muslims)
too dated). According to The New York Review of Books,
The trouble is that Rodinson's portrait of Muhammad as a rather insignificant little man caught up in a whirlpool of his own passions and of political and social upheavals simply does not square with the historical facts.
The Muslims slashed them as they fled," this seems somewhat similar to "
Many Palestinian civilians were killed as they fled" in Gaza-Israel conflict. Does "slash" need to be reworded to "kill" so it doesn't sound gory or offensive?
licking their lips like snakes," here I quote a larger passage from the article that includes that excerpt for context [151]:
According to an Islamic tradition, Utba, in an attempt to dissuade the Quraysh from fighting their kinsmen, said, "Do you not see them," referring to the Muslims, "squatting on their mounts, holding on tightly, licking their lips like snakes?" Abu Jahl reportedly reacted angrily, stating that if anyone else had said it, he would have bitten them.
When Uqba pleaded, "But who will take care of my children, Muhammad?" Muhammad replied, "Hell."
anti-Muslimbecause it is offensive? Doesn't the guideline itself say, "
Wikipedia editors should not remove material solely because it may be offensive, unpleasant, or unsuitable for some readers. ... Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available."
I also notice that the content I excerpted is cited to books that Kaalakaa has been pushing and defending (permanent link) for citation on the topic of Islam"
I've only ever found one review of it."
for being a biography of a religious leader that failed to pay any attention to his religious life," here is what the review actually said:
The biggest gap in the book is that religion plays little role, apart from discussions of the sources of Muslim morale and cohesion, but this is really not the point of the book.
The book closes with an overall military analysis of Muḥammad’s record as a general, evaluating the various aspects of his career as a political-military leader, the gist of which was that he was continually able to outmaneuver opponents who had not yet adapted to the implications of Muḥammad’s religious warfare.
This is a much better book than I expected—not just an attempt to apply currently fashionable military theory to Muḥammad’s career but a well-researched and very professional military analysis. Apart from its contribution to the literature of military history and counterinsurgency, it reinforces the credibility of the very detailed early accounts of Muḥammad’s life and career. This last is a finding of considerable importance.
a book sixty-four years old (despite Kaalakaa elsewhere expressing WP:AGEMATTERS concern about a cited work being 'too dated'),"
licking their lips like snakesis incredibly offensive even if Utba said it and is merely being quoted. It also isn't really a quote, since the event was so long ago and obviously grew in its telling to partisan audiences. The Song of Roland has numerous concordances and I don't doubt the tale of this battle does also. The point is, we don't know if any of that anecdote actually happened and it serves no purpose except, as you say,
showing Muhammad's attitude towards one of his enemies. Because why exactly? Especially since there is ample reason to doubt the literal historicity of this rendering? If you want to show generalship, show generalship. This is not that. Elinruby ( talk) 02:14, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Kaalakaa has explicitly stated, more than once, that they know they were wrong to think Muslim scholars have an inherent COI regarding Islam.Pretty much every editor here simply does not believe this, which is fine. The thing is, I don't know if they'll change, you don't know, nobody knows because there's no way for them to prove it other than fixing what they've broken. Battle of Badr is an obvious opportunity for them. It would be a very difficult task because, well, it'll be a lot of hard work but also because they'll have to demonstrate a clear lack of anti-Muslim bias. Look: if Kaalakaa tries to fix that article, I think they'll fail. I'm just wondering, what if I'm wrong? City of Silver 19:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
"It is very concerning that someone who has done over 42,000 edits since 23 December 2006 still doesn't quite grasp basic Wikipedia guidelines."See talk. StarkReport ( talk) 11:26, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It's very clear they are not here to build an encyclopedia. I just deleted their upload and indeffed them on Commons for crosswiki vandalism. The Squirrel Conspiracy ( talk) 05:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Debresser ( talk · contribs) has been repeatedly blocked for violating various topic bans, some involving the WP:GAME approach. As someone who is uninvolved with this user, I look at their block record and suspect the blocks are doing nothing to deter their behavior. To save the commuinity additional trouble with this user, I recommend them banned from Wikipedia by the community. -- wL< speak· check> 05:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi Admins. The user Ekdalian is spreading wrong information of my account being sock which is not fair.He is using the sentence “I am quite sure that he is a sock!”.I am sharing his chat history which is still available in his talk page in the title “A kitten for you!”.
Proof of chat by the user for your kind reference,
End of their chat.
Further information is that the User Ekdalian in retaliation for our disagreement in editing/reverting has supported the person who raised the sock puppetry investigation.The Person who raised investigation himself has proved as sock of User:Antimtripathi.I request admins to warn the user:Ekdalian to stop this speculation work as Wikipedia grows with collaborations and not by groupism or rivalry. RobertJudeson ( talk) 08:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
106.70.52.165 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Keeps adding unsourced content to articles/making unsourced date changes, continued after final warning and after a 31 hour block on the 22nd. Examples of unsourced edits: 1, 2, 3. Waxworker ( talk) 14:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
An administrator who adds copyright violating text to an article, when they are absolutely fully aware that it is a copyright violation, should not be an administrator. See https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Nevada_Gaming_Commission&diff=prev&oldid=1228849678. It is far, far from the first time that I've seen this administrator behaving in this way. 193.117.188.78 ( talk) 20:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
ArbCom may be the only dispute resolution forum in Wikipedia in which the boomerang principle does not apply, in which the editor who files a bad complaint will not have their own conduct scrutinized. This is about an editor who is disruptively filing Requests for Arbitration concerning a historic train.
The problem seems to have started on 27 February 2024 when DTParker1000 expanded the article on Rio Grande 223, and included material about the historical importance of railroads in the American West in the nineteenth century. Other editors, including User:Xboxtravis7992, removed much of this material as being off-topic. In my opinion, it was information that should be in the encyclopedia, and probably is in the encyclopedia (but I did not research whether it was), but was off-topic for the article. Xboxtravis7992 then filed a DRN request on 11 March 2024: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_242#Rio_Grande_223. . I declined it, but said that another request could be filed in 48 hours. Then there was edit-warring, and DTParker1000 was partially blocked from the article in question, indefinitely. They requested unblock, which was declined. JTParker1000 then filed a Request for Arbitration on 19 March 2024, [ [156]], and the request was declined by ArbCom on 20 March 2024. JTParker1000 then filed a DRN request on 7 April 2024: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_244#Rio_Grande_223. I closed that request as vexatious litigation. JTParker1000 has now filed a second Request for Arbitration, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Rio_Grande_223, with no mention of the first request, and an otherwise fragmentary record of previous dispute resolution.
ArbCom traditionally does not sanction editors for filing stupid, frivolous, or vexatious cases, so I am asking the community to take action against a disruptive editor and vexatious litigant. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Based on the discussion above, at the arbcom case request and previous times this has been brought up, I think a formal topic ban is in order:
The intent of "six months of active editing" is so that extended absences don't count towards the six months, it is not a requirement for six consecutive months of active editing. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
six months of active editingcondition. Wikipedia is a volunteer community project and we shouldn't mandate that you actively edit in order to appeal a sanction. God forbid they should have a heart attack and be laid up for an extended period of time like I was, and not really giving a fuck about editing Wikipedia, instead focusing on recovery - walking and talking again. And then after a semi-successful recovery, wanting to volunteer again, only to be told, sorry for your bad luck, we are still going to mandate that you actively edit for six months in a volunteer community project in order to appeal your sanction. Nope, too draconian for my tastes. Isaidnoway (talk) 03:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
824 Montmarte, a clear sock of User:Raymarcbadz is on a revert rampage right now. Assistance is requested as I cannot continue to rever them. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 04:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
I would like to report Annh07 for constantly reverting/rollbacking my edits despite my explanations as to the rationale of my edits. In one instance Annh07 reverted my edits in the article "Religion in Belarus" when I have explained that it was necessary to use a pipe link to direct the "Roman Catholic" link to the page of the Latin Church. The reason is that using the link "Roman Catholic" alone would redirect to the main article of the Catholic Church. The "Roman Catholic" link in the pie chart refers to the Latin Church and not the Catholic Church as a whole considering that "Belarusian Greek Catholic" is mentioned in the same breath. In another incident in the article "Mission Society of the Philippines" I made a correction in the lede of the article that states that "The Mission Society of the Philippines (MSP) is a Society of Apostolic Life of the Latin Church of the Roman Catholic Church." and changed it to "The Mission Society of the Philippines (MSP) is a Society of Apostolic Life of the Latin Church of the Catholic Church." considering that the Latin Church was already mentioned in the sentence which would make the term "Roman" redundant here. In another instance, Annh07 reverted my corrective edits to the article "Religion in Honduras" in which he reinstated the "Roman" terminology without being aware that Honduras many Arab Christians,of which there were Eastern (not Roman) Catholics, migrated to Honduras. The mention of things related to the Catholic Church should remain in that a simple and clear form unless that the topic explicitly pertains to any one of the particular churches of the Catholic Church. Thus, "Catholic" is preferred unless being specific is needed.
His/her actions exhibit a clear disregard for following conventions which has been settled a long time ago and is reflected in the talk pages regarding the name of the main article of the Catholic Church as well as the talk pages concerning moving of pages with the name "Roman Catholicism in Country X" to "Catholic Church in Country X." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.189.116.70 ( talk) 05:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
This user has, over the course of many years, repeatedly added an image of a Jewish person to "illustrate" an antisemitic Russian "joke". See the history of Russian jokes. Please take action. 89.207.175.7 ( talk) 08:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
These are jokes of jews- Soviet dissidents themselves." I'm hoping they can elaborate. Professor Penguino ( talk) 08:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Do ligt a yid a posheter |
Here lies a Jew a simple one, |
- Altenmann >talk 08:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps you cannot readis a personal attack. Meters ( talk) 08:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
I find it insulting to continue this discussion started by an abuser, see section below, without addressing serious behavioral complaints file by me in the section below. Good bye.- Altenmann >talk 08:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
So the upshot is that the image was removed. I think it's worth noting that for more than a decade this has been Altenmann's personal playground for unverified jokes. Drmies ( talk) 12:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
several ethnic stereotypes have developed, often in common with those views by other ethnicities
are depicted as primitive, uncivilized, and simple-minded, but clever in their own way
are depicted as rustic, stingy
usually depicted as stupid, greedy, hot-blooded, or addicted to sex
depicted as humorless, stubborn, taciturn, and slow
are depicted as humorless, stubborn, taciturn, and slow
a highly developed subset of Russian humor, largely based on the self-image of Russian Jewsand
are not the same as anti-Semitic jokes? Is it too much of a stretch to say that this years-long introduction of uncited contentious material pertains to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed and violates the general Arbitration sanction requiring reliable sourcing and the avoidance of undue weight?Even without applying that sanction, indiscriminately collecting unverified and probably undue examples of ethnic stereotypes, with minimal sourcing to verify the relevance and minimal effort to summarize academic analysis and contextualization that might make this educational instead of just insulting is still not what Wikipedia's purpose is. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 21:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
The ridiculosity of this discussion grows. why don't y'all haste to the Russian jokes page, if you dislike its state so. For example, recently user:Hippo43 deleted 75% of German humour and I didnt say a word, although they deleted some referenced pieces.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Altenmann ( talk • contribs)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
89.207.175.7 ( talk · contribs) removes referenced information engaging in revert war [157] without discussion and makes insulting edit summaries [ [158] [159]. [160] - Altenmann >talk 08:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Judging from this edit, and this one this is the same person as 167.98.155.178 ( talk · contribs) and must be blocked for block evasion. - Altenmann >talk 08:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Tgis is not the same dispute as above. This person is a long-tem revert warrior. - Altenmann >talk 09:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Magnolia677 attacking me because I made "is part of the region" edits to Florida counties that she didnt like. User:NoobThreePointOh reporting me for attacking Magnolia after SHE attacked ME as if SHE'S the victim. User:Aoidh and User:Donald Albury reverting all of my edits on the Florida counties a month later with no probable cause and saying my edits are "disruptive". User:Drmies attacking me and reverting all of the other edits I made on other unrelated pages that dont amount to obvious vandalism and calling them "useless" and then blocking me because he has a personal problem with my edits AND THEN getting my account globally locked. User:Theinstantmatrix Reporting me on Meta and getting all of my accounts locked for threatening Drmies on his Commons talk page. User:Oshwah and User:Acroterion CONTINUING to block all of my accounts and joining in attacking me over me reporting a false positive on the abuse filter.
" I'm not sure if you're using a source that has a different definition for these regions and not including that source" Because I DON'T have to include a source? The fuck? That's like saying I need to include a source that the sky is blue or that the earth revolves around the sun. I DON'T have to include a fucking source for every single edit I make. YbabCitnaltaDim II ( talk) 10:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
User:Theinstantmatrix Reporting me on Meta and getting all of my accounts locked for threatening Drmies on his Commons talk page.(bolding mine.) W ADroughtOfVowels P 11:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Primefac, this one. To all the onlookers, you may be surprised at the filth that this sock posts (on other projects as well), and the audacity to think that they can be part of the game when they make attacks like that. I can't explain it, but it likely goes back six years, to User talk:DarwinandBrianEdits. Amazing. Drmies ( talk) 12:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
There is an RFC at Talk:Shakshouka#RFC on etymology that is problematic in at least three ways. First, the RFC concerns the reliability of sources, but has not been first discussed at the Reliable Source Noticeboard, which is the proper forum. By the way, the Oxford English Dictionary is almost always the most reliable source on the etymology of English words, including English words of non-Englis origin.
Second, the originator has started this RFC because they have a misguided mission for which there is no consensus, and have misinterpreted my non-encouraging advice. The originator is User:LEvalyn, who says that they want to rewrite Shakshouka in order to bring it to Good Article, but all of their edits were reverted by other editors including User:M.Bitton] with negative comments on the talk page. User:LEvalyn then filed a DRN request. User:M.Bitton deleted the notice of the DRN filing. This action is a de facto declining to participate in moderated discussion, and moderated discussion is voluntary. I closed the DRN request, saying that it appeared that there was a lack of consensus for the full rewrite that the originator wanted, but that if they still wanted to do a full rewrite, one or more RFCs would be in order. I did not recommend the use of an RFC to bypass the Reliable Source Noticeboard, and this RFC is not about article content anyway.
Third, there has then been edit-warring over the RFC between User:M.Bitton and User:Pathawi:
This RFC never should have been started in this form, and these editors were clearly edit-warring.
Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:52, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
arguing that not every claim by Ethnologue is correctportion of their comment to me. -- Super Goku V ( talk) 00:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection&
If an editor asks you not to edit their user pages, such requests should, within reason, be respected.While DDE does have a step that says,
If tendentious editor continues reverting: Use templates [uw-disruptive1], [uw-disruptive2], [uw-disruptive3], and [uw-disruptive4], it also mentions at the top of the section that the steps do not have to be done in that order. Additionally, you don't have to use the templates in order and can use a stronger one first. -- Super Goku V ( talk) 10:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Buccini never uses the word Maghrebi at all, and gives the location for shakshuka as "North Africa (Tunisia, Algeria, also Morocco?)", p. 133. To go from that to "Maghrebi" is not appropriate, and who only ended up at the page in an inappropriate manner, claims to want to turn it into a GA? Frankly, given the incessant sealioning on the talkpage by LEvalyn, I sympathize with M.Bitton's frustrations, and think an enforced break for LEvalyn from this topic is in order. Grandpallama ( talk) 16:37, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
If the filing editor still wants to rewrite the article, the least disruptive way to try to do this would be one or more RFCs.LEvalyn then started an RFC. LEvalyn commented on the RFC saying,
Oh -- this is my first RfC, so please let me know if I have made any mistakes! I plan to send an RfC notice to the reliable source noticeboard and all of the wikiprojects to which this article belongs.Robert McClenon did not let LEvalyn that anything was done wrong. He started this ANI instead.
In fact, this article seems to have an issue since at least 2021 with each year since having over 100 mentions of "revert" or longer. It is clear that there is currently a problem here over something.. LEvalyn's first involvement in this article is this year. Not 2021. -- asilvering ( talk) 17:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
a misguided mission for which there is no consensusis a truly astonishing way to categorize the work of an editor who is doing their best to improve the abysmal sourcing on a wikipedia article. If ensuring that articles meet WP:V according to WP:RS is a misguided mission, what mission do we even have at wikipedia? -- asilvering ( talk) 17:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
You removed the word Maghrebi without a valid reason.M.Bitton specifically objected to just one of the changes, but reverted all of them. In the following 26 hours from the first revert, M.Bitton makes two additional reverts to LEvalyn's edits with the following edit summaries:
restored and added two RS to prevent further disruption&
Please refrain from deleting the wording maghrebi and imposing your POV. There is even this line from the talk page discussion justifying the full reverts: " 2) You are fully aware that the removal of the word Maghrebi will entail a revert." This specific situation feels like Stonewalling. And now we currently have a poorly formatted RfC attempting to determine if two dictionaries are a better source for the etymology of shakshouka as an attempt to discuss it failed. For at least some relief, I would prefer it if M.Bitton set a personal goal to only revert the article once a month and to seek out another user to revert further or to only use reverts on bad faith edits. It isn't the only issue, but it seems to be one of them. -- Super Goku V ( talk) 13:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
M.Bitton claimed that there is an Extended confirmed restriction on the article, but I don't see any proof of thatI have never claimed such a thing. M.Bitton ( talk) 14:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
I probably should have also listed User:M.Bitton and User:Pathawi at the beginning of this thread. I will clarify my reference to a misguided mission. What is misguided is a mission to bring an article to Good Article status by rewriting it against local consensus. Improving the sourcing of an article is never misguided, but a major effort to rewrite an article when there isn't yet local consensus to improve it is not likely to work.
My real reason for bringing this report to WP:ANI was the edit-warring, which is a conduct issue, and I now see that I should have listed the edit-warriors as subjects of the report.
What is the preferred option for dealing with a poorly formed RFC?
Now that the edit-warring has stopped, I am willing to have this report closed, and to let other people worry somewhere else about what to do with the RFC. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:53, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
First, I apologise for the flaws in my RfC. As I said, I have never made one before, and I guess I didn't do a good job of framing the question at hand. Should I withdraw the RfC? Can they be amended? I would be particularly grateful if someone else felt they could start an RfC (or an RSN discussion?) about this topic, or suggest a more appropriate wording for me to use. For the record, I wouldn't say I am a "newer editor," just new to RfC/ANI/DR/RSN/etc, since in the seven years I have been editing I have never experienced stonewalling like this.
To respond to the comments about my behaviour, I am honestly a little perplexed to be accused of POV-pushing. Is the POV supposed to be edits trying to remove "Maghreb" from the article
? I don't think that's a fair characterization of edits like
this and
this, especially since I explicitly
suggested that M.Bitton should add the word Maghreb back in if it's important to them. Indeed, in my later edits,
I have included the word. I also think it's unfair to say that my edits are reverted by other editors including User:M.Bitton
; no "other editors" have reverted me, only M.Bitton. The negative comments on the talk page
are also 99% M.Bitton, and just
this one from Skitash. I have been really mystified by the uniquely uncollaborative and unconstructive atmosphere at this article, which is why I have sought outside perspectives at ANI, DR, and now RfC. If the broader consensus is that this article should remain unchanged, I would be disappointed, since I don't think it's in very good shape and I have now spent more time trying to achieve consensus here than it took me to write my most recent GA, but I can respect it.
~ L 🌸 (
talk)
05:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
I will face the music ( talk · contribs) has spent the past few months since making their first edit making various changes to infoboxes regarding the area of country/other polity articles. Many have been reverted ( [161] [162], [163] [164],PR: [165] [166]). Their responses to this have been aggressive ( [167] [168]), and they were blocked for personal attacks following this edit. Upon the block expiring, they immediately went back to edit warring in one of the already mentioned article (see PR edits above). Blocking admin Bbb23 suggested this should come to AN/I if disruption continues, and it has. The edit warring and WP:CIVIL issues here compound each other. CMD ( talk) 15:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the right place to write this, but an IP user has been making some edits at the article " Isla Bryson case" that are less than productive. That person is disrupting the article, seemingly to illustrate a point and spread their opinion on trans people. Under the manual of style on gender identity, we should refer to people by their gender identity, not sex assigned at birth, but the IP user is removing and changing wording to portray a trans woman as being male.
As you can see in the MOS, this matter has been litigated ad nauseam, and consensus is that we should not misgender people, which also has been extensively discussed at the article's talk page. When I discovered two edits the IP user had made a few days prior, I reverted them and said in the edit summaries that I was doing so per the talk page. Then I went to bed. A few hours later, while I was sleeping, the IP user reverted without explanation, reinstating the edits portraying Isla Bryson as the wrong gender. When I came back and saw those edits, I reverted again, linking to the MOS in the edit summaries, and as I was writing this they have once again reverted without explanation. Please send help. 188.176.174.30 ( talk) 16:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Good day all. I am the IP user in question. I see that I have been blocked without being given any opportunity to defend myself or give my side of the story. I would like to that now if I may. With respect, 188.176.174.30 has completely misrepresented the situation.
The page in question concerns a transwoman who raped women while identifying as a man. Notwithstanding that history, I completely agree that she should be referenced by her chosen gender - ie as a woman with female pronouns, etc. No argument at all between myself and 188.176.174.30 about that. And I completely agree if that if I had sought to portray this individual 'as the wrong gender' then that would be wrong. However, I have done no such thing.
Following extensive discussion on the talk page in August 2023, consensus was reached that this individual's former (male) name and her male sex should be referenced in the article, given what she did while presenting as a man. Accordingly, in line with that consensus the page (before I started editing) it already referenced this individual's sex: ie, her male sex. I did not do that. It was already in the page as a result of the August 2023 consensus.
At this point, I pause to note that 188.176.174.30's assertion that "consensus is that we should not misgender people" is completely misleading and ignores what was agreed in August 2023: which was that in this particular case, this individual's sex should be referenced in the article.
Returning to me, all I did was to make clarifying improvements to the page to make clear the distinction in this case between sex and gender. For example, I changed the phrase 'sex at birth' to simply 'sex' (reflecting the biological reality that sex itself does not change (although gender of course can). I made clear in the edit summary exactly what I was doing and why.
Accordingly, I did not in any way portray this individual in the wrong gender, as 188.176.174.30 alleges. Her gender is female. The page reflects that. The page should reflect that. It also purports to clarify that her sex is male, and I simply wanted it to do so more clearly. The fundamental mistake 188.176.174.30 is making here is to fail to understand the distinction between sex and gender.
I therefore suggest that my ban is completely unjustified, and I would request that it be lifted. 151.124.107.115 ( talk) 21:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Coddlebean ( talk · contribs) has engaged in POV-pushing (a few examples: Taiwan, Nazi Germany, Hitler, Tiananmen Square) that has been quickly reverted, but it's now escalating into blatant and juvenile vandalism here. Looking very much like WP:NOTHERE. - Amigao ( talk) 17:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@Jpatokal has been edit warrioring for the last 11 years, pushing blogs and tabloids as sources, which breaks the rules of /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons. See diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Michael_Ezra&diff=next&oldid=563931413
Attempts to reason with him[/her/them] on the article's talk page have proven futile: /info/en/?search=Talk:Michael_Ezra
A complaint raised on the BLP noticeboard was shutdown (in 20 minutes) by @Zaereth: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard
I have been tossed to this notice board but am frankly disappointed by this community's protectionism/shielding of a rogue admin/contributor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.230.201.134 ( talk) 18:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
It's hard to read because, frankly, it's quite incoherent, but it appears that User talk:220.255.188.227 is making a legal threat or a regular threat of some type "I see you were all talking about a project, but I do not know what you are referring to. No wonder, User:Picard's Facepalm threatened me on their talk page, which made me extremely upset. I wonder if they would not like Wikipedia to have a list of administrators caught abusing, with their photo on the list." [170]
This is an acknowledged IP of Jacobchoi20/AirbusA350500 that consists of the editor and their sockpuppets or the editor and their co-workers which were also tasked to edit-warring on airplane pages. That part is hard to guess as their story changes every time they interact with an administrator. In any case, their accounts have already had talk page access revoked. CoffeeCrumbs ( talk) 06:04, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
For the last couple of months, an editor based in Fort Collins, Colorado has been editing as an IP. The IP addresses keep changing, but it is clearly the same person. This editor claims to be a 16-year-old whose parents will not allow him/her to set up an account, see here: [171]. This editor does not actually contribute anything, and their edits consist entirely of placing tags on articles or seeking to get other editors to improve articles. This is very much a negative editing style, which consist entirely of complaining about and disparaging the work of others. Here are some examples: [172], [173], [174], [175], and [176], and [177]. Putting a notability tag on an article classed as good, see here [178], is a case of disruptive editing, and this is just one example out of many. This editor was already blocked once in March for disruptive editing, see here: [179]. Other editors have tried to reason with this editor to no avail, see here: [180], [181], [182], [183], [184], [185] and [186].
Most recently, this same editor twice placed a highly insulting message on my talk page, disparaging all of my hard work in a very smug, judgmental tone, which is quite rich from an editor who has never done any of the hard work needed to create and improve an article, see here: [187] and [188]. This editor does have a point that some of the articles that he is complaining about do need more sources, but there is no need to be so obnoxious and rude about it. I have been trying in my modest way to address that issue (and this issue will be addressed as I dig deeper), but this IP has been going around deleting all of my work, apparently just because he wants to keep the notability tags he has placed on the articles. See here: [189], [190], [191], and [192]. First, this editor comes to me complaining that there he wants more sources to the articles, but then the same editor deletes properly sourced material when added, just so he can put back on the notability tags! This is clearly a textbook case of WP:NOTHERE. There are couple of IP accounts based in Fort Collins, which are clearly the same person: 2605:B40:13E7:F600:B183:EBCE:3B35:B6B7 ( talk · contribs), 2605:B40:13E7:F600:A532:2DFB:1C7B:74E7 ( talk · contribs), 2605:B40:13E7:F600:81AF:FB54:24F5:260E ( talk · contribs), 50.113.53.158 ( talk · contribs), 2605:B40:13E7:F600:5C3E:C3DA:FDE9:A738 ( talk · contribs) and 2605:B40:13E7:F600:40FE:7B6D:17E8:D289 ( talk · contribs). The last account was blocked in March of this year for disruptive editing, and as far I can tell, the block was not lifted. In that case, is this editor not also a sock puppet as well? -- A.S. Brown ( talk) 06:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
67.83.125.225 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, continued after final warning and hasn't responded to warnings. Examples of unsourced edits: 1, 2, 3, 4. Waxworker ( talk) 09:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm trying to edit this page: /info/en/?search=Hanni_(singer) and removing a false misleading piece about this person being a dual national/citzenship when the previous authors didn't provide correct reference/evidence stating that she is. She has not lived in Vietnam, and she was born in Australia. Like other vietnamese australians as myself, we do not have dual nationalities are stated by these authors who do not know.
But they undo and just report me for not knowing the rules? When I know that the truth is that she is not dual national and they authors do not have sufficient evidence proving she is. I have also contacted the opinion entertainment article author that was used and asked them to correct that article. But at least i know wikipedia is a place where the truth can be corrected.
What can the administrators do? Since I'm new to this platform and I just want to make sure that the information is accurate. I have started a talk topic for that page: /info/en/?search=Talk:Hanni_(singer)
But I don't think they care. Lightningwhitefox ( talk) 12:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:HabichuelasBeans has been INDEF'd as a sock, but it seems they probably need their talk page access revoked. Remsense 诉 13:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
User has been making nonsensical undiscussed article moves that violate naming conventions. Talk page messages have gone unanswered. See Special:Contributions/Kaane99. 162 etc. ( talk) 15:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Clement Hills continuously makes reverts of good-faith edits or warning users/IPs without an actual revert.
Examples:
I have requested block at AIV but then admin noted that I should come here. Myrealnamm ( 💬pros · ✏️cons) 17:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Adityagoyal6363 ( talk · contribs) predominately edits in Indian reality television articles. On Bigg Boss OTT (Hindi Digital series) season 3 I've been having an small issue with their edits as some of their are contrary to MOS:CAPS with this being the most recent edit on their part changing the section headings back to mixed-case. I'm not thrilled about that, but the larger issue I have is the lack of communication or response from them about the issues after leaving https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Adityagoyal6363&diff=prev&oldid=1231958415 warning] messages on their tak page. They have responded to earlier messages on their talk page, so I know they are aware of the messages, but ignoring the WP:MOS from an editor with 2000+ edits of a year is not a minor thing. Given the lack of response around this, perhaps a page block from this page until they acknowledge they will follow the MOS is needed here. Thank you. Ravensfire ( talk) 17:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A message for @ Daniel Case: with apologies – your talk page is protected.
You kindly protected Yakub (Nation of Islam) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) at my request at RfPP, but seconds before you did, an IP editor slipped in with this terrible edit. Please can that also be reverted? 81.187.192.168 ( talk) 18:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
So, this guy named Mushy Yank is trying to spoil the plot of Despicable Me 4 a month before it releases. His justification is that the film released in his country but the film is an AMERICAN movie. Despite warnings from both me and another user, he has persisted in trying to spoil the movie. Please ban him. HiGuys69420 ( talk) 19:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC) Here is a link to his user page: /info/en/?search=User:Mushy_Yank
shut the f*ck upis less hostile than
shut the fuck up? Really? I’m gobsmacked. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Someone in Florida has been adding hoax albums to various musical biographies. [196] [197] This disruption has been going on since last year. [198] Can we put a stop to this nonsense? Binksternet ( talk) 19:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
A single purpose user nominated Joshua N. Haldeman. Not one person supports delete (one admin did start arguing there with keep-sayers) and everyone is looking for sources. Not a beginning of a case for delete and a huge waste of time. The single purpose user must have a ball. It could be a sock but I would not know of whom. Can we please speedy or snow close this AfD before more community time gets wasted? gidonb ( talk) 21:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Someone apparently based in Southern California has been blocked many times for disruption in articles related to ethnicity, ancestry, diasporas and other demographic movements. They were blocked twice each as Special:Contributions/2600:6C50:7EF0:71E0:0:0:0:0/64 and Special:Contributions/76.174.235.156, and they are still blocked for two or more years as Special:Contributions/2600:6C50:7EF0:4A70:0:0:0:0/64, Special:Contributions/2603:8001:400:0:0:0:0:0/40, Special:Contributions/23.184.48.0/24, Special:Contributions/58.122.219.85, Special:Contributions/1.239.160.125 and Special:Contributions/45.8.146.0/24. They have used proxies, webhosts and compromised IPs from other places.
Characteristic edits from this person include:
Can we get some lengthy blocks on the recently active IPs? Binksternet ( talk) 05:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
User AngelicDevil29 had been previously indeffed by Yamaguchi先生 on 5 July 2023, due to Persistent disruption and addition of poorly sourced content. They were unblocked by Deepfriedokra on 22 January 2024 after an AN discussion, while noting that the blocking admin was inactive at that time. However, it appears that AngelicDevil29 still has a long way to properly understand what WP:RS and WP:NOR are. Just in past few days:
The list goes on, and I'm afraid, goes back to January. AngelicDevil29 has been made aware of these WP policies by a number of editors, and if they are not, I fail to understand why they were unblocked at first place. I feel a topic-ban, if not indef, on them regarding South Asian castes is necessary given the persistent original research, WP:SYNTH and borderline POV pushing to somehow "prove" that a certain tribe/caste is Sindhi (another example can be seen here) in spite of being amply warned; all without any regard to the reliability of the sources or whether the source even supports their claim.
Sutyarashi ( talk) 10:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Zanza05 has been continually removing Xenoblade-related entries on List of video games with LGBT characters, despite being sourced to sites that are listed as acceptable per WP:VG/RS. This has been ongoing for over a year, having previously done so under multiple IPs including [210] [211] [212] [213] (the latter of which is still topic blocked from those pages, technically making this block evasion). I attempted to explain policy to them and suggest more constructive ways to edit if they disagreed with the inclusion, but they have ignored this and continued disruptively editing. -- Cyberlink420 ( talk) 16:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Sadifan ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user has persistently created extremely poor-quality articles on Circassian history, refused to engage in discussion on any of them, and repeatedly moved them back to mainspace after draftification with no attempt to fix the issues ( [214], [215], [216]). They have previously been warned by administrators and are the subject of an SPI case. Earlier today I left a final warning on their talk page; they since created this very poor article which shows no signs of understanding the issue.
Even if there is no SPI issues, there are clear WP:CIR problems with this editor. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 18:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
I recently closed an RfC on Yasuke and feel like the situation at Talk: Yasuke is deteoriating once again as more WP:SPA's are arriving to argue about the subject. There is a not insignificant amount of WP:SOAPBOXING occurring as well as some vaguely nationalist rhetoric where editors are proclaiming that Wikipedia is being governed by black supremacy and DEI as well as considerable activity taking place offsite on a Wikitionary Talk Page where aspersions are being cast on other editors involved in the dispute such as outright accusing others editors of lying and conspiring at fabricating historical truth as well as what appears to be attempts to Status Quo Stonewall as noted here where they begin discussing how to circumvent the RfC consensus before the RfC was even closed when they saw that the votes weren't going in their favor as well as WP:Tagteaming seen here. Because of all of these many preceived issues, I think some admin attention is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrhns ( talk • contribs) 18:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
User talk:2600:1006:B038:21B4:7EAA:5EBE:208D:5979 Harassment towards many editrs. Pinging: @ PhilKnight can you please revoke talk page access? Thanks. Myrealnamm ( 💬pros · ✏️cons) 19:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
This is probably pointless, but I'm still going to try this anyway. I have no clue how to format this so please bear with it: I am trying to add two games to the horror games category, namely System Shock 1 and its remake. Two users then decided that I was wrong, so they reverted my edits that I then reverted back. Afterwards, they each asked me for sources and citations for why they would classify as horror games. I provided both sources and even provided my own arguments for why I think they're horror games. Neither of them wanted to accept those sources and they kept reverting my edits regardless all while refusing to elaborate on why they didn't think they were horror games (except the admin who just tried to move the goalpost after I provided him with a source from the studio and publisher behind the remake that officially classifies it as a horror game). One of them also happens to be an admin so that means my edits are now "disruptive" and that I'm always wrong.
Here is the link to the talk page: /info/en/?search=User_talk:Salt12352 the thread isn't that long and it's basically just me and the other two arguing back and forth and it's obvious from reading through who the admin is of the two. The other page I'm referring to that doesn't have a talk page is for the remake of said game. I'll admit that my tone might've seemd a little harsh in the beginning so I apologize for coming off as overtly hostile even though it wasn't my intention, but I guess tone can be hard to convey through the written word. Salt12352 ( talk) 19:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents |
---|
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page;
pinging is
not enough. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. ( archives, search) |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm probably too involved, hence I won't take administrative action but will leave it to others to decide. The users Panamitsu and Alexeyevitch don't get on with one another, which is a shame as they both live in New Zealand and their Wiki interests are similar. In December 2023, I told Alexeyevitch off for following Panamitsu around. My observation is that the warning was heeded, and Alexeyevitch stopped following Panamitsu's contributions. That hasn't stopped the bickering between those two editors. I do have the impression that Panamitsu is following Alexeyevitch's contributions in turn. To put a stop to that, I asked both users to stay away from one another earlier this month. Panamitsu is not listening, and openly admits that he goes through Alexeyevitch's contributions. That's WP:WIKIHOUNDING.
Panamitsu is a productive editor, but this hounding has to stop and he's not listening to me. I invite other admins to weigh in. Schwede 66 00:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Each time[Panamitsu]
would copyedit his[Alexeyevitch's]
contributions to Christchurch suburbs[...]
he would edit articles relating to the area, notably Paraparaumu College, presumably with the belief that[Panamitsu]
live[d]
there and[as]
a way to scare[Panamitsu]. If this is what's happening, I can't help but find such behavior disturbing.Banning Alexeyevitch from interacting with Panamitsu seems like a minimal sanction for such harassment. I would ask administrators reading this thread to remember that
"following another user around", if done to cause distress, or if accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 02:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles, which is what happened here. Endwise ( talk) 03:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
I (or schwede66)[...]
intended to fix them a day or two later -- we wanted to see if there was some-form of monitoring: What do these statements mean? Do you mean you (or even you and Schwede66?) privately collaborated to contribute edits contrary to MOS:TIES and MOS:ENGVAR as—what? Some deliberate 'experiment' to 'entrap' Panamitsu? Wikipedia is not a laboratory, and experiments that
negatively affect articles—even temporarily—are not allowed. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 04:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
confirmed I was stalked: Alexeyevitch, to be frank, all that seems confirmed to me is that you have been stalking Panamitsu and that along with that you've been deliberately introducing MOS:TIES/ MOS:VAR-contrary content into articles. As Endwise explained above, cases where using an editor's history is not considering hounding
includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In the 44 Parachute Regiment (South Africa), you changed "minimise" (British English spelling) to "minimize" (American English spelling) for an article about a South African military unit and in your edit summary you called it
fix[ing]
a spelling error. Some twelve hours later, Panamitsu restored the spelling of the word per MOS:TIES. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 05:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Alexeyevitch, if you're not prepared to use NZ English per
[1] then perhaps your time would be better spent not editing NZ articles.
Panamitsu This edit
[2] is not a good look. It takes two to edit war.
Daveosaurus (
talk)
05:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Do I read this right? Has an admin (Schwede66) deliberately tried to bait an editor by conspiring with another editor to deliberately make disruptive edits, and then brought the baited editor here for sanctions when they actually improved the articles by reverting the disruptive edits? If this is a correct summary, then please block and desysop Schwede66, as that is truly terrible behaviour. Fram ( talk) 08:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Alexeyevitch themself doesn't use New Zealand English, please consider using American English or the Oxford Spelling on their talk page. They might not to respond to comments deliberately avoiding this suggestion.(from the last diff in Panamitsu's comment: Good heavens, literally expressing an intention to ignore comments written in a variation of English not Alexeyevitch's own? Is there such a thing as linguistic chauvinism? This seems contrary to the Universal Code of Conduct's injunction to be collegial and empathetic with
Wikimedians of different backgrounds. And the word salad seems like an attempt by Alexeyevitch at
mockery, sarcasm, or aggressionagainst Panamitsu, mocking Panamitsu's use of New Zealand English spelling. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 13:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
I've had the impression that their[Alexeyevitch's]
contributions have been followed for quite some time; not just "in the past day"came from. As no diffs or examples had been provided, I'm not exactly sure where Schwede66 got this idea from so I don't know if I've addressed everything.
both editors commit to stop following each others edits. This way would avoid any bans and stop any further reasons for conflict.: This is premised on a false balance. What Schwede66 and Alexeyevitch call "following" and hounding has been Panamitsu noticing a widespread pattern of violating—in a few cases apparently deliberately, according to Alexeyevitch and Schwede66— MOS:TIES and MOS:ENGVAR and making fixes in accordance with an overtly permitted use of contribution histories:
Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles.Meanwhile, Alexeyevitch has mocked non-U. S. spelling, has expressed intent to ignore talk page comments not written in American English, and has harassed Panamitsu (more precise diff not possible because of an unrelated thread getting oversighted, but see the timeline of events I created) by following them to Paraparaumu topics seemingly after potentially coming to the belief that Panamitsu had an off-wiki connection to Paraparaumu.With this level of hostility toward non-U. S. English and this depth of attempted harassment against Panamitsu in play, I'm not convinced that asking for a mutual commitment will prevent future guideline and policy violations by Alexeyevitch. Getting Panamitsu off their back seems to be precisely what Alexeyevitch has wanted, so as to be able to eliminate New Zealand spellings from articles without scrutiny from an editor like Panamitsu. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 14:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
has been Panamitsu noticing a widespread pattern of violating ... MOS:TIES and MOS:ENGVARthis is exactly the content of my original response, I'm not disagreeing. I was just hoping to find an informal way to settle the dispute. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested « @» ° ∆t° 14:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
be able to eliminate New Zealand spellings– to be honest, I've never seen that myself. And if I were to see that, I'd put a stop to that straight away. There are plenty enough editors in New Zealand who would have zero tolerance to such antics. Schwede 66 05:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
I am not part of this extensive ongoing spat and I don't want to be. I will say though that I am trying not to be affected by Alexeyevitch's numerous changes to Christchurch suburbs and other articles. See today at Opawa and Heathcote Valley. I raised to topic on the Christchurch talk page, to no avail, and I'll raise it here again. His edits are of such a poor quality, in numerous different ways, that they all require a lot of work to put right. He's been an editor long enough to understand the basics of what to do, such as no original research. Look at his Opawa church section and see what the source says (I added a link). I think he should slow down and concentrate on some basic skills, if that is even possible. Unless something changes IMO his editing could be seen as disruptive. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 10:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
This has been an interesting thread to read through. The conclusion I'm drawing at this point is:
after the latest complaint to me via email, I gave Alexeyevitch some random (four, to be precise) articles to edit, asking to introduce little mistakes, can I ask if you would have given this advice on-wiki, such as on a talk page? Or would this advice not have occurred if it was in a public environment? BugGhost 🪲👻 11:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
“ |
|
” |
Avoiding all conflict between editors is not only impossible, trying to do so is way down on the list of objectives, while protecting what everyone has collectively built is at the top: I'd be rather hesitant to say that avoiding clashes is "way down" among the community's priorities. The Universal Code of Conduct includes striving for collegiality,
the friendly support that people engaged in a common effort extend to each other, and Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility is one of the five pillars, which I'm inclined to think are each equally important. As much as I think he's gone about things in rather the wrong way (I'd say I'm more concerned about how
laying a trap for someone is a betrayal of their trust that they will be treated as a colleague), I am sympathetic to Schwede66's belief that
we be more worried about editors getting on with one another. Without respect and collegiality, retaining editors is an uphill grind; and without editors, we have much less collectively built encyclopedia to protect in the first place. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 04:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Examples of his edits (more numerous than talk page discussions). I don't have the time to hunt for all of them. I have never looked at his contribs before, so I'm probably missing a lot. Basically every edit he does on Austronesian-related topics since our first interaction.
We first interacted in Square rig, where we fought over his insistence that the scope only applied to European ships during the Age of Sail (because apparently other sails don't have English names). I let that go since I was in the minority. Afterwards, he started specifically going after Austronesian articles and my contributions. The most egregious of which are multiple topics he opened in Talk:Austronesian peoples, which is still ongoing. Apparently something about the fact that Austronesians crossed oceans thousands of years before Europeans (which I mentioned in our first dispute) ticked him off, and he's been attacking that fact ever since. He has been challenging literally everything he can challenge, by any means. Examples of his behavior:
Some misleadingly follow a procedure. Tagging something, then removing the entire thing after no one notices it. Or removing a reference for unrelated reasons, then removing the then unreferenced sentence. Or opening a topic in the talk, then removing it when no one replies. Impossible to prevent and challenge in time, given the number of articles he does this on. Unless I dedicate my entire time here just following him around. Which is probably the point.
I initially replied to his challenges, which often involved rereading lengthy sources, only to find out he's just misinterpreting, synthesizing, or making up nonsense. This discussion on his changes in the pottery section is typical of his challanges and his tendency to move the goalposts. He first inserted a sentence that misrepresented a source by omitting certain details from the authors' conclusions. When I corrected it and gave another source for rebuttal, he then claims it's now "too long."
This isn't a mere content dispute, given the scale of what he's disputing. He's disputing everything that I've written or is relevant to what I've written. He's throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks. Once one does, or if he doesn't get replies, he then changes it everywhere else. It's not like he's validly tracking down the same errors on multiple articles. It ranges from sails, to boatbuilding techniques, the settlement of Guam, the Polynesian migrations, the settlement of Madagascar, pottery, dogs, pigs, and most recently, the domestication and dispersal of the banana. Some are valid that could have been fixed with a simple sourced edit, most are nonsense based on misreading sources or a general ignorance of the scholarship on the topic, some are outright based on nothing (often hyperfocusing on interpreting a single phrase from a single source). All are, comparatively, minor challenges that chip away one thing at a time (the caption dispute on the lakana for example), often with implied insulting assertions at my editing.
But they're all WP:TENDENTIOUS, with a very clear unifying theme: downplay Austronesian seafaring as much as possible. He has never contributed a single positive thing to the topic. Prior to our first interaction, he had no interest in articles on Austronesian seafaring, his main area of interest was and still is, unsurprisingly, European ships. I'm here to write articles. I have never once interfered with his editing. Until I checked his contribs prior to this report, I did not even know what he does usually on Wikipedia. I still don't.
I've read hundreds if not thousands of papers on this topic, writing much of our coverage on it over the years. Including the vast majority of articles like Austronesian peoples, Lashed-lug boat, Austronesian vessels, Outrigger boat, Domesticated plants and animals of Austronesia, and recently, the Maritime Silk Road. With extensive contributions to others like individual ship, plant, animal, and ancient seafaring articles. And that's only for these related topics ( in case you get the mistaken impression that that's all I write about). I've done my best with keeping with the policies on RS on all of them, as I've done with all my contributions over the last nearly 15 years.
All of that to be challenged repeatedly by the same person on every single thing, every month, who has at most read 10 papers touching on this topic.
I hate all of this. I don't even know what's the solution for situations like this is. Leave me alone. -- OBSIDIAN† SOUL 04:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Ok, I have actually read most of what was posted and looked at the diffs provided to boot; I am completely uninvolved and I do not know anything beyond basics about the subject. Set the sentiments boiling over aside, and this feels like a rather slow edit war, essentially an extended content dispute. My guess is the topic eludes most people, and I do not think ANI is the place to find people who are actually able to judge about content. So I would want to get more eyes on this, my first port of call being WP:3O. If there is an adequate project who covers this, ask there. Disputants should keep in mind to AGF, and even to AAGF. Lectonar ( talk) 11:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
"Ah yes. Of course. What did I expect from Wikipedia. Actually read?", criticizing the very people who actually made some attempt to respond to this. Wow. Just wow.
Not all the complete "failed verifications" were the result of edits by OS. Nevertheless, they seem ideologically opposed to any criticism of any reference that they support, whilst labelling any that oppose their views as "fringe" (an example is identified by a commenter above i.r.o. Atholl Anderson).
Perhaps the most concise (but still lengthy) example of OS's support for a poor quality source is that following this edit
[3] (and others similar edits made to a number of articles). The relevant edit summaries have a link to a review that is totally scathing. I received thanks from at least one other editor for drawing this to their attention. OS's reaction includes this
[4] with Shaffer being reinstated as a source with the edit summary ...one review doesn't invalidate an RS...
. If you read the review at
[5] you will see that this is not some bad write-up on trip advisor.
The edit that reinstated the Shaffer reference also reinstated Hourani's Arab Seafaring. In another testing interaction with OS
[6], we discover that they ...do not have access to that book
. Reading further on that talk page post, you will see that I finally realised that not only was Hourani a dated source, but the book makes no mention whatsoever of junk rig. This suggests to me that OS has never even read Hourani.
I don't know if I need to give more examples to make the point (you can find some on the talk page of Austronesian peoples), but it seems one has to check every reference they use (which, given the volume of their output, is well nigh impossible).
This is all coupled with an unhelpfully argumentative style, as can be found on any of the talk pages linked above. One in particular I find memorable: [7]. OS wanted an example of the sailing rig labelled "A" in [8]. The photo found on Commons is actually of the one labelled "B". To be fair, we were all at the mercy of Commons taking any picture that you can upload without breaching copyright, with any unverified caption you wish to use. But I think Commons's failing on verification allows us to do some WP:OR on the matter. There are ample videos(e.g. [9] which I have not watched to the end, but shows rig "B" being rigged) and pictures from Madagascar (a holiday destination for many at various times) that tell us exactly how the "old photo" rig works. There was never a word of thanks for finding the appropriate picture that is now in the article [10], which is very different from its predecessor [11]. Without the abrasive attitude, this would have been an engaging exercise in working out the correct content to put in Wikipedia. (OK, I appreciate that for those who do not have an interest in sailing rigs, this is a bit like reading the telephone directory!)
Clearly OS puts in many hours in editing Wikipedia. If only this would be done with a little more emphasis on both quality and co-operation. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 19:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
I didn't have to read much of the initial presentation to gather this, but this is definitely a series of content disputes, where you have one who thought they had articles settled being challenged by someone with other sources and interpretations of sources. Frustrating this more is a lack of editors overall and especially ones who understand these subjects to be able to weigh in. I think you both should slow down, pick one article, try to iron it out - and if you can't, use Wikipedia approaches like Third Opinion, Request for Comment, or involving associated WikiProjects, until your issues are resolved. Then move on to the next article. See also WP:DEADLINE. I don't think this matter is actionable by an admin at this point. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 23:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
But enough of that. If you actually listened to reason, we wouldn't be here. It would have been a mere content dispute. Meanwhile, everyone else here thinks I'm the awful one. While knowing even less than you about the topic. So they hilariously think that what you're saying and doing is actually reasonable. They refuse to understand even if I've actually tried to explain it, for the mindnumbingly stupid reason that "it's too long". And they actually act shocked that I'm angry at them too for responding without bothering to actually read anything.
If you didn't read it, can't read it, or don't want to deal with it, why do you then assume that I'm the one at fault based solely on the length of the complaint? To the point that you actually comment about it? Several of you did exactly that. You didn't read it. If I had known that putting more detail into the report would be a bad thing, I wouldn't have bothered posting this here and just quit. Since it's too complicated to explain briefly anyway. I respect the opinions of people who chimed in who actually read it. Or tried to read it. Even if they disagree with me. Why should I do the same for people who didn't?
ThoughtIdRetired has actually fully admitted now that he's pushing a certain viewpoint and NOT acting in good faith. Exactly like how I described it. And still you all think that's perfectly normal behavior. And my getting angry at his behavior is me being the problem.
This is the SECOND TIME my concerns have been treated as if I was some idiot newbie editor. As if my experience is still not enough to at least take me seriously. By people who insist on AGF-ing even the most egregious behaviors (oh, he opened twelve unrelated talk page sections one after another on a topic he never touched before he met me? Perfectly normal!), while fainting at the slightest sign of a fucking curse word. I'm not even asking you to agree with me, just asking if there's anything you can do to fix it. That's the same response I got a year ago when y'all permabanned me for calling out a racist editor. Yes. I've grown to despise Wikipedia because of this.
I've had enough of this.
You're completely correct, Hammersoft. None of us are paid to do this. You can dismiss this as WP:RAGE. A good chunk of my life went into Wikipedia, but I'm not delusional enough to think I'm irreplaceable. I just don't see the point in continuing. -- OBSIDIAN† SOUL 00:15, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Murmayo (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Diff 1
Diff 2
I hate adding sections to closed AN/I threads but I would also feel silly starting a new one that seems very much intertwined with the above before it's been archived. I felt this rose above typical vandalism as an account made in 2021 sitting unused until today when it GAMEd 10 edits in 3 minutes all to make a foul custom message box on OS's userpage (which they restored when removed) absolutely screams 'bad-hand sock' to me. I wasn't involved in this thread but OS seems to know what's going on with this, so I presume someone more involved with this thread knows whats going on here? GabberFlasted ( talk) 13:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Riposte97 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Please see Riposte97 at Talk:Kamloops Indian Residential School. Both sections are relevant but are relatively short. They should be read in order.
Also relevant:
Editor recently insisted on rewriting Canadian Indian residential school gravesites and Canadian Indian residential school gravesites based on the very flawed notions of verifiability, notability, and DUE demonstrated above. I estimate that if he stops now about two weeks of full-time work will be required to clean up after this episode.
I am unsure whether I am supposed to notify RSN particpants but I will notify Riposte97 now. Elinruby ( talk) 05:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
plan to add to it. That is not how these things are usually done at ANI, and otherwise you will keep pushing the requested rewrite of the OP down the page. I am going to give you a chance to fix that before I attempt to address your assorted misrepresentations. I'll note in passing though that you need to check the date on that block and also acquaint yourself with the {{they}} template. Meanwhile I am going to implement TarnishedPath's suggestion down the page in the correct chronological order. Elinruby ( talk) 12:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
@ Liz: Ok. It is all very complicated and rather inexplicable though, but here is my best attempt to summarize. Please bear in mind that I got instablocked the first time I tried to explain this, which may explain a certain reticence and tendency to be oblique. Please ask me a question if I am not explaining this well. I am nervous because I am being brave and stupid and trying to explain this again even though this editor is trying to intimidate me. ( talk page of the Kamploops article) [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] typo fix included for completeness
Someone quoted Canadian Indian residential school gravesites to me. [25] It had not said that when I was working on it at the time the gravesites were found. [26] On investigation I discovered, among other things, that this editor was reverting to support the insertion into the lead of a statement sourced to spiked.com [27] [28] [29]( similiar previous edit) that insinuates [30] that this recent national tragedy in Canada is a hoax, a la Sandy Hook, ie that those are not really graves, or they are empty. [31] Or something. [32] [33] [34] This is wrong on so many levels [35] that it is hard to know where to begin, [36] but another editor started the now-archived thread at RSN, where multiple editors participated, which started with parsing whether or not the source was better than the Daily Mail. [37]
I need to say that literally hundreds of RS are available,( [38] [39]]) and at least 30 pages of results at Google Scholar. [40] I reviewed the first three pages and posted the urls in the current RSN thread titled #Tne Pope and the Canadian House of Commons with a convenient subheader for easy finding. There appears to be a profound unfamiliarity with these events outside of Canada,(waves hand) and that post was an attempt to begin a discussion to change the apparently hard-wired resistance to using the word "genocide" on Wikipedia.(waves hand) So there are many more sources than that to support the history of residential schools; [41] [42] those are just the ones that call it a genocide. Anyway multiple editors tried to talk to the editor and Ivanvector in particular began to edit the article. [43] or perhaps already was.
I realized that despite the changes to the lede nobody had been updating the article and I began doing that for the various schools where underground radar was being used, or had been used, or where its use is being discussed. I also found some egregious misrepresentations of fact, which are mentioned toward the end of the archived RSN thread.
[44]
[45]. I do not know who was responsible for that;
I just now found this tho of Riposte97 removing material with gold star sources while claiming it was unsourced. I have not yet run Wikiblame. Riposte97 objected to something I had done in the article and
Pbritti pinged me at 20:16. By 22:37 I was abusing relevance tags
and separately refusing to engage in a talk page discussion
Another user appeared on my page to demand that I explain myself. I was busy researching one of the schools where much was being made of a first excavation not finding bodies.
[46] I want to avoid relitigating what followed because I think that it may be better suited to another venue, but I went to bed a few minutes little later after doing some other routine updates and woke up blocked. There was an ANI thread. I was blocked and could not speak.
That is not the point however; the point is that while
[47] I was blocked for a week that article was completely re-written
[48]
[49] to heavily insinuate wrongdoing by the
Tkʼemlúps te Secwépemc, on whose land the graves are.
Much cited material removed here.
A huge table disappears here. @
David Eppstein: called a source used at the Kamloops article a dishonest hit piece, attempting to cast the fact that a project of this size typically takes some time to get going as if it were a scam merely because they were allocated money, haven't produced immediate results, and won't talk to the hit-piece-writers.
(see
Western Standard thread)
Other editors protested the rewrite. [50] [51] [52] [53][ This thread removes material cited to the TRC with an edit summary of "added citation" Diffs in the AE thread about this editor document three different editors protesting [54], [55] (note date), [56], [57], [58], [59] (see p.39 for example), [60], [61], [62], [63] [64] [65], [66], [67], [68] [69], [70], [71], [72] {{refn| [73], [74] (note date), [75], [76], [77], [78] (see p.39 for example), [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91] [1] as the editor claimed to have policy and consensus on his side. If anyone is wondering, I posted them there in an effort to support a complaint by another editor about this editor's behaviour at Hunter Biden laptop controversy, but apparently Things Do Not Work That Way. But since we are discussing that AE thread, it also documents Ivanvector giving this editor a warning,[after being reverted by Ivanvector [2] [3] informal of course since Ivanvector had been editing the article and was therefore involved.
That is a roadmap, maybe? The three current RSN threads are each for a source used at the Kamloops article, which was recently edit-protected, so that may help. @ Fluorescent Jellyfish:, one of the recently-involved editors, says that they are a subject matter expert and and posted an explanation to the talk page of the Kamloops article why they think these sources are disinformation. [92] and was argued with and politely reminded Riposte97 of WP:ONUS] and was argued with some more. Having removed these sources from associated articles way too many times, I believe they are correct. And that is why I am trying to bring eyes to this even though, let's face it, this post is not recommended behaviour for an editor who was recently blocked for stating what is conventional wisdom in Canadian discourse and in the academic field, and warned not to do that again lest they be indeffed. But that there is not what this post is about. [93]]
This post is about some dubious something or other being perpetuated [94] using Wikipedia despite the best efforts of bog standard editors to prevent that.
I do not know why this has been happening for two years. I do not know why this user was one of the people making it happening. He is strangely stubborn about the reliability of really bad sources; from a quick skim there is a lot of POV now in the gravesites article that I have not addressed at all either here or there. This editor is very overbearing with other editors. The editors who were protesting his changes were told that they were being disruptive, this while I was blocked for "disruption", as removing the misleading material was described. At one point I would have evaporated also, so I don't blame them. But I beg you to keep in mind that the topic matter than is being manipulated here is the death of thousands of indigenous children. Please ask me or somebody a question if anything at all that I have said here is confusing. Elinruby ( talk) 10:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
PS: It seems important to point out [95] that the allied denialist Fraser Institute is currently the number one hit for the string "kamloops Indian residential school graves"
References
I'd be willing but I am obviously highly involved as the OP. But here is why I think it should happen:
That is my request. Elinruby ( talk) 04:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'll re-post this in a new topic, if it would be more appropriate, however I didn't want to clutter up the page with multiple topics relating to Riposte97.
- I would ask that Riposte97 be prevented from doing further editing on at least the Kamloops Indian Residential School wikipedia article, and preferably the article Canadian Indian Residential School Gravesites, as well.
- In real life I'm a researcher, and I've done extensive academic research on topics around disinformation, far-right conspiracies, the international and Canadian far-right, and the vast realm of Canadian far-right disinformation publications that spread conspiracy theories, etc.. I'd rather not directly doxx myself, and I understand if you don't take my word for it, but yeah - I'm very, very familiar with the topics at hand. Specifically for our discussion, I'm very, very familiar with anti-Indigenous racism and Residential School denialism as a far-right conspiracy theory, and how those conspiracy theories are featured and spread in far-right disinformation publications. And I'm very, very familiar with far-right disinformation publications in Canada, because I've spent years researching them (which is not fun, let me tell you!).
- The integrity and accuracy of articles about Residential Schools, especially the Kamloops Residential School, is very important, because Canadian residential schools are the subject of a major far-right conspiracy theory which involves anti-Indigenous racism along with what is often considered to be genocide denial. I don't want to write a whole thesis here, so I'll desperately attempt to be brief, but basically this conspiracy theory focuses around the idea of residential schools being 'not that bad' and hinting (or outright stating) that the possible graves discovered on the grounds of many residential schools are a hoax. Any sources used in these articles should be of extremely high quality, high reliability, and shown to not be written in a biased manner, because it is deeply dangerous to promulgate or lend credence to this racist, far-right conspiracy theory, or to lend credence (by citing them) to sources that are known sources of conspiracy, hatred, and disinformation.
- This brief excerpt discusses residential school denialism as a far-right conspiracy, and far-right publications that promote it. As well, it reflects narratives that appear in the content Riposte97 keeps trying to insert. From the article Saying what we mean, meaning what we say: Managing miscommunication in archaeological prospection, by Wadsworth, Halmhofer, & Supernant (2023):
- "...those who used the misconceptions to support and spread denialist misinformation and disinformation about the IRS system. Heath Justice and Carleton ( 2021, n.p.) define residential school denialism as ‘not the outright denial of the Indian Residential School (IRS) system's existence, but rather the rejection or misrepresentation of basic facts about residential schooling to undermine truth and reconciliation efforts’. Quoting French anthropologist Didier Fassin, Jones ( 2021, p. 104) also noted that denialism is ‘an ideological position whereby one systematically reacts by refusing reality and truth’....
- Responding to the GPR results from Kamloops, denialist narratives used various rhetorical strategies designed to distort facts, cast doubt and present alternative narratives. Denialist narratives focused on the terms used by the media such as mass versus individual graves, despite the quick correction of that language in most news outlets (Table 1). Targeting the GPR results, rhetorical strategies also repeatedly emphasized that ‘not one body has been found’, to try to undermine the thousands of archival documents that record the deaths of children. Demands for excavations and exhumations were also used to convince denialist audiences that without physical bodies, the GPR results should be considered a hoax. Additional rhetorical strategies focused on emphasizing that unmarked graves located in school cemeteries should not be surprising, as one would expect to find graves within a cemetery. These comments, however, served to distract their audience from the fact that no school should have a cemetery." (Wadsworth, Halmhofer & Suprnant, 2023).
- So. Now to Riposte97. Riposte97 has shown a continued pattern of removing well-sourced statements without adequate justification, inserting inaccurate and inflammatorily-phrased claims, and using unreliable, highly-biased, far-right sources to 'support' these deeply questionable changes. Upon discussion, Riposte97 refuses to acknowledge these issues, refuses to ameliorate their actions, and misrepresents Wikipedia guidelines. They appear to be inserting claims that are congruent with far-right conspiratorial narratives/claims into the wiki article for Kamloops Indian Residential School, and reverting - without adequate justification - non-conspiratorial edits, to preserve their chosen statements. This behaviour is highly questionable, and risks tarnishing Wikipedia's reputation.
- I'm at an event at the moment, so I can't dedicate a bunch of time to this, but when I added well-sourced info and removed information which comes from a known far-right publication, the Western Standard, he reverted my edit and insisted I prove that the Western Standard was unreliable, and when I did so, with many, many sources, he refused to replace my edit.
- For instance, he reverted my edit, saying:
- --> @ Fluorescent Jellyfish: I have reverted some (not all) of your removal of content sourced to the Western Standard. What is your basis for claiming it is not a reliable source? Riposte97 ( talk) 03:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- I replied:
- --> as it states in the page you linked about Wikipedia's guidelines for determining reliable sources, sources such as newspapers (which Western Standard would be counted as) have certain caveats relating to reliability. The page states that news reporting from "well established outlets" can often be considered reliable for statements of fact - Western Standard is not well-established; it was 're-established' in 2019 (see it's own About page: [96]) by disgraced right-wing politician Derek Hildebrandt, having originally been established in 2004 by extreme-far-right figure Ezra Levant. [97]
- But far, far more than not being well-established - it is a far-right [98] misinformation outlet. [99] It frequently publishes racist, transphobic, and homophobic stories (and has repeatedly had to retract stories, along with failing various fact checks by media- observers). It has also been a key player in spreading Covid-denial and anti-vaxx disinformation. [100] It is a promulgator of far-right conspiracy theories.
- From the (peer-reviewed) article The public, the pandemic, and the public service: The case of Alberta (Wesley and Ribeiro, 2024):
- "Organizations that exhibited high levels of bias, frequently skewed or misrepresented facts, did not use reputable sources, and engaged in promoting conspiracies or misinformation were categorized as fringe. Here we included Fox News, Western Standard, Rebel News, Sun News, and talk radio as fringe news outlets." [101]
- Additionally, just for a quick example:
- "The Western Standard, a conservative publication based in Calgary, amplified in early July a conspiracy theory that claimed fires were being deliberately set at farms around the world to make populations more dependent on governments." [102]
- "[E]xtremists from the far-right of the political spectrum, including the Canadian Yellow Vest movement and the Canadian chapter of the Islamophobic and anti-immigrant Soldiers of Odin. Their narratives are laundered and amplified by a well-established alternative media ecosystem, including outlets such as Rebel News, Western Standard, True North, and the Postmillennial." [103]
- In fact, in its previous iteration, the Western Standard was charged with two counts of hate speech! [104]
- And, lol, just two days ago, "[Derek] Fildebrandt, 38, who is now the publisher of the Western Standard news website, faces four charges of uttering threats to cause death or bodily harm, according to court documents." [105]
- It has a long history of anti-Indigenous racism. It promulgates a current far-right, anti-Indigenous conspiracy theory revolving around Residential Schools, elements of which were featured in this article until I had removed them. It is unfortunately not a reliable source, and I would appreciate my changes being accepted.
- Hope you have a good rest of your day! Fluorescent Jellyfish ( talk) 05:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Discussion continued, but he refused to accept my changes.
- Riposte97 inserted statements from unreliable source the Dorchester Review, another known far-right Canadian conspiratorial publication, which I then reverted. As I discussed on my talk page:
- So, one of the authors of the article he used as a source (the one from C2C) is Tom Flanagan. Tom Flanagan is a well-known Residential School apologist.
- For instance this article describes him as:
- "Tom Flanagan, a former adviser to Stephen Harper and a long-time critic of Indigenous rights who has described residential schools as a “visionary program.”"
- Here's another article discussing Tom Flanagan as part of the general far-right conspiracy to deny Residential School atrocities.
- And here is an article from the CBC discussing Tom Flanagan's book (which is a massive piece of residential school denialism and allegedly *genocide denialism*). The article focused on the reasons and circumstances around the book being denounced by Quesnel city council. (that's also a good article for or info re: the situation, particularly the UN's funding recommendations)
- I have to go, but yeah, I'd like to see him banned from editing this article as I believe he repeatedly inserts far-right conspiracy narratives - and sources - into the article, and is not editing in good faith with reliable sources. Fluorescent Jellyfish ( talk) 23:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
how on earth is citing the Western Standard (or the Dorchester Review, or SPIKED, or C2C) for the bare factual claim that exhumations have not taken place 'pushing a narrative'?Literally this exact question could be answered by rereading the post you're responding to. 100.36.106.199 ( talk) 16:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
"As of May 2024, investigations into the reported mass graves at the site have ended with no conclusive evidence of such graves". Notably when that information was removed, prior to your revert to re-insert it, by @ Fluorescent Jellyfish at Special:Diff/1227472046 they left the edit summary "
Removed questionable claims from a far-right, non-reputable 'source' (the Western Standard is not a reputable source - it is a Canadian far-right publication which is known for publishing disinformation". After your revert to re-include the denialist material supported by the unreliable source, you then proceeded to push the source at Talk:Kamloops_Indian_Residential_School#Western_Standard. TarnishedPath talk 02:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This thread is already quite lengthy and in the interests of coming to some sort of conclusion I'm going to propose a topic ban for Riposte97 from the indigenous peoples of North America, broadly construed.
TarnishedPath
talk
07:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
support for Elinruby oppose for Piposte97. P97 was just warned and it doesn't appear that they have done anything wrong since that warning. Conversely, Elinruby was recently blocked for BATTLEGROUND behavior and it seems they are continuing. Time sink? Look at how much of this that is Elinruby's own comments/commentary! Clearly they feel strongly about this topic but that isn't an excuse to attack editors who are acting in good faith. Additionally, when an editor brings a source that makes what on the surface it's a compelling argument it's more helpful to civilly explain why they are wrong (and saying they are borderline genocide denialist isn't the way to do it). If P97 continues the actions that resulted in a warning so be it. However no evidence has been presented that they haven't heard the warning. So no block is needed at this time. Springee ( talk • contribs) 10:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Riposte97 is warned to abide by the general bold-revert-discuss restriction that is present on Hunter Biden, per the consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE". I'm unsure why you are trying to conflate an entirely different issue to what is being discussed here. TarnishedPath talk 12:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
so long as they don't push in sources, ie edit the article itself, then proposals on the talk page are just that, proposals, the problem can persist. EducatedRedneck ( talk) 13:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
My childCool it. You have no right to talk down.
came here to get the other guy(s)/girl(s) blocked from editing and the community unexpectedly turned on meR97 did not start this discussion. ꧁ Zanahary꧂ 15:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Content discussion |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Please refer to Special:Diff/1231095889 for the editor editing to insert material which multiple editors have advised is unreliable. Refer to Special:Diff/1231097054 for the editor reverting to re-insert it after being reverted. This behaviour is egregious and requires action. TarnishedPath talk 13:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
In May 2024, Western Standard, a Canadian conservative social commentary media [1] claimed that investigations into the reported mass graves at the Kamloops Indian Residential School in British Columbia have end with no conclusive evidence of such graves, despite significant resources invested in various investigative efforts, including fieldwork, archival searches, and securing the school site, no human remains have been found. [2]
Carolane Gratton, spokesperson for the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations confirmed the allocation of $7.9 million for these endeavors. In a statement, the Tk'emlups te Secwepemc First Nation reiterated their focus on the scientific work required but declined to discuss the $7.9 million allocation. [3]
In May 2024, Western Standard, a Canadian conservative social commentary media claimed that investigations into the reported mass graves at the Kamloops Indian Residential School in British Columbia have end with no conclusive evidence of such graves, despite significant resources invested in various investigative efforts, including fieldwork, archival searches, and securing the school site, no human remains have been foundwith Time Now news as source for the citation. അദ്വൈതൻ ( talk) 15:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
the reliability of Western Standard as a whole is ongoing at RSN. The question here, what about using the reports by other news medias that made headlines on the WS's claims in a reported speech style" which I believe isn't solely a reliability issue that needs to be worked in RSN, I believe article's talk page is the place to discuss.
See as I said earlier, the new source having information related to issue is also been reverted citing unreliability."
See as I said earlier, the new source having information related to issue is also been reverted citing unreliability.15:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)" is this
Frequently reverting and undoing the contributions saying any citation is unreliable. By @ Elinruby @ TarnishedPath . Even a contributor has been banned on the topic.
Already reliability of Western Standard is going at RSN under the section Western Standard as a source for Canadian residential schools when Western Standard was quoted as citation [113]
When the WS' claim is added as a reported speech style, they reverted saying the secondary sources is unreliable too under the sub section Online publication in India as source for archaeological findings in British Columbia
Recently I contributed with another new source(The Catholic Register, which I got from RSN discussion under the sub section Western Standard as a source for Canadian residential schools)
, now that too is reverted saying this new citation is also unreliable without talking at the the article's talk page.
See the Diffs to reverting [114] [115]
The recently reverted contributions with citations.
According to a May 9 report by Blacklock's Reporter, the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations has not publicly disclosed how millions of dollars were spent on field work, records searches and securing the Residential School grounds for the Kamloops First Nation.
[4] The $7.9 million provided to the Tk'emlups te Secwepemc First Nation for their field work at the suspected site, represents a small portion of the $110 million allocated to Indigenous communities for searching and documenting burial grounds at former residential schools. The department has not released an audit of the contribution under the Access to Information Act. Carolane Gratton, spokesperson for the
Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations confirmed the allocation of $7.9 million for these endeavors. In a statement, the Tk'emlups te Secwepemc First Nation reiterated their focus on the scientific work required but declined to discuss the $7.9 million allocation.
[4]
At this point even if we ditch all the above sources citing unreliability and got information from other new sources unrelated to WS or any another aforementioned news sites(not even as secondary source quoting Western Standard.) about the issue another discussion will start on the reliability about that new citation.
See my latest contribution citing Catholic Register whose reliability hasn't been in question until now, has been reverted citing unreliability.
അദ്വൈതൻ ( talk) 15:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
since lots of high-quality sourcing indicates that something is due a lot of weight, while low-quality sources can indicate that it's not duewill not get to Wikipedia as it is from a low quality source)
In May 2024, Western Standard, a Canadian conservative social commentary media [1] claimed that investigations into the reported mass graves at the Kamloops Indian Residential School in British Columbia have end with no conclusive evidence of such graves, despite significant resources invested in various investigative efforts, including fieldwork, archival searches, and securing the school site, no human remains have been found. [5] Carolane Gratton, spokesperson for the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations confirmed the allocation of $7.9 million for these endeavors. In a statement, the Tk'emlups te Secwepemc First Nation reiterated their focus on the scientific work required but declined to discuss the $7.9 million allocation. [6]
According to a May 9 report by Blacklock's Reporter, the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations has not publicly disclosed how millions of dollars were spent on field work, records searches and securing the Residential School grounds for the Kamloops First Nation. [4] The $7.9 million provided to the Tk'emlups te Secwepemc First Nation for their field work at the suspected site, represents a small portion of the $110 million allocated to Indigenous communities for searching and documenting burial grounds at former residential schools. The department has not released an audit of the contribution under the Access to Information Act. Carolane Gratton, spokesperson for the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations confirmed the allocation of $7.9 million for these endeavors. In a statement, the Tk'emlups te Secwepemc First Nation reiterated their focus on the scientific work required but declined to discuss the $7.9 million allocation. [4]
unresolvedis entirely different from the claim Western Standard made
In May 2024, Western Standard, a Canadian conservative social commentary media claimed that investigations into the reported mass graves at the Kamloops Indian Residential School in British Columbia have end with no conclusive evidence
Your definition of the word is not exactly right. A denialist in this context says there are no bodies and/or graves
Ground penetrating radar does not find human remains — rather, it detects soil disturbances that are inconsistent with the surrounding area, which, combined with community knowledge, can help identify where there may potentially be unmarked gravessource.
The point you need to process is that bodies have been found at several schools but not in excavations
because the community is divided about whether to dig up its aunties who never grew upSo your point here is futile. And if first nation communities decides so, they are also at wrong here. As they are only probable unmarked graves and not definite and confirmed unmarked graves. അദ്വൈതൻ ( talk) 10:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
And if first nation communities decides so, they are also at wrong here.about their cultural practices than I would about yours.
As of March 2024, the Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc said that a decision to excavate the unmarked graves is "unresolved". TarnishedPath talk 08:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
User:Drbogdan is a prolific and good faith editor who on the whole seems to be sincerely attempting to be a positive force here. That aside, he seems to have an issue with low quality edits that have gotten to the point of becoming a problem (or they have been for a long time) and there's a general issue of WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK and WP:NOTBLOG as well. I spoke to him somewhat recently about editing in disruptive quantities of new New York Times articles on astronomy/space content and his primary response was to edit my comment on his talk page to get rid of the word “disruptive” citing WP:IAR for editing my own comment. I’m going to repeat some of the content here from that post, since the pattern of editing has continued past that discussion:
Extended content
|
---|
I understand you've been trying to engage with these topics in good faith, but it's gotten to a point where you're editing in New York Times articles on related articles which is creating a workload for editors who need to undo those changes. Recent edits to: Which were all reverted near identical edits made within a small window of time, and all reverted. Again, a similar situation played out at: And again at |
These are all massive strings of edits of identical content (editing in of very recent New York Times stories), all of which were reverted by me or other users. Recently this has continued with edits to Fast Radio Burst and Timeline of Mars 2020, where he's been adding in every observation by date as they arise and the latter article in particular, where he’s the primary editor, is a complete mess as a result of the daily additions. There's also, more troublingly, undoing reverts to add back in puffery to CDK Company and linking apparently WP:COPYVIO youtube links to Twyla Tharp. There’s also an updated database of every comment he has made on the New York Times, hosting his entire dissertation on wikipedia, and hosting literally dozens of personal photos and videos on commons, with an overwhelming majority of his recent contributions being exclusively to his userspace, and creating redirects to terms that don't actually appear to exist.
I don’t know what the right recourse is here, this is clearly someone active and engaged with Wikipedia in good faith, but at the same time it’s also someone editing in a way that’s creating a huge mess of edits to undo due to the frequent addition of New York Times/pop-science articles (sometimes with WP:PROFRINGE issues when it comes to dark matter in particular) to space-related topics. This all seems to be from a position of good faith and for certain he has created a lot of good content, but it’s creating a workload for those of us who edit in astronomy/planetary science topics, which is made more challenging by a larger percentage of his edits just being labelled “add/adj” as edit summaries.
An IP editor, user:35.139.154.158, seems to be involved here as well, mass-undoing Drbogdan's edits. I’ve since gone out of my way to avoid touching Drbogdan’s edits (minus removing the copyvio) after our interaction because I want to avoid coming across as harassing or hounding. That said, the low quality edits have persisted to a point that I think warrants bringing up here, especially after the puffery and copyvio issues in short succession. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 07:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
*Comment - As OA of several of the WP:Redirects noted above, it's *entirely* ok wth me to do whatever is decided in the final WP:CONSENSUS discussion - these WP:RDRs were made as a way of linking to Wikipedia from External Websites (like FaceBook), which drops the ending ")", this problem has been fully described and discussed [by me] on the WP:Village pump (technical) at VP-Archive204 (a Must-Read); VP-Archive180; VP-Archive162 - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 13:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)- yes - some of my edits could be better - and which I hope to improve even more over time and further practice - I greatly appreciate others helping to correct my unintentionally-made issues - as I have helped them correct their own editing issues over the years - in any case - hope my comments above helps in some ways - please let me know if otherwise of course - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 12:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
All Wikipedia pages and articles are edited collaboratively by the Wikipedian community of volunteer contributors. No one, no matter what, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular article (or any part of it). Even a subject of an article, be that a person or organization, does not own the article, nor has any right to dictate what the article may or may not say.- I think that is worthy - and relevant - at least to me at the moment - as Director of Hospital Laboaratories in the real-world back in the day, one of my biggest concerns was determining the issues of the laboratories - a matter of communication - I welcomed feedback from others - working collaboratively with others helps solve a lot of problems - and helps make a better quality outcome generally imo - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 13:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
when are you going to take your dissertation text and NYT clippings off Wikipedia as is required of you by WP:NOTWEBHOST?Phil Bridger ( talk) 13:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
I welcomed feedback from others
References
Drbogdan ( talk) 02:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
I have worked well with Drbogdan for years, and I have repeatedly defended him in the face of multiple attacks by many other editors making baseless accusations about his motivations.
In the United States, motion pictures published before 1978 are copyrighted for 95 years. You're not the first nor the last person to be confused about this, because the laws around copyright make no sense. Viriditas ( talk) 21:08, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
I would like to ask whether someone can summarize what if any administrative action is being requested. As we know, in Wikipedia there are content disputes and conduct disputes. This is a conduct forum. The content issues of whether to keep the dissertation and the New York Times comments are being dealt with at MFD. So is any other action being requested? One IP editor called for an indef, but I think that we can ignore it. Other than that, it seems that there are complaints that his writing about physics is problematic. He may, in good faith, think that he knows more about physics than the average reader, because -- a biochemist really knows more about physics than the average reader. However, he doesn't know as much about physics as the average physicist, and he may be trying too hard to explain dumbed-down physics to average readers in a way that real physicists know is wrong. Is that the problem? If so, is he willing to listen to the opinions of physicists? Is it necessary to topic-ban him from scientific areas outside biochemistry? If not, was this just a complaint session? Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
a biochemist really knows more about physics than the average reader... he may be trying too hard to explain dumbed-down physics to average readers in a way that real physicists know is wrong.
all my edits over the years were intended to be *good qualiy edits* - some editors may agree that my edits were *good quality edits* over the years - and some otherwise - my edits seem to be better than most in my own editing experiences compared with most other edits by Wikipedia editors afaik" - hope this helps in some way - Drbogdan ( talk) 12:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
edits seem to be better than mostwhile sort of outright refusing to recognize that multiple editors in science topics have chimed in here calling your edits disruptive and low quality to the point of warranting an ANI, regardless of the outcome of this ANI. There's a disconnect in what some of us here are saying and what you seem to understand the concern as. The NYT is a perfect fine and generally reliable source, that's not the issue. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
This all seems to be your opinion - I don't share your opinion - others may not as well- is there room for improvement - yes - in the sense that there is room for improvement for everybody of course - some more than others I would think - hope this helps - Drbogdan ( talk) 16:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
yes - seems that merging the edit more into the article prose may be better in a few of my edits - however - this hasn't always been possible for me for one reason or another (mostly real-world concerns)
Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page.Drbogdan edited the section heading that Warrenmck used on Drbogdan's User talk page. That sure looks like a WP:TPO violation to me. That said, the content of Warrenmck's comment was to raise the same concerns that this ANI thread has been about: low-quality edits in science articles. XOR'easter ( talk) 22:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
always preserves the original editor's meaning and intent. Changing the heading is the opposite of preserving meaning. Under "Concerns", that guideline writes,
Be aware that not every editor will agree with your refactoring or even of the refactoring concept in general. Provide links to the original, uncut version, so others can check your changes, and if necessary go back to the original to clarify what an author actually said. This combination of refactoring and archiving will often prevent complaints that information was lost. Make it explicit that you have refactored something so no one is misled into thinking this was the original talk page.Changing another editor's words and collapsing the meat of their comment [132] does none of that. XOR'easter ( talk) 22:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
If Drbogdan shouldn't have created Peekaboo Galaxy, what is stopping you from taking it to AfD?The fact that AfD is a time sink, and AfD's of pages with a superficial veneer of notability because they happen to be full of little blue clickly linky numbers are exceptionally tiresome. XOR'easter ( talk) 22:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
So apparently Drbogdan is the great image-adder. He added yet another image in Pluto. Drbogdan, would you mind... taking it slow?
Unclear about a specific problem heredespite diffs aplenty. While minor things in isolation, the puffery reverts in CDK Company and copyvio edits in Twyla Tharp are egregious:
re: the possible copyvio you noted at the Twyla Tharp article - unclear at the time of posting if the brief video clip (1976) was PD or not - clip was made 48 years ago - and may now be PD?
cite news |last=Bogdan |first=Dennis |authorlink=User:Drbogdanwhen linking to one of his own comments in that cite. You don't get that authorlink by accident from the autofill options linking NYT comments unless I'm mistaken. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
<ref>{{Cite news |last=Foer |first=Jonathan Safran |date=2020-05-21 |title=Opinion {{!}} The End of Meat Is Here |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/21/opinion/coronavirus-meat-vegetarianism.html |access-date=2024-06-30 |work=The New York Times |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331}}</ref>
. I don't think there's any way to get |authorlink=User:Drbogdan
and all that without deliberately typing it.
XOR'easter (
talk)
16:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
lack of admin attention here so far also speaks for itself. The message I'm getting from it is that this thread is less time-critical and involves subtler problems than most everything else on the board currently. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi, uninvolved editor here. Creating a new section so that we can more concisely discuss whether a WP:CIR and WP:PROMO indef ban for this user would be appropriate. The accusation of self promotional insertion of sources into Wikipedia is a serious one, if true and deserves a discussion and probably a 6 month indef with the home the user can take some time WP:HEAR the concerns raised. Allan Nonymous ( talk) 17:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
User:Michalis1994 refuses to cooperate to improve the article. He does not discuss with me, but reverts without explanation. The sources he cites do not correspond to what he writes, and his additions make the article look more like a libellus than a calm record of the facts. Here are some diffs https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Afroditi_Latinopoulou&diff=prev&oldid=1230703015
also remove my appeal for discussion
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Afroditi_Latinopoulou&diff=prev&oldid=1230638536 D.S. Lioness ( talk) 17:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
He is a user of bad faith. You can see here /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/D.S._Lioness is fraudulently trying to delegitimize my contribution. D.S. Lioness ( talk) 18:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
This is a bit of a mess, but it does look at first glance as if D.S. Lioness is attempting to whitewash the article to remove cited criticisms of specific politicians and political parties. For the record, Lioness, do not accuse other editors of "libel", as that can be construed as a legal threat resulting in you being blocked. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite— Preceding undated comment added 19:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
request for blocking to User:Michalis1994 per Wikipedia:NOTHERE and Wikipedia:Civilty see here https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Afroditi_Latinopoulou&diff=prev&oldid=1230879788 D.S. Lioness ( talk) 17:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Quick report on D.S. Lioness: she's been relentlessly axing articles and deleting cited content to push her own POV. Entire sections in Afroditi Latinopoulou, including academic articles, have been wiped out and replaced with dubious, unreliable sources. The same pattern is evident here (no reason given), here (no reason given, despite the MEP's history), and here (removed information about the town, without giving any reason at all). Michalis1994 ( talk) 08:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Personal attack (whitewashing), again. D.S. Lioness ( talk) 18:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
This seems strongly like a boomerang issue. User here seems only interested in censoring opinions that disagree with her.-- Insanityclown1 ( talk) 05:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
During a content dispute, it is more important than ever to focus on content, not editors- neither user here seems to be able to focus on the content rather than taking digs at the other. I don't think an interaction ban would be fair here unless it is accompanied by them both being unable to edit topics related to Afroditi Latinopoulou (including any politics related to that person) - so I think either a time limited topic ban or an indefinite topic ban (with ability to appeal after contributions elsewhere, as standard) would be better. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 06:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
See for yourselves. Enough is enough with your lies. D.S. Lioness ( talk) 00:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Now he's looking for my sandbox and he wants me to be blocked for what I WILL WRITE D.S. Lioness ( talk) 17:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Αs far as I am concerned I will abstain from the Latinopoulou article until the user check is completed. Τhen everything will become clear D.S. Lioness For a comprehensive update I leave this one here /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/D.S._Lioness D.S. Lioness ( talk) 17:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Comment: The assumption that D.S. Lioness will cease her vandalism is fundamentally flawed. Her disruptive editing and vandalism have now extended to other pages, such as the Alexis Papahelas article, where she removed cited content just a few hours after discussions began to address concerns about her contributions. This mirrors her previous behaviour on the Afroditi Latinopoulou page and is unlikely to stop there. This serves as a warning to anyone who believes the situation might improve or that her actions are confined to the Afroditi Latinopoulou page. Michalis1994 ( talk) 20:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
I think an interaction ban between the two would also possibly be appropriate. This sequence of threads is indicating to me that neither of the parties in conflict can simply leave well enough alone.-- Insanityclown1 ( talk) 09:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Because we are waiting check user results, i think the calmest solution is to "freeze" the issue )unless it is possible to accelerate the procedure) because it may turn out that this conversation is meaningless, just like the one below. D.S. Lioness ( talk) 17:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi admins/Experienced Editors. I don’t have complaints against anyone as I believe in collaborative work.Recent developments are pushing few questions in my mind.The user LukeEmily and Ekdalian are reverting my edits back to back inspite the information is well referenced.Please refer the page Karhade, Mohyal, saraswat etc.When I opposed this action, they launched Sock puppetry against me.May or May not be caste warriors but I request admins to instruct them not to interfere in well cited articles.I have carefully referred articles published in JSTOR for caste articles but was reverted please refer the edit history of all the above articles.I am not even involving in edit war instead giving page number explanation but sadly they are reverting like I am not a member in Wikipedia.I request admins to interfere in this issue and instruct them not to interfere in well cited articles. Thanks and Regards, RobertJudeson ( talk) 07:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Either someone must have put out the bat signal on one of the Apple fanboy sites, or someone is using a ton of proxies to edit, because this page is getting an enormous amount of attention from people trying to cast this person in the worst possible light and Apple in the best, mostly by selectively removing information and revert-warring any attempts to clarify the situation.
All of these IP addresses make 1 or 2 edits, then move on, and it isn't just CGNAT or some such because they are all over different carriers. In most cases there are very few/none at all recent edits from a considerable IP block around that IP (I'm using /20 for IPv4 and /48 for IPv6):
208.114.45.83 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) This edit in which they claim what "the sources say" without actually having read them, as later edits elucidate. No edits in 3 months from the entire /20 either.
2600:8801:2994:4900:2152:83C8:74DE:959D ( talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) This blanking edit, just pure vandalism with a false edit summary (the sources aren't in the lede, and none of the sources relevant to that particular edit were from AppleInsider, which suggests maybe I hit the nail on the head on the talk page in indicating some of the spam traffic is coming from a fanboy site like that). No edits in 2 YEARS from the parent /48.
2600:8801:1201:7200:F591:D785:87AF:8613 ( talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) This "warning" added to my talk page by an IP that has never, ever made an edit before. Only 5 edits from the entire /48 in the past 2 YEARS.
66.146.183.70 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) This reply on the article's talk page as if they were already involved in this article, yet the entire /20 shows no edits at all in the past 6 MONTHS.
I could go on but I think what's going on is obvious: either a mob being told to edit (and not by friends of Ms. Gjøvik, either), or someone very aggressively editing using proxies and throwaway IP addresses to evade WP:3RR. 76.6.213.65 ( talk) 09:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User User:Martinnewbold was indeffed for promotion, being a single-use account to promote his book. Since then the user has written several incomprehensible AI-generated unblock appeals and deletion review requests.
The latest message to their user talk page states that they have sent a letter to Wikipedia UK offices, it includes vague legalise (AI generated) which I interpret as a legal threat against Wikipedia.
In any case, TPA needs revoking. Qcne (talk) 09:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
To avoid me edit warring (I'm already at 2 reverts), can others please look at Vulcan, which is being hijacked by this new editor even after two ignored warnings? The hijacked version, which is completely unsourced, voices opinion and may be AI/LLM generated, is currently the "live" version of this disambiguation page. 92.6.27.15 ( talk) 20:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The edits by JojoeditsWiki are just a flood of do-nothing edits. I'm not sure how to request a mass revert of their edits. signed, Willondon ( talk) 21:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A Turkish IP editor has been making significant edits to the TDI (engine) page, Toyota WW engine page as well as many others, without leaving edit summaries or citations. I have been trying to revert them, but it’s usually ended in an edit war, so the IP saw a 24-hour ban. However, after their ban, they went straight back to vandalising, so the TDI (engine) got protected for three days. They haven’t edited that page since, but have vandalised other pages, leading me to bring this here. I’d appreciate all their edits reverted, and them seeing an extended ban. 750 h+ 23:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Kaalakaa recently
asserted that Muslims can't be reliable sources on Islam because they all supposedly have a conflict of interest. And this is not the first time they've categorically rejected Muslims as RS.
[137]
[138] Such a position has been roundly rejected by other contributors in
that discussion. Even worse is that they seem to attack the perceived religious beliefs of wikipedia editors. For example, when
Hemiauchenia
says: "I think Kaalakaa has been established to be in the minority in pretty much every discussion of this issue.
" Kaalakaa responds
with "This article is about the Islamic prophet, so it is only natural that the talk page is crowded with Muslims.
" They have also been accused of POV-pushing on the
Muhammad article.
[139]
[140]
Kaalakaa's userpage
states "I live in a country where "blasphemy" against a certain religion is a crime. If I suddenly revert many or all of my edits or request that my account be deleted, then there is a high chance that by then I have already been arrested or that my account has been confiscated.
" I feel bad for them, but unfortunately it seems they are on a mission to
WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. There was a
previous report about Kaalakaa on this board as well. It may be time to consider a
WP:TBAN on Islam-related topics.
VR (Please
ping on reply)
05:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
This article is about the Islamic prophet, so it is only natural that the talk page is crowded with Muslimscomment, expressed apparently to aver that once Muslim editors are ignored, Kaalakaa would cease to be in the minority in that discussion). This isn't the first time Kaalakaa has rejected feedback and pushed ahead against consensus, and because of behavior like this a topic ban is necessary as a preventative measure to prevent further disruption to the topic area. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 06:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Jonathan AC Brown and Tariq Ramadan are Muslims, and therefore they have a conflict of interest in writing their books, so I am not sure they meet our WP:SOURCE policy that tells us to "
Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."
If my understanding of WP:SOURCE and WP:IS above is indeed too extreme and incorrect, I deeply apologize and I will retract it. — Kaalakaa (talk) 06:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Regarding my comment that I am not sure if sources with a conflict of interest meet our WP:SOURCE policy, this is because the WP:SOURCE text itself states, "Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," and the word "independent" there is linked to WP:IS, which says:
An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective. Independent sources have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (there is no potential for personal, financial, or political gain to be made from the existence of the publication)."
Banu Qurayza violated the treaty with Muhammad" using those sources. However, several other secondary sources doubt that Banu Qurayza violated the treaty or even participated in a treaty with Muhammad. A primary source also reports that Banu Qurayza denied having a treaty with Muhammad (Tabari, vol.8 pg.15). That was why, I believed that because the authors of the books are Muslims, it had led them to present the claim from Muhammad and Islamic sources that "Banu Qurayza violated the treaty" as a fact. Nevertheless, I did not outright reject the inclusion of the statement, but said that it needed to be attributed to Muhammad or Islamic sources if included [143]. — Kaalakaa (talk) 07:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
but my recourse would be to convince the community to see it my way and establish a new consensus, not to edit war those sources out of articles.
I am not sure they meet our WP:SOURCE policy" in the WP:NPOVN discussion. But if I might have mistakenly done so, I apologize. — Kaalakaa (talk) 10:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Jonathan AC Brown and Tariq Ramadan are Muslims, and therefore they have a conflict of interest in writing their booksis harmful to the project of building an encyclopedia. On that principle, we would have to exclude many of our sources for articles such as Woman, Gender and Sexism because the authors are female and most of the rest for being written by men. The topic-ban is also required both for their disgustingly slanted rewriting of Battle of Badr [146] and for doubling down on that demonstration of utter disregard for our NPOV principles by presenting it in this very thread as a fine example of their work. NebY ( talk) 13:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. It means 'neutrally reflecting what the sources say. It does not mean that the article has to be 'neutral'." And that's probably why Robert B. Spencer is described as
anti-Muslimin his Wikipedia article because there are no sources that dispute that description. — Kaalakaa (talk) 13:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
The original citation was to William Muir, a 19th-century source." I had seen several editors taking issue with Muir because he was considered too dated [149] [150], and I more or less agreed with them, so I removed it. But if you have more recent sources, as you mentioned afterwards, "
but newer sources also affirm this," please feel free to add it back using those newer sources. And if there are conflicts between reliable sources, describe the disputes in accordance to WP:IMPARTIAL. Concerning the gory and inflammatory language, everything is based on the secondary sources cited, and I am sure it is also present in the primary sources because these secondary sources base their contents and analyses on those primary sources. — Kaalakaa (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Concerning the gory and inflammatory language, everything is based on the secondary sources cited: This goes to show why a topic ban is necessary. Upon receiving feedback about behavioral issues like POV pushing, Kaalakaa doubles down. A topic ban will be a preventative measure. Consider what Kaalakaa is saying next to some of the language Kaalakaa introduced to the article:
The Muslims slashed them as they fled
When Uqba pleaded, "But who will take care of my children, Muhammad?" Muhammad replied, "Hell."
licking their lips like snakes(this referring to Muslims)
too dated). According to The New York Review of Books,
The trouble is that Rodinson's portrait of Muhammad as a rather insignificant little man caught up in a whirlpool of his own passions and of political and social upheavals simply does not square with the historical facts.
The Muslims slashed them as they fled," this seems somewhat similar to "
Many Palestinian civilians were killed as they fled" in Gaza-Israel conflict. Does "slash" need to be reworded to "kill" so it doesn't sound gory or offensive?
licking their lips like snakes," here I quote a larger passage from the article that includes that excerpt for context [151]:
According to an Islamic tradition, Utba, in an attempt to dissuade the Quraysh from fighting their kinsmen, said, "Do you not see them," referring to the Muslims, "squatting on their mounts, holding on tightly, licking their lips like snakes?" Abu Jahl reportedly reacted angrily, stating that if anyone else had said it, he would have bitten them.
When Uqba pleaded, "But who will take care of my children, Muhammad?" Muhammad replied, "Hell."
anti-Muslimbecause it is offensive? Doesn't the guideline itself say, "
Wikipedia editors should not remove material solely because it may be offensive, unpleasant, or unsuitable for some readers. ... Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available."
I also notice that the content I excerpted is cited to books that Kaalakaa has been pushing and defending (permanent link) for citation on the topic of Islam"
I've only ever found one review of it."
for being a biography of a religious leader that failed to pay any attention to his religious life," here is what the review actually said:
The biggest gap in the book is that religion plays little role, apart from discussions of the sources of Muslim morale and cohesion, but this is really not the point of the book.
The book closes with an overall military analysis of Muḥammad’s record as a general, evaluating the various aspects of his career as a political-military leader, the gist of which was that he was continually able to outmaneuver opponents who had not yet adapted to the implications of Muḥammad’s religious warfare.
This is a much better book than I expected—not just an attempt to apply currently fashionable military theory to Muḥammad’s career but a well-researched and very professional military analysis. Apart from its contribution to the literature of military history and counterinsurgency, it reinforces the credibility of the very detailed early accounts of Muḥammad’s life and career. This last is a finding of considerable importance.
a book sixty-four years old (despite Kaalakaa elsewhere expressing WP:AGEMATTERS concern about a cited work being 'too dated'),"
licking their lips like snakesis incredibly offensive even if Utba said it and is merely being quoted. It also isn't really a quote, since the event was so long ago and obviously grew in its telling to partisan audiences. The Song of Roland has numerous concordances and I don't doubt the tale of this battle does also. The point is, we don't know if any of that anecdote actually happened and it serves no purpose except, as you say,
showing Muhammad's attitude towards one of his enemies. Because why exactly? Especially since there is ample reason to doubt the literal historicity of this rendering? If you want to show generalship, show generalship. This is not that. Elinruby ( talk) 02:14, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Kaalakaa has explicitly stated, more than once, that they know they were wrong to think Muslim scholars have an inherent COI regarding Islam.Pretty much every editor here simply does not believe this, which is fine. The thing is, I don't know if they'll change, you don't know, nobody knows because there's no way for them to prove it other than fixing what they've broken. Battle of Badr is an obvious opportunity for them. It would be a very difficult task because, well, it'll be a lot of hard work but also because they'll have to demonstrate a clear lack of anti-Muslim bias. Look: if Kaalakaa tries to fix that article, I think they'll fail. I'm just wondering, what if I'm wrong? City of Silver 19:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
"It is very concerning that someone who has done over 42,000 edits since 23 December 2006 still doesn't quite grasp basic Wikipedia guidelines."See talk. StarkReport ( talk) 11:26, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It's very clear they are not here to build an encyclopedia. I just deleted their upload and indeffed them on Commons for crosswiki vandalism. The Squirrel Conspiracy ( talk) 05:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Debresser ( talk · contribs) has been repeatedly blocked for violating various topic bans, some involving the WP:GAME approach. As someone who is uninvolved with this user, I look at their block record and suspect the blocks are doing nothing to deter their behavior. To save the commuinity additional trouble with this user, I recommend them banned from Wikipedia by the community. -- wL< speak· check> 05:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi Admins. The user Ekdalian is spreading wrong information of my account being sock which is not fair.He is using the sentence “I am quite sure that he is a sock!”.I am sharing his chat history which is still available in his talk page in the title “A kitten for you!”.
Proof of chat by the user for your kind reference,
End of their chat.
Further information is that the User Ekdalian in retaliation for our disagreement in editing/reverting has supported the person who raised the sock puppetry investigation.The Person who raised investigation himself has proved as sock of User:Antimtripathi.I request admins to warn the user:Ekdalian to stop this speculation work as Wikipedia grows with collaborations and not by groupism or rivalry. RobertJudeson ( talk) 08:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
106.70.52.165 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Keeps adding unsourced content to articles/making unsourced date changes, continued after final warning and after a 31 hour block on the 22nd. Examples of unsourced edits: 1, 2, 3. Waxworker ( talk) 14:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
An administrator who adds copyright violating text to an article, when they are absolutely fully aware that it is a copyright violation, should not be an administrator. See https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Nevada_Gaming_Commission&diff=prev&oldid=1228849678. It is far, far from the first time that I've seen this administrator behaving in this way. 193.117.188.78 ( talk) 20:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
ArbCom may be the only dispute resolution forum in Wikipedia in which the boomerang principle does not apply, in which the editor who files a bad complaint will not have their own conduct scrutinized. This is about an editor who is disruptively filing Requests for Arbitration concerning a historic train.
The problem seems to have started on 27 February 2024 when DTParker1000 expanded the article on Rio Grande 223, and included material about the historical importance of railroads in the American West in the nineteenth century. Other editors, including User:Xboxtravis7992, removed much of this material as being off-topic. In my opinion, it was information that should be in the encyclopedia, and probably is in the encyclopedia (but I did not research whether it was), but was off-topic for the article. Xboxtravis7992 then filed a DRN request on 11 March 2024: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_242#Rio_Grande_223. . I declined it, but said that another request could be filed in 48 hours. Then there was edit-warring, and DTParker1000 was partially blocked from the article in question, indefinitely. They requested unblock, which was declined. JTParker1000 then filed a Request for Arbitration on 19 March 2024, [ [156]], and the request was declined by ArbCom on 20 March 2024. JTParker1000 then filed a DRN request on 7 April 2024: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_244#Rio_Grande_223. I closed that request as vexatious litigation. JTParker1000 has now filed a second Request for Arbitration, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Rio_Grande_223, with no mention of the first request, and an otherwise fragmentary record of previous dispute resolution.
ArbCom traditionally does not sanction editors for filing stupid, frivolous, or vexatious cases, so I am asking the community to take action against a disruptive editor and vexatious litigant. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Based on the discussion above, at the arbcom case request and previous times this has been brought up, I think a formal topic ban is in order:
The intent of "six months of active editing" is so that extended absences don't count towards the six months, it is not a requirement for six consecutive months of active editing. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
six months of active editingcondition. Wikipedia is a volunteer community project and we shouldn't mandate that you actively edit in order to appeal a sanction. God forbid they should have a heart attack and be laid up for an extended period of time like I was, and not really giving a fuck about editing Wikipedia, instead focusing on recovery - walking and talking again. And then after a semi-successful recovery, wanting to volunteer again, only to be told, sorry for your bad luck, we are still going to mandate that you actively edit for six months in a volunteer community project in order to appeal your sanction. Nope, too draconian for my tastes. Isaidnoway (talk) 03:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
824 Montmarte, a clear sock of User:Raymarcbadz is on a revert rampage right now. Assistance is requested as I cannot continue to rever them. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 04:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
I would like to report Annh07 for constantly reverting/rollbacking my edits despite my explanations as to the rationale of my edits. In one instance Annh07 reverted my edits in the article "Religion in Belarus" when I have explained that it was necessary to use a pipe link to direct the "Roman Catholic" link to the page of the Latin Church. The reason is that using the link "Roman Catholic" alone would redirect to the main article of the Catholic Church. The "Roman Catholic" link in the pie chart refers to the Latin Church and not the Catholic Church as a whole considering that "Belarusian Greek Catholic" is mentioned in the same breath. In another incident in the article "Mission Society of the Philippines" I made a correction in the lede of the article that states that "The Mission Society of the Philippines (MSP) is a Society of Apostolic Life of the Latin Church of the Roman Catholic Church." and changed it to "The Mission Society of the Philippines (MSP) is a Society of Apostolic Life of the Latin Church of the Catholic Church." considering that the Latin Church was already mentioned in the sentence which would make the term "Roman" redundant here. In another instance, Annh07 reverted my corrective edits to the article "Religion in Honduras" in which he reinstated the "Roman" terminology without being aware that Honduras many Arab Christians,of which there were Eastern (not Roman) Catholics, migrated to Honduras. The mention of things related to the Catholic Church should remain in that a simple and clear form unless that the topic explicitly pertains to any one of the particular churches of the Catholic Church. Thus, "Catholic" is preferred unless being specific is needed.
His/her actions exhibit a clear disregard for following conventions which has been settled a long time ago and is reflected in the talk pages regarding the name of the main article of the Catholic Church as well as the talk pages concerning moving of pages with the name "Roman Catholicism in Country X" to "Catholic Church in Country X." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.189.116.70 ( talk) 05:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
This user has, over the course of many years, repeatedly added an image of a Jewish person to "illustrate" an antisemitic Russian "joke". See the history of Russian jokes. Please take action. 89.207.175.7 ( talk) 08:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
These are jokes of jews- Soviet dissidents themselves." I'm hoping they can elaborate. Professor Penguino ( talk) 08:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Do ligt a yid a posheter |
Here lies a Jew a simple one, |
- Altenmann >talk 08:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps you cannot readis a personal attack. Meters ( talk) 08:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
I find it insulting to continue this discussion started by an abuser, see section below, without addressing serious behavioral complaints file by me in the section below. Good bye.- Altenmann >talk 08:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
So the upshot is that the image was removed. I think it's worth noting that for more than a decade this has been Altenmann's personal playground for unverified jokes. Drmies ( talk) 12:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
several ethnic stereotypes have developed, often in common with those views by other ethnicities
are depicted as primitive, uncivilized, and simple-minded, but clever in their own way
are depicted as rustic, stingy
usually depicted as stupid, greedy, hot-blooded, or addicted to sex
depicted as humorless, stubborn, taciturn, and slow
are depicted as humorless, stubborn, taciturn, and slow
a highly developed subset of Russian humor, largely based on the self-image of Russian Jewsand
are not the same as anti-Semitic jokes? Is it too much of a stretch to say that this years-long introduction of uncited contentious material pertains to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed and violates the general Arbitration sanction requiring reliable sourcing and the avoidance of undue weight?Even without applying that sanction, indiscriminately collecting unverified and probably undue examples of ethnic stereotypes, with minimal sourcing to verify the relevance and minimal effort to summarize academic analysis and contextualization that might make this educational instead of just insulting is still not what Wikipedia's purpose is. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 21:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
The ridiculosity of this discussion grows. why don't y'all haste to the Russian jokes page, if you dislike its state so. For example, recently user:Hippo43 deleted 75% of German humour and I didnt say a word, although they deleted some referenced pieces.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Altenmann ( talk • contribs)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
89.207.175.7 ( talk · contribs) removes referenced information engaging in revert war [157] without discussion and makes insulting edit summaries [ [158] [159]. [160] - Altenmann >talk 08:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Judging from this edit, and this one this is the same person as 167.98.155.178 ( talk · contribs) and must be blocked for block evasion. - Altenmann >talk 08:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Tgis is not the same dispute as above. This person is a long-tem revert warrior. - Altenmann >talk 09:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Magnolia677 attacking me because I made "is part of the region" edits to Florida counties that she didnt like. User:NoobThreePointOh reporting me for attacking Magnolia after SHE attacked ME as if SHE'S the victim. User:Aoidh and User:Donald Albury reverting all of my edits on the Florida counties a month later with no probable cause and saying my edits are "disruptive". User:Drmies attacking me and reverting all of the other edits I made on other unrelated pages that dont amount to obvious vandalism and calling them "useless" and then blocking me because he has a personal problem with my edits AND THEN getting my account globally locked. User:Theinstantmatrix Reporting me on Meta and getting all of my accounts locked for threatening Drmies on his Commons talk page. User:Oshwah and User:Acroterion CONTINUING to block all of my accounts and joining in attacking me over me reporting a false positive on the abuse filter.
" I'm not sure if you're using a source that has a different definition for these regions and not including that source" Because I DON'T have to include a source? The fuck? That's like saying I need to include a source that the sky is blue or that the earth revolves around the sun. I DON'T have to include a fucking source for every single edit I make. YbabCitnaltaDim II ( talk) 10:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
User:Theinstantmatrix Reporting me on Meta and getting all of my accounts locked for threatening Drmies on his Commons talk page.(bolding mine.) W ADroughtOfVowels P 11:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Primefac, this one. To all the onlookers, you may be surprised at the filth that this sock posts (on other projects as well), and the audacity to think that they can be part of the game when they make attacks like that. I can't explain it, but it likely goes back six years, to User talk:DarwinandBrianEdits. Amazing. Drmies ( talk) 12:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
There is an RFC at Talk:Shakshouka#RFC on etymology that is problematic in at least three ways. First, the RFC concerns the reliability of sources, but has not been first discussed at the Reliable Source Noticeboard, which is the proper forum. By the way, the Oxford English Dictionary is almost always the most reliable source on the etymology of English words, including English words of non-Englis origin.
Second, the originator has started this RFC because they have a misguided mission for which there is no consensus, and have misinterpreted my non-encouraging advice. The originator is User:LEvalyn, who says that they want to rewrite Shakshouka in order to bring it to Good Article, but all of their edits were reverted by other editors including User:M.Bitton] with negative comments on the talk page. User:LEvalyn then filed a DRN request. User:M.Bitton deleted the notice of the DRN filing. This action is a de facto declining to participate in moderated discussion, and moderated discussion is voluntary. I closed the DRN request, saying that it appeared that there was a lack of consensus for the full rewrite that the originator wanted, but that if they still wanted to do a full rewrite, one or more RFCs would be in order. I did not recommend the use of an RFC to bypass the Reliable Source Noticeboard, and this RFC is not about article content anyway.
Third, there has then been edit-warring over the RFC between User:M.Bitton and User:Pathawi:
This RFC never should have been started in this form, and these editors were clearly edit-warring.
Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:52, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
arguing that not every claim by Ethnologue is correctportion of their comment to me. -- Super Goku V ( talk) 00:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection&
If an editor asks you not to edit their user pages, such requests should, within reason, be respected.While DDE does have a step that says,
If tendentious editor continues reverting: Use templates [uw-disruptive1], [uw-disruptive2], [uw-disruptive3], and [uw-disruptive4], it also mentions at the top of the section that the steps do not have to be done in that order. Additionally, you don't have to use the templates in order and can use a stronger one first. -- Super Goku V ( talk) 10:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Buccini never uses the word Maghrebi at all, and gives the location for shakshuka as "North Africa (Tunisia, Algeria, also Morocco?)", p. 133. To go from that to "Maghrebi" is not appropriate, and who only ended up at the page in an inappropriate manner, claims to want to turn it into a GA? Frankly, given the incessant sealioning on the talkpage by LEvalyn, I sympathize with M.Bitton's frustrations, and think an enforced break for LEvalyn from this topic is in order. Grandpallama ( talk) 16:37, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
If the filing editor still wants to rewrite the article, the least disruptive way to try to do this would be one or more RFCs.LEvalyn then started an RFC. LEvalyn commented on the RFC saying,
Oh -- this is my first RfC, so please let me know if I have made any mistakes! I plan to send an RfC notice to the reliable source noticeboard and all of the wikiprojects to which this article belongs.Robert McClenon did not let LEvalyn that anything was done wrong. He started this ANI instead.
In fact, this article seems to have an issue since at least 2021 with each year since having over 100 mentions of "revert" or longer. It is clear that there is currently a problem here over something.. LEvalyn's first involvement in this article is this year. Not 2021. -- asilvering ( talk) 17:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
a misguided mission for which there is no consensusis a truly astonishing way to categorize the work of an editor who is doing their best to improve the abysmal sourcing on a wikipedia article. If ensuring that articles meet WP:V according to WP:RS is a misguided mission, what mission do we even have at wikipedia? -- asilvering ( talk) 17:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
You removed the word Maghrebi without a valid reason.M.Bitton specifically objected to just one of the changes, but reverted all of them. In the following 26 hours from the first revert, M.Bitton makes two additional reverts to LEvalyn's edits with the following edit summaries:
restored and added two RS to prevent further disruption&
Please refrain from deleting the wording maghrebi and imposing your POV. There is even this line from the talk page discussion justifying the full reverts: " 2) You are fully aware that the removal of the word Maghrebi will entail a revert." This specific situation feels like Stonewalling. And now we currently have a poorly formatted RfC attempting to determine if two dictionaries are a better source for the etymology of shakshouka as an attempt to discuss it failed. For at least some relief, I would prefer it if M.Bitton set a personal goal to only revert the article once a month and to seek out another user to revert further or to only use reverts on bad faith edits. It isn't the only issue, but it seems to be one of them. -- Super Goku V ( talk) 13:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
M.Bitton claimed that there is an Extended confirmed restriction on the article, but I don't see any proof of thatI have never claimed such a thing. M.Bitton ( talk) 14:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
I probably should have also listed User:M.Bitton and User:Pathawi at the beginning of this thread. I will clarify my reference to a misguided mission. What is misguided is a mission to bring an article to Good Article status by rewriting it against local consensus. Improving the sourcing of an article is never misguided, but a major effort to rewrite an article when there isn't yet local consensus to improve it is not likely to work.
My real reason for bringing this report to WP:ANI was the edit-warring, which is a conduct issue, and I now see that I should have listed the edit-warriors as subjects of the report.
What is the preferred option for dealing with a poorly formed RFC?
Now that the edit-warring has stopped, I am willing to have this report closed, and to let other people worry somewhere else about what to do with the RFC. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:53, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
First, I apologise for the flaws in my RfC. As I said, I have never made one before, and I guess I didn't do a good job of framing the question at hand. Should I withdraw the RfC? Can they be amended? I would be particularly grateful if someone else felt they could start an RfC (or an RSN discussion?) about this topic, or suggest a more appropriate wording for me to use. For the record, I wouldn't say I am a "newer editor," just new to RfC/ANI/DR/RSN/etc, since in the seven years I have been editing I have never experienced stonewalling like this.
To respond to the comments about my behaviour, I am honestly a little perplexed to be accused of POV-pushing. Is the POV supposed to be edits trying to remove "Maghreb" from the article
? I don't think that's a fair characterization of edits like
this and
this, especially since I explicitly
suggested that M.Bitton should add the word Maghreb back in if it's important to them. Indeed, in my later edits,
I have included the word. I also think it's unfair to say that my edits are reverted by other editors including User:M.Bitton
; no "other editors" have reverted me, only M.Bitton. The negative comments on the talk page
are also 99% M.Bitton, and just
this one from Skitash. I have been really mystified by the uniquely uncollaborative and unconstructive atmosphere at this article, which is why I have sought outside perspectives at ANI, DR, and now RfC. If the broader consensus is that this article should remain unchanged, I would be disappointed, since I don't think it's in very good shape and I have now spent more time trying to achieve consensus here than it took me to write my most recent GA, but I can respect it.
~ L 🌸 (
talk)
05:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
I will face the music ( talk · contribs) has spent the past few months since making their first edit making various changes to infoboxes regarding the area of country/other polity articles. Many have been reverted ( [161] [162], [163] [164],PR: [165] [166]). Their responses to this have been aggressive ( [167] [168]), and they were blocked for personal attacks following this edit. Upon the block expiring, they immediately went back to edit warring in one of the already mentioned article (see PR edits above). Blocking admin Bbb23 suggested this should come to AN/I if disruption continues, and it has. The edit warring and WP:CIVIL issues here compound each other. CMD ( talk) 15:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the right place to write this, but an IP user has been making some edits at the article " Isla Bryson case" that are less than productive. That person is disrupting the article, seemingly to illustrate a point and spread their opinion on trans people. Under the manual of style on gender identity, we should refer to people by their gender identity, not sex assigned at birth, but the IP user is removing and changing wording to portray a trans woman as being male.
As you can see in the MOS, this matter has been litigated ad nauseam, and consensus is that we should not misgender people, which also has been extensively discussed at the article's talk page. When I discovered two edits the IP user had made a few days prior, I reverted them and said in the edit summaries that I was doing so per the talk page. Then I went to bed. A few hours later, while I was sleeping, the IP user reverted without explanation, reinstating the edits portraying Isla Bryson as the wrong gender. When I came back and saw those edits, I reverted again, linking to the MOS in the edit summaries, and as I was writing this they have once again reverted without explanation. Please send help. 188.176.174.30 ( talk) 16:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Good day all. I am the IP user in question. I see that I have been blocked without being given any opportunity to defend myself or give my side of the story. I would like to that now if I may. With respect, 188.176.174.30 has completely misrepresented the situation.
The page in question concerns a transwoman who raped women while identifying as a man. Notwithstanding that history, I completely agree that she should be referenced by her chosen gender - ie as a woman with female pronouns, etc. No argument at all between myself and 188.176.174.30 about that. And I completely agree if that if I had sought to portray this individual 'as the wrong gender' then that would be wrong. However, I have done no such thing.
Following extensive discussion on the talk page in August 2023, consensus was reached that this individual's former (male) name and her male sex should be referenced in the article, given what she did while presenting as a man. Accordingly, in line with that consensus the page (before I started editing) it already referenced this individual's sex: ie, her male sex. I did not do that. It was already in the page as a result of the August 2023 consensus.
At this point, I pause to note that 188.176.174.30's assertion that "consensus is that we should not misgender people" is completely misleading and ignores what was agreed in August 2023: which was that in this particular case, this individual's sex should be referenced in the article.
Returning to me, all I did was to make clarifying improvements to the page to make clear the distinction in this case between sex and gender. For example, I changed the phrase 'sex at birth' to simply 'sex' (reflecting the biological reality that sex itself does not change (although gender of course can). I made clear in the edit summary exactly what I was doing and why.
Accordingly, I did not in any way portray this individual in the wrong gender, as 188.176.174.30 alleges. Her gender is female. The page reflects that. The page should reflect that. It also purports to clarify that her sex is male, and I simply wanted it to do so more clearly. The fundamental mistake 188.176.174.30 is making here is to fail to understand the distinction between sex and gender.
I therefore suggest that my ban is completely unjustified, and I would request that it be lifted. 151.124.107.115 ( talk) 21:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Coddlebean ( talk · contribs) has engaged in POV-pushing (a few examples: Taiwan, Nazi Germany, Hitler, Tiananmen Square) that has been quickly reverted, but it's now escalating into blatant and juvenile vandalism here. Looking very much like WP:NOTHERE. - Amigao ( talk) 17:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@Jpatokal has been edit warrioring for the last 11 years, pushing blogs and tabloids as sources, which breaks the rules of /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons. See diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Michael_Ezra&diff=next&oldid=563931413
Attempts to reason with him[/her/them] on the article's talk page have proven futile: /info/en/?search=Talk:Michael_Ezra
A complaint raised on the BLP noticeboard was shutdown (in 20 minutes) by @Zaereth: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard
I have been tossed to this notice board but am frankly disappointed by this community's protectionism/shielding of a rogue admin/contributor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.230.201.134 ( talk) 18:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
It's hard to read because, frankly, it's quite incoherent, but it appears that User talk:220.255.188.227 is making a legal threat or a regular threat of some type "I see you were all talking about a project, but I do not know what you are referring to. No wonder, User:Picard's Facepalm threatened me on their talk page, which made me extremely upset. I wonder if they would not like Wikipedia to have a list of administrators caught abusing, with their photo on the list." [170]
This is an acknowledged IP of Jacobchoi20/AirbusA350500 that consists of the editor and their sockpuppets or the editor and their co-workers which were also tasked to edit-warring on airplane pages. That part is hard to guess as their story changes every time they interact with an administrator. In any case, their accounts have already had talk page access revoked. CoffeeCrumbs ( talk) 06:04, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
For the last couple of months, an editor based in Fort Collins, Colorado has been editing as an IP. The IP addresses keep changing, but it is clearly the same person. This editor claims to be a 16-year-old whose parents will not allow him/her to set up an account, see here: [171]. This editor does not actually contribute anything, and their edits consist entirely of placing tags on articles or seeking to get other editors to improve articles. This is very much a negative editing style, which consist entirely of complaining about and disparaging the work of others. Here are some examples: [172], [173], [174], [175], and [176], and [177]. Putting a notability tag on an article classed as good, see here [178], is a case of disruptive editing, and this is just one example out of many. This editor was already blocked once in March for disruptive editing, see here: [179]. Other editors have tried to reason with this editor to no avail, see here: [180], [181], [182], [183], [184], [185] and [186].
Most recently, this same editor twice placed a highly insulting message on my talk page, disparaging all of my hard work in a very smug, judgmental tone, which is quite rich from an editor who has never done any of the hard work needed to create and improve an article, see here: [187] and [188]. This editor does have a point that some of the articles that he is complaining about do need more sources, but there is no need to be so obnoxious and rude about it. I have been trying in my modest way to address that issue (and this issue will be addressed as I dig deeper), but this IP has been going around deleting all of my work, apparently just because he wants to keep the notability tags he has placed on the articles. See here: [189], [190], [191], and [192]. First, this editor comes to me complaining that there he wants more sources to the articles, but then the same editor deletes properly sourced material when added, just so he can put back on the notability tags! This is clearly a textbook case of WP:NOTHERE. There are couple of IP accounts based in Fort Collins, which are clearly the same person: 2605:B40:13E7:F600:B183:EBCE:3B35:B6B7 ( talk · contribs), 2605:B40:13E7:F600:A532:2DFB:1C7B:74E7 ( talk · contribs), 2605:B40:13E7:F600:81AF:FB54:24F5:260E ( talk · contribs), 50.113.53.158 ( talk · contribs), 2605:B40:13E7:F600:5C3E:C3DA:FDE9:A738 ( talk · contribs) and 2605:B40:13E7:F600:40FE:7B6D:17E8:D289 ( talk · contribs). The last account was blocked in March of this year for disruptive editing, and as far I can tell, the block was not lifted. In that case, is this editor not also a sock puppet as well? -- A.S. Brown ( talk) 06:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
67.83.125.225 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, continued after final warning and hasn't responded to warnings. Examples of unsourced edits: 1, 2, 3, 4. Waxworker ( talk) 09:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm trying to edit this page: /info/en/?search=Hanni_(singer) and removing a false misleading piece about this person being a dual national/citzenship when the previous authors didn't provide correct reference/evidence stating that she is. She has not lived in Vietnam, and she was born in Australia. Like other vietnamese australians as myself, we do not have dual nationalities are stated by these authors who do not know.
But they undo and just report me for not knowing the rules? When I know that the truth is that she is not dual national and they authors do not have sufficient evidence proving she is. I have also contacted the opinion entertainment article author that was used and asked them to correct that article. But at least i know wikipedia is a place where the truth can be corrected.
What can the administrators do? Since I'm new to this platform and I just want to make sure that the information is accurate. I have started a talk topic for that page: /info/en/?search=Talk:Hanni_(singer)
But I don't think they care. Lightningwhitefox ( talk) 12:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:HabichuelasBeans has been INDEF'd as a sock, but it seems they probably need their talk page access revoked. Remsense 诉 13:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
User has been making nonsensical undiscussed article moves that violate naming conventions. Talk page messages have gone unanswered. See Special:Contributions/Kaane99. 162 etc. ( talk) 15:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Clement Hills continuously makes reverts of good-faith edits or warning users/IPs without an actual revert.
Examples:
I have requested block at AIV but then admin noted that I should come here. Myrealnamm ( 💬pros · ✏️cons) 17:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Adityagoyal6363 ( talk · contribs) predominately edits in Indian reality television articles. On Bigg Boss OTT (Hindi Digital series) season 3 I've been having an small issue with their edits as some of their are contrary to MOS:CAPS with this being the most recent edit on their part changing the section headings back to mixed-case. I'm not thrilled about that, but the larger issue I have is the lack of communication or response from them about the issues after leaving https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Adityagoyal6363&diff=prev&oldid=1231958415 warning] messages on their tak page. They have responded to earlier messages on their talk page, so I know they are aware of the messages, but ignoring the WP:MOS from an editor with 2000+ edits of a year is not a minor thing. Given the lack of response around this, perhaps a page block from this page until they acknowledge they will follow the MOS is needed here. Thank you. Ravensfire ( talk) 17:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A message for @ Daniel Case: with apologies – your talk page is protected.
You kindly protected Yakub (Nation of Islam) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) at my request at RfPP, but seconds before you did, an IP editor slipped in with this terrible edit. Please can that also be reverted? 81.187.192.168 ( talk) 18:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
So, this guy named Mushy Yank is trying to spoil the plot of Despicable Me 4 a month before it releases. His justification is that the film released in his country but the film is an AMERICAN movie. Despite warnings from both me and another user, he has persisted in trying to spoil the movie. Please ban him. HiGuys69420 ( talk) 19:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC) Here is a link to his user page: /info/en/?search=User:Mushy_Yank
shut the f*ck upis less hostile than
shut the fuck up? Really? I’m gobsmacked. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Someone in Florida has been adding hoax albums to various musical biographies. [196] [197] This disruption has been going on since last year. [198] Can we put a stop to this nonsense? Binksternet ( talk) 19:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
A single purpose user nominated Joshua N. Haldeman. Not one person supports delete (one admin did start arguing there with keep-sayers) and everyone is looking for sources. Not a beginning of a case for delete and a huge waste of time. The single purpose user must have a ball. It could be a sock but I would not know of whom. Can we please speedy or snow close this AfD before more community time gets wasted? gidonb ( talk) 21:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Someone apparently based in Southern California has been blocked many times for disruption in articles related to ethnicity, ancestry, diasporas and other demographic movements. They were blocked twice each as Special:Contributions/2600:6C50:7EF0:71E0:0:0:0:0/64 and Special:Contributions/76.174.235.156, and they are still blocked for two or more years as Special:Contributions/2600:6C50:7EF0:4A70:0:0:0:0/64, Special:Contributions/2603:8001:400:0:0:0:0:0/40, Special:Contributions/23.184.48.0/24, Special:Contributions/58.122.219.85, Special:Contributions/1.239.160.125 and Special:Contributions/45.8.146.0/24. They have used proxies, webhosts and compromised IPs from other places.
Characteristic edits from this person include:
Can we get some lengthy blocks on the recently active IPs? Binksternet ( talk) 05:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
User AngelicDevil29 had been previously indeffed by Yamaguchi先生 on 5 July 2023, due to Persistent disruption and addition of poorly sourced content. They were unblocked by Deepfriedokra on 22 January 2024 after an AN discussion, while noting that the blocking admin was inactive at that time. However, it appears that AngelicDevil29 still has a long way to properly understand what WP:RS and WP:NOR are. Just in past few days:
The list goes on, and I'm afraid, goes back to January. AngelicDevil29 has been made aware of these WP policies by a number of editors, and if they are not, I fail to understand why they were unblocked at first place. I feel a topic-ban, if not indef, on them regarding South Asian castes is necessary given the persistent original research, WP:SYNTH and borderline POV pushing to somehow "prove" that a certain tribe/caste is Sindhi (another example can be seen here) in spite of being amply warned; all without any regard to the reliability of the sources or whether the source even supports their claim.
Sutyarashi ( talk) 10:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Zanza05 has been continually removing Xenoblade-related entries on List of video games with LGBT characters, despite being sourced to sites that are listed as acceptable per WP:VG/RS. This has been ongoing for over a year, having previously done so under multiple IPs including [210] [211] [212] [213] (the latter of which is still topic blocked from those pages, technically making this block evasion). I attempted to explain policy to them and suggest more constructive ways to edit if they disagreed with the inclusion, but they have ignored this and continued disruptively editing. -- Cyberlink420 ( talk) 16:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Sadifan ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user has persistently created extremely poor-quality articles on Circassian history, refused to engage in discussion on any of them, and repeatedly moved them back to mainspace after draftification with no attempt to fix the issues ( [214], [215], [216]). They have previously been warned by administrators and are the subject of an SPI case. Earlier today I left a final warning on their talk page; they since created this very poor article which shows no signs of understanding the issue.
Even if there is no SPI issues, there are clear WP:CIR problems with this editor. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 18:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
I recently closed an RfC on Yasuke and feel like the situation at Talk: Yasuke is deteoriating once again as more WP:SPA's are arriving to argue about the subject. There is a not insignificant amount of WP:SOAPBOXING occurring as well as some vaguely nationalist rhetoric where editors are proclaiming that Wikipedia is being governed by black supremacy and DEI as well as considerable activity taking place offsite on a Wikitionary Talk Page where aspersions are being cast on other editors involved in the dispute such as outright accusing others editors of lying and conspiring at fabricating historical truth as well as what appears to be attempts to Status Quo Stonewall as noted here where they begin discussing how to circumvent the RfC consensus before the RfC was even closed when they saw that the votes weren't going in their favor as well as WP:Tagteaming seen here. Because of all of these many preceived issues, I think some admin attention is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrhns ( talk • contribs) 18:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
User talk:2600:1006:B038:21B4:7EAA:5EBE:208D:5979 Harassment towards many editrs. Pinging: @ PhilKnight can you please revoke talk page access? Thanks. Myrealnamm ( 💬pros · ✏️cons) 19:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
This is probably pointless, but I'm still going to try this anyway. I have no clue how to format this so please bear with it: I am trying to add two games to the horror games category, namely System Shock 1 and its remake. Two users then decided that I was wrong, so they reverted my edits that I then reverted back. Afterwards, they each asked me for sources and citations for why they would classify as horror games. I provided both sources and even provided my own arguments for why I think they're horror games. Neither of them wanted to accept those sources and they kept reverting my edits regardless all while refusing to elaborate on why they didn't think they were horror games (except the admin who just tried to move the goalpost after I provided him with a source from the studio and publisher behind the remake that officially classifies it as a horror game). One of them also happens to be an admin so that means my edits are now "disruptive" and that I'm always wrong.
Here is the link to the talk page: /info/en/?search=User_talk:Salt12352 the thread isn't that long and it's basically just me and the other two arguing back and forth and it's obvious from reading through who the admin is of the two. The other page I'm referring to that doesn't have a talk page is for the remake of said game. I'll admit that my tone might've seemd a little harsh in the beginning so I apologize for coming off as overtly hostile even though it wasn't my intention, but I guess tone can be hard to convey through the written word. Salt12352 ( talk) 19:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)