Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    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

    User conduct issue: MPGuy2824 at Zamduar College

    [edit]
    Tendythexangsw has been blocked. The LLM discussion can continue elsewhere as needed. Star Mississippi 18:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I would like to bring attention to the conduct of User:MPGuy2824. The user has been repeatedly engaging in behavior that appears to violate Wikipedia's policies, specifically [insert policy violation, e.g., "edit-warring" or "vandalism"].

    Here are some examples of the behavior in question:

    I’ve attempted to engage with the user on their talk page to resolve the issue, but the behavior continues. I would appreciate administrator assistance in addressing this matter.

    Thank you. Tendythexangsw (talk) 02:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    If GPT gives you editing notes (e.g. "insert policy violation") you should probably follow them, and insert the violation, before posting the thread to AN/I. Are you doing a bit or something?
    You are also required to notify the party you're submitting a filing about, which you have not done. jp×g🗯️ 02:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Tendythexangsw, your attempts to contact me were on the talk page of the relevant article/redirect, and not on my user talk page. This is one of my first edits to Wikipedia in more than 12 hours, so your charge of "the behavior continues" does not apply, since the aforementioned talk page messages are only about 3 hours old. I've have now replied to your message at Talk:Zamduar College. We can continue that conversation there, if you are willing. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ...is this a joke? LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 07:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User has been indeffed by Deepfriedokra. MiasmaEternal☎ 05:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What am I missing here? Is there a specific template for use with ChatGPT/another LLM that let's you (or in this case, the OP) generate invalid (but stylistically-correct-looking) Wikipedia complaints/arguments, by just plugging in the relevant policy? SnowRise let's rap 06:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ChatGPT#Applications and criticism Check Point Research and others noted that ChatGPT could write phishing emails and malware, People make scams and money stealing stuff with LLMs. Making templates to waste people’s time (that’s all they are, let’s be honest) really isn’t above users of this stuff. MM (Give me info.) (Victories) 07:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well it's not the technical feasibility that is new information to me, so much as the implication created by those bracketed elements that either a) someone has trained an LLM specifically on Wikipedia discussions or b) one of the existing broad-utility models gained basic competence for generating such content from its default training set. SnowRise let's rap 10:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    SnowRise do you actually use LLMs? I don't but I've heard enough that I'm not surprised they could do something like that with zero additional training especially since I'm certain most of them have been trained on pretty much all of Wikipedia including the ANs. As an example, here's what Bing's Copilot gave me for 'Make a template for filing complaints on the English Wikipedia'. This is what it gave me for 'Give me a template to file a complaint on the English wikipedia's administrative noticeboard'. And this is what it gave me for 'Give me a template to file a complaint at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents'. The style in all of these is different from what the OP used, but a different LLM (e.g. ChatGPT directly) might help with that. Or just better prompt engineering. Notably, it seems to like to give templates with those 'subheading:' things, perhaps telling it not to will make it more similar to the OPs, or just some other way of asking. As said, I don't use LLMs so I'm sure my prompt engineering is totally crap. Importantly though, all of them had the 'please fill in' sort of things. Perhaps just being more specific e.g. telling it who I wanted to complain about and what article would also help. Note there was additional text in most of them e.g. sure here's..... and other stuff e.g. telling me to remember to fill in the details or in one case giving a filled in example (although just userexample1, userexample2) although it did chose Climate Change as the example article, probably not the the best one anymore. Nil Einne (talk) 18:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I decided to try being more specific on who etc and asked 'Give me a template to file a complaint about [[User:Nil Einne]] regarding their editing at [[Malaysia]] on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents' on the default more balanced setting and this is what it gave me. I should mention all previous examples were also on this setting. On the more precise, it was this. Note as I understand the way most public LLMs work, asking the exact same prompt on the same setting probably won't give the exact same response, with the more precise setting I think probably resulting in more similar responses. Also I don't know the specifics about Bing Copilot. All of these were fresh questions rather than continuing from the old ones, but I didn't try to reset it in any way so I'm not sure if this was also an influence. Anyway again both are somewhat different in style from what the OP wrote above, but still you can see fair similarities. I didn't mention earlier, but I'm also fairly sure that none of the LLM providers consider using it for this sort of thing abuse or unwanted, so I doubt they've done anything to try and prevent it helping. You might get caught up in other filters of course, for example, I actually tried Donald Trump first instead of Malaysia and Bing Copilot refused to help because "I’m afraid talking about elections is out of bounds for me! What else is on your mind?". Nil Einne (talk) 18:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It occurred to me that perhaps one issue is talking about filing a complaint is very generic, so it could be affected by other places you may file a complaint. So instead I tried with the default balanced setting a IMO more Wikipedia focused 'Give me a template to alert administrators about [[User:Nil Einne]]'s problematic editing at [[Malaysia]] on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents' and it gave me [1]. It's clearly gone too far, since it's lost the template stuff, and also lost any wiki markup. But still, it's IMO easy to see how some sort of cross between this and what I was doing earlier would give something like what the OP posted. Nil Einne (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nil Einne: That's very edifying--thank you for your delving! I guess I shouldn't be surprised in the least if creating basically functional templates for various tasks on en.wikipedia is well within the wheelhouse of any number of LLMs. After all, few other projects/singular sources of material will have created as much fully-free and openly-available content for the developers of such models to hoover up and feed into their training sets.
    Interestingly, even with the place-saver fields included, and the somewhat formulaic format, the one detail that most stood out to me as marking these templates as artificial constructs was the formalism of the tone. One very rarely sees "I respectfully request review of User:X's conduct on Article Y, in order to ensure compliance with all applicable guidelines and policies" and when you do, it rather tends to suggest a newer user, doesn't it? Whether that's because we are just being reasonably efficient and to the point in avoiding ancillary hedging language ("over egging the pudding", so to speak) or because we have lost all sense of social niceties is (I suppose) open to debate! All I know is that experience has left me with what I feel is a built-in skepticism of anyone who leans too fully into that kind of additional (ostensibly polite, but in practice often accompanying meritless complaints) colour commentary. And I couldn't tell you with confidence whether I think that impression is a good or a bad thing in general. But at least it's going to (for the immediate future anyway) be one more way to recognize possible LLM-assissted commentary. SnowRise let's rap 08:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Or should I not have said all that publicly? Should we start to develop LLM-leaning WP:BEANS habits? Should we have an WP:AI DENY policy? :P SnowRise let's rap 08:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:LLM is just an essay right now, but... — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m… Going to put aside my original rant about how LLM usage should bring you close to a block pretty quick, and ask what the next step would be towards getting LLM into Policy. RFC? MM (Give me info.) (Victories) 18:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely need a policy to address misuse. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, though I hasten to add that my above thoughts were intended somewhat tongue-in-cheek--i.e. "should we not be openly discussing how the LLMs can better evade detection, since they will undoubtedly 'read' all of this eventually? That's a silly commentary because that kind of abstract lesson-learning is quite beyond the capabilities of such models: in future outputs they might repeat my sentiments about tell-tale signs of their work product hidden in the tone of such content, but they can't otherwise derive a new approach to being less obvious from that info, even if asked by the prompt-giver to be as circumspect as possible.
    All of that said, clearly we need robust policies to guide practical responses to these emergent technologies--and I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that the need is urgent. This is one area where we do not want to be playing catch up as the models leapfrog one-another into increasingly dynamic (and potentially problematic) forms. But at the same time, I'm not sure that this particular instance represents the area we should be most concerned about: there's actually a colourable argument to be made that the usage of such outputs by newer users trying to wrap their heads around our sometimes bureaucratic procedural norms could be a net positive. After Nil Einne's responses the other day, I actually asked ChatGPT directly something to the effect of "What pragmatic and ethical concerns does the community of Wikipedia editors have regarding the use of content generated by LLMs in the content of Wikipedia articles and in discussions within the community?" And it actually gave me a fairly exhaustive, detailed, and accurate response. I suspect such models will often give helpful instructions on how to engage non-disruptively and productively with the community in various contexts, if the inquiries are made with the right prompts.
    Of course, there's variations in user approach, different chatbots/tools, different editorial/community contexts, and so, so many other factors to consider. But I do think in the final analysis we are going to need to pick our battles carefully. Barring a Butlerian Jihad in the near future, the tools are not going anywhere, and and my thoughts about the current state of the art not withstanding, they are only going to become more capable of evading detection when required. So we'll need to target response carefully at disruption, I think, not wholesale rejection of any AI assistance. SnowRise let's rap 19:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In a few years won't the training materials for LLMs be so full of LLM-generated content that they will no longer be aping human intelligence? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Woah. Like, deep, man.
    (For the record I mean that as a cheeky comment about how weird the new normal is, not a dig at you or your observation. Seriously, it is a bizarre variation on the Ship of Theseus principle: at what point would any product born from successive/recursive LLM iterations stop being best regarded as a product of human innovation in the same way as the original body of content from which the first machine product was derived?) SnowRise let's rap 04:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. The essay, as it currently stands, takes too hard a line. I’d like to see something that describes how LLMs can be used productively to assist those with poor English and those with writer’s block, and then talk about a verification requirement before entering the text in Wikipedia (and the falsity of “references” generated/hallucinated by LLMs). — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect that the community will have no appetite for allowing any machine-generated content in article space for quite some time. Honestly, even getting an affirmative greenlight for LLM-assisted content being presumptively allowable in project space is going to take some work, and probably a lot of carve-outs and caveats and specification. SnowRise let's rap 04:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just think that’s like commanding the tide to halt. Better to encourage constructive use than to try to ban it. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 14:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    EnglishDude98 topic ban

    [edit]

    EnglishDude98 (talk · contribs) has received multiple warnings from a few users regarding their conduct, including numerous messages from me regarding creating mainspace articles even though draft articles (in either draft or user space) already exist.

    A few days ago they said they would stop doing this - today they have created Dylan Mitchell, even though Draft:Dylan Mitchell already exists. This is their second attempt at creating the article.

    As a side note, lots of their articles appear to fail GNG.

    Given they will continue to create duplicate and non-notable articles, I suggest a topic ban from article creation, broadly construed. GiantSnowman 20:36, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking into their contribs a bit deeper while I have time, Joel McGregor is a duplicate of the topic recently deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joel McGregor. GiantSnowman 20:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak support - Unless there are enough sources available, they should not create an article. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose for now. I think that yes, EnglishDude98 needs to stop making "duplicate" and non-notable articles. However, I'm not sure that the articles they are making are always clear cut CSD or PROD-able, some of them should go through AfD, as it's not black or white. I think they have potential to make valuable articles in the future. They have created some articles that are actually not that bad (see here). They just need to learn first what constitutes notability.
      If EnglishDude98 continues their disruptive habits from this point forward, ping me again and I will reconsider my position. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, to be fair, the recently created Connor McAvoy (footballer, born 2002) appears good. GiantSnowman 19:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Although @Paul Vaurie:, they are still trying to get non-notable articles into mainsapce generally, see Draft:Jack Henry-Francis which has rightfully been declined.
      Putting the draft duplication issues to side for a moment, EnglishDude98 shows a fundamental lack of understanding about notability, which combined with a clear ongoing desire to create articles, is disruptive. GiantSnowman 07:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Despite numerous editors sending his articles to AFD - his talk page is now riddled with the notifications - EnglishDude98 (who I note has not commented here) continues to create impressive looking but ultimately non-notable articles. He is a time sink. He needs to be topic banned. GiantSnowman 18:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. This editor either doesn't understand or doesn't care about GNG and their failure to search for existing drafts is troubling too. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 11:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Might be related to/working with User:Das osmnezz? Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unlikely, I think. GiantSnowman 17:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Another non-notable recent creation, Mayowa Animasahun, has just been draftified by another user. Can we get the topic ban in place please? GiantSnowman 13:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    pretty unbelievable that nothing has been done despite this editor's absolute refusal to listen. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 17:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fully agree, incredibly frustrating. GiantSnowman 20:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Especially as non-notable articles are still being created... Andrew Wogan the latest example, which I will be sending to AFD in due course. GiantSnowman 20:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've seriously learnt my lesson after the last few days in terms of creating non-notable articles. I won't bother making any more NON NOTABLE pages in that case; I will edit on pages which are notable. User:EnglishDude98
    • Oppose TB hopefully, the recent block experience will focus their minds on what is expected in article creation (and also, vis à vis, not wasting several editor's time—from Giant Snowman, to the commentators here, to the AfD filers, to the AfD commentators...etc). SerialNumber54129 18:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      As long as EnglishDude stops creating articles and drafts, I see no problem. GiantSnowman 19:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes it has focused my mind on what is expected in terms of creating articles veral editor's time—from Giant Snowman, to the commentators here, to the AfD filers, to the AfD commentators...etc). SerialNumber54129 and I apologise to GiantSnowman et al for wasting their time on this, I've learnt the errors of my way and will be open to help from other users in the future when it comes to creating new articles on here. User:EnglishDude98 19:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Coalcity58 and the Landmark cult

    [edit]

    Coalcity58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Landmark is a weird "selfhelp" group started by a guru called John Paul Rosenberg who now uses the name Werner Erhard. Nowadays they are mostly focused on making money but back in the day it was pretty cultish. Various RS and "not-so-R" S-es reported on that and negative information made its way into the Wikipedia article. A group consisting of a handful of meatpuppets and a dozen or two sockpuppets have been WP:GAMING the system by WP:CPUSHing and WP:TAGTEAMing for over 2 decades. A bunch of the socks got blocked but not all of them. There was an ARBCOM case back in the day but that didn't solve the problem.

    Landmark has been called "Scientology-lite" and they use the same "Attack the Attacker" policy.

    https://culteducation.com/group/1020-landmark-education/12303-landmark-education.html

    The meat- and sockpuppets have been manipulating Wikipedia for more than 2 decades. They believe that they do not have to follow WP:COI when they refuse to admit that they have a conflict of interest.

    Avatar317 has been improving the article. Coalcity58 is editwarring to right great wrongs.

    1. diff1
    1. diff2
    1. diff3

    The cult members often CPUSH and sealion and editwar and waste everyone's time because they cannot accept the fact that reliable sources have mentioned negative information about the cult.

    The account is relatively new but the behaviour is certainly not. Polygnotus (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Even if Coalcity58 ends up getting blocked, it's unlikely to stop the problems. I'm thinking some form of long term page protection might be needed here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. After a bunch of sockpuppets got blocked all these new accounts suddenly appeared who were repeating the same talking points and had the same habits and interests. So a block is a good idea, but we need more than that to stem the tide. Perhaps it needs to be declared a Contentious Topic again and we need admins to hand out topicbans like cookies. Or another Arbcom case? I don't really know how to deal with this kinda stuff. Polygnotus (talk) 22:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They will attack me for calling it a cult so I should add that the governments of France and Germany also called it that. Polygnotus (talk) 22:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bruh, it isn't a cult
    Whats up with the uncivil aspersions? Rim Related Jobs (talk) 04:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rim Related Jobs I'd like the sources for France and Germany labeling it a source, but all the same, based on what sources is it not a cult? —C.Fred (talk) 04:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @C.Fred Check out their edit history. And Governmental_lists_of_cults_and_sects and [2]. But it appears to have been the German Senate for the state of Berlin, not the country as a whole. When one of them ends up at the noticeboards they often get WP:ANIFLU while other accounts start trolling and randomly throwing accusations around to distract and confuse onlookers. Polygnotus (talk) 04:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Almost all of them bruh Rim Related Jobs (talk) 04:17, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do people respond to such obvious troll accounts? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 10:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked the troll. Cullen328 (talk) 16:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! 100.36.106.199 (talk) 17:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think focusing energy on whether or not the group is a cult (I personally don't think so) is a distraction from the policy issues that seem like the impetus for bringing this case to ANI which is COI editing and, perhaps, disruptive editing. Let's focus less on the nature of the article and more on what is happening on the article and policy. If you want to take this back to ARBCOM, you better have pretty solid evidence to back your allegations and perhaps this discussion should be closed. If you just want clarification about the arbitration remedies, perhaps you could bring it to ARCA or AE. Liz Read! Talk! 07:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz: Agreed. A better term would be what academics use, a New Religious Movement (NRM). See Talk:Landmark_Worldwide/to_do in the Sociology section. But if you say that they really go wild. They hate that term for some reason. I don't really want to take it to ARBCOM, because compiling evidence of longterm patterns of Tendentious editing is incredibly boring and a waste of my limited time on this planet. And I don't know which account belongs to who (I could probably figure out at least a couple of them but again that would be very boring). But I would not be surprised if it ended up there again (which would hopefully lead to stricter remedies than last time). "Discretionary sanctions" were rescinded, should I use ARCA to get them reinstated? I think discretionary sanctions were renamed to Contentious topics, is that correct? Even under DS or CT we would still need administrator(s) willing to jump into the fray and block (or at least topicban) the cultists. If DS/CT makes it easier for an admin to hand out topic bans then I will gladly request DS/CT. In the meantime can we get a 3rr block for Coalcity58? Polygnotus (talk) 07:40, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct: CTOP is essentially the rebranded Discretionary Sanctions, with a few procedural tweaks, and WP:ARCA is the right forum to propose changes to remedies. Regarding "new religious movement" as nomenclature, the reason you will see resistance to that term is that it has for most practical purposes become so widely associated as a synonym for "cult" that it has inherited most all of the semantic subtext and cultural implications of the latter. The terms are not exact synonyms as they are used in sources, but more generally and idiomatically, they are broadly regarded as very near terms. Basically if you call something a "new religious movement", you should be prepared for a given party to react in essential the same manner you would expect that person to react if you called the religion/institution a "cult". SnowRise let's rap 04:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I had never heard of the term NRM before stumbling upon the Landmark article. If my reading of the archives is correct, they consider(ed) the usage of the term NRM far more offensive than that of cult. Usage of the term NRM was the inciting incident of much of the drama. Polygnotus (talk) 05:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there's two things going on there: 1) I think the term has recently developed some social cache among want would have traditionally been called the "anti-cult movement". In other words, the people it is applied to often perceive the term to be inaccurate and unfair in the same way they always felt "cult" was, with the added sense that they are being condescended to with academic idiolect. And 2) the question of whether to apply this label is often a threshold fight: members of a given movement often don't want it applied to their beliefs, while some editors (particularly, but not exclusively, those who make a habit out of contributing to articles in this general area) consider it to be the low hanging fruit of describing such a group. The difference in perspectives leads to a lot of slow, grinding arguments that are typically lost by the SPAs and aren't quickly forgotten by either side. SnowRise let's rap 06:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK so if I understand it correctly, topic bans can be given by the "community", Arbcom and WMF. Admins are only allowed to give topic bans if the article falls under CT.
    Discretionary sanctions are currently rescinded
    WP:AE is for enforcing active sanctions. WP:ARCA is for clarification and Amendment of currently open cases.
    This means that the best course of action would be to start a new arbcom case, and ask them to reinstate the DS/CT designation so that administrators can give topic bans to the cultists.
    Who is willing to do that? Polygnotus (talk) 10:02, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, Poly, I wouldn't hold your breath. This feels like you are trying to task someone with doing your homework (for a class you are voluntarily auditing, no less--to extend the metaphor). So far you are very much the only person in this thread who has advanced the notion that a new ARBCOM case is not only the way forward here, but indeed a necessity. If you feel that strongly about the matter, anyone is permitted to open a case request. But what seems to be the case here is that you want to pursue the biggest possible ask of the community: the largest, most involved, most severe process available to the project for addressing longterm abuse...while simultaneously not feeling it is important enough to actually present a case for it.
    I mean, when you say "I don't really want to take it to ARBCOM, because compiling the evidence is incredibly boring and a waste of my limited time on this planet." and then immediately follow it up with "This means that the best course of action would be to start a new arbcom case. Who is willing to do this?", you do realize that you are implying something about the relative value of your time, compared to the person you expect to do all of the hard work after you've identified what you feel is a need? Or are you just the community "idea man" and the rest of us the grunts?
    And look, I'm really not trying to be rude here: I just want to provide you with a sobering reminder that if you want exceptional action to be taken by the community, the burden is on you to demonstrate exceptional need. All you've presented in terms of concrete evidence of disruption in this thread so far is three diffs from an edit war you participated in. As Liz alluded, you are going to need a lot more than that if you want to open a case request (hell, you'll need much more than that for an ARCA motion).
    Expecting another editor to emerge from the aether willing to fill in the gap between where you are now with an organized case and where you need to be in order to invoke such high level process is just not a realistic strategy. I mean, there's a lot of editors who seem to specialize in crossing keyboards with religious COI-SPAs these days, so maybe someone will eventually end up in your corner with similar perspectives and more willingness to do the work to build the case? Maybe? But if you want it to happen any time soon, my suggestion is you'd better roll up your sleeves. Though even then, I'd caution to have third parties look over the case before hand and make sure it worth pursuing to the end of the process, which can be a commitment. SnowRise let's rap 05:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Snow Rise: I meant Who is willing to do that? as in "oof no one wants to do that". I should've added an exasperated sigh sound effect because your comment misses the mark by a mile. your homework (for a class you are voluntarily auditing, no less--to extend the metaphor). no I am a volunteer here. I volunteered to help build an encyclopedia, not to be a detective who investigates the behaviour of dozens of accounts over the past 2 decades. the only person in this thread who has advanced the notion that a new ARBCOM case is not only the way forward here, but indeed a necessity. well I wasn't sure if the previous case, which is marked closed, can be reopened to add CT designation, or if we need a new one. Polygnotus (talk) 05:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see: I mistook your meaning for sincere, rather than sardonic/rhetorical. But I can see now that it actually makes more sense if said wryly! Please disregard my comments along those lines. To address your uncertainty about whether a new case is necessary, it is my understanding that you can request an amendment to any case which previously applied a remedy tied to a discrete topic area, in order to propose introducing, removing, or re-introducing a remedy targeted at that area--including a CTOP designation. At least, again, that's my personal understanding; while I've certainly read dozens of ARCAs over the years in connection to various cases, I have never filed one, nor seen this precise fact pattern (reintroducing the same basic restriction as a CTOP as previously existed under the DS schema). In short, you may want to wait for someone else to confirm that before acting, but I'm 95%+ certain you don't need a new case request. SnowRise let's rap 06:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! That is great news. I probably should've been more clear, ANI is no place for rhetorical questions. Polygnotus (talk) 06:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you say that? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    :) Grandpallama (talk) 14:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Kind of a drive by comment here but the editing is often like this when it comes to active "new religious movements", to the point where I'm surprised that "new religious movements" was never designated as a contentious topic; though I guess defining that would be half the problem. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm just noticing this now after being away from Wikipedia for several days. Frankly, I find this action difficult to understand. I recently initiated a civil discussion on the talk page regarding the positioning of certain material in the article in question. In response to that, an edit was made without discussion, instead of engaging in conversation with myself and other editors. My interactions with this particular editor have been marked by uncivil responses on their part, including refusal to answer perfectly reasonable questions, and instead responding with what appears to be nonsense. Further, this person has accused me of a conflict of interest with no evidence whatsoever. Again, I am mystified.Coalcity58 (talk) 15:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It doesn't really make sense to post false accusations when the talkpage is publicly available.
    Here is everything I ever wrote to you:
    We should follow WP:LEAD and add the criticism of it being a cult to the lead section. Also those articles you list are far from perfect. I will donate 100 USD to a charity of your choice if you send me a perfect Wikipedia article. To qualify it should at least do my taxes and some light chores around the house. Thank you. I hate unloading the dishwasher. A debate about content doesn't have to be "settled" to include or remove it. Due to its nature, much of the content on Wikipedia is constantly debated. But that doesn't mean we delete all the content that someone might disagree with or object to. See for example WP:NOTCENSORED. The beatings debates will continue until morale improves the heat death of the universe. Last time the wider community took a look at these articles a bunch of Landmark sock- and meatpuppets got banned. An RFC would not make sense, but I already predicted another ARBCOM case which might be a good idea. even when you feel you are righting great wrongs you can't just editwar to get your way. You will get blocked. What is your relationship with Landmark? Please respond here and in the COI section below. Thank you,
    Also I haven't "accused" you of having a conflict of interest, I just posted the template that informs you about how the COI guideline works. Perhaps you are confused with another account? Polygnotus (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I am baffled by the aggression shown towards me by polygnotus. If posting a COI template on my talk page is not "accusing" me of having one, what is it? Also, on another point, it is inaccurate to say that "Last time the wider community took a look at these articles a bunch of Landmark sock- and meatpuppets got banned." In fact, the last time the wider community looked at this article, no one was banned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark_Worldwide/Proposed_decision#Proposed_findings_of_factCoalcity58 (talk) 18:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Again, It doesn't really make sense to post false accusations when the talkpage is publicly available. Unless you are trying to build a false narrative because someone wanted you to stop editwarring of course. what is it The coi template is used to inform people of the coi guideline. Polygnotus (talk) 19:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    And here we go again. Polygnotus has claimed I’m posting false accusations, while in the very act of accusing me of creating a false narrative. So, a double accusation. And still, a ringing silence regarding his (or hers as the case may be) demonstrably false statement that “Landmark sock- and meatpuppets got banned.’ Why does he ignore a simple statement of fact refuting his falsehood? On another note, I’m relatively new to Wikipedia, still learning about it. I also have little time to edit due to work commitments, and now I’m suddenly having to waste all that limited time defending myself against a spurious accusation in response to my reversing an edit made without consensus. I have to wonder what’s really going on here. Is there an agenda I don’t know about? Does Polygnotus ever provide a straight answer to questions? The history of this article would seem to indicate not.Coalcity58 (talk) 21:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    To be honest, you have both done some overreacting to eachother's comments. The use of the COI template may have been a little pointed, but it's not per se an "accusation" of a COI: people do regularly use it to inform newer users who may have a COI of the project's standards on such conflicts, just in case. Does it get over- and mis-used, including in an aggressive manner that is more about making a comment about another user's conduct, rather than actually to make them aware of editorial and policy considerations they may be unaware of? Yeah, unfortunately, like most warning templates, that's probably the majority of how it is used. But where there is reasonable doubt, you should try to WP:AGF about the intention, imo.
    Likewise, I don't think you're trying to misrepresent the talk page history as you see it. And I do think that Poly's initial response did have a little more snark than was necessary and did make some definite criticisms about your approach, but none of it crosses a line into disruptive as far as I have seen. As to the question of whether anyone got blocked "last time" the community looked into this particular topic area, one of you may just be unaware of a more recent discussion. And as for the question of the edit warring, I'm personally not of the disposition to go digging through the edit history at this late juncture to try to qualify or disprove it, but it would probably be too stale to act on for preventative purposes just at the moment.
    I do disagree with Polygnotus on one point: it's probably not too late to RfC the underlying dispute. Unless there has been a really, really recent discussion that had a clear outcome, that's precisely what I'd recommend to break the loggerhead here. But either way, bluntly, you two are playing ABF/overreaction leap frog at the moment, and I think the community's tepid response thus far demonstrates that no action is currently considered appropriate other than clear advice to separate to your respective corners and try our standard dispute resolution processes. Though that sentiment could quickly change if things continue in their current direction. For all I know, Poly may very well be right that the overall situation is ripe for ArbCom review. But unless and until that happens, the best that can be recommend for this contest of wills is that it stop and additional voices be brought in to break any editorial deadlock. SnowRise let's rap 01:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, SnowRise, for your attempts to bring some balance and restraint to this dispute. Polygnotus has an extensive history of failing to WP:AGF, and violations of WP:CIVIL.

    I have to say that I find Polygnotus' accusation of edit warring against Coalcity58 as disingenuous to say the least. Coalcity58 may have been unwise to allow himself to get drawn in to a series of reversions, but it was instigated by implacable re-postings of the same edit that would have been a 3RR violation but for the detail that they were performed alternately by Polygnotus and Avatar317, effectively acting as a tag-team.

    [3] [4] [5] [6]

    Also assiduous edit-warring on the Werner Erhard page to repeatedly remove well-sourced and relevant content, while aggressively refusing to engage with discussion about the edits on the talk page: [7] [8] [9]

    Although this is not the place to debate content disputes, it is relevant to point out the flimsy nature of the case for adding this content to the article at all, much less placing it in the lead. Even the proposers admit on the Landmark_Worldwide talk page that "It should be noted that MANY sources talk about Landmark as being ACCUSED of being a cult, and that is what we are saying in this article, not that they ARE a cult."

    In fact, anyone who takes the trouble to read the cited sources will find that none of them reference any specific primary sources stating that Landmark is a cult, merely referring to rumours or gossip to that effect; and in almost all cases they go on to say that in the opinion of the writer, they didn't seem to merit that description. DaveApter (talk) 15:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic ban for DaveApter?

    [edit]

    I support a topic ban for DaveApter from Landmark (he is practically a SPA as well as COI editor BY HIS BEHAVIOR - [he did attend Landmark) blocking improvement of this article by removing or opposing anything HE views as negative about Landmark in any way. He has been on Wikipedia since 2005, and his editing history shows 1,300 edits to Mainspace, of which 320 (25%) have been to the Landmark article; 760 edits to Talk space, 433 of which are Landmark, (57%).

    I made that statement in Talk (my support for a topic ban against him if he were to continue to edit the article DIRECTLY), and he has not directly edited the article since, so I would say his Talk page statements are more annoying than disruptive at this point, but I do consider him to be continuing in WP:CPUSHing.

    Another editor who was a strong defender of Landmark and blocked article improvement was User:AJackl who "As of February 01, 2023, I began work as the Chief Technology Officer for Landmark Worldwide and am enjoying this new role!" and at least now HAS stopped editing the article.

    Maybe both Dave and Alex are examples of this: "One thing is certain: Landmark is a program that is incredibly successful at making people feel good about Landmark."[10] ---Avatar317(talk) 21:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose. The proposal doesn't come anywhere close to providing the level of evidence necessary to justify the suggested sanction. Although a misconception we see here from time to time, merely being an WP:SPA does not automatically qualify an editor as WP:Disruptive or WP:NOTHERE; many SPAs contribute productively to the project, and (just as with a proposed sanction of any other community member) the onus is upon the party proposing a CBAN (generally only considered for the most substantially disruptive editors) to demonstrate that it is necessary to prevent ongoing disruption. By the nom's own analysis, Dave's behaviour is "more annoying than disruptive", which falls far below the threshold of necessitating a TBAN. And I suspect one's mileage would vary with regard to even the "annoying" part. Indeed, also by the nom's analysis, roughly 36% of Dave's edits are to the area of Landmark, and they have been contributing on the project for nearly 20 years, so the label of 'SPA' itself is fairly dubious.
      I'm also somewhat skeptical that Dave has a COI that rises to the level of an actionable WP:COI under policy. The only link that Dave has disclosed is having "purchased a Landmark product" decades ago and found it worth their time. It's a novel case, so I'm not staking a firm position on the matter just yet, but that feels like a weak foundation to base an argument of actionable COI on. What would be the relationship? That they bought a product, or attended a talk? By that logic I have a COI with Microsoft and hundreds of academics and researchers.SnowRise let's rap 21:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And honestly folks, this is getting to be a bit much. The ABF is thick as fog in this dispute and the constant broadsides from both camps are frankly mostly hyperbolic and getting to be a waste of time. The general lack of engagement from the community after the obvious troll was squashed last week ought to be telling you all something about how likely any of you are to be able to completely remove your rhetorical opposition from the article, so find a way to resolve the editorial issues inside of our normal dispute resolution processes. At the moment, the only community sanction I think I might possibly support is mutual IBANs, and I usually have a very low opinion of the utility of that tool. SnowRise let's rap 21:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Remove unsourced content added by disruptive, bad faith, and biased editor Spworld2

    [edit]

    It seems User:Spworld2 is incorregible. Because of too much influence of a COI (WP:COI), Spworld2 would be ready to get even an indefinite block. This is because EK Samastha and its followers are strong in claiming the legacy of the Samastha founded in 1926 that they conducted the centenary declaration conference (as per a source) or the inauguration conference in Bengaluru, which is outside Kerala, while EK Samastha's name includes "Kerala" and the full name means "All Kerala Ulama Organisation" as per the EK Samastha's website; after the promulgation conference by the faction of AP Samastha in Kasaragod. Spworld2 apparently and certainly belongs to a particular type of supporters of EK Samastha who are not ready to edit neutrally or edit as per the source. So an indefinite topic ban on both Samasthas and related topics, such as its subsidiaries, would be needed. I at least seek the intervention of admins to remove the unsourced content, especially the unsourced content in Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction). See also several disruptive and unhelpful edits by Spworld2 Neutralhappy (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Spworld2 has been informed about this ongoing discussion on their talk page. Neutralhappy (talk) 22:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutralhappy, you need to provide convincing evidence in the form of diffs. You have not yet done so. Cullen328 (talk) 23:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, any editor can provide sources or tag with "citation needed" or if all else fails, remove implausible or false unsourced content. That does not require administrator's tools. Cullen328 (talk) 23:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The diffs seem to be presented in this version of the filer's sandbox (linked in mobile view in the last sentence), with this post serving as a summary. Left guide (talk) 23:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Now, I have provided convincing evidence in the form of diffs. Spworld2 would definitely need an indefinite topic ban on both Samasthas and the related topics, such as their subsidiaries. Neutralhappy (talk) 11:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Remedies
    • 1) Remove all mentions of the term "(AP Sunnis)" in bold in the article, except in the title, since it is not part of the name of the organisation of AP Sunnis.
    • 2) Remove the statement that Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) is known as "Samastha (AP Faction)", because it is unsourced. Instead, say it is known as "Samastha" since the sources say so (1, 2, 3, 4).
    • 3) How should we treat the time of formation, the founder, and the history until the so-called split of Samastha in 1989? Based on the source or by arbitrarily considering one of them or both of them as new organisations? Please help decide it.
      • I suggest the removal of the unsourced statements (including in the infobox) that the AP Samastha was founded in 1989 and that the founder of AP Samastha is Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar.
    • 4) Remove the mention that Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar ever became the president of any Samastha, since no source supports it.
    • 5) Remove the mention that headquarters of AP Samastha is Markazu Saqafathi Sunniyya, for two reasons: it is unsourced and it appears dubious since a post of a Facebook page, supporting the AP faction, says "Samastha Centre, Kozhikode-6" below "Samastha Kerala Jam-iyyathul Ulama".
    If I remove the unsourced content, Spworld2 will add it again. So someone else need to intervene. Neutralhappy (talk) 06:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Addition of unsourced content by Spworld2
    • Spworld2 also added unsourced content (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) in the infobox that the formation of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) is in 1989 and its founder is Kanthapuram. The sources cited by Spworld2 to add 1989 as the year of formation or Kanthapuram as the founder in the infobox do not support the addition by Spworld2. These two (1, 2) are the sources Spworld2 used to add 1989 as the year of formation and Kanthapuram as the founder of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction), in the infobox. These two do not support Spworld2's claim. On the other hand, Spworld2 wants to add 1926 as the year of formation and Varakkal Mullakoya Thangal as the founder of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (EK faction) in the infobox of the article for Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (EK faction).
    • Spworld2 again wrongfully changed the year of formation of AP Samastha without citing a source. The source given does not even mention "1986".
    • Spworld2 wants to advance the position that the founder of AP Samastha is Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar, without citing a source.
    • Spworld2 added the headquarters of AP Samastha as Markazu Saqafathi Sunniyya without citing a source, though this appears to be wrong since the place shown below "Samastha Kerala Jam-iyyathul Ulama" in a post of a Facebook page supporting the AP faction is "Samastha Center, Kozhikode-6".
    • Spworld2 says Kanthapuram is the founding president of AP Samastha, which must be false, not only because there could not be a single source stating Kanthapuram ever was a president of any Samastha, either before the so-called split in Samastha in 1989 or after it; but also because at the time of the reorganisation of Samastha in 1989, Kanthapuram was made the general secretary and Ullal Thangal the president.
    Removal of sourced content by Spworld2
    • Spworld2 also removed content to advance the view of the people associated with EK Samastha by removing the sourced content.
    • See also this sourced content removal by Spworld2.
    • See this sourced content removal by Spworld2.
    • Spworld2 removed the sourced content about the flag of Samastha, probably to suppress the AP faction version of the narrative about the flag.
    • Spworld2 removed "Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama" because Spworld2 hates AP Samastha being referred to as "Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama", though the sources given against it refer to AP Samastha as "Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama". See what the sources say also. Instead, Spworld2 replaced the term "Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama" with "All India Sunni Jamiyyathul Ulama", another organisation of AP Sunnis.
    • Soworld2 removed the sourced content, giving a false edit summary.
    Unhelpful editing by Spworld2
    • Both Samasthas are known as Samastha. But Spworld2 made this unhelpful edit, by changing also known as Samastha to also known as Samastha (AP Faction) even though there are numerous sources to support it and 5 sources are present in the article to support it. Note there is not a single source that says Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) is known as "Samastha (AP Faction)" or "Samastha (AP faction)". Spworld2 apparently and probably made this edit to get a positive result to the Spworld2's move request and thus get the page moved to "Samastha (AP Faction)".
    • Spworld2 made this unhelpful edit by changing "Flag of EK Samastha" to "Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama flag". In fact, it is the flag of EK Samastha only. This edit by Spworld2 would mislead readers that there is no difference of opinion regarding the flag used by both Samasthas. In fact, AP Samastha uses a different flag. This is especially problematic since both flags appear to be the same, though there are minor differences.
    • Spworld2 removed "of EK Sunnis", which distinguishes the organisation, by this edit. In addition, Spworld2 removed the part that clarifies the misunderstanding that there are two Samasthas in the same edit.
    Spworld2's character of not maintaining neutrality
    Unwanted placement of clarfy tag by Spworld2
    • Though there is nothing unclear Spworld2 placed the clarify tags (1, 2), without giving a reason. Later, Spworld2 removed the content altogether just because Spworld2 hates AP Samastha and its success.
    Repeated addition of EK Samastha's only position without citing source to support it, by Spworld2
    Disruptive edits by Spworld2 even after getting warning
    • Spworld2 added an unsourced content, even after getting a warning (see: 1, 2). The source says about the split of Samastha in 1989, not the formation of AP Samastha. Nor does the source say Kanthapuram is the founder of AP Samastha.
    Links of previous discussions
    Neutralhappy (talk) 11:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see nothing here that belongs at WP:ANI. This discussion only seems to add one venue to the already too long list of venues where the content issue is being discussed. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I rather disagree with you since this WP:ANI is meant to deal with chronic, intractable behavioral problems, as this venue itself says:

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    I came here not mainly to discuss but to get an action taken against the bad faith, disruptive, and biased editor Spworld2, or mainly to get the unsourced content removed. Neutralhappy (talk) 13:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This board is for deciding whether an editor is "bad faith, disruptive, and biased". If you presuppose that, as you did in the original title of this section, then there is nothing to discuss. All I have found out here is that Sunni Muslims are just as factional as evangelical Christians or Trotskyites. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, thanks for your reply. Have you found out that America is known as USA? If yes, should we avoid saying America is known as USA in the Wikipedia article on America, because some people hate to refer to America as USA? What is your answer? Whether it is yes or no, the same applies to both Samasthas, since both of them are known as "Samastha". Spworld2 hates to refer to AP Samastha as a Samastha, so Spworld2 replaced "known as Samastha" with "known as Samastha (AP Faction)",—which is similar to saying Taiwan is "known as China ([name of founder of Taiwan] Faction)",—without citing any source though the given sources against it refer to AP Samastha as "Samastha". If it is not a problem, the same should apply to EK Samastha, where Spworld2 had not applied the same, by replacing the term "known as Samastha" with "known as Samastha (EK faction)", because Spworld2 wants to project only EK Samastha is known as Samastha, obviously to advance the view of the EK faction (people affiliated with EK Samastha) that the only EK Samastha is the real continuation of the Samastha founded in 1926. If it is not a problem add "known as China ([name of founder of Taiwan] Faction), by replacing the "[name of founder of Taiwan]" with the founder's name in the article Taiwan. Likewise, add similar terms coined by Wikipedia editors in several other articles. Neutralhappy (talk) 14:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Spworld2 removed the boldening of the term "EK Samastha" because Spworld2 wants only EK Samastha referred to as "Samastha" without qualification. Which Wikipedia guideline suggests mentioning alternative names of a subject without boldening it. Therefore, it is not only an act of disruptive editing but vandalism also. Neutralhappy (talk) 15:22, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This edit by Spworld2 changed "also known as Samastha" to "also known as Samastha (AP Faction)", the change this move request is seeking for, without any supporting citations, though the use of "Samastha" to refer to Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) was supported by 5 sources at the time of this change. Neutralhappy (talk) 18:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As for Phil Bridger's comment, each sentence (specially shown) is rebutted as follows:

    This board is for deciding whether an editor is "bad faith, disruptive, and biased".

    I do not contest this, nor do I need to.

    If you presuppose that, as you did in the original title of this section, then there is nothing to discuss.

    A discussion can take place even if all sides has already taken opposing positions. Furthermore, this venue is to report "chronic intractable behavioural problems", which has to be ascertained before reporting on this venue.

    All I have found out here is that Sunni Muslims are just as factional as evangelical Christians or Trotskyites.

    All you have found may be the whole universe, but they may not be relevant here. Here, we need evidence such as, sources, and diffs. Neutralhappy (talk) 16:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Neutralhappy: Have you attempted to resolve this issue at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard? If not, I think that would be a logical next step for you and Spworld2 to resolve these disagreements. Left guide (talk) 01:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I was busy and didn't see the discussion. There was no World War here to mention so much Removed some content that was not article related and misquoted and clearly explained it. Not much to discuss, apparently in this section Spworld2 (talk) 04:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If Spworld2 is saying, "Removed some content that was not article related and misquoted and clearly explained it. Not much to discuss, apparently in this section" about the edits Spworld2 made on AP Samastha and EK Samastha, it is false, since they were neither misquoted nor unrelated. Neutralhappy (talk) 05:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fact
    Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama is a Sunni Islamic organization established in 1926 in Kerala, India.
    This makes it the largest legally functioning Sunni Islamic organization in India.
    In 1989 (1986-1989 Time phase), due to a slight difference of opinion from this organization, under the leadership of Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar, he resigned (separated) from this organization and went and formed a new organization. It is known as AP Samastha, AP Sunni, Samastha (AP Faction) and Kanthapuram Faction[11][12][13] [14].
    Established in 1926, the Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama organization is still functioning in India.
    But this editor (@Neutralhappy) has the information and history of the organization founded in 1926 in the same way Wrote in the new organization adding unsourced information along with it.
    This editor focuses only on this page and spends a lot of time on this, and it is discussed in many places to keep it alive. Writing in promotional style. It feels WP:COI Spworld2 (talk) 06:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are telling a lie that Kanthapuram resigned from Samastha. Moreover, the matter that the Kanthapuram faction created a new Samastha that has no legacy of the Samastha founded in 1926 is a POV pushing. In addition, AP Samastha has the same name, registration number, and flag Samastha had before the so-called split in 1989. Neutralhappy (talk) 06:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    AP Samastha was formed between 1989 (1986-1989 Time phase)
    When a new organization is formed it will have a year, it will have a cause/reason, it will have a founder,
    the same description and the same year of formation should not be written the same in two articles.
    In the absence of the above facts it is against policy to create the article as a new organization.
    According to your arguments
    If these two are same ??
    Merge into Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (existing organization) article Spworld2 (talk) 06:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Problems with sources cited by Spworld2
    The following are the sources cited by Spworld2 here to say the AP faction formed a new Samastha that has no legacy of the Samastha founded in 1926. The first and the second sources do not say it at all, while the third and the fourth ones are the same source that says the AP faction created a new organisation after a split in Samastha. This is the fist time Spworld2 cited a source before me to claim the AP Samastha has no legacy of the Samastha founded in 1926. See what is the problem with them:
    This does not say the AP faction created a new Samastha.
    This also does not say the AP faction created a new Samastha.
    This source claims the AP faction created a new Samastha, without interviewing the witnesses or the leaders of either faction who have the most authoritative knowledge. This happens when they depend only on sources having a conflict of interest, without taking into account what the other side has to say, while this also makes the study not all dissimilar to conflict of interest sources and biased sources. The EK faction's main activity since the so-called split in Samastha, for about two decades, was to allege so many different frauds with the AP faction, particularly Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar. For that, the EK faction tried their level best to calim AP Samastha is a fake one. However, independent periodicals still continue refer to AP Samastha as "Samastha" without any qualification and as "Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama" without any qualification. There are several sources that use the term "EK faction" and "AP faction" to distinguish both of them form the other, meaning generally independent sources tend to agree both Samasthas' claim of being the real Samastha.
    This source claims the AP faction created a new Samastha, without interviewing the witnesses or the leaders of either faction who have the most authoritative knowledge. This happens when they depend only on sources having a conflict of interest, without taking into account what the other side has to say, while this also makes the study not all dissimilar to conflict of interest sources and biased sources. The EK faction's main activity since the so-called split in Samastha, for about two decades, was to allege so many different frauds with the AP faction, particularly Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar. For that, the EK faction tried their level best to calim AP Samastha is a fake one. However, independent periodicals still continue refer to AP Samastha as "Samastha" without any qualification and as "Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama" without any qualification. There are several sources that use the term "EK faction" and "AP faction" to distinguish both of them form the other, meaning generally independent sources tend to agree both Samasthas' claim of being the real Samastha. Neutralhappy (talk) 08:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Conflict of interest editing by Spworld2
    * Spworld2 wanted to get the article Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP Sunnis) deleted, which at the time was Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (of AP Sunnis), probably because Spworld2 wanted to advance the view of people associated with EK Samastha that EK Samastha is the only and real Samastha.
    * To advance the view of people of EK Samastha in wkivoice, Spworld2 removed a move request to rename and move Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (EK faction) and Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP Sunnis) to Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (EK faction) and Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) respectively.
    * Spworld2, being failed to get the page for Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) deleted, began the attempt to move and rename the page as Samastha (AP Faction), probably because Spworld2 wanted to remove the full name of the organisation, which is often quoted by reliable sources, so that readers would think the only organisation with the full name "Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama" is that of EK Sunnis. Earlier, Spworld2 tried to remove "Samastha" from the full name (1, 2, 3) so that readers would think Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) is not officially known by its full name "Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama", or as just "Samastha".
    * See also this removal, which was undone by an admin.
    Pages created by Spworld2
    * The pages created by Spworld2 show Spworld2 is closely associated with Indian Union Muslim League and EK Sunnis (people affiliated to EK Samastha), which the overwhelming majority of followers of EK Samastha support. Spworld2 created the article 100th Anniversary of Samastha Kerala for the promotion of the future event and EK Samastha's claim of the legacy of Samastha founded in 1926. Spworld2 also removed the notability tag added by someone else from the article 100th Anniversary of Samastha Kerala. Furthermore, Spworld2 created the article Majlis Al-Noor, which is about a program of EK Sunnis (people affiliated to EK Samastha). Interestingly, Spworld2 appears to have a close connection (maybe as a leader such as a local leader of any subsidiaries of EK Samastha) to the subject because Spworld2 has uploaded an image used in Majlis Al-Noor, which might only be uploaded by those who are close to the subject because of copyright. The flag of Haritha (organisation), which is associated with Indian Union Muslim League, has also been uploaded by Spworld2; that in turn shows Spworld2's closeness to the group or the faction, such as being a leader of this political party or being close to the leader of a subsidiary of EK Samastha. See Spworld2's complete list of uploads; which in turn shows probably Spworld2 has been to or lives near Puthanathani, a place in Malappuram district, in the two constituencies of which the Indian Muslim League fielded its candidates for the 2024 Lok Sabha election. Likewise, Spworld2 created articles on places and institutions in Malappuram district. The edit by Spworld2 shows, Spworld2 knows Malayalam, though the source does not support Spworld2's claims in the edit. Spworld2 edits are largely on articles related to Kerala politics or politics in which Indian Union Muslim League has an interest. The other articles Spworld2 created are related to GCC, where a large number of Malayalees work. So it is certain that Spworld2 has a close connection to at least the leaders such as the local leaders of the subsidiaries of EK Samastha. The following is a list of the articles Spworld2 created as of 13:34, 6 September 2024; and those that have association with Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) are shown in bold, and those with EK Sunnis or EK Samastha with an underline:
    We can see the articles edited by Spworld2 here. Neutralhappy (talk) 08:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This source says most of those affiliated with EK Samastha are members of the IUML: "It is a known fact that most of the Samastha workers are members of the IUML and the party is confident that the issues with Samastha may not have any political fallouts." Neutralhappy (talk) 08:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So what? S !! All this is created by me, what is the problem??
    Write more articles on the subject of knowledge, and create related articles when writing an article. What's the problem with that? There is no interest in a war over an article, I don't like arguing a point and writing a lot of essays about it
    Keep it simple Spworld2 (talk) 11:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Paid editing behaviour by Spworld2
    Earlier, Spworld2 tried to get the article on Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) disappeared from Wikipedia. Now also, Spworld2 wants to get that aim fulfilled by proposing the merger, in a comment, (earlier also, Spworld2 had suggested the same merger, in a comment), of the article Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) with Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (EK faction). This seem like the typical behaviour of a paid editor having made an agreement to get the article on Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) disappeared, through the process such as deletion or merger, in whatever way possible, even at the risk of being banned or blocked, indefinitely. Alternatively, Spworld2 themself seems to be more interested to further the EK faction's view than being needed to be paid, just like those affiliated with EK Samastha. Neutralhappy (talk) 13:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not affiliated with any organization. I don't write for anyone's money, I write in my free time
    All this is just your wrong feeling, Just your fake propaganda Otherwise only slander ,
    The anger at what the COI told you is telling back to me
    I know about the organizations in Kerala, I know about the political parties, I know about AP Samastha, of which you are the editor . Writing articles under the Kerala Wiki project.
    When an article is written, its corresponding article is written, all according to policy Spworld2 (talk) 13:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Lying by Spworld2 besides typical paid editing behaviour
    See the nomination of AP Samastha, which at the time was Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (of AP Sunnis), for deletion by Spworld2. Now, Sporld2 apparentlylies that Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) does not exist, by labelling Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (EK faction) as the "existing organization". Neutralhappy (talk) 10:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Lies and deception by Spworld2 to continue disruptive, bad faith, biased POV pushing
    Spworld2, at 8:46 16 September 2024, (see also: 1, 2—in which User:Spworld2 is seen, 3—how it appears in Spworld2's user page), has admitted that Spworld2 is a supporter of the Indian Union Muslim League and that Spworld2 has Malayalam as the native language. The EK Sunni supporters of the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) would likely have more hatred towards the AP faction than the EK Sunnis who do not support the Indian Union Muslim League, since several leaders of the IUML are Mujahids. The biggest enemies of non-Sunnis, in Kerala, including Mujahids, in Kerala, is Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar, general secretary of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) and the AP faction Sunnis. But, just within 5 hours after the admission, Spworld2 lies that Spworld2 is not affiliated with any organisation. It is obvious Spworld2 is blatantly lying, like Spworld2's other lies, such as those seen in Spworld2's edit summaries in Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction), allegations against me, Neutalhappy, and the addition of the false, unsourced content. Spworld2 also lies that Spworld2 knows about Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction), because Spworld2 does not appear to know the headquarters of AP Samastha, and whether ever Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar became the president or the founding president of any Samastha. Spworld2 also lies that AP Samastha is known by the term, coined by Spworld2, "Samastha (AP Faction)". Actually, either Samastha is known as "Samastha", which Spworld2 replaced with "Samastha (AP Faction)", though there were 5 sources supporting the fact that AP Samastha is known as "Samastha". Spworld2 engaged in edit warring, disruptive editing, vandalism—(1: grammatical and spelling mistakes, 2: removed the boldening of the term "EK Samastha", violating the Wikipedia guideline to bolden it, because Spworld2 hates EK Samastha to be referred to as "EK Samastha"; in other places Spworld2 removed terms indicating the EK faction, such as "EK faction" altogether),— and bad faith editing (unhelpful editing) on the article Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction). Spworld2 also lies that Spworld2 is not interested in edit warring. But, had Spworld2 not interested in edit warring, I would not have reported about Spworld2 on WP:ANI, but just would have undone Spworld2's problematic edits. The edit history of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) proves the edit war conducted by Spworld2. So, kindly TOPIC BAN Spworld2 on both Samasthas and the related articles, since it is unavoidable. Neutralhappy (talk) 19:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    By my count, Neutralhappy has contributed over 39,000 bytes to this report. That is very much WP:TLDR. Diffs are important, but everyone here is a volunteer, and most have better things to do than wade through ~40k buytes of forum shopping, as this issue was already brought up by Spworld2 on WP:NPOVN.

    From a glance, this seems to mostly be a content dispute, sprikled with assumptions of bad faith by Neutralhappy, including in the very title of this section. Neutralhappy, if you want people to read your report, I recommend starting a new subsection, and presenting briefly the most important parts of your case, including at least 3 but not more than 10 diffs showing the most egregious problems. If it's over 1,000 words, it's likely too long. Be sure to cite the policies each diff violates. Or, better yet, try the steps in WP:DR, including WP:3O to get uninvolved editors to weigh in and solve the content dispute. If Spworld2 edit wars against two editors, that's a very easy block, and requires very little documentation. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Neutralhappy, there is no nice way to say this. You have obviously gone through a lot of work pulling this complaint together. But for any sanctions to result from an ANI complaint, the misconduct either a) must be blatantly obvious to any editor or b) have a reasonable amount of compelling evidence presented that a large assortment of uninvolved editors can easily assess and come to conclusions about.
    By "reasonable", I'm thinking of 3-10 diffs of bad behavior, not a very long, multi-sectioned narrative. You are not going to find many uninvolved editors (well, except for EducatedRedneck) who are willing to put in the time and effort to assess your complaint here and this is likely to be archived without action being taken. Editors are busy, they don't have the time to devote to all of this when they have other editing activities to do. As I advised another editor (below), cases this complex should be brought to ARBCOM if that is a suitable forum. ANI is just not set up for evaluating this large amount of content and could end up with a BOOMERANG on you. Take this as a lesson learned for the next dispute. Liz Read! Talk! 01:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking through Spworld2's contributions, it seems the user is treating Wikipedia as a gossip column of a tabloid by adding sensational content such as run-of-the-mill issues/verbal spats/allegations under the heading "controversies", disregarding WP:CSECTION and it's long-term notability. Some of the articles created are also sensational in nature. 117.230.80.72 (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Admins please note: this is the first edit from this IP ( 117.230.80.72) , the only IP not active in this discussion, first edit participating in this discussion
      Comment is like an experienced user Spworld2 (talk) 11:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Two editors unable to participate collaboratively

    [edit]

    Keystone18 recently left a message on the talk page of EEng offering suggestions at User talk:EEng#Suggestions about your editing. These suggestions were polite, left in good faith, and by and large were good advice.

    EEng responded. Highlights include:

    • Ironic, isn't it, that they made that mess just 30 minutes before coming here to lecture me.
    • No, that's just a delusion you have.
    • Again, you have no idea what you're talking about.
    • Yet in article after article you have mindlessly shoved all images to the right, and made them all the default size, turning them into a monotonous stack in which most images are far from their relevant text
    • Again, you don't know what you're talking about
    • This is the root of your problem. The idea that all pages must look the same is popular among editors who have no judgment of their own and find comfort in running around imposing their hallucinatory formatting and copywriting "rules" on articles about whose histories they know nothing, and about whose subjects they know nothing.
    • Honestly, how can you possibly think that's OK? Because anything outside your tiny radius of experience is foreign matter that must be expelled? Shoot first, ask questions later? This truly epitomizes your bull-in-a-china-shop editing.
    • You're a one-editor wrecking crew.
    • Don't make me laugh.
    • You think you're some kind of cleanup superhero when you're really an inexperienced, overconfident, careless editor who needs to slow their roll.

    There were legitimate concerns about Keystone18's editing, particularly regarding the introduction of errors, lack of edit summaries, and misuse of minor edits. Understandably, Keystone18 did not respond to EEng's inappropriate comments. All of the comments above were merely in response to the advice; Keystone18 had done nothing to escalate the situation.

    Even though Yngvadottir came in with a more reasonable tone, EEng escalated it even further when Keystone18 did not respond:

    • First look at the ridiculous effect of putting all images to the right and making them all the same size
    • but Keystone's too busy to actually look at what they do before rushing off to turn some other article into shit.
    • A few random examples of other destruction they've wrought on various articles
    • As you mentioned, even given their abysmal track record I have, until now, gone through every one of their edits looking for any nugget of a useful change amid all the fecal matter.
    • Complete incompetence.
    • Those friends are close to as incompetent as Keystone is. They've done similar things in other articles -- don't know what words mean, reverse the sense of the text, screw up the formatting, project their naive ideas into articles. It's the Dunning-Kruger effect.

    Completely understandably, Keystone18 did not respond. Unsatisfied, EEng left a retaliatory warning on Keystone18's talk page at Special:Diff/1245755384. I believe that both editors are in the right here in that the other needs to correct their behavior. Both editors have had many chances over many years to do so. To avoid a pointless back and forth, I'm going to skip straight to proposing remedies so we can be done with this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The bile in EEng's response was unnecessary, but I don't agree that the original post was particularly worthwhile or constructive. I don't doubt it was in good faith, but its tone was frankly obnoxious at points: hat led you to think that was warranted? [...] Unless I am missing something, don't use it, and try to remove it from the edits you have already made isn't rhetorically negated just because they were indeed missing something that they could've made some effort to figure out first. It is not your role to add your commentary on the subject in edit notes, or even to issue emphatic edit notes saying what should or should not be done with edits. The site is guided by guidelines that make that unnecessary; similarly reads as both presumptive, unhelpful, and simply wrong. I don't think editors are beyond question for their experience or whatever, but some basic self-awareness about things other editors may or may not be privy to is also a factor for civility and constructive collaboration. Remsense ‥ 论 23:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Keystone18 warned to preview edits

    [edit]
    No consensus for this particular warning. SerialNumber54129 21:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Keystone18 is warned that they must preview edits before publishing them and to correct any errors they introduce into an article.

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

    Keystone18 subject to edit summary restrictions

    [edit]

    Keystone18 is indefinitely subject to a requirement that they use edit summaries in all of their edits. These edit summaries must be sufficient to explain the reason for the edit or the changes made. Keystone18 may not mark any edit as minor. Repeated use of the minor edit function or failure to use an edit summary may be sanctioned with a block until Keystone18 agrees to comply with the restriction. The edit summary and minor edit restrictions can be appealed to the community after one year since the restriction was imposed or the last enforcement action (whichever is later), and each year thereafter.

    • Support. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I have been frequently frustrated by Keystone18's rapid-fire edits without edit summaries. Requiring edit summaries will not only make their edits easier to understand - it will force them to slow down and think about the edits. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - we have a template for this as well, Template:Uw-editsummary2. And edit summaries are not required anyway, but they are best practice. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I know it's an usual step to take, but this is an unusual case. Keystone has made over 100,000 edits in the past 2.5 years: 45k in 2022, 39k in 2023, over 31k so far this year [15]. Only half of those edits have edit summaries--that's 55k+ edits with no summaries [16]. They are going too fast and making too many edits, and the lack of edit summaries is likely because edit summaries would slow them down. They made 1,620 edits to Allentown, Pennsylvania; 1,342 edits to Lehigh Valley. What possible reason could there be for any editor to make more than a thousand edits to one article? And look at the edits, e.g. to Allentown, PA: [17]. Even when edit summaries are used, they're canned, like "further" and "minor copyediting." This sort of behavior absolutely blows up article histories--and floods watchlists. Requiring descriptive edit summaries would both solve the lack-of-edit-summary problem, and, I think, solve the too-many-edits problem. WP:HIGHSCORE editing is disruptive. Levivich (talk) 15:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      PS: 930 edits to talk pages. 110,000 edits to mainspace, less than 1,000 to talk space. Kinda tells you all you need to know right there. Levivich (talk) 15:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: I agree with Levivich. C F A 💬 03:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I can appreciate the sentiments motivating this proposal, but this is a very clumsy and impractical way to try to reduce the disruption associated with this editor's approach. Indeed, I'm concerned it would exacerbate issues and become its own time sink, if anything. What happens when Keystone's summaries are inevitably found to be too brief, flippant, or just unclear? We're back here with another couple hundred thousand bytes of text being wasted on a new argument for the next sanction. Beyond that, it's just not practical to create a unique framework of editorial rules for an editor over and above what others are formally required to adhere to. If appropriate, make a proposal to TBAN them from particular areas or processes that they tend to disrupt, or propose a block altogether. These kinds of cobbled-together, hand-holding/guardrail sanctions pretty much never solve anything except to postpone any actual solution the issues. SnowRise let's rap 05:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I have turned, and I continue to turn, my face from sanctioning editors for things that are not yet sanctionable. SerialNumber54129 21:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    EEng subject to a civility restriction

    [edit]
    If this is ever going to pass, this isn't the scenario. Let's not spend more time and bytes on this. Star Mississippi 01:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    EEng is subject to an indefinite civility restriction. If they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then they may be blocked for a short time up to one week, and up to an indefinite duration for repeat offenses. Blocks resulting from this restriction can only be appealed to the blocking administrator or the community, where community consensus takes precedence. The civility restriction can be appealed to the community after one year since the restriction was imposed or the last enforcement action (whichever is later), and each year thereafter.

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

    Problems with Keystone18's editing

    [edit]

    Keystone18 (talk · contribs) has been extensively rewriting articles. Partly this is because they evidently have firm preferences as to article layout; see their talk page and the note they dropped on EEng's talk page after, it seems, a series of conflicts on articles on EEng's watchlist. But they have been leaving some of these articles badly broken: for example this version of Memorial Hall (Harvard University) with formatting symbols and part of a caption left hanging in the text, article text incorporated into the quotebox, and a set of 4 images repeated. In good faith, I have tried to come up with an explanation for why an experienced editor—and member of the Guild of Copyeditors—would leave an article in such a degraded state. EEng has mined their edits for improvements that can be reinstated. But they appear oblivious. And their collegiality leaves a lot to be desired. Most of these edits have been marked minor and have no edit summaries, both of which are hallmarks of editors seeking to avoid scrutiny; they have declined to discuss their changes on article talk pages; after starting the section on EEng's talk page, they did not respond to frequent pings as I and EEng discussed their own editing; and when EEng went to their talk page, they deleted the section in favor of discussing on EEng's talk then returned with a response that accused EEng of "shifting blame" and characterized their "suggestions" (their quotation marks) as descriptions of problems that EEng must fix. Having opened themself up to examination of their edits by making unfriendly suggestions about EEng's style, Keystone18 is now refusing to discuss and instead attacking. They've revealed themself to be a problem editor. I don't know whether this is a recent development. I don't know whether they're going through a bad patch, working on a small-screened device, or simply overcome by loathing when they come across articles with a large number of images as well as a quote box. I don't know how many of the problems I found in the wording at History of Harvard University after a flurry of edits by Keystone18 and others, and even after some fixes by EEng, are down to Keystone18 not fully understanding, and how many were someone else's disimprovements. But they've been requiring quite a bit of clean-up after them, only a small portion of which can be attributed to legitimate disagreement over how articles should look on the page. So since we're here, Keystone18's behavior should be examined, including both their article work and their interactional style. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    After reading through many more of Keystone18's edits, beyond the image-layout concerns and the pattern of a large number of small edits per article (with a high error-rate and minimal communication), the main thing I noticed was idiosyncratic views about how places are referred to. For example, changing "[[Brooklyn]], [[New York (state)|New York]]" to "[[Brooklyn]], New York City, U.S." in infoboxes. Walsh90210 (talk) 04:34, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If Keystone18 is going to leave the "edit summary reminder" option on and will attempt to minimize fast minor edits, I don't think any other action is required at this time. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Three hours ago I was in the process of asking Tryptofish to have a quiet word with Keystone to help them see the light. But then thebiguglyalien took it upon himself to stir the shit-pot, and here we are.
      I've had to clean up so many of Keystone's messes that I can't remember them all, but here are talk-page threads I opened on four articles, listing the problems Keystone introduced (some of them, anyway -- no way to find them all since their diffs are often so scattershot you can't tell what they do e.g. [18]):
    Keystone never responded to any of those threads, instead typically returning to whichever article and attempting to edit-war their changes back in -- their signature move being shoving all image to the right and making them all the same size, no matter how bizarre the results (see [23] -- and scroll to the bottom to see how Keystone also somehow managed to paste 1/3 of the article into a footnote, images and all). EEng 04:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello. This ended up here after I offered several suggestions/questions to EEng a few days ago on some of Eeng's editing trends. Two editors thanked me for my edits while also warning of EEng's aggressive guardianship of these pages. As one editor wrote: "Thanks to both of you for your hard work on the Harvard articles and attempts, though sometimes futile, to make them better. I see you both have encountered "the steward." I encountered them months ago on History and traditions of Harvard commencements. Finally made some progress but it took weeks. There are a handful of Harvard articles (it sort of seems like a random list) that they watch like a hawk, and any change they don't agree with, however minor, will almost invariably be walked backed. It leads to articles that, I agree with you, are formatted and written in a very bizarre and unconventional way, and certainly not an encyclopedic one." That was followed by EEng's very volatile responses, which I first saw today. At no point have I refused to collaborate with him on the article. Just the opposite. Collaboration was one of my suggestions in my short post to his page. I also asked about his consistent use of unattributed quotes, including in article ledes and as primary captions; his addition of personal commentary on the article's subject, which he adds as edit notes in text, which is confusing and sometimes presents spacing and editing problems; his routine use of the "shy" function to words, which I have not before seen and which makes page editing very difficult and also adds to spacing issues; his placement of images in various sizes all over the page (on the left, in the center, and on the right); my suggestion that he not project ownership (what he calls "guardianship)" over pages; and my suggestion that he work collaboratively with other editors.
    The editing of these articles, including my bracket and other error, was complicated by these unusual formatting tactics, but let me focus on my own takeaways for improvement: 1.) I should use the preview option consistently; I likely would have caught the bracket error if I had; 2.) Cease editing on a small device as I have the past few weeks, which was likely part of the cause of the bracket error; in fact, I discovered another similar bracket error today in the Harvard template box, which I corrected and I believe was of my making recently; and 3.) Use much greater discretion (if used at all) with the minor edit option. Keystone18 (talk) 04:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keystone18, your explanation is inadequate. I have made about 100,000 smartphone edits without ever blaming a "small device" for my errors, which I do my best to correct promptly. I became a highly active administator on my phone and have written Good articles on my phone. Your editing is being discussed because you offered a harsh assessment of another editor's work and other editors took a look at your own work and discovered major problems. Please offer a more detailed response to the criticisms of your editing and a more robust assurance that the problems will not crop up again. Cullen328 (talk) 05:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When Keystone posted on my talk page five days ago, that was the first time they had given even the slightest hint of acknowledgment of my existence -- after ignoring for a week (as they continue to ignore) the several article discussion threads I'd opened (linked at the four bullets above) and my dozens of detailed edit summaries (e.g. [24]) explaining why I was forced to revert essentially every edit they'd made to numerous articles. What I'd like you, Cullen328, to get from Keystone is how they justify that behavior, for which editing on a phone is also not an excuse. EEng 05:47, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1. No excuse for editing errors ever. My primary corrective step is to systematically begin using the preview function; 2. No excuse to mark an edit minor if it isn't, or might even be viewed that way. I am going to use great discretion with it; and 3. In the coming weeks, I will attempt to reach out to the handful of editors who posted here and attempt to forge consensus and resolve any legitimate lingering concerns. Keystone18 (talk) 06:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the minor edits, that sounds good. Most people won't complain about a minor edit popping up in their and watchlist, and if they do just link this thread. The "minor" checkbox isn't even available on some interfaces right now.[25] Watch out if you use a lot of scripts because some (like User:Mesidast/Tidy citations.js) have a "minor" setting that checks the box when they run. Also, if you want a reminder for edit summaries, you can tick the box at Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary) Rjjiii (talk) 06:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks very much. I activated that prompt option, which is a helpful reminder. Keystone18 (talk) 07:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Keystone18: He is being a "guardian" as he calls it because you have made hundreds or thousands of worthless pointless edits that are constantly filled with errors. (Not on just that page, but all over.) It doesn't have anything to do with the equipment you're using, and it's not a stray bracket here and there. EEng was probably wrong to be as sarcastic and harsh as he was, but behind his nasty tone he absolutely was telling the truth about the constant terrible quality of your editing. TooManyFingers (talk) 05:49, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Keystone18, in your first response above, you wrote: I also asked about his consistent use of unattributed quotes, including in article ledes and as primary captions. Hmm? What do you mean? Could you link to a diff where you fix an unattributed quotation in an article that EEng has worked on? And I don't see a single mention of quotes in your post to EEng's talk page. The specifics are about shy and image placement. The only person I currently see on that talk page (EEng's done some archiving there recently) mentioning quotes lacking sources is Jjazz76 back in May, who states that EEng has ridiculed me for asking for sources for quotes. I lack the context for that statement, and I note that the previous August, EEng was referring to someone objecting to there being citations in the introduction at Phineas Gage—which were needed to reference quotations. So that's the opposite way around. Can you fill us in on what you were referring to, since you apparently intended to mention it to EEng but didn't? Yngvadottir (talk) 08:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    For the record, the "context for that statement" you're looking for is this discussion [26], in which an editor insisted that his original research into Harvard's tax returns overrides multiple reliable sources from which I had directly quoted. That editor made themself look ridiculous all by themselves, no help from me needed.
    If you will allow me, Yngvadottir, to redirect the focus however, I have asked Keystone several times now to explain why they refused to discuss their edits at the talk-page threads I opened on several articles [27][28][29][30]. That's the heart of this whole issue. Keystone's overestimation of their own skill wouldn't matter if they had been willing to discuss and learn, but they're not -- though they do put on a good show of it here at ANI. ("I will attempt to reach out to the handful of editors who posted here and attempt to forge consensus and resolve any legitimate lingering concerns" sounds like AI-generated bullshit, BTW.) So once again, Keystone18: what's your explanation for simply ignoring those discussions for up to ten days, while you kept doing the same mistaken things to those and other articles? EEng 11:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing complicated, EEng. I was not on from about September 10 until yesterday, and you reverted the edits anyway. If I revisit any of these pages, though, I'll be sure to raise my suggestions with you on the respective article talk page first. Keystone18 (talk) 12:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, content/editorial disputes about specific articles should be discussed on the article talkpages. EEng says they opened discussions on the article talkpages which you didn't contribute to. AusLondonder (talk) 12:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keystone18, either you think we're all dumb, or this is getting to be a WP:CIR case.
    • The four discussions were opened on September 4, 7, 7, and 12. Between September 4 and 9 you made almost 1000 edits, including to some of those four articles [31], but ignored the discussions completely. You also ignored my extensive, careful edit summaries [32] reverting your edits; instead you just went back and started editwarring your changes in again.
    • On September 9 you left your message on my talk page, outlining your ideas about editing and article formatting, which might charitably be labeled idiosyncratic. As soon as Yngvadottir responded to you, that evening, pointing out the many ways you'd been messing up article after article, you suddenly stopped editing.
    Now, once again: explain your complete failure to discuss. EEng 16:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, EEng, by the time I saw your edit comments on the Widener Library and Memorial Hall (Harvard University) pages, you had already reverted my edits. I also did not respond to the very complimentary comments I received on my page about those very same edits from one of two different editors User talk:Keystone18#Widener Library, who praised my edits. Nor did I sign on for four or so days because, frankly, I wasn't feeling well. And nor did (or do) I really have the inclination to revisit these two pages as an active editor because I sense you do not have much interest in collaborative editing on them. I will, however, be sure to read them.
    If I am wrong about that, however, and you want my response to your page comments, I am very willing to address them. You appear to have systematically reverted editors with similar concerns, however. My focus, here, is in not being defensive, but focusing on constructive steps that I can take that make sense and will likely eliminate errors and improve my contributions, including: 1.) I am going to begin using the preview option routinely; 2.) I am going to minimize greatly or entirely the use of the minor edit function; and 3.) I am going to reach out in the coming weeks to those who commented here. Keystone18 (talk) 17:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're either lying or we really are in a WP:Competence is required situation.
    • Here's the history of Widener Library [33].
    • As seen in that history, on September 4 you made a long series of edits that completely screwed up the article. That same day I reverted step by step, with an edit summary at each step explaining why your edits were destructive, and opened a talk page thread further explaining [34].
    • As noted so many times, you just ignored all that. But nonetheless, on September 7 you returned to the article and started trying to editwar your changes in again.
    • Meanwhile, you kept moving on to other articles making the same mistakes, I kept opening talk page threads explaining why what you're doing is destructive, and you kept ignoring it all and wrecking more articles; as with Widener Library, in some cases you returned to the same articles after being reverted, and tried to editwar your changes in again.
    I repeat: you're either lying, or we're in a CIR situation, given that you're unable to recall or reconstruct your own actions sufficiently to answer for them. When that happens with a criminal defendant, they put you in a mental hospital until you regain sufficient competency to stand trial; in your case, the comparable action would be a block until you demonstrate that you can engage in basic ways with other editors, and take responsibility for your actions instead continuing this dazed-and-confused act.
    But I didn't open this thread -- another editor made the decision to waste a huge amount of editor time by opening this thread when the matter was already being addressed with you privately. Right now other editors are deciding your immediate fate (above) but whatever happens this time, the moment you show signs of repeating your destructive behavior I'm going to move to have you blocked. EEng 05:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC). P.S. The praise you received is from editors with error rates similar to yours e.g. [35]. It's like a mutual-support network for mess-makers . I wouldn't crow about it if I were you.[reply]
    Keystone18 appears to have been led astray by their friends. What I'm seeing is a failure to pay attention to objections to their edits (including failure to read the edit summaries on reverts, failure to discuss after being reverted, and simply ignoring pings; instead they edit war by simply reinstating their changes). In addition to a failure to be responsible for their own work: we all forget to preview occasionally, but leaving article after article broken is sloppiness that outweighs any improvements within the edits. Edit summaries are not mandatory, but they are expected, and communication is required. I looked for previous mentions of the lack of edit summaries on their talk page, and found only one (October 2, 2022). I found numerous editors querying their over-use of the "minor" flag, some of them templated, others not (February 19, 2022; May 11, 2022; October 12, 2022 and January 2, 2023). I was not impressed by their responses on either issue; they seemed to me to quibble over definitions rather than understanding that their usage was anomalous and not very collegial. For someone with such a pattern of unresponsiveness to go to another editor's talk page and "suggest" they edit collaboratively is galling. I'm sorry you have been ill, Keystone18, and I hope you are now feeling much better. But I for one don't want you to "reach out" to me personally. The community expects editors to be responsive and collegial and to consider the possibility they are wrong, or out of step with community norms. In addition to expecting editors to take reasonable care they are not leaving an article a mess.
    Also, while I appreciate EEng's desire for focus, I believe you owe him an apology not only for misrepresenting the timeline of your edits, but also for the serious accusation you threw in when you finally responded, here on a noticeboard, that he habitually includes unattributed quotations. In addition to the untruth about your having raised this with EEng in your post on his talk page, you have failed to offer any support for that statement. So far as I can see there is none. The only source for it that I have been able to discern is your friend's statement on your talk page that EEng demands sources for quotes. Is it possible that you jumped to an insulting conclusion about EEng's editing from a misinterpretation of your friend's statement? Or have I missed where you got that from; perhaps it wasn't on-wiki? In any case, it's quite an insult to EEng's editing, and I'm calling you on it.
    For anyone who wonders why I haven't opined in the sections above: Voting on remedies prior to exploration of the problem is putting the cart before the horse. I'd like to keep the emphasis on what's expected of editors, in hopes of Keystone18 understanding. Yngvadottir (talk) 11:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's funny, Yngvadottir... every time you ask Keystone18 to account for themselves, their WP:ANIFLU flares up. EEng 13:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keystone18, you seem to think that by going dark long enough you're going to escape scrutiny for your behavior. Think again. It may well be that this thread ends up closed without action, but as mentioned before, the moment your bad behavior shows any sign of returning you're likely to get blocked. And the threshold for such action will be far lower if you continue thumbing your nose at the community's concerns here in this thread, as you're doing now. EEng 04:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Subsection on how this thread began

    [edit]

    I don't frequent ANI too much because I'm not here for drama and conflict. I think frankly some editors need to remember what we're here for. This whole thread is largely a waste of time. On the substance, all editors should use edit summaries and avoid multiple small edits in quick succession. I edit exclusively on mobile and that's not an excuse for poor editing. Finally, I've noticed twice recently the editor who began this thread insert themselves into disputes they had no involvement in. Why? AusLondonder (talk) 12:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm surprised trout haven't been distributed yet Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Overzealous blocking by Graham87

    [edit]

    Graham87 (talk · contribs) initially blocked Rager7 (talk · contribs) for Manual of Style violations. Half a year later, he very reluctantly unblocked them. Regarding Rager7's appeal, Graham87 didn't like the whole ... vibe of it. (ellipsis in original). He added: Your main problem was editing sprees on random articles; don't do those this time and things should be all good.

    A few days ago Graham87 blocked Rager7 again, based on "three strikes":

    1. "Strike one" was creating a redirect from Failed Austrian Painter to Adolf Hitler. By all accounts, this was done in good faith. The redirect is currently at RfD and will likely be deleted, but at least one editor (not me) is actually in favour of keeping it, so it's not so obviously and blatantly wrong as to warrant a block.
    2. "Strike two" was Rager7 sending Graham87 a Discord friend request. There is no reason to believe this was not done in good faith, yet Graham87 describes this as technically harassment and considers it a "strike".
    3. "Strike three" was a comment Rager7 left at the RfD, where they said they were testing the waters of which edits makes sense or not. Apparently Graham87 took umbrage at this; he considers it unacceptable for an inexperienced editor to be "testing the waters". Which is ridiculous – how else are they supposed to learn? This was a single redirect that Rager7 created. Hardly disruptive.

    When I inquired about the block at the RfD, Graham87 said It's ... a vibe thing. (ellipsis in original). Apparently he really dislikes Rager7's vibe, but blocking based on vibes is unacceptable.

    All of Rager7's edits outside this redirect seem to be productive and unobjectionable. The "editing sprees" never happened again, as far as I can tell. I therefore consider the block unjustified. I asked Graham87 to unblock Rager7, but he refused. I was going to bring this to Administrative action review, but then I looked into the archives there and noticed a previous discussion where Graham87 had blocked two people including Rager7. There was overwhelming consensus to undo both blocks. Evidently there is a pattern of overzealous blocking, which is why I am bringing this to ANI. Un assiolo (talk) 08:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I'd say this summary is generally accurate. It's like ... if that's what they were going to do to "thest the waters" (create a redirect to a highly controversial subject area), I'd prefer not to find out what they'd do next. I'd been checking their edits daily after unblocking them in case of any trouble ( and apart from what's been discussed above, there was this addition of a really bad ref to an already-referenced statement (which I discussed with the user here ... I find that incident kinda weird but could maybe assume good faith about it. If we need to supervise Wikipedians like that, they're wasting our time and we just don't have the resources to deal with that. Graham87 (talk) 08:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with your Strike 3 (uw-vandalism templates tell people to use sandboxes for testing, waters or not, so, by our own admission on a largely used template, they’re messing up) but your Strike 2 feels like you climbed the Reichstag, when you’d only been told not to climb something, but were yet to be given reasons. You know… Oh what’s the words… Jumped the gun! That ain’t much to go off of, for a harassment case. Is there any missing context, to class the friend request on the draconequus’ namealike (This one’s for you, bronies and pegasisters) as harassment?

    If we need to supervise Wikipedians like that, they're wasting our time and we just don't have the resources to deal with that. I don’t know about anyone else, but I see this as backed by WP:ROPE. Mentor program, if you really need to supervise. Other than that, they need to be able to be awesome enough, on their own two feet. MM (Give me info.) (Victories) 12:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't create a redirect in a sandbox. Well, you can, to learn how it works, but the technical aspects of creating a redirect are not the alleged problem, but the appropriateness of this particular redirect. This being a "strike" implies people should not be allowed to make an edit unless they are completely certain that it will be completely uncontroversial. That is not a reasonable standard. Un assiolo (talk) 19:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not stating an opinion about the block itself, but I don't think this is the right forum for the redress of administrative actions. This should be discussed at WP:AN or WP:XRV. TarnishedPathtalk 11:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Taking a brief look at what I've seen so far, I've never heard of the three-strike system being included as part of our policy, and I don't believe that should be enforced (as it feels like a case of WP:NOPUNISH) when a user commits three different mistakes, that in which a user that's been here for over a year can learn from. As Graham unblocked them, I would've assumed that Graham would trust Rager that educating them about why their actions are disruptive rather than blocking would be the better decision going forward. I think Graham should know more about Rager first, and particularly so for any established users, before blocking such users indefinitely, because indefinite is indeed the last straw. A♭m (Ring!) (Notes) 11:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I indeed didn't base the three-strikes concept on any policy. It was more a confluence of bad things. I also think it's worth mentioning that this user used "are" to describe something that happened in 1998, which points to an extreme competence problem. Graham87 (talk) 12:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And that's one example of a mistake that users can learn from. If they used "are" on something done in 1998, that's more likely to be an accident than done on purpose; and you could've just simply reminded them that they should've used "were" instead, along with the past tense. For some users, English isn't their first language, but if they're also ones that are willing to learn from their previous mistakes, sometimes a little reminder is best so that they can be at least assured they won't repeat (or minimise) the same mistakes again. A♭m (Ring!) (Notes) 12:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Except they haven't always learnt from their mistakes, like adding a contraction despite being warned against doing so. If English is their second language, they shouldn't really be copyediting or should be extremely cautious when doing so. Graham87 (talk) 13:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I noted why I thought ANI was more appropriate than XRV, namely that they've already been at XRV for the same thing before and I felt that this was a pattern of behaviour which needed to be addressed, not just this individual instance. I admit I don't know whether AN would have been more appropriate. --Un assiolo (talk) 19:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bad block - unblock. The reason given for the block, according to the block log is - I think you blew your chance... - not a policy based reason. And highlighting strike two which Graham87 said is "technically harassment, which is defined as a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually, the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing. How on earth is a Discord friend request a "pattern of repeated offensive behavior", and why is this friend request threatening or intimidating to the point Graham87 is frightened or discouraged from editing. Very dubious reasoning for being harassment, in my view. And strike one and strike two are ridiculous as well. This is an overzealous block, and Graham87 should immediately unblock Rager7, and if he doesn't want to, he should step aside, and let another admin handle this. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      OK, I'll unblock ... and won't take any more unilateral administrative action regarding this user except in highly far-fetched emergency scenarios I need not enumearate where any reasonable admin would block a user, but I do think their editing still needs to be supervised).
      Re: harassment: I recently noticed the message above by Matticusmadness and was about to reply up there but my Internet connection went down, but what I was going to say there fits equally well here: Wikipedia:Harassment § Off-wiki harassment says: "Editors who welcome private communication typically post their preferred contact information on Wikipedia, sometimes enabling email through the Wikipedia interface. Contacting an editor using any other contact information, without first obtaining explicit permission, should be assumed to be uninvited and, depending on the context, may be harassment." So that makes what Rager7 did not exactly OK, but it was at least ... odd. The conversation itself, which came after my comment on the "Failed Austrian painter" redirect discussion, was pleasant enough and I just said that I respond to on-wiki things on-wiki. I did think about the possibility of something like this happening when I set up my Discord username. The context in which I use Discord is far removed from the mainstream culture on the platform and I don't use the Wikimedia Discord server (though I was previously barely active on there). Maybe Discord is like email for the yunguns in some ways, but I wouldn't know. Graham87 (talk) 16:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Wait, so they tracked down your Discord UN, and Friend Req’d, even though you’re not in a mutual server, and didn’t really have a good reason to Friend Req you? That’s noticeably more red flag-y, and much more validating of a strike, if I’m reading you right. MM (Give me info.) (Victories) 17:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That is correct, and I still don't consider it block-worthy or harassment. It may be weird from our perspective, but to someone who is not used to communicating on-wiki, but is used to communicating on Discord, this may have seemed like a perfectly reasonable thing to do. WP:AGF. Un assiolo (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      A friend request is not a prohibited behavior. I'm not familiar with Discord at all, but isn't there a "accept/deny request" option for a friend request, so in cases where you don't want to be "friends" with someone, you can just deny it. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You're citing the list of prohibited behaviors on the community Discord server. Graham, as he has said, is not a member on the server; what he's describing is equivalent to someone randomly sending a Facebook friend request to an admin, which—having had that happen to me twice with people I blocked—I can tell you is a pretty uncomfortable feeling. Per WP:OWH, Contacting an editor using any other contact information, without first obtaining explicit permission, should be assumed to be uninvited and, depending on the context, may be harassment. I have no opinion as to whether it justified a block, but it's certainly weird and inappropriate and a reasonable thing to bring up as problematic. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 04:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Indeed. Also their Discord username was different from their username on Wikipedia. When I asked who they were, they said they were Rager7. I guess it's not impossible (but highly unlikely) it was a Joe job. I've had people find me on Facebook before from onwiki blocks, but I've sometimes had productive things come out of that process (like users blocked due to collateral damage from IP range blocks). This is the first time something like this has happened on Discord though. Graham87 (talk) 05:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Nail on the head, Taz. You’ve bang on hit why it jumped out at me, from Graham’s explanation.

      Issaidnoway is also correct, but I’m thinking more “how did they find Graham’s Discord”? With this. MM (Give me info.) (Victories) 09:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Probably by seeing what happened when they typed my Wikipedia username in to Discord ... as they're exactly the same (I did say on their talk page that guessing my Discord username isn't rocket science). It's probably better that stuff like that happens to *me* rather than some innocent party who might choose that username in future. If I'd gotten a Discord friend request in a different context I would have reacted differently. Graham87 (talk) 13:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      as they're exactly the same Sigh. I really should’ve seen that one coming. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ MM (Give me info.) (Victories) 17:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for the explanation, but that doesn't answer my question if you can just simply deny the friend request. My assumption is that you can deny it, which would seemingly suggest to the person who made the friend request, you didn't want to interact with them. And then if the person continued to pursue interaction with the other person, after being denied, then in my view, that would definitely constitute harassment. I just don't interpret a single friend request as being harassment. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I didn't know who they were and the easiest way to find out was to accept their friend request and ask them. I was thinking of it as technically harassment in terms of connecting screen names on separate platforms (as in our outing policy, which deals with doing this publicly), but I've found out from the messages above and a close read of our policy that our definition of harassment isn't quite that broad. In retrospect, I should have at the most sent them a warning quoting the "Contacting an editor using any other contact information, without first obtaining explicit permission, should be assumed to be uninvited ..." text mentioned twice above here now. Graham87 (talk) 16:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for clearing that up, I also agree with you about quoting that relevant passage to Rager7 from our policy on harassment would have sufficed, and served as a formal warning not to do that again. Rager7, there has been some excellent advice in this thread concerning your conduct, do you understand not to do that again with a friend request, or contacting an editor using any other contact information, without first obtaining explicit permission, is inappropriate? And that you need to be more careful with your editing going forward? Isaidnoway (talk) 23:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, I understand I need to be more thoughtful when editing and also need to ask permission before friend requesting and/or direct messaging if I were to talk about Wikipedia off-site. Rager7 (talk) 23:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      To further clarify the Discord messaging, I was trying to resolve the redirect dispute, granted from Graham's end it came off as weird, but that was my goal. The goal being was to settle the redirect dispute, granted it was taken the wrong way hence the re-block. Rager7 (talk) 21:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's some intense WP:BITE activity here. Not only with misuse of the block button, but in the unbecoming way that Graham is interacting with new editors in general. I'd like to see at a minimum some indication that he is either going to change his approach in handling well-meaning new editors, or that he is not going to interact with them at all. The Discord thing is starting to seem like a red herring. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. I would go further to say to Graham that if, in the future, you're choosing whether to block on "vibes", you absolutely do not do so. We don't have a three strikes rule, we don't block based on personal feelings, we don't try and Minority Report-style decide before they've done something wrong they're not here for the right reasons, we block based on actual violation of PAGs. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bad block. I can understand why these things made Graham87 feel leery, but we don't block based on vibes. Going over the three "strikes", while the first one looks like a silly redirect at first glance, reading the MFD discussion makes it clear that there was a reason for it (it's a euphemism used for Hitler on Facebook to avoid automated systems surrounding controversial topics.) That doesn't mean that it was a good redirect, but it was done in good faith and isn't so out-there as to be a conduct issue. The friend request was definitely the most inappropriate thing they did, but it's an easy mistake for someone new to the site to make; many more informal sites out there do use Discord to discuss blocks and bans with moderators. Assuming they immediately dropped it when they realized they'd screwed up I don't think it calls for a block. And the testing the waters of which edits makes sense or not bit, which actually prompted the block, was awkwardly-phrased but clearly isn't saying anything inappropriate. It's expressing trepidation because their earlier experience (which felt WP:BITEy to them) meant they were afraid they would run afoul of some other obscure policy and get blocked... which, to be totally fair, seems like a reasonable way to feel given that they were immediately blocked for that comment. --Aquillion (talk) 19:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      OK, I'll agree to use more solid grounds than "just vibes" to block users in the future. Good to know re the comment about Discord up above. Graham87 (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing, edit warring across multiple pages by 2a02:6b67:d965:700:8053:c17a:29c3:abd3

    [edit]

    User @2a02:6b67:d965:700:8053:c17a:29c3:abd3 has been contacted by three editors in regards to repeated and rapid controversial edits to Afro-Jamaicans, Tacky's Revolt and Afro-Caribbean people.

    User has also repeatedly reverted editors who have tried to rollback unsourced, poorly sourced or contentious material, including possible WP:OR. User's response to requests to seek consensus or engage in WP:BRD is to claim that "truth is more important than consensus" and to continue disruptive editing.

    Given the vast number of edits made in a short period of time, the unwillingness to engage, hostility and edit-warring, user seems unlikely to cooperate or join in the spirit of Wikipedia, and so may need a temporary or permanent ban, or some other measure such as page protection.

    In the interests of transparency: I marked two of the user's recent edits (reversions of rollbacks by me and another editor) as vandalism, which means I've technically fallen afoul of WP:3RR (though I didn't realise until after the third one). I appreciate that my own behaviour may also be called into question, so I also welcome any investigation of my own behaviour at the same time, if required. Lewisguile (talk) 18:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    For reference, here's where I reverted to the last stable version (diff): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Afro-Jamaicans&diff=prev&oldid=1246058065 You'll note lots of sourced material was removed, and new material was added that seems to be pushing a particular viewpoint.
    Similar changes have been made over at Afro-Caribbean, which I reverted here (diff): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Afro-Caribbean_people&diff=prev&oldid=1246057202
    In both instances, these rollbacks have been reverted again with the dubious content reinstated (in the former case, the article was reverted multiple times). Lewisguile (talk) 21:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP address has been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. @Lewisguile: Please be careful about WP:3RR and following the guidance in the edit warring policy. 3 reverts in 11 minutes is a lot and if the changes are that bad, other people can revert them too. It also seems like people could be going further to explain the issues with these edits on the IP editor's talk page. WP:BITE has some additional guidance. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 07:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Daniel. I appreciate it.
    Yes, I was working on two pages at the time and, TBH, got a bit mixed up with marking them as vandalism without tracking which was which. Mea culpa. I will refrain from reverting anything on that page for now, to avoid any further breach of WP:3RR myself. Hopefully someone else will take a look at it first.
    Someone else did try to revert the edits on Afro-Jamaicans last night, too, but the user also reverted that immediately.
    I have left messages on their talk page which they haven't engaged with in good faith. Three other editors have also left comments this month about similar issues, but have received similar short thrift. Lewisguile (talk) 07:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since this morning, I have discovered that the same user (possibly using multiple IPs) has been making similar edits to a whole range of Caribbean-related articles, nearly always inserting Coromantee Creoles into them, and blanking out/removing huge chunks of text in several cases. The user appears to be a WP:SPA with a particular agenda.

    The affected pages I've found so far (there are probably others under other IPs) include: Afro-Caribbeans, Afro-Jamaicans, Bermuda, Cayman Islands, Coromantee, Mixed-race Caymanians, Tacky's Rebellion, Turks and Caicos Creole, and Turks & Caicos. Since this user only has a 24-hour block and may be using alternate IPs anyway, this may be an issue that needs to be looked at again once they return.

    I've done my best to rollback what I can and have noted the relevant talk pages. I've also notified Daniel, above, for transparency. Lewisguile (talk) 18:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that the following IPs seem to be the same user:
    2A02:6B67:D961:3500:9919:E631:B50:3203
    2a02:6b67:d965:700:20a2:8444:cd4e:a611
    2a02:6b67:d962:fa00:7150:aafe:6600:475a
    2a02:6b67:d965:700:70a1:41b7:a8a2:1f54
    2a02:6b67:d965:700:f56e:96b3:de79:b17f
    2a02:6b67:d965:700:6cdb:cdd3:b57a:c3c6
    2a02:6b67:d965:700:488c:3bb3:d71d:ad89
    2a02:6b67:d962:fa00:46c:14f0:de9d:789b
    2a02:6b67:d962:fa00:7102:82a3:e4e7:abbc
    2a02:6b67:d962:fa00:8541:a906:5ded:a044
    2a02:6b67:d962:fa00:bddb:f186:ce09:85d5
    2a02:6b67:d962:fa00:2045:df63:b372:4872
    2a02:6b67:d961:3500:d5c0:dbc:4638:9310
    2A02:6B67:D961:3500:2C93:AD36:E9C5:B177
    2a02:6b67:d961:3500:891f:6dae:3fd5:76e7
    2a02:6b67:d961:3500:f15e:8f51:448e:4edf
    2a02:6b67:d961:3500:5cc4:5297:ca9e:5bf5
    2a02:6b61:d470:0:5878:4d40:dbe0:ac95
    2a02:6b61:d470:0:fc30:501d:996d:a4a7
    2a02:6b61:d470:0:8061:e6b9:8f0:64e1
    2a02:6b61:d470:0:35dc:3a0b:5a88:86fe
    2a02:6b61:d45e:0:bc19:cec6:f137:643e
    2a02:6b61:d413:0:3196:bdd5:7bd3:a9e4
    2a02:6b61:d413:0:54b8:dcfb:2b63:1c76
    2804:1054:301f:21f0:5dae:e476:a611:1f8b

    Original IP: 2a02:6b67:d965:700:8053:c17a:29c3:abd3

    It's a very similar IP and similar edits are made (sometimes on the same articles). They all seem to be in London. This may be a WP:SOCK. Lewisguile (talk) 06:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editor

    [edit]

    A new SPA NicolasTn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been pushing their preferred version of Amdo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) without consensus. They falsely claimed [36] that my clean diff contained my own edits, but it was from 18 June before my first edit there, and claimed that I acted maliciously, without evidence. Vacosea (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    New user is WP:NOTHERE. Support indeffing. Ahri Boy (talk) 22:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Vacosea is the one pushing their preferred version of Amdo without consensus. Vacosea would do large scale deletion when contributors add references and new edits with good literature support. Vacosea's recent large scale deletion edits are not focusing on stuff "without consensus", but destructing the page. I repeatedly reminded Vacosea that bringing his or her disputes with good literature support is welcome if thinking the version is without consensus, but he/she insists destructive moves. NicolasTn (talk) 06:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    NicolasTn repeated their personal attack [37]. As this shows, I'm not deleting long time contributions or adding controversial stuff or errors, so their edit summary again indicates either misrepresentation of what's going on or an inability to understand and work on Wikipedia. Vacosea (talk) 18:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Kautilya3, Offwiki canvassing thru emails and social media

    [edit]

    Case

    [edit]

    User:Kautilya3 has a history of conflict-of-interest behavior that is disruptive, that spreads disinformation, and harms en-Wikipedia. This includes chronic off-wiki stealth canvassing to stack votes, elect admins thru offline canvassing so that they help target a group of editors, create a one-sided narrative in Wikipedia articles, and such inappropriate practices. This thread is a step to review Kautilya3's chronic behavior and editing particularly relating to Manipur and Meitei-Kuki people en-Wiki articles. Evidence follows.

    This case also seeks a review of Kautilya3-style Wikipedia editing coordinated with off-wikipedia social media posts and the conflict of interest editing issues it raises. Should editors be sanctioned where evidence establishes Kautilya3-style chronic behavior where

    • an editor advertises themselves as a Wikipedian on social media,
    • synchronizes their social media canvassing and activism with their Wikipedia editing,
    • where the editor encourages others to hire paid editors to spruce up Wikipedia articles that affects them,
    • where an editor celebrates off-wiki violence, disparages one side and cheers the other side of a tragic and violent human conflict on social media,
    • where the same editor acts as the primary or a key gate-keeper of articles relating to that tragic human conflict,
    • where the editor misrepresents scholarly sources to fabricate a narrative that favors one group in that active conflict, and thereby harms en-Wikipedia, harms readers of en-Wikipedia, and harms en-Wikipedia community?

    For Crats and OVERSIGHT team: this is not [WP:OUT]-ing, see this discussion and agreement by Barkeep49 (also this)

    Case evidence:

    1. User:Kautilya3 off-wiki canvassed for RfA votes in favor of Vanamonde93 in order to help elect Vanamonde93 as an admin. Kautilya3's motive was included in that email to me, the very first email I ever received from Kautilya3 through Wikipedia. In that email, Kautilya3 cast aspersions on editors – without evidence – who in good faith opposed Vanamonde93 as admin, and made a bigoted allegation against "oppose" voters. Kautilya3 helped Vanamonde93 get elected as admin thru stealth offline canvassing (I cannot post the original emails of Kautilya3 per WP:ANI guidelines because it contains personal information about Kautilya3 and me, names of other Wikipedia admins and editors he claimed he regularly offline corresponds with; the originals include email address, real names and other information; One original email of Kautilya3 that stealth-canvassed to stack votes in favor of User:Vanamonde93 to elect him as admin has already been forwarded to ARBCOM; An ARBCOM member has acknowledged receiving the email).

    2. Evidence as recent as September 2024 suggests Kautilya3 actively advertises on off-wiki social media that he is a Wikipedian. He posts on social media about topics he actively edits and gate-keeps on Wikipedia (2a, 2b, 2c).

    3. The User:Kautilya3 en-Wikipedia account is the same person as social media account @Kautilya33. This is established by the en-Wiki edits claimed by the social media account and timing of edits. For example, see December 5 2023 edits on social media and en-Wikipedia. (3a, 3b).

    4. In his social media posts, Kautilya3 has encouraged others to hire and pay Wikipedia editors to spruce up Wikipedia articles affecting them. For example, he wrote, "I have mentioned above, an experienced [Wikipedia] editor who offers her services for payment." (4a, 4b)

    5. Kautilya3's social media activity is closely linked to his Wikipedia activity. His offline canvassing and wiki-editing favors one side. An example of Kautilya3's WP:COI editing is in en-Wiki articles related to the Manipur conflict where violence has led to death and destruction. (5a), 5b, 5c, 5d, 5e, 5f, etc). Kautilya3's social media where he presents himself as Wikipedia expert extends beyond X/Twitter, includes videos, interviews (however, per WP:OUT, I cannot include those links here as Kautilya3 has not disclosed those on Wikipedia on his own).

    According to an Indian newspaper, 226 human beings have died and 1500 injured as of May 3 2024 (5g). The tragic violence has restarted and is spreading again in September 2024 (5h).

    6. The social media account of Kautilya3, the Wikipedian, advocates, invites and takes one side in his off-wiki posts (6a, 6b).

    Kautilya3 has not only advocated in favor of one side (6d, 6e, 6f, etc), he has cast aspersions and advocated against the other side, including caricaturing the other side as "Meitei fundamentalists" (6g, 6h, 6i, 6j, 6k).

    In one X/Twitter thread, Kautilya3 the Wikipedian wrote his support for violence, "The Valley of Manipur is burning! This makes me strangely happy. Let the crooks stew in their own juices." (6c).

    This is one example of his personal involvement in this tragic conflict. Such one sided, violence-cheering Wikipedian should not be editing and gatekeeping Wikipedia articles about that very region, topics and the side he advocates (with disinformation as evidenced below).

    7. Kautilya3 has added content to Wikipedia articles that is false, misrepresents the cited source, and spreads his disinformation. For example, Kautilya3 has been the dominant editor of the wikipedia article about Kuki people – one of the parties in the tragic violent conflict in Manipur (7a, 7b, 7c).

    Kautilya3 added the following content to wikipedia on Kuki people, "Taranatha (1575–1634) wrote a description of the Kuki (Ko-ki) country, including in it almost the entire northeastern India" (7d). This is false. It is not supported by the Michael Lunminthang source cited, or the source Michael Lunminthang himself cites. For those who do not have access to these sources, you can find the relevant section of the sources with context and a discussion here: (7e).

    Neither Michael Lunminthang nor Taranatha sources ever described Kuki country "included almost the entire northeastern India" (a term that means "Assam (Kamarupa), Arunachal, Nagaland, Manipur, Mizoram, Tripura and Meghalaya"). This is disinformation fabricated by Kautilya3. Kautilya3 added content is not only original research, it is false, feeds his social media narrative and incites. He has used his false and fabricated narrative in Wikipedia to further his social media activism with false statements off-wiki. For example, "So, the New Kukis were not new arrivals into Manipur. Rather Manipur was a new arrival into the Kuki land" (7f).

    Kautilya3 has thus leveraged Wikipedia to create and spread the disinformation that northeast India was the historical nation of Kuki-people. He has repeated this misinformation on social media (7l). He thus falsely implies that Kuki-people historically had their own country that today is northeast India, the numerous other tribes and ethnic groups in northeast India are invaders or colonizers or migrants to Kuki country. This is incitement thru Wikipedia and an abuse of Wikipedia.

    This example shows how Kautilya3 has used Wikipedia as a megaphone to spread falsehoods. He advises his followers on social media to "read Wikipedia". (7g, 7h, 7i, 7j, etc). While misrepresenting scholarship and creating misinformation, he claims in his social media post, "On Wikipedia, we use only high-quality sources that know what they are talking about. We [...] provide only a gist of authentic information." (7k). The last part is obviously false as neither Michael Lunminthang nor Taranatha ever described Kuki country "included almost the entire northeastern India" (or anything close).

    8. Kautilya3's conflict-of-interest editing and gatekeeping of Manipur conflict-related articles is extensive. See the last 1000 edits by him (8a), also see specific Manipur-related, Kuki people-related and Meitei people-related Wikipedia articles (8b).

    Kautilya3 has leveraged Wikipedia to push his socio-political beliefs through social media as evidenced above. He has also leveraged Wikipedia and social media to help craft one-sided narrative and argue his socio-political beliefs: (8c, 8d, 8e, etc).

    9. In past cases, ArbCom has unanimously agreed that "editors who have publicly tied their Wikipedia usernames to other online or offline activities may become subject to on-wiki scrutiny of their off-wiki behavior that would impact adversely on the English Wikipedia" (9a). Wikipedia ARB committee has unanimously and repeatedly voted that off-wiki stealth canvassing can be disruptive, deserving of sanctions, and issued sanctions (9b, (9c, 9d).

    Given past ArbCom cases and rulings, this case requests a scrutiny of Kautilya3's on-wiki and off-wiki behavior, the conflict of interest issues it raises, and whether Kautilya3 should leverage Wikipedia as a megaphone for his advocacy and political activity by publishing misinformation that he then repeats to his followers on social media. His behavior needs to be scrutinized in light of his off-wiki activity such as encouraging others off-wiki to subscribe to paid en-Wiki editors to spruce up their articles, and his history of off-wiki canvassing to disrupt good practices within Wikipedia such as admin elections etc.

    If after due review of above evidence and cross checks, if Kautilya3 is found to have violated good practices, disrupted and harmed Wikipedia, I request that he be appropriately sanctioned to protect the goals and interests of Wikipedia and those of current and future Wikipedia readers. If he is not, one hopes the same standards will be applied to past editors who have been blocked or topic-banned, as well as future editors who do what Kautilya3 has done.

    Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:02, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The evidence is compelling against the user Kautilya , wikipedia is supposed to be a friendly place where discord is not encouraged, this person seems to be sowing discord going by the activity provided as evidence and by a cursory glance at his regular edits. 2405:201:C000:C8B5:E140:8CE5:C835:4C1E (talk) 03:26, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by other editors

    [edit]
    • Questions. You wrote: This thread is a step to review Kautilya3's [1] chronic behavior and editing particularly [2] relating to Manipur and Meitei-Kuki people en-Wiki articles. Evidence follows.
    There are quite a lot of accusations:
    • User:Kautilya3 has [3] a history of [3a] conflict-of-interest behavior that is [3b] disruptive, that [3c] spreads disinformation, and [3d] harms en-Wikipedia.
    • [4] [a] chronic [b] off-wiki stealth canvassing [c] to stack votes, [d] elect admins thru offline canvassing [d1] so that they [the administrators?] help target a group of editors, [d2] create a one-sided narrative in Wikipedia articles, [d3] and such inappropriate practices.
    You also wrote: This case also seeks a review of [5] Kautilya3-style Wikipedia editing [5a] coordinated with off-wikipedia social media posts and [5b] the conflict of interest editing issues it raises. Should editors be sanctioned where [5] evidence establishes Kautilya3-style chronic behavior where
    • [5c] an editor advertises themselves as a Wikipedian on social media,
    • [5d] synchronizes their social media canvassing and activism with their Wikipedia editing,
    • [5e] where the editor encourages others to hire paid editors to spruce up Wikipedia articles that affects them,
    • [5f] where an editor [5f1]celebrates off-wiki violence, [5f2] disparages one side and cheers the other side of a tragic and violent human conflict on social media,
    • [5g] where the same editor acts as the primary or a key gate-keeper of articles relating to that tragic human conflict,
    • [5h] where the editor misrepresents scholarly sources [5h1] to fabricate a narrative that favors one group in that active conflict, and [5h2] thereby harms en-Wikipedia, [5h3] harms readers of en-Wikipedia, and [5h4] harms en-Wikipedia community.

    Some comments:

    • Regarding [3]: that alone is a heavy accusation, which indeed begs evidence. Without evidence, this is baseless character-assassination, colouring the impression the rest of your accusatiins make.
    • Regarding [4d]: you are accusing implicitly accuse Vanamonde93 of helping to "target a group of editors," thereby questioning their neutrality and their admin-actions. You also accuse implicitly accuse Vanamonde 93 of helping to "create a one-sided narrative in Wikipedia articles." And you imply that Vanamonde93 engages in other "inappropriate practices." This needs a lot of explanation, and reminds of an off-wiki "dossier" mentioned by a now-blocked editor, in which Vanamonde93 was targetted. So, how about your conflicts of interest?
    • Regarding [4d], bis: you wrote "elect admins" - you imply that Kautilya3 has tried to influence admin-votes repeatedly. You also imply that there are multiple admins with the same problematic behaviour you imply Vanamonde93 exhibits.
    • Regarding [5e]: WP:PAID is not forbidden, as long as it is disclosed. The full at this Twitter-post you linked is:

    Hello Suhagji, you are talking about newbie editors, mostly your members, who come to spruce up your page, without any understanding of how Wikipedia works. They certainly won't succeed. I have mentioned above, an experienced editor who offers her services for payment.

    Which page is this?

    Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Joshua Jonathan: Please read the case again. This case is entirely about Kautilya3. Vanamonde93 is only mentioned in part [1], in the context that Kautliya3 stealth canvassing for his election as an admin. Nowhere is this "accusing Vanamonde93 of ...." etc. Please avoid straw man arguments. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is what you imply: that Kautilya3 wanted Vanamonde93 to be elected as admin, in the expectation that he would take sides. I think you should remove the canvassing-allegations: you have already done an appeal on ARBCOM for that accusation, and we, ordinary editors, can't read, and therefor judge, the contents of those emails. It's confusing to mention that alleged canvassing when we can't judge it, but it does colour the rest of the post. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding (6c), the full text is (emphasis K3):

    Manipur is not burning any more!
    The Valley of Manipur is burning!
    This makes me strangely happy. Let the crooks stew in their own juices.

    What exactly does this mean? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In this context, 'burning' serves as a metaphor for political, social, or ethnic conflict. The 'Valley of Manipur', where the majority Meitei people reside, has experienced significant unrest. The statement reflects Kautilya's disdain toward the Meitei, whom they perceive as responsible for the unrest, and a sense of justice and satisfaction in seeing them suffer. DangalOh (talk) 09:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding [5h]/(7), Kautilya3 has added content to Wikipedia articles that is false, misrepresents the cited source, and spreads his disinformation. For example, Kautilya3 has been the dominant editor - when you are the dominant editor, your edits are incorrect? You have given one concrete example of what you think is incorrect, the Taranatha-description of the 'Kuki-country'. Kautilya3 wrote Taranatha (1575–1634) wrote a description of the Kuki (Ko-ki) country, including in it almost the entire northeastern India. I can't see much fault in that, even less "disinformation." At best, it could be expanded with "extending it beyond the linguistic group of Kuki-Chin."
    • Regarding (8), you state Kautilya3's conflict-of-interest editing and gatekeeping of Manipur conflict-related articles is extensive. See the last 1000 edits by him. That's not concrete.
    • What you basically are saying is that Kautilya3 is not a neutral editor with regard to the Manipur-conflict, but sides with the Kukis, as presumedly evidenced above; that his edits are biased, due to his pov and activism, as exemplified by one edit; and that therefor Kautilya3 should be appropriately sanctioned to protect the goals and interests of Wikipedia and those of current and future Wikipedia readers. Alternatively, what I also perceive in your overview, is that you either feel uncomfortable with Wiki-connected activism in general, or specifically, reject the particular pov Kautilya3 is taking. The real question is: are Kautilya3's edits biased? But also: what kind of editors is he up to there, for example at 2023–2024 Manipur violence? Neutral editors, or pov-warriors? And if his edits are biased, should a warning suffice, or should a topic-ban be considered? Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Taranatha should not be used unless quoted by reliable secondary sources. For example, Taranatha does mention that Brahmins used a form of "yagna magic" (ritualistic fire sacrifices) to destroy Nalanda. This claim is part of his larger narrative on the conflicts between Brahmins and Buddhists during the decline of Buddhism in India. According to Taranatha, the Brahmins performed a yagna (sacrificial ritual) that involved supernatural elements or "magic" to bring about the complete destruction of Nalanda University. However, I would not trust anything attributed to Taranatha without cross-checking. He might be right, and Brahmins may have supernatural powers, but more evidence would be needed. DangalOh (talk) 09:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Whether Taranath's views belong to the article and if so, how it is to be framed, is a content-dispute, patently unsuited for ANI intervention. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Joshua Jonathan; MSW's sole evidence of factual inaccuracy ("disinformation", no less!) is weak sauce. The rest of the evidence is indicative of "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" approach.
      For example, what is the issue with 2B and 2C? In 2C (repeated as 3A), K3 adds a citation, tweeted by an academic, to a Wikipedia article for a very non-controversial factoid; what's the link with Manipur? In 4A and 4B, K3 explains our policies on paid-editing to HAF folks and points to one of our better paid-editors — MG operates well within community norms and expectations — in the hope that HAF takes help from someone who has a good grasp of our policies and stop grovelling about "evil Wikipedia"! I see no fault with the engagement. K3 with V93, me, and others, has guarded the HAF page against persistent attempts at whitewashing and MSW's accusation of him suggesting HAF "to spruce up its page" is ridiculuos!
      What action are we supposed to take wrt 5B and 5D? Prevent people from wielding Wikipedia articles to dismiss others' arguments? In 5C, K3 asks tourists to avoid Manipur; so did multiple foreign governments. What are we supposed to do, here? In 5E and 5F, K3 defends Wikipedia and also asserts that all content discussion must be on wikipedia itself than Twitter, which is — ahem — good? Not one of the single X-tweets in MSW's 5X series shows K3 canvassing — if anything, K3 is asking those who challenge the Wiki narrative to come to Wikipedia and discuss content under our policies! It is bluster to connect his wiki-edits with the humanitarian disaster that has unfolded over Manipur (5G and 5H).
      It might be that K3 has a pro-Kuki bias but editors are not expected to be unbiased; unless there is a pattern of K3 abusing sources to push pro-Kuki narrative in our articles, we have nothing to see here. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Kautilya is an experienced and skilled editor, but the question here is whether someone who is so publicly involved in Kuki activism on social media should act as a gatekeeper for Kuki-Meitei-related pages. DangalOh (talk) 11:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If you believe K3 "gatekeeps" Kuki-Meitei-related pages, please provide relevant on-wiki evidence. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I have nothing against Kautilya, nor do I wish to find and post all the diffs that could get him in trouble. However, I have observed Kautilya favoring content that supports the Kuki community while discarding any content that goes against them, such as the recent drone-related attack I mentioned on the talk page of 2023–2024 Manipur violence. You can check it out.
      For example, he's using "claimed" for reasons that go against the Kuki community, while removing "claimed" from the reasons involving the Kuki side of the violence. Is this NPOV? There are numerous examples like this. One paragraph simply bashed the Meitei community, portraying them as Hindutva supporters harassing Christian Kukis, completely disregarding the fact that there is a mainstream Meitei group that is not even Hindu but Sanamahist, who hates Hindus even more. Tried various times to show it as a primarly 'anti-christian conflict initiated by BJP' rather than ethnic. I’m glad someone removed it. And these are just the most recent examples—I haven’t monitored the page from the beginning, so there could be much more.
      The issue isn’t about being biased—every human is biased. But being biased in private and in your own mind is different from being openly biased in a public forum. When you are openly and publicly biased, and use the same name on X (formerly Twitter) as you do on Wikipedia, it raises eyebrows. A person who is not only involved in pro-Kuki activism but has also posted inflammatory remarks against the Meitei community on their X account should be scrutinized, especially since they have the most edits on these pages. It does not mater if sources he removed were bad or the sources he used were more reliable. It must be scrutinized. How is this not a red flag? I’m amazed. If it’s okay with everyone, then it’s okay with me.
      The person who raised the complaint might know more details about the diffs. These are just my random observations. I am not motivated to get Kautilya punished in any way. Even if he realizes and acknowledges that there might be some bias, that would be enough for me at least. I don’t know what the person who filed the complaint wants to happen with Kautilya. DangalOh (talk) 12:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Regarding nor do I wish to find and post all the diffs that could get him in trouble. However, I have observed Kautilya favoring content that supports the Kuki community while discarding any content that goes against them, 'observations' without diffs are useless here, in the literal sense of the word, not the rheforical or offensive usage. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no substance to this accusation. Editors are allowed to express opinions on twitter; that does not create a COI. Editors are allowed to point to the few legitimate avenues for paid editing. Editors are allowed to correspond with others via email. If K is violating policies with his edits, or has an actual COI, or is engaging in actual canvassing - that is, asking people to take a specific position in a discussion - then evidence of that needs to be presented. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Vanamonde that there is no substance to this complaint. Many of us, including myself, instinctively dislike any encouragement of paid editing, such as Kautilya's encouragement on X of using "agents" to "spruce up" one's BLP on wikipedia, mentioned in Ms Sara Welch's point 4 above. It is, however, allowed, and I definitely find Ms Sara Welch's speculations about wrongdoing in point 5 below to be worse: "Did he check with the paid editor? he did do so stealth, off-wiki? Did he ask for commission? Was he offered a commission?" (I presume "he did" was supposed to be "did he".) Did he ask for commission — really? Seriously, Ms Sara Welch, you should think for longer before you publish insinuations like that at this board. Things like "Kautilya3's social media activity is closely linked to his Wikipedia activity" (so what?) or "User:Kautilya3 has a history of conflict-of-interest behavior that is disruptive, that spreads disinformation, and harms en-Wikipedia" (evidence-free) I find hard to take seriously. Nor can I see anything wrong with identifying himself as a Wikipedian on social media (Ms Sarah Welch's point 7 below) — what's the matter with that, exactly? Bishonen | tålk 09:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    • @Bishonen: Isn't it odd that when faced with complaint from affected party who claims to be offering WP:RS and asking for a balanced NPOV biography, Kautilya3 – a key editor and gatekeeper of that organization/group biography article – is not linking WP:BLPCOMPLAIN, but suggesting a paid editor? We must assume that a neutral Wikipedia editor would not be influenced by paid or unpaid editors trying to revise an article. What exactly is this Kautilya3-recommended paid editor supposed to do, that Kautilya3 will not do to the article Kautilya3 extensively edits and gatekeeps, given the same sources? On point 7 below, Kautilya3 on social media has called himself "Kuki ka Parivar" (identifying himself to be the "family" – parivar – of one side of the tragic conflict). Per WP:COI, editors are strongly discouraged to edit articles about themselves and family (or close enough to be family-like). The local newspapers, and police case I have read, name him and Wikipedia as party in a legal case. His social media account was blocked in India (and may be, still is; I do not live in India, so I do not know). All this is not any legal threat from me, just a short summary of situation in Manipur and India since you ask for more evidence. I am not linking more because of WP:OUT guidelines. Perhaps Kautilya3 can disclose and provide links so you can see how Kautilya3's Wikipedia-linked social media advocacy has and continues to affect Wikipedia in India, plus the extent of his conflict of interest. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Narendra Modi, the incumbent Prime Minister of India, started the trend of having BJP supporters change their social-media handles to "Modi ka parivar" during the 2019 Lok Sabha Elections to show their support/allegiance to him. I presume that K3 borrows the language from this stunt but uses it against the narrative propounded by BJP (whom he feels is allied with the Meiteis, opposed to the Kukis). Now, do you suggest that everybody — from among the few million Indians — who had ever used the "Modi ka parivar" tag in their social media handles, has a COI about anything related with Indian politics esp. Modi and his political party? And that K3 has been sued in India, what shall we do? I know of no policy that guides us in dealing with editors who are sued. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I haven't been "sued", at least not yet. The Manipur Police registered a complaint against me made by some one in Imphal. Similar complaints have been registered against Kuki women's leader Mary Grace Zou, Kuki People's Alliance leader William Hangshing, University of Hyderabad professor Kham Khan Suan, JNU professor Thongkholal Haokip, University of Nagaland professor Jankhomang Guite, National Federation of Indian Women which sent a fact finding team, Editors Guild of India for a similar venture and even the central paramilitary force Assam Rifles! Meanwhile, India's press freedom index ranks 161th out of 180 countries. Whenever these indices come out, the Ministry of External Affairs issues a statement claiming that these are motivated, unscientific analyses that are ill-informed. The Prime Minister gives a statement saying India is the "mother of democracy". After a couple of days of drama, it is business as usual. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Ah, thanks. I based my comments upon MSW — .. police case I have read, name him [Kautilya3] and Wikipedia as party in a legal case. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Response by Kautilya3

    [edit]

    The allegation is apparently canvassing. WP:CANVASSING states: In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. In the case of Vanamonde93's RfA, my email record indicates that I have written to two editors, both of whom I regarded as "neutral editors" who hadn't voted till the late stages. One of them (MSW) voted in support and the other editor voted to oppose. That doesn't sound much like "canvassing", does it? I am happy to share copies of all the email exchanges on this issue with ARBCOM if necessary.

    Regarding the supposed "canvassing" on Twitter, I was pointing out a permitted avenue for editing Wikipedia, suggesting a paid editor who had already established her credentials here. If people out in the society believe that Wikipedia content is inaccurate or biased or whatever, I would definitely tell them they are wrong, and to challenge them to come and correct it if they think something is wrong. We are an open platform that everybody can edit. Everything is above board. The people complaining are essentially carrying out their own propaganda in the outside world trying to defame Wikipedia, without having the gumption to come and challenge us here. If they can't do it themselves, let them hire somebody who can. We are not afraid.

    Regarding my twitter activity in general, we all know that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and twitter is a micro-blogging site. Nobody can confuse one for the other. In an encyclopedia we summarise reliable sources. On a blog site, we write our own views, however well-informed or otherwise they might be. That goes to my freedom of expression, which Wikipedia has no right to curtail. In future, I might become a public intellectual, giving talks, writing articles, or anything else I please. All of those would be conducted in accordance with the policies and principles established for those media, not according to Wikipedia policies. The real world is not an "encyclopedia".

    Having said that, I would like to maintain that all my public-facing activitiy is consistent with what I do on Wikipedia, where I base my views on high-quality sources and evidence, and maintaining "neutrality" as we understand by WP:NPOV. The only difference is that, on Wikipedia, I cannot draw my own conclusions and write my own views, whereas in the outer world, I can.

    WP:NPOV states, inter alia, Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information and not to promote one particular point of view over another. I believe I do that. If people think I don't, they are welcome to challenge me wherever they find such issues. ANI is not the place for it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    1. Joshua Jonathan continues his inappropriate straw man arguments. On the disinformation stated in [Case Evidence 7] above, Joshua Jonathan alleges, "I can't see much fault in that, even less "disinformation." He states this without quoting the source, or providing any other evidence. In contrast, in [Case Evidence 7] above, I quoted the source, explained thru links above how this is disinformation, showed with a diff that Kautliya3 added it to Wikipedia, and included evidence that the social media account Kautilya3–the–Wikipedian perpetuated the disinformation in the social media.
    2. For [Case Evidence 8], Joshua Jonathan asks for more concrete evidence. Kautilya3 is the top author–editor of 2023–2024 Manipur Violence article. He is the top author–editor of Kuki people article, and so on. For evidence of gate-keeping, see the edit history of Manipur violence article. Its edit history shows that other than being the top author-editor, Kautilya3 has reverted numerous edits and repeatedly controlled what stays in the article and what does not (J1, J2, J3, etc). Kautliya3 – whose conflict of interest, celebration of violence against one side, and advocacy in social media is presented above in the case evidence – has been authoring and filtering what information stays in that Wikipedia article and what is thereby communicated by Wikipedia to its audience. That is gate-keeping.
    3. Kautilya3, in his statement, inherently accepts that he emailed me (and one more person) for a vote to elect Vanamonde93 as admin. Then he spins and covers up the whole truth. In that email, Kautilya3's intent in asking for the vote is clear. He wanted Vanamonde93 to do something after getting elected (his email says so). He was also troubled by Vanamonde93 getting hammered by oppose votes, and he cast aspersions on the oppose voters without evidence. Those statements show Kautilya's non-neutral intent. Those emails show his disruptive off-wiki activity for years. Obviously, Kautilya3 knew Vanamonde93 well before the latter was nominated for admin election. He was keen on getting him elected by whatever means necessary. Kautilya3 has repeatedly violated WP:CANVASS off-wiki. For what it is worth, I have emails that show that his attempt to help Vanamonde93 fraudulently get elected was not the first and last time Kautilya3 canvassed off-wiki. It would help if Kautilya3 self-disclosed all off-wiki campaigning, vote-stacking and stealth canvassing he has done in the last 8 years, with all Wikipedia-editors.
    4. On Manipur violence and social media advocacy as a Wikipedian, Kautilya3 should also disclose and provide links to all his off-wiki videos, interviews, other social media accounts and off-wiki activity where he identifies or positions himself as Wikipedian. He should also disclose any off-wiki disputes and cases where he has identified himself as a Wikipedian, where his role in Wikipedia has been questioned, cited and has identified Wikipedia along with him as a party in the dispute or case. The community can then weigh if and how much harm Kautilya3 has done to Wikipedia.
    5. Some comments above assert that paid editing of Wikipedia is allowed. True. But there are few other important requirements that apply to paid editing – no misinformation and full clear disclosure are among those requirements. Further, these comments also miss the context. Kautilya3 is one of the two top author-editors and one of the gate-keepers of that article in which Kautilya3 is recommending the affected party to hire paid editor (friend?) to help change an article that he watches, controls and actively edits. Did he check with the paid editor? he did do so stealth, off-wiki? Did he ask for commission? Was he offered a commission? Should he have disclosed Wikipedia's COI, paid editing and other guidelines to the affected party?
    6. Kautilya3 did not show why he grossly misrepresented the Michael Lunminthang source. Kautilya3's response did not offer a defense for the disinformation he fabricated about the "description of Kuki-country", an unsupported lie he repeatedly peddled on social media (see example links in the Case Evidence above).
    7. Kautilya3, and Vanamonde93 above, misunderstand this case. This is a case not about Kautilya3's right to express opinions on X/Twitter, social media, make videos, or exercise his other human rights. The case is about Kautilya's extensive violation of Wikipedia's WP:COI behavioral guideline. I have shown evidence above that Kautilya3 identifies himself as a Wikipedian on social media, he is deeply involved on one side of the Manipur conflict, he actively advocates for that one side, disparages the other side, he has interest and external relationships in the Manipur conflict, he celebrates Manipur violence with "Manipur is not burning any more! The Valley of Manipur is burning! This makes me strangely happy" and "Let the crooks stew in their own juices." (for those unaware of Manipur, the side that Kautilya3 disdains and disparages in his social media posts generally live in the valley; while the side he advocates for generally live outside of the valley). Wikipedia guidelines say that editors should not "edit Wikipedia in your own interests, nor in the interests of your external relationships."
    Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • my email record indicates that I have written to two editors, both of whom I regarded as "neutral editors" who hadn't voted till the late stages - while I don't know if it's enough to require sanctions, I definitely disagree that this is sufficient to justify the sorts of emails you sent. Even if you personally consider the editors neutral, that's a subjective judgment that other editors could reasonably dispute - and by notifying them via email, in a non-transparent way, you made it impossible for anyone else to raise that objection. (It was only a coincidence that you happened to send it to someone who raised the issue.) Per WP:INAPPNOTE, secret canvassing is inappropriate for this reason. More generally, I would personally advise against targeted notifications of any sort - no matter how certain you are that they're "neutral", the fact is that when there's a significant dispute, people involved in that dispute are generally going to disagree on what neutrality looks like. Someone can easily end up going "all the other people I'm in a dispute with are biased POV-pushers; I'm going to select a crowd of neutral people to counteract them!" - and it's easy to see how this can cause problems. But all else aside you must do it openly, allowing the people you're in a dispute with to see it and raise any objections - not over email. Your simple assertion that you're only contacting people you consider neutral is not enough. --Aquillion (talk) 19:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Aquillion. I agree entirely. Those were still early days for me on Wikipedia. I wouldn't do such a thing today. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion

    [edit]
    Ms Sarah Welch, I have read this this entire complaint, though I haven't looked at every diff. And my impression is that this doesn't look like a typical case for ANI but the evidence page for an ARBCOM case. There is just too much going on here, editors browsing this noticeboard can't respond to every claim you are making. These charges seem much more suitable at ARBCOM than ANI. I realize that you have already compiled a lot of content but I don't think this is a series of accusations that can be resolved at ANI. ANI is just not set up for careful review of this much evidence. If you wish to pursue this at Arbitration, I would take it to ARBCOM and make a case request. Also prioritize, you are given a limited number of words there so just hit the highlights and, if the case is accepted, you can get into the details when you present your evidence. However, given the limited response you have gotten at ANI so far, I'm not sure how far you want to take this investigation. Liz Read! Talk! 05:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Liz. I wanted to try ANI as the first step. Will distill it and try it at ArbCom. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 06:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You could also consider emailing ArbCom directly if there is private evidence that you want to share. Even the case request page may be ill-equipped to handle a complaint that relies on off-wiki evidence. Pinguinn 🐧 03:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did read through all the 'evidence' such as it is above, summary: its basically crap. This shouldnt go to arbcom (like everything else) unless the community is unable to solve a problem, and there is an overwhelming lack of a demonstrated problem that needs resolving here, let alone compelling evidence to support that Kautilya is causing the issue. This amounts to writing a wall of text as an end-run around providing clear diffs supporting policy-violating behaviour. Its accusation after accusation with, at best, a 'They are biased' argument. This should be closed unless something substantive can be presented. Not pushed to arbcom because people do not want to read. Its been designed to make you not want to read it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since when did Wikipedia community agree that secret canvassing by email during admin elections is okay or encouraged? FWIW, the secret email canvassing by Kautilya3 has included email asking me to WP:GANG up on a very experienced Wikipedia editor, an email to Joshua Jonathan and copied to me that cheered what Kautilya3 called "nice lynching" of a Wikipedia editor, etc. Given Kautilya3's social media activity on the tragic Manipur conflict where he advertises himself as Wikipedian – social media activity he has not yet disclosed fully and clearly on Wikipedia – should Wikipedia abandon WP:COI and WP:ADVOCACY guidelines? If you feel all this is okay or WP:COI does not apply here, I will love to read your arguments. (FWIW, please take comments of Joshua Jonathan, Tranga Bellam, Vanamonde93 above with a grain of salt, as they are part of the WP:CAMP that Kautilya3 has either copied to in emails to me or has claimed, in his emails to me, to have had off-wiki discussions about disputes, RfC, en-Wiki editors etc; they are close: you can also check their on-wiki user talk pages and co-editing patterns; IOW, these are not independent, uninvolved en-Wiki editors). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      What's the date of that email to me? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Found it; 3 jan 2019. It was a comment by K3 on an ANI-thread regarding an editor he dislikes; it was not canvassing. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having off-wiki discussions is not prohibited. Neither is social media activity related to editing on wikipedia. Or are you suggesting we ban every female editor who edits during WIR and socials about it? Because your COI accusations so far are that level of nonsense. I would also suggest a description of an email copied to multiple people as 'secret' is a bit overblown. You dont copy multiple people you barely know on the internet in on an email if you want to keep it a secret. Not unless you are an idiot. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:RoyalCream persistent unsourced edits

    [edit]

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

    User was previously blocked for unsourced edits in June ([38]) and from what I can tell they've continued the same behaviour since then. They were given another level-4 warning two days after that block ([39]) and then again yesterday ([40]) for edits like these: [41], [42], [43], [44]. Since yesterday, they've continued to do yet more of the same: [45], [46], [47], [48], [49]. Based on some brief spot-checking of their older edits, I suspected they've never cited a source for any edits. Earlier talk page responses like this and this are also not encouraging. R Prazeres (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Three days after this report was filed, they are still at it with this and now with edit-warring at Sharawi Gomaa: [50], [51], [52], [53]. R Prazeres (talk) 19:46, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked with a clear statement warning of what will happen if it continues when they return. Canterbury Tail talk 19:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, User:Canterbury Tail has blocked them for 72 hours. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 19:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:年轻的古惑仔 Racism Accusations

    [edit]

    User:年轻的古惑仔 appears to be a SPA and potential sock Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/清风与明月 who is presently accusing me of being racist or discriminating against Chinese women because I've edited and disputed content on Geji, but not on Geishia, Qiyan, and Tawaif. When I explained that I have no obligation to edit all of those other articles, they just continued to call me racist. Special:Diff/1246183793, Special:Diff/1246174947, Special:Diff/1246174713. After the first round of incidents, I posted a warning on their page, which they disregarded Special:Diff/1246220900 and continued to call me a racist Special:Diff/1246310087,Special:Diff/1246309753, Special:Diff/1246308938. --Brocade River Poems (She/They) 06:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    You know, BrocadeRiverPoems, I just got done trying to read through Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Possible False Accusation and if I were you, I'd focus more on editing and not on spending so much time on ANI. For a new editor, I think you have been involved in 3 or 4 cases here already. Editors start wondering if this is drama-mongering on your part. This is not a comment on the nature of your complaint, which might be valid, I'm just trying to discourage you from bringing every dispute you find yourself in to ANI or to keep bringing editors to SPI which is terribly backlogged right now. But at this point, after reading through the last complaint you were part of, this one needs some fresh eyes. Liz Read! Talk! 02:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi. My apologies. I do want to say that I haven't brought anyone to SPI, someone else brought it to SPI and I commented on it because the person who made the SPI complaint mentioned my comment from the previous ANI, and I wanted to properly explain why I had believed the IPs were connected to the editor. I'm not trying to monger drama or anything. Of 4 cases at ANI, 3 have potentially been about the same user's behavior, with this editor seeming to be a sock of the other editor involved in the other 2 disputes. Aside from the incident at "Possible False Accusations", the previous ANI I was involved in was at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1166#h-User:清风与明月_Continued_Tendentious_editing.-20240905035100 where nothing was resolved even though a number of other editors expressed their concerns about the user. I had posted a closure request for it, but the topic was archived before anything happened, and another admin I asked said they doubted anything would be done about it since it had been archived. Since the account seems like a sock of the other user involved in the content dispute, and is repeatedly accusing me of being a racist, I don't really know what else I was supposed to do except report it and hope that someone looked into it. But, I'll steer clear of ANI from now on. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 03:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ve read the Geji talk page. For the issues with Geji, I suggest you currently treat it primarily as a content dispute and continue to proceed as you are already doing through the various options outlined by WP:CONTENTDISPUTE. Hopefully the sock puppet investigation will be processed soon. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ve read the Geji talk page. Talk:Geji is barely readable. It could be, if admin had properly addressed the concerns of BrocadeRiverPoems—and multiple people who agreed with her—on the earlier ANI threads. The suspected sockpuppeteer's bludgeoning on Talk:Geji and canvassing elsewhere are hampering resolution of the content dispute. Just some context. Thank you for reading, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 15:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m no admin. I just think that there is plenty of opportunity to escalate this along the content dispute side, which may be more fruitful for BRP to do, rather than focusing on conduct by going to ANI, which hasn’t been successful so far. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:年轻的古惑仔, if you repeat the baseless accusations of racism/discrimination or bullying, I'm going to block you. Ditto for maintaining the combative tone displayed at that talk page, including the "do you dare?" type of comments. If you have credible evidence of someone being racist/discriminatory/bullying, please bring it to an admin's attention as soon as possible for review. It would almost never be appropriate to just make the accusation at an article talk page, and none of the evidence you've provided so far—mainly the failure to edit other articles—even approaches the point of sufficiency for such a serious accusation. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Harassment from troll/vandal continues

    [edit]

    Further to the #Harassing vandal back again thread above, the vandal is back again with trolling, incivility, etc, this time under the name Trump's mushroomhead (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Again, revdel is needed on the edit summaries, if someone could please be so kind. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Please note that the user has been using performatively British slang (*"nonce", "morphodite", "quim", ...) of some sort in their summaries. The IP that accused me of all manner of things in the thread above is also from the UK. Biohistorian15 (talk) 10:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    An odd selection of British slang at that. "Nonce" is countrywide, probably from TV dramas; "morphodite" is new to me; "quim" I know, but it's outside my dialects (Northeast and West Midlands), possibly East Anglia or Ireland. Narky Blert (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks Zzuuzz for doing the necessary on this one. It's much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    DinosaursLoveExistence and bulk creation of empty, or near-empty categories

    [edit]
    DLE and the IP are blocked. A discussion, if needed, on the merits of the applicable CSD should continue elsewhere. Star Mississippi 14:24, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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


    DLE and their IP sock have been engaged in a behaviour, supposedly for some time, where (to quote Liz) "DinosaursLoveExistence shows up, about once a month, and creates dozens and dozens of empty categories. Then they leave until next month. I tag the empty categories CSD C1. Then, over the course of the next 7-10 days, a random IP account, usually located in Nottingham, comes to Wikipedia and proceeds to fill up most of the categories".

    I raised this on their talk: at User talk:DinosaursLoveExistence#Massive numbers of speedy deletions on newly created categories, "Something here is wrong. There is no way in which it is a sensible use of editor's time to be tagging for speedy deletion of so many newly-created categories." but despite discussion there, @Srleffler:, @Mason:, @Liz:, DLE has not responded.

    This has just gone to SPI where their IP account was confirmed as a sock and blocked: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/DinosaursLoveExistence.

    As DLE is just not engaging, I think there is no other course left here than an indef block. If they wish to discuss it, or the categories, then such a block could easily be lifted. But the current situation is a ridiculous waste of time. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have just discovered problems with this editor myself. Earlier today I saw the category Category:Union Nationale des Étudiants de France, created in May 2021, which is completely useless and contains only the subject article Union Nationale des Étudiants de France. Then just a moment ago I discovered Category:Deutscher Wetterdienst, created in August, which again contains only the main article. What's the purpose of this? It's a complete waste of editor time. AusLondonder (talk) 14:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Going through their contributions their are useless categories being created frequently. Plenty of categories like Category:Deutscher Wetterdienst with only a single (main) article. Categories applied incorrectly. I don't understand why they won't engage with other editors to discuss this. AusLondonder (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, blocked. That went on for way too long. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @Andy Dingley for making this nomination. I agree that this has wasted a ton of time that could have been spent elsewhere. Mason (talk) 21:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I figure the dinosaurs were probably fairly depressive and fatalistic in general. I mean, for sure the theropods at least: few creatures have been given a less ideal set up for scratching their own backs. You'd go insane, wouldn't you? Ten years in, and you'd be like, "God, I can't wait for that meteorite to hit. I hope it comes down straight on top of me." SnowRise let's rap 05:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have mixed feelings about this. DinosaursLoveExistence has been editing Wikipedia for 18 years and did a lot of productive editing over that time. The primary problem here is the fact that they refuse to communicate with other editors, even once before when they were brought to ANI. In that discussion, they weren't the primary focus and the discussion just got archived.
    But seriously, between personal messages to them and CSD C1 notices, I've probably posted hundreds of times to their User talk page over the past 5 years with no engagement. But their behavior was so predictable and our work on categories overlaps that my being aware of their editing cycles is second nature. I'll admit that tagging dozens and dozens of empty categories they created every month and then untagging most (that's most but not all) of them 7-10 days later was a waste of my time but it gave me an insight to the diversity of their interests which ranged from medical devices to universities in Germany to geography to landscaping to nuances of the circulatory system. They really had a broad knowledge and contributed categories in many areas that hadn't been categorized yet and, let me tell you, after 23 years, you would think that all of the necessary categories on Wikipedia would have been created already but they found plenty that hadn't been created yet. And while some were questionable and were brought to WP:CFD, I think the majority of the categories they created are still in use today.
    I don't think they will apply to be unblocked given their aversion to interpersonal contact but, if they do, I hope they will answer the question that has always preoccupied me which is why do they use a registered account to create so many categories and then, a week later, use a variety of IP accounts to fill them. It's such a strict division of labor that I've never seen from another editor in my time on the project. Maybe that will just stay an unanswered mystery. Liz Read! Talk! 06:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the harm in having empty categories, especially if they are being filled eventually? 107.77.204.150 (talk) 20:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The harm is the wasted time. Mason (talk) 20:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then just don't nominate them for WP:CFD. Problem solved. 107.77.204.150 (talk) 21:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not the solution and you know it. Mason (talk) 22:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I don't know it. That's why I asked for an explanation of the problem. I personally don't understand why categories even exist on Wikipedia except as for something to argue over. They aren't very visible to readers. So, having a magnitude greater or less of them seems inconsequential from my current point of view. 107.77.204.150 (talk) 00:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    107.77.204.150, we have a speedy deletion criteria, CSD C1, that is just for deleting empty categories after 7 days of being empty. Years ago, when policy was being formulated on the project, the consensus might have been that it was perfectly okay for Wikipedia to have thousands of empty categories. But that's not what happened and thus, we delete empty categories after a suitable period of time has passed. Them's the rules. Liz Read! Talk! 00:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But why? Especially, if it's felt to be a waste of time? Couldn't you just WP:IAR and work on something else that you feel is productive and let someone else work on category maintenance who doesn't find it to be a waste of time? 107.77.204.150 (talk) 00:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that not everyone who might be confused by this methodology is here for this discussion. So the issues with the wasted time are likely to repeat themselves. SnowRise let's rap 22:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps DLE is creating the cats with their account and then filling them in during their commutes on a work phone that they'd rather not have their login credentials on? I mean, I know it's wild speculation, but the point is, one can imagine scenarios that explain this behaviour. I also happen to agree that the disruptivness of this methodology is being at least marginally exaggerated here, and that the assessments feel a little reflexive.
    But at the end of the day, the bigger issue is the lack of communication. I'd love to think that there's plenty of people out there who are capable of contributing productively without ever saying a word to the broader community, but the nature of the space is such that even a very knowledgeable, astute, and cautious editor is going to fall ass backwards into a dispute now and again (whether of their own making or someone else's) and you just have to make an attempt at discussion at some point. If it's not this situation that can't be resolved without engagement, it will be one of the future ones. So let's hope the block gets them into a minimally communicative mood. SnowRise let's rap 22:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    JR H44, part 2

    [edit]
    Inded Blocked by Cullen328 (non-admin closure) LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 15:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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


    JR H44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Ever since my first ANI report (which got auto-archived) of JR H44 [54], they have been reverted 10 times (in fact, the majority of their 156 edits have been reverted, Ctrl + F "reverted" [55]), including re-engaging in their edit warring at Russo-Turkish wars by altering sourced information [56]. They were even willing to sacrifice the quality of the article of Armenian national hero Andranik to ask a question "to Armenians" which I'm assuming is meant to be provocative [57]. Would highly appreciate if an admin would look into this and the earlier report. I fail to see how this user is a netpositive to this project. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have indefinitely blocked JR H44 for disruptive editing and ethnonationalist POV pushing. Cullen328 (talk) 20:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Cullen328! HistoryofIran (talk) 21:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Flourish4520, a long term SPA that boosts the profile of Jeremy Rifkin

    [edit]
    Indef blocked by Canterbury Tail (non-admin closure) LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 15:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Flourish4520 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an account that has existed since January 2010. In all that time they have have shown an exclusive focus on posting promotional material about Jeremy Rifkin and his book The Third Industrial Revolution. Sometimes they also reduce critical coverage. They go away for years at a time and then come back with the exact same focus. Today they returned after almost a year with this diff reinserting a chunk of text that has previously been removed for promotion and copyright reasons. It seems to have originated from this February 2022 blog post although it has been in and out of the article enough times that who knows who had it first. I tried to ask them about a possible COI on their User Talk page three years ago and got no response. After 14 years, and a whole string of warnings, including final warnings, I think we have indulged this behaviour quite long enough. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed. Indeffed. I'm amazed it has gone on this long since they admitted way back in 2014 that they work for him. Canterbury Tail talk 21:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Consistent vandalism from IP user

    [edit]
    One year blocked by Johnuniq. (non-admin closure) The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage) 17:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    81.22.23.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) This user has been consistently vandalizing many articles for over a year and has yet to cease their unconstructive edits, which continue to get reverted. Raulois (talk) 08:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I blocked the IP for a year (last block was three months and there are also a stack of filter log issues). Johnuniq (talk) 08:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Raulois (talk) 09:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Tad102 removing declined unblock appeal from talk page

    [edit]

    Per WP:KEEPDECLINEDUNBLOCK, users are not allowed to remove declined unblock requests for currently active site blocks. User:Tad102 has removed one twice now -- the first time, I reverted it and tried to point them to the user talk page guidelines, but they have removed it again. To avoid needless edit warring on someone else's talk page, I am bringing this matter here: this may not mean much in the long term to some, as they were only blocked for 24 hours, but it might be something worth getting eyes on. JeffSpaceman (talk) 13:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This is apparently not a widespread belief, but IMHO, we make too big a deal out of that rule. What it should say is, you can't remove a declined unblock request and then make another unblock request. If they're just going to sit it out, I don't see the point in enforcing a "scarlet letter" rule. I don't mean to criticize you, Jeff, you're definitely following policy. And it's a breath of fresh air that you only reverted once; not many people have that level of self-control around here. But personally, I'd say meh. Floquenbeam (talk) 13:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, Floquenbeam. I just wasn't sure if this was something that admins would care to give any attention to, and I definitely did not want to revert again, considering that the block is only 24 hours, as well as the fact that, with the block length taken into account, it's not an especially serious offense (if they were attacking or threatening people, I probably would have reverted again). I appreciate the input, and I definitely see where you're coming from. JeffSpaceman (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly unless the unblock request has information that is important for anyone else who may review a future unblock request, I wouldn't worry about it. It's only a 24 hour block, they're not being unblocked. If it was a long term block and they are making multiple unblock requests it would be different. And remember, it's in the history. It's not going anywhere, they can't hide it. Canterbury Tail talk 14:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While I agree with @Canterbury Tail & @Floquenbeam in principle, based on this comment it's unlikely the conduct is going to change in 24 hours. Also lenient block for calling folks Hitlers. So I imagine we'll be back here again. Star Mississippi 16:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was actually just about to bring that here, Star Mississippi. I understand that having conduct brought up here can make users nervous, but this is absolutely not the way to go. JeffSpaceman (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no idea how to de-escalate when someone is so angry. I though about posting advice not to continue the personal attacks, but that would just be taken as a threat. The best I can come up with - and I admit it is really weak sauce - is to ask other good faith editors to ignore, to the extent possible, really angry people venting on their talk pages while blocked, and hope against hope that it subsides when the block ends. Jeff, it is not open season on you, but if you can turn the other cheek that would be kind of you. It would be a shame to lose a good faith editor of 18 years, but the personal attacks on other people are going to have to end one way or another. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was aware the editor removed the unblock request, and was also aware it was against 'policy'. I decided that this user was clearly very upset so figured I would just leave it alone, with the hope they would calm down over the coming days. If this behaviour continues, I'm sure the next block will be indefinite. Daniel (talk) 20:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    KSDerek

    [edit]
    note before reading: please see my reply at the end of this thread asking to move this elsewhere – ShinyAlbatross (talk) 19:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:KSDerek has been harassing me on the page Talk:Asian fetish over my large batch of edits. My edits were bold and sweeping, but I spend a proportionate amount of time researching them and writing about them on the talk page beforehand. I posted to community noticeboards asking for participation (which nobody responded to, unfortunately). I started with good-faith discussion, but was met quickly with derisive condescension and rudeness combined with some misguided interpretations of the sources.

    At this point I noticed his account was created on Sep 8, which is around the last time I encountered opposition from IP editors. Given recent interactions with certain other editors, I launched a sockpuppet investigation with my suspicions. I understand his offence at this, but I think it was reasonable grounds to suspect something. However, turned out to be false. I left a message on his user page offering to forgive, forget and reset the discussion.

    At this point I think the discussion is untenable. I tried, I opened the door to patching it up, I understand the harm that SPI did (although I maintain the suspicion was reasonable and I later apologized), but KSDerek has not shown a willingness to change his tune. Instead, between the choice of civil discussion and no discussion, he's chosen no discussion and has again started editing from his POV.

    I have to say that the unifying theme of KSDerek's objections and edits is in supporting a POV that violence is completely unrelated to this topic. (There is plenty of discussion in both opinion and research-based sources relating the two.[1][2][3][4]) He does not ask whether the claim should be made, if due weight is appropriate, etc, but instead asserts that it's simply not, going so far as a semantic argument about the word "fetish".

    In summary (tl;dr):

    1. I'm not perfect, but I have tried my best to follow the spirit and rule of Wikipedia's policies,
    2. KSDerek's conduct before the SPI was uncivil,
    3. KSDerek's conduct after the SPI was uncivil,
    4. KSDerek is engaged in tendentious and disruptive editing.

    (edit) forgot to sign: ShinyAlbatross (talk) 17:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    So, to sum up, you did a bold deletion of content, KSDerek did WP:BRD and questioned it on the talk page, then after some back and forth you opened an SPI and expected them to be nice after you didn't WP:AGF? From what I can tell, nothing KSDerek has done is uncivil. However, I do think that the talk page needs a resolution to this and that you cannot be as dismissive as you were with A Rainbow Footing It. Conyo14 (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say that comments like "Or, is this just to force your viewpoint?" (said repeatedly) and "Why do you lie so much constantly?" are pretty uncivil. I won't get into who did what first, but I think it should be very evident that one of us gave more of a chance (WP:AGF) than the other. And I think A Rainbow Footing It joining the fray would be blatant WP:CANVASS, considering their first interaction with me was to accuse me of being a sockpuppet (which, fine, but if you think that, open a SPI and find out). Them joining the debate would almost certainly not be about the content and instead be about me personally. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 21:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe WP:IUC supports my case here. And the "revert" in BRD has to come with reasons (WP:BRDR) – KSDerek did not. One of his biggest complaints was a study that he actually didn't revert away (the Shor & Golriz study). Another one of his biggest arguments was totally unrelated to my edits (that Pornography and Sex Tourism should be removed from the article). ShinyAlbatross (talk) 21:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ShinyAlbatross, of course, civility and AGF are valued here at Wikipedia. But this is a collaborative editing project, editors disagree all of the time and tempers get the best of them. Try to work out disputes on the article talk page or another form on dispute resolution. I'm not taking sides here because I haven't studied the edits to this article but you can't run to ANI or SPI every time you have a disagreement with another editor or your actions will eventually be seen as disruptive editing. Most editors here who have been around a long time find a way to continue working on a peoject where there are other editors who they don't get along with and this is usually done by giving them a wide berth and not editing the same articles. An editor's behavior has to be seriously egregious, like racist or transphobic, to warrant a block for lack of civility. Just not being nice or short-tempered are chalked up to the fact that we are all human beings. If you think this editor's behavior is that severe, you have to present examples/diffs so that editors and admins here can see what you are talking about.
    Also, I saw you suggest to the other editor that you wanted to remove a discussion on the article talk page but please do not do that. You can archive talk page content if it is old but do not delete content just because it doesn't reflect your current position. And if you have questions about civility or Wikipedia's forums of dispute resolution, please bring them to the Teahouse, not ANI. This noticeboard is where you come if all other forms of discussion and resolution have failed and I think this complaint is too soon for ANI consideration. Liz Read! Talk! 00:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just one suggestion, if you find yourself in a me vs. them dispute, it is often helped by the participation of other editors. You might post a very neutral message on the talk page of a relevant WikiProject inviting editors to come and discuss the dispute. But, like I said, it must be a neutral message. Liz Read! Talk! 00:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your reply. For all the recent research I've done into Wikipedia's guidance and policies, I'm still learning. I don't believe I am running to interventions prematurely, but I will take more experienced users' opinions on this.
    Nonetheless, should I present diffs/examples and a timeline? I was not sure how detailed to make this account.
    I would not delete a discussion unless it was WP:MUTUAL, but if you suggest I shouldn't even do that, I'll take that advice.
    I would love participation from impartial users. I posted to community noticeboards here, here, and here. And I didn't know about the Teahouse, so thanks for linking that. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 00:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just reflecting on this and comments so far, I agree that dispute resolution is more appropriate. To whichever admin reads this, is it okay if I archive this and move it to dispute resolution instead? ShinyAlbatross (talk) 19:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    This editor makes some noticeboard listing of me almost every day. I didn't even do anything for a day now? Two dispute resolution posts, the SPI, now this. All have been closed quickly. Like who is harassing who? After a long discussion on the talk page I gave a small slight of their way of arguing and now they endlessly wikilawyer on that and refuse to respond to any of my points there anymore. They're doing "bold" removals and getting ire for it on two articles, not just one. And when it comes to their claim of having researched things well, almost every single sentence they add to this article is heavily laden with stuff that wasn't mentioned in the source. And they have talking points like "White women discriminating against Asian men (which is pretty well-documented)" [58]. At least other people recognise that I'm not the odd one here. KSDerek (talk) 03:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • One SPI has been concluded, and that investigates a very different charge. There was one dispute resolution post, which was closed because the SPI was open (my mistake, I didn't suspect SPI until the dispute resolution was already open)
    • I believe everything I wrote is much more faithful to the sources than before my edits. And they were mostly the same sources. I'm not saying there isn't room for further improvement, but it's already a large improvement over what was there and I explained thoroughly what I did on the talk page and (to a lesser degree) edit summaries, which you haven't engaged with.
    • It is pretty well documented.[5][6][7] Two of these sources are cited in the article. And in the context of that discussion, it's clear I wasn't crudely casting grievances (it is not a moral judgment).
    ShinyAlbatross (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You later made another post at the dispute resolution noticeboard but removed it yourself. So if you make another there it's going to be a third now. All the noticeboard posts you make are also always slightly biased for you, for example at the numerous Asian-related noticeboards you write that you're "fixing issues", and still, no one is willing to participate in this, which says a lot. KSDerek (talk) 02:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Forbes, N., Yang, L. C., Lim, S. (27 February 2023). "Intersectional discrimination and its impact on Asian American women's mental health: A mixed-methods scoping review". Frontiers in Public Health. 11. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2023.993396.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
    2. ^ Fang, J. (2024), The deadly consequences of hypersexualizing Asian women
    3. ^ Zheng, R. (1 January 2016). "Why yellow fever isn't flattering: A case against racial fetishes". Journal of the American Philosophical Association. 2 (3): 400–419. doi:10.1017/apa.2016.25.
    4. ^ Ramirez, R. (2021), The history of fetishizing Asian women
    5. ^ Lin, K.-H., Lundquist, J. (1 July 2013). "Mate selection in cyberspace: the intersection of race, gender, and education". American Journal of Sociology. 119 (1): 208. doi:10.1086/673129.
    6. ^ Potârcă, G., Mills, M. (5 January 2015). "Racial Preferences in Online Dating across European Countries". European Sociological Review. 31 (3). Supplementary Data, Figure A2.2. doi:10.1093/esr/jcu093.
    7. ^ Robnett, B., Feliciano, C. (1 March 2011). "Patterns of Racial-Ethnic Exclusion by Internet daters". Social Forces. 89 (3): 815. doi:10.1093/sf/89.3.807.

    Edit warring by User:Steven1991

    [edit]
    That's enough disruption from this user. I blocked for 31 hours. Drmies (talk) 22:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Steven1991 is currently edit warring at The Jewish Chronicle, The Atlantic, Claudine Gay, and StopAntisemitism and is ignoring warnings on his talk page asking him to stop. Wellington Bay (talk) 20:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It is not “edit warring” to revise content with emotionally charged and accusatory wording that prevents a nuanced or balanced representation from being presented. I object to such classification. I see it as an attack on my integrity. Steven1991 (talk) 20:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Take it to the discussion section then. Insanityclown1 (talk) 20:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not ask the user to do so? Steven1991 (talk) 22:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No “edit warring“ has taken place on the “StopAntisemitism” article. Steven1991 (talk) 20:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This user falsely accused me of “edit warring” when I removed unsubstantiated and accusatory content and replaced it with more neutral wording on the article The Atlantic. This user is harassing me over disagreement with abusive editing seeking to push certain narratives aligned with his biased views against the Jewish people. Steven1991 (talk) 20:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This user also demonstrates an apparent refusal to “talk” to reach “consensus” but stalking my contributions to reverse all of my good-faith edits. Harassment per se – I don’t see how it aligns with Wikipedia’s community guidelines. Steven1991 (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I fail to see how wellington is "stalking" you. The way I see it, based on their most recent edit at the Jewish chronicle, they were restoring content that you frankly had no business removing without first seeking consensus on the talk page. If you have an issue with wording, get consensus first. Insanityclown1 (talk) 21:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also strongly advise avoiding making accusations of stalking or using legalese such as "harassment per se." That very likely could have you running afoul of Wikipedia:Casting aspersions. Insanityclown1 (talk) 21:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not wrong to describe as such when the user’s behaviour has given me the impression that such actions are being directed at or committed against me. Steven1991 (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to claim you are being stalked (you aren't), then you need to provide evidence to back up your claims. Insanityclown1 (talk) 21:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether you agree or not, I believe that the user is targeting me, over disagreements on certain issues, as I cannot see signs of the user making the same allegations towards any other users who may have acted in similar ways he accuses me of. You cannot dismiss my perceptions like that – it is a form of victim-blaming. I consider this as a form of bullying. Steven1991 (talk) 22:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you ever heard the phrase "claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." This is not victim blaming, this is simply rationality. You are not a victim here, and any attempt to say that you are is frankly disingenuous. Insanityclown1 (talk) 22:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Say that to any women who claimed sex abuse – would you? Steven1991 (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also appreciate if you can present me your credentials that would convince us of the credibility of your judgments, whether regarding me or any edits I have ever made. Steven1991 (talk) 22:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit warring is no exaggeration, though I can't see that Steven1991 has violated 3RR (they may have, but in the generally fast and furious editing, it's hard to be sure). But a definite problem is quite a few egregiously deceptive edit summaries, whereby they refer to tendentious and POV edits as typo fixes. Examples: here, here, here, and here (where also some "copy editing" which changed good English into highly ungrammatical English was done, presumably in haste). User:Steven1991, it appears from your comments above (and in a worse way in this aggressive user talkpage post) that you don't know what "edit warring" means; please look it up here. And stop it with the deceptive edit summaries before you are blocked for that alone. And use article talkpages more! Bishonen | tålk 21:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    OK – whatever you call it. I would appreciate if you apply the same standard to the other user making allegations of me on this page rather than to me alone due to any disagreements. Steven1991 (talk) 21:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not “aggressive” to remind the user of any of his actions that causes me upset or damages my user reputation. You can’t selectively use phrases or apply standards like that. To me, I feel that I am subject to bullying over disagreements on certain issues. Steven1991 (talk) 21:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Propose Community ban based on my read of both Steven1991's talk page, plus this ANI thread, I strongly believe that Steven1991 is WP:NOTHERE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insanityclown1 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Steven has accused others of bullying, stalking, harassment, and victim blaming over a content dispute. Then, he challenges someone to argue with sexual abuse victims. This is trolling. 107.116.165.134 (talk) 22:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    WP:Articles for deletion/Gaming the system

    [edit]
    Foolishness reverted and halted, for the moment. Drmies (talk) 22:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Can an admin please semi-protect the AfD and possibly block the SPA troll accounts? Just check the page history. Left guide (talk) 22:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Personal attack

    [edit]

    I believe this edit makes it clear this user is WP:NOTHERE. Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yep clear as day Maestrofin (talk) 00:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have indefinitely blocked Paradigmshift2070 for personal attacks and harassment. Cullen328 (talk) 01:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "You fucking nerd"... well. That narrows his attack down to around half the 'pedia  :) SerialNumber54129 13:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring on Alanis Morissette

    [edit]

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

    After noticing they had added some content to Alanis Morissette (disruptively), I initially did assume this editor to be good-faith, trying to fix the MoS problems they had caused. But look at what they did subsequently: claiming I had reverted "a legitimate update" "without reason or explanation" (even though I did explain, see this and this) and restoring their edit repeatedly (despite opposition from me and @Fulfiller, see this). I asked them to stop disrupting the article, but they refused (see this conversation). Thedarkknightli (talk) 01:34, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    If it is indeed edit-warring, I'd file a case at ANEW. But it looks like a content dispute and there is no discussion about this on the article talk page. There has been no activity there since January 2024. Liz Read! Talk! 02:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Liz, thanks for your timely reply! Well, I've just started a conversation on the article's talk page. For the reason I didn't file a case regarding them at ANEW, Cruzado didn't violate WP:3RR (so I don't think they'll be prevented from disrupting the article if I did). Btw, I admit my ignorance of the rules. Thedarkknightli (talk) 03:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand, Thedarkknightli and I thank you for providing diffs. It's just that escalating disputes to ANI can lead to unpredictable results as both the reporter and the editor being reported are usually scrutinized. Liz Read! Talk! 05:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I bet that Cruzado will continue to restore their edit unless they're indeffed. Thedarkknightli (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Please ban me.

    [edit]

    Hi. This account was made through the WP:CLEANSTART process, after having retired for quite some time. Thinking about it, I would like to return to my old account, so I’d appreciate if you guys blocked me. Regards, SymmetricalEnglish (talk) 02:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    SymmetricalEnglish, you could just abandon this account and stop using it. If you are worried about accusations of sockpuppetry, send a message to ARBCOM or the functionaries list or simply list it as an alternative account on your original account's User page. Liz Read! Talk! 02:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Harassment by Steven1991

    [edit]

    Hi, Steven1991 seems to have a pattern of engaging in personal attacks against multiple users, including myself. Attacks seem to generally consist of accusing us of "harassment" after some of us commented on a previous ANI post. [[59]][[60]]. User has made statements indicating that they do not plan to stop even after having been told to do so[[61]]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insanityclown1 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Insanityclown1, the editor has already been blocked after they made these edits so what additional results are you looking for? Also, remember to sign your comments. Liz Read! Talk! 04:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Complaint probably isn't ripe at this point, but was concerned by his comment that made it sound like he had no intention of stopping the activities that got him banned in the first place. Insanityclown1 (talk) 05:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking at User talk:Steven1991, it seems that the person shows no indication of becoming more cooperative therefore my opinion is the person must be indeffed. --Altenmann >talk 17:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    P.S. In addition to the current block, the user was already blocked in the past for 48h for exactly same behavior. Lesson not learned, it looks like. --Altenmann >talk 17:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Altenmann the editor was blocked in 2019 for some problems [62], that was over 5 years ago and although the editor has a very sparse editing record, I don't think it should count that much when considering current blocks. I also don't know that it's "exactly same behavior" since at least from the block log the stated reason was "edit warring and editing logged out to evade scrutiny". While edit warring has unfortunately continued. I don't see anyone has presented evidence of the editor logging out. Further using misleading edit summaries wasn't mentioned in the past and seems unlikely considering they were barely using edit summaries at the time.

    While the editor did say some stuff on their talk page which was concerning, we tend to ignore some minor blowing off steam when an editor is blocked and I'm unconvinced anything they said then is really enough for a longer block. Frankly I would personally take the sexual abuse comment to be crossing the line enough for an indef, but Drmies didn't see it that way and so IMO it's not worth pursuing further.

    So what matters is how they actually edit going forward. Now that their block has expired, their editor interaction seems to have restricted themselves to emptying their talk page which they're allowed to do and posting these two comments on ANI [63] [64]. I don't think either of those really cross the line sufficiently for a block.

    OTOH, surprisingly this wasn't discussed previously but many of their recent (direct article) edits both before and after their block seem to clearly be within the Arab–Israeli conflict topic area. To articles that aren't sure but they're editing stuff which directly mentions the current war e.g. [65] and [66] and before the block [67]. They were already given a CTOP alert for the A-I conflict previously and so informed of the WP:ARBECR requirements so really should not have been making these edits.

    I've directly asked them to stop [68]. If they continue to make edits which are so clearly within the A-I topic area, IMO an admin should just block them under CTOP or at least give a logged warning. These articles are generic enough that most of them don't need ECP and editors need to self regulate. And there's enough that I don't see a partial block will work. If no one is willing to do so from here, opening a WP:A/R/E case would be the simplest solution.

    Nil Einne (talk) 14:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Consistent edit warring and reverting constructive and consensual edits on article Lakshmi despite being warned several times

    [edit]

    This user @Krishnpremi is continuously edit warring and reverting constructive and consensual edits for several days on the article Lakshmi. Despite being warned several times he is adamant to revert article to his pov and is not even ready to discuss anything on the talk page. He doesn't provide any edit summary for his disruptive edits and reverts every constructive and consensual edit to his pov. Therefore i request a block for him. Hbanm (talk) 04:33, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hbanm, I'm not sure if you are familiar with ANI but nothing will happen here unless you provide diffs/evidence of the conduct you are complaining about. Editors have limited time and they won't spend time going to look for evidence that you should have provided in your statement. Liz Read! Talk! 04:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are all the evidences of his edit warring and reverting consensual and constructive edits [69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78]. Here is his response after being informed that a block has been requested for him[79], from this response it is clear that he will not stop reverting consensual and constructive edits and will carry on with his edit warring and will always revert the article to his pov. Here is the consensus for the change on the talk page([80] please see the discussion titled as "Lion and Elephant as Lakshmi's mount"). Here is the warning given to him on his talk page to which he didn't respond [81] Hbanm (talk) 06:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey @Liz please take a look at the evidences. Hbanm (talk) 06:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for providing the diffs but it's past midnight here and I'm heading to bed soon. I'm sure another editor or admin can offer you some advice. Liz Read! Talk! 07:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If Krishnpremi does not agree with consensus-based edits they should join in the discussion at Talk:Lakshmi rather than continually revert. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Phil Bridger As already said above he is not ready to discuss anything on the talk page, he is just reverting consensual and constructive edits and doing continuous edit war, that's why I requested a block for him. Hbanm (talk) 08:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hbanm: tell me if this is a correct summary:
    • Krishnpremi has been reverting back to their preferred version of Lakshmi
    • On the 18th, Krishnpremi made 3 reverts and you started a talk page discussion
    • On the 19th-20th (depending on time zone), Krishnpremi continued reverting back against three other editors
    • Krishnpremi has not participated in the discussion (which they had not been explicitly told about on their user talk page, but which was mentioned in several edit summaries)
    • Since a consensus was reached on the talk page, Krishnpremi has reverted back three times and is now at 6RR as of their most recent revert
    • In their most recent revert, they used the edit summary "Well that’s too bad", implying that they intend to keep reverting. --bonadea contributions talk 09:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bonadea Yes, this is the correct summary. Hbanm (talk) 09:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) Right, so Krishnpremi needs to stop edit warring and start discussing their edits when they are challenged. This is a new editor, and hopefully they will be able to learn how consensus works at Wikipedia – they have never posted to a talk page, even though Seyamar asked them yesterday, in connection with Krishnpremi's repeted reverts to Bhumi (goddess), to start a talk page discussion instead of just reverting. It looks like a short block might be a good idea. Hbanm, I think I would have issued a 3RR warning on their user talk page instead of warning them in an edit summary – they clearly did see the edit summary since they replied to it, but in general I think it is better to do it that way. --bonadea contributions talk 09:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bonadea They won't participate in any discussion, all they want is to revert the article to their pov. Although the change I made was not any significant change that needs any discussion but I had to start a discussion because of their edit warring, seems like they consider this article as their personal blog. Let's start with a short block, I hope they understand after that. Hbanm (talk) 09:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since like Bonadea mentioned Krishnpremi has never really used a talk page other than an automated tagging via the AFC wizard [82], as a new editor normally we might assume they are simply unaware of talk pages. But they did manage to make it to RFPP to request protection twice. [83] [84] Their most recent edits were on the mobile website which some people feel can cause talk page messages concerns but most of their edits aren't. I wonder if instead of a short full block, a shortish but longer (maybe at least a week) partial block from Lakshmi might be an option. If they give up on that article and instead just move on to Bhumi (goddess), it can be reevaluated from there. (I mean you could partially block from both those article, but some may argue whether they've done enough to justify a block specifically from Bhumi.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nil Einne Why you people are assuming them to be too innocent to use talk page? Their edit history says otherwise, from their edit history it's evident that they have proper knowledge about how wikipedia works. They aren't interested in any talk page discussion, they just want to revert the article to their pov. I too think that longer partial block would be better than short full block, as they are particularly interested in vandalising the article Lakshmi Hbanm (talk) 11:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We have two objectives here:
    1. Prevent disruption at Lakshmi, Bhumi (goddess) and possibly other articles.
    2. Get this user to use talk pages rather than continually revert to their preferred version.
    A block would achieve both. I would prefer to make this indefinite (not permanent) and it could be lifted as soon as Krishnpremi says that they will follow consensus. I would advise Hbanm not to assume motives. We can only see and act on behaviour. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    [85] Here, they again reverted the article according to their pov. I don't think that they will stop without a block. Hbanm (talk) 14:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring Noticeboard anyone? I got 90% though filing a report then hit the X (easily done on iOS, when you’ve got 6 tabs open) and don’t have the time left in my current journey to go through it all again. MM (Give me info.) (Victories) 13:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Severe Case of Verbal Abuse on Warraich Extreme threat!!

    [edit]
    Resolved Star Mississippi 14:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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


    111.241.218.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) I am addressing an serious case corresponding to this open ip address (intruded the warraich article) and literally red-outlined triangle containing exclamation point Warning leaked the detail of personal number on edit summary Note: he mentioned he will again commit this abbuse often after the page got unprotected automatically 217.162.74.162 (talk) 05:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC) He accompanied by various other suspect you can vitally check on edit summary for brief acquisition217.162.74.162 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    however the rest of edit summary has been vanished by moderator but the Leak exposure still visible on talk page 217.162.74.162 (talk) 05:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This IP account has been blocked for hours and many of their edits have already been revision deleted. If there is still content that should be removed, please report it via email at Wikipedia:Oversight. Liz Read! Talk! 07:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:71.114.123.162 is very combative and engages in edit wars

    [edit]

    71.114.123.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

    This unregistered user appears to edit war and fight with other users in talk pages. They've been repeatedly warned about the actions they engage in yet continue to do so.

    The most recent example was Talk:Ryan Wesley Routh. This is not how discussion on Wikipedia should be held and this unregistered user has received enough warnings and leeway to learn their lesson.

    User also vandalizes when they feel like, see this edit here.

    poketape (talk) 05:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, poketape,
    Looking at their contributions, I don't see any edit warring behavior and the one diff you linked to is from July. That's pretty stale. Do you have any evidence of recent edit-warring? Because ANI is supposed to be used for "urgent" problems and I don't see any urgency here. Liz Read! Talk! 07:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Gotcha, probably not urgent then. My concern is they appear to heat up, burn out, and then come back. I wasn't sure if there was a place to make admins aware of this to be on the lookout. poketape (talk) 16:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Evelyn Harthbrooke

    [edit]

    First of all, my apologies if this is not the correct venue to discuss this. This dispute originally started as a content dispute but has since - in my opinion - devolved into a conduct dispute. I've there are more appropriate places to have this discussion, I would love to be directed there.

    The relevant article for this dispute is iOS version history and 3 templates included on the article (Template:iPhone supported OS release, Template:iPad supported OS release, Template:iPod Touch supported OS release). The relevant discussions have been held in the following places:

    I'm frankly at the end of my rope here. I've requested multiple times to discuss things first, requested 3 WP:THIRD's, and occasionally other users have joined in on the discussion. But pretty much everything anyone says or does has been left ignored. The user has repeatedly stated that her opinion was final (Evelyn: my stance is firm. the device support tables aren't being added back, among other instances) and with that implying, in my opinion, no willingness to discuss. This is further exemplified in recent days by various requests to discuss being left completely unanswered. As I feel that much of my goodwill has been wiped out by the repeated falsehoods (even after being disproven), repeating the same arguments without acknowledging any counterpoints and bringing up different arguments ad nauseam, refusing to acknowledge any other opinions or disregarding them because "user has left", generally contradictory statements, etc. I'm now taking this here because I'm not sure much constructive discussion can still happen at this point.

    Originally, I wrote out an entire timeline of each relevant edit and revert trying to sum up as objectively as possible the arguments made. However, that resulted in a list of nearly 300 entries. So instead I'll just summarize some of the arguments here, still trying to be as objective as possible in arguments made by others (resorting to direct quotes for most of it). I'm collapsing it because this is still a long list. Although arguable, reading through the talk pages would be the better option, but I do realize that's a long discussion.

    Throughout this all, various reverts and re-reverts were made by both Evelyn and myself. However, I feel like I've provided plenty arguments as to why my reverts were in order on the talk page and have more often than not first continued the discussion on the talk page and waiting for a response, rather than opting to revert, unless I was under the believe that policies like WP:ACCESS were being broken (mostly with the templates in this case) in which I felt making sure the contents of the article remained accessible was of greater concern. Admittedly, for a few of those reverts on the iOS version history article at the start of the dispute, I should have waited longer or let the discussion go further before restoring the section. Evelyn has reverted with every comment she's made (assuming her changes weren't the latest already) across both the article and templates, as well as made multiple reverts without ever addressing the requests to discuss (at best leaving an edit summary), including reverting other changes by myself and George Ho that were not relevant to the discussion or directly attempted to address her concerns.

    With that, we've come to today. I've asked her yet again to respond to the discussions but she only responds by declining to do so, leaving the tables with various accessibility issues and in general removing context from them even for normal readers. After multiple attempts at dispute resolution, it is clear to me that Evelyn isn't open to any actual discussion (even having said as much herself on multiple occasions), and behaves in a disruptive manner, even often going against her own advice or using arguments that seemingly contradict her previous arguments, ignoring policies and guidelines claiming that they no longer apply (and that somehow that means that we should now do the opposite of those guidelines and policies), ignoring other peoples comments and trying to discard my own by claiming I'm biased because I attempted to address her concerns, and repeatedly lying about DFlhb stance on the matter even after having been repeatedly pointed out that she is incorrect.

    Thank you in advance. YannickFran (talk) 08:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This filing and the linked discussions are impenetrably verbose. What is the most concerning type of misconduct, and what three diffs best provide evidence of it? Otherwise, I'm seeing two editors spend far too much time in disagreements that mainly just include the two of them. If third opinions haven't resolved disputes, can WP:DRN or an RfC be tried? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:33, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The most concerning issue is User Evelyn's repeated reverts while showing no willingness to discuss disputed changes. For the most recent instance, this concerns changes that break accessibility (and in general make the templates unable to stand on their own even for human readers) of the 3 templates mentioned above multiple times, these concerns have been leveled by both myself and George Ho. Edits from both me and George trying to address these issues have been undone by Evelyn over the past few days without any elaboration as to why. These requests to discuss can be found both at User talk:YannickFran#Please avoid the constant reverting., and in these edits to the iOS version history talk page: [86], as well as in the edit histories of the templates ([87]). In her edits ([88], [89]), and comments on the talk pages ([90]), she dismisses concerns about accessibility claiming she thinks her changes "look better", claiming Wikipedia MOS and policies like MOS:ACCESS are invalid, and dismisses any argument brought up by me because I am "to biased" because I made edits previously (which co-incidentally were mostly attempts to address her previous concerns) or refuses to discuss entirely ([91]). YannickFran (talk) 15:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the shorter summary. I don't see "showing no willingness to discuss disputed changes" supported by the diffs you provided, and I'm seeing this all in the context of too much discussion between the two of you. Once you've co-authored a novella, it's time to call in outside voices, with WP:3O being just a first step in that process.
    I am concerned about an edit summary like this one, including "WP:<insert shorthand here> policies aren’t enforceable". @Evelyn Harthbrooke: care to (succinctly) explain? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The "unwillingness to discuss disputed changes" stems in my opinion from both the preceding conflict in which she says "my stance is firm. the device support tables aren't being added back" ([92]) (among other instances with the same sentiment) as well as the repeated requests to discuss and elaborate being left unanswered (both this recent dispute as well as the entire argument) and refusing to acknowledge any counterpoints and continuing to repeat earlier disproved claims. Admittedly, much of that happened prior to the limited scope I established in the comment you're responding to. For an example that does fall within the scope, the afformentioned comments in these 4 edits I made where made on the 17th and 18th of September and in the edit summary of this edit on September 18th, I link to the talk page in hopes to discuss it, but the discussion there is never answered, while she does comment elsewhere, she doesn't address any of the issues raised (other than repeating previous arguments like that policies aren't valid, which I think is fair to say isn't an argument). YannickFran (talk) 16:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    YF, that's just not strong enough evidence. After tireless discussion, a lack of response in the two days since you posted those comments is not misconduct. I'm not a fan of comments like the "my stance" one, it's from more than a year ago. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I'm not saying that it is for this scope, I'm only saying that it felt like that sentiment remained going into this discussion for the 3rd time, and at this point I'm more than willing to regard it all as irrelevant if a solution can be found. As for recent events, I feel like it is important to note that her accusation of me reverting [her] edits without discussing my changes first came after the comments I made on the iOS version history talk page. Of course she isn't obliged to answer, but between her comments days earlier dismissing anything I said because of a perceived "bias" and past discussions I hope it is understandable that it came across as such. --YannickFran (talk) 20:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I made that comment admittedly without looking at the whole revision history of the templates, since that moment I have gone through the whole revision history and saw that someone else created the templates and made the bulk of edits to them, therefore you aren't the creator nor the main contributor to the templates, and I apologize. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 23:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was never unwilling to discuss any changes that were disputed; I was just never alerted to the discussions either by ping or by mention on my talk page, I don't have my eyes on talk pages for every article I edit. If a discussion wants to be held and I am asked to participate in it, I only ask that I am pinged about it. But to accuse me of being unwilling to participate in discussions is untrue. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 00:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear, they're not the only two users involved in this dispute—that article's talk page has seen at least a couple years or so of spirited discussion from various parties of whether those tables should be included or not, although the two of them have been particularly enthusiastic participants from what I've seen. When I gave a 3O (I'm a "she" btw Yannick :P) I saw policy arguments in favor of both sides. I think it would be great if everyone involved would simmer down a bit and approach the discussion with more of an eye towards achieving consensus; at the same time I recognize that it's hard because both sides tend to be convinced that policy is with them, and the issue doesn't leave that much space to compromise. It is a bit strange that an RfC has never been held on that page from what I can see—Yannick, did you consider starting one at any point? It might possibly be more productive than raising the issue here; I kind of felt like it had gone beyond the point where 3O could reasonably help even at the time I arrived. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 19:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for speaking up. I didn't mean to ignore the participation of others, but the linked discussions are certainly dominated by the two. I agree about starting an RfC being a good next step. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify, are we talking about creating an RfC in regards to the concerns about the content of the templates itself that we're now addressing in this comment three, or about creating and RfC for whether or not the templates should remain on iOS version history (which I believe is what Mesocarp meant given she mentions creating an RfC in reference to the earlier discussions), or both? YannickFran (talk) 20:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It depends on what there's still disagreement on. I would have an easier time giving concrete suggestions with Evelyn's input. What I understand right now is that a year-and-a-half ago or so, there was intense disagreement on whether the tables should be there at all, and now there seem to be some complicated arguments between the two of you (and George Ho?) about how much the tables should be there? :P Maybe it would make sense to have the RfC present a set of gradations from "no tables" to "full tables" with some in-between options? This would probably make more sense to begin hashing out on the article's talk page than here, of course. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 20:58, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My view is that the tables do not belong on the article in question. For the bulk of the article's lifespan (from 2008 until 2022), those templates weren't present. I originally removed them shortly after they were first added (I believe early last year is when these discussions first started), as I felt that they fell out of scope with regard to the article's focus, which is being an overview of each iOS version, not as a one-size-fits-all article that lists each device and every single iOS version they run (List of iPhone models does this incredibly well, and is in my opinion where this information is best suited, even if its not all in one list with x's and checkmarks's). It is my view, and has been since they were originally instated, that these tables fall out of scope. The main reason being is that I believe they are better suited to exist on the core device articles if they really have to exist, due to their higher relevancy and prominence. They receive significantly more views than the iOS version history article. The tables in question also significantly increase the post-expand include size of the article, which has a fixed limit of around 2,000,000 bytes, and due to the templates, it is currently sitting at around 937513/2097152 bytes, whereby without them it would sit at roughly 559291/2097152 bytes.
    This, while disputed by Yannick as being fine, is not fine. It hinders the long term expansion of the article, especially as Apple releases new iOS versions and updates. It also hinders article load times and puts pressure on the servers. It is an issue as if the post-expand include size is exceeded, it can introduce major problems such as citations failing to be included in the article as the article gets expanded. These three templates alone due to their heavy template usage within these templates are so heavy that they add over 380,000 bytes to the include size. While I have given this argument before, we need to actively keep the article under this limit due to the problems I mentioned.
    However, my core complaint is that I genuinely and wholeheartedly believe that these templates fall out of the scope of what the article is intended to cover.
    The problem is, Yannick refused to listen to any of my past reasoning, no matter how many reasons I gave. They also continuously accused me of "repeating nonsensical arguments", without understanding the long-term problems that these templates introduce, such as with future article expansion as I mentioned. Why would I shift my view, when I firmly believe that my reasons do make sense?
    I have never intentionally nor purposely partaken in any bad faith discussions nor tried to be disruptive. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 23:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's okay for you to have your position, of course. It's fine for Yannick to have theirs as well. I'd say both of y'all have made some solid arguments and I don't think either of you is likely to ever convince the other. Bringing the larger community into the content debate would really help I think. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 00:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've never argued that the size limit wouldn't eventually become a problem. As a matter of fact, I've even repeatedly told you that a solution to the size limit problem was a WP:SPLIT, but there it would be more sensible to follow the lead of others articles like the macOS and Windows version histories and move the version details to their dedicated articles (some of which already today include their own version details), but that's a different discussion entirely. Nonetheless, reaching a technical limit of Wikipedia should never be an argument to remove something. The tables were moved to the iOS version history article on October 20th, 2022, you removed them for the first time on May 9th, 2023 so "I originally removed them shortly after they were first added" is not true. YannickFran (talk) 11:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies for the incorrect pronouns. I tried using they/them whenever I didn't know, and missed it for you.
    Having said that, after that first 3O the discussion died down and with ended with Evelyn restoring the section and abandoning the discussion. Soon after the second 3O, the same happened. So in both instances I didn't feel like it had to be pursued any further because at that point I believed the discussion was over. When the discussion restarted, I operated partially on the assumption that it would be considered a "new" discussion and didn't want to immediately jump to an RfC, the same for the second time the discussion started again earlier this month (especially sine it now had been long enough for the original discussion to have been archived). It just felt "to quick", I guess. However, the accusations of bias, calling me toxic and disruptive, claiming I refused to discuss anything despite the proof to the contrary, and claiming that policies don't apply felt like an escalation which is why I came here. Especially the policy issue feels like a matter that a normal users wouldn't be able to counter, given both George Ho and I already tried. YannickFran (talk) 19:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's okay, no worries.
    Speaking realistically, I think, if you have a dispute with an editor and one 3O hasn't settled the matter, getting another is kind of unlikely to sway them. 3O isn't binding or definitive or anything, it's just a way to bring in another editor—it works best on distant, obscure pages where two users are locked in a dispute with little hope of a third party turning up, and where both users are prepared to work with the person who arrives to find consensus. An RfC can be more helpful in cases where there are more than two editors nearby who visibly care, and especially when the content dispute is really thorny and the major sides all have reasonable-sounding policy arguments available, which is how this seems to me at least from what I've read so far.
    An RfC can bring an argument to a much more definitive close than general discussion can. If one editor keeps editing an article in obvious contravention of a recent RfC, it makes for a much stronger and more convincing case that they're being disruptively inflexible than if there's just been general discussion about it, especially when that discussion has been kind of inconclusive. Browsing around in the links you posted, I can see that things have gotten kind of nasty between the two of you at certain points, but given that y'all have been arguing on-and-off about the same article for nearly two years or something I'm honestly impressed that both of you have kept your cool as much as you have. ;^^ Not to overlook anything that's happened conduct-wise—if you want to pursue that angle more, you can, I just think both of y'all might find an RfC to be more of a relief in a way, since it could help put the matter more definitively to rest for now even where other editors are concerned. This is ultimately a challenging and complex content dispute, and whatever happens here it will remain that way intrinsically. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 21:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That edit summary was made without thinking; I used improper wording at a time when I was quite tired. What I was trying to say is that Wikipedia style guide policies are not consistently enforced; each article on Wikipedia can differ vastly from the written MOS guidelines due to the vast number of articles that exist. However, specifically with regard to the usage of tables, I have seen more captions be used when tables aren't the core focus of a given section, and additional context is needed to understand what the table's given purpose is, and less captions used when tables are the core focus of a section, or even article, such as on TV show episode list articles. However, my changes on iOS version history with regard to the hardware support templates, were to better separate the tables instead of being in one section, and allowing people to go to a specific hardware support template if necessary via the table of contents, which in my opinion does better for accessibility than table captions, as in my mind they add unnecessary content duplication. Arguably, even the body text in Hardware support isn't necessary as the context implied by the table rows and columns is that they deal with the minimum and maximum OS versions supported by each released model of either an iPhone, iPad, or iPod touch. I made the changes based on that context and understanding of my experience with editing, reading, and taking in a wide variety of other Wikipedia articles, including articles that have received Good Article or Featured Article status due to their high quality. My changes weren't made to cause accessibility in the tables to regress or anything of that sort. My changes were made to simplify the templates, and allow better separation in the section in question. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 23:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I've made an RfC planning section where we can take this up in full, if y'all are interested. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 00:14, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I never once lied about DFlhb's stance on the matter, nor was I even talking about that editor. When I brought up the consensus thing in the most recent discussion, it was in reference to a Semi-protected edit request created on November 23, 2023, where the user Lilu126 responded with the following: "The discussion above (#Missing hardware support table?) failed to reach consensus on this issue. Please continue or restart the conversation to seek consensus before reactivating this request."
    That is where I firmly understood that there was no consensus reached on the original issue, which was whether or not the templates should be reinstated, and as no consensus was reached, they shouldn't have been re-added, which is where the issues start. As consensus was never reached, the tables shouldn't have been added back, yet they were; now I am confused as to who re-instated them, but whoever did shouldn't have done so without consensus to re-instate them. DFlhb never even participated in the discussion to give a concrete opinion, they only mentioned the Overview table but did not chime in on the hardware support tables directly, they only participated in the conversation when the copyright violations were taking place, and they were talking about the release notes tables in that argument, so they never once directly argued for or against the tables according to the original discussion in Archive #7 of the iOS version history talk page.
    I have also never once intentionally or purposely acted in bad faith. I have always, to the best of my ability, tried to follow and understand Wikipedia's Manual of Style and respect that as best I can. However I am by no means a perfect editor, I make mistakes. But I genuinely do not believe that my template changes (removing the caption and revamping the version fields to use sub columns (iPhone OS and iOS for example)) cause any regressions to accessibility. Even then, I do firmly believe that the templates in question do not have a place on that article, so in that respect, my stance on that is respectfully firm. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 00:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's kinda the crux of this entire discussion. You keep saying that a consensus had to be reached to keep the tables, despite that at that point the only discussion about it had concluded to keep them. At no point was there ever a consensus to remove them. You have repeatedly claimed that (presumably) based on Talk:iOS version history/Archive 7#Hardware support despite that one of the 2 people involved there (DFlhb) just a week later changed their position to support the tables remaining which they re-iterated when they self reverted. This has been pointed out multiple times, but you have repeatedly claimed a consensus was needed to keep them ([93], [94]). Months later in May the first discussion was had, they continued to remain on the article afterwards, more months passed, you removed them, the protected edit request was made, and I reverted the article to its original state and requested again to discuss it first per WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS where my opinion was joined by others, and you were the only one arguing against.
    As for the accessibility issues, let me be clear that accessibility is not the end-all-be-all, I'm more than happy to agree with that. But it is still important and even if the relevant policies wouldn't be enforced anymore (which they are), that isn't a reason to go out of our way to do the exact opposite of what these policies said and remove existing accessibility tools. examples had been given as to why the changes were problematic, especially for screen readers (even now, keeping the navbar in the header is not something that should be done). Saying that you "do not believe that my template changes cause any regressions to accessibility" after it had been pointed out that they did with both examples and policies, that doesn't feel like an honest argument (especially not when the only answer to that from you boiled down to "this looks prettier and policies aren't enforceable"). Captions exist for a reason. Body text, header cells, and headings aren't a replacement for captions. Pretty much every image on Wikipedia has a caption, even though they are (pretty much) always accompanied by a header and body text that already describes the subject for the very same reason. This isn't even just Wikipedia policies, this is generally how HTML functions and how screen readers deal with that. YannickFran (talk) 11:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    DFlhb was saying bring back the hardware support tables if the version overview tables (showing compatible devices) weren't brought back, from what I'm understanding with regard to their phrasing. They weren't saying to bring them back non-conditional, and in my view, they do not have a place on the article. From 2008 to Oct 2022, they never existed. There are no valid reasons to have these hardware support templates on an article related to discussing the history of iOS, not how long each device supports what iOS version. The iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch articles are where they belong, especially considering that combined, the respective device articles receive significantly more page views than iOS version history (see here for what I mean). Therefore I genuinely believe that these templates have more of a purpose existing on the individual device articles than iOS version history.
    I raise one of my original points again: No other version history article, including Android's, lists all Android models to have ever shipped and their original and latest Android version. Granted, the scope that Android covers goes far beyond just smartphones and tablets, but I thought I would make this comparison because iOS is still its own entity, the only things that iOS version history should cover is the general chronological history of the operating system, which was its purpose for over 14 years, before an editor decided to (without seeking consensus) to move the hardware support templates over to the article, without even getting feedback from the community on whether or not it was a good idea. And in my view, these templates should've never been transferred over. I firmly believe, like I've mentioned several times, that they belong on the individual device articles. And even then, each iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch model, in the infobox, shows its original iOS version, and the final or current iOS version that was made available for the device.
    I did say I would no longer fight for their removal, but I have realized that this is something I should fight for. If an RFC is held, and a conclusion is reached to keep the hardware support tables on the article, instead of them existing on their respective articles, then I will respect that. Until then I vehemently disagree with these tables disrupting the content flow and purpose of the article. The overview table is fine, it shows a compact overview of each iOS version, the given release date, and the device EOL. We don't need a table that duplicates information. You have originally said that the overview does not provide the same information, but the overview could be changed to add a "Initial devices" column showing what iOS version appeared on what devices, adopting the same approach as the hardware support templates but without having to have three individual templates on the page, and potentially rendering the dedicated Hardware Support tables unnecessary, as the information the reader needs would be in the Overview table at the top, instead of all the way at the bottom. That would be another solution instead of moving the templates back to the individual device articles; it would also reduce the amount of tables that need to be maintained. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 03:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have re-instated the table captions, after reading the table MOS further, and I have removed the repetitive body text in the Hardware support section, however I have kept the subheadings to continue allowing easier navigation to each template. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 02:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Storrs-Mansfield

    [edit]

    A couple of IP editors (137.99.142.46 and 98.191.14.194 to name two specifically) have been engaged in a widespread campaign to attempt to rename Storrs, Connecticut to Storrs-Mansfield. A move request was entered in September 2023 (see Talk:Storrs, Connecticut), and the request was soundly rejected by the community. These IP editors have made changes across en.wiki to implement this change without consensus. User talk:98.191.14.194 contains a discussion in which the IP is unwilling to concede to multiple other editors on the issue. Since this appears to be a widespread abuse issue, this was the only venue I could think to address it. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    They may have a point, even the official website of Mansfield, that Storrs is part of, lists its address as Storrs Mansfield. Canterbury Tail talk 13:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then they can start a proper discussion on the talk page and gain consensus. 173.22.12.194 (talk) 14:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Canterbury Tail talk 14:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The USPS, for reasons of their own, lists the post office name for this place as "Storrs-Mansfield" (possible because the post office serves multiple localities). This does not make the name a WP:COMMONNAME. The discussion happened, in September 2023, at Talk:Storrs, Connecticut, and the consensus was that the name change was not appropriate. The two IP editors are essentially edit-warring across multiple articles to make and keep this name change. I'm asking for a temporary block so that the discussion (currently at User talk:98.191.14.194, but more properly at Talk:Storrs, Connecticut, can reach a new consensus. (How long is consensus valid for? Is last year's consensus no longer valid?) WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While the website itself lists it's postal address as Storrs-Mansfield, a lot of it's contents alternate between that and a standalone Storrs for addresses.
    Some examples for a standalone Storrs are at Playgrounds, a Proposed Zoning Map Amendment, community flyers, Food programs, and FAQs. It's quite inconsistent, though the address at the base of the site may be optimised for the USPS system.
    Storrs would come across as the Wikipedia:COMMONNAME though, and the previous consensus appeared to have been decided as such from looking at the talk page. R0paire-wiki (talk) 15:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll keep an eye on this dispute there, I'm a UConn fan and have also hiked Mansfield Hollow so I know the area well enough to help out. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This matter is not an edit war and should not even be up for debate. It is an example of Wikipedia editors reversing edits which improve articles based on correct, official, and truthful information - with properly added citations in the article, supported by numerous accurate and substantial primary and secondary sources. It is an example of reversals without the inclusion of replacement citations. It is an example of "consensus" disregarding official sources and the overwhelming community usage of this name. And most of all it is an example of editors involved who do not live in, have nothing to do with, and have maybe never even heard of the community in question or, if they have, they have not made it clear. (The only example is the single user here who claims they've visited.)
    I'll make it more clear then: You may not abuse this talkpage to present lengthy arguments about content, that isn't its purpose
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    The official and legitimate name of the community anchored by the main campus of the University of Connecticut is named Storrs-Mansfield. This community, encompassed by the areas of ZIP Codes 06268 and 06269, was named after early settlers Major Moses Mansfield and the Storrs family, both of whom owned a majority of land in the Town of Mansfield. The other community within the municipality is Mansfield Center, encompassed by the area of ZIP Code 06250. ZIP Code 06269 was established as a boundary of the University of Connecticut property, including but not limited to its use in the USPS' mail contexts, but it doesn't exist outside of 06268 as it were.
    Storrs-Mansfield does not have its own municipal government. The Town of Mansfield is the municipality and is actually the smallest entity of distinction at the state level. Storrs-Mansfield is commonly considered a village, but it is not incorporated.
    The argument hangs on the fact that there is a census-designated place with a name label of "Storrs" which does include a boundary within the village of Storrs-Mansfield and town of Mansfield, but itself does not include businesses, residences, or significant features associated with, identified with, and labeled as being in Storrs-Mansfield. (Or, for the sake of the argument, in "Storrs" either.) The other example used in the discussion was "Downtown Storrs", which is not an official name nor is it commonly used. The area that the editor was referencing is officially referenced as the Mansfield Downtown Partnership.
    As is common knowledge, and is not in dispute here at Wikipedia, census-designated places do not have any legal status or standing, being created exclusively for statistical purposes. In fact, their use have actually been superseded by the Census Bureau themselves in favor of ZIP Code Tabulation Areas. In our case, Storrs-Mansfield is encompassed by ZCTA5 06268 and ZCTA5 06269, and Mansfield Center is encompassed by ZCTA 06250. Census-designated place boundaries, geographies, and names do not have any relationship with or bearing on local or state government and do not match with what citizens and community members know to be their community. This is the case here. Place names are arbited by and are supremely determined by the United States Postal Service and it is inappropriate to use a census-designated place name when it does not represent a majority of what the article is actually about, and in both cases, the actual community at hand.
    When corrective edits were initiated here on Wikipedia, correct and verifiable references were included that were properly cited in the article. These included official sources, from the Town of Mansfield, which corroborated and accurately listed the addresses of municipal and town-related facilities as being in Storrs-Mansfield. The references also included listings from local businesses, utilities, and federal entities which all support the name of the community being named Storrs-Mansfield. Storrs-Mansfield is the official and supported name of this community. When other editors reversed these constructive edits, they did not provide any verifiable or official sources to support the destructive edit.

    Storrs-Mansfield (/stɔːrzˈmænsfild/ storz-MANS-feeld) is a village and census-designated place (CDP) in the town of Mansfield in eastern Tolland County, Connecticut, United States.[1][2][3]

    It is clear Storrs-Mansfield is the commonly-used name to refer to this community.
    The only reason this thread on the Administrator's noticeboard exists is because editors, or groups of editors, prefer to drive away constructive, corrective, and truthful edits. I have seen numerous replies to the discussion by editors who say something along the lines of "The residents of Storrs refer to the town as Storrs." This disqualifies those individuals from participating or having a binding opinion on the subject because any response like that has bias. It immediately assumes a resolution, and, in support of an incorrect and unsubstantiated name. Some other editors came from wherever, most likely due to a ping somehow, and placed warnings on me. But it's patently unfair the same exact message haven't been placed on the users engaged in the discussion on this page, users involved directly with the changes/edits/reversals on the articles in question, or any future involved stakeholder. If I am getting warned for making corrective edits referencing properly the truthful name of Storrs-Mansfield, any and all editors reversing the same must have the same warning notice placed on their page. By not doing so, being that they are taking just as much a side as I would be in the theoretical "edit war", you are presenting that Wikipedia has itself declared the correct stance. You cannot do that, during an open matter. You cannot favor one editor over the other, especially in the case of the TRUTH PREVAILING.
    There is no edit war, because editing Wikipedia to be more truthful is not against the rules.
    In the United States, there are many towns and communities with double placenames. By allowing any of these and not Storrs-Mansfield, which is corroborated by official and substantial references, Wikipedia contradicts itself. Anyone in this discussion who supports any reference to a singular "Storrs" must support the replacement of any and all references to valid double placenames like Storrs-Mansfield, lest they be hypocritical and not credible. Any administrator which continues to allow this contradiction, and does not allow the correct and truthful name of Storrs-Mansfield, would no longer be considered responsible in their ability to uphold the facts over an opinion.
    I have posed the question to the other participants of the discussion: What if the town in which you lived was capriciously referred to as something else? "Banana, USA" may just be where you are reading this. And if enough people start using that in turn of phrase, then all of these users would be obligated to adjust each reference to your town to "Banana, USA". That is wrong and of course would never happen. What if people just start creating false claims and perpetuating them? This happens all of the time, and it's obvious that this discussion is not rooted in vandalism or malfeasance. It is and was inappropriate to single me out for trying to improve Wikipedia by making corrective edits in reference to this place name - by attempting to block and reverse my edits, which also contained substantial constructive changes, by attempting to place numerous and many warnings on me claiming that I am being disruptive "when things weren't going your way", and by not treating ANY of the other editors in the discussion the same way as I have been.
    I am making every effort to improve Wikipedia, being an online encyclopedic reference of distinction. It is clear there are many policies in place designed to maintain accuracy and truth. Why then, are we even considering a discussion of an untruthful place name?
    Stop attacking me and stop perpetuating falsehoods. Anyone who attempts to reverse my truthful and corrective edits should have the disruptive editing process initiated unto them. If that doesn't happen, that's not fair and means any shred of credibility Wikipedia currently lays claim to would be extinguished, by allowing such a claim to prevail.
    Storrs-Mansfield is the correct name. Do not suggest otherwise.

    References

    1. ^ "ZIP Code Lookup Tool - 06268". United States Postal Service. Storrs-Mansfield, Connecticut: United States Postal Service. p. ZIP Code 06268. YOU ENTERED: 06268 - RECOMMENDED CITY NAME: STORRS MANSFIELD CT
    2. ^ "ZIP Code Lookup Tool - 06269". United States Postal Service. Storrs-Mansfield, Connecticut: United States Postal Service. p. ZIP Code 06269. YOU ENTERED: 06269 - RECOMMENDED CITY NAME: STORRS MANSFIELD CT
    3. ^

    98.191.14.194 (talk) 23:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Asserting you're right isn't a justification for edit-warring. A look at WP:COMMONNAME would be a good idea too, along with WP:NPA. Acroterion (talk) 01:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Saying "assuming you're right" misses the point that the corrective edit was substantiated by droves of verifiable and official references, correctly cited in the edit and re-exemplified here. It is one thing to make an edit, but it is another to provide a number of correct references to support it.
    There is no edit war, because editing Wikipedia to be more truthful is not against the rules. Any user who reverts a corrective edit, maintaining the truth, is the one who should be perjured - not myself.

    Why haven't you or anyone else involved with this discussion placed equivalent messages or notices on the pages of any other user involved in the discussion? That is patently unfair. 98.191.14.194 (talk) 01:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's "asserting you're right." You may not edit-war, nor may you use Wikipedia as a battleground. You are expected to follow the policy-compliant advice of other editors, which you are not doing, and which is why you're here. Dial it back; you aren't entitled to be sole arbitrator of content or style. Neither Wikipedia notr this noticeboard are courts of law. Acroterion (talk) 01:57, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You nor any other editor do not have any right to censor any part of my reply. And, for the record, "why I'm here" is because other editors do not know how to identify correct and verified references, properly added to support a corrective change in an article. Other editors do not know when to use the official and, obviously community-supported, name of a local community.
    Since asking the name of the town in which you live would be considered personal, let's use the US President. If someone said he lived in "Hydrogen, VA" what would be your response? We all know that's not true. But if enough liars say it, your position is that Wikipedia would list it.
    Like I've said, this isn't an edit war. It isn't even a conflict - it's an example of editors not allowing the truth to prevail. Do not censor my replies. 98.191.14.194 (talk) 02:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I (and any other editor in good standing) do have the right to collapse long digressions into a content dispute. ANI is for user conduct issues, not content arguments, and you appear to be importing the conduct issues that concern other editors to this noticeboard. Last chance. You will be blocked if you unhat your diversion again. Acroterion (talk) 02:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine, keep your hat on - it's not even your color. My reply was NOT a digression. It is and was relevant to the the discussion at hand. But you're saying that it is a content-based discussion, so where is the right forum? Reminder: Another editor started the topic here. That's not on me.
    Secondly, my conduct is acceptable because I am upholding Wikipedia's values of accurate information, use of verified and reliable sources, and correct editing technique (including actually citing sources when I make an edit). You nor any other editor can argue that any of the edits I have made on this matter have been anything but complete, technically sound, and appropriate edits.
    It is not considered forum shopping if I was not the one who initiated the topic here, and, in such a case have to use the content-based forum. It is doubly not appropriate to silence my replies if this isn't even the right place - which should have been made clear in an upfront fashion. You have zero right to opine on the facts presented and call them a digression, diversion, or off-topic in the first place. 98.191.14.194 (talk) 02:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article talkpage is the place to politely and respectfully discuss and resolve content. You will have to change your attitude toward other editors. You will be expected to present suggestions that comply with the manual of style, which is why people keep telling you about COMMONNAME. Total conviction that you're right, everybody else is wrong, and that they are to be treated as opponents to be subdued through walls of text and denigration is one way to lose editing privileges. And that's why your conduct is being discussed at this conduct noticeboard. Don't exhaust our patience. Acroterion (talk) 02:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And since you've placed two tit-for-tat warnings on my talkapge and exhibited no inclination to actually listen, you're blocked for 48 hours. Any recurrence of the battleground behavior on display here will earn a much longer block. Acroterion (talk) 03:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The completely-missing-the-point wall of text unblock demand doesn’t leave much room for optimism. Acroterion (talk) 03:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring over linking "Serbian" and "Serbia"

    [edit]
    RESOLVED
    Docholliday11 indef-blocked. (non-admin closure) --Altenmann >talk 21:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Docholliday11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This editor is obviously promoting Serbian nationalism and ethnic identity rather than respecting the rules. Despite opposition from me and @Snowflake91, they seem determined to link the terms "Serbian" and "Serbia" (see this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this). You see, they've repeatedly claimed the terms aren't "well known globally" (see also this conversation), which I find pretty subjective. Thedarkknightli (talk) 16:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I will say I would link Serbia and Serbian as I don't think Serbia is really a major country that everyone automatically knows about. This would be consistent with MOS:OVERLINK. Canterbury Tail talk 16:33, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Canterbury Tail, have you looked at the diffs? The editor is wikilinking "Serbian" right after a statement that somebody was born in a historical version of Serbia, which is also wikilinked. If that isn't overlinking, I do not know what is. I have given the editor a warning. In addition, their talk page is full of belligerent comments. Cullen328 (talk) 16:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No I didn't go through all the diffs. I was commenting that as a general rule linking to Serbs or Serbia is not an WP:OVERLINK in and of itself in the way United States would be. Obviously though context matters. Canterbury Tail talk 17:43, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And why the heck do we need to even mention somebody's brother-in-law's ethnicity, let alone wikilink it and edit war about it? Cullen328 (talk) 16:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Plus, we have violations of the No original research policy, such as this gem from an edit summary, He played fir a big Serbian club, speaks fluent Serbian, and married a Serbian women. He is DEFINITELY ethnic Serbian. Cullen328 (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I know why. It's about making sure that the word "Serbian" sends the reader to ethnic Serbs, so as to strengthen the notion that certain notable people are ethnically Serbian, by descent from one or both parents, and are not children of mere citizens of Serbia who may not be ethnic Serbs and could belong to a variety of ethnicities—national minorities. The idea is to associate "Serbian" with "Serbs" as opposed to "Serbia". This is tied to nationalistic anxieties worsened by the fact that the individuals concerned have last names that have deviated from their original Serbian forms due to these individuals' connections with foreign societies (Novakovic used to be Novaković; Jovovch used to be Jovović; Ačimovič used to be Aćimović). I'd probably support a WP:NOTHERE.—Alalch E. 16:58, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The fear is that since their names have been adulterated by foreignness, they may not be truly ethnically Serbian any more. —Alalch E. 17:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Alalch E.. Cullen328 (talk) 17:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is disgusting and derogatory. Shame on you for your insinuations. Docholliday11 (talk) 18:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edit warring has continued at Milla Jovovich--between that, the completely OR justifications, the belligerent response above, and the lack of any constructive editing history outside of Balkan national identity politics, I'm going to go ahead and impose an indefinite block. signed, Rosguill talk 19:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Inappropriate use of user talk page

    [edit]

    Feels a bit discriminatory--Trade (talk) 21:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Their user page User:Inkscape_Salafi is even worse. Seems WP:NOTHERE. LizardJr8 (talk) 21:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Xenophobic comment

    [edit]

    User MikeAllen reverted two of my edits on pages of The Northman and The Lighthouse with the comment "Nothing ever good comes from a Brazil IP addreess on film pages", which is xenophobic. Not the first time he acts in a similar "jokey" way on a page I previously edited, like he was the owner of the page and only his opinion is the one that matter, even cursing, but this comment, for me, crossed a line. He is not better or smarter than me because of the country he comes from. I would expect that this person is blocked from using Wikipedia. 2804:7F0:90B2:1E95:B537:E3F:9F4:A9CF (talk) 00:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Although it was said in a joking manner, that's a bad attitude and edit summary to have towards other editors. I wonder if they are referencing a previous LTA they have encountered from this area. They will have to explain if there is any context here. The edits are here and here. Many editors, even experienced ones, can be unnecessarily dismissive towards our IP editors. Liz Read! Talk! 01:16, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, there is no "context" for this kind of attitude, and tough I call it "jokey", it's definitely not a joke. Again, this is not the first time that he acted in a disrespectful way. 2804:7F0:90B2:1E95:B537:E3F:9F4:A9CF (talk) 01:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, 2804:7F0:9000::/40 is now blocked for 6 months by NinjaRobotPirate as a checkuser block. Is this an LTA, @NinjaRobotPirate? – 2804:F1...7B:F488 (talk) 02:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course blocked. Nothing to see here. Mike Allen 03:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, let's not get ahead of ourselves here, Mike. No one is going to object to the CU block, but Liz isn't the only one who is hoping you can provide some insight for your comment, because irrespective of whether you were talking to a troll or an outright LTA, it's hard to imagine a context where such broad and obviously nationality-based commentary isn't a problem. Even if we AGF our very hardest that there is a history with particular editors that is animating that comment, the generalization in what you actually said implies a pretty substantial and problematic bias. At a minimum, I think it's reasonable to hear an acknowledgement of that from you and a commitment not to make such broad generalizations, whatever your particular experience. SnowRise let's rap 04:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, any chance of a sensible response? Assuming good faith while admiring a six-month block of a /40 (Special:Contributions/2804:7F0:9000:0:0:0:0:0/40), it is obvious that a lot of abuse from IPs in a certain region has occurred. A sensible response would be to point out that the edit summary would be misinterpreted by people unfamiliar with the situation and should not be used. A better edit summary would be "rv LTA". Johnuniq (talk) 06:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, that is exactly my concern as well, and I couldn't agree more with the proposed alternative approach to the edit summary in such situations. SnowRise let's rap 06:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My statement in the edit summary was based on the experience of Brazil based IP addresses that make very similar disruptive edits. This happens daily on film articles. I’m not entirely sure that all of these users are located in Brazil. Which is why I said “a Brazil IP address” and not people of Brazil. It’s not that hard to mask your IP. You’re all right that I shouldn’t have even mentioned a country in that way and won’t for now on. My apologies. Mike Allen 09:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thumbs up icon Thank you for receiving the concerns in the spirit they were intended. SnowRise let's rap 11:29, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated accusations of bad faith in attempt to discredit, which is disrupting ability to work constructively

    [edit]

    There has been a Talk page "war" that has gone well off the rails at this point involving my overly-verbose self (sorry) and the original article writer for multiple articles. I self-declared a COI and attempted good faith extensively, but the views of the other editor @Desertarun have only become more unprofessional. If nothing more, their conduct is making it difficult for me to engage with other editors who have been helpful in the conversation (thank you to @ProfGray in particular). @Desertarun has been libelous repeatedly, accusing me of WP:CANVASSING when I did not, of editing in bad faith when I have not, and has constantly referenced WP rules in error in an attempt to discredit the source, and myself for using them (incorrectly citing WP:SPS, WP:PRIMARY), and constantly brings up my self-declared WP:COI as if it is disqualifying at every level. In one instance, they opened a formal Requested Move in my name (even though I had not formally endorsed the requested move they proposed in my name).

    A major concern behind this, I am increasingly confident that user @Desertarun has their own undeclared COI, or at least a problematic bias deserving attention. One of the reasons for this dispute devolving was they wrote multiple articles in ~2020 with the unusual disambiguator (DAB) of "(slave trader)", which is almost entirely unique to their articles. Their articles covered historical figures of some note for multiple "significant views", but wrote only on their slave trading aspects. There has been no dispute of their notoriety as slave traders, nor even that this is an inaccurate DAB, but it certainly isn't one aligned with WP:CONSISTENCY as almost all similar biographical articles use DABs like "(merchant)" or "(lord mayor)".

    However, and this is why this really feels like it needs the incidents board, I have to be blunt and forego politeness: user @Desertarun is not a careful reader, and has included many inaccuracies in their articles systemically. More problematically, at the time I discovered their articles, it included invented phrasing like "Baker and Dawson slave trading company" when the source they cited referred to them as "Baker and Dawson shipbuilding company." Uncareful reading has led to many confusions in their articles, some minor, but also some major, and these I have detailed extensively on Talk:Peter_Baker_(slave_trader). What is even more disconcerting is that this user is writing on figures of genuine historical importance, and there is a serious concern that their content has spurred citogenesis/circular reporting issues not just on Wikipedia, but in secondary sources that they have then used to reinforce their own biases. For instance, see: Talk:John_Dawson_(slave_trader)#Requested_move_20_September_2024. @Desertarun not only arbitrarily accuses me of bad faith, of the source material being both primary and unreliable (it is neither), but... they are literally fighting against a mistake they (and possibly others) clearly made where they simply confused two related J. Dawsons. Newly-digitized source material written by the grandson of John Dawson (b 1799), and great great grandson of James Dawson (b 1752), makes abundantly clear that John Dawson wasn't even alive at the time of James Dawson's slave trading peak in the 1780s. And yet the article John Dawson (slave trader) is written overtly covering James Dawson's exploits. Rather than recognize this error, @Desertarun has attacked me, and the source (HS Phillips 1953), the long-deceased flippin' grandson of John Dawson, of not knowing the correct names of his own family. This incident pushes past a red line for me, where it is clear that @Desertarun is not interested in reasoned debate, but simply seeks to block every correction I attempt to these articles, which are riddled with errors and WP:WEIGHT issues. Arbitration and some sort of more-than-volunteer involvement in the Talk of Peter Baker (slave trader) and John Dawson (slave trader) feels warranted at this stage.

    I have a self-declared COI to these individuals, which I stated up front, and outlined explicitly here[95]. But these repeated attacks on my character and wilfull ignorance of Wikipedia policy and codes of conduct are making it very difficult to have reasoned conversation about this controversial topic. I really can't just keep responding to every libelous attack on my character to ensure my original query is not discounted due to accusations of bad faith. This is making the Talk pages unnecessarily long and confusing to follow.

    Thank you for stepping in and helping to resolve this issue.

    Best -- Crawdaunt (talk) 05:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Noting that I have removed a transclusion of the non-free image File:Citogenesis.png from this report, since it has no non-free use rationale for ANI and isn't a subject of (or otherwise discussed in) this report, meaning having it has little effect over a link to citogenesis or WP:citogenesis and thus fails WP:NFCC#9. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At its essence this dispute centres around this users desire to remove the disambiguator (slave trader) from the name of his ancestor Peter Baker (slave trader). This user has a declared WP:COI, but doesn't understand the limitations this brings to his edits. Another of his relatives is John_Dawson (slave_trader). He recently did a request move for John Dawson to James Dawson. That article has 14 references that call this person John Dawson and he's wanting this move based upon just one self published source - by another of his relatives. I believe this ANI was made because in that page move request I said i believe it was a "Bad faith" nomination, I've now struck those words from my oppose move vote. Desertarun (talk) 08:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition the work he's using to edit the Peter Baker (slave trader) article i believe to be both Primary, unpublished, unreliable and a WP:COPYVIO. It was written by one of his relative in 1953 and is held in a museum collection. This user uploaded the file himself and I believe it needs looking at to determine the exact problem. It is here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Item_SAS-25A-1-9_-_3_Generations_of_Old_Liverpool_Shipbuilders.pdf Desertarun (talk) 08:49, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just fixed an error on the article relating to this source, and looked into it as I did. It's an unpublished pamphlet handwritten by one of the subjects ancestors and it's unclear what it's based on. It might be helpful if other editors give their thoughts on if it's a reliable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Genuine question on "unpublished": this document is part of the National Museums Liverpool permanent collection, accession SAS/25A/1/9. @ProfGray wrote this citation out. What I did was digitize it and upload it to Wikimedia commons, such that it could be read and scrutinized. Is a museum archive item an "unpublished" document? See: https://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/artifact/papers-re-baker-and-dawson-family-shipbuilders-liverpool
    My TLDR: Desertarun has written numerous articles that contain inaccuracies. In a most extreme case, they wrote one titled after the wrong J. Dawson. Document SAS/25A/1/9 is a clear-as-day proof of this, as John Dawson wasn't the son-in law of Peter Baker, James Dawson was. I think we can trust John Dawson's grandson, author of the museum archive document, to report that accurately. This has become a possible citogenesis/circular reporting incident. Best -- Crawdaunt (talk) 13:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article was created in December 2020; the cited references seem to have been published earlier than this. Brunton (talk) 14:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Document SAS/25A/1/9 isn't proof of anything. Its the disputed source - it is handwritten in an exercise book! Its a primary source and no doubt riddled with inaccuracies. Desertarun (talk) 14:55, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have further sorted out (I believe) part of the John Dawson - James Dawson confusions and posted these to both the Peter Baker and John Dawson pages. TLDR: there was a John Dawson slave trader that went bankrupt in 1793 and died in 1812 (Pope 2007). But this isn't the Dawson from Baker and Dawson. James Dawson (of Baker and Dawson) remained in charge of the company until his death in 1824 (Phillips 1953). It's a simple correction to disambiguate these two J. Dawsons made possible by this Baker-Dawson family lineage document (Phillips 1953). Best -- Crawdaunt (talk) 16:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For the benefit of observers and posterity for linked relevant discussion to this incident, see [96], which addresses these questions confirming this is a published source per WP:RS, and is indeed WP:SECONDARY. Best -- Crawdaunt (talk) 16:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My point was more that this something someone wrote, it's an interesting historical object but that it exists and is accessible doesn't make it a reliable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:38, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Placing an object in a museum isn't 'publication' by any reasonable definition, but regardless of that, the document in question simply does not meet Wikipedia requirements as a reliable source: WP:RS requires that sources be reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It cannot be cited. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Whitewashing "abysmal" "inept" movie

    [edit]

    Someone using two different ips 2A04:4A43:423F:D906:C022:CBE8:FFFB:8910 and 188.30.169.186 is repeating vandalising Watermark (2013 film) [97], removing sourced content because they want to pretend the movie did not get bad reviews. Wikipedia is not a venue for whitewashing the past. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:54, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Revolutionary Communist International, NOTHERE by likely COI accounts

    [edit]

    Pretty open and shut case of WP:NOTHERE. New accounts with no editing outside of this one minor Trotskyist group, taking umbridge at the covering of sexual harassment claims against the group and demanding it be removed. Wouldn't be surprised if it was the same person operating both accounts.
    Relevant diffs:
    Flintinsects (talk · contribs), just claiming covering the claims is "vandalism" and citing the party's website as proof they're fake claims.[98][99]
    TrotskyChilde (talk · contribs), repeatedly claiming the group's response hasn't been detailed (despite it clearly being present in the next sentence) as cover for removing details of harassment claims, adding promotional-style content about the group's "explosive growth", and using edit summaries to rubbish the source of the claims[100][101]

    Pretty obvious case for a block on both accounts Rambling Rambler (talk) 07:35, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Mmm. You have here an article on an international organisation, of which over nearly 20% text is about an incident that happened in one location, and were only allegations (nothing ever appears to have been proved). Not only that, but of the two sources used in the section, the second one actually disagrees with the first one about the nature and poosible veracity of the allegations. I'm unconvinced that this is WP:DUE. Obviously the blatantly promotional stuff needs to go, and yes there is obviously COI here, but I'm unsure about whether that section needs to exist. Black Kite (talk) 08:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Black Kite there's definitely a discussion to be had about the article's content on various issues (I know I've banged my head against the AfD wall a couple of times on it), but that's not why it's at ANI. Instead it's the conduct of the two accounts above, and namely the way they've gone about it by just removing it as vandalism (when it's clearly reliable sourced) or wanting to downplay the allegations themselves but put emphasis on how they must be fake without any evidence to demonstrate that. Rambling Rambler (talk) 08:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This has long been a significant issue on Wikipedia. I read those articles before and also noticed the unjustified edit reversals in contravention of relevant guidelines. It comes off as sock-puppets engaging in self-promotion in the form of censoring unfavourable coverage. It’d be interesting to look into whether the actions are elaborately coordinated, e.g. botnet. The IP addresses of those accounts must be checked for sure. Steven1991 (talk) 12:49, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked both indefinitely. ECP the article as there's been other nonsense.
    Star Mississippi 14:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:2403:5803:A051:0:C128:AA5:49AF:7946 edit warring and making personal attacks after been blocked

    [edit]
    TPA already revoked by @Pickersgill-Cunliffe:. Star Mississippi 14:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Can an admin please revoke this IP user's talk page? They keep edit warring after they were blocked. They were originally blocked after attacking a blocked IP user. PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 10:26, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to note that this is becoming very severe and had to revert the edit warring and personal attack over 50 times, this is getting extremely out of control. This is really urgent. Can an admin please revoke this IP's talk page asap? PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 10:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have an offer as well. Whoever solves or revoke this IP's talk page will be awarded and will receive an anti-vandalism barnstar from me. PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 11:24, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur. I came across that IP user’s vicious comments on other users’ “Talk” pages as well. Steven1991 (talk) 12:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    NOTHERE editor

    [edit]

    Nothingbutthetruth2006 is purely a troll account created to cause WP:SNEAKY vandalism by deceptively terming sources like Oxford University Press as "unreliable" in order to censor the content despite warnings. First he edit warred with his multiple IPs[102][103] and now he is shamelessly causing disruption with a new account he created to evade 3RR.

    Similarly, he falsely claimed that "Your source (Ahir, 2018) mentions Majumdar as a Nationalist"[104] and when I told him that nobody ever used such a source for the concerning claim[105] he then falsely accused me of comprehension problems and went to claim it is "directly cited after the claim that he was a Hindu nationalist for the claim" instead of rectifying his false claim.[106] Undoubtedly WP:NOTHERE. Ratnahastin (talk) 10:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I will like to present my side of affairs here very plainly and I would really appreciate if the concerned administrator could see the history of the edits. First and foremost its very funny that he is accusing me of calling Oxford University Press as unreliable, in reality I was the one which was citing multiple publications of the Oxford University Press as proof. My problem was the he was making a wildly unorthodox claim that Majumdar promoted Hindu Nationalist interpretations of history and do not provide any proper citation to proof the claim and cites some works which are not about Majumdar to begin and in which he is said to be a Hindu Nationalist historian in passing. the current citation on the claim that he was a Nationalist that is citation no [4] was also originally added by Me along with other sources. Also I am not a troll account. Nothingbutthetruth2006 (talk) 16:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    By saying "and do not provide any proper citation to proof the claim and cites some works which are not about Majumdar" you have verified this report. There are 4 different academic sources cited for saying he presented Hindu nationalist views and all of them verifies the information. Ratnahastin (talk) 23:55, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    A lot of disruptive edits in football articles

    [edit]
    /64 range blocked for one year by ToBeFree.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    @2603:8000:D300:3650:94B0:A582:5DF3:576E A lot of disruptive edits in football articles. Removes important information, doubles words, adds no reliable to article text, etc. Lado85 (talk) 12:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    IP editor being disruptive on talk page

    [edit]

    Over the last few days (I suspect) one IP editor (a range of IPs all coming out of London) have been disruptive on Talk:Gender-critical feminism, some comments have been removed but there is wide agreement they are in violation of Wikipedia:NOTFORUM. I am not sure what options we have for dealing with these editors but something needs to be done to get this to stop. LunaHasArrived (talk) 13:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, I shall stop editing then, I thought I was being helpful, :( 2A00:23C4:B3AD:8E01:7896:3C92:6D02:675B (talk) 13:51, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to stick around, I would suggest creating an account and working to improve a less controversial topic that interests you (or a Random one that doesn't), until you have a better grasp on how editing and discussion works on Wikipedia. Help:Introduction and Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure contain tutorials which are useful for newcomers. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 14:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In the last day, IP 2a00:...:675b made 16(!) replies containing unconstructive rants about "gender ideology" and "newspeak" on the page, over 8KB of text; I removed their comments which were not threaded, which was before I saw this ANI thread. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 13:54, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They just tried to revert your cleanup.
    Typically in cases like this, an admin can block the Special:Contributions/2A00:23C4:B3AD:8E01::/64 IP range for a week and hope the disruption stops. If that ended up not helping and the disruption returns, then after that a talk page protection can be considered. Raladic (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually after checking the /64 edit history, this user is the same that also did some talk page disruption last month ([107], [108]) and was blocked then by @Isabelle Belato (for the second time after having been blocked a few days prior), so I guess this is really that the IP user is just returning for more disruption this time. So, I guess we'll see if another IP block timeout works or not. Raladic (talk) 15:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent COI editor at Faith Theological Seminary

    [edit]

    Since 2011, Stephenhague has exclusively edited Faith Theological Seminary (except for a few User Talk edits). In 2011, Stephenhague disclosed that they were employed by the seminary as the academic dean. The seminary's website indicates that they are still employed by the seminary as one of its leaders.

    I have opened two discussions about this editor at WP:COIN. One was opened in January 2023 and archived with no action taken. I opened another report a few days ago and no action has yet been taken by an administrator. I know that few admins monitor that noticeboard and it's not uncommon for even clear problems to go unaddressed there simply because they're overlooked so I am raising this here.

    If the consensus is that it's okay for this editor to make promotional edits to their employer's article without more clearly revealing that they're closely connected to the subject than a User Talk post from 2011 (in another user's User Talk page), please let me know and I'll drop this. But this looks like a blatant violation of both WP:COI and WP:PAID. ElKevbo (talk) 13:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have partially blocked them from the article. They're welcome to use talk page but this is not a license to be disruptive there. Meta level, @Axad12 raised this lack of action on COIN on my Talk after I said at one point it had no teeth. I think AN/ANI are better suited when action is needed, as it was here. Star Mississippi 14:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive IP range

    [edit]

    103.38.17.0/24 Has edits going back years, mostly disruptive (OR and outright vandalism, mostly no-ES with unexplained removals and unsourced edits). The IPs appear to belong to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Symon Sadik in line with that network's focus on Shakib Khan and Cinema of Bangladesh (e.g. [109]).

    I can't see anthing good coming from this range and a block appears necessary considering the extent and amount of disruption that is coming from here [even if we were to disregard socking]. Gotitbro (talk) 14:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Unsourced bloat on Argentine demographics

    [edit]

    Several ranges of IPs are persistently inflating numerous Argentine demographics without source. Recently the most active ranges are 41.250.0.0/17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) (eg. diff in French diaspora), 105.155.128.0/17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log), 41.141.0.0/17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log), 105.154.0.0/20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) (blocked). IPs with identical behavior were around at least since August 2023 (diff by 105.156.13.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)), and became particularly active from March 2024. Some have had short blocks, but more comprehensive broad and long term blocks are anticipated, even at the expense of collaterals. Note that ST47ProxyBot caught some, if that helps.

    Observed ranges:

    Some of their frequent targets:

    They are also globally active:

    --Wotheina (talk) 14:29, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    A few more illustrative examples:

    --Wotheina (talk) 03:57, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent edit warring and possible conflict of interest by User:Earthh

    [edit]

    Earthh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Long history (for over a decade now) of removal of sourced content and edit warring at Mr. Nobody (film)‎, creating an alternative reality where that film was a hit and persistently removing sourced content that says the film was a box office flop, despite the film's own director having called it a financial failure, which is sourced in the article. They even created a new rule and keep removing the film's box office gross because they claim (without a source) that "the film was released on streaming services in most countries", but it was released theatrically in all of its production countries and it still flopped in all of them and everywhere else. They seem to act like a publicist (which falls under WP:COI) by removing even the slightest negative sourced content about Jared Leto and any article related to him, most notably when they claimed that Leto's performances in Suicide Squad and Morbius were acclaimed by critics despite several sources saying the opposite, see this, this, this, this, this, this and this. User has argued with several editors and received several warnings from different editors about their edit warrings throughout the years, but nothing happens to them and they keep removing sourced content that goes against their personal preference and adding false information because they refuse to accept facts. In their latest edit warring, they not only removed the box office gross, but also the film's distributors from the infobox (which were sourced) and added a new one that has no source and wasn't the distributor in any of the film's production countries, which they had originally added on July 2, 2024 without a source and without any explanation. Zoolver (talk) 21:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    You are required to notify User:Earthh of your complaint. I'm also not seeing where you have attempted to discuss this with Earthh, either on the talk pages of the articles you cite, or on their own talk page. Ravenswing 22:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have notified them on their talk page AlexBobCharles (talk) 07:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a blackout in my neighbourhood yesterday right after I sent my report, so I couldn't left the message notifying Earthh, but fortunately @AlexBobCharles: did that already (thank you!). And I honestly have no desire to waste my time with an editor who refuses to accept facts no matter how many discussions several people have had with them for over a decade to try and make them understand that they're wrong and should stop removing sourced content and replacing them with false information. I'm quite sure that this report won't go anywhere again as this is not even the first time that this user is reported for the same behavior. Zoolver (talk) 17:16, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize for the delayed response to this discussion, my time dedicated to Wikipedia has become increasingly limited, and the summer break kept me away for over a month. I would also like to thank AlexBobCharles for bringing it to my attention, Zoolver's approach has been anything but collaborative, as they did not notify me of this discussion and have avoided all attempts at reconciliation on the article's talk page or my user talk page, ignoring all suggestions proposed by WP:ANI regarding conflict resolution, and resorting to blackout and WP:NOTME to justify these shortcomings. I would like to remind Zoolver that if their contributions are contested, it is essential to discuss and seek consensus rather than persistently edit and engage in edit warring, especially concerning a WP:GA that has been vetted by multiple users. However, I do recognize that the user's perspective appears clearly non-neutral, as they resort to personal attacks against me and unfounded, ridiculous conjectures portraying me as a publicist for Leto. The discussions in which I was involved and that they reference have always concluded with a consensus; I don't understand what the correlation is with this discussion. Moreover, there is evident bias when I am accused of describing the film as a hit, while the version Zoolver is challenging me on describes it as a "box office disappointment."
    As previously mentioned to them, the issues raised have been extensively discussed in the past, both here and during the subsequent GAN. The film's financier and international distributor, Wild Bunch, found it neither sellable nor distributable ("ni vendable ni distribuable") due to its length; at the director's insistence, it received limited theatrical releases only in a few countries (countries where Mr. Nobody was released vs. countries where Van Dormael's next film was released) and lacked promotion [110]. While Zoolver asserts that the film flopped everywhere, sources indicate it is the second highest-grossing Belgian film of the year [111] and one of the top-grossing films ever from Belgium [112]. This, without a doubt, does not suffice to categorize it as a box office success, as explicitly stated in the article even before their contributions, although Box Office Mojo's data is incomplete. For instance, data from Canada (one of the production countries) is missing because the BO Mojo algorithm does not track the Canadian release unless it coincides with the U.S. release (a notable example is C.R.A.Z.Y., one of the highest-grossing films in Canada, which BO Mojo does not track). In all major markets, the film was released only on home video and streaming formats, distributed similarly to films like Beasts of No Nation, Roma, and The Irishman (in the United States, Mr. Nobody was initially available on video on demand and then in four theaters only). Multiple sources suggest that the film found commercial success precisely through these formats [113][114][115][116]. What emerged needs to be clearly reflected on the page, and I will try to edit it in the coming days. In summary, Wikipedia relies on what the sources state, not on Zoolver's viewpoint, and I again encourage them to discuss collaboratively on the talk page.--Earthh (talk) 15:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This appears stale. Please use the Talk page to discuss the sourcing. Star Mississippi 18:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hezarfen gaming EC system to get around editing restriction

    [edit]

    Hezarfen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked three times for violating EC restriction for Armenia Azerbaijan (see user's block log). They are now making hundreds of 2-character edits to their user page (> 350 today), I presume to gain EC status. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have not made any changes to any semi-protected article or to extended confirmed protected article in the past or present. The rule here is clear. You cannot judge my experimental changes by looking into a magic ball. There are no restriction rules on the changes I have made.
    Example: A new editor makes 10 dummy edits to become autoconfirmed, and then makes controversial changes to semi-protected articles, moves a promotional draft to article space, or otherwise edits disruptively or vandalizes articles. >>> I am not a new editor and I do not need to do anything to be autoconfirmed.
    Example: An editor makes many unconstructive edits in a sandbox to become extended confirmed, and then makes controversial changes to extended confirmed protected articles. >>> never made "controversial" or any changes to extended confirmed protected articles. Also so-called "violating EC restriction for Armenia Azerbaijan" is nonsense, I have not made any changes to any extended confirmed articles in the past.
    Unfortunately, there is a clique here that tries to block every issue related to Azerbaijan by calling it Armenia-Azerbaijan relations. Azerbaijan is a state that exists independently of its relations with Armenia. You cannot block every issue related to Azerbaijan in this way. For this reason, no article about Azerbaijan can be updated. Unfortunately, Wikipedia administrators also support this situation. Hezarfen (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What was your intention in repeatedly removing the numbers "1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9" from your user page, one after the other, 349 times, and then stopping just after you obtained EC at 502 total edits? I'd be fascinated to know what you were doing if you weren't gaming permissions. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good question. Hezarfen, how do you explain these edits? What were you trying to accomplish? Liz Read! Talk! 18:47, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeffed as Not Here for the clear gaming above, but also a side of RGW for For this reason, no article about Azerbaijan can be updated. Unfortunately, Wikipedia administrators also support this situation.. They're welcome to file an unblock if they have an interest in editing collaboratively. Star Mississippi 18:51, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    IP adding slurs to articles (and adding unsourced information about slurs to articles about slurs)

    [edit]

    User:2603:8001:D340:5000:4823:15B2:FAE0:4561 (talk) (contrib) adds slurs to blp articles and adds unsourced information about slurs to articles about slurs. Was warned a lot - see talk page. Luhanopi (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked the IP for vandalism. Cullen328 (talk) 18:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cullen328:, may I ask you why 72h? Luhanopi (talk) 18:35, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Luhanopi, I wanted to send a stronger message than the commonplace 31 hour block handed out to IP editors. Cullen328 (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The /64 has been doing this since September 1. So I'm expanding the block to a rangeblock. This history also demonstrates that it's not just a few-minute problem, giving additional support to the use of a several-day block. DMacks (talk) 19:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, DMacks Cullen328 (talk) 20:24, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive test editing by Eksilon

    [edit]

    Eksilon has been making disruptive test edits despite multiple warnings across several months. They frequently introduce deliberate factual errors to existing articles and create unfinished (infobox only) articles with historically inaccurate titles in the main space. My theory is that Eksilon is test editing with their own imaginative, fictional ideas, but despite being told six times about their sandbox, they continue to make these edits in the main space and have yet to communicate on their talk page. They are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, and even if one assumes good faith (just test editing, doesn't know better even though they should by now), their disruptive edits are unlikely to stop because communication from them seems unlikely. Yue🌙 20:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    All of the following should also be deleted because they're not genuine attempts by Eksilon at creating an article (evidenced by them being just copy-and-pasted infoboxes and tables from other articles) and are abandoned test edits cluttering the draft space:
    Yue🌙 20:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I p-blocked them from mainspace in the hopes this gets them to engage on talk pages. Happy for anyone to lift that block if/once it's no longer necessary. -- asilvering (talk) 20:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Mod removing legitimate requests on Talk Page (nsfw)

    [edit]

    Mod MrOllie is removing my request for someone add a Ejaculating Penis on Wikipedia page: The Human Penis, similar to how the Wikipedia Site for another language does it. He gives No explaination and is abusing Mod Power with this and He even threaten to remove right to edit. DaKocamasra1 (talk) 23:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Have a look at the OPs comments (as well as those from the IP addresses used, 95.91.249.178 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 2A02:810D:8080:2780:5CD1:D5FD:99FE:F41D (talk · contribs · WHOIS)). I don't have anything else to add. MrOllie (talk) 00:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    NOTHERE'd. DaKocamasra1, not MrOllie. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    RealDr.Method and persistent addition of unsourced music genres

    [edit]

    RealDr.Method (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced genres to articles for music, continued after final warning and hasn't responded to warnings. Examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4. Waxworker (talk) 00:27, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have indefinitely blocked RealDr.Method from article space although they are free to make edit requests on article talk pages. Cullen328 (talk) 01:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1246975368"