Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. 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)
Start a new discussion

Jonharojjashi, part 2

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

TLDR: These past months Jonharojjashi has been making disruptive off-Wiki coordinations to disrupt Wikipedia together with other users, many being socks/indeffed due to their disruption.

Since I had a screenshot of Jonharojjashi trying to recruit someone into their Discord group for Wikipedia coordination (which they outright denied [1], not the best choice when I have a literal picture, makes you look even more suspicious) I took it to ArbCom per WP:OUTING. They recommended me to come back here to ANI. I believe all these actions were done through the Discord.

These past months there have been a surge of "new" users making the same WP:TENDENTIOUS edits, making use of the same (poor/misused) sources, all in India-related (generally war/battle) articles, many of them being the exact same topic, including poorly written *insert Indian victory here* articles. Because of this, I initially made two SPIs against Jonharojjashi's and co. [2] [3], but they were mostly fruitless.

Jonharojjashi and the indeffed user Mr Anonymous 699

1. Both accounts created roughly three months between each other. Their EIU [4] shows some quite suspicious stuff, including them edit warring together at Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent and kinda repeating each other [5]. Another user who was edit warring with them in that article was Indo12122, a brand new user who is now indeffed (I'll get to that next sub-section).
2. Mr Anonymous 699 and Jonharojjashi also edit warred together at Kambojas in a WP:TENDENTIOUS manner [6]
3. At Kanishka's war with Parthia, Mr Anonymous 699 restored [7] the pov addition of Jonharojjashi.

Jonharojjashi and the sock Indo12122

1. As mentioned above, Indo12122 was also part of the edit warring efforts of Jonharojjashi and the now indeffed user Mr Anonymous 699 at Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent [8] [9] [10] [11]
2. After I reverted one of Indo12122's socks, Mr Anonymous 699 randomly reverted me at Chola invasion of Kedah [12]
3. Jonharojjashi made a WP:POVFORK variant of Kingdom of Khotan [13], trying to push a legendary story obviously not supported by WP:RS to Indianize the Kingdom of Khotan. Just coincidentally not long ago one of the socks of Indo12122 also attempted to Indianize the topic in the article itself [14]. More proof that this can't all be a coincidence.
4. When multiple concerns were made over the article at Talk:Chandragupta II's Campaign of Balkh (created by Shakib ul hassan), Indo12122's sock Magadhan3933 suddenly appeared and started defending it. Whats even more suspicious, Magadhan3933 (Indo12122) also created literally the same article Draft:Campaigns of Chandragupta II Vikramaditya two days after Shakib ul hassan, which was even randomly edited by Jonharojjashi [15] [16]

Jonharojjashi and the sock Shakib ul hassan

1. Jonharojjashi has a history of making poorly made/sourced POV battle/war articles which conveniently result in the (often decisive) victory for an Indian entity. They initially made such a poor article Vikramaditya's west Oxus valley campaign, which not only use similar citations (Muzaffar and Fodor who are not even WP:RS) as Chandragupta II's Campaign of Balkh by brand new user Shakib ul hassan, but even another user noted that they were quite similar in the comment of the former article; "This seems quite similar to Chandragupta II's Campaign of Balkh, is it the same campaign?".
2. Like Jonharojjashi, Shakib ul hassan also misuses sources, only using the part that satisfies their POV and omitting the rest of what it says as noted by me here [17] [18]. They also both randomly requiested the protection of Chandragupta II's Campaign of Balkh [19] [20] under the false reason of "vandalism" (I'm not sure they understand what the word means).
3. Brand new and now indeffed user HistoricPilled, is a sock of User:Thewikiuser1999, and has a very similar EIA [21] to all these users. As seen in the edit history of Maratha–Sikh Clashes, HistoricPilled and Shakib ul hassan build on each others edits for example. At Bajirao I, they edit warred together [22] [23].

Jonharojjashi and the sock Melechha and indeffed user Aryan330

1. Melechha created a wikitable in Ahom–Mughal conflicts [24], which was some days after promptly edited by Jonharojjashi [25]
2. Same here; Melechha creates a Wikitable at Luso–Maratha War (1729–1732) [26], then its heavily edited by Jonharojjashi [27]
3. And the same here again, Melechha creates a Wikitable at Dogra–Tibetan war [28], then heavily edited by Jonharojjashi [29]
4. Indeffed user Aryan330 and Melechha's sock EditorPandit edited warred at Maratha–Portuguese War (1683–1684) [30] [31]. Guess who joined them later? That is right, Jonharojjashi [32]
5. Melechha's sock Msangharak trying to save the then POV infested Kanishka's war with Parthia by Jonharojjashi after it got nominated for deletion [33] [34] [35] [36] [37]

Jonharojjashi and the sock Rowlatt11

Jonharojjashi more or less restored [38] the unsourced edit [39] by Rowlatt11's sock Daayush.

Closing remark

In made response to my previous ANI [40], Jonharojjashi made a ridiculous SPI [41] of me and many other users who had called them out for their disruption. Instead of addressing the points, they simply dismissed the whole report as "WP:HOUNDING" and "biting newcomers", so I'm not going to reply to their incoming comments here unless an admin wants me to.

There is no way that these all coincidences, how many indeffed users/socks have Jonharojjashi interacted with in such a short time? Especially when I have a literally picture of Jonharojjashi trying to recruit members and denying it. These indeffed users/socks are no doubt members of the Discord. Jonharojjashi and the Discord they lead should not be allowed to edit here. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

So this is the third time HistoryofIran has distressed me with his unfruitful SPIs and ANIs, these several attempts made by them to indef me, shows how much they are craved. If they can't prove me doing On-wiki canvassing then they are trying to get me blocked for doing alleged off wiki canvassing. Nevertheless I'll again refute all the points made by historyofIran for me doing any kind of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry.

"I believe all these actions were done through the Discord. Yes, you believe, I don't know what you have got to prove me doing Off-wiki canvassing but feel free to show all of those unsubstantiated evidence to ArbCom. And they will just shut your case just like your other cases were closed as those were nothing but unrelated call and two different users.

Anyone can claim that they have got some literal pictures and screenshots of tagging/meatpuppetry even the nom can furnish such pictures because as we know you and ImperialAficionado have been trying to indef me and don't know how many newcomers have been indeffed because of your teamwork (not defending the guilty but have seen them tagging on multiple occasions). Note that HistoryofIran has got some personal issues with me in the past so it's obvious that he'd form a prejudice towards me even though he has been proven wrong and caught of lying just to demean me. According to them, every article made by me is poorly written/sourced but he has been proven wrong multiple times and as I said even caught of lying.

Now coming to the HistoryofIran's attempt to link me with these indeffed accounts and previously these accounts were proven to be unrelated with me.

1. HistoryofIran himself yelled that the difference between the creation of my account and Mr. Anonymous 699's account is more than 3 months, considering such a huge gap doesn't even call for a suspicion that this account is somewhat related to me moreover a check user will confirm this. Anyone can spy and can see others' activity so it's no surprise that they have been following me and indulged in any edit warring. And what is pov addition of Johnrajjoshi? It's clearly a sourced addition which is still present in the article body of

Kanishka's war with Parthia Why are you still lying?

1. 2 Indo12122 and Mr. Anonymous 699 could be a pair of sock but to say that just because a sock account is related to another suspect doesn't mean that they could be related to me. In fact I was the victim of unattributed usage of my contents in Chandragupta II's Campaign of Balkha the creator of this page Shakib ul hassan copied my content without giving any attributions. This proves that these suspected users were spying on my works and even published their own article after copying mine without my consent and instead of grouping me with them, historyofiran should group these suspected users with themselves.
2. The wikitables created by Melechha were on the hot articles which means those articles are watched by hundred thousands per month so it'd be obvious that my and other wiki editor's attention would get there but to say that we are connected to each other through sockpuppetry is a baseless allegation and perhaps historyofIran has forgot about their tagging with ImperialAficionado and DeepstoneV and how they were tagging with each other on various occasions [42]. If I had done such coordinated taggings with these alleged suspected users then I'm sure historyofIran would have found more ways to get me indeffed. I had made a SPI on ImperialAficionado by showing how these users are tagging/allying with each other and have made a sect and group against newcomers.
3. more or less? Just stop suspecting me with some random sock users. There is a bold difference in these edits, in mine [43] I have edited it on the basis of Rabatak inscription whereas Rowlatt11 had cited a secondary source [44] I don't see any relation in it and besides Kanishka's religion is a hot topic of discussion so it'd be obvious that many user will do edits in it but that doesn't mean you'll now relate all of them with me, amusing enough that HistoryofIran is trying to relate me with any far distant user.

Jonharojjashi (talk) 19:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

A poor, cherrypicked response which barely addressed half the stuff I said. As I expected. HistoryofIran (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

And what's so cheery picked in it? Jonharojjashi (talk) 09:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Editing issues of Jonharojjashi

I'm not getting involved in the discussion of sock/meat issues or behavioral problems, but I've encountered issues with two of their articles I attempted to verify with sources. One article I submitted for AFD and it was deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extermination of Nagadhatta. )Today, I examined another article created by Jonharojjashi, Gauda–Gupta War, and found significant issues within it. While I addressed some of these concerns during the AFD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gauda–Gupta War), the problems extend beyond a few isolated ones. While I've found several issues just within two of their articles, I'm concerned that other pages created by them may follow a similar pattern. I recommend a review of their articles.--Imperial^[AFCND] 17:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I was not sure why Jonharojjashi restricted the timeframe of the Gupta–Hunnic Wars to 534, especially when there are sources (now cited by me) indicating that the conflicts extended until the fall of the Guptas in 550, largely due to White Hunnic invasions (with the result parameter likely favoring the Huns). It appears there may have been an effort to portray a "Gupta victory" by limiting the duration of the war, allowing the Guptas to appear successful in their final campaign up to 534. I have made a small major copyedit in the infobox section, by extending the duration to all the way upto the end of the war, and limiting the big list of the territorial changes to the final outcome of the territory. Issues have been addressed by tagging. Imperial^[AFCND] 18:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

A random user appeared at Gupa-Hunnic Wars, and reverted my edits; and replaced it with Gupta victory again [45], similar to Jonharojjashi, the user justified the reason by highlighting the upper hand of Guptas during an intermediate stage of the War [46]. Editor used poor sources; and ofcourse limited time period of the War, so it wasn't a heavy task to find a reason to revert. BUT! since then the user left, Jonharojjashi appeared the scene and reverted to his version (indeed time period limited to a definite time in such a way that could be counted as a victory for Guptas), and surprisingly made a request for protection of the page, accusing me and the above user being edit warred [47]. Made a comment on the talk section requesting us ro stop a non existing edit warring and didn't even give proper reasons for reverting to the version;nor said anything about the result parameter.[48]. --Imperial^[AFCND] 18:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Another brand new user appearing out of nowhere and doing the exact same as Jonharojjashi? Must be another random coincidence, and not anything to do with the Discord /s. HistoryofIran (talk) 22:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Responding to relevant points in @ImperialAficionado's first comment:-

• The discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gauda–Gupta War is still ongoing and anyone can see that you are either procrastinating or making excuses to provide proper reasoning that how the article holds weak sources, OR and synthesis.

Responding to relevant points in @ImperialAficionado's second comment:-

• I see no point in bringing this issue here when I have alr cleared all their doubts at Talk:Gupta–Hunnic Wars.

Instead of sticking to the topic, historyofIran and ImperialAficionado seem to be enjoying more in off-topic discussions. As we see ImperialAficionado first pinging historyofIran just to tell them see how funny he posted this on my talk page and disregarding sources provided by me. What is ridiculous is that one of the sources cited by ImperialAficionado (Dictionary of Wars) is now considered as unreliable by historyofIran but as per RSN it is reliable, I wonder why HistoryofIran then didn't oppose ImperialAficionado for adding this unreliable source (according to them). (Could be WP:TAGTEAM?) For the timeline of the War, I have provided them with Bakker's timeline of the Gupta-Hunnic struggle but they keep neglecting it and instead of focusing on the topic of the discussion they derailed it with useless laughable talks at the end. Note that the other sources cited by ImperialAficionado do not give a single reference for any involved belligerents victory and merely talk around the fall of the Gupta Empire. Again see Talk:Gupta–Hunnic Wars#Constant_disruption.

Responding to relevant points in @ImperialAficionado's third comment:-

• Strange how ImperialAficionado didn't bother to put the whole context here, alright I'll do this for him.

I have explained the reason for reverting your edits at Talk:Gupta–Hunnic Wars and placed warning templates on their talk page which was being removed by ImperialAficionado. They removed it not only from their own talk page [49] but they also tried to do the same from user Mnbnjghiryurr's talk page, which was later reverted by [50] Jonharojjashi (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Thats not the whole context. And its still not a good idea to suggest that me and Imperial are tagteaming with all the evidence I have of you here - because if we’re tagteaming, we’re going to have to find a new word for you and your Discord group. You’re trying to shift the focus, and it’s not going to work. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Jonharojjashi and Malik-Al-Hind

Malik-Al-Hind (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

My god, can they make it less obvious?

1. Both Jonharojjashi [51] and brand new User:Malik-Al-Hind [52] use the obscure and poor source written by a non-historian Dictionary of Wars
2. Both fixiated on making poorly sourced WP:SYNTH war/conflict articles where the Indian part wins [53] [54]
3. Like Jonharojjashi [55], Malik-Al-Hind also tries to overinflate Gupta territory/history through source misuse (WP:SYNTH) [56] [57]
4. Both Jonharojjashi [58] and Malik-Al-Hind [59] are fixated on me not focusing on User:DeepstoneV. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't know much about Johnarojjashi but I noticed that he has similar edits like DeepstoneV (as they both edit around Ancient indian history). Since I don't know about him so I can only reply to the accusations on me.

Firstly, I'd apologize if the book I cited is not written by a historian but I found that cited in Afghan-Maratha War, so I thought it would be a WP:RS.

Secondly, my draft is well sourced, you can raise the issue at the talk page. I'll surely fix it.

Thirdly, you were extending the topic with different discussion but still I preferred answering your doubts instead of raising concerns of diverting topic, you even played the game of "response and skip" in the discussion and you only arrived there in the interval of 2-3 days (why?), I had quoted RS to clear your doubts, the other users (Flemish Neitz.. and Based Kasmiri) also supported my view so don't just accuse me of doing synthing.

Fourthly, Because of User DeepstoneV the Gupta Empire page was protected (requested by me) and they have removed several sourced contents from diff articles (reverted by me[60][61][62][63]) but instead of warning them you chose to support deepstoneV for no reason, even if they did disruptive edits. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 19:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Actually, my “doubts” ended up being real, as you did indeed misuse WP:RS to overinflate Gupta territory, which Flemmish also ended up calling you out for [64]. But long live dishonesty I guess. The rest of your comment dont even deserve an answer, seems like you and Jonharojjashi are using the same poor lines to respond to me. HistoryofIran (talk) 05:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Here we go again, @Malik Al Hind If you don't know much about me then why do you want to link me with DeepstoneV? Just stop this nonsense. And why are you apologizing to Historyofiran for using this book? As per RSN it is a reliable book [65], we are not binded by their dictatorship but only Wikipedia policies and guidelines, (as expected historyofIran keeps biting newcomers). Interestingly they didn't oppose the addition of the same source by ImperialAficionado [66]. Tag teaming goes hard. Note that when I raised the same issue for defending poor edits of deepstoneV, they removed my comment from their talk page [67] because they don't want hear anything against their tag team members. Jonharojjashi (talk) 15:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

The whataboutism resumes once again. This report is not about me, Imperial nor Deepstone, but your discord group. And please dont put words in my mouth, I removed you from my talk page because I dont want a meatpuppet leader in my talk page. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

They could in fact not make it less obvious. Malik-Al-Hind [68] [69] and Jonharojjashi [70] misusing the EXACT same uncertain quote by R.K. Mookerji to get more pride points by having their favourite Gupta Empire "conquer/win" against x thing. Can't wait for the excuse/whataboutism on this one - can we please just indeff this whole group? --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Jonharojjashi and Sudsahab

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

1. Both Jonharojjashi [71] [72] and indeffed user Sudsahab [73] use the incredibly obscure and obviously non-WP:RS by a non-historian Bharat's Military Conquests In Foreign Lands
2. Both make poorly sourced WP:SYNTH war articles with no source for the date of when it started, heck the start date doesnt even appear in the body/lead of the article [74] [75]. Notice that there are only a few days between the creation of the articles 2 March 2024 9 March 2024, this is not a coincidence that they both create an article related to a Saka "campaign/war". --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Now this. Sudsahab has already asked me to help them improve their article [76] and as I said their, I was busy back then within working on my own drafts and replying to these ANIs. Beyond that I know nothing what happened to them or their sock, keep me outta this.

I hope historyofIran knows that anyone can see others contributions and edit history, so isn't it obvious that Sudsahab could be influenced by the source used by me? In fact the book Bharat's Military Conquests In Foreign Lands. is quite popular among South Asians. So I don't claim copyright of it, anyone can read it if they want. Jonharojjashi (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

At this rate you might as well give me an invite so I can craft a better excuse for you. The two articles were created BEFORE your conversation with Sudsahab, and I dont see him asking you to create that article either for that matter. And ah yes, the non-WP:RS by a obscure, non-historian is no doubt popular amongst South Asians, and who are more than 2 billion a that. Do you have a source for that? HistoryofIran (talk) 16:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Bravehm

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

WP:TENDENTIOUS user that keeps attempting to remove/decrease the Mongol aspect of the Hazara (they even somewhat openly admitted it here if you ask me [77]), likely a sock [78], though the SPI might not come with conclusive results again.

1. At Talk:Hazaras, Bravehm blatantly lied that User:KoizumiBS removed sourced information [79], when they literally did the opposite, restoring sourced info (mainly about the Mongol aspect of the Hazara) removed by indeffed User:Jadidjw, whom I still believe to this day was a sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iampharzad, who has a long history of attempting to remove the Mongol aspects mentioned at Hazaras. Notice that Jadidjw didnt even protest against their indef block despite editing since 2021. They no doubt jumped to another account.
2. After clearly trying to ramp up 500 edits as fast as possible to get access to Hazaras, they immediately started removing sourced information and edit warring [80] [81]
3. Bravehm also blatantly lied here to justify their removal of sourced info about the Mongol aspect [82]
4. Removed sourced info about the Mongol aspect again [83] ("According other sources, the Hazara population speaks Persian with some Mongolian words.")
5. Same here [84]
6. And here [85]
7. And here [86]
8. And here [87]
9. And here [88]

--HistoryofIran (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• I've left a CT notice on the user's talk page, noting that we still haven't heard back from them here yet. I also glanced through contribution history; they did hit 500 pretty quick, however most of the edits appear to have come in good faith insofar as they weren't adding or subtracting one or two syllables consistently to get to 500, however that doesn't per se rule out revoking the EC rights or alternatively page blocking them from the Hazaras article. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

  Another removal of information about the Mongolian component - diff. KoizumiBS (talk) 10:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

  Because Babur never said those words in his Baburnama, but the translator added it and it should not be taken as a source. please see Bravehm (talk) 13:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  WP:CIR issues too. You've already been asked several times why the translators don't count as WP:RS, but you've been unable to, even changing your arguments as you please [89]. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  Another attempt to minimize the Mongol aspect [90]. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  I restored some of those changes that KoizumiBS brought. Hazares also have Turkic and Iranic aspects, why KoizumiBS attempt to minimize the non-Mongol and Turkic aspect of Hazaras.[91] Bravehm (talk) 19:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  "HistoryofIran" wrongly and falsely considers my account to belong to "Iampharzad" while I only have this account and Iampharzad's account is not related to me in any way. Bravehm (talk) 09:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  • According to Encyclopaedia of Islam, Hazaragi is a Persian dialect, which is infused with many Turkic and a few Mongolic words or loanwords.
  • According to Encyclopædia Britannica, the Hazara speak an eastern variety of Persian called Hazaragi with many Mongolian and Turkic words.
  • According to Encyclopaedia Iranica, the Hazaras speak a Persian dialect with many Turkic and some Mongolic words.
  • According other sources, the Hazara population speaks Persian with some Mongolian words.

  I only rm the last one due to repetition, incompleteness, and it only mentioned the Mongolian aspect. Bravehm (talk) 16:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

This (According other sources, the Hazara population speaks Persian with some Mongolian words.) removal was due to the duplication of info about Hazaragi, and its sources were not reliable as Encyclopaedia of Islam, Encyclopaedia Britannica, and Encyclopaedia Iranica. Bravehm (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

My discussion with KoizumiBS on the Talk page of article caused him to correct the erroneous info he had added in the article about the Mongol aspect of the Hazaras. See [92] Bravehm (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: [93], [94]

They are not removal but restoration.

I don't know why you have taken a hard position against me and consider my every edit as something bad. As a user, I have the right to edit as you edit. Bravehm (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Bravehm once again being dishonest, removing sourced info while saying it is "unsourced" [95]. WP:NOTHERE. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

"More unsourced" not "unsourced"

I explained the reason: "No reliable census has been conducted in Afghanistan so far".

And there were no mentions of Aimaqs and Hazaras, which constitute the majority of Ghor residents but the majority of its inhabitants were almost Tajiks plaese see: [96] Bravehm (talk) 15:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

It's still not unsourced though... And your explanation is worthless, we follow WP:RS, not your personal opinion - you've already been told this. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

So "www.biorxiv.org" and "journals.plos.org" are also not WP:RS for this content "the Hazara population speaks Persian with some Mongolian words." Bravehm (talk) 17:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Request for closure

Can an admin please take a look at this case? Bravehm is disrupting more and more articles as we speak [97]. They are WP:TENDENTIOUS and have clear WP:CIR issues, exactly like Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iampharzad and co., they even all have the same English skills! --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

This (Iampharzad) account does not and does not belong to me.

User: HistoryofIran has taken a tough stance against me and wants to deny me the right to edit on Wikipedia. He reverses my edits and wants us to reach a consensus on the Talk page of the article, but when I am ready to discuss because of the consensus, he does not give me an answer on the page. Bravehm (talk) 23:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

They're still being disruptive as we speak, such as here where they manually reverted KoizumiBS and once again blatantly lied, accusing KoizumiBS of once again removing info but in reality due it themselves to decrease the Mongol aspect [98]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

It was just a restoration of sourced info deleted by KoizumiBS.

This's how I did it (Restored revision 1219713481 by WikiDan61 (talk): Please do not delete previous contents [99]) Bravehm (talk) 12:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, everyone can see how you did it... I already linked the diff. And everyone can see your disruption through these diffs. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Disagreement about blocking of 2601:646:201:57F0::/64

This highly prolific editor has a ... rather unusual editing pattern of refbombing articles and talk pages with tangentially related references and quite often adding messages to talk pages just containing bare links. Both characteristics are demonstrated by the talk page contributions of this IP of theirs and this over-referencing edit to Ivory (soap). After I noticed an edit of theirs on my watchlist, I mass-reverted their edits and discovered this message on their talk page, which I felt indicated a severe attitude problem, so I blocked them for a year. They submitted an unblock request at User talk:2601:646:201:57F0:246:89EB:87C0:F4D4, which Yamla declined and bradv queried (and then reversed the block ... see my response there). If I re-block at this point, this would clearly be wheel-warring, but as I said at the discussion there I honestly don't believe we're dealing with a newbie here and allowing this person to edit would achieve little besides wasting the community's time with edits that are tedious to patrol and check and require much cleanup; for example, in response to this series of edits, I wrote that "I just checked the New York Times source (cited several times); it does not agree with any of the text it was put beside (or when it does, it does so in such a tenuous way as to be useless". Any other opinions on this situation would be appreciated. Also, I'll be in the air for a long time tomorrow so I probably won't be able to respond much between 14:00 (UTC) today and at least 18:00 (UTC) tomorrow. I'll notify all the involved editors (as much as I can for a /64) in due course. Graham87 (talk) 08:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Make that 12:30 (UTC) ... I have an early flight tomorrow. Graham87 (talk) 10:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore there's this edit, which shows far-above-average knowledge of Wikipedia for a newbie. Graham87 (talk) 08:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Why would they even be a newbie? Sorry if i missed them saying so somewhere. But how on earth is being able to use square brackets to creat a link any sort of advanced knowldge. There are countless examples of that on every page, signature etc. Just replicate, preview it and... Come on, its square brackets. There is nothing special about being able to do that. 85.16.37.129 (talk) 10:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Oops, just got this. It's their knowledge of (a) what a redirect is and (b) that they can't create one because they've chosen not to have an account. bradv assumed they were a newcomer, hence the unblock. Graham87 (talk) 11:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok cheers. Isn't that something that is practically the first thing you pick up when editing? In the end it just is so obvious how it works. When i started editing over 10 years ago now, which i overall rarely do i have to say, i always looked for examples of what i wanted to do and simply replicated it. The square brackets are very noticable around everything when in the edit interface. So you fiddle around with it for a minute, when the preview looks fine you will just know how to do it. Not like it is complicated.

I don't even feel like i want to defend the other editor overall. But knowing what redirects are, linking things etc are so simple that they surely should not be used as indicators of advanced skills. At least in my rather worthless opinion. 85.16.37.129 (talk) 11:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

They likely tried to make a redirect and got an error message. Wikipedia isn't as complex as what most editors do for their day jobs. The simple markdown used here is also used on lots of websites and platforms. It seems like bad faith to assume anyone who knows about redirects but doesn't have an account is suspicious. Joey Dickinson the Game of Thrones Ultrafan (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)strike sock-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

A year-long block seems quite excessive for eccentricity and a "bad attitude" (of which I've seen much worse from much more experienced users, and I'm sure I've had worse myself.) I will say however that it's unlikely they will improve based on the edits they've made so far. wound theology◈ 11:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

ref: https://www.nytimes.com/1981/07/11/movies/robert-altman-sells-studio-for-2.3-million.html

always for altman's studio

https://www.thewrap.com/obit-laugh-ins-henry-gibson-dies-73-7251/

never mentions altman's malibu home 2601:646:201:57F0:E42C:A128:7D6:6F73 (talk) 17:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

"redirect" shows up in page displays and search results 2601:646:201:57F0:E42C:A128:7D6:6F73 (talk) 17:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

multiple refs after a person's name (who has no article) specifies who they are: "Lane Sarasohn" The Groove Tube 2601:646:201:57F0:E42C:A128:7D6:6F73 (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

wound Theology: Explain:

• eccentricity
• "bad attitude"

2601:646:201:57F0:E42C:A128:7D6:6F73 (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I can't make head nor tail of the above. Is this coherent to anyone else? --Yamla (talk) 18:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

(this is just what I understood they said, not comments)

I think the first one is responding to the "I just checked the New York Times source [..]" diff, saying that the ref was for the studio and that the other source, which they hid with an HTML comment and Graham reverted in that diff, did not support the Malibu home.

The second one is explaining their intention in asking for a redirect, Graham uses that request to say the IP has "[..]far-above-average knowledge of Wikipedia for a newbie"?

The third one I'm not sure what they are responding to as they have not edited The Groove Tube.

And the fourth one they are asking @Wound theology what they meant with eccentricity and "bad attitude".

--- now for comments:

It is unreasonably challenging to understand what the reported range is saying, I'm not saying they need to be blocked just for that, but they need to improve. It will be impossible to work with them if they don't, because while it's good that they are here discussing instead of continuing, even that is not going to work if we can't understand what they are saying. – 2804:F14:80B2:ED01:4435:1C06:57EF:81CA (talk) 21:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

You know, maybe a year-long block isn't as excessive as I thought it was... wound theology◈ 06:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

refers to Robert Altman and The Wilton North Report 2601:646:201:57F0:E42C:A128:7D6:6F73 (talk) 18:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

it seems Graham87 deleted everything I did, even on talk pages. what is that about? I cannot do more than raw urls. nevertheless they are well sourced. 2601:646:201:57F0:E42C:A128:7D6:6F73 (talk) 18:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

statements in initial post are misleading exaggerations with anger at being reverted 2601:646:201:57F0:E42C:A128:7D6:6F73 (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to discusss this here. Your opinion about your own edits is irrelevant. The fact that you can't do anything but raw URLS and your communication issues demonstrate a competence problem. I reverted many of your edits because they were problematic; a references section is not a place to dump random tangentially related refs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graham87 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)^<diff>

I'm concerned that Graham87 doesn't understand the problem with heavy-handed blocks like this, and the damage this sort of admin work does to Wikipedia. After looking at this case I took a quick look at some other recent blocks, and there are some other reasons to be concerned:

• Special:Contribs/2400:ADC5:1A9:7500:0:0:0:0/64 — blocked for 6 months with no warning, no explanation, no block notice, and no advice on how to appeal.
• Special:Contribs/Orbitm8693 — blocked without explanation, with no talk page or email access. The reason given is "block evasion", but no indication of what block they are suspected of evading, nor any way for them to appeal.
• Special:Contribs/Randompandaeatcake — same as above, "block evasion" without explanation nor any means of appealing.
• Special:Contribs/Wondabyne — again, no explanation, no means of appealing as both email and talk page access were revoked. Graham87 initially reported them as a sock of RichardHornsby but the evidence didn't hold up. Yet they remain blocked with no way of appealing that decision.

I haven't had time to dig any deeper yet, but this may require a broader investigation. – bradv 14:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

• It's fairly common to not specify the master of a block evader to deny recognition. It's also very difficult to communicate with a /64 user and editors focused on adding unreferenced content about one particular country are ... not what we want here. I don't believe users who waste the time of other editors should edit here. Re the sock block, I did indeed get the sock wrong on my first go but it was corrected. Graham87 (talk) 18:13/19:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  That's usually done for long-term abuse cases, or in the words of the essay you quoted, "true vandals and trolls". Which LTAs are these? You haven't even specified which blocks they are evading. – bradv 02:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  Is there not any way for us to note, say, in a revdelled edit which master a sock goes to? This seems like it would be more useful than a total blank. jp×g🗯️ 02:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

• Yeah it would. I've added links to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RichardHornsby in all those cases. Honestly normally I would add such links but for that particular case (both the person I thought it was originally and the actual sockmaster), I didn't think there'd be any point; those who know could use the search feature to find it. Graham87 (talk) 09:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  So you're saying that you blocked Orbitm8693 as a sock of RichardHornsby, but that SPI says the accounts are unrelated. And they have no way of appealing as you revoked email and talk page access, despite any evidence of abuse. Do you see the problem? – bradv 19:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

• Re Orbitm8693, SPI said there were no technical similarities but obvious behavioral similarities and, per the blocking policy, ""New accounts which engage in the same behavior as a banned or blocked editor in the same context, and who appear to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, are subject to the remedies applied to the editor whose behavior they are imitating". Graham87 (talk) 20:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  That's not what happened though. Orbitm8693's edits to 1960 United States presidential election were all about adding Byrd to the infobox, as discussed here (in which multiple people participated). And Orbitm8693's sole other edit was to add a birthdate to Melina Abdullah, which was reverted by you without explanation (a quick Google search shows it's most likely correct, by the way). So I'll ask again, where is the evidence of sockpuppetry? And why do you think it is okay to block them based on this so-called evidence, without any recourse for them to appeal? You've quoted from the blocking policy – have you read the rest of that page? – bradv 19:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

• Looking at their contribution history, most of their edits consisted of undoing revisions without explanation or discussion (thank you for providing such an explanation). This is not at all normal for a new account and strongly fails the duck test. They seem to have been on the same side as Randompandaeatcake and may well be a meatpuppet of that user, as discussed at the sockpuppet investigations page. I need to be out of here soon and I've only had the chance to skim-read the rest of the blocking policy so far. Graham87 (talk) 09:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Came on this discussion due to a bot report at AIV. Gotta say, I think a long removal is due here. See e.g. the filter hits from May 13 (today). None of these are appropriate per WP:BLP if no other reason. Special:Contributions/2601:646:201:57f0::/64 is in general worth blocking for disruption and/or WP:CIR and the only reason I haven't issued one is because this section exists. Izno (talk) 23:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of the IP editor's competence issues, Graham87's understanding of policy - especially his comments about sockpuppetry in this thread - is very concerning. At the very least he needs to stop DUCK blocking suspected sockpuppets and start reporting them to SPI. BoldGnome (talk) 07:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed the IP's recent edits too and they're ... interesting, but I thought it'd be better for other people to observe them and act as they see fit. Re sockpuppetry: I'll take the above message on-board; I don't often encounter situations quite like this. Graham87 (talk) 09:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

It is normal and routine for admins to block potential socks based on reports at AIV and places elsewhere than SPI. See also the length of the SPI queue (which is not helped by adding obvious socks) and/or User:Tamzin/SPI is expensive. (I make this comment in the general sense, you may have been trying to be specific about whether Graham should be issuing such blocks.) Izno (talk) 20:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I was being specific about whether Graham should be issuing such blocks. BoldGnome (talk) 04:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

User runs citation bot and deletes data

User User:Ecangola is running some bot to improve citation formatting. They are doing in in such a way that is deleting lots of important information from the citations: namely, author, publication date, publisher name. Typically, this user is replacing a "plain text" citation with a "cite web" formatted citation. The intention is okay, but they delete author & date information in many instances.

Several users told the user (in their Talk page) about this problem in early April 2024, but the user has not replied to the complaints. In fact, the user is still deleting information as of yesterday. For a examples & details, see User_talk:Ecangola#Why_delete_author_&_Publication_date_in_article?

I'm not too familiar with the ANI process, but can someone with authority please tell the user to stop deleting important information when they run citation bots? Noleander (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I looked at the user's contributions at Special:Contributions/Ecangola, and it looks like all they do is run bots to improve citation formatting. There is nothing wrong with that. They started in 2017, and have been doing it continuously. In 2017, it looks like they were more careful: I don't see any changes from 2017 where they deleted information (author, publication date, publisher) from the citations. I'm not sure when they started getting sloppy, but certainly during 2024 they've been deleting information.

It is very hard to re-add info into formatted citations: one has to track down the original citation, find the data, and re-insert it into the new citation. Noleander (talk) 15:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if they are running a bot, though they are definitely running a script (this is pretty funny: <diff> *don't think ignoring a 'are you a robot' check is proof of being a bot) and WP:ASSISTED has it's own rules. Honestly they have gotten many bot notifications this year and a few complaints, the only one I've seen them respond to was a question about what fmt means in their summary, doesn't seem like they addressed or even communicated with any of the people with concerns in their talk page.

I think we all might like some concrete examples of the problems you're claiming, but so far, from their talk page and some cursory checking, it's looking pretty bad.

– 2804:F14:8093:BD01:94B9:757A:5CC5:C94C (talk) 20:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC) *edited: 20:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that it is script, not a bot. I've never used bots/scripts, so I'm not an expert in the automation side of things. Following are some diffs showing changes that deleted important information about the source/cite. All of these were done within five minutes on a single article; I suppose that similar information deletions frequently happen, based on some comments in the users Talk page.

a) Name of author (of newspaper source) deleted: [100]

b) Name of author deleted: [101]

c) Source of the citation is EPA, ("EPA" deleted) [102]

d) Date of publication deleted: [103]

e) Date of publication deleted: [104]

f) Author name deleted: [105]

g) Name of publisher ("The Guardian") deleted: [106]

Again, the user appears to have good intentions, but needs to be told to NOT DELETE INFORMATION that article-creators labored to find and document. Noleander (talk) 20:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I said I don't know if they are running a bot, not that they aren't. I'm not familiar with where Wikipedia draws the line. – 2804:F1...C5:C94C (talk) 20:52, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• I will say, I do find it bad that with all the comments on their talk page they have used a User talk page 7 times in their 76,000+ edits, and not on a single occasion used an article talk page or project talk page. 76K+ edits for only ever making 7 talk comments (well 6 since one was just deleting comments) is pretty bad. Canterbury Tail talk 22:31, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  And none of the talk page edits where in reply to editors raising this same issue again and again over years. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  I suggest an article space p-block to mandate engagement with those who have concerns. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• Regardless of whether their edits are manually or automated (probable), they are expected to check the results to ensure they are accurate. While many of their edits are improvements, many are not, and communication is required when valid concerns are raised on their talk page. Some more examples of errors:
• changed title
• left author out
• changed title
• changed title and left author out
• changed title and changed dead link to generic url when an archive link was available
• sales ad fails verification
• generic url fails verification appears to be WP:UGC
• self published source
• blog is UGC
• wrong last name
• wrong author name

Let's wait and see if they reply here before proposing any sanctions. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:52, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• If they are using a bot, and it isn't a WP:BAG approved bot (and I don't see evidence they approved), then they need to be blocked anyway. There is a reason we restrict bots to approved only. They can screw things up, really fast, which is why unapproved bots aren't allowed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I don’t use a bot. I just click on the "convert" button when offered and trusted the results so far with some manual improvements here and there. The loss of information in the process, such as the name of the publisher, was not intentional. In the future, I will enter more information manually, as the automatic conversion isn't trustworthy, obviously.--Ecangola (talk) 09:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Improving references is always welcomed, but all the automated tools suffer from some amount of flackiness. Just make sure to spend some time after pressing convert to make sure the output is correct, the results are not always to be trusted. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@Ecangola .. you can see from the examples above the kinds of data that is being deleted or changed: author names, publisher, publication date, etc. So if you could focus on doing a visual review to make sure that all the original information is NOT deleted & not changed, that would be much appreciated. Noleander (talk) 17:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks. Will make sure that no information will be lost in the future. --Ecangola (talk) 06:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Question: does anyone who is familiar with the "convert button" know which UI it appears on and what script it calls on the backend? If references are being damaged by part of the mediawiki interface we've got a problem and should figure out who owns the offending codebase. Folly Mox (talk) 10:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@Folly Mox: I found it mentioned in Help:VisualEditor#Editing an existing reference when they said they used it - but I don't have that option as an IP(*edit: turns out I can, was just doing it wrong). I am unable to confirm if it's the same thing as Help:VisualEditor#Using Automatic tab, but it sounds like it is (that one says it uses the Citoid service, with a link). – 2804:F14:80B7:8201:29D0:A5B4:8E85:AAD8 (talk) 10:59, *edited 11:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I guess I'll go bother the maintainer of mw:Citoid again. Folly Mox (talk) 11:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Bothered, and crossbothered in case it can be fixed in VisualEditor by doing some basic output checking before overwriting existing citations. Folly Mox (talk) 11:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I added my 2 cents to those two pages. I need to try that Convert button myself and see what kind of feedback it provides to the user: does it popup a warning that says "Tool was not able to convert all information from raw citation. Proceed or cancel?"  ? It's hard to believe that the script is deleting information silently. Noleander (talk) 14:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

If this UI element is invoking a call to the Citoid library, it's not actually converting the information in the affected manually formatted citations: it's fetching the website at the url provided and running it through a Zotero translator to return a metadata object that it formats into a citation template.

This is precisely the problem we had with ReferenceExpander last year, although that script would process all the references in an article in a single pass rather than one at a time like the VisualEditor convert button appears to do.

When citation generation algorithms have structured metadata supplied by the source webpage, they produce really good results. User:Citation bot fetches structured metadata from Crossref, which is why its error rate is so low. It turns out processing the html of an arbitrary webpage to extract useful metadata is super non-trivial, which is why the Zotero community has grown up to write libraries for individual domains to achieve that.

There's some discussion of this at :mw:Talk:Citoid § Improving citation quality, a thread I opened about a year ago in the wake of the ReferenceExpander debacle, but Citoid has a single maintainer and little to no progress seems to have been made on the problem on their end.

Sadly, string processing on a manually formatted reference would likely lead to better results, with no lost information but increased incidence of misparameterisation. It's unclear why the VisualEditor team chose to incorporate a Citoid library call into this unnecessary cosmetic feature. Maybe someone who knows how to file phab tickets could open one about this problem, because the feature should be disabled or altered to highlight possible information loss and force the user to manually ok each parameter in the generated citation to ensure people are checking closely instead of just trusting that the output is perfect and correct in every case. Folly Mox (talk) 13:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

193.163.150.131 Vandalism, unconstructive and insults

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

IP user vandalising the page and insulting people on the page. Most of their historic edits have been reverted, most likely for being unconstructive. LouisOrr27 (talk) 13:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

@LouisOrr27, if you are sure of the vandalism. Then take the issue to WP:AIV where its best solved and will be given immediate attention. Thanks. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 20:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Note: That was a (Non-administrator comment) (template created with {{nacom}}) thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 15:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

BLP issues with Andrew Tate DYK hook

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Original section title was "Are the idiots who run DYK under the mistaken impression that WP:BLP doesn't apply there?" jp×g🗯️ 20:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Se the section on Andrew Tate. Regardless of what we think of him, the quote seems to have been taken out of context, and regardless of whether it was or it wasn't, the from page of Wikipedia in no place for such loaded cherry-picking. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL, no? GiantSnowman 18:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) #User:AndyTheGrump Conduct is still live. Do you need to be reminded about WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF? Or do you just need to be blocked? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

He said it and never denied saying it -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, Andy, you lost me on this one, there's sourcing for the quote looks pretty solid. The full quote is "You can’t slander me because I will state right now that I am absolutely sexist and I’m absolutely a misogynist, and I have f— you money and you can’t take that away.” so I'm having trouble aseeing how using just part of it makes him look worse than using the whole thing. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

This from a reputable British newspaper quotes Tate, saying "You can’t slander me because I will state right now that I am absolutely sexist and I’m absolutely a misogynist, and I have f*** you money and you can’t take that away", which is the source used for this DYK. So it looks absolutely valid. GiantSnowman 18:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

The same newspaper does state In a video shared to his new website on Wednesday (23 August), Tate claimed that many of the criticisms levied at him are based on clips that have been “taken out of context”. The author clearly didn't see the irony in quoting one sentence of his. Sincerely, Dilettante 18:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm unsure how that quote can be taken out of context, he's pretty clear... GiantSnowman 18:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

And it is from the day before the article was published -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I may actually have been the editor who suggested this particular hook -- too lazy to go check -- and I kind of feel like calling me an idiot is a bit of a personal attack. Valereee (talk) 18:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

It's 100% a personal attack and should be retracted with an apology. GiantSnowman 18:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

+1. There were an infinite number of ways to raise this issue without calling people "idiots." Aoi (青い) (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

What exactly do you think this thread will solve? Sincerely, Dilettante 18:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I see no reason whatsoever to be 'civil' about a gross regard for core Wikipedia policy. Tate, for those who may not be aware, is currently facing charges in multiple countries over concerning alleged rape, human trafficking and organised crime. Regardless of what Tate did or didn't say, we should not be trivialising such matters, out of respect for any victims, if nobody else. Or is rape now amongst those 'quirky' subjects that DYK considers legitimate clickbait-fodder?

AS for what this thread can solve, given past history, very little in the long term I suspect. Not until either the community shuts DYK down as the liability it clearly is, or the WMF decides to step in. Meanwhile though, can someone at least remove this particular abuse of the main page from sight. It is utterly irresponsible, and puts Wikipedia in a particularly poor light. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

CIVIL is a "core Wikipedia policy" that you don't seem to care about disregarding. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Can I take it that you consider rape allegations not involving Wikipedia contributors to be of less importance than breaches of WP:CIVIL amongst ourselves? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

This is an absolutely insane fucking reach. wound theology◈ 01:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Girl. I also think the hook is inappropriate and reflects badly on WP, but what is this lol Zanahary (talk) 01:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Andy, respectfully, you're making no sense. There is no trivialisation here. GiantSnowman 19:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I suspect potential rape victims might have a different opinion on that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Civility is one of the WP:5P. To me, the disregard shown to it here and on your user page overshadows BLP concerns that level-headed editors can discuss. You should be nowhere near any contentious topics. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Andy, you will need to explain to us how quoting Tate describing himself in what is a negative manner to most people is trivialisation of rape victims. GiantSnowman 19:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Right we had a long debate at DYK and I opposed suggested BLP violation hooks. Regarding the PA above I suggest a sanction for the OP here. ATG cannot slander Valerie (wrote the hook) and everyone else in DYK that operated in good faith just because they are a seasoned editor. We should not accept this kind of incivility from anyone. Lightburst (talk) 19:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Something weird happened here – Muboshgu (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I was thinking of doing it myself. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC) Muboshgu, you mistakenly replied to an incorrectly-copy-pasted series of messages, which have now been removed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC) I dont know what to do with this. I was replying to a comment by JPxG about a potential indef block. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC) You posted in the wrong thread. You want #Cheetomalik4. GiantSnowman 19:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I suggest that Andy take some time to:

• 1) clearly explain how a self-summary by the man himself (which accurately encapsulates the opinion of high-quality RS) can be defined as "loaded cherry-picking" which violates WP:BLP
• 2) clearly explain how the hook currently on the Main Page "trivialises the alleged victims of Tate's activities"
• 3) clearly explain how his posts so far on this page are acceptable violations of WP:CIVIL and not examples of tendentious WP:RGW.

I emphasise "clearly explain" thrice because clear explanation has not been a hallmark of ATG's posts so far. Hopefully that changes. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

(1) Selecting a single phrase, with no further clarification of context, for the purposes of a DYK hook is very much cherry-picking. Indeed, that's how the clickbait-farm works. They've been doing it for years, with blatant disregard for basic human dignity and common sense, never mind Wikipedia policy. Do I have to link the time they stated as fact improperly-sourced claims that a Singaporean who disappeared in unexplained circumstances had been cooked in a curry? (2) I was referring to the trivialisation of crime, not of victims. And I doubt such victims would appreciate their attacker being given a platform to dismiss events as 'misogeny'. Not that Tate was, clearly (he remains unconvicted, and denies all the allegations). Given the complete lack of context though, one might very well assume that this was what was being referred to. (3) I was under the impression that complaining about things done in violation of Wikipedia policy was considered a legitimate use of this noticeboard. If it isn't, perhaps people should be advised of the fact in the notice at the top of the page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

(1) So this is a disagreement with the existence of DYK, rather than this particular hook? I would suggest that ANI is not the place to deprecate the process (and, incidentally, as I am an active participant, please feel free to use "you" instead of "they" with your customary insults). (2) is somewhat incoherent, but seems to be worried about assumptions and connections that I can only describe as far-fetched. (3), meanwhile—well, I am unable to see how an explanation of ANI's purpose is at all relevant to whether your comments met the standards of WP:CIVIL or WP:RGW. Please try again. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

You completely dodged question 3 -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I understand the Socratic intent involved in how you've structured these inquiries, but I don't think it's particularly helpful to suggest to Andy at this moment in time that there might be a variety of "acceptable violation of WP:CIV", because he's clearly going to take that implication and run with it. I have to join with the consensus here so far: Andy has engaged in an unambigous and unabashed use of a PA above and rather than acknowledge it and pull pack, is embracing pure IDHT, and courting an almost certain BOOMERANG if he continues.

This is kind of gobsmackingly ironic (and oblivious), because it's almost beat by beat what happened to another editor further up on this page who recently reported Andy for similar language a couple of days ago--in that case, in a pair of WP:POLEMIC-adjacent postings on Andy's user page which also make use of his apparently favourite word for his fellow editors at this moment in time: 'idiot'. Everyone here at ANI, myself included, just brushed past that issue, either by not addressing it at all or by focusing on the uniform opinion that the behvaviour of the OP was of more concern. There was also apparent agreement that, insofar as the comments don't address particular editors or groups of editors, those comments don't really, strictly speaking, constitute a PA--an assessment with which I basically agree.

That said, what those posts do accurately constitute are clear indicators about the thinking of an editor who, per this discussion, is heaving extreme difficulty comporting with WP:AGF and WP:CIV at this moment in time. Andy, as was noted a few times in the previous thread, your discussion style has always had a bit of a "crusty" aspect to it. I think it has generally been well tolerated in part because your very username puts people on notice to the fact that it may be coming and we all just laugh it off a bit as on-brand for you. But at this juncture, you have tipped completely over into WP:Disruptive territory, and you need to pause and re-assess your mode of interaction here before the community takes action. It is never ok to refer to a fellow editor (or clearly identifiable cohort of editors, even) as an idiot/idiots.

Indeed, it was already a worrying sign when you were utilizing such language to vaguely opine about the community in general. But making such observations about particular editors is a brightline violation of PA, and you very certainly know that. Just as you know that you don't get an exemption from following the same basic behavioural rules we are all bound to here just because you are fighting the good fight in the project's interests, as you see it.

The afore-mentioned posts on your user page seem to indicate that you have been contemplating stepping back from the project because of your current frustrations with the community's priorities. This discussion suggests to me that you may want to consider this the ideal time to put that plan into action, because if this is the extent of the self-restraint you can show when it comes to lambasting your rhetorical opposition with commentary about your perception of their level of intelligence (and then refusing to hear the concerns of the community about same), you're probably going to soon talk yourself into blocks or editing restrictions.

If the lesson you took away from Antny08's thread above was that the community was going to continue to support an acerbic, insulting tone from you so long as you were enough in the right on the content issue, that was an error. The lesson you should be taking is about a well-intentioned editor with blinders on to their own issues, and the limits of the community's patience with a refusal to drop the stick. Your love-affair with calling other editors on this project "idiots" has to come to an end. Completely. Immediately. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Muboshgu Apologies I think I erred when I edit conflicted. But yes, I support sanctions for the OP- does someone have a proposal? We would not give any other editor time to reconsider their attack. And ATG obviously flamed out and then said they were taking a break. Lightburst (talk) 19:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I'll explain my opinion on 1. WP:DYKBLP is quite clear not to blurb anything negative. I'd wager most of us would say someone being a misogynist, self-professed or otherwise, is negative. The guideline does not read Hooks that unduly focus on negative aspects of living persons which the person would consider negative should be avoided. Though I agree on some points with them, I do think I'd support a short civility block for ATG. Sincerely, Dilettante 19:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree with this - your interpretation means we could not have things like 'John Smith was a Nazi' etc., even if 100% accurate and properly sourced. GiantSnowman 19:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

How many BLPs do we have on Nazis? Sincerely, Dilettante 19:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

We have 173 BLPs on convicted war criminals, for example Radovan Karadžić. —Kusma (talk) 14:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:DYKBLP ≠ WP:BLP – Muboshgu (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

The first line of WP:BLP is Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. If you're violating a reasonable guideline, you're ipso facto not taking particular care. Sincerely, Dilettante 19:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

If Tate refers to himself as a misogynist, how does it violate BLP to say that he refers to himself as a misogynist? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have retracted my request to pull/change the DYK (see the bottom comment on ERRORS). However, I'll present my argument one last time:

1. One type of (relatively minor) BLP violation is not taking particular care when writing about a BLP.
2. Violating DYKBLP could be reasonably construed as not taking particular care.
3. Calling someone a misogynist, even if they'd agree, is focusing on a negative aspect.
4. We should err on the side of caution when it comes to BLPs.
5. Therefore, we should fix the DYKBLP (and thus BLP) violation by changing the hook.
6. Even if it's only an extremely dubious violation, we should still try to avoid that in case Tate's lawyers want to come calling.

Which step is wrong? This isn't meant to be aggressive; I'd genuinely appreciate being corrected if I'm wrong somewhere. Sincerely, Dilettante 19:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I would pinpoint the error to be between steps two and three. DYKBLP does not prohibit all negative hooks; if it did, we would never be able to run a hook on, say, Andrew Cuomo sexual harassment allegations. It prohibits unduly negative hooks; but if the RS coverage of a person is so negative that they merit an entire split article for something negative they're a part of, it has to be the case that DYKBLP is satisfied. Now, this is Tate's overarching biography and not a split article, but the same principle applies. The RS coverage of Tate is so squarely negative that I can't possibly think of a reason that this hook is unduly negative compared to RSes. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I do think we should never run a hook on the Cuomo allegations or Andrew Tate or any of a million other topics (although I have no doubt I'm in the minority on that). However, you're right about the undue part—I realize why the hook does not violate policy/guidelines. Sincerely, Dilettante 20:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

• AndyTheGrump, I really wish that you would retract the insults and apologise for them - they're a distraction from the real issue. FWIW, I agree that putting that page on the main page was a really poor editorial decision. Wikipedia isn't censored, but we still have editorial judgment, and the discretion to choose whether or not to do something. DYK hooks are inherently trivialising. I like them, I write them whenever I can when I publish a new article - they're fun. This subject isn't fun, or funny, and while I don't condone the insults and have a high regard for some of the people they were directed against, I can see why he's angry about the decision to put this on the main page. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I am of the honest opinion that the DYK was not only contrary to policy, but that the decision to run it was idiotic. If it makes people happy though, I'll accept that it was contrary to WP:CIVIL to refer to the individuals concerned, rather than the act itself, in the manner I did. All of us are capable of doing idiotic things, myself included. The distinction between part-time idiots and full-time ones mostly comes down to ones' willingness to recognise ones' failings, and learn from them... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

This is bait.

@Andythegrump: We can read the username, we get that you're a grump, you don't have to remind us by calling everybody at DYK an idiot in the thread title, for Christ's sake. What's the matter with you??

On the issue of the actual damn thing he is talking about, for reference, the DYK hook on the Main Page right now says this:

... that social media influencer Andrew Tate described himself as "absolutely a misogynist"?

To be fair... this does kind of sound like bait. So is this stupid thread title, for the record. But I don't know if this DYK hook is really so bad. The guy did say, a bunch of times, that he was a misogynist. The quote this is taken from is: "You can’t slander me because I will state right now that I am absolutely sexist and I’m absolutely a misogynist, and I have f*** you money and you can’t take that away." Now, on one hand, maybe it's a little silly for us to be making a DYK hook out of an excerpt from an article, which is itself an excerpt from an Independent article, which itself is an excerpt from a longer interview... but he really did say that. It seems pretty reasonable to summarize this as him "describing himself as a misogynist". Like, if he had said "Oh yeah, well by your standards I'm a misogynist" it would have been different. But he didn't! Like, it's true that DYK plays a little fast and loose with BLP stuff sometimes, but this case seems pretty obvious and straightforward. In general, yes, DYK hooks should probably try to be less baity, but I mean, the whole point is to get people interested enough to click on them, so I think they are entitled to at least a little bit of "peepee poopoo Joseph Stalin ate my balls" immaturity. jp×g🗯️ 20:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I think, I'm not sure about this because there is too much heat and not enough light in the original post, but I think that ATG thinks that this article is just not suitable for the click-baity trivial nature of the DYK process, and I'm inclined to agree with him. I'm sure it's not the first time it's happened, and I know that this project isn't censored, but 'not censored' is not synonymous with 'tasteless free-for-all'. DYK hooks are meant to be interesting, fun, surprising, funny even - but ultimately, trivial. This particular subject is dark, and serious, and I think a better editorial decision would have been to use our discretion and not put this article through this process. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I personally find the fact that Tait directly admits to being sexist to be interesting and worth pointing out -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I mean, really? Of course he admits it, it garners more publicity, it's part of his schtick. Say something shocking, get headlines - and apparently DYK hooks on Wikipedia now. Girth Summit _(blether) 21:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps we should also apply WP:DENY to attention seekers off-wiki. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Maybe it's time to retire DYK, from Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 20:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

+1 Though any RfC would doubtless be SNOW closed against retiring. Sincerely, Dilettante 20:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

You're all extremely, unfashionably late to the party. This particular DYK hook was extensively vetted and discussed for many weeks and every conceivable BLP angle was investigated. It turns out that the hook is well supported, cited, neutral, and BLP-compliant. I think it's time to close this discussion, which appears to be based on emotional rhetoric and rooted in editorial misunderstanding. Viriditas (talk) 20:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

It was discussed for many weeks? By whom? Where? Didn't the fact that it took 'many weeks' to resolve perhaps suggest that another subject for a hook might be more appropriate? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

See here. Sincerely, Dilettante 20:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

So no, the specific DYK actually posted on the main page wasn't actually 'discussed for many weeks'then, was it? Instead, you link an ongoing discussion, where serious concerns about having a Tate DYK at all were raised, concluded by a couple of posts on a new proposal that got no significant discussion at all. Prime evidence for just how broken DYK is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Tate was nominated on March 10. Discussion ensued on the nom page until it was promoted on May 1. At the same time, a second discussion took place for a week in April on the main DYK talk page. That's more discussion and attention than any other nomination usually receives and every aspect was considered. Viriditas (talk) 20:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

And you've only mentioned things that have already been mentioned in this discussion or at ERRORS. If we're unfashionably late and you repeat what we say, what does that make you? Punctual and extremely, extremely late? Sincerely, Dilettante 20:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_198#Andrew_Tate_nomination, formerly at WT:DYK, between 11 and 18 April (so not "for many weeks"). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Many weeks, including the discussion at the DYK nom itself, in addition to the DYK talk page. Viriditas (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

If there have been 'many weeks' of discussion over the specific DYK hook concerned, they appear not to have been linked here. Instead, we have seen rambling and inconclusive threads, with the 'misogyny' quote hardly discussed at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

The onus is not on other editors to link those threads here. You raised the issue here without adequately researching those threads beforehand. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I think it is entriely possible, however, to have a broad-ranging RFC aimed at reforming DYK practices. It's a good thing for us to to review how we do things once ina while, and I do think there are some serious concerns with the day-to-day operations of DYK that could be addressed. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I do not think this should be closed without sanctions against the OP. I am rather disgusted that the editor is free to insult editors and post diatribes both here, and on their user page. There is mo way that I would be allowed to do the same. Lightburst (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposal Andy the Grump 24 hour block for violating our no WP:PA policy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Support as proposer. No place on a collaborative project for name calling and flaming. Lightburst (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose pouring more fuel on a dying fire is an unwise move. Andy has already acknowledged his CIVIL violation, and this entire thread has outlived whatever usefulness it may have had. I tried closing it a short while ago, but decided to back off after edit conflicting with an admin. Hopefully someone else will come along soon and send us all back to article space. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  Where is Andy's acknowledgment of the breach? GiantSnowman 20:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, just seen it above - the fact that Andy acknowledges but does not apologise makes it worse. GiantSnowman 20:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  So we should block him 24 hours for a breach he has already admitted because he neglected to say he's sorry? That sounds punitive to me. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  Furthermore, I'd like to note that I was subjected to an uncivil remark a few months back by one of the admins who has criticized Andy in this thread. Nobody even considered blocking that admin, and I never saw an apology. I won't name names because that would only fan unproductive flames, but once again I am reminded of the double standards in civility enforcement. If Andy's comments had been made by an admin, I have no doubt that some other admin would have seen fit to close this thread before sanctions could be discussed. I believe that a 24-hour block would accomplish nothing except to provoke Andy and to allow those supporting the block to feel as though they've done something. If you all really feel that a block is necessary, you should be discussing something longer because you all know that a short block is pointless. But you don't want to lose a productive editor, so you're pretending like a half-measure will somehow be effective. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support - he has repeatedly refused to retract or apologise for calling people "idiots", and his responses here have been combative. GiantSnowman 20:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Andy has presumably read the comments here. What's the point of adding a 24-hour block to them? We're not supposed to do punitive blocks, and what would such a block be if not punitive? Bishonen | tålk 20:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC).

This seems like a fully-general argument against anybody ever being given a 24-hour block for incivility. Blocks are a consequence of actions taken by editors, so of course they're always going to be "punitive" in some sense. jp×g🗯️ 21:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- if he's not even going to bother to remove the insult, or apologize for it... I mean, what is the point of having a civility policy at all, if no action can ever be taken against somebody who breaks it because "it would be punitive"? This seems like a pretty obvious, central example of what it is intended to prevent. jp×g🗯️ 21:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support I am someone who does not enjoy being called an idiot and I think Andy can benefit from a break. This is not a punitive block because there is a pattern of incivility and an extensive blocklog. Someone cannot be allowed to disrupt over and over just because they are sometimes civil or they retract hateful language when asked. You cannot unring a bell, I heard it loud and clear.
  I spent a lot of time arguing against hooks about Tate that referred to small dick energy and alleged crimes etc. I finally relented on the hook, because how can I argue against a label the LP gives himself? Bruxton (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. ATG has already gone some way to rolling back his position above. He's heading in the right direction already, the only thing a 24-hour block would achieve would be to fan the flames. Girth Summit _(blether) 21:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  Can you tell me with a straight face that you would be making an argument against sanctions on some two-month noob with a thousand edits on the basis that, while they hadn't stopped violating the policy, and they hadn't even said they would stop violating it in the future, they had "already gone some way to" considering thinking about contemplating not violating it? jp×g🗯️ 21:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  Actually yes, I think I probably can say that with a straight face. Further up this page, there is a section called Ekdalian. A three-month noob with 70 edits was throwing around some personal attacks up there - they concerned malicious intent rather than idiocy, but they were still personal attacks. I told them that there comments weren't appropriate (as I have done with ATG), and I waited to see whether they stopped. A couple of days later, when the dust had settled and the heat had died down a bit, they apologised. I don't know whether they'll turn into a productive member of the community or not, but we live in hope. Sometimes blocking someone who is angry and doesn't want to back down is necessary, but sometimes it's just fanning the flames.

  Now, since I've answered your question, will you answer me this: what will a 24-hour block achieve here? ATG is not on some personal attack spree where we need to intervene urgently but temporarily. He is not unfamiliar with our policies regarding civility. His block log is so long that it doesn't fit in the little pop-up window one of those clever scripts gives me - I actually have to scroll down to find his first block - so he is not unaware that blocks are a thing (although to his credit, none of them are within the last decade). So what actual purpose is served by imposing a 24-hour block? Surely it's an indef until he convinces us he won't do it again, or (and this is the option I prefer) it's talking, and working through disagreements, and trying to talk a valued contibutor down from a position they took when they were angry about something? Girth Summit _(blether) 22:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  For starters, at the next AN/I thread nobody would be able to say "to his credit none of them are within the last decade". jp×g🗯️ 22:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  Well, I can't argue with that if you genuinely think it's going to benefit the project. If that's the only benefit you see, would it help if I promised not to bring it up again? Girth Summit _(blether) 23:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  ATG is not on some personal attack spree ... I beg to differ, unfortunately. Off the top of my head: April 26 This is what is known as editorial judgement. Some of us clearly have it, and understand its purpose, even if you don't...; May 6: And while you are at it, read the fucking article [...] It isn't that difficult to understand, if you actually take the time to learn something new.; May 9: As for Wankel-nuts, trying to argue with a cult is pointless...; May 12: Are the idiots who run DYK under the mistaken impression that [[WP{BLP]] doesn't apply there? This is too much. Levivich (talk) 23:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  A long time ago Levivich, I remember you telling me that you thought opprobrium was more useful than blocks. That vibed with me, and it's what I've been trying to apply here. I was not aware of all of the diffs you've posted above, so forgive me if I've been speaking about a specific instance when there is more to the story. But it brings me back to the question I asked jpxg: what purpose would a 24-hour block serve here, when the diffs you present go back to April? If this is habitual, surely an indef is needed until such time as an undertaking to knock it off is given? Girth Summit _(blether) 23:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Girth Summit: I still believe that, and I'd support a warning proposal or just some "not cool" feedback in this instance. I'm not sure if other editors would agree though, there is a case to be made that we've already tried the opprobrium and it hasn't worked. Right now the options are 24hr block or civility restriction, and given the choice I think the former is better. What I oppose is doing nothing, which would be excusing it. An indef seems harsh but frankly I'd support that over excusing it. Note of the four examples from the last 3 weeks, two are understandable and directed at obvious bad faith editing, the other two are directed at good faith editors and totally unjustified. He can't just keep going on being rude to everyone indiscriminately. The first was ignored, the two in the middle (from the thread above) were excused, but this time we should draw a line. I'd support anything that would get Andy to rein it in and hold his fire, and clean up his messes when he misfires (as he has done here). If all of us saying "not cool" does it, then great. But if that doesn't work, maybe a short block would, which would be better than an indef (well save time by not having to process an unblock request). Really, whatever works. Levivich (talk) 23:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  AndyTheGrump - please read the above. I appreciate your contributions. But really, the attitude you project sometimes isn't OK. This thread is almost entirely about you rather than the issue you raised because of the way you presented it. You'd probably get more positive outcomes, and create a lot less needless and unconstructive drama, if you would just cut the pointless hostility and insulting language out of our posts. By all means type them out if you want - I know I do that sometimes - but then I have a cup of tea, calm myself, and delete all the stuff that I know perfectly well is not permissible. It would probably also help if you were willing to say something along the lines that you will knock this kind of thing off in future. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  Excellent advice, Girth Summit. I often do this too. We are all human and we let our emotions out sometimes. It is quite healthy to do so but is not appropriate at all venues, especially a place that requires civil collaboration to function effectively. In this case, both sides can be right while simultaneously being wrong. The one difference is the civility aspect and it really is shameful that Andy has now garnered more attention than the appropriateness of the DYK hook. --ARoseWolf 11:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support. It's not like this is the first time with Andy. Here's the same pattern two years ago: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1092#User:AndyTheGrump. He was "warned" then, and he didn't take it to heart. Here's Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1112#User:AndyTheGrump from later in 2022. I don't think finding others would be difficult. It's not punitive to block someone for a pattern of incivility where they've been warned and haven't changed course. Mackensen (talk) 21:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose would do nothing—Andy doesn't care, and he'd be back at it in two days. Something WP:PREVENTative seems much preferable. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

AirshipJungleman29, I wish I had this kind of WP street cred. A while ago I was threatened with a block if I did not immediately strike a PA, the gist of which was me saying that Levivich was ax grinding. It was either Girth Summit or Evergreen Fir, I can't remember which admin now. So I edit in a different Wikipedia where I have to follow policies or I get blocked. Imagine if I started a thread calling editors idiots? Lightburst (talk) 21:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

It is an interesting thought experiment—if I described probably a couple of dozen editors as a clickbait farm full of idiots with blatant disregard for basic human dignity and common sense, what would be proposed? I've rewritten a fair few articles, so maybe I'd get the "net positive" designation? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Holy crap Lightburst, are we really going to do this? Do you want to dig out the diffs of that 'threat', and have us all scouring around our contributions history from years ago to work out the context under which you were told that, and then compare it against this current situation? I do not want you to be blocked - I didn't then, and I don't now. I do not want AndyTheGrump to be blocked. You are both productive, hard-working contributors. I want all of us to do our best get along without (a) insulting each other, or (b) the moment we see someone else do something stupid because they're angry, calling for them to be blocked. You and I have shared enough talk-page time and emails for me to have thought that you wouldn't cast something out like this willynilly, with the obvious insinuation that I'm being biased, but maybe I was wrong about that. What the hell, take a free shot now: call me an asshole, an idiot, whatever, I won't call for you to be blocked, and I'll unblock you if anyone else does it. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry GS. Was not about you so much as the double standard that JPxG mentioned above. Thanks for noticing my contributions and have great weekend. Lightburst (talk) 23:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

No worries - I was probably being a bit touchy. The offer stands though. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

• Neutral – but I do look forward to seeing everyone making the "he's learned his lesson!" argument back here next time :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support per above. Therapyisgood (talk) 22:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support, and yeah, a 24hr block might not prevent anything, so I'd support an indef until Andy says he won't do it again. Of course if that's seen as too harsh, then fine, 24hr. Mostly, though, not cool, Andy. Valereee shouldn't have to put up with being called an idiot because you don't like a DYK hook. Name calling is immature behavior; no editor should have to put up with being called names because another editor is upset about a DYK hook. I'm tired of "the Grump" schtick. A DYK hook being a BLP vio does not justify calling people idiots. It's not righteous outrage, it's a tantrum. Interact like a reasonably polite adult or get off the website. You lose your cool? Apologize, or strike, or get off the website. Levivich (talk) 22:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  Please don't tell editors to "get off the website". Thanks. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  Why not? If somebody can't participate here without calling people they disagree with names, habitually, and refusing to do anything meaningful to retract it (because we all lose our cool sometimes), why can't I express that I think they should not be allowed to participate here? Because I don't want to share this website with people who are habitually very rude, and I don't think I should have to tolerate it, nor should anyone else. Levivich (talk) 22:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  Because he can (of course that doesn't mean you can't, was just my request, continue doing as you see fit). Sluzzelin talk 23:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  I know he can, which is why I'm saying either do, or go. Levivich (talk) 23:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support It's not just this incident. Has anyone else here read User:AndyTheGrump lately? More calling Wikipedians "idiots". If ATG doesn't strike that voluntarily, I don't see any backtracking. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
• a 24 hour block is too short to matter one way or another, it’s just stupid.Jacona (talk) 23:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose if this is an habitual offense then a 24 hour block won't suddenly charge their view and threads like this will just pop up in the future. I suggest indef block instead. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
• Weak support. I was leaning towards opposing here, on pragmatic grounds already raised by Girth Summit and others above--particularly with regard to the question of what a 24 hour block is likely to accomplish that previous blocks have not. Well, there is one thing that I can think of: a block going into Andy's log would actually have a pretty significant pragmatic effect, especially as the notation would be likely to include a link to this discussion. This would flag for the next group of editors forced to grapple with this behaviour (and unfortunately, as things stand now with Andy's responses here so far, I am inclined to expect there is likely to be a next occasion), that there was behaviour felt worthy of a sanction as recent as now and that Andy received unambiguous feedback from the community that this behaviour needs to change, or that a longer term block would be warranted. Looking just at comments and discussions raised by others in this tread alone, it's pretty clear that there has been a non-trivial amount of such warnings from the community already in recent years. At some point, the kid gloves have got to come off here.
  As such, I'd say this is the minimal amount of formal community action necessary to try to drive the point to Andy or, if it should prove insufficient to accomplish said warning, at least memorialize the fact that the community has made clear the baseline level of respect for CIV that it expects from him. In truth, I'd say something between the proposed sanction and an indef (say a couple of weeks off) would have been more pragmatic, but I'd agree that the most important thing is that there is some sort of concrete community response. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support - if an editor has a history of violating a core policy and other measures have not stopped them from doing so, then they should be blocked. If there is agreement that the proposed length is not enough to prevent them from violating the policy in the future, the block should be lengthened to a period that has a reasonable chance of deterring future violations. Hatman31 (talk) 02:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Andy can learn. After he came here for calling people retards[[107]], he has stopped doing that. I'm sure this will be a similar learning experience. Cigarettes are Safe (talk) 03:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC) — Cigarettes are Safe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  Two-day-old account with twelve edits who clearly remembers user talk page drama from 2022. Many such cases - SAD! jp×g🗯️ 04:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  Confirmed sock. Striking. –dlthewave ☎ 22:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  Blocked as suspected sock, not confirmed, and the supposed original (who got 1 week block) never commented here. Not that people were putting much stock on this vote anyways.

  – 2804:F14:80B7:8201:29D0:A5B4:8E85:AAD8 (talk) 22:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per Girth Summit - can we just let this die now that the hook has rotated off the Main Page rather than escalating it further please?. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
• Weak support as a regular at BLP/N and a self-described BLP hawk I share Andy's concerns about editor's frequent disregard for BLP. However I also find their approach often does more harm than good. I'm not saying I'm better but this anyone is free to propose a sanction on me if they feel it's justified; and there are regulars at BLPN who I feel have a far better and more productive approach to BLP issues. All this is to say that I think Andy needs to change how their approach things no matter if they may often be right about BLP issues. And having seen their pattern for a long time, I'm unconvinced that this ANI is by itself enough to achieve that whatever Andy has said above. I'm not convinced a 1 day block will do that much, but at the very least as with all blocks where we have good reason like we have here, to think the editor's behaviour may reoccur at any time, it will protect wikipedia for 1 day. And given that there are often genuine BLP issues behind Andy's concerns, it's fairly unlikely we'll get consensus for anything more in the short term. So I don't see any harm in starting small in a typical escalating blocks fashion, hoping the editor changes before we end up needing to protect Wikipedia the other way. Nil Einne (talk) 09:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  Since my comment was already long I didn't add this but in light of some other comments I think it's important to add. I have no comment if there was a BLP issue here. It's unclear enough that we need more community discussion. But given the current trajectory of everything, I'm somewhat doubt that that community discussion is likely to happen. As I said, I'm a BLP hawk but I have zero desire to discuss this in part because to my mind, Andy has destroyed the hope for fruitful discussion and frankly I probably couldn't be fair in such a discussion since I fear any feeling I have over what's right here might be overwhelmed by two combined emotions. One is my dislike for the subject, which I can often put aside by itself. But two is that my gut reaction to want to oppose it given the ridiculous way Andy approached this. And this sort of highly counterproductive approach is hardly unusual either. In fact over a month ago there was Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Publication of Living Individuals Home Addresses. I commented very early at BLPN on the issue. By the time I saw it again a few days later, it had blown up completely in an extremely nasty way. I watched it from afar and saw the WT:BLP thread but intentionally stayed away because the actions of people both on wiki and off wiki meant I didn't want to touch it with a ten foot barge pole. Andy was one of those on wiki, not the only one but definitely one of them. I wasn't surprised to that discussion died without any real result given all that happened, I was actually expecting it given how pearshaped it had all gone from very early on. I'm fairly sure there are other times I've seen where what a discussion has IMO been significantly harmed by Andy's participation even when Andy might have been at least partly right IMO. Civility is important not just because it's policy but because when editors behave atrociously as Andy often does, they can significantly harm any chances of fruitful discussion and achieving the outcome that Andy desires which often may be better for Wikipedia. You cannot blame others for behaving like many humans do and being turned off by what Andy says, even those like me who might often agree with their general point. Nil Einne (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support – making your grumpiness a textual part of your personality doesn't give you carte blanche to irritate others with it. With the possibility of hyperbole admitted, we simply do not need AndyTheGrump as much as he's stated we do if he's to be this grumpy. (I stated this before, then self-RVed, and I'm putting it back, full disclosure.) Remsense诉 09:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose (Originally posted misplaced) DYK remains a walled garden. The question here is literally whether civility trumps our biography policy. The answer of course is... it doesn't. BLP isn't just a convenient method of maintaining another of our pillars—neutrality—it's the fecking thing that keeps us out of court. That's literally why we have it. Whether there's actually a BLP violation is, perhaps, a matter of debate; but whether it trumps CIV... is not. ——Serial Number 54129 10:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129 Serial you seem to be rewriting history. You favored a very negative hook, and agreed with Theleekycauldron who is in that thread saying it would be undue to have a neutral hook. You even had an edit summary saying F Tate. The record here is pretty clear and now you are critical? Leeky was very clear on the fact that they wanted a anti-Tate hook. Honestly there is a whole list of editors and admins who called for negative hooks, but they are not rewriting history here so I am not calling them out. Leeky is the resident DYK expert so there is that... But let's not forget that you wanted to trash the guy. Lightburst (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

"The question here is literally whether civility trumps our biography policy."

I'm sorry Serial, but no, the question being presented here is not that, or anything remotely like it. The notion that we have to choose between applying WP:BLP (or any other content policy) on the one hand, and restraining Andy (or any other community member behaving uncivilly in a given instance), on the other, is (forgive my bluntness) very obviously the most ridiculous and grandiose of false choices. Andy is hardly the only voice arguing for a strict application of BLP, nor anywhere near its ideal advocate. For that matter, he's not the only editor who felt as he did about the specific issue here (I'd guess that there are a significant number of us here who do).

But Andy's approach to handling these situations is not just suboptimal: it's counter-conducive and disruptive. Calling people idiots (besides being an unambiguous breach of policy) at best causes a distraction away from movement on the important content issue, and, worse, typically will only entrench positions and lower the effectiveness of the arguments for the position one is arguing for. In short, when Andy behaves like this, he becomes a liability for the very approach he supports. So even when he has the right end of the stick, policy-wise, he's still generating heat, not light, when he lobs these PAs. Levivich quite hit the nail on the head when they said that the behavior being discussed here does not constitute "righteous outrage, but rather tantrums", and tantrums do not win community discussions. At least, typically and ideally they don't.

Also, I think it's beside the point, per the false choice identified above, but even if we did accept the nonsensical argument that WP:CIV and WP:BLP are at least partly mutually exclusive, your argument would still fail to pass muster under community consensus: WP:CIV is a WP:5P and WP:BLP is not. BLP is a critically important set of principles for constraining our content, but the most well-considered content policies in the world are useless to us if we can't maintain an atmosphere in which they can be reliably applied without the most onerous of behaviors and instincts derailingthe process of consensus. And that's the function that WP:CIV, arguably above all other behavioural policies, comes to serve. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 10:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

There are none so blind as those that will not see. Your argument is purely ideological, wordy, but empty with it. (See how civil that was?) Cheers, ——Serial Number 54129 11:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

On the contrary, my concerns are foregrounded in the actual pragmatics of why this community proscribes the behaviours in question. I'd argue that the position that one should be permitted to lash out in anger, just so long as they believe they are fighting the good fight and are on the right side of a given content issue, as you see it, is far more "ideological" in nature than someone pointing out that this kind of behaviour is actually a pretty abysmal method of convincing the community of anything, and actually almost always self-defeating. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 11:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

It saddens me a bit that we sometimes get to a point where we feel these two concepts are mutually exclusive. That's not a dig, I genuinely do wish some things were working a little better for everyone. Remsense诉 12:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Serial, I'm very confused what you're saying here. Are you saying if someone comes to ANI and says "fucking grooming paedos, have turned the J. K. Rowling article into a string of insane libel, accusing her of transphobia and other stuff that is highly inaccurate and offensive" this is completely fine if the editor genuine believes this and is concerned about BLP? Because this could easily happen, it doesn't take much experience to know plenty of people genuinely believe that. But you and I know this is likely to result in a quick block and I suspect you'd agree with that block. So you seem to agree being genuinely concerned about BLP does not mean you're allowed any and all uncivil language. So why do you suggest a block for civility violations means civility trumps BLP when you agree it's not even clear that there was a BLP violation, and I'm assuming you also agree it was totally unnecessary for Andy to say what they said even if there was one. Nil Einne (talk) 16:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there's much argument that JKR's social media is indeed a continuous stream of transphobia these days, the only issue would be finding a reliable source that actually backed that up ... and given how litigious and wealthy she is ... Black Kite (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

• Weak oppose as unlikely to fix anything, although the oppose would be much stronger if ATG would simply have said something like, "You're right, I shouldn't have called people idiots, apologies, I'll strike that, but can we talk about the issue?" For the record, from a personal standpoint in general I find it pretty funny when someone can't actually come up with an argument and has to resort to insulting me instead. from this day forth, I'll use you for my mirth, yea, for my laughter, When you are waspish. :D

AndyTheGrump, I get it. You think DYK should just go away, and you certainly aren't alone in that. But when you come into a noticeboard with a personal attack in the actual section head and then keep using that same language over and over, of course you're going to end up with people focussing on your behavior instead of your point. That's one of the reasons we try to get people to avoid making personal attacks: they're completely counterproductive. Which is exactly what happened here. If what you really want is to fix DYK, this was a counterproductive way to get that started. I think what you actually wanted here, and still seem to want, is just to vent your spleen. FTR, I would actually have no problem with getting all BLPs -- along with all currently available commercial products -- off of DYK. Valereee (talk) 11:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support longer block - Having been on the receiving end of Andy's grumpiness in the past, I am surprised that this hasn't happened sooner. My last ANI discussion about Andy's incivility almost boomeranged back at me, which seems to be a common outcome that I would not mind if anything had been done about his incivility anyway. I don't hold grudges, and Andy has proven to be a highly respectable contributor to WP:WikiProject Aviation. However, incivility and personal attacks targeted at problematic editors are still a violation of policy, and Andy has shown no improvement in his behavior since my last interaction with him. I would be happy to work with Andy if he does agree to act with civility, but I unfortunately have little hope that he will improve even after a 24 hour block. - ZLEA _T\^C 18:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

The link is broken, the discussion was at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1114#Personal_attacks_Uncivil_behavior_from_AndyTheGrump. You were the one at fault in that altercation. You were presenting fringe aviation history claims as fact, as well as being uncivil yourself. This is just sad axe grinding by someone with a grudge. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Which is ironic given that they claim not to hold grudges. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia I don’t appreciate your assumption of bad faith, and I feel the need to point out that I in no way endorse any fringe claims that I had defended before I knew the whole story (I’m not proud of it, it’s practically treason for a native North Carolinian to claim that anyone but the Wright Brothers were the first to fly). As I stated in my argument, Andy is a respectable editor who happens to have an issue with incivility. I do not hold grudges with any editor, but I do recognize when they have behavior problems that persist for many years without any sign of improvement. I will politely ask that you retract your accusation that I am acting on some sort of grudge. - ZLEA _T\^C 22:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Andy is a great contributor who does great work at enforcing BLP policy. Even though I don't necessarily agree with Andy's take here, BLP should apply equally to everyone, even people who are widely despised, and people shouldn't be penalised for going into bat for terrible people purely on principle. I don't think the remarks in the discussion warrant a block, given that he has walked them back. DYK often does not properly factcheck the DYK hooks or sensitive to BLP concerns, and this is a genuine problem. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Hemiauchenia: he has walked them back what are you referring to? Levivich (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  That would be If it makes people happy though, I'll accept that it was contrary to WP:CIVIL to refer to the individuals concerned, rather than the act itself, in the manner I did., it's maybe a halfway walking back, but its its still some contrition. I don't really want to get into a back and forth about whether this comment was contrite enough. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  It's the absolute bare minimum, but also simply not good enough. "If it gets you off my back I'll acknowledge a breach. But I won't retract it, say sorry, or promise not to do it again!" GiantSnowman 20:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Hemi: I suppose it's not putting words in your mouth to say that the comment was contrite enough for you to oppose this proposal. Personally, I would not use the words "contrition" or "walking back" to describe that comment -- walking back, to me, would be saying "those people are not idiots," and contrition would be "I'm sorry for saying that." But I appreciate you pointing me to the specific comment; I am also not interested in arguing the point, just in making sure I didn't miss anything that I might feel was "walking back." (I'm not looking for contrition at all, FTR.) Levivich (talk) 21:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose. Though being right isn't enough, any such block at this point would be purely punitive. It's off the main page; we can drop the stick and move on. His apology left something to be desired which is why this oppose has a qualifier. Sincerely, Dilettante 19:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
• I'm curious what the distribution of (bytes of text)/(length of potential block) ratios are at AN/ANI. I feel like it might be an inverse relationship, though that might be a recency bias. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
• Comment Wikipedia doesn't have a place for this but it should. Which is a finding and advice. The finding is that Andy, you are being too grumpy and uncivil too often (including this time). You should change that. North8000 (talk) 20:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
• Comment I don't think a block at this point will be useful, but hope that ATG takes away from this that shooting from the hip at ANI by attacking an entire group of editors, without researching to see that the nomination had been extensively discussed by those editors beforehand [108] is unlikely to be productive. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose because at this point we're in "though it might have been justifiable to block an editor a short time ago, such a block may no longer be justifiable right now" territory. But we're going to be back here soon if something doesn't change. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
• Comment I'm unconvinced that a block now would be anything other than punitive but it would not have been at the time. Even though WP:BLP is our most important policy, it does not extend to never showing a living person in a negative light, especially if the vast majority of reliable sources about them do the same. Indeed, under such circumstances it would be bizarre if we bent over backwards to find a hook that wasn't in some way negative, and therefore not represent the actual article fairly. Yes, probably the best thing would have been not to run a hook about Tate at all, but if we did so I don't think that spotlighting something that came out of the subject's mouth - and they were quite happy to own - is particularly objectionable. Black Kite (talk) 09:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

A later quote from Tate, commenting on his earlier “absolutely a misogynist”: “It is very unfortunate that old videos of me, where I was playing a comedic character, have been taken out of context and amplified to the point where people believe absolutely false narratives about me...". [109] Now, we are under absolutely no obligation to take this at face value. It is however in my opinion improper, and a violation of WP:BLP policy, to knowingly present a quotation that has later been retracted as representing the true opinions of an individual. This isn't just 'objectionable', it is dishonest. It remains so regardless of whether we think the first statement or the later retraction more accurately represents reality. This is by far the only issue with the way the Tate DYK came about (see here for what looks like an honest attempt to consider where things may have gone wrong [110]), but it is, in my opinion, deeply problematic, and indicative of what the underlying issue was: the perception by some that DYK is an appropriate medium to express our dislike for Tate. Having failed to come up with any agreement over other alternatives that satisfied this questionable objective, the decision was taken - by just a few of the participants of the long-running debate - to go with a quote they must have known had been retracted.

I am firmly of the opinion that any DYK that quotes a living individual on matters closely related to serious criminal charges (in this example alleged rape, human trafficking and organised crime) the individual is currently facing is improper. Regardless of whether it presents said individual in a positive or a negative light, it of necessity decontextualises, and almost inevitably trivialises, events that need, out of respect for all involved, to be handled by Wikipedia with care, and in a dispassionate manner. That simply isn't possible in DYK-format single-sentence clickbait. That is the stuff of tabloid journalism. We don't need to go there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

There's a few errors in your assessment. Firstly, nothing has been "retracted" as you say. You link to a August 2022 Telegraph article about Tate's social media ban. There's no retraction anywhere. Later in the article, Tate defends his opinion by saying "It is very unfortunate that old videos of me, where I was playing a comedic character, have been taken out of context and amplified to the point where people believe absolutely false narratives about me." If one looks into the full statement and the media coverage from that time, there is no "retraction" of any kind nor apology nor backpedaling. Just the statement that he was playing a comedic character, which is supposed to be a kind of free speech defense, not a retraction of the content. I think this is a very important distinction; a retraction and a free speech defense are not the same thing. In fact, this free speech defense is the opposite of a retraction, as Tate is explicitly defending his right to say misogynistic things as either himself or as his "character" (to date, there is no evidence of any kind of character other than this single press release to oppose his social media ban). Secondly, in case that's not enough evidence that no retraction was ever issued, in 2023, BBC News interviewed Tate, and continues to cast doubt on his "comedian defense", noting Tate's "description does not match the tone in an online video seen by the BBC". Tate also denied several stories that the BBC was easily able to verify and confirm, contrary to Tate's allegations. For the record, in 2024, two years after the Telegraph piece reporting on Tate's press release defense, BBC News continues to report the same story, noting Tate is a "self-proclaimed 'misogynist'".[111] One would think that if any of this had been retracted or was in error, BBC News would not continue to report it. Viriditas (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

The Telegraph reports what Tate said in regard to the YouTuber video where the "absolutely a misogynist" comment came from. He responded to the Telegraph's questions by stating "It is very unfortunate that old videos of me, where I was playing a comedic character, have been taken out of context and amplified to the point where people believe absolutely false narratives about me". That is clear and unambiguous. We don't demand that people use the exact word 'retraction' when they state that an earlier comment was role-playing, and taken out of context. Continuing to use the quote in such circumstances is entirely contrary to core Wikipedia policy. It doesn't matter in the slightest what sort of 'defence' we think it is supposed to be. It doesn't matter whether the BBC , or anyone else, think his defence is valid. It is untenable to knowingly use a quote in such circumstances, regardless of what we think of the later statement's validity. And frankly, I'm somewhat dumbfounded that anyone with your experience at Wikipedia could think otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

We have completely different takes on this subject. To reiterate, the Telegraph is reporting on Tate's free speech defense which he sent out as a press release in response to his social media ban, reframing his comments as that of a "comedic character", "out of context", and amounting to a "false narrative". Nowhere in this press release nor anywhere else in the last several years for that matter, has Tate retracted a single word of anything he has ever said, nor has he backpedaled on anything that he has been accused of in regards to his alleged misogynist claims. The BBC News and other mainstream sources who have repeatedly interviewed Tate and investigated this story since 2022 have consistently upheld the position that Tate continues to be, in their words a "self-proclaimed 'misogynist'" based on his original comments and videos, and nobody has yet been convinced by Tate's claim that he was playing a "comedic character" of any kind, a claim that is usually made in the context of the American legal system as part of a free speech defense, not as a retraction. Viriditas (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

So Tate issued a WP:MANDY non-denial denial? Fascinating, and I guess it makes the inclusion arguable. But in the current context, I would say only an idiot would take that at face value. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Weak oppose On the grounds that this would be clearly punitive, and thus yield very little to the project. I think a more structural solution may be in order here, which is not something the current discussion is very conductive to. That said, I'm very much in favour of a formal warning. I very much expect this incident to come up the next time a WP:CIVIL violation comes up and I suspect the community will be much less lenient in extending more WP:ROPE then. This should also not be understood to be an oppose to a block in general, I would be more likely to support a longer block in this specific instance --Licks-rocks (talk) 09:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support while remaining supportive of further sanctions. Ideally, a 24 hour break would provide AndyTheGrump with an opportunity to reconsider this long-term pattern of uncivil behavior and resolve to follow Wikipedia policies going forward. That is what would make such a block preventative. I am, however, very mindful of—and I'll admit persuaded by—comments that suspect AndyTheGrump will decline the preventative character of such a block and continue violating Wikipedia policies after such a block. Because of that, I think that AirshipJungleman299's withdrawal of the civility restriction proposal was premature, as I would have also supported that; such restrictions provide parameters for 'another chance' and also provide context for administrators, the community, or ArbCom to more quickly escalate to a stronger sanction. In the (likely) event AndyTheGrump's uncivil behavior continues, I support a longer term block, including an indefinite block.{{pb||By way of comment, I notice that some of the comments seem concerned about the possibility that blocking AndyTheGrump means 'losing a productive editor'. I see it the opposite way. Removing an uncivil editor from Wikipedia is a net gain for the project. We gain a more civil editing environment; we gain the productive editors that the uncivil editor's incivility would drive away from the project; we gain the mental health and happiness that the incivility robbed of editors who fell victim. Civility is not some nice extra we try to add to the project 'when we can'; it is one of the five pillars, and all five are important. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  As pointed out by multiple folks in the section below, civility restrictions are almost useless. We could consider a t-ban from DYK, maybe. I don't know. ATG's complaint has prompted a discussion of the issue at DYK, which I think is valuable. But honestly, the combination of clearly hating the very idea of DYK and inability to remain civil w/re DYK...maybe that really is what's needed? Valereee (talk) 21:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose as a 24h block 2 days after the fact is now in punitive territory. Either propose something with some teeth if you feel seriously about PAs, or issue these sort of shorties right at or near the moment to prevent further abuse. Zaathras (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Alternative proposal: place AndyTheGrump under a civility restriction

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Support as proposer. When they don't contain insults, Andy's contributions are helpful. When they do, which is rather often, we get a brouhaha like this. A solution that retains the helpful contributions without the constantly-repeating furore is, to my mind, ideal. Seriously, it feels like this happens every month.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose we got a brouhaha here because nobody has yet bothered to close a pointless thread. Civility restrictions are pointless; either block him or let's all find something better to do. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Here I would like to represent the institutional memory as regards civility restrictions. They have never been a good idea, both because people's cultural notions of what is civil and what is not vary so wildly, and because they paint a target on the back of the subject of the restriction, and baiting them into incivility tends to become a sport. Historical examples, which will mean something to some oldtimers, are Giano and Malleus Fatuorum. This comic by User:Geogre refers to Giano. Bishonen | tålk 21:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC).
• Oppose. Old-timer checking in here, and Bishonen's right. Civility restrictions are a nice idea in theory and too subjective in practice. Impossible to enforce, and they don't accomplish the actual goal, which is separating out the productive content editor from the person who tests boundaries. Mackensen (talk) 21:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  • @Bishonen and Mackensen: did you ever find something that accomplished that goal? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

    Well, you have four possible outcomes: (1) the editor in question takes on board the feedback from the community and changes their behavior, (2) the editor is eventually banned, (3) the editor leaves of their own volition, (4) the editor's level of rudeness continues to be tolerated by the community. The outcomes depend on lot on the individual personalities involved, and the position taken by the community. There's a school of thought that says warnings are either meaningless (because they aren't blocks) or harmful (because they're humiliating). I tend to think warnings are helpful because they make the community's attitude clear before we get to the point where blocks are the only option. Mackensen (talk) 21:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

    So would you warn ATG in this case, Mackensen? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

    I'm in favor of a block, in view of past warnings that went unheeded. I would also support a warning as a lesser measure. It's an opportunity to for people to go on record and say they disagree with someone's behavior. Mackensen (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Civility restrictions never work - what will happen if this is imposed is what always happens - the editor in question gets baited until they react and then gets punished. If you want to ban ATG, at least be honest about it.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose DYK remains a walled garden. The question here is literally whether civility trumps our biography policy. The answer of course is... it doesn't. BLP isn't just a convenient method of maintaining another of our pillars—neutrality—its the fecking thing that keeps us out of court. That's literally why we have it. Whether there's actually a BLP violation is, perhaps, a matter of debate; but whether it trumps CIV... is not. ——Serial Number 54129 22:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amicus curiae

• I am not very active on DYK, but I wanted to counter Andy’s assertion by making my own observation about the people active on that part of the project. They are, in my opinion, as far from "idiots" as possible. They are some of the best people Wikipedia has to offer, and while we might not all agree at times, as we all come from different backgrounds and experiences, I think they are an incredible group of people who deserve some recognition and respect for the difficult work that they do and the positive things they achieve. Andy, I think your negativity is far, far worse than your incivility. It is said that we only remember the bad things, while the good things people do go unremarked and invisible to others. I hope this section can help change this perspective. Viriditas (talk) 22:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  Hear hear! GiantSnowman 20:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  Well said, @Viriditas. BorgQueen (talk) 09:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks. There are a lot of selfless volunteers at DYK who are trying their best. If people think DYK is not doing a sufficiently good job, they can head to Template:Did you know/Queue and check the upcoming DYK hooks for issues (reports of such issues are welcome at WT:DYK). Public incivility at ANI is far less helpful. —Kusma (talk) 14:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you. --evrik ^(talk) 16:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  +1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1 The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 21:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Andy being trolled

• Eric the Angry Communicator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See 5 contribs; somebody please mop this up, thank you. Levivich (talk) 23:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

• Was that targeted at me specifically? I'd be flattered if I gave a (rude word I'd best keep to myself), but honestly I doubt that - just run of the mill stuff, aimed at wherever said troll thought might be effective. Which it clearly wasn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done All mopped up. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Galamore, gaming the system

Having joined Wikipedia some 6 months ago, user Galamore has made hundreds of copy edits, in the span of 1 month, spamming categories to articles, in order to pass the 500 edit requirement for extended confirmed protection. And later, immediately started editing controversial, ECP articles after gaining the permission. Ceasing all copy edits involving categories. Ecrusized (talk) 16:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@Ecrusized, can you show diffs where they have used spamming categories. I just looked briefly on their contributions and I can't find much thread. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@SafariScribe: 130+ Category edits from 20 to 31 March 2024. Number of total edits during this period went from 300 to 500+. The last 300 edits are specifically made on ECP protected pages. Showing the user has no interest in editing non-ECP content. Ecrusized (talk) 16:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

JBW, you unblocked them a few months ago. What do you make of this, if anything? Drmies (talk) 16:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

• I'm someone who is very willing to revoke ECP if it is clear that somebody gamed it, but I'm not convinced that is what happened here. The category work looks pretty solid to me, I don't think I'd characterize it as spamming. They certainly did dive headfirst into controversial topics once they got the EC permission, but I don't think a solid case has been made for gaming the system. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 17:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  I thought basically the same thing. With the lack of concrete consensus on what amounts to gaming EC I let this slide without comment when I saw it. If there is any disruption in the ECR areas, WP:AE is the place to bring it up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  ScottishFinnishRadish Mmm ... removing sourced information with POV unsourced information? [112] and bit of an issue here too. Black Kite (talk) 18:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  Black Kite, thanks for pointing that out. Galamore, this...well this is bad in many ways. Drmies (talk) 01:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  The edit at Palestinian Political Violence was introduced by a confirmed sock-puppet [113] and that sock-puppet was later identified in part because a second of their accounts was pushing to keep it in the article after it had been removed. My understanding is that Galamore was deemed not to be a sock of that group during that SPI process, but I have to wonder if there is, at the very least, some off-wiki collaboration with the sock account going on. Simonm223 (talk) 13:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  I enquired at CU, nothing turned up, more a case of aggressive (forceful?) editing, then, seems to be their style. Selfstudier (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  Others who made that edit were part of the Arbcom motion on off-wiki canvassing/proxying, but there are even more that made the edit that weren't connected. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  While that isn't an edit I'd choose to make, it is a summary of (some of) the body. The Palestinian political violence diff is more concerning, especially with the sockpuppet issue. However, based on my literal minutes of research, it looks like it was edit warred over as far back as last year, so it's not like this is coming out of nowhere. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  ScottishFinnishRadish, I hear you, but they changed from "considered credible" to "others cast doubt on their reliability"; the body of the article does not bear that out: those "others" is one single man, whose arguments are countered in the article. So that's a pretty clear POV edit, and I'm also concerned that they haven't returned to discuss or counter these serious charges. Drmies (talk) 00:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  There was also Biden and Kirby that cast doubt, so not quite as bad, but still not great. It's not outside of the norm of editing I see in the topic area. I'm more concerned that on top of the NPOV issue, it's also content we know has been targeted by socks and quite possibly off-wiki canvassing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Speaking as the administrator who a few months ago indeffed Galamore as a suspected UPE, after they wrote several extremely promotional articles about non-notable subjects: this doesn't seem like gaming the system. This seems like somebody -- I despise more than anybody for this to be true, but I must admit it -- editing in good faith, or at least not doing anything visibly wrong, along the rules that we explicitly tell them that they have to follow. At the

If we don't think that "500 edits and one month" is enough for someone to edit CT articles, we shouldn't have thousands of words of policy teling people, repeatedly, in no uncertain terms, that making 500 edits and having an account for a month is required to edit CT articles. jp×g🗯️ 18:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I frankly couldn't care less if someone is gaming ECP as long as their following CT edits are 100% productive and NPOV. That, however, is very rarely the case - like this example. Black Kite (talk) 08:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

How could anyone possibly know if it's rare or not? Anecdotal experience and confirmation bias are no substitute for data gathering and analysis. There have been thousands of new editors editing CT areas, and AFAIK no one has ever gathered data about or analyzed their productivity. Levivich (talk) 14:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, but that's not what I said. I was talking about editors who had clearly gamed ECP to edit those articles, not "every new editor". Black Kite (talk) 22:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Even so, I feel Levivich's point still applies. I mean if it's too blatant and harmful, people may catch gaming regardless. But for someone like the subject of this thread, I strongly suspect most of the time people only notice the gaming when they are concerned over their editing and investigate further. In other words, if an editor makes perfectly fine edits in the area it's never going to come up. So unless you've carefully looked at a large enough sample of editors who've just gained ECP and determined if they're gaming then whether their edits are problematic you have no idea if most gamers are really problematic. The fact that most gamers you've seen are a problem may simply be because gamers who are a problem are the main ones who's gaming comes under scrutiny. Personally I suspect gamers are generally a problem in part because I feel most people who are desperate to edit an area make bad editors in that area. And also because IMO the 500 edits isn't just a way to ward of all but the most committed socks and make it a little harder for even the committed; but also increase the chances the editor will gain some experience how things work here before they dive headlong into a such a problematic area and the chances of this happening go down a lot when the editor just games to get there. But I'll freely admit I have no good evidence that it's truly the case, for all I know gamers are actually better than the average existing editor in the area. Nil Einne (talk) 12:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi, everyone, my name is Gal, Gal the teacher (in Hebrew with English letters it comes out GALAMORE). I entered Wikipedia because I wanted to write about technology, I wrote the article on Perplexity.ai (which received 568,902 views so far!!), after I wrote about a few more high-tech companies I was temporarily blocked and warned not to engage in business matters probably for fear of receiving money for it. Almost every morning, before I start teaching, I go to Wikipedia to edit and I enjoy it very much. I am Israeli, so the Israel related topics interest me. If it is relevant, politically, in Israel I believe in peace with our neighbors and want an end to wars. When I see something that is biased, I try to balance it and bring sources from both sides. Even if there is an Israeli editor who makes claims that are "in favor of Israel" but are not substantiated, I will correct it - because I truly believe in balanced coverage of topics. I am not obssessive to my edits, I just enjoy adding information and I think it is productive to humanity. On this occasion, may I ask where and when can I request that the prohibition to write on tech companies be removed? Galamore (talk) 07:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I'll @JBW: the unblocking admin who can hopefully say more about you editing tech companies. By my read, you weren't really formally topic banned, so technically there's nothing to appeal but JBW could clarify further. However I have to say since it's only been 3 months since you were unblocked and editors have expressed concern about other aspects of your editing since, I'm not sure it's a good idea to go back to editing areas where you got in trouble before, so soon. Nil Einne (talk) 12:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Also @JPxG: the blocking admin who was concerned about your editing although I'd note the concern was over the creation of new articles generally, and what you said is "promise not to deal with commercial companies or anything related to that" rather than tech companies in particular. Nil Einne (talk) 12:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

ok. thanks. The fact that the article I wrote, and remained even though they wanted to delete it, was very successful and received over half a million views, doesn't that reinforce the understanding that I am a capable editor? Galamore (talk) 06:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• When I unblocked, I said that I was doing so "On the basis of the assurances you have given about your future editing intentions", which appears to refer to "I promise not to deal with commercial companies or anything related to that, I will only edit articles related to education and education in Israel, maybe also about people from Israel's history". As far as I can see, Galamore has stuck to that undertaking. However, while not returning to exactly the kind of editing that they said they would continue, they have instead moved on to highly contentious editing in another area, and unconstructive editing practices, which I regard as if anything worse than the practices which led to the block. I therefore think that my unblock has turned out to be unhelpful to the project, and I will have absolutely no objection if another administrator decides to reblock the editor. However, since there have been no infringements of the conditions of my unblock, I think that any reblock should be regarded not as reverting my unblock, but as a totally new block, and I don't feel my opinion should have any more weight than anyone else's, just because I unblocked before. Pinging Drmies & Nil Einne, with apologies for not responding earlier to your notifications. JBW (talk) 12:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• I read the accusations and I do not understand what you want from Galamore. He contributes to Wikipedia, he came here wanting to write about companies and was blocked and then started to edit other topics and amongst other things started to edit articles on the conflict (which Israeli user who deals with Israel didn’t reach the conflict in the end?). Israel is a small country and half of what’s written on her in Wikipedia is considered “ controversial “. What is interesting is that he wrote on 4 companies in the tech sector, 3 Israeli and 1 international… Guess which 3 were erased… Eladkarmel (talk) 16:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I saw what BilledMammal wrote in the Arbitration request and what Eladkarmel wrote above about my case. This reading made me think that what I’m being accused of is unfair also outside my mind, because I don’t think I broke any rules. I want to make it clear I did not mean to hurt anyone. I apologize if i broke any laws. I want to contribute to Wikipedia and I truly enjoy writing. However, if you think i need to take a break to calm down I understand.Galamore (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Multiple rule breaking edits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I don't see any reason for this to stay at ANI. I doubt any Administrator would block any of the participants and if there is a real editwarring issue, which I don't see, that can be taken to the appropriate board. This discussion is basically about original research/synth and this is definitely not the right place to discuss that. It needs to be taken to WP:NORN but please try to keep the discussion only about the use of sources, not other editors. That won't help and sours discussion. Doug Weller talk 13:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

---

I have removed content from Siege_of_Güns that was unsourced. The claim, given within the page's infobox, gave an estimate for one side's force strength at a particular battle. This number is not mentioned in any of the source that were linked which is why I removed them.

User user:OrionNimrod has broken multiple editing rules in response. First, these sources which do not substantiate the listed claim, and have been continually re-added. I made sure to create a talk page heading in case anyone was able to find new information in regards to this claim, but the same user didn't seem very interested in engaging with the talk page and would simply re-add the sources. Again, these sources do not contain the information claimed.

Finally, after refusing to engage with the statement that the removed sources do not make the listed claim (which I continually asked them to address on the Talk Page) user:OrionNimrod proceeded to engage in WP:OR by using other sources (which were never ones that I'd removed anyway) that also do not make the listed claim, to speculate about figures. Whatever one speculates, reasonable or not, about a certain force strength based on a given number at some other time and place constitutes original research, as this fact is not stated by those authors and is entirely an assumption on the part of the editor.

This user also stated "the story is well known" as an revision explanation, which does not constitute a source, and also stated "you arbitrary misunderstand the sources because you dont like the numbers" which is both insulting and indicates their re-adding of the sources is strongly biased. (Lostsandwich (talk) 01:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC))

Hello, Lostsandwich,

Do you have any diffs to demonstrate these improper edits? It's important to provide evidence when you bring a complaint to ANI. You also posted a notice on their user talk page about a discussion about them on WP:ANEW but I don't see you started a discussion on that noticeboard. Maybe you could remove that message if you didn't follow through on that claim as it would otherwise be confusing to the editor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Liz

These are the diffs where the current edit (my own, with the source material removed) is reverted to re-add the material (which does not contain the information):

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_G%C3%BCns&oldid=1222668863

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_G%C3%BCns&oldid=1220849001

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_G%C3%BCns&oldid=1220709871

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_G%C3%BCns&oldid=1220511172

All 3 sources are easily accessible, but I'll past the most relevant areas to make it easier.

From the linked source: Conflict and conquest in the Islamic world : a historical encyclopedia, pp 151

"But Suleiman returned in 1532 when he led some 200,000 men from Constantinople at the end of April."

Which you'll notice, doesn't address this specific battle- but only the total force at the beginning of the campaign.

The linked source: "The Ottoman Empire, 1326-1699" pp 49-51 states:

"Suleiman the Magnificent launched his Vienna campaign on 10 May 1529 and reached Osijek on 6 August with an army of perhaps 120,000 men."

Which of course is 3 years prior to this battle, though it does mention the following on page 51:

"Suleiman was back in Hungary in 1532 for a second try at Vienna with an even larger army than he had brought with him in 1529"

Which is again, not an estimate for the size of forces at this particular battle.

The third linked source: The Enemy at the Gate: Habsburgs, Ottomans, and the Battle for Europe pp 59-60 doesn't give a numerical estimate anywhere and only mentions this particular battle in passing:

"In 1532, Suleiman attacked again, but by a different route. This time the Ottoman army began its march earlier, and, instead of heading north towards Buda, marched westward towards the uplands and the towns south of Vienna. En route the army had briefly invested and captured seventeen fortified towns or castles. On 5 August it arrived before the small town of Köszeg (Güns), south of Sopron and only a few miles from the Austrian border. The castle at Köszeg was an insubstantial obstacle and many stronger places had yielded without a fight."

That's why I've removed those sources, the simply do not state what the data in the infobox claimed. The editor in the talk page continually refused to address this point and then used a considerable amount of speculation, which I believe meets the criteria for original research to not only leave up the numerical figure, but also the linked sources.

As for the edit warring notice, I must have pasted the wrong notification template on the page. Will editing it to point to WP:ANI suffice or does it need to be added anew for purposes of tracking?

Lostsandwich (talk) 03:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi, the article Siege of Güns marked as good article since 2012, those Ottoman army numbers were there for 12 years long already, and Lostsandwich suddenly appeared and started an edit war, many reverts to remove arbitrary the numbers, and remove many academic historian sources. Me and Kansas Bear were involved in the talk page, where we provided many academic historian sources which confirmed those numbers: Talk:Siege of Güns#Ottoman force composition strength, even I provided several additional non cited historian sources which confirmed the same, even campaign map. We think with Kansas Bear that the sources and numbers are valid but Lostsandwich still deny everything as you can see on the talk page, as he want to remove the Ottoman army number at any cost from the article.

I do not know if I would break any rules if I restored 4 times (within 2 weeks period) the removed content and talked in the talk page about this. Morover other users also did the same as I did, so Lostsandwich did more reverts than anybody else.

Unfortunatelly we can see this tendency in Ottoman battle articles, that many users (mostly new users) are obsessed to minimze the Ottoman army, Ottoman losses and maximize the enemy army and losses and claim Ottoman victory where it was Ottoman defeat.

Lostsandwich started to do the same in other Ottoman articles: [114] OrionNimrod (talk) 09:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest taking this to the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. --Kansas Bear (talk) 12:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I think this sounds pretty good. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 12:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The DRN isn't going to touch any dispute from these two until the behavioural issues (if any) are addressed here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi, the article Siege of Güns marked as good article since 2012, those Ottoman army numbers were there for 12 years long already,

The length of time an article exists is irrelevant. I'm not sure why you're making excuses or continuing to talk past the point, which is the linked sources not saying what the infobox claims.

many reverts to remove arbitrary the numbers, and remove many academic historian sources

They were removed for a reason, which was noted in every edit and in the talk page. The reason is that sources do not state what the infobox indicated. Making things up entirely is pretty strongly against what wikipedia is all about.

Me and Kansas Bear were involved in the talk page, where we provided many academic historian sources which confirmed those numbers:

The additional sources do not claim what the infobox does. You interpreted it as such, and this, are conducting Original Research. Similarly, "additional sources" were not removed by me. This was noted time and time again, and you continued to talk past this.

We think with Kansas Bear that the sources and numbers are valid but Lostsandwich still deny everything as you can see on the talk page, as he want to remove the Ottoman army number at any cost from the article.

For the purpose of this noticeboard, I even pasted the relevant areas of the linked sources (which I removed), they do not state what the infobox did.

I do not know if I would break any rules if I restored 4 times (within 2 weeks period) the removed content and talked in the talk page about this. Morover other users also did the same as I did, so Lostsandwich did more reverts than anybody else.

Using sources that do not make the claim that is being cited, and conducting original research very much are against wiki's editing policy.

Unfortunatelly we can see this tendency in Ottoman battle articles, that many users (mostly new users) are obsessed to minimze the Ottoman army, Ottoman losses and maximize the enemy army and losses and claim Ottoman victory where it was Ottoman defeat.

Your bias is affecting your ability to edit articles. Whatever historiography you believe is occurring is also irrelevant as wikipedia policy requires that claims match the cited sources, which the ones I have removed did not.

Lostsandwich started to do the same in other Ottoman articles:

You should probably review your own bias before making accusations. My removal of material was in concert with wikipedia's policies. The ironic part is that in the past I was in agreement with you over an article using inflated numbers.

Notice as well that two more users have agreed that the removed material does not make the claim that the infobox did, and also generally agree that interpreting total-force estimations at the start of the campaign as being one and the same as that at this battle constitutes original research. Lostsandwich (talk) 00:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

There's definitely merit to this. I read through this post, Talk:Siege of Güns#Ottoman force composition strength, and the sources mentioned, and I see no reason to keep restoring this version. The 3 sources for "100,000–120,000" simply don't verify the content. It doesn't matter if one or all of them were used when the article passed its GA review, because they don't actually verify the content. At the Talk page discussion, OrionNimrod found some entirely new (and possibly reliable) sources that give more estimates: "bulk of the army" (Banlaky) and "at least a hundred times superior force" (Rubicon). But then Kansas Bear and OrionNimrod discuss how to synthesize the original 3 sources with "bulk of the army" and "at least a hundred times superior force" to arrive at a brand new set of unsourced numbers. OrionNimrod, you've had 7.4k edits over almost 3 years. Kansas Bear, you're at 47k edits ove 17 years! Both of you should know you can't do this. If Banlaky or Rubicon are found to be reliable sources, then we should cite them instead. But we can't just multiple estimate A by estimate C and estimate B by estimate D and arrive at numbers that feel right. Woodroar (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

This is exactly what I was about to say. Lostsandwich definitely does have a strong rationale when it comes to disproving the sources provided. Reading through the entire thread was a hassle, but I know that the sources provided by the two do not directly mention a Siege of Güns, instead an army by Suleiman sent from Constantinople that could diverge, get lost in battles, retreat, split up, ect. "At least a hundred times superior force", even if this could be useful evidence, note how it says at least: it could be much more. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 00:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi,

I usually like and I suggested here also to separate the estimations by sources, so we know that more historians have more views, this is quite common that historian A estimate 10K army and historian B estimate 50K army regarding medieval battles.

The Ottoman army started its campaing from Istanbul against Vienna, (we can see the different historical estimations from that starting army), and Kőszeg was on the route to Vienna, that is why the city was besieged under the leadership of Suleiman the Magnificent. Of course it was raiding units for more directions (only light cavalry units), but I think this is the speculation to claim that not the main army led by the Sultan himself was not at the siege but just a small part, and those historian sources mention the campaign and starting army regarding siege of Kőszeg. It is not true claiming the number of army is unknow, that is why we have more or less estimations.

A Hungarian map about the campaing: Research Centre for the Humanities - Institute of History: Big line: main Ottoman army, dotted lines: raiding units [115] We can clearly see the main Ottoman army arrived at Kőszeg.

I found more Hungarian historian work about this: [116] here I can see, it mentions "entire army" even the army composition, google translate: "Seeing that the Turks were coming with their entire army, Jurisics set fire to the two suburbs, which were difficult to defend anyway, and moved the inhabitants to the city center. On Saturday, i.e. the 10th, Ibrahim raised eight cannons to the vineyards surrounding the city and fired from there throughout the day. The actual siege did not begin until the following day, the 11th; On the 12th, the battle was interrupted due to the arrival of Suleiman. Overlooking an army of 12,000 Janissaries, 20,000 Spahis, 26,000 Rumelians, 30,000 Anatolians, and 15,000 Tartars, the Sultan ordered a general assault on the following day, the 13th."

Another Hungarian history book, mention that contemporary Ottoman sources boosted how big was the army under Kőszeg: [117] page 296, google translate: "On August 10, the army led by the sultan arrived under the Kőszeg castle, which was already very close to Vienna, where the Glorious Padisah [the Sultan] ordered an encampment, thereby postponing the siege of Vienna until he made a decision about the campaign in the divan. Spies and travelers took the news of our huge army to the main enemy of Muhammad's people, the Habsburgs. It was very important to make our army's strength known, so that they wouldn't think of invading Hungary" OrionNimrod (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Please show where the (removed) sources state that 10,000 (or any other number of) Ottoman soldiers were present at the battle in question. You have, for the umpteenth time, refused to engage with this very basic requirement.

Any interpretation based on those (or other) sources that the force composition at the start of the campaign was present, in full or in part, at this particular battle is yours and yours alone, and unless cited in referenced material, constitutes original research. Wikipedia is not for guesswork or speculation. Lostsandwich (talk) 19:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:V, any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material (emphasis mine). There's also this clarifying note: A source "directly supports" a given piece of material if the information is present explicitly in the source (emphasis in original). In order to us to give numbers for the Ottoman forces at the Siege of Güns/Kőszeg, the sources need to give numbers for the Ottoman forces at the Siege of Güns/Kőszeg.

Out of everything so far, the newest source seems to come the closest, giving a total of 103,000—though it's only part of the total and we can't combine it with any other sources. Woodroar (talk) 00:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@Woodroar I’m not convinced this belongs here rather than NORN. The editor who bought it here has very few edits spread out over more than three years. I suggest this should be closed with the recommendation it be taken to WP:NORN. Doug Weller talk 15:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Lostsandwich, those sources which you removed clearly write the army numbers of the campaign in the starting point, and the main army led by Sultan went againt Vienna and Kőszeg was on the way besiged by the Sultan, which was part of that campaign (and it was no battles before Kőszeg, the other castles on the way surrended whitout fight), why do you expect that all historians should say in every single sentences that on August 20 the army number was 10000 and on August 21 the army number was still 10000... anyway the numbers are just estimations, not strict numbers. The showed other sources also confirmed those sources that the main army arrived at Kőszeg. So why the numbers would be "unknown" as you claim? OrionNimrod (talk) 20:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller, fair enough. Maybe the regulars at NORN can convince OrionNimrod that we can't use sources this way. But given the replies here, I feel like this is just going to get kicked back to ANI eventually. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Woodroar (talk) 00:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@OrionNimrod because that would be speculation, assumption and/or interpretation. The article is about a siege, not about the "start of the campaign". If one wishes to discuss a fact about a particular instance, one must cite a source that references it, not maybe sort of kinda in a haphazard roundabout way sort of suggests it. That there were X people present at Y time and place, therefore X people were also were also present at Z time and place is completely immaterial unless that is stated in the referenced work. None of the removed sources do so. Lostsandwich (talk) 03:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User Rishi_vim making disruptive edits and not stopping after multiple notices

Looking at the contribution, it's clear the user is making bad faith edits in a particular article. All their edits have been reverted but they continue to make same edits. Reason for their last edit is "Trueth by God".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rishi_vim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenm v2 (talk • contribs) 10:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)^<diff>

Rishi vim is an SPA entirely focused on whitewashing the article Rampal (spiritual leader) by removing mentions of the subject's murder conviction & status as a cult leader from the article's lede. They've been warned and reverted multiple times over the last month, and have no edits outside this article. Suggest they be blocked from the article, so we can see if they'll contribute positively elsewhere, or just leave. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Yup, as noted, there are attempts to move a detail of the murder convention, wipe the crime, edit-war to add an honorific, and one edit that was just a random sentence of praise for Rampal. From a look around the internet, this type of thing seems to be common among his followers, though it peaked several years ago. P-block is a good start, but I'm admittedly not optimistic about this editor contributing elsewhere. All the vandalism was extremely poorly written. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I've indeffed. Nothing productive can come from this account. Canterbury Tail talk 13:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that. I keep this article on my watchlist because every few months someone comes along to wipe the mention of his conviction & status as a cult leader. Any additional eyes would be welcome. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

User:DonnaPrintss

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Weird anti-semitic edits, like moving a page to draftspace with the summary "Jewish nonsence", saying stuff like "Jewish are not welcomed here." and "Delete yourself from here and go away", and nominating/!voting for deletion Jewish-related articles (here, here and here, for example) for no real reason. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. – Hilst [talk] 14:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

They appear to already be blocked. And appropriately. Simonm223 (talk) 14:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Only for 48 hours. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 14:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Let's say Convert to Indefinite per WP:NOTHERE. Simonm223 (talk) 14:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Seriously, how? That should've been an indef as WP:NOTHERE. Hate is not welcome on this project. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 14:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, should edits such as Special:Diff/1223806716 be revdel? Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 14:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm tempted to say yes. Simonm223 (talk) 14:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Indeffed and I think everything is cleaned up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Does an admin want to revert the page move back to main space or are we not bothering bc said user moved it out of draftspace in the first place.Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Spamming multiple articles with The Famous Orpington & District Amateur Boxing Club

Box32 (talk · contribs) adding promotional content to [118]; [119]; [120]; [121]; [122]; [123]. Declined draft is here [124]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

• This is why I have to bring crap like this here: [125]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

That is appalling. I'll notify the contributor responsible, and ask them to explain here why they labelled your initial edit (more than adequately explained in the edit summary) as 'vandalism'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I thought it was something homophobic because I seen the revert summary "Stop with this gender bullshit", that was on my part i should of seen the other edits before reverting. ModdiWX (message me!) 15:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry--where did you see that comment related to this thread? 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Indeffed for advertising/promotion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

By entering into this and by the confused explanation above, there may be WP:CIR issues at English Wikipedia regarding Lolkikmoddi. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

There certainly seems to be evidence that at minimum Lolkikmoddi needs to be a lot more careful with the use of rollback tools. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive, perhaps, but I'm not sure why this [126]] was considered 'homophobic.' Rollback privilege needs to be looked at here. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

It was a mistake. Sorry for any ruckus I have made. ModdiWX (message me!) 15:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Back to the topic at hand. It looks like what we have here is an editor who has access to offline sources, but has no experience with something like Wikipedia. Is there anyone who has the time to help them out a bit? I think they're editing in good faith, but Wikipedia is quite a bit different than being a boxing coach. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Maybe there's someone here [127] who'd be interested in helping. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't hit the right note, while this is unfolding, for the editor to restore unsourced content [128]. They've already earned their share of warnings for this since 2021. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

IP talk page spamming, BLP violations

• 2604:3d09:927f:e900:c028:6865:a4e7:19ef (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2604:3d09:927f:e900:4d72:e68d:7730:97f9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2604:3d09:927f:e900:fd2e:ec13:175c:eace (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2604:3d09:6a86:f300:9d2b:614a:8093:3c (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2604:3D09:927F:E900:C:DC1B:8E8E:1B80 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2604:3d09:927f:e900:34fb:baef:36b:88a5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

User has been repeatedly spamming Talk:Nikki Benz with unsourced/poorly sourced WP:DOB info. I have given two warnings after politely explaining WP:BLPPRIVACY and its applicability to talk pages. Nonetheless they say they "won't stop". A clear failure to WP:LISTEN, evidently WP:NOTHERE. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

That's right, I will not stop writing DECEMBER 11, in the TALK PAGE.

So do what you must to block, or I will continue. 2604:3D09:6A86:F300:7932:A573:B23A:D0B1 (talk) 22:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

The links posted at Talk:Nikki Benz do not satisfy reliable source. The birth date is not a big deal and it is standard to leave it out unless there is a good source. Johnuniq (talk) 00:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

But will the whole Wikipedia project collapse if the words December 11 are left in the talk page? 2604:3D09:6A86:F300:7932:A573:B23A:D0B1 (talk) 01:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Irrelevant question. You say you are trying to "generate discussion", but to what end? There's nothing special about the date that I can see. Repeating it ad nauseam doesn't help us arrive at a decision to include it in the article or not. Honestly, it seems like you're just trying to get around the requirement for reliable sources by posting things to the talk page instead of the article. However, BLP policy applies to all pages, including talk pages. Your most recent comment dismissing all this as "esoteric terminology" suggests you're not interested in learning how Wikipedia works or collaborating with others. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC) edited 08:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

A hit dog will holler. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Your interactions with me have been poor and unprofessional, while the user ActivelyDisinterested «@» has shown cordial behaviour. 2604:3D09:927F:E900:C5AD:8DF:E02:753E (talk) 16:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

There's no hollering or admission of any guilt, that you are implying. You have been authoritative and trying to belittle with all your Wikipedia rules. There has not been anything professional of the way this discussion went. 2604:3D09:927F:E900:C5AD:8DF:E02:753E (talk) 16:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Anyways, I have come back here to end all of this. What has been said has been said. I hope the Wikipedia project can move forward with more cordiality all around.

Thank you. 2604:3D09:927F:E900:C5AD:8DF:E02:753E (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, I agree that "I won't stop. Grow up" is not anything professional. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

That was in response to you authoritatively removing the words DECEMBER 11, like it was something cancerous, and then trying to throw your weight around with all your jargon.

Good bye 2604:3D09:927F:E900:A539:E4D4:908D:E115 (talk) 15:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes I think we should do the horse thing on here, where we just decide everyone's birthday is January 1 and get on with it. jp×g🗯️ 20:45, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Could we do something similar with ethnicity? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

like assuming everyone you meet on the internet is secretly a 60 year old hacker (or worse, brazilian)? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 18:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Swarleystinson88

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

How does this user know so much about editing, despite having joined hardly a month ago? He is definitely a sock, I just don't know whose. Kailash29792 (talk) 01:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Kailash29792, notify the user as you're required to do.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I intentionally used the noping template so he wouldn't abuse me upon finding out about this discussion, the way Padmalakshmisx once did through one of his socks. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

See the note, visible every time you edit here: "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page." Do that, and we can then ask them how they 'know so much'. If they actually do. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Notified. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Kailash29792 How can you be so sure that they're a sock if you haven't even attempted to discuss your concerns with them? Please remember to assume good faith and don't assume you'll only be met with harassment as previous socks have given you (and no, it's not an excuse to fail to notify the editor either); just because a new editor is an expert doesn't always make them a sock. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 10:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Because I didn't know who it could be a sock of. Swarleystinson88 shares a similar attitude with Padma, although his English is far better. And he is not the first with a pro-Telugu agenda, linking to Telugu cinema rather than language. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

So now you accuse me of being a pro-Telugu. I can say the same to you as well that you are a Pro-Tamil. But it’s not about accusations, you give me a valid point as to why such an important information should be omitted, then I won’t meddle again.

I clearly added only the industry the film was produced in and I didn’t change anything about it being a bilingual. A lot of Telugu films were and still are shot as bilinguals but they are produced by Telugu cinema (Tollywood) just like Baahubali series or KALKI 2898AD.

I gave you two credible sources that stated “Mayabazar” as a “Telugu film” shot in both Telugu and Tamil. Swarleystinson88 (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

So you are accusing me of being a sock because I tried to add facts and counter your point on Mayabazar (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mayabazar&action=history)? Is this how you shut people up for adding reliable sources by trying to block their account. Swarleystinson88 (talk) 03:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

(ANI stalker) While precocious editing can be a sign of a sock, it does not mean that the user is definitely a sock. A legitimate newbie could be experienced from editing as an IP editor, being a legitimate alt, editing other wikis, carefully reading policies and guidelines before editing, etc. I don't think there is enough evidence to block here. If more signs arise, a Checkuser could help. QwertyForest (talk) 06:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

(Learned of this from here) This report has a 10% chance of correct (and utterly unhelpful), and a 90% chance of being a severe violation of Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 15:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Lkomdis

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This user, User:Lkomdis keeps making disruptive comments on their talk page, making unblock requests that ping an unnecessary amount of admins, including Jimbo Wales himself. Note that they were blocked for NOTHERE (technically NPA violations towards Saqib) via a mostly false ANI thread they started, which still hasn't been archived. They allege me, an experienced editor, of having a COI with an article I have never edited, using Jimbo as the founder as an excuse to shut me up, indirectly allege me of canvassing, and snarkily telling me to "Assume good faith" even though I am trying to get them to stop. All of this can be viewed at their talk page, linked above. I am also fairly certain that they are a sock because harassing Saqib after they came back from a wikibreak (which makes me think they are a sleeper that has woken up). At minimum, I would like their TPA to be removed. Thanks, thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 03:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @TheTechie. For those following along at home, User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Thanks_for_your_thanks and related to my block of Lkomdis. I am about to log off for the evening and consider myself Involved so wasn't going to yank TPA in the event an uninvolved admin thought there was merit to the unblock. There's probably also paperwork but I remain on and offline and haven't had time to sort the master to file it. Star Mississippi 03:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi Anytime! I just wanted to get this nonsense done with. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 03:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Honestly this report and your activities on that user's talk page are a bit weird. Could you not just stop badgering the blocked user? BoldGnome (talk) 04:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Talkpage access revoked. I don't see anything wrong with what TheTechie did here, it was Lkomdis who made things weird. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 15:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP-hopping user is causing trivial headaches with an edit-war

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The most recent one is 2600:1700:5003:D800:6C71:5BC1:26B:9AA1 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), but see also 2600:1700:5003:D800:9851:1695:3F20:5D84 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 2600:1700:5003:D800:88DC:47D2:FE30:50D5 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and 2600:1700:5003:D800:28D2:E6B0:CDAB:8A80 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). This person keeps on arbitrarily changing a color at Saturday Night Live season 50. I thought his initial edit was a mistake or test, so I changed it in a way that I thought would resolve his error, but then it became clear that he is engaged in edit-warring and insists that his color needs to prevail. I bowed out of any further edits, as I am under WP:0RR and cannot revert, but also because this was clearly not going to be productive: he would not respond to posts on his talk, it was not clear what his goal was (hence I originally thought his edit was just a mistake and he didn't understand hex codes). Since then, Jgstokes has reverted and I have posted to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase where Daniel Quinlan suggested that I warn the user and post here prior to escalating. All that said, this is completely stupid edit-warring and the IP only bothered to even try to talk about it once he was told that I was reporting this issue. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC) See also Lists of Saturday Night Live episodes. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

The vandalism continued, with the person responsible using multiple accounts now to skirt punishment. Page protection would be appropriate, in my view. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 07:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I think a short-term (three days to one week) rangeblock and a medium-term (multi-month) page semi-protection is appropriate and what I would like to request. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

koavf, it's unclear to me how your two most recent edits are anything other than reverts to your preferred version. Your first revert replaced the new color with a color that is same color to the previous color. Your second revert replaced the new color with a color that is very similar to the previous color.

2600:1700:5003:D800::/64 and Mcleodaustin have been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. Jgstokes has been blocked for 24 hours for violating the three-revert rule. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 07:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Daniel Quinlan:, I was not clear on what the user was trying to do: his first edit seemed like a mistake or someone who didn't understand hex codes, so I changed the name to a hex code, which is what I thought he was trying to do. The second edit was trying to change it to a new color that maybe he thought would make sense (and was not the same as the initial one), but when it became clear due to his edit summary that he was only interested in "darkgrey"/"555555", then I stopped editing. I was not trying to revert/undo/etc., but just try to fix what I thought was an error. If you think this is a violation of my 0RR, I hope you can accept that this was an incidental and accidental one and not a strategy. As I noted above, I will not edit war and am disallowed from doing so--even in cases of unambiguous vandalism, I have not undone any edits since my 0RR and when I have sought clarity about what constitutes any kind of revert/undo/etc. Note that some kinds of accidental reverts were discussed during the discussion that placed my restrictions on my editing and I have tried to never even accidentally end up undoing anyone else's edits and sometimes have self-reverted when I thought it could be interpreted as reverting. Again, if you are interpreting the inclusion of different hex codes as a revert, I will self-revert on that page and allow the discussion process to play out. My revert restrictions are serious and I do not want to in any way contradict them and have sought discussion, escalation, requested edits, etc. in all cases that I would have otherwise used undo or direct or sneak reverts. In good faith, I'll undo for now and I hope that you can see that I'm abiding by my editing restrictions.Well, actually that would directly undo someone else's edits, so I think more editing would not be constructive. Again, please give guidance if you think this is an issue, as I am very serious about not engaging with edit-warring or reverting in any way. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Daniel Quinlan: E.g. is this a revert? An article was tagged as an orphan, I linked it so it is now no longer an orphan and consequently removed the template. Again, I want to be very conservative about abiding by these restrictions as the community was very clear that edit-warring on my part is completely unacceptable, so I have not used any direct method to undo anyone's edits at all and want to only progress articles toward new consensus versions and not remove whatever someone else has tried to add to an article. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would consider that a revert. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 08:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, well please do let me know if any of my edits look like they are in the realm of contradicting my editing restrictions: I am very serious about trying to abide by the community wishes and I want to continue to be a productive member that proves that he can avoid edit-warring in all respects to regain community trust some day and maybe get to a 1RR in a year or so and no editing restrictions in a few years. Thanks for your feedback. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

All I can say is that those two edits on Saturday Night Live season 50 look like reverts to me, especially considering that it's not just one edit, both lack an edit summary, and it's the color you added that you're trying to restore. Anyhow, at this point, I would recommend leaving the color alone. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 08:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Gotcha. Honestly, I will just try to not remove anything or change any existing content and just only add things at this point. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

This user has now made the account Mcleodaustin. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I think until/unless there is an issue again, this is resolved and no protection is necessary at the moment. Anyone who disagrees, please remove the below template. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:45, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the resolved template, I think it was added a little too hastily here. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 08:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hokkien; not getting the point; off-site canvassing

User:Mlgc1998 is a major contributor to Hokkien. This isn't a content dispute, so I'll be brief.

1. The infobox on Hokkien was far too long, as to defeat the purpose of infoboxes. I try slimming it down some.
2. A month later I notice it's been reverted without explanation, and I restore the slim version while starting a discussion on the talk page pointing out the guidelines to Mlgc1998, trying to establish consensus. Unfortunately, during this discussion they do not seem interested in anything that involved the article shifting away from their personal preferences. They generally ignored all reference to site guidelines and norms, and their reasons terminated in their knowing more than me about the particulars of this subject. To wit, their instant assumption that I and others were lacked basic knowledge of the topic left a bad taste in my mouth early.
3. I ask for input from three relevant WikiProjects, and the five people who comment in some form generally agree with reference to the aforementioned guidelines. This seems to matter little to Mlgc1998. While I am irritated, it seems increasingly unlikely that they are arguing in good faith or are trying to get the point.
4. Meanwhile, there's a worrisome sideline about basic verifiability, but this isn't about that other than to better illustrate my concerns about their conduct.
5. This morning, I get a message on Discord from another editor who saw Mlgc1998 had asked for "reinforcements" regarding the article in a topically-related Discord server. I don't feel I need to name them, but I have permission from them to do so and provide screenshots if someone needs me to. Upon me confronting them on the talk page, Mlgc1998 plays dumb.

Could likely be briefer, but I tried. My apologies. Remsense诉 10:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

1. User:Remsense initially removed a lot of data/info on the Hokkien page here, which I later put back some vital info that was not specifically explained the removal of prior. The speaker population number was also generalized less than what the initial Ethnologue sources had mentioned here and here.

2. A month later, I was asked to join this discussion, Talk:Hokkien#Infobox,_etc._problems, I provided information that unfamiliar editors may not have known about nor knew access of. Initially, it was amicable, but midway User:Remsense started accusing me over some disbelief they held, which I replied with more evidence, historical context, and comparisons. User:Remsense decided to ignore this and somehow took it as an offense, doubling down with more accusations and ad hominem attacks on me. I replied with more information to clear up the situation. It was ignored again and more accusations and ad hominem attacks were levied. They chose to somehow transfer their frustration to me, who only willingly provided them contextual information and evidence to them. I asked what was their specific intent anyways, besides the rough idea of trimming down the infobox. It was ignored yet again. User:Remsense then decided to edit the page anyways with what they wanted and interpret their intent as the supposed "consensus". Another editor, User:Cinderella157, later came and started threateningly talking about "WP:NOTGETTINGIT", and "WP:ONEAGAINSTMANY", and "It is time to WP:DROPTHESTICK" kind of language. User:Remsense later admits that they have asked to get more people's input. This other editor is currently repeatedly reverting any attempts at improvements to the infobox of the Hokkien page.

3. As can be seen in my past recent edits regarding the infobox of the Hokkien page, I have repeatedly tried to look for consensus and better the infobox section of the Hokkien page. I have reduced some redundant repetitions, putting some info in footnotes instead, and made it more neutral by splitting the speaker population again to per country and changing the "Region" field to the "States" field, that User:Remsense once spoke about, yet perhaps these helpful acts matter little to User:Remsense.

5. I have not asked anybody to do anything. It's natural some discord server about this topic or anywhere else discusses about happenings that take place in a widely known website that many people read. User:Remsense repeatedly talks about "canvassing", yet they themselves initially admit to it. I do not know why User:Remsense repeatedly accuses me of things they do themselves.

Apologies if there are anything of my words anywhere that may be seen as disingenuous. Mlgc1998 (talk) 12:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I have not asked anybody to do anything

  Remsense诉 13:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense I have not asked anybody to do anything.

That picture you posted basically just says that the 2nd user is asking someone what to do. And the 3rd user has simply informed them what they asked for. Perhaps, you can share a picture of your own "canvassing" yourself of other editors, since you like to repeatedly behave in a toxic manner. Mlgc1998 (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

(To be crystal clear, this is Mlgc1998 asking another person to undo a specific edit on their behalf. If anyone else has any questions, let me know. I've paraphrased enough guidelines so far that I know my continuing to do so won't help them understand here.) Remsense诉 13:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

(To be crystal clear, Remsense is repeatedly falsely accusing me again of acts they themselves admit to also doing. It is telling of their unchanging toxic behavior of accusations. The supposed screenshot merely cuts away the context of what those people in that discussion were discussing about. Remsense has set their eyes against me for some reason and resorts to using off-site tools like that just to frame people. If there was a screenshot posted here as well of their supposed off-site actions, would it do anything for their case? I do not know why this person keeps putting their frustrations on me and how this is any constructive to the website, with the destructive conduct they show.) Mlgc1998 (talk) 14:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Let's be clear, if you continue to hurl accusations at Remsense without any supporting evidence (or if you accuse them of "toxic behaviour" and similar regardless of evidence) I will block you straight away. Now either provide diffs of your allegations against Remsense, or feel free to remove them. Choose one. Black Kite (talk) 14:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 14:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Black Kite Here are some of the relevant diffs that Remsense has done on the page with context to our discussion. I would like to mention to pls consider how these looked like from my shoes. I'm not sure as well if this is due to cultural differences.

• [Remsense-1] the initial edit that Remsense said they tried to slim down last April 2, 2024
• [Mlgc1998-1] I edited it back cuz the last user, Remsense, just said that it was "stuffed" but didn't explain more specifically why the specific data that was picked to remove is to be removed
• [Remsense-2] after we talked on the Talk page and Remsense decided to ignore what I've explained when it seemed the info infuriated them last May 7, 2024
• [Mlgc1998-2] the next day I saw it and reverted it because we werent done talking and they simply ignored what I've said. I have split the speaker pop to each country as well since there is some level of uncertainty with the data on one of the countries at least.
• [Remsense-3] a revert of theirs
• [Mlgc1998-3] I put it back, cuz their only argument is "no, we gang up on you". And, compared to my last edit, I have changed the "Region" field to the "States" field that Remsense initially was complaining about in the talk page
• [Mlgc1998-4], [Mlgc1998-5] I decided to cut down on some redundant repetitions and put some long text in footnotes in an effort to make things better
• [Remsense-4], [Remsense-5] Remsense added some tags saying that some parts are overly detailed, and changed the "States" field back to the "Region" field
• [Remsense:Talk-1] Remsense suddenly adds that they tried to recruit more people to help here
• [Cinderella157-1] Cinderella157 suddenly appeared and put everything back to what Remsense wanted
• [Cinderella157:Talk-1] Cinderella157 starts talking threateningly as well in the talk page
• [Programmeruser-1] Programmeruser suddenly appears to put back at least the speaker population field to show each country's speaker population
• [Cinderella157-2] Cinderella157 reverts it again

Now, I'd like to say that I'm all for reaching a consensus and improving that article, but after the time I explained to Remsense about the historical context, it was nothing but accusations and ad hominem remarks from them and they didn't really discuss much about what to do moving forward and that's what I was always waiting for, rather than them continuously pinning bad things on me. Mlgc1998 (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Some day, you will read literally the first paragraph of what WP:CANVAS actually says. Remsense诉 15:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

It wouldn't have been like this if you had read the books and website evidences I linked, but Idk maybe I assumed people I was talking to knew how to read Chinese characters. Mlgc1998 (talk) 15:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I am positive they don't contain secret manuscripts of WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE no Westerner yet knows about. Remsense诉 15:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd recommend to learn the supposed "secret manuscripts" to better know how to deal with those "secret", cuz they're not that "secret" these days and they won't be "secret" if u know. Don't have to be a native speaker to know a bit on it. Before you call me smug, I have even expected you to know how to read them. This wouldn't have started if you hadn't started accusing me and doubting what I provide. Some of those info are free for you to see yourself. not even need to buy books. Taiwan ROC MOE has a website all about it but their real legit website might not be the most userfriendly but mirror sites exist like moedict and sutian. you wont find any mention of "Hokkien" there of course nor its counterpart in Chinese characters, 福建, referring to the language. ROC and PRC prefer "Minnan"/"Min Nan"/"閩南"/"闽南". If not sure how to read the Chinese characters, put them in google translate and press the listen button in "Chinese". "Hokkien" is a word that originated in Southeast Asia, such as Singapore or Malaysia. It is usually data from those countries who would readily use that word. Mlgc1998 (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

(I didn't post the preceding messages because I didn't want to appear like I was trying to make them look as bad as possible. First and final, them.)

 Remsense诉 14:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

(Would like to clarify as well for anyone confused. the picture with another screenshot of a picture above is a different person to the initial picture posted before it. Remsense is just showing some people's personal discussions and reactions on a matter for whatever purpose Remsense has in mind. Pls notice as well their very act of posting more pictures of different people, all for the point of framing someone and further antagonism. If that is not "toxic behavior", we might as well reevaluate the current definitions of "toxic" in most dictionaries. I do not know why disagreements about an infobox leads them to go to such lengths.) Mlgc1998 (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Mlgc1998 I asked you to show evidence of your allegations against Remsense (i.e. canvassing), or remove them. You have done neither. Indeed, you have done the opposite by continuing to accuse Remsense of toxic behaviour with no evidence whatsoever. My patience is not infinite. Are you going to do one of these things? You are on the edge of a block, and it won't be a short one. Black Kite (talk) 17:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Black Kite Hold on, alright. Which allegations are you looking for? Isn't this one and this one that I mentioned above. If you mean repeated accusations and ad hominem attacks, it occurred in this talk page. Is it not understandable that I'd have to clarify another picture they use to defame me? I'm sure if you were in my shoes, you'd understand why I'd reply to that one. If it's about using the word "toxic", I mean from my perspective, it seems that way, wouldn't it? Being repeatedly accused and being defamed and all. Mlgc1998 (talk) 18:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Neither of those diffs shows anything like canvassing. Have you read WP:CANVASS? Black Kite (talk) 18:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Black Kite What do you mean? I was talking about canvassing as a word itself and that was just a side comment about how ironic of their accusations to accuse that when they effectively do it themselves. The example that I've linked are but hints at their initial act. There's no telling if they had not done any canvassing off-site themselves as well. This part about canvassing is not the main thing being discussed anyways. It is just Remsense's way to try and find a way to have people banned, so they can get their way on the edits they intended. I repeatedly replied to them in the Talk page about the forward plans on the article, but from the past days, Remsense continues to choose to be antagonistic and disingenuous about it. They have threatened twice "to go to ANI" and from my perspective, I am not sure what troubles them on what I had said. In my culture, there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with what I told them. Perhaps, the repeated accusations and threats are something of a norm in the culture they grew up with? I am not really sure and do not understand why they took lengths to to take things here on perceived offense. From my perspective, I have gladly provided info and been repeatedly ignored and accused of. Perhaps, I should have used emojis for my words to not be misconstrued? Mlgc1998 (talk) 18:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

When we use "canvassing" here, it is per a specific Wikipedia rule. Trying to use it in the general sense is going to muddy the waters. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I just want to say that, while I've not always agreed with Remsense, they have consistently been a constructive editor who operates within the bounds of good practice. Simonm223 (talk) 14:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

(Had to scroll back through your contributions. If the biggest thing we disagree about is whether it should be CCP or CPC, that's fine grounds for a working relationship imo. ) Remsense诉 14:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

It should be CPC damnit. ;) Simonm223 (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Try again

@Mlgc1998, I really do not like being an antagonist for someone who is trying very hard to contribute about an underrepresented subject that is deeply important to them. I do increasingly feel like something has been lost in translation between us, and that's partially my fault. The last thing I want is to get such a contributor booted off the site, we have so precious few and I can't improve these articles by myself, nor do I want to. I understand how it seems I appeared out of nowhere and started ripping up work in an arbitrary manner. I don't know how to say this in the most elegant way, but it's because I really care, and I really do want these articles to be as educational and illuminating as they can be, like those GAs and FAs I tried to link you as examples on the talk page. That's why I think the infobox is so important, its design follows very particular principles meant to introduce totally new people to a subject at a glance. I want them to come away from the article knowing a little more about Hokkien and Sinitic topolects no matter how little time they happen to read the article, that's all. Can we try again? I'm sorry that my communication was not effective at certain points here. Remsense诉 19:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense Alright finally. :) I apologize as well if there are any words that seemed offensive from what I wrote before. Since, we are communicating via written word, it lacks a tone so one could read it in different ways. My realm is mostly in wiktionary anyways. I do not like arguments like this. I've poured a lot of time studying this language that has been in decline and often set aside even in my country all to help fellow learners of it and to understand the speakers of it around me. The books I have on it are things others have shared with me as well for me to continue with adding the data for the world to learn about. Not everybody knows how to read these chinese text in my country too, but I knew at least that some taught it could reach out and further learn how to grasp it. Chinese languages are daunting to learn, but it is what it is. This language has a saddening history and my contributions in wikipedia and wiktionary are my efforts to try and improve understanding about it, despite the different bad factors that have come to plague it. It is rough, but I know multiple native speakers of it and learning it opens the mind as well on understanding why the other chinese languages speak the way they do. I fear that continued lack of data or worsening quality of info on this language would later contribute as well to its future possible demise, but we work with what data is available and at least build on top of that, even if its a rubble. I've trudged through it for the past 6 years or so, all so it can be more accessible online and be easier to search up, especially native speakers often do not realize we do not 100% understand them or their logic of speaking sometimes, but anyways Thank you! Mlgc1998 (talk) 19:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

User:HiddenFace101

User:HiddenFace101 has made >10k edits while racking up perennial warnings about seemingly indiscriminate additions of their personal opinion to articles. They have made 8 edits to their own talk page, and none of them are responses to editors repeatedly telling them about this. Remsense诉 10:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Not just warnings, blocks too. One for a week, the second, shortly after, for a month. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree that some kind of action must be taken. This has been going on for too long and there is very little communication coming from them. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Well then if they refuse to communicate, they are not participating or rectifying their behaviour. As a result they should be indeffed. Editors like this should be forced to convince the community of their competence and ability to edit in order to regain editing privileges. Canterbury Tail talk 13:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Tendentious editing at String Quartets, Op. 20 (Haydn)11:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Ravpapa (talk)

User:Wikiwickedness has taken issue with much of the content of this article. He has recently twice deleted documented content that he disagrees with. I urged him, should he have reliable sources that support his view, to expand the article to include them, rather than merely delete what he disagrees with. When he deleted the material a second time, I restored it and opened an RFC to hear what other editors think. But then I discovered that I had created exactly the same RFC two years ago. Wikiwickedness's views in that RFC were universally rejected. So I now think that a second RFC is not the proper course, and this noticeboard is where the issue should be dealt with. Ravpapa (talk) 11:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not the same. This time it's specifically on the terms "Prior to opus 20", "This was virtually unheard of in Haydn's time." I only asked you to explain the terms with proper citations (from the authorities you seem to consider unquestionable), which you've failed to do. If you can't it's proper to just delete that section, cause the things said in them are debatable. The article would still be fine without that section. Wikiwickedness (talk) 13:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the RFC then was about @Wikiwickedness's deletion of the section "Opus 20 and the Development of the String Quartet". The current dispute is over his repeated deletion of parts of the same section. Ravpapa (talk) 13:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

This is a little different from the usual edit warring in music articles. Though there aren't any diffs here, from the history I see exactly two removals of content and you starting an RfC. I'm not sure what admin action is required here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I agree. @Wikiwickedness has now, rather than deleting sections wholesale, made an edit to the section that is perfectly fine with me. I consider the matter resolved. Ravpapa (talk) 04:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

GoneWithThePuffery

User GoneWithThePuffery has been reported by me at SPI, the case was handled by Drmies and it appears that my suspicions of sockpuppetry were wrong (however, GoneWithThePuffery often edits Wikipedia while being logged out, which they confessed). Since Drmies asked me to do so, I apologized even if I was not convinced that GoneWithThePuffery is here to build an encyclopedia. From that point on, this editor has been actively aggressive towards every single editors they disagree with along with personal attacks and edit warring. Personal attacks : [129], [130], treating Hu741f4 and me of "muppets", reason of them being warned by C.Fred : [131], edit warring (before and even after having been told by Drmies that 2 editors disagree with them) : [132], [133], [134]. To make it short, I made a mistake by accusing the reported editor, not the first time I've been wrong about that kind of thing, probably won't be the last, but I don't think that this mistake of mines should bring such personal attacks and edit warring on GoneWithThePuffery's side.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you started this whole thing. Not only by accusing me falsely, but also by refusing time after time to talk about the content on the talk page. My very first post there was an invitation of discussion and reaching common ground. Instead, I was attacked, not only by you, but also by Hu74. Your assertion that I'm "not here to build an encyclopedia" is another attack on me (even though all my edits thus far have been constructive and substantiated by reliable sources).

Since that incident, I asked you multiple times on the talk page to explain your concerns, but time after time you refused to do so. My question: what exactly do you want? You reverted my edits now again, without going to the talk page to talk about it. Sorry, but you're the one who is consistently not willing to work this out in a constructive manner. GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 15:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I tried to discuss with you, so did Hu741f4, but all we got in response were personal attacks and edit-warring. I rest my case.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

You tried to discuss with me? Where? I can't find one instance where you even attempted a normal conversation. GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

While Wikaviani was too quick to declare you were sockpuppeting and was in the wrong for that, an inaccurate accusation does not grant anyone a hall pass to act as hostile as they want. If the unfounded accusation has made it so that you cannot engage with people who disagree with you, then you ought to take a step back until you cool off, else an admin will likely institute a sanction that *will* be deserved this time. You even tried to bite the head off Drmies, the one who cleared you of sockpuppeting. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand Drmies, he noticed everything that went on, also noticed that I am on no way related to the user that was banned, and still he has apparently no problem with the hostile and aggressive attitude of Wikaviani and Hu74. Please note, it's not only about falsely accusing me, it's also the dictatorial and arrogant attitude Wikaviani and Hu74 occupy at that page (i.e. the complete unwillingness to engage in a discussion). I, on the other hand, was open to discuss and talk from the beginning. You can see it for yourself on the talk page. GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

GoneWithThePuffery, do you understand that comments like Are you completely stupid or what? are utterly unacceptable on Wikipedia? Are you going to stop abusing your fellow editors that way? Cullen328 (talk) 17:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

That fully depends. If people are accusing and harassing me, then they can expect an appropriate response. You're now taking one sentence out of its context. I know I uttered that sentence as a reaction on Wikaviani's hypocritical behavior; he was falsely accusing me and then went to my talk page to complain about my reaction!

I really don't understand why you're asking this. How would you respond if you are being accused of something you didn't do. How would you react if the first response to a perfectly sensible edit you made, in good faith, with reliable sources, was one of suspicion and hostility? GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 17:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

GoneWithThePuffery, I highly recommend that you drop this matter and move on. Your ongoing belligerence and combativeness reflects very poorly on you. Before you respond further, please read Assume good faith. As for how I would respond, I have been an editor for 15 years and an administrator for six years, and have had abuse hurled at me countless times. I ignore it. . Cullen328 (talk) 17:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I already dropped this matter and moved on. However, Wikaviani is constantly bringing this up everywhere, which forces me to respond and defend myself. (If I hadn't defended myself in the first place, I would've been branded a fraud, because of Wikaviani's false accusations.) GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 17:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Edit-warring like you do right now at Snell's law ( 3 reverts of two different editors within less than 24 hours) and blatantly ignoring WP:CONSENSUS, WP:ONUS and WP:BRD is not "moving on", rather, quite disruptive.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Again, that does not give you a blank check to continue being hostile and rude. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Again, Wikaviani is bringing this matter up EVERYWHERE, which forces me to respond and defend myself. He's the one who can't stop talking about this, instead of going to the talk page to engage with me in a discussion on the content (to which I have invited him now ten times or so). If Wikaviani spend as much time on the talk page of Snell's law discussing the content of Ibn Sahl's manuscript as he has complaining about me, this matter would've been dealt with long time ago. GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 18:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

How about responding politely that there must be a mistake ? you can see that when you interact politely with people without labelling them as "fucking stupid" or "ridiculous", things tend to run more smoothly ...---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Wikaviani, I DID RESPOND POLITELY THAT THERE MUST BE A MISTAKE!!! This was my response after you accused me of "evading a block":

"@User_talk:Wikaviani, I suppose WP:GOODFAITH is no longer used? So no, I'm not Casteiswrong. I don't know who that is, and up until now, I've never met him. I am, however, the person who made a substantial edit on 02:03, 7 May 2024, which has been reverted, then that reversion was reverted in turn, and then apparently an edit war broke out. I'm merely wondering what was wrong with my edit in the first place. An explanation is appropriate since I've supplied my edits with proper sources."

Now you tell me, what precisely is not polite here?!

After I wrote that, you still didn't believe me and then that guy from India started accusing me. GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 20:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Accusing me again of not assuming good faith and this kind of response while you have been told by an admin that my suspicions about you being a sock were not made in bad faith shows again that you have a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, that's not contructive, can you understand that ?---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh my lord! I'm quoting (!!) the first remark that I made after you accused me of being a sock. And yes, you were clearly not assuming good faith, as you immediately said: "You are probably Casteiswrong, please keep in mind that evading your block will not help your case". How is that assuming good faith? You didn't even react to the legitimate points I raised.

I don't have a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, but a WP:DEFENSE mentality whenever I'm unjustly attacked. The only person here who has a battleground mentality, next to Hu74, is you! I'm the one who constantly asks for a discussion, on the content, at the talk page. You keep ignoring that. GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

So what's this ? Isn't it from an admin saying that according to them, I didn't act in bad faith ?---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

So if an admin says it, then it's true? The admin can tell me the earth is flat, I don't care, I don't believe it. If you accuse me of being a sock, without even checking who I am (which would already have ruled sock-puppetry out completely) then I'm sorry, that's simply acting in bad faith. I have to say, the complaints you're uttering here and on my talk page are also examples of acting in bad faith. Just like the way you and Hu74 are behaving on the talk page of the article is acting in bad faith; points raised by me or Casteiswrong are structurally ignored. Why? I thought you were here to "build an encyclopedia". You're simply ignoring people and reverting edits; that's acting in bad faith. GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 22:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm baffled to see that despite all the people who told you that your are on a wrong path, you still don't seem to understand that your behaviour is unacceptable on Wikipedia.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Interaction Ban

Regardless of who started it, it appears that these two editors will not or cannot coexist peacefully. I propose that there be an interaction ban between the two of them.

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Stop overreacting please. I can survive a false allegation and a personal attack. I just don't like it when people complain after they started behaving aggressively. Apart from that, I have no problem interacting with Wikaviani. And actually, there is not much interaction going on at the moment, as Wikaviani currently ignores every form of discussion on the content, and I am really only interested in talking about the content. GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that would be helpful at all, for at least 3 reasons. Firstly, we are 3, GWTP, Hu741f4 and me, secondly, we will not be able to deal with the issue at Snell's law, and last but not least, you seem to put at the same level an editor who filed a SPI (me) which was declined and another who keeps attacking and edit-warring with fellow Wikipedians, including two admins with one of the admins being the one who cleared GWTP at the SPI case. 3 years ago, I was accused of Sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry with no legit reason, I did not start attacking and being rude towards the admin and the user who baselessly accused me, rather, I responded politely and explained why I was unrelated. Additionally, I already said that I had no problem to discuss with GWTP if they are capable of bringing legit rationale instead of labelling as "stupid" and "ridiculous" every single editor who disagrees with them.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't think it would solve the issue here. as far as I can tell, Wikiviani has been fairly civil, while GoneWithThePuffery has been uncivil to multiple editors [135] [136]. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 20:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  You must be joking. Fairly civil? So to accuse someone of "evading a block" and aggressively trying to get him blocked is "fairly civil"? And where have I been uncivil to other editors? GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 20:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  you were shown not to be that editor, and he apologized. so why don't you just drop the stick? -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 21:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  He apologized after he was being asked to do so, not because he wanted to. And I'm absolutely willing to "drop the stick", as long as my edits are being taken serious, which is not happening; they were being reverted without a proper argument, without having a discussion about it at the talk page. The same goes by the way for the editor that is now banned; he was raising some legitimate points. GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  I just gave you the "proper" argument below, the fact that you find a source that supports your POV does not mean it should be included in the article, inclusion requires WP:CONSENSUS. While WP:BOLD allows you to edit any article in order to improve it, WP:BRD says that you must not reinstate your edit when it is reverted, rather, you should seek consensus, which you refused to do properly since you attacked me and other editors instead.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

• I don't suppose something completely crazy like "you two got off on the wrong foot, let's start again, and everyone try to be nice to everyone" would have any chance? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  I have no problem with that. As long as my edits are being taken serious. GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 21:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  ~Your edit was made with no consensus and with a source that is contradicted by expert sources few lines after (Rashed, Smith), it has to be removed at least until a consensus is found on the talk page, but instead, you are engaged in edit-warring. So far, I don't see any legit reason for your edits at Snell's law to remain, but we're here to discuss your behaviour towards several editors, not for discussing the edits at Snell's law which should be done on the article's talk page.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  Okay, now who has the battleground mentality here? I said above that I have no problem with "you two got off on the wrong foot, let's start again" and again you started to complain about my behavior. My friend, I think I have more reason to complain about your behavior than the other way around.

  And again: I don't need a consensus for every tiny edit I make on Wikipedia, that would be absurd. And also again: how do I reach consensus if you're not even engaging in a discussion? For instance, you're saying: "a source that is contradicted by expert sources few lines after". What source are you referring to? Note that Rashed's work is controversial and that researcher do not always agree with one another. A reason more to explicitly mention Rashed in the light of his Ibn Sahl claim. You never explain yourself properly. GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  Here we go, that's exactly the problem, every time you disagree with an editor, said editor gets words like "stupid", "ridiculous", "absurd" and so on, don't you understand that this kind of behaviour is unacceptable on Wikipedia ? don't you understand that people don't want to discuss with someone who systematically insults them when there is a disagreement ? I already said that I had no problem to discuss with you if you were capable of a collegial discussion in which everything I or other editors say is not labelled as "ridiculous", "stupid" or "absurd".---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  I really don't want to hear anything from you about what's acceptable on Wikipedia or not. Not after I've seen how you are dealing with people with whom you disagree. And where am I systematically insulting users after a disagreement? I indeed said a few things to you after you insulted me by falsely accusing me of something I didn't do.

  More importantly: saying that you want to have a discussion is one thing, but actually having a discussion is another. Instead of putting all your energy in complaining about me on these pages, you could've went to the talk page of the article long time ago; instead you chose the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality to continue complaining about me to the admins. I'm sorry, but you're not really in the position of complaining after insulting me with your false accusations. GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  Everybody can see that I never insulted you, but you insulted me and other editors and you still sound like you don't get how unacceptable your behaviour is. Good night.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  Ah I see, you never insulted me, is that the reason why you apologized? A good night to you as well. GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 22:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  I apologized for the incorrect accusation that I made in good faith, not for insults towards you, I provided many diffs of your insults towards me and other editors, could you please provide diffs of so called insults I made towards you ?---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, I thought you were already asleep. Accusing me of being someone who started an edit war, accusing me of sockpuppetry, even though you could have known I wasn't that editor. Saying that I'm not here to "build an encyclopedia", even though I'm only making edits based upon reliable sources. That is insulting! GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 22:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Floquenbeam I tried to suggest that at Talk:Snell's law (diff), but GWTP's response was to go right back to discussing, in their words, "two users who are not even focusing on the content, but rather engaging in an edit war and behaving like dictators of this specific article" (diff). GWTP might have worn out their welcome on the topic, if not sitewide, as a result. —C.Fred (talk) 22:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  Fred, I'm perfectly willing to do so, I even said this right now to Floquenbeam. However, just as I wrote my comment to Floquenbeam, I was again confronted with another diatribe against me and what I did wrong etc. For the last time: I'm willing to end this entire discussion, if the discussion on the content of the law of refraction is being taken serious on that talk page. Now, is that a sign of not being willing to "build an encyclopedia" or what? GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 22:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposal 2: Sitewide block for GoneWithThePuffery

Since GoneWithThePuffery cannot disengage from discussing other editors voluntarily, administrative action is required. Recommend a one week siteblock to GWTP for continued edit warring and incivility, along with making it clear that if the behaviour starts back after the block expires, a longer block will be applied.

• Support as proposer. —C.Fred (talk) 22:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I really cannot believe this. Seriously? For what? Disengage from discussing other editors voluntarily? What are you talking about? Wikaviani started these discussions himself! I didn't start this. He started complaining on my talk page and now here! GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

This is really disgraceful what you're doing here. I was falsely accused when I was making a perfectly sensible edit on an article, and after that I was being brought before the inquisition on this page. And now I'm the one who is getting blocked. It is really scandalous what you are doing! What is the matter with you? GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

This is triage. Yes, you were falsely accused; as you've noted myriad times, which has clearly been acknowledged by everyone in the discussion. However, being wrongly accused of something, again, does not give you carte blanche to act in a manner that would be completely inappropriate if that accusation had never happened. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• We've already spent far too much time on this user, and it's not getting better, but steadily worse. I've indeffed GWTP for disruptive editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  Good block was reading thread with a mind to do the same. Regardless of the sock accusations, they're not here to improve the project. Star Mississippi 00:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Support after reading the whole thread, and especially the responses in the proposed interaction ban. Wiki admitted they made a mistake filing the SPI & apologized; assuming there was enough behavioral evidence presented to warrant CU, that seems to be a good faith filing in my eyes. Judging by the response to every message critical of the behavior GWTP has shown, they're incapable of dropping the stick and admitting they could possibly be in the wrong. That's a mindset not suited to a collaborative environment. Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

As I was writing this, two more comments from them still refusing to drop the stick. Nope. Thank you, Bbb. Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support block - GWTP was not willing to drop the stick and was indignant to everyone here, including admins. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 23:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for handling this case. And now I really need to go to sleep or even coffee will not save me tomorrow morning.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse block I encouraged this editor to disengage and move on. Instead, they continued ranting ad nauseum. Cullen328 (talk) 01:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse indef block/community ban - If you're trying to domineer an Incidents noticeboard thread, you make it crystal clear you're not interested in collaboration except in the manner you dictate. That is not acceptable; you must be willing to both compromise and to leave the past in the past if you're to have any chance of being a productive editor. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 06:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse block However, I do encourage that if this editor cools off a bit in a few weeks, there be an extra dash of liberalism in the unblock evaluation. As I've noted above, the behavior is inexcusable, but them losing their temper in this situation, while not justified, is at least a skosh more understandable than in most similar cases. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
• Good block - I wasn't sure what action needed to be done, but GWTP answered the question with a tantrum. It worked about as well as having a tantrum on WP:ANI usually does. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse block - After reading carefully and passing through different links of this conversation, I decided that I will support a week-long block for the user. As it seems, the user does not disengage with the conversation and just ignore it, like the user has been told previously. GoodHue291 (talk) 23:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support indef block. GWTP's editing history shows that their mindset is hardly compatible with a community encyclopedia where collaboration is crucial. months ago, their interaction with other editors were already quite aggressive : "I think I explained my changes pretty adequately, why is it so hard for you to understand?", "Last but not least. I don't know if you do this to other users as well, but why do you feel the urge to bother me with your take on 17th century scientific practice and even quantum gravity(?!)? Not only are those matters completely irrelevant to this discussion, but what makes you think I'm interested in what you have to say about it?". Sounds like this editor is not here to build an encyclopedia.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

90.211.17.224

90.211.17.224 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - repeatedly warned, and previously blocked, for repeatedly adding unsourced content to BLPs. They have returned and carried on. A longer block merited? GiantSnowman 17:45, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

A refusal to permit evidence to be discussed in a Wikipedia talk:Did you know thread requesting such evidence.

See here. [137][138] where User:4meter4 has twice hatted directly relevant on-topic comments I made in direct response to a good-faith request for evidence regarding DYK BLP-related issues. It seems apparent from reading the thread that several individuals wish to exert control over the discussion, and to prevent some issues being raised. If this is indeed their intention, the broader community might like to take into consideration whether it might be more appropriate to conduct such discussions elsewhere, where such questionable control could less easily be exerted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Andy, a person who has been murdered is not living. Once someone is dead, they are no longer a WP:BLP. We are specifically looking at living people because the focus of the RFC is on BLP compliance. A murder victim by definition is not living, so this isn't a usable or relevant example to this particular RFC.4meter4 (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I suggest you read what WP:BLP actually says. WP:BLP policy now, and WP:BLP policy back when the DYK you don't want discussed was posted on the main page. Policy then, and policy now, is equally clear that the recently deceased - and perhaps more importantly their living friends, relatives etc - deserve dignity. Not lurid tabloid headlines about someone who had been murdered and had their body disposed of in a canal only three weeks previously. My evidence was absolutely within the scope of WP:BLP, and absolutely relevant to any serious attempt to deal with what appear to be long-term systemic issues with DYK. If indeed this is to be treated as a serious attempt to do so. I believe that was the intention of the person starting the discussion, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to make the same assumption about some of the other participants there. They apparently aren't even prepared to wait for responses from other potential participants before trying to set arbitrary rules of their own over the scope of discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Just going to point out there's some nebulous leeway at WP:BLP that can apply to persons who are recently deceased, should that be the point of contention:
Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Italics mine, bold in original.

WP:BDP also covers the recently deceased in a bit more detail. That said, it seems like the subject died in 2012, to which I would expect any reasonable person to consider as not a recent death. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

No, it isn't a recent death now. It was when the DYK was plastered over the main page, three weeks after McCluskie died. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

A DYK that ran in March 2012, which was approximately 12 years ago. You were asked repeatedly to provide current examples, which you refuse to do. Viriditas (talk) 19:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I have already explained why I consider it relevant. I see no reason to repeat myself. As for being 'asked to provide' examples, the exact opposite is going on - as when people accuse me of 'sabotage' for even participating in a post below. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended content

No explanation needed, your Majesty. Everything you say has the writ of royal prerogative and nobody should ever question you again. If you should have to repeat yourself again in any manner, I shall report the offending party henceforth. Viriditas (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC) Attempt to goad me into making the response that comment merits duly noted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Move to close this ANI report as needless, frivolous, and without merit. 4meter4 is trying to help, not hinder discussion. Viriditas (talk) 19:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Aren't you a little too involved to be making such a proposal? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Viriditas: that or a BOOMERANG. Therapyisgood (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Andy, you're being disruptive. I'm having a hard time not seeing this as almost sabotage. 4meter4 is trying to fix something you have been complaining about for over a decade. Maybe you should consider taking WT:DYK off your watch. Valereee (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

'Sabotage'? For pointing out serious problems with BLP-related DYKs, in a thread asking for evidence about problems with BLP-related DYKs? The only 'sabotage' (or at least disruption) seems to be coming from those who jumped in as soon as I posted, trying to exclude my evidence. A sincere question was asked. I gave a sincere response. And now, rather than letting anyone else participate with their own comments on their own evidence, they are confronted with an ever-growing and obviously off-putting tangential mess. If my evidence is agreed, when all is done, to be of little concern, then why would it matter so much anyway? Why is everyone so concerned to exert control over the thread? And how is such control even remotely appropriate in the context of such discussions? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Andy, you've indicated you're going to enter into evidence anything and everything from a decade+ ago. The discussion is about how to fix what's happening now. I've created(?) a sortable table. If you're intent upon entering into evidence everything from the past 12+ years, fine. Valereee (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

No I have not indicated you're going to enter into evidence anything and everything from a decade+ ago. I clearly and unambiguously stated that I have no intention of bringing 'every DYK I've ever objected to in the past 12+ years' here. I brought up two, because they were clearly relevant to a discussion which seems on the face of it to be focussed around adressing systemic issues. Please don't make things up. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Except most of the discussion participants repeatedly told you that old evidence wasn't relevant. Anyway, let's cut to the chase. I just proposed the "No BLP rule" on the DYK talk page you are working your way up to proposing. Why not just get down to brass tacks? Viriditas (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

As of now, I have no firm proposals. Or none that would stand much chance of gaining community approval. And why exactly, if you consider a 'no BLP rule' to be appropriate, are you objecting to me showing why it is needed? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, that's not what I wrote up above or on the DYK talk page. I said that the reason I added it for discussion is because it is the natural endpoint of your argument. You also have some unknown measure of support for it. My guess is that the reason you are waiting to do this is because you feel that you can work people up to it with some kind of persuasion campaign. On the other hand, I prefer to face reality head on, and think we should discuss it immediately. I have not expressed any support or opposition for the idea, other than a separate informal proposal on the DYK talk page that would allow reviewers to discard/reject so-called controversial nominations provided some kind of conditions are met. Viriditas (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

horse horse i love my station

I would very much appreciate it if you would stop trying to read my mind. You evidently aren't very good at it, but it is irritating all the same. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC) Please alert the Palace Guards when I will be allowed to discuss the proposal. I will be eagerly awaiting your reply in the stables where I will be tending your Majesty's horses, as befits my station. Viriditas (talk) 20:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC) Given your telepathic skills, you should already be aware of my reply. Feel free to report the breach of WP:CIVIL. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

For using examples over a decade old in a discussion about current practices. Valereee (talk) 20:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

This hatting is wrongly-justified - WP:BLP would absolutely apply to someone murdered only weeks prior. No comment on hatting due to being an 'old example', but to be 100% clear, BLP applies to recently-deceased people and would 100% apply to the Gemma McCluskie article/hook back in 2012. Daniel (talk) 20:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

It does, and it did according to 2012 policy too. Which is why it took so little effort to get it pulled from the main page, once I'd raised it at WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

• I voted against sanctions on the last thread to appear on this board based on the assumption that a 24 hour block would be way too short to do anything preventative, and would thus be purely punitive. I am now forced to confront the fact that voting differently would have prevented this thread from appearing at ANI. I don't see how anyone could have expected a twelve year old example to stand uncontested in a discussion about what is happening on wikipedia now. The correct response to someone challenging you on this would have been to come up with an example within the last year or so, not to take it here. --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  The argument that events that occurred twelve years ago are of no relevance would be more convincing if anyone were to show that things have actually changed in any substantive way since then. I don't believe they have. The underlying causes have never been properly addressed as far as I can tell, which is why the discussion is taking place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  You posted examples of bad things that happened 12 years ago, and you think now it's up to someone else to demonstrate that those things are no longer happening? Seriously, this approach makes sense to you? Levivich (talk) 21:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  No, I posted evidence regarding events 12 years ago. People then claimed they were no longer relevant. I asked what has changed to prevent such things occurring again - in a thread started because there clearly are similar problems, even now. Nobody has answered my question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  Nobody cares what happened 12 years ago at DYK. You cannot demonstrate that there is an ongoing problem by showing that there was a problem 12 years ago--you need to show ongoing, which means problems between 12 years ago and now--or really, like everyone is asking you, just show recent problems. I'm sure you understand this, which leaves me wondering why you would argue otherwise, to the point of taking it to ANI. It feels like you're trying to get yourself sanctioned, and trying very hard at that, and I don't understand why. Like you could not be less collaborative in this venture unless you started dropping slurs. 4meter agrees with you (on the BLP issues) if you haven't noticed, and you took them to ANI because... they collapsed your 12-year-old evidence? WTF are you thinking? If you've been drinking or something, walk away from the keyboard now. I'm at an honest loss about why you would try to disrupt the very process you tried so hard to start. It's just pure self-sabotage behavior at this point. Levivich (talk) 21:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  Can you point to where everyone was asking me to submit more recent evidence? I don't see that: what I do see however is an attempt to stop me submitting anything. Including things I had no intention of submitting in the first place. And no, I'm not drunk. Been on the wagon since, um, 2012 or so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  Sure, let me quote some examples from the WT:DYK page:

  • "If it hasn't happened in twelve years then it's not a recurring problem. This is why 12-year-old evidence sucks." - That's me, and perhaps it wasn't clear but this was an implicit request for more recent evidence.
  • "Again over a decade ago. Let's focus on current issues?", "Andy, I don't think anyone would disagree these were bad. But let's focus on today's issues.", "Andy, I mean this absolutely sincerely: why? If we want to fix now, let's focus on now." - that's val asking 3 times
  • "Old evidence doesn't get us any closer to this answer. The majority of the respondents to this discussion have asked you to provide current evidence only. I'm asking you as well." - that's Viriditas

  Oh and here's a bonus:

  • "All BLP examples, regardless how old, will be accepted." - that's 4meter, the editor you've brought to ANI, and it directly undercuts your statement above that "what I do see however is an attempt to stop me submitting anything"

  Let it sink in: the editor you brought to ANI (1) agrees with you about a BLP problem at DYK, (2) has volunteered their time to start an analysis of said problem, and (3) explicitly said all evidence should be accepted regardless of how old, so they even defend your 12-year-old evidence. And you call this "an attempt to stop me submitting anything"? Because somebody hatted a part of that. I hope you can recognize how illogical this is. Levivich (talk) 22:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, but I'm not going to debate logic with someone who thinks that it is appropriate to make evidence-free allegations of drunkenness in an ANI thread. If that were actually appropriate, I could probably point to actual evidence that might suggest the same - regarding people complaining that I'd supplied evidence, people complaining that I intended to submit more, and then complaining that I hadn't submitted any more. If I wasn't firmly on the wagon, after all that I might very well see the merits of a stiff drink. If my head is going to spin, I might as well enjoy it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  Sigh, you know damn well that "If you've been drinking or something, walk away from the keyboard now" is not an allegation of drunkenness. And even if it were, so what? If somebody is inexplicably acting irrationally, impairment is a legitimate question. But I'm done spending any more of my time trying to save you from yourself. You want to be indef'd or TBANed DYK, have at it. Believe me, though, nobody is going to view you as a victim here. Levivich (talk) 22:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  The burden of proof for your own claims is on no-one else but you. Also, this is ANI, very explicitly not the place for you to litigate content disputes. --Licks-rocks (talk) 22:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

• @AndyTheGrump I'd like to know why this was taken straight to ANI? It seems unnecessarily combative. We could have talked about this civilly on my talk page, as this was simply a misunderstanding over the relevance of the evidence. I was unaware of the recently deceased portion of the BLP policy. Anyways, I have added the example to the table in a neutral manner, so the issue brought up here is no longer relevant. Please avoid editorializing evidence and simply present links and a short description of the problem in the tables that have been created. I know others may disagree, but for the sake of objectivity I think we should accept older evidence. As I stated at the DYK talk page, editors are smart enough to know how to weigh older versus newer incidents in their comments. My guess is some will question the relevance of the older evidence at the RFC, and others will not. I don't think it will derail the RFC to be more inclusive in the evidence gathering process. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  My edit summary, when I reverted your initial hatting: Read WP:BLP. Read WP:BLP from 2012. Both make it absolutely clear that this DYK was within the scope of policy. And note that when you hatted it, I had already pointed out in my initial post in the thread you hatted that WP:BLP policy, then and now, was clearly in scope. If you failed to read WP:BLP after all that, it is down to you, and I really don't see why I should have been expected to discuss anything on the talk page of someone who then hatted the material again with no edit summary at all. That looks like a refusal to engage, not a request to talk it over. As for your comments about the relevance of older evidence, I have already tried to make the same point. The decision as to what is or isn't relevant needs to be made collectively, after an appropriate time has elapsed, when people can assess submissions as a whole. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  Actually, I wasn't aware that you had removed it. I mistakenly thought I hadn't saved the page as I have been having internet connectivity issues, and was in the middle of trying to set some guideline for productive posts. But this is besides the point, ANI shouldn't be the first step in conflict resolution. Please assume good faith and try and work with others through personal messages first rather than going directly to ANI. You are much more likely to win allies that way. I will set up a discussion thread for evidence issues to keep it separate from the list section. One reason why I hatted that conversation is I felt it could persuade others to not post evidence. We really need to keep the evidence gathering section simple and discussion free in order to not dissuade people from participating. If the evidence gathering area gets heated it could stop people from wanting to participate and choosing to put evidence forward which would harm the progression and ultimate outcome of the RFC.4meter4 (talk) 22:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  The evidence section was entirely 'simple and discussion free' until people objected to me submitting any. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  Well I have accepted that submission. It's in the table. Let's move on.4meter4 (talk) 23:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't see that this needs to be on ANI. OTOH, in an RFC of that sort it seems unhelpful for a involved editors to try to clerk in such ways, and especially to keep trying to clerk when there is dispute and where they clerking seems to be at least partially based on a serious misunderstanding of BLP. Also I'll be blunt that anyone who's understanding of BLP is so poor that they think it does not apply to the recently deceased probably shouldn't be so extensively involved in discussing the interaction of BLP-DYK anyway. Leave that for editors who actually understand BLP. Note also while there may be reasonable dispute over whether it's helpful to have such an old example it seems if the better solution if there is dispute over the hatting would be for editors who feel it's irrelevant to just say it's too old to be considered if needed and not participate in further discussion, rather than try and enforce a hatting. Ultimately the discussion would not be too distracting if editors do not participate. Nil Einne (talk) 00:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@Nil Einne I may not be a BLP policy expert, but I don't think there is anyone else willing to take this on. I don't think it would be happening otherwise. I don't generally coordinate group discussions, and I would hope making some mistakes along the way would be met with some grace per WP:AGF. I have participated in many BLP related disputes at DYK in the last year; none of them involving recently deceased individuals, which is why my working memory on BLP issues had a gap. This is also not an RFC yet, so please don't refer to me as an RFC clerk. It's a talk page discussion gathering input before an official RFC proposal is made. The whole point of it is to draw on communal input in framing an RFC discussion. Other editors at DYK who want to assist and take on a leadership role are welcome and encouraged to pitch in, and I am trying to respond and adapt to others input as I go with an open heart and sense of service. I hope I will not be the only one involved in coordinating the discussion. We now have a table set up in the posting evidence section, and I will have a separate place for discussion if there are issues with anything posted in the table. What I wanted to avoid was lengthy disputes inside what was supposed to be a list. That is disruptive visually to a working list, and makes it hard to locate listed items. It's my fault for not having anticipated a need for a place to discuss disputed evidence ahead of time that was in a separate location from the list itself.4meter4 (talk) 01:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is what it looks like when an editor has carte blanche to flip tables over and generally go nuts. I agree with Kusma who told ATG (paraphrase) help review or check prep sets - don't scare away the participants. I could hardly read the WT:DYK page as a result of foot stomping. It is not helpful or collegial. Lightburst (talk) 04:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

1. AndyTheGrump opened a thread at WP:ANI referring to DYK contributors as "idiots".[139]
2. 4meter4 responded to the legitmate WP:BLP concerns in that thread by starting a discussion to list problematic DYK nominations and discuss common problems.[140]
3. AndyTheGrump responded by linking to discussions from over a decade ago where he called DYK contributors "halfwit"s and "morons".[141]
4. 4 different editors explained why this was derailing the discussion. ATG responded by casting aspersions about how "some would apparently prefer to exclude anything they would prefer not to get scrutiny".[142]
5. 4meter4 hatted that part of the larger discussion.

This is probably why we have Wikipedia:Civility as a policy. It's not realistic to expect editors to engage on preferred terms while insulting them, mocking them, and seemingly demanding that they post links to a WPO thread doxxing them.[143] I don't see an issue with 4meter4's conduct, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the 'doxxing' please note that it wasn't there when I asked that evidence being presented against me was backed by the links that are a basic requirement of ANI threads. How is anyone supposed to respond to claims not backed up by evidence? At no point did I dox anyone, and for the record, I stopped posting at WPO over a month ago due to what I consider to be entirely inappropriate behaviour in that regard. Given that WP:CIVIL shouldn't apply to comments regarding non-Wikipedia-contributors over at WPO, I feel free in stating that I consider the 'doxxing' in that thread to be a further example of the sort of fuckwittery that led me to stop participating there. It seems readily apparent to me that certain individuals there are using the site to massage their own egos rather than as a forum for legitimate criticism, and they do so without the slightest regard for consequences. External scrutiny of Wikipedia is an absolute necessity, and no external site is ever obliged to follow Wikipedia rules, but if a forum wants to be taken seriously, it needs to show some evidence of wishing to be taken seriously. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

At this point it almost seems like ATG wants sanctions; I can't help but think of why they thought it was a good idea to do this again.wound theology◈ 06:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• ANI is for behavior that is urgent or that is intractable. Whatever one thinks of 4meter4's earlier hatting of a couple subthreads in a discussion at Wikipedia Talk:Did You Know that wasn't something as formal as an RfC or such, I don't see the matter as having been so urgent as to require ANI intervention, since this discussion presumably will last for quite a while yet (multiple days at a minimum; perhaps weeks) and there was plenty of time to let moods cool and to work out what evidence should or shouldn't be included. It also doesn't seem to be or have been all that intractable, with how 4meter4 has by now apparently taken feedback on board by apologizing for misremembering how the recently deceased factor into BLP, creating a section for discussion of disputed evidence, and overtly stating older evidence can be added to the table now created in that talk thread. This ANI thread doesn't seem to indicate much at issue in 4meter4's behavior. Instead it makes apparent that by doing nothing about AndyTheGrump's behavior, administrators and the community have failed to prevent that behavior from continuing. AndyTheGrump's treatment of other users is an intractable behavioral issue. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Andy seems to have an overall issue with DYK and is throwing everything he can at the wall to see what sticks in an effort to get his way. It's absolutely disruptive and if he won't agree to step away & cool down, the community needs to enforce sanctions to stop the disruption. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

There have been three threads about ATG‘s behavior one of them boomeranged the other one had no action and this is the third one And they were all pretty recent I think the community needs to do something whether it be a warning a block a ban or whatever just something

ATG‘s behavior is unacceptable Maestrofin (talk) 07:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Kingsif

• Kingsif (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Follow my dreams (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This user has reverted edits I made to Follow my dreams on the basis that they are not referenced or unsourced. At no time have I removed any references or added any information that is not in these sources. I have simply specified that this work was modified in 2023. Also on the Talk:Follow my dreams I made a proposal to make two separate pages since the modified 2023 work is very different from the 2022 original work and I have also made an explanation to WikiProject:Arts explaining the problem. This user is constantly threatening to block me as well as instructing other users to do so, as can be seen on the Talk:FC Barcelona Femení and my Talk page. According to him, I make only vandalic edits. This user is making me feel that I am not capable of contributing to any page to this shared project. These are all arrogant comments. As a new user I don't think this is a pleasant situation. Need help. Blow.ofmind78 (talk) 19:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Blow.ofmind78 when you report editors here you need to notify them on their talk page as it explains at the top of this page. I've done that for you. Shaws username . talk . 21:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and help Shaws username, I didn't know how to proceed correctly. Just wanted to point out the problem and if anyone could help to resolve it. Blow.ofmind78 (talk) 21:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

OP blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing. I'll look into this a little more. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks - Blow.ofmind78 now confirmed to be sock of a disruptive agenda account, not a shock based on their behaviour. Kingsif (talk) 21:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

You made changes based on your opinion about the subject, even though sources (including the artist himself) said otherwise. This, after you had been told multiple times by multiple users to learn how sourcing works.

And reporting someone for reverting - with reasonable explanation - your unsourced edits is just trying to bully your own way. Kingsif (talk) 21:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Lightburst on WT:DYK

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

On WT:DYK, Lightburst referred to nonbinary singer Nemo as a man in a dress. I can't read this as something that's not transphobic. This is unrelated to above discussions about WT:DYK. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:38, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment This is the second time LilianaUwU has taken me here, this time with a deplorable label. History, I referred to LilianaUwU as they as it is my practice to use they instead of he or she. LilianaUwU came to my talk page and requested I use she. I told them I refer to everyone as they out of caution. LilianaUwU was preparing to get me in trouble over not using he or she. So I came to their page and apologized and said I would try to use she when referring to them. Since then LilianaUwU has had it in for me. Took me to ANI in the middle of the night over my participation in an RFA. I trouted LilianaUwU after the discussion was closed. And now LilianaUwU takes me to ANI in the middle of the night again , this time by referring to me as a blatant homophobe. I call it aPA and an aspersion and I ask that LilianaUwU strike it. Regarding blatant homophobia I thought I saw a man in a dress like when Harry Styles wore a dress on Vogue. I used the image of Nemo to illustrate how we make editorial decisions at DYK and elsewhere by choosing what to promote on the main page. I did not read the article and nobody corrected me until now... at ANI of all places - like gotcha! Here I am told I did not see a man in a dress. So after looking at the article I see it is a non-binary person in a dress. I stand corrected. I do hope LilianaUwU can stop following me around to try and get me in trouble. Lightburst (talk) 06:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I really appreciate that you're trying but homophobia =/= transphobia and I don't find LilianaUwU's characterization of your comment to be unjustified. Can you explain what you mean by "how we make editorial decisions at DYK and elsewhere by choosing what to promote on the main page"? What editorial decision was made in regards to that image? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Editors select the image they want to promote and the image of NEMO was a provocative image. It was an editorial decision and that was the point I made. HEB, you also did not tell me I was mistaken. I really do not have anything more to add and so I will do my best to observe WP:COAL. Lightburst (talk) 06:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

So you're saying an editorial discussion was made to promote a provocative image and that the image is provocative because it depicts the event its about? I will also point out that someone did correct you [144] (I was trying not to get sidetracked... Not that it mattered, you didn't respond to me anyways), if not in the nicest way. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Man, if the thing you're trying to say is, like, "some proportion of Wikipedia's readers will think that's what the pic is and find it offensive" -- then for Christ's sake, say that, and clarify that this is what you mean, rather than the thing it sounds like you said, which is stupid and cruel. jp×g🗯️ 06:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

It feels combative when you communicate with me. I even saw that an hour ago you reverted my collapsed section at DYK and you left a snotty edit summary. So I am afraid to answer your questions because you throw the answers back at me daggers. Also, I did not see that comment, the thread is a mile long and they did not ping me. That is why I collapsed it. Nearly all DYK is tied up with these discussions all over the project. Lightburst (talk) 07:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I assume you mean HEB or Liliana and not me, because I don't think I did any of that stuff (?) jp×g🗯️ 07:33, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

HEB did open the section back up, yes. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not trying to get you in trouble. I saw a comment that seemed to be out of order and went to ANI. I should've discussed it with you first, yes, and I tend to pull the trigger on the CESSPIT a bit too fast, but to me, transphobia is a bit of a hot issue - whether it's an experienced editor or a newbie, I don't feel safe when people have comments that sound like that, because they directly concern me. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 06:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, you opened an AN/I thread titled "Blatant transphobia about a BLP subject by Lightburst on WT:DYK", seemingly without any attempt whatsoever to communicate with them or ask what the comment meant or clarify it or etc - I mean of course you are within your rights to do that, but... jp×g🗯️ 06:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I can say that I don't feel safe. Lightburst (talk) 06:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, Lightburst did get called out on it. He gave no response to that specific callout, but he collapsed the discussion despite being involved. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 06:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

That discussion is a mile long as I said above... it is you assuming bad faith because you can see they did not ping me. And I collapsed the discussion because I started it and it ran its course. I actually closed two discussions but first I posted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ADid_you_know&diff=1224082792&oldid=1224074294 this message saying I would close a few on WT:DYK. The Tate thread was not a vote it was a discussion so I was not involved and I only hatted it to make room on that page which is now full of long threads. Lightburst (talk) 07:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what specific image Lightburst was talking about, because she he messed up the diff link to the Main Page (i.e. it transcludes everything, so I can't see what was there, or what the hook was). Was it File:Nemo PreparyES 01 (cropped).jpg? What was the hook? I don't see anything at Talk:Nemo (singer). jp×g🗯️ 06:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

This one JPxG File:Nemo Eurovision Song Contest 2024 Final Malmö dress rehearsal semi 2 06 (cropped).jpg. Lightburst (talk) 06:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I think it was that picture on the ITN tab, as they won Eurovision. Also, AFAIK Lightburst uses he/him. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 06:38, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Lightburst, I have been trying to come up with a word to describe your a man in a dress remark, and I am stuck between "catty", "snide" and "obtuse". So maybe all three. Your usage twice of in the middle of the night is also bizarre. Surely you know that Wikipedia is a worldwide project operating in 24 time zones and what is the middle of the night for you is breakfast time, lunch time or party time for many other editors. No editor is expected to take your personal sleep schedule into account. You can reply or not reply as you see fit the next time you log in. Now, let's take a look at I would try to use she when referring to them. But in that very statement, you used "them" instead of "her". Why did you choose "them" in this specific context? Your "trying" meant very little when you were discussing that issue right here. It seems to me that you have difficulty with word choices when discussing certain topics, and I would advise you to be more cautious and thoughtful. Cullen328 (talk) 06:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Then again, Cullen328, it's 3am where I live. I really shouldn't be up this late myself. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

LilianaUwU, it is "round midnight" here in California so I might make a few more edits before turning off the lights. Cullen328 (talk) 07:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh hell I will fix it. jp×g🗯️ 08:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I get the point LB was making that Wikipedia will publish content even if "some readers may find that offensive." I get that if a person didn't know that the subject was non-binary, they might misinterpret the pic as being of a man in a dress. I also get that "man in a dress" is a common pejorative aimed at non-binary and transgender people, likely to spark a strong reaction. Seems like this was a misunderstanding or unintentional faux pax that could be rectified by striking/correcting the comment at issue. Then maybe we can all have a laugh at the irony that in trying to make the point the Wikipedia publishes content that might offend some readers, an editor inadvertently published content that offended some readers. Levivich (talk) 06:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• Despite Lightburst's backpedaling in this thread and claim that nobody corrected his misgendering of Nemo, as LilianaUwU has pointed out, Lightburst was informed that Nemo is nonbinary, and he hatted that discussion rather than acknowledge this. If this was an unintentional faux pas, why didn't Lightburst apologize then rather than obfuscate this feedback about the misgendering? Rather than laugh about transphobia and misgendering, I think we should be strongly committed to creating a Wikipedia where there is no queerphobia. I'll add that I find unpersuasive Lightburst's claim that being called out for transphobia constitutes a PA ([personal attack]) and an aspersion. I place a very high value on our policies on civil behavior and prohibiting personal attacks, but they are not a self-destructive pact that requires the community to simply take transphobic slurs like "man in a dress" on the chin. Rather than just wait for the next time Lightburst makes Wikipedia less safe for trans editors, the community would be better served by taking action to prevent such behavior in the future. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
• Hydrangeans really sorry you feel this way I put down some links and timelines above. And I announced that I would be hatting threads to make room on the page - link above. I hatted two.
• I have now struck the comment that LilianaUwU referred to. Lightburst (talk) 07:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
  • I would strongly echo Cullen's suggestion that you take more time to consider your word choices: I would struggle to characterise that comment as anything other than intentionally provocative. While we're on the topic of word choices, "I'm sorry you feel this way" is about the worst apology possible, so you might want to reconsider that too. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

    Accusations of gaslighting, implicit or explicit, should not be made lightly. I thought that Lightburst's tone in the comment was genuine, and I would suggest that the pile-on stop now. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive article creation by IP

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

This IP is disruptively making unreferenced stub articles on motorsports topics in disregard of sourcing requirements and WP:TOOSOON. Talk page is full of recent warnings on the matter, but today this user tried to create 2025 IndyCar Series, 2025 MotoGP World Championship, 2025 Moto2 World Championship, and the bizarre Draft:Draft:2024–25 Liverpool F.C. season. Suggest this user take some time out. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  13:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Based on their edit history, this is almost certainly an IP hopping editor that I reported here once before. They make unsourced edits to motorsport and year in music articles, never make edit summaries or respond to warnings, and when their current IP is banned they wind up finding a new one. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@Doc Strange, I think you're right. Another IP (180.74.68.219) made the same edits as 180.74.216.10. Both IPs are in the same IP range and same geographical area so pretty sure it's the same person (or group of people). Annh07 (talk) 14:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Looks like ScottishFinnishRadish blocked ....68.219. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  20:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Vulgar language usage and personal attack

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

These 5 users were socks (Ubishini (talk · contribs · logs), Naughty Nightingale (talk · contribs · logs), Sanuthi Aahidya (talk · contribs · logs), Chilli Soonyam (talk · contribs · logs) & Veraswini (talk · contribs · logs)) The main ID is Neoshine (talk · contribs · logs) which is blocked and its continue via these IDs, Neoshine K.Sreeram Official (talk · contribs · logs), Neha Xorg (talk · contribs · logs), Shanvika Drake (talk · contribs · logs), Wikishini (talk · contribs · logs), VAW 2404 (talk · contribs · logs) - Many IDs are blocked in Commons, ta.wiki as well as here in en.wiki too.

The person uses very vulgar words and uploads some images and write to attack some people. Last affected page is Thangamagal (TV series). I request admins to take appropriate action and be cautious since the scammer active from February. The main edit pattern is this. AntanO 13:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Cicihwahyuning6

Probably a sockpuppet of User:Cicihwahyuni6 just banned, doing the same disruptive edits: of adding Nordic languages to the pages of Turkic countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Cicihwahyuning6 a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 13:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Clear duck sock Maestrofin (talk) 00:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

aggressive revert by user as if vandalism on dab linking and refusing to answer a contradiction?

originally Running water redirected to tap water with no dab links put in tap water for other terms referred with running water. so i create running water (disambiguation). then i find out that dab exists in Running Water (see difference in case), so i move it to running water (disambiguation), add link to it in tap water. @Bkonrad reverts the edits at with no reason given. at first i thought they mistakenly did it in the middle of the move so i just revert their revert, which you can see in the 3 pages history and my contrib. then i find out that they revert constantly with no explanation. so i ask them in User_talk:Bkonrad#why_revert_dab_referencing_of_running_water?. notice their attempt to avoid answering specifically why the page with sentence case should be redirect but the one with title case should not and persistently sticking to reverting. i am requesting admins to look into this matter and see the validity. who is right in here and how so? Mussharraf Hossen Shoikot (talk) 13:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute and the user is engaging with you at their personal talk page. Nothing to do here. Simonm223 (talk) 13:33, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

aggressive unexplained reversion and avoiding explaining. where to report? can you explain why Running water should be redirect but not Running Water and running water (disambiguation) should not exist as dab? admin response wanted Mussharraf Hossen Shoikot (talk) 13:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

This does not require administrator intervention, I recommend discussing the matter further with the editor you disagree with. Remsense诉 14:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Mussharraf Hossen Shoikot is also incorrect that I gave no reason for the revert. My main objection was performing the move by cutting and pasting and secondarily without providing any sort of rationale or consensus for the change. older ≠ wiser 13:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Anthony Hudson (soccer)

Is it me, or is there a clear case of WP:COI with the user Katieklops specific edits directed to the article. I found the last edit rather odd, [145], Govvy (talk) 14:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Also baring in mind that wikipedia does not censor. Govvy (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I also replied the following to Bgsu98 when my edit was flagged: I follow soccer and obviously have my more favorite managers/coaches. When coming to this page for updates, I always feel that there is a clear agenda by certain disgruntled fans, especially from Colorado Rapids, that seem to constantly edit the page to highlight any potentially negative information about Anthony, which I feel is very unfair. Is trying to remove content that is clearly added to show a person in a negative light considered Conflict of Interest? I obviously want to adhere to the rules and guidelines, but also feel that the addition of specific information on a constant basis should also be scrutinized and the agenda of that addition should be questioned as well.

I'm all for non-bias and transparency, which is obviously the whole purpose of Wikipedia, but seeing constant addition of information and some "information" is clearly a smear campaign. Katieklops (talk) 15:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@Katielops: Since you created your account all you have done is edit and only edit the Anthony Hudson article, this is not normal editing behaviour! This suggests that there maybe a conflict of interest. What's your relationship to this person in terms of editorial? Govvy (talk) 17:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

As I've said to Bgsu98, I follow soccer and have a few coaches/managers' pages that I always look at, and his page is the only one that seems to have edits that are constantly added to put him in a bad light, which seems like a smear campaign to me. I've never felt the need to edit any of the other pages that I've visited, but these blatant edits feels very unfair to me. So yes, you're right, I've only edited his article, because the added edits always seemed off and unfair to me. "Normal editing behaviour" implies that it's my hobby or focus in life to edit Wikipedia pages, which it's not. I constantly came across something that felt off and bothered me, so I felt the need to "speak up" by submitting edits. I'm sorry that bothered you so much. Katieklops (talk) 19:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@Katieklops, in this edit, you said in the edit summary "Took out references to being officially born in US (although raised in England), as he's currently receiving death threats working as coach in Qatar." Where did you learn that he is receiving death threats? I have not been able to find any information about this. CodeTalker (talk) 23:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Someone mentioned it on a message board - can't remember where. Just sounded serious enough to make me nervous about potentially endangering someone with information that, in my opinion, doesn't really need to be on there. Does is really make a difference putting a birth place on a Wikipedia page when it could potentially endanger someone? Katieklops (talk) 00:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Yasuke is a complete dumpster fire

Personal attacks flying left and right, vaguely racist comments, all-caps shouting, ... I suggested WP:DRN at first but I'm realizing this is far from sufficient and the behavioral problems alone mean someone should definitely take a look at the page. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 15:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• Ivanvector, what in god's name is going on on that page? And who made the racist comments, User:Chaotic Enby? I have a hard time sifting through the disorganized and verbose comments by these new users. And what am I doing here? Drmies (talk) 16:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry for the ping, I tried to notify everyone who commented on the talk page and accidentally also notified a few people (including you) whose comments were much older than today's drama, as the threads were often all mixed up. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 16:06, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  No idea, I saw someone asking a question about it on I think Yamla's talk page and went to look. Evidently Yasuke is featured in a recently announced video game and <insert typical Gamergate bullshit>. Favonian protected the article a little while ago, and I've been working through the threads on the talk page responding to edit requests, removing personal attacks, and have blocked a few IPs. Probably could use more eyes (since I'm about to go do something else) but it does seem to be more or less under control. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks a lot! Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 16:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  WakandaScholar could probably do with a block as a troll/WP:NOTHERE, noting the edit that got blocked by the edit filter. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 16:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  Just finished pinging everyone involved, hope I didn't mess up too much. Comments like this one (alluding to a racist dogwhistle), and the dozens of removed personal attacks that litter the conversation. I'm honestly having a hard time following too, so that's why I hoped someone more experienced could take a look. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 16:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  The edit I was repeatedly removing yesterday was originally made on 15:21, 15 May 2024, pretty obviously done by (Personal attack removed) people upset at the new Assassin's Creed video game featuring Yasuke as one of its protagonists. The fact that I wasn't even adding stuff explicitly referring to Yasuke as a samurai despite the consensus from multiple historians that he was one, but merely removing a biased statement claiming that he explicitly was not one and that any categorization of him as a samurai is a myth I think speaks to the (Personal attack removed) that were invested in diminishing the historical of a black person in Japanese history.

  Like even Japanese documentaries refer to Yasuke as a samurai https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yasuke#Japanese_Documentaries/TV_Series_that_talk_about_him_being_Samurai Theozilla (talk) 16:39, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  Also thank you to Ivanvector for finally removing the original unnecessary addition that was added At 15:21, 15 May 2024‎, also I would personally recommend keeping the Yasuke page locked for more than three days. Theozilla (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Theozilla: while we appreciate your contributions, please familiarize yourself with our edit warring policy. Repeatedly restoring any edit is not allowed, even if you think you are right. The policy explains how you should respond if you find yourself in an edit war. Also, please find a way to express these sentiments without the personal attacks. We normally don't protect pages for any longer than needed to resolve the immediate conflict, but there are lots of admins watching the article now. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  I wasn't "restoring" an edit though? I was doing the opposite, i.e. removing an new unnecessarily added edit (though yeah, it still definitely devolved into an edit war). And I don't believe I personally attacked any other users. Unless noting the fact that the Assassin's Creed video game reveal is what attracted racist reactionaries to the Yasuke article somehow qualifies as a personal attack. Theozilla (talk) 17:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, calling someone or a group of people "racist reactionaries" is a personal attack. You can say things like "this edit should be removed because it does not accurately reflect the sources cited", or even "because the source cited promotes a racist point of view" although you should support that with evidence. You can't say things like "this edit should be removed because it was added by someone with a political agenda". I hope the difference is obvious, but the policy summarizes: "comment on content, not contributors". Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  Okay, but I was never directly calling a specific person or group "racist reactionaries", I was stating that racist reactionaries got attracted to the Yasuke article, which seems pretty undeniable as even Chaotıċ Enby noted how there was racist comments abounding in the Talk section or comments in the edit history. Theozilla (talk) 18:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  Oof, yeah that IP was definitely dogwhistling there. Might be time to semi-protect the Talk page. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  HandThatFeeds, it was semi’d a little while ago by Drmies. Hopefully everything will calm down now. Yoshi24517 (mobile) (talk) (Very Busy) 16:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  Oh thank goodness. That was probably the messiest talk page I've ever seen. Glad something was done eventually. Zinderboff(talk) 18:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  Hello and thank you for the ping. I am a Japanese and was concerned about the discussion regarding the article and previously commented on the talk page.

  I feel that there is a very western-centric narrative being pushed on the page, by users such as Theozilla and Mmsnjd, that edits regarding Yasuke not being a samurai are by racists. By doing so the concern of Japanese people, who know more about this topic given how it is about Japanese history, are being silenced by western people who seem to be trying to push an agenda.

  Yasuke is sometimes depicted as samurai in fiction, because it is more fun to do so. He is sometimes called samurai by internet articles, because ignorant people spread false information. But all Japanese historical records show that he was not samurai. Why should badly-written internet articles by Americans who did not do research and do not cite reliable sources be taken as fact over real Japanese historical records in a topic regarding Japanese history? This in itself feels extremely racist to me.

  Furthermore, Theozilla says that this is racist backlash because it happened in response to the announcement of a video game. This is nonsense. This announcement brought attention to the topic, so of course people would discuss it. I have no interest in this video game, but I am concerned with non-Japanese people appropriating Japanese culture and warping Japanese history.

  The fact that these users are attacking anyone who does not share their point of view as racists shows that they have no impartiality and I believe that, if possible, they should be removed from editing the article.

  Thank you.

  27.84.15.217 (talk) 00:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  I do not claim to speak to Admins, but no, WP:NOR, and WP:PA, moreover, your fundamental thesis is incorrect, as there does exist japanese sourcing to indicate the at minimum possibility that the article's subject was infact either a samurai or conferred a similar social status. There is apparently little controversy to apply the title of retainer, a title most often given to samurai. 2601:190:402:BFA0:94B4:D71D:BECD:7695 (talk) 05:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I was tagged mistakenly, but I'm glad to know the page's long-term issues are finally getting some daylight. natemup (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• Agreed that the Talk:Yasuke page is a bit of a mess.

I do take issue with the statement above that there is any "consensus from multiple historians that he [Yasuke] was one [a samurai]". From what I've read so far, I see no such consensus among historians, and instead I see a preponderance of pop-culture publications that describe Yasuke using the word "samurai", but without any clear sources, and without defining how they are using the word "samurai".

As detailed in older threads at Talk:Yasuke, and as currently described over at Samurai#Terminology, "samurai" referred historically to a hereditary social class of Japanese nobility, something one could be born into or marry into. Meanwhile, "bushi" referred historically to something more like a job or profession as a soldier / warrior, regardless of family connection. There were samurai who served as bushi, and there were non-samurai who also served as bushi. These are two distinct categories.

There appears to be a lot of confusion in English-language texts, especially outside of academia, where "samurai" is used with a sense more like "any warrior in pre-modern Japan", which is decidedly not what "samurai" was used to mean historically. For any source describing Yasuke as samurai, we need to be clear (both in our understanding, and in how we edit the article) about how that source is using the word "samurai". ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

However, so far the strategy has been for POV editors to just delete all references to him being a samurai in any sense of the word, leaving the article somewhat pointless in its focus. natemup (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@Natemup — Why would omission of the word "samurai" make the [[Yasuke]] article "somewhat pointless"? I'm afraid I don't follow. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

It seems that the entirety of his significance, as evidenced by the original version of the article, was that he was a samurai, in at least some sense. If in fact he was just, as the article states now, "a man of African origin" who served a Japanese ruler, it's easily arguable that there is little warrant for a Wikipedia article on him at all. (Save for his now ubiquitous pop-culture presence as—you guessed it—a Black samurai). natemup (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I would agree that Yasuke is potentially less historically significant as a non-samurai. Given the pop-culture interest, I think Yasuke as a topic is probably noteworthy enough to merit an article, not least to portray the actual historical picture, as opposed to the romanticized vision of an active warrior. If I've understood things correctly, we only have historical evidence that Yasuke fought in the Honnō-ji Incident and its immediate aftermath, which is quite different from the armored and fully armed popular image. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Yasuke was not a samurai in any sense by Japanese standards. I feel that claims that he was are attempts at historical revisionism by western people who are purposely ignoring Japanese historical records. The Yasuke discussion has a lot of such people who argue what samurai means, even though it is clearly defined. Western people trying to warp the definitions of Japanese words and culture to fit their own feelings feels extremely racist to me. 27.84.15.217 (talk) 00:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

That's nice. The article should reflect the sources, however, per Wikipedia policy. Currently, it does not (and may be one of the single worst examples of such on the entire site). natemup (talk) 05:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

While this IP does show up as resolving to japanese, I do think it is worth making clear that despite these claims of racism in following vetted research, WP:NOR applies and that claims that pre May-15 versions of the article that described the subject of the samurai as some western invented myth are flatly untrue. The japanese article calls him a samurai and many japanese sources, both primary and secondary, give credence to accounts that grant cultural status similar to if not exactly that of a samurai, as has been discussed and cited numerous times here and elsewhere. 2601:190:402:BFA0:94B4:D71D:BECD:7695 (talk) 05:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

This user's statements are false or intentionally misleading. There is no historical sources that state Yasuke is a samurai. There are Japanese theories and fiction that state Yasuke is a samurai but it is generally not accepted as historically accurate. This user is applying original research and using pop culture and non-academic entertainment internet articles as proof that Yasuke has "cultural status similar to a samurai" while arguing against actual facts. The fact is there are no historical Japanese sources that definitively state that Yasuke is a samurai, and rather the wording used regarding his serving as a servant to Nobunaga would suggest otherwise, which is why he is considered to historically not be a samurai. If a Japanese news article about an anime calls him a samurai, it is because the anime shows him as a samurai and it is more catchy to call him samurai in the title to gain attention, rather than not. It is not a western invention, but many westerners purposely warp these inaccurate depictions. Furthermore I am very disgusted by this statement "While this IP does show up as resolving to japanese" for it feels like racist gaslighting where this user is trying to cast doubt on my ethnicity. WP:NOR and WP:PA 27.84.15.217 (talk) 09:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore I wish to point out that even this user says "similar to a samurai" meaning not a samurai. 27.84.15.217 (talk) 09:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

That talk page clearly needs that template warning people about how it's bad if someone told them to come here. I suggest leaving the semi protection on for at least a month until some of the more persistent SPAs get tired of arguing and either leave or get blocked. Jtrainor (talk) 00:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: As some people are discussing article content in this thread, I'd like to remind everyone that ANI is for discussing behavioural problems, not just content disputes. In the interest of not getting too far off-track in this thread, I would like to direct everyone interested in discussing Yasuke himself to head back to Talk:Yasuke and follow content dispute guidelines from there. There is clearly a legitimate discussion to be had regarding Yasuke's status within Japanese society during his life, but we're here at ANI to discuss the behavioural issues at Talk:Yasuke, not to debate the content of the Yasuke article :P

Moving back to the main topic of this thread, the discussion on the talk page seems to have calmed down since it was semi-protected, but I am a bit concerned that trouble will continue to plague it, either by disruptive users waiting for autoconfirmation or when the protection period ends.

Worth noting that an online gaming news publication by the name of Niche Gamer has covered the "controversy" that seems to have brought attention to the Yasuke article[146]. I'm not sure if a media outlet covering this constitutes as canvassing (though I imagine this has also circulated on sections of social media in a way that likely would be considered canvassing), but I must note that Niche Gamer appears to have a particular political slant and seems to have played a role in drawing WP:NOTHERE users and IPs to the discussion. In particular, I have noticed that several of the IPs and users involved in discussion of the talk page are recently created accounts or IPs with few or no other contributions, some of which consist solely of involvement in discussions on the talk pages of other "gamer culture war" type topics (such as Sweet Baby Inc). This indicates to me that some individuals have come to the Yasuke article purely in the interest of pushing their particular views, not in the interest of making the article more historically accurate. I see that some of the more disruptive accounts have already been dealt with, but I believe further scrutiny of new accounts and IPs involved in this talk page is in order - some appear to be sockpuppets, others are simply NOTHERE. I won't point out the specific accounts I have concerns about in this comment, but if any admins think my concerns are warranted I am happy to discuss further.

Many thanks to the editors who stepped in to try to control this dumpster fire - hopefully my concerns are misplaced and all further discussion on this talk page will be respectful and evidence based :) Ethmostigmus (talk) 04:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Kind of a side note but this does create a weird scenario where the article/talk page is very clearly something that would normally fall under the auspices of Gamergate related sanctions; but does not clearly fall under the WP:GENSEX sanctions.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

The end of the first paragraph of the motions in WP:GENSEX states For the avoidance of doubt, GamerGate is considered a gender-related dispute or controversy for the purposes of this remedy so it would fall under WP:GENSEX, even though this incident has nothing to do with gender or sexuality. I do think it was a mistake to merge Gamergate into WP:GENSEX though, as gamergate has grown to encompasses all kinds of stuff (race, religion, politics...) and as a result the warning templates and notices and so forth don't really make a lot of sense in some situations. We saw this a few months ago with all the disruption around Sweet Baby Inc. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 20:38, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's that simple. My plain reading of that line is that is saying that the original GamerGate controversy is considered a gender-related dispute, which was true; however that does not mean that *all* GamerGate-related (or inspired) controversies are considered gender-related. Those that are not, could quite easily and reasonably be read to *not* be independently covered by WP:GENSEX. Regardless, it's at the very least an area of ambiguity.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 03:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

The funny thing about all of this is that the Japanese Wikipedia article on Yasuke very clearly defines him as a samurai, how that came about, and what that meant for the period. With proper references and everything. So all the claims of "Japan doesn't consider him a samurai" is nonsense on its face, without even considering the massive amount of Japanese cultural and media depictions of Yasuke going back decades considering him a samurai. But hey, Gamergate bigots are gonna bigot. Silverseren^C 01:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

This seems pretty bad faith given that there are legitimate objections, and not all the people making them are new/IP users. I've been looking on scholar, and basically none of the scholarly sources by authors specialising on Japanese history explicitly call him a samurai (e.g. [147]), the exact objections Eiríkr Útlendi made above. Exaggerated portrayals long after his life do not make one a samurai either. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

The objections are by people who very blatantly don't know what they're talking about and are at odds with numerous Japanese historians that have already spoken up and confirmed that Yasuke was a samurai (resulting in aforementioned Gamergaters then harassing the historians for saying that). There's even a response over on AskHistorians with a detailed answer specifically using the Shinchō Kōki as a source. I notice that there's also someone named EirikrUtlendi over there in that very thread very poorly arguing against the clearly more educated person on the topic. Our EirikrUtlendi will have to let us know if that is indeed them or someone else with their username. Silverseren^C 03:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Having seen that thread already, I was just about to link it here. (You saved me a trip! :D) Loki (talk) 03:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

So your "reliable source" is a Reddit thread by an anonymous user with no clear subject matter expertise, basing their claim on their own interpretation of primary sources in a language that you do not understand? I'm not necessarily saying they're wrong,

but I would want verification by someone fluent in Japanese. I'll let @Eirikr:'s elaborate on their arguments. Reddit upvotes/downvotes do not necessarily indicate the intellectual merit of the posts. It seems to me that a lot of this is mostly about the vague way "samurai" is used in English (and probably why the term is avoided in scholarly literature about Yasuke) an is therefore to a degree a semantic dispute Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if you are familiar with r/askhistorians, but it and answerers are not anonymous randos but infact actual vetted historians who have verified with forum admins their expertise. In this case the user is listed as an expert in Sengoku Japan, and if you bothered to read it you would know it actually cites japanese sources 2601:190:402:BFA0:94B4:D71D:BECD:7695 (talk) 05:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

This has been the issue for some time now. The English article previously reflected this scholarly consensus, but a few users (and one in particular) deleted a bunch of content and effectively blocked effective corrections throughout 2021, IIRC. I'm hoping it will finally get resolved. natemup (talk) 05:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE and POV pushing on Talk:Attempted assassination of Robert Fico

85.67.101.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has done nothing but make POV, WP:FRINGE and WP:NOTHERE arguments based on personal biases and utter misinformation on Talk:Attempted assassination of Robert Fico, including this edit: [[148]]. Borgenland (talk) 16:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• Sure, but you've done nothing to explain to the editor what they're doing wrong. I warned them. Drmies (talk) 16:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Apologies. However, I am uncertain as to whether directly communicating with them given such odious fringe promotionals could contravene WP:DENY. Borgenland (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
    • Establishing trollness after four edits is a bit quick, to my mind. If they come back, feel free to report at AIV, with an explanatory note, and please mark the edit summaries when you revert--NOTFORUM would have been legitimate here. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

      Thanks for reminding me of WP:FORUM. I do have forgotten to use that keyword lately. Borgenland (talk) 16:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

      @Drmies their reply to your warning: [[149]] is clearly proof of WP:NOTHERE, WP:NPA and WP:IDNHT. Borgenland (talk) 18:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• Yet another example of why we should leave breaking news to news outlets, and start the article no less than a week after the event, when the dust has at least started to settle. EEng 18:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Bigboss19923

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Bigboss19923 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A new editor clearly determined to edit-war a grossly-excessive level of plot detail into The Day Britain Stopped, after multiple warnings, links to policy/guidelines, and requests to discuss the matter. Almost all of their few remaining edits have been reverted, and none to appear to make any attempt at sourcing.

This may possibly be a sock of a blocked contributor - the behaviour seems familiar - but regardless, WP:NOTHERE would seem to apply, given the total refusal to communicate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

This was reported to WP:AIV, but WP:EWN also would have been appropriate. I've issued a pblock for the moment. Izno (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Their contributions are suspiciously similar to 82.22.120.55 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who was blocked for 6 months. The user also requested the page's protections be removed when they created their account (incidentally, this is within the block range of that IP), and now... this. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 16:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Protection from me, requested by Tencerpr

A bit of background: the Tencerpr account is 10+ years old, but having made a dozen or so edits early on, has been dormant for a long time. They have now become active, editing what I would describe as a promo piece with no evidence of notability, at Draft:Rebecca Grant (TV host).

I declined this at AfC and tagged the draft as possible UPE, and also posted a paid-editing query on their talk page, because of the edit history and their user name (the 'pr' bit at the end made me do a quick Google search, and turns out there are a couple of PR agencies by the name Tencer out there). They deleted the query (as is indeed their right) from their talk page without responding to it, and also deleted the UPE tag from the draft (whether or not that's their right is probably debatable).

But then they decided to up the ante and accuse me of paid editing (paid to do what, exactly, I don't know?), and also call me a liar and a vandal "with zero credibility". And, as seems only reasonable by this stage, they're now requesting "protection" from me, and that I should be blocked from editing the Grant draft/article. So I guess that would be an IBAN and TBAN, respectively.

Could someone please look at this with fresh, objective eyes and tell me where I got it wrong. And BAN me as appropriate.

Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• Well, before anything else, "Tencer PR" is pretty clearly a username violation. Hard blocked, given the clear evidence of UPE as well. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
• I don't understand why the article's lead photo shows a wax-museum replica of the subject. EEng 18:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

This may be relevant: a Tweet [150] from 2019 by Rebecca Grant, retweeted by Become Famous aka. "rob tencer pr" [151]. Still, could be just a coincidence, of course. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

They've now changed their name, but the rest of their unblock request shows the same very combative attitude as the previous remarks. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Declined the unblock but gave them the OK to make a case for what else they'd like to edit about. Not inclined to unblock to edit about Grant Star Mississippi 01:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Lonermovement Investments / 41.115.23.137

Greetings from Commons. I just zapped the User:Lonermovement Investments's uploads as spam over on that project and see they're trying to plug their brand here too. The IP came in right after the account and added more spam, with a fake edit summary. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Reported to UAA. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 22:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I indefinitely blocked Lonermovement Investments for promotional username/promotional edits. Thank you, The Squirrel Conspiracy for bringing this to our attention. Thanks also for the 105 million media files that Commons hosts. Cullen328 (talk) 07:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

User:204.69.3.4 and transphobia

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

Yet another IP at Talk:Moira Deeming to argue against what reliable sources say. Won't be the last.

As part of their rants against reliable sources, they've commented at Special:Diff/1224210575 and Special:Diff/1224211713, writting "... steal credit from women for who is actually trying to push back on trans identifying men (XY) from stealing women's rights" and "Women are waking up. Peak trans I just found out they called it. Liberal women. Yes, they are waking up. We go all our lives being warned and SEEING the nefarious, creepy things men will do to have access to us, but we are not allowed to notice all the straight men (who have no macho aversion to wearing a dress) waltzing in to our spaces?" respectively.

This sickening display of transphobia should not be tolerated per WP:NOHATE. TarnishedPath^talk 00:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Concur, and I also suspect they are a sock puppet of SkyfoxGazelle, who was recently banned for extremely similar editing on the same page. GraziePrego (talk) 01:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked for six months. Star Mississippi 01:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

SPA removing sourced and due content from Edcel Greco Lagman

Gabnaparato (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an SPA account with a possible undisclosed COI, has been reverting sourced and relevant information about Edcel Greco Lagman despite repeated warnings. I had filed an ANI report three months ago but was advised to warn them off first about COI and SPI and WP:OWN. They have not provided any explanation and clarification as to their activity, have not bothered to respond to warnings and have resumed wiping off data from said page after a hiatus. Requesting for definite action to be taken on this. Borgenland (talk) 08:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

5ive9teen, ownership behaviour and possible competence issues

I believe 5ive9teen (talk · contribs) is exhibiting WP:OWNERSHIP behaviour on the article Shōgun (novel). In a month's time, starting April 16, they made 300 edits to the article (see its history). Over those 300 edits, they repeatedly made unnecessary additions. I have told them this several times. See diff, it includes unnecessary piped links, stylistic errors, incorrect curly apostrophes, grammatical errors, factual errors (Dutch and English people are not considered Northern European, while the Portuguese are considered Southern European) and more. This discussion went on their talk page and later on Talk:Shōgun (novel)#Premise. Sergecross73 edit protected the article. In response, 5ive9teen workshopped the premise section on the talk page, in 40 revisions.

On May 15 I edited the article. I strongly urged them to read, check and double-check my edit before reverting again. Instead, 27 revisions later, they mostly undid my edits again.

Perhaps it's a WP:COMPETENCE issue, but it's definitely WP:OWNERSHIP behaviour. I have repeatedly stated I do not agree with their edits. They utter hollow words, stating they want to establish consensus, here for instance, without actually taking the time to discuss the article.

They have also been recently warned by FlightTime and Anachronist for edit warring on two separate articles. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Also notifying CapnZapp, HiGuys69420, Areaseven, Wikipedialuva and Aoidh, who also recently edited the article. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)