Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

User:Radlrb in WP:WPM

Tension arises between user @Radlrb with multiple users in WP:WPM, regarding the article 1234 (number), and numerous discussions about how funny and ridiculous according to some of the users in that WikiProject. Pinging some concerned users: @Jacobolus, @Mathwriter2718, and etc.. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 15:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

The main argument is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#1234_(number), though I'd like to mention that there are other complaints about Radlrb's edits in other places as well. I think this issue needs admin input because this is a chronic issue involving willful ignoring of Wikipedia policies. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 15:32, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

There can be no doubt that Radlrb has good intentions. However, I think there may be an difficult-to-reconcile difference between Radlrb and others about what the purpose of Wikipedia is and what policies are. For what it's worth, I still maintain my hope that there is a resolution that will make everyone happy and that doesn't make Radlrb feel like they are being kicked off the website. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I am about to quit, I think. Radlrb (talk) 17:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I suggest (really) that you take a copy of the entire contents of the number articles and move it to your own blog / wiki / whatever, then you can expand it as you wish. Almost nothing you have added is actually wrong, so you could have you own wiki with a vastly higher relative truth content than WP. Imaginatorium (talk) 17:59, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

My fear is that if I make a blog, that it will quickly be hacked because of obvious reasons (too much truth), I feel WP is a stronghold that can protect this content. Also, as an anonymous editor here in WP, where there is also a type of vetting that can validate these delicate number-theoretical synchronicities. This being said, we can remove the deemed-superfluous material, and I'll make my way. Radlrb (talk) 18:05, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there are any hackers out there who have an agenda in mathematics that they want to advance by force. If you were writing a blog criticizing the government of Russia or North Korea, I could see worrying about hacking...but math? -- Beland (talk) 22:06, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, seems very unlikely. Rolando 1208 (talk) 02:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

arXiv is where I'll head over to first, most likely, then set up a blog and forum thereafter. It's been an idea I've been contemplating for some time. I appreciate your suggestions. Radlrb (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH is the main concern. I believe as with the example I added recently to the thread at WP:WPM, that these points will naturally accrue, and some will coincide, lending to an appearance of SYNTH. I make no statements of consequences, as they generally are out of scope.

I would also like to mention, and will link later diffs, the bias against my heated exchanges, without taking accountability in these exchanges, of the many-a-times demeaning behavior against my position or my person.

I would also like to express that my intentions here have only been of the highest I can give, and honest. An important note, is that my edits have stood for 2.5 years almost, without much backlash, aside from a small number of editors.

Respectfully yours, Radlrb (talk) 15:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

The project page discussion is illuminating. Seven editors have objected to Radlrb's edits. Radlrb's response in all cases was long paragraphs of weird purple prose that did not engage with the complaints but ranted and philosophized: "Do you have any idea, of how difficult, and challenging, it is to find synchronicity and sense in mathematics? Be grateful, for the love of our very existence and subsistence, that these facts exist.", "we are ants still, trying to understand a landscape of truth far larger than you or I can even conceive, proven every millenium by the next mass discovery that upends everything once conceived.", "And im being kind here, there's no telling how complex Mathematics really, really is. There's no living organic-born or ethereal angel in our Universe that has a real-idea of all Math. Thats for the stars to contemplate.". Also boasting about the brilliance of their edits, arguing that the fact that all of their edits have not been reverted means that their approach is right, and a quite offensive comparison of their disregarding policy with fights against historical racism: "You know, as with many peoples, black folk were unnallowed to do many things in America, against "laws" inhumane to them. They broke free, and are breaking free more every day, teaching us along the way to not hold back against unfair and limiting barricades. In like manner, I am unafraid of breaking this Wiki "law"". The main issue seems to be a lack of willingness to work collaboratively with other editors, based on an assumption that anyone who opposes any of their edits lacks understanding. CodeTalker (talk) 17:01, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it is important to gauge the scale of this problem. Over the last year or two, Radlrb has expanded number articles so that probably 50% of the total content is his additions. And has been extremely persistent, making several personal complaints to me in particular, because almost all of the editing I have done is removing stuff - this is true, and the complaints are not remotely offensive, but they illustrate a total unwillingness to consider whether something is really relevant or notable. (See the diagram I just removed at Talk:2.) Imaginatorium (talk) 17:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Lets make a laundry list of the properties that should be removed, and we can remove them (or go article by article Radlrb (talk) 18:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)). However, I'm really way to depressed with this and other things in my life, to hold a healthy state of being. So I think it's probably time I take my leave, and unfortunately leave my personal goal of improving all of the first 100 articles to proper standing. I know I take some liberties, I was hopeingRadlrb (talk) 20:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC) they were in good conscience and in the direction of where we are headed. Radlrb (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Regarding one point you mentioned - I was not boasting about brilliance in my edits. I affirm my inputs, equally as I affirm others, and laud our collective work. There is nothing wrong in appreciating one's work, and welcoming it, at whichever stage of fulfillment perceived (usually, it always come short of actual worth, a lesson history teaches over and over). Also, these "rants" were also rooted in dissapointment I felt at ignoring my pleas of non-triviality over some of my edits, as well as affronts that were directed at me, passively or directly. This is all water under the bridge for me, I am not going to hurt myself or depreciate Wiki space any further, anger in the end always ends in lament. Radlrb (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Before this discussion goes any deeper, can someone please outline what the actual incident here is that purportedly requires administrator intervention? This sounds like a content dispute (that doesn't even identify what the dispute actually is) involving someone who doesn't fully grasp the point of this project (e.g. "too much truth", "WP is a stronghold that can protect this content," etc.) Does not sound like a problem for AN/I. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, in response to my question, an IP editor who is unable to contribute to this discussion due to the semi-protection at the moment, has responded on my talk. It is a much more succinct and direct statement of the dispute than what we have here, so thanks to them for that. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

+1 on that. "Tension arises" tells us nothing (and, after all, ANI discussions get pretty dern tense), and a third of the active user pages on Wikipedia burble about barnstars and articles created/taken to GA/DYK/FA. A little less on Radlrb's verbiage and more on how this diff or that diff illustrates a genuine policy violation? Ravenswing 19:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there's a need for administrative intervention. Editors should remove material they consider to be original research, off topic, undue weight, out of scope, etc., and any resulting disputes can be resolved on the relevant talk page(s) or at WT:WPM. With that said though, user:Radlrb can you please tone down the weird puffery and try to keep discussions cooperative and on topic? –jacobolus (t) 20:08, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Because this board is about conduct not content, perhaps this is the place to point out Radlrb's bad-faith assumptions in WT:WPM#1234 (number), where another user started the discussion by pointing to Radlrb's past block for personal attacks [1] and Radlrb immediately responds by questioning the other user's impartiality merely because they had some past interactions with me. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I would like to comment on this. We can also bring up David Eppstein's examples of bad-faith, and with regard to the article at 1234 (number); it might be time to show his absence of good-faith, especially when others try to cooperate with him. That would be for a seperate AN/I, though. I did not assume bad faith here, I pointed to his possible willing miscontrusion of what occurred, which is different (i.e., one is the assumption that I did assume bad-faith, while the other is me seeing an incomplete introduction to an issue that occurred in the past, which is my right to point out, because it was misleading - maybe from favoritism, and therefore, with obvious negative intentions for me. Notice I never actually said anything explicit about me thinking either way, I said it raises questions of impartiality, as mentioning a "block" immediately leads to negative connotations without due context). This is actually a real-time example of a twisting of events he is concocting here, to push me out. Radlrb (talk) 21:18, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

At that time, I took "one of them was blocked" from Dedhert.Jr (in the diff David Eppstein provided) as hinted at me, since it has been the general experience (I believe) that David Eppstein has not been admonished for his oft-times demeaning attitude with editors (so its less likely to assume that the person blocked would be, David Eppstein). Radlrb (talk) 21:33, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I think this combative response, together with the admonishment above it "to keep discussions cooperative and on topic", speaks for itself. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:43, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

No combative tone here, actually, just facts defending my response. Some of it is accusatory toward you, however that is not necessarily aggressive, just sharp. Radlrb (talk) 23:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Reading carefully Talk:1234 (number) and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#1234 (number) and the edit history of the article, I can offer some tips on how to avoid this sort of personality conflict in future interactions. I don't share this commentary to assign blame or because anyone's supposed to be perfect (personally I'm kind of blunt and generally terrible at navigating emotionally charged conversations) but in the genuine hopes of improving future cooperation.

• This dispute should probably have ended when Radlrb said, "I found it interesting within its class of numbers. Do what you want you with it, I'm done fighting irrationally over things here." If that was your feeling, Radlrb, and there were two editors against and only one editor in favor, I'm not sure why you didn't just accept the removal as you said you were going to, given it's a minor fact and there are probably more important things to use your time on.
• On the other hand, if you actually do want to spend time defending this inclusion, arguing for it with detailed reasons and better sourcing are desirable responses to a removal based on unimportance, and you did that, so well done there. However when doing so, using language like "Seriously, stop, you're being petty now." (as Radlrb did) is not appropriate. It's a bit of a personal attack, and violates the guideline "assume good faith". It also seems to come out of frustration more than from actual evidence. I don't see any reason to think David Eppstein is removing this tidbit for any reason other than what he stated: he does not believe it is relevant to the article or important enough to include. That rationale was already supported by another editor, so it would be arrogant to assume it is without a reasonable, rational basis.
• David Eppstein replied on the talk page "Radlrb please stop edit-warring to add your junk WP:SYNTH non-interesting property to this article. It should be removed. Despite most of this conversation being dominated by your walls of text replying to yourself I see no other supporters of this content." Radlrb was not simply reverting the removed content, but modifying it to try to address other editors' concerns. Characterizing this as "edit-warring" seems to me a bit inaccurate, but regardless of whether it's correct or not, making a personal accusation is more likely to annoy the other editor and make them uncooperative than it is to encourage them to have a rational discussion. Criticizing another editor's talk page writing style in this way is unhelpful; it's almost certainly going to be perceived as disrespectful, and it's not necessarily something that someone can easily change about their personality. My advice would be to focus on the content of the article and the merits of the arguments made, rather than the style or the messenger. You could simply say, "I see you added mention of property X back to the article. The new {phrasing, sourcing, whatever} doesn't establish its importance because ___." Instead of attacking the author's "wall of text" writing style, you could respond on the merits with something like "I didn't see anything in the above reply that convinces me that this property is important." and ideally some specifics indicating you read and considered the good-faith arguments being made. You could wait a bit to see if the reply changed the mind of the other editor in support of removal was convinced, but if not, you could say it's two editors for removal and one against, so the choices going forward are either removal in X timeframe or solicitation of more opinions.
• Radlrb did indeed remark that the previous comment was rude, so I can see why they got upset at this point. Part of their reply was: "Interesting would be to see you respond to some of my points, rather than ignore them. It could give validity to your perspective, however you do not want to engage. In the light of true intellectual pursuit, you come heavily short, and all from substantial prejudice you still hold against me, and people of the like, who are willing to cross bludgeoned barriers of destruction that continue to exist today. But you're not the type to fight such heavy things." Everything after the word "perspective" here is an attack on David Eppstein. It's pretty unrealistic to think that David is going to go, "Oh, you're right. I didn't realize I was doing that. Sorry, let's talk about this rationally in detail or maybe just restore your proposed text." Responding to rudeness with rudeness is probably just going to fray everyone's nerves and reduce willingness to cooperate or find agreement. If you're asking them to engage with you, telling them they don't want to engage is a good way to thwart your own purpose - telling people how they feel or what they think is never received well, especially if - as in this case - it's probably factually incorrect. Accusing them of bias against you and questioning their commitment to intellectual pursuit is going to hurt a lot, and could easily make an enemy out of someone who wasn't actually one to begin with. If you can find it within yourself to respond to rudeness with calmness and rationality, you will not only look like the more reasonable person in the conversation, but you will also be more likely to reach a satisfactory compromise. A better reply here would have been, "I changed the added text in X way to try to respond to your concerns. If that wasn't satisfactory, was there something else that could be added in terms of sourcing or context to address them? Did you find (brief reference to best argument in long previous post) unconvincing?" This forces them to think about possible compromises if they want to look like a reasonable person without accusing them of being unreasonable, and makes it easy for them to engage with your arguments even if they were too annoyed to read them the first time, without accusing them of not engaging.
• When this got taken to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#1234 (number), Dedhert.Jr wrote: "Previously, both users had already edited war in the article Golden ratio, and one of them was blocked." and then mentioned what the dispute was about and asked for more opinions. Radlrb replied: 'I'm not sure why you mention "one of them was blocked" unless you are purpusefully trying to tilt the scales'. I assume Dedhert.Jr wrote that to explain why this dispute was serious enough to merit WikiProject attention: these editors have been in a dispute before that got so bad one of them had to be blocked, so we need to talk about this in a broader forum and diffuse the conflict. This also sends a signal to other editors that emotions are running high, so it would be good to phrase comments carefully and in a sensitive fashion, to avoid making the interpersonal conflict worse. Radlrb, you were the one blocked in the previous conflict. The fact that Dedhert.Jr did not mention you by name was doing you a favor, avoiding making you look like the worst offender. It's a bit ironic that a comment going out of its way to avoid biasing the conversation against you was used as evidence of bias against you. In general, it's unhelpful to think of Wikipedia editors in terms of friends and foes, of settling into factions. Treating groups of editors as tribal enemies leads to persistent violations of the "assume good faith" rule, and generally prevents otherwise-easily-resolved conflicts from getting settled in a quick and cooperative fashion. It's also usually just plain wrong - most of the time, people who revert our edits, argue with us on talk pages, or complain about us on WP:AN/I, are not out to get us. Usually they just disagree with the changes we're making or the behavior we're exhibiting.
• Radlrb had this idea that because over time so many more people read Wikipedia articles than editors who try to change them, any attempt to change long-standing content must be erroneous because of all the people who didn't object. That's very wrong. I used to work in customer service, where the rule of thumb was that for every 1 customer who called in to complain about something, there were probably literally 1000 others who felt the same way but didn't contact us to complain (assuming it was something that affected everyone and not just that we had messed up their individual order). Most people just don't have time or the emotional energy to engage in that sort of conflict, even though it's actually very helpful feedback for a catalog company and a powerful way to fact-check and NPOV-balance Wikipedia. In general, I assume the opinions of readers are probably proportional to editor opinions, to the degree that editors are a representative sample. If the prevailing view on talk pages seems out of whack and it's important enough to spend more editor time on the question, the best way to determine this for real is to increase the sample size of editors and draw opinions from a larger group, possibly not limited to enthusiasts of one topic, if you need it really representative. (For example, a site-wide RFC is useful if we're figuring out how to clearly explain something to non-experts in a field, but consulting a WikiProject is better if you are seeking enlightened experts who can fact-check a dubious claim or have an informed opinion about sources or something.)
• Radlrb wrote: "Well, if you don't follow what I am saying, then you very likely don't understand the very subject matter we are speaking of, I think." I think it's poor form to assume someone is having trouble following what I wrote because they're stupid, and tell them that to their face, rather than assuming that what I wrote was unclear. A better response is to figure out why the original explanation is unclear and clarify, apologize for unclearness and offer to clarify if that would help, or just ignore the "I didn't follow you" as unproductive to respond to and move on in the discussion, trying to be more clear and concise in future comments. Yes, it's possible the other person simply doesn't have the expertise to follow the argument, but it's much more graceful for them to be the one to say that or for us to politely ignore that while accepting everyone's input as valuable - especially since if something is too complicated for interested editors to understand, most readers are going to have similar problems.

-- Beland (talk) 01:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Great points, thank you Beland, and I agree with most of what you have expressed. Without a doubt, I lament my behavior. I extend my apologies to @David Eppstein, I'm sorry. I do cherish and value your work here on Wikipedia, and more generally the scholarly work you put forth elsewhere; you continue to write with fortitude. I also extend my apologies to @Dedhert.Jr, @Jacobolus, @XOR'easter, @Gumshoe2, and @100.36.106.199, and also extend it to @Dhrm77, @Imaginatorium, and @Certes, as well as everyone involved here and elsewhere that was directly affected, dissapointed, and dismayed at my poor and selfish responses that are not in my character. I know this is not enough, however maybe it can lay a path toward reconciliation and understanding. Radlrb (talk) 02:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@Beland Thank you for this thorough response. Much to learn from it I think. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 12:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

TBAN for User:Radlrb

Well... it was inevitable. For all we mathematicians like to pretend we are the only field that deals in universal truths the fact of the matter is, there is WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE in math, as in any other field (for a good example, see the trainwreck that is IUTT). In this case, it is pretty clear that the user in question has rather WP:FRINGE opinions on what is mathematically WP:DUE and has thus created vast reams of low-relevance text made worse by a general inability to write in a way that is penetrable to others. I think disconnecting the user in question from the topic in question might help ameliorate this issue. Frankly, and as a math major, I say: Wikipedia's math articles should be getting more accessible, not less. Allan Nonymous (talk) 00:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

You could, could give a definitive warning first (an ultimatum on this issue). As I am also willing to undo the edits that are superfluous. Up to administrators, though. See the article for 2, for an example of work that is likely acceptable in your eyes. Else, I'll accept the penalty - I can still provide great quality work if you allow me to finish some pages I think I can put together nicely (the page for 7 is nearly ready for an upgrade in layout of the mathematics section, for example; a well cited mathematics section). Radlrb (talk) 01:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I think Talk:2 would be a good place to start. It includes two bits of your contributions which have been removed. The first is the mysterious "digits of pi" which I spent quite a lot of time struggling to understand, and which I believe amounts to the following: "Consider the initial subsequences of the digits of pi, including at least one digit after the decimal place. (i.e. as strings: 31, 314, 3141, 31415, 314159) Then the first four terms represent sets of consecutive (positive) naturals, excluding only 2. And that's it? Then there are some apparently unrelated equivalences, and I can make no sense of your attempted explanation. And I do not really think that any of the "Transcendental numbers" section is really relevant, because it just amounts to finding expressions including the number 2. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I feel at least, one is particularly valuable as it provides an actual property of

the number 2: one can generate e very simply with a pattern involving 2. If there is more consensus, let’s remove it! (Certes in his last conversation with me mentioned the example with pi, yet not e as superfluous). The one for pi is a well known example, and one of the simplest, which is why I chose to include it. Maybe a mention is warranted that it is not the only such fraction, and one of many. It still is a property of 2 I believe, since one cannot so the same with 3 nearly as nicely, or 17 say, without making it look much more complicated most likely (one can actually make that formula look like something entirely different if one wishes… by manipulating both sides of an equation). Again, I’m alright with removing them, the one for e is the one I find particularly relevant, feel free to do so. Radlrb (talk) 09:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The strings example has already been removed for some time, and you recently rid the image I had put there. I’ll give my rationale for it on the talk page after work today. Radlrb (talk) 09:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

If anything, saying that the articles on 7 and 2 are "likely acceptable in [my] eyes" shows the depth of the problem. I'm a math major and I can tell you that talk of "heptagons in Eucledean space" (just call it a heptagon for crying out loud, we know what you mean and furthermore, should only be in the heptagon article), or "all cubes are congruent to" (pretty irrelevant if you ask me), or the Fano plane (I doubt anyone is looking for that on the article for THE NUMBER 7) or Wythoff symbols, or... I could go on, the point is, that, besides maybe a few short factoids (that could probably be trimmed down for readability), these article's math sections need to go. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I would like consensus on this from other editors, since it seems to me this is not a proper reading of properties and their validity on the page for 7. The point on heptagons, in Euclidean space specifically, is needed to disambiguate from heptagons in hyperbolic space, which do tile the plane. That's for that. The point on cubes congruent modulo 7 I did not add (it was @Seckends), and it seems very relevant. The Fano plane point describes the smallest finite projective plane, with an order in proportion to 7, with a structure of 7 points and 7 lines such that every line contains 3 points and 3 lines cross every point, whose incidence graph "embeds in three dimensions as the Szilassi polyhedron, the simplest toroidal polyhedron alongside its dual with 7 vertices, the Császár polyhedron". Obviously relevant. The Wythoff points are definitely relevant as well, not only as a count, but to show that 7 is the number of uniform tilings that are Wythoffian (some of this can in fact be reduced some, and I will reduce it here too, in good-fath - to show you that I am serious here in making amends, and further the encyclopedic value of these pages vis-a-vis verifiable sourcing). There are also points of dimensionality, freeze groups (that has been there for a while, here as counts of 7 too), and other valuable points as well. Radlrb (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support TBAN - Radlrb has shown they don't know what should be included in a numerical wikipedia article. The section Imaginatorium points out on Talk:2 about the insertion "In decimal representation, after the first two, three, four and five digits in the approximation of $\pi (\approx 3.14159)$ the number 2 is the only digit greater than zero not yet represented (overall, up to the largest appearing digit). [Where also, operations of strings $1\times 2^{2}=4$ and $5-3=2$ are collectively satisfied.]" is ridiculous. It's the mathematical equivalent of playing with dolls. "If you take a constant, and then turn it into decimal, and then take only the first few digits, and then interpret that as a set, then it will have all the digits except 2 (or 0, or some other digits)" - this is no way an interesting property of the number 2. This is like if I went to pear and added "if you peel an orange, you can cut the peel up and rearrange it in a particular way to spell the word 'pear'". It's meaningless WP:OR. When pointed out to Radlrb that this was arbitrary they posted a comment saying It's cool, more than just cool...incredibly interesting and telling if you have the sensitivity to understand how immensely useful and absolute most unlikely to be trivial, if you don't think its meaningful then you don't think so, but if you have any hope for something in mathematics that makes sense, instead of fronting the same arguments over and over, over "trivialities" that I am adding (meaning you are not really clicking with what is going on here), then you will noot want it removed.. Yesterday, they seemed to be heading towards an edit war while adding similiar pieces of trivia to 18 (number). On one re-addition (of a "if you add a bunch of carefully cherrypicked numbers together, they total another number" style fact), they included a very pointy edit summary "that is obviously a nice property (when having normal personal mathematical saliency, that is)". When another editor removed these useless facts and explained why, Radlrb just immediately added them all back in and added another one, ignoring the protests. From what I can see they are (whatever their intentions) creating messes for other editors to pick through and clean up - TBAN is the right way to go. BugGhost🦗👻 09:47, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

You chose select examples. I've written plenty of material, what are your views on the other material I have added on 2, most of which has not been contested? Check the page for 9, for 8, for 7, for 6, as well as for other pages such as 17 (all uncontested so far, care to look through so you will see there are good additions made? Some points I will also remove from these pages). This seems like a biased analysis, as you have not vetted a large pool of my additions, and therefore are cherry-picking. Yes, I agree those additions for 2 were not productive here on WP (I did compound multiple points on that quote, if it's read through all the way, which gives more validity to its substance, however viewed as FRNG or not). Check the material added to the other pages below 11, and please tell us what you think, and if you still believe they are not worthy points added (no contest has been submitted to my additions for those pages I mentioned above, for integer articles between 3 and 10, aside from 5).

Also, in good-faith of this discussion, I have started to revert some of my additions, however I won't get the chance to do real work on these until a week from now, as I am not with my computer at the moment, and am working most of this week at least 12 hours a day. Radlrb (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Please visit Wikipedia:Wikiproject Numbers where I led changes to a now-greatly improved guidelines (will add more on SYNTH/OR), and improved the Project Page into more refined working order. This, so that you see that I do also know what to include in these number articles; I'm not in anyway a "crackpot", like the User IP 100.36.106.199 said of me on the Mathematics Project discussion thread. I do know what I am talking about, putting aside the SYNTH bits (that I thought were relevant additions, but not for here; how people define triviality is defined differently over time, as we understand more intricate details that merge properties together, in light of parsimony, regardless of personal objections to seeming-"numerology"). Radlrb (talk) 13:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The articles pointed out confirms my vote. In the articles you point out as your "good work":

• 9 - your most recent edit adds The regular hexagon contains a total of nine diagonals, and is one of only four polytopes with radial equilateral symmetry such that its long radius (center to vertex length) is the same as the edge-length: (the hexagon), the cuboctahedron, the tesseract, and the 24-cell.. This was added under immediately under the heading "Polygons and tilings", and actually pushes down relevant info like A polygon with nine sides is called a nonagon.. This change includes one tenuously relevant piece of info about the number 9, and then some completely irrelevant jargon-filled info about hexagons, with no citation. People who visit 9 are not looking for trivia about hexagons.
• 8 - no substantial edits since January
• 7 - [2] Cites [3] for the claim the heptagon is the only convex polygon to have a one-to-two ratio between the number of its sides and diagonals., which is not interesting or relevant, and also not in source - either based in WP:OR or WP:SYNTH
• 6 - [4] - you added a piece of useless geometry-based trivial about the number 25 (not 6), completely unrelated to the preceding sentence, which was about aliquot sums.
• 17 (number) - [5] - added far too much detail about the behaviour of subatomic particles (I wish I was joking), completely unsourced.

I didn't cherrypick these examples, they are all the most recent non gnoming/copy-editing edit in each of them. Your changes on these articles only goes to show the breadth of this problem and reaffirms the need for a topic ban. I also would ask you to not add/edit guidelines on SYNTH/OR considering this situation at hand. BugGhost🦗👻 13:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

That's definitely looks like a type of cherry picking, with respect. Are there any other facts in those number pages that you disagree with? Because, thats less than 5% of content I added in each of the pages you mentioned. For the page for 8, what you see in the mathematics section, I wrote and expanded most of it (and organized it as you see). I am asking for a more comprehensive summary of your views of content I added in these pages. Could you please do that? In honor of your points that you mentioned as being superfluous, I will remove them now, except for the heptagon point, as I see it worth mentioning, and even @Dhrm77 protected an edit that was trying to word it differently, 1. Radlrb (talk) 14:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not replying further - I presented 2 examples, and then when you wanted more, I posted 4 more examples of your unhelpful changes, from recent changes from articles you specifically cited as your good work. This response is just WP:IDHT and WP:SATISFY. If I post 5 more examples (which I could), you will just ask for 5 more. One final thing I will point out is to show that you should be TBANNED from editing number-based articles is the 2,000 word essay on your userpage that has such insights as: These three unifying states are themselves united into a single state of equanimity (16, a value representing the ninth composite number), such that these two polar opposing states and middle state are united into a healing and sustaining flow of expression (all-feeling, all-knowing, and all-fulfilling). This yields sixteen elements (1-16). A state of rest of this equanimity is full sleep (0, the only number aside from 9 to yield a digit sum that is the same as the original number added to it, as with any final numeral-number in a given base, here in decimal), which is the root emotional and mental element. - I don't think it's a good idea to have someone who has this kind of relationship with numbers to be editing mathematical articles. BugGhost🦗👻 14:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Correct, your input is not comprehensive and is selective of evidence, so does not satisfy "beyond reasonable doubt" so to speak, your vote, just shows bias you have and are unwilling to actually present wholesome evidence. What's on my personal user page should tell you that I think out of the box, and yes, think critically beyond what we know today. After all, that's how new knowledge is born, not out of stagnation. However that does not change the fact that I added great information in the first 10 integer articles. I will make a list of the points I have added, and will check mark the information that is clearly admissible, so that you can see actually (you likely do not know, by how you are describing my edits) what I have added! Radlrb (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

From my experience with User:Radlrb's edits, he has done a mix of good and some controversial/fringe/unorthodox edits in the WP:WPM area. So, I'm not sure if TBAN means Temporary Ban, Topic Ban or some other form of Banning, and I don't know if that would accomplish the ultimate goal of keeping the peace and keeping Wikipedia both informative and not filled with obscure or fringe cruft, but I support some form of action that would go in that direction. Dhrm77 (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

TBAN is Topic Ban, I believe. Radlrb (talk) 12:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support Tban even above Radlrb is showing IDHT. Also some minor bludgeoning Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support Tban for the examples given directly above, followed by Radlrb's accusations of "cherrypicking" and excuse that they are "thinking out of the box". Radlrb says to go check out the articles on 2 and 7, and when it's pointed out that they added bad content to 2, Radlrb says to look at more pages. When there are problems on those pages, Radlrb says it's "cherrypicking" again. This is WP:IDHT and arguing in bad faith. "I sometimes add content that hasn't yet been challenged" is not a good excuse for adding bad content. Also, announcing that you're "thinking out of the box" because "that's how new knowledge is born" violates WP:OR. Toughpigs (talk) 18:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

  IDHT more from people here, that don't want to see the majority of the valuable points that I have added, so they only highlight the minority points in hope that it will flood over the actual evidence. For this, I can seek mediation from higher Wikimedia bodies, if this unfair treatment still persists, entirely against guidelines (ironic, because I am being framed for violating policies that here I was willing to fix, and after I gave heart-felt apologies). Also, the misquoting, taking my own words out of context. A lot of hypocrisy unfortunately, and worse, deep prejudice that does not want to come out from most (some are more vocal about it). Radlrb (talk) 21:17, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think it's "bad faith" to have an overly high opinion of one's own edits. If one doesn't think they are good, one probably wouldn't have made them in the first place. WP:AGF says "Assuming good faith (AGF) means assuming that people are not deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia, even when their actions are harmful." I see no evidence Radlrb is playing a game or trying to put material they think is harmful or self-serving or deliberately provocative into Wikipedia. It seems they are simply trying to share information they think is interesting with people interested in that type of information. Yes, it's often original research and excessive detail and meandering off-topic, but that's a disagreement over what is good, not a conflict between good and evil. -- Beland (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Radlrb has posted a declaration of retirement but is still commenting. XOR'easter (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

  Correct. I can still talk in relevant spaces in retirement since it has to do with me, without editing articles directly. I'm making sure my voice is heard, regardless of people trying to silence me. Radlrb (talk) 21:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

  From the template documentation: Do not use this template unless you plan to completely and permanently stop editing. Other templates are available if you might return at a later date, or if you plan to significantly reduce your activity. XOR'easter (talk) 23:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support TBAN. I am generally a sentimental softie and don't like recommending sanctions, but by now I think it's unavoidable here. Spamming number articles with nearly incomprehensible prose about points that are either esoteric or trivial is bad. Failing to understand the problem after multiple other editors have tried to explain it is worse. XOR'easter (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

  Conversations with Radlrb are uniquely exasperating. Any disagreement will be called either "passive-aggressive" (here) or "combative" (here). They argue for including content because It seems to be "nice" (here) or It's cool, more than just cool (quoted above), while taking offense at being told they are relying on their personal opinion (here again). They'll say that an article needs to read with structure, rather than a seemingly haphazard listing of data (back here), while producing the most haphazard agglomeration of mathematical factoids that I have ever seen on Wikipedia. I don't doubt they're working with the best of intentions, but those good intentions have paved the road to abysmal articles. XOR'easter (talk) 00:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  This is taken out of context, with old information and quotes that have the effect of distorting facts as they stand today, as I am already removing in good-faith much of the content in dispute, meaning this is an effort to make it seem as if the main issue still persists. Yes, in the past, my commentary was not voiced in the best way possible. The dry tone that you use, and the lack of affirmation of my work already, points to the idea that you are being passive-aggressive, and that you possibly do not hold good-faith intentions in remedying this collaboratively with me, rather just want to push me out of WP regardless. So, given my efforts, it seems yes, that you are not still not understanding that I added much great content. In other words, flooding the good WP:DUE I have contributed with instances of SYNTH, and making it seem as if I have added apparently no good content at all. And no, I have already agreed, multiple times, to reductions, so "Any disagreement will be called either 'passive-aggressive' (here) or 'combative' (here)" is incorrect, and not all articles I have worked on are in an "abysmal" state; this is wrong. Radlrb (talk) 00:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  XOR'easter has been collaborating with you, and I see no evidence they are doing so "bad faith" - that implies they are intentionally sabotaging the collaboration in order make you look bad. They are supporting a topic ban because you have been difficult to work with, and making an accusation of bad faith without good evidence is a violation of WP:AGF and actually does make it hard to work with you. -- Beland (talk) 00:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think he has been collaborating with me, actually. He has possibly been "needing to work through me" in his eyes, is how I feel. Collaboration has a different connotation, where the language becomes much more aggreable between editors. I have tried, and continue to try, to be respectful, however his shortness is definitely frustrating, as are his invalid representations of what is transpiring here, as when he says "Any disagreement will be called either 'passive-aggressive' (here) or 'combative' (here)'", which is not the case, I have yielded plenty. Aren't my reverts evidence of this?? I am not assuming bad faith, I am seeing his very words, where he still persists and lies to say that I write abysmal articles only; that is bad-faith from him because I have clearly attempted to revert some of my SYNTH, and also have great material generated, which he does not comment on. Radlrb (talk) 00:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  You're assuming XOR'easter would agree that some significant fraction of the content you've added to articles is good, which I wouldn't take as a given. I don't disagree that "any disagreement" is a bit of an exaggeration, but I do understand why this has been added to their reasons to support a topic ban.

  My advice, if you don't want to give people ammunition to use against you? Only talk about content on talk pages and don't address the attitudes or behavior of other editors at all. Then no one will have any grounds to come here and complain about the words you are using to describe them or their actions. It will also generally cause them to focus more on resolving the content issues on the merits, even if it involves ignoring sharp elbows and perceived slights. -- Beland (talk) 01:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yes (WP:DUE passes many of the points, as with 2, where he has not reverted most points, but why not mention this directly so that it is more a true representation of the altogether possible summary of my work), and Yes (I am trying to not get annoyed, but this all still hurts, because well, I am human, and have lived through thick in thin like many of us, and gee, no one likes to be misrepresented, since that goes straight to the soul and the view of worth in the eyes of others). Radlrb (talk) 01:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  I have not "reverted most points" in the article 2 because I know that you will just undo my edit and then complain about it! XOR'easter (talk) 01:19, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  No, I would ask for consensus, as people have asked to do first. Radlrb (talk) 01:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  It seems as humans we're remarkably inaccurate at determining the thoughts and motivations of people on the other side of the text-only Internet. -- Beland (talk) 02:47, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  It is such a limitation. I would love to just get on a mass conference-call and speak in "real-life". Radlrb (talk) 02:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  Even so, I am starting to think once more that it is moot for me to do any of this self-reverting if all that will be seen is that I have done poor work. Let me point out that Certes said before his retirement on his talk page: "I haven't looked through your contributions in detail but I do think your work has been of worth and that you are contributing worthwhile information", while also stating "However, I do think that you sometimes go into more detail than is ideal, especially when the text is not primarily about the article's topic." 1. Imaginatorium also stated back in December 2023 at Wikiproject Numbers: "@Radlrb: in particular has done a huge amount of work on these articles, most of it in the right direction I think, yet some of it highly dubious to me" 2. This was near the end of last year, a whole almost two years since I started editing. Radlrb (talk) 01:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  Certes told you back in June, Yes, it is our duty to reveal published information, which means summarising reliable sources rather than drawing conclusions for ourselves. Mathematics is unusual in that statements can be proven true even if they don't appear in the literature, but we should still follow Wikipedia's general rule that we are reporting knowledge rather than creating it. To be blunt, I don't think you've learned that yet. Less than an hour ago, you called my attempt to re-explain that to you quite the personal attack and declared that it goes without saying that this was a comment aimed at insulting me [6]. Being willing to remove (some of) your additions only after other editors have poured hours into trying to work with you ... well, it's better than never removing your additions at all, but it still means that trying to work together with you is ... I'm trying to think of a more polite term than "time sink", but that's about the size of it. XOR'easter (talk) 01:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  Correct, while also stating "I do think your work has been of worth and that you are contributing worthwhile information" first, meaning he acknowledged my good work as well (notice he said I sometimes "go into more detail than is ideal, especially when the text is not primarily about the article's topic"), the word used is sometimes, which some others do not agree with. I wanted to show everyone here that there have been outstanding editors that have seen my good work here. Working with me does not have to be a "time sink" (a bit harsh). Think of it from my point of view, you add substantial important information, but only an adverse side is noticed by someone. It is not fair.
  He said, let me emphasize, that my work (overall, most likely he meant) has been of worth. Radlrb (talk) 01:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  Davey2116 is another editor that has expressed such understanding (that's three already). Radlrb (talk) 01:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  I don't know why you're pulling quotes from months ago while, when I quote things you've written in the past couple days, that's old information and quotes that have the effect of distorting facts as they stand today. I don't know why you say of me, he still persists and lies to say that I write abysmal articles only; I don't think I've ever said that 100% of your work is bad. That's not the problem. The problem is that too much of what you have written is unencyclopedic, that after days of attempted explanations it is still not clear that you understand why, that you take unremarkable criticisms of your writing in unreasonably harsh ways, that you react by lashing out and then sometimes striking through. All through this thread, you've taken the attitude that people think you contribute apparently no good content at all. Days ago, you called people pointing out examples of poor editing cherry picking and not comprehensive. But the thing is, it doesn't have to be "comprehensive". If 90% of what you contribute is unobjectionable, and 10% creates a massive drain on other volunteers, then that 10% is the problem. XOR'easter (talk) 01:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  These are quotes others gave, and might not be able to reiterate today, so it is different. Your quotations are of things I said, subjects of which I am now reversing, so they no longer stand (maybe only more minor points, even of the sort such as keeping 5! in the page for 744, that I agreed was in the end not worth keeping given guidelines we might agree on in the end). What is too much? I've been asking of a quantification of this, which stands against what editors like Imaginatorium or Certes pointed to. Lets work on that 10% then (if that is the proportion that is problematic - finally some number came out! And is vastly different than stating that "Radlrb has shown they don't know what should be included in a numerical wikipedia article", as editor BugGhost mentioned in his vote.) I am just asking for KINDNESS. I AM A HUMAN, with a HEART. Radlrb (talk) 02:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support TBAN, because of the refusal to listen to others' relevant opinions demonstrated well in the interactions with BugGhost above, and the reliance on original research over published sources demonstrated in their number-related edits. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support TBAN. While some of their edits may indeed be good, the need for continual monitoring to pick out the wheat from the trivial and OR chaff is an unacceptable drain on other editors' time. Given their responses here, they clearly don't understand the problem nor the purpose of Wikipedia, and don't intend to change their behavior. If they really intend to retire then the TBAN is harmless but if they return to editing then the TBAN is necessary. CodeTalker (talk) 19:20, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
• Comment Imaginatorium has asked me to chime in here. I don't really have the time or care to slog through the entire backstory of what has transpired here, so feel free to ignore this comment if you think I am missing important context. To the extent I am involved, I reverted Allan Nonymous's BOLD edits at the number articles which were wholesale deletions of content. I was then informed on my talk page that some of the removed content had been contributed by Radlrb, who was the subject of this AN/I discussion, and that I should weigh in here if I find their contributions positive. Personally, I believe that much of the content in question is interesting, informative, and useful; the reader who searches for individual numbers on Wikipedia is looking for exactly this kind of information. So, based only on this involvement it is my opinion that pushing away the editor who created this content would be a loss for Wikipedia. However, I should make clear that the reason I attempted to revert Allan Nonymous's deletions was not that I reviewed every single fact in question and determined that they were all suitable for inclusion; I simply disagree that making such large changes all at once is the right way to go about this. Davey2116 (talk) 06:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  The opinion expressed here is exactly the reason I stopped most editing of number-based articles a year ago. It is clear that there is a community of like-minded editors who like having number articles in states like (to pick only the most recent of Davey2116's restoration of material removed in recent cruft-removal) 744, packed with statement after statement after statement sourced to OEIS and almost as interesting as "744 = 723 + 21".

  It may even be accurate that this is what readers who come to Wikipedia looking at articles on numbers in this range expect and want: they intend to find some factoid to say about this number (for instance, maybe as a lead-in to a blog post) and they don't much care whether there is any mathematical depth to that factoid. That's not a use case I care to contribute my energy to, and I'm not convinced it's encyclopedic, but it is a use case. So eventually, to me, the effort of cleaning up what always seemed to me the Augean stables weighed too much relative to the opposite reaction to appreciation for those cleanups from editors like Davey2116 and I stopped. But I applaud others who have the fortitude to continue cleaning this up. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  This is not a fair representation of what happened. Davey2116 didn't restore the content because they think meaningless trivia belongs in the article, but because Allan Nonymous's deletions went too far, removing high quality encyclopaedic content written by users (including myself) who have been actively removing trivia and developing the articles with GA quality prose. Polyamorph (talk) 14:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  Your advocacy of the same cruft does not change my evaluation that it is cruft. Also "I worked so hard putting all this cruft into the article and it's unfair to just remove it" does not count for much to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'm clearly not advocating for the inclusion of "cruft" but the manner in which it is being removed, taking genuine high quality encyclopaedic content (like that which I contributed to at the article 1) out with it. I'm not impressed. Polyamorph (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  Your "genuine high quality encyclopaedic content" is my cruft. And your "taking content like that which I contributed" is my "I worked so hard putting all this cruft in". —David Eppstein (talk) 19:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think you've read my contributions at all, if you had you would know it is not "cruft". Polyamorph (talk) 19:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  Please be open to the possibility that someone has read your additions and decided that they are too much detail for that encyclopedia article. Not everyone has the same priorities and interests on a given topic.

  And folks, just typing back and forth "it's cruft!" and "it's not cruft!" isn't getting anywhere. We're discussing changing the guidelines on what should and shouldn't be included on integer articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers. Being more specific about what is and isn't important in a huge pile of changes would be helpful, as would be specific reasons for why readers would be interested. -- Beland (talk) 20:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with Beland that it would be more productive to discuss specific things at WP Numbers than to back-and-forth about whether Polyamorph is a "cruft-pusher". Mathwriter2718 (talk) 21:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment the wholesale removal of the content at the integer articles by Allan Nonymous were totally reckless, removing high quality prose written collaboratively by multiple authors in addition to the so-called WP:CRUFT. It is for this reason they have been reverted, not because anyone wants to keep trivia. It's a case of not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There is a discussion about this at the numbers wikiproject. Polyamorph (talk) 14:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose TBAN seems moot at this point as Radlrb appears to have retired. Some of their comments suggest they are not in the best state of mind. My interactions with them suggest they are a good faith editor that tries to do the right thing. I also note Radlrb's apology above. I'm not impressed that the user that proposed this TBAN has been systematically mass deleting content on numbers articles without consensus. Polyamorph (talk) 14:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  People often announce that they're "retired" during ANI discussions, and then come back shortly after the discussion is over. Radlrb announced their retirement two days ago, and then kept posting here. The topic ban is still necessary to prevent further disruption. Toughpigs (talk) 18:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  On the basis of what policy infringement. It just comes across as a content dispute with a few disgruntled editors taking there chance to dismiss an editor that annoys them. Polyamorph (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  This dismissal of alternate opinions, well represented in the comments here, as "a few disgruntled editors" is exactly the same pattern of failing to consider seriously any disagreement that has been so problematic in the behavior of Radlrb. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  How pleasant. Polyamorph (talk) 22:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  They never actually declared that they were retired. They added a "retired" template to their user page but did not mean that they were leaving completely, which is what the template is supposed to be used for. Any claim that a TBAN would be moot because of their retirement is unfounded. XOR'easter (talk) 17:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  I still plan to retire after this is done, I only came back because there was misrepresentation of my work, and because I wanted to clean up after myself. Radlrb (talk) 00:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I gently urge that further discussions about specific removals of content we should make, comments about recent reversions made by editors other than User:Radlrb, and generally material relevant to WikiProject Numbers but not relevant to sanctions against Radlrb, be placed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Numbers#Help remove WP:CRUFT on number articles! and not here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathwriter2718 (talk • contribs)

  Of course, but when it comes off the back of a kneejerk reaction to Radlrb's additions and is by the very same user who is proposing a TBAN, then it is of relevance for the admins reading this. Comes back to this essentially being a content dispute. Polyamorph (talk) 15:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  Fair enough. Mathwriter2718 (talk) Mathwriter2718 (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment it is clear, with all the edit warring now occurring at the integer articles, that this is about more that just one problematic editor. this accusation of "continued cruft-pushing brigading" is both untrue and a personal attack and was met with further hostility and doubling down by David Eppstein when challenged on their talk page, to the extent that they accused another admin of also being part of a tag team. There is edit warring by Allan Nonymous at the numbers pages, and refusal to engage in the very discussion that they initiated at wikiproject numbers. Folks need to calm down, engage in discussions, stop throwing around "cruft" as if it's a valid reason to dismiss good faith editors contributions in their entirety and frankly start being a lot friendlier to your fellow editors. Polyamorph (talk) 07:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - Radlrb has officially come out of retirement (as predicted by some) and made 45 edits this morning to math based articles. Seems to be a combination of restoring deleted content (with pointy edit summaries) but also removing (presumably their own?) additions to numerical articles, citing wp:synth - from first glance it looks like they have taken the criticism in this thread on board and are attempting to course correct - but still are very much against Allan Nonymous' bold deletions. BugGhost🦗👻 11:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  This edit warring needs to stop. The discussion is open at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Numbers#Proposed_update_for_integer_guidelines. Polyamorph (talk) 12:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  Polyamorph with respect I think you are commenting a lot on this topic - it is already very long. I was able to see this project talk topic the other times it was posted. BugGhost🦗👻 13:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  The link to the discussion was not necessarily meant for you but to those who continue to force their opinions in mainspace instead of at that very discussion, in an attempt to prevent any further escalation. Perhaps that is a futile hope, but your comment is noted with thanks, I will not comment further. Best wishes Polyamorph (talk) 14:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not very much against his BOLD deletions. More so, I am against non-consensus removal, as I explained in the edit summaries, as well as question some of his extreme removal of WP:DUE content. Thank you for your words @Bugghost. Please do see that I intend to remove all of my SYNTH, and the reverts on Allan were based on the need to seek consensus before removing mass-content, as multiple other editors asked. Radlrb (talk) 23:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support TBAN, given the above return to the exact same problem area editing. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  Notice the changes that I have made since the beginning of this AN/I, and the good-faith edit-removals I have made of the synthesized material I added in the past (that was also in great-faith, of course). Notice that my reverts of the very information described by editors as being worthwhile (see above, as well as words from Mathwriter2718 1) have also been substantiated by other editors recently. The editing of recent mass removals was in consensus with five other editors at least (Beland, Polyamorph, Davey2116, QuicoleJR, and Johnuniq a b), regarding the over-deletion of information that has remained for a long while in various number pages and deleted by Allan Nonymous without consensus (see the pages for all single digit integers aside from 0 as well as select other two-digit integers, actions which he is not repeating nearly as much - gladly the last occurrence was earlier today at 1), and seen as unjustified since it can lead to deletion of valuable information. There is also currently good-faith collaboration over the very requirements that we are seeking to make these articles be of the highest quality that could be, at least for now; for my part, I just recently joined that discussion peripherally, so to speak 2 , and I will also express my own input and proposals for the guidelines in question at WP:WP Numbers (shortly, I hope!). Radlrb (talk) 23:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  None of this absolves you of the issues at hand. You need to step away from this area of editing, and I think a TBAN to force it is the appropriate measure. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  Of course it does, undoing bad work is an example of good-faith - it shows that I do understand the transgressions and can be a generator of good content for our number articles. And as other editors have noticed, I have done plenty of good work and is against the idea that "I don't know what to include" - care to comment on my good work, or just notice the bad? Even XOR'easter noted, the 90% and 10% balance, why kick someone out for only 10% of the work, when the other 90% is seen as worthwhile and of quality? It seems you are not being impartial either, as with most of the votes against, and therefore not following assuming good-faith: your point assumes overall bad-faith, and hurts your position, as excluding me from the project clearly is a case of hurting Wikipedia. Also, the vandalism of Allan Nonymous, by which the page for 1 had to become protected, shows hypocrisy at play here to remove valuable information that you are not even willing to vet yourself. Worse yet, you are simply trying to be hurtful, by not providing an avenue for reconcilliation. Radlrb (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not taking a position on sanctions, but I'd like to respond to some unhelpful points made above.

  XOR'easter did not say that 90% of your contributions are acceptable to them, only that even if that were the case, it wouldn't matter if the other 10% were sucking up a huge amount of time from other volunteers.

  Wikipedia:Vandalism says: "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." Allan Nonymous' changes do appear to be motivated by a desire to reduce clutter and improve Wikipedia; they are not "vandalism" in the sense used in Wikipedia policy.

  Whether other people are hypocrites or have behaved badly as well doesn't really have any bearing on whether or not your behavior is tolerable.

  I would not expect anyone not-voting here to be impartial, and they don't have to be. Many have formed strong opinions that certain behavior is unacceptable and that's why they are here complaining. -- Beland (talk) 19:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  I am not convinced that Allan Nonymous was not trying to mass-delete information without consensus on purpose. It's on him after so many iterations of telling him to stop, even after he said he would, did not come through. Also, I asked explicitly for an evaluation of my good work versus that which is superfluous, and it is still not being given. So that a proper assessment of "whether or not I do not know at all if I can contribute material" stands. Whether people are hypocrites does have bearing here, since it gives less validity to their points of view. I am being honest here in calling out bad behavior, as people are calling out mine, and this needs to be taken seriously, and I see no true sign of that, or intention to identify it. I hope this changes, from editors here who have commented here, and from those who have yet to comment that want to, so they also give their honest opinions. I am not going to kneel to unfair treatment. Radlrb (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, the point of the quote above is that even when something is done on purpose, against consensus, in a disruptive fashion, it's not necessarily "vandalism".

  If we're supposed to ignore an accusation of bad behavior if it comes from someone who has engaged in bad behavior, then we should ignore your complaints about other editors. If you want us to take your complaints about others seriously, then we should take their complaints about you seriously. Admins here tend to look more at the evidence being pointed to and not who is doing the pointing, which to me seems like the only fair and rational way to operate.

  Politely pointing out the bad behavior of others might help reach a more fair outcome if their behavior would otherwise be unaddressed, but going overboard with name-calling and insinuating bad motivations just provides more evidence that you need to be sanctioned in order to avoid disrupting the project.

  Based on the above conversations, it looks like the percentage of your significant contributions considered "good" ranges from "none" to "some", depending on who you ask. I don't think you're going to get a more quantitative answer than that. The general complaint seems to be that for a long time, you put up an unreasonably big and somewhat uncivil fight over additions which seem to go well beyond what anyone else finds appropriate for inclusion, and arguably run afoul of various Wikipedia policies. Given that you've apologized above for incivility and are now helping clean up all those additions, it's possible this thread will simply be closed with no action taken. I'd say the best way to maximize the possibility of that is to stop commenting here, stop commenting on other editor's actions and motivations on talk pages and in edit summaries, and focus on content and guidelines. Or you could take a break and let other folks deal with the cleanup, and come back later refreshed and more focused on content that has consensus for inclusion. -- Beland (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  Somewhat, fair Radlrb (talk) 11:47, 11 August 2024 (UTC) Fair, regarding your advice. My patience is running on almost 0, so we'll see if I survive this emotionally, else you'll know why if I don't, everyone has limits. Radlrb (talk) 23:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  I think this is a better summary of things than any I could give. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  Radlrb's edits restoring bad content to number articles have resumed: see Special:Diff/1239791869. And their unencyclopedic mysticism is on full display in their most recent addition to my talk page. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  This response to the re-removal of that trivia is untenable. Leaping from the assertion that there is no consensus to "and therefore I must be right" is antithetical to collaborative editing. XOR'easter (talk) 20:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  I wasn't the only person to return that content? Anyways, I'm going with it, I'm not taking it personally or anything, as people here have been wanting me to avoid. Cool? ; ) Radlrb (talk) 22:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, mysticism, and logic! Good friends. Radlrb (talk) 22:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: I will soon start removing the SYNTH I added into all the remaining articles; the focus was first on 5 and 744, which were the more developed articles I contributed to. Please allow me some time (no more than a week), to complete this task. I appreciate your patience. Radlrb (talk) 03:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on embassies in Indonesia and more

IP user 103.2.146.138 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) as well as his alternate IP 118.136.39.87 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) keeps on making disruptive edits on List of diplomatic missions in Indonesia and List of diplomatic missions in Jakarta. The main thing he always does is adding an Israeli embassy despite the fact that Indonesia has neither recognized nor established relations with Israel yet. The reason why his editing is disruptive is because his source is poor as it doesn't even mention anything about an Israeli embassy opening in Jakarta with a full address and an ambassador. It only mentions Prabowo's stance regarding the conflict with Palestine. Back in June he (and I) even broke the three-revert rule so both articles were protected for a week. Soon after the protection expired, he keeps on doing this again, but also changing the Australian mission to ASEAN's address from Jalan Patra Kuningan Raya to Jalan H.R. Rasuna Said without a source, despite the address always being Jalan Patra Kuningan Raya all this time. Not only that, but he also vandalized other articles like Jinan because he replaced Han Chinese with African which doesn't make any sense. He also recently vandalized the following artciles: Kim Tae-hee (twice), Singaporeans (also twice), Immigration to Malaysia and Religion in Sweden to name a few, mostly unexplained content removal or replacing one country with another. I warned him once but he still hasn't changed. I would like to request an IP block on both addresses because his edits are unconstructive to say the least. Underdwarf58 (talk) 10:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Also not great. They edits do seem productive at first glance, but apparently I interacted with this IP a few days ago to revert poor edits that randomly changed some list items. Just reverted this which used a source about a diplomatic mission closing in 2003 to add a supposed current diplomatic mission. Either CIR or trolling, and leaning towards trolling. CMD (talk) 13:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Update. He trolled again, this time for Sri Lanka (twice). It seems that the IP hasn't changed. Underdwarf58 (talk) 00:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Update 2: He vandalized the same page again by removing Indonesia and Iran from the list of embassies in Colombo. Not only that, he also vandalized Medan. Thank you @Davidelit for the revert and warning. Underdwarf58 (talk) 13:41, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Update 3: He vandalized the Sri Lanka page again 4 times. He even broke the 3 revert rule once again without discussing it to the talk page. I need the IPs blocked immediately. Thank you. Underdwarf58 (talk) 05:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Editing one character at a time by Eitan Drutman

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

---

Eitan Drutman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be building an article one character at a time, using the same canned edit summary every edit. They're either very persistent or are using some automated tool incorrectly, and they have not responded to my talk page message. This is not the first time the user has been asked to not make "micro edits". Take a look at the 711(!) edits it took the user to add a paragraph to Revée Walcott-Nolan. This is either trolling or an unapproved bot, but either way it's disruptive. Bestagon ⬡ 14:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

At first I wondered if it was some misunderstanding of the interface when editing via mobile, but then I saw that they knew how to add complete sentences on talk pages[7][8] so it must be deliberate. Schazjmd (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

It is like someting in the middle. Eitan Drutman (talk) 18:44, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

It may sound a little bizzare, but I just like to spend my time doing this... I don't actually know why, I just love it (I love editing in Wikipedia in general, but when I have like nothing to do, it helps me to spend (or waste, you name it) my time doing this...). I didn't know it causing issues, and actually I still don't know if it actually is or is it just look weird. If it is, I am sorry. Eitan Drutman (talk) 15:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Plus, the micro, including the 1 char at a time, edits are because 1. The mobile editing is a little weird so it helpa me avoid the "weirdness" of it, and 2. It is beacuse I don't want to get stuck in an edit conflict with a large edit + I don't want someone to delete what I did because he doesn't see any progress... Eitan Drutman (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

You appear to be missing the point entirely. You say you don't want to get in an edit conflict if you make a large edit. Yet you don't seem to show much concern about other editors, who will get in an edit conflict for the entire time you're adding one character at a time to write a single paragraph. You said you were sorry on your talk page and you didn't know the problems you created, yet you continued this behavior after that post as if nothing happened. You say you don't want someone to delete what you did because they perceive a lack of progress, but you put the article into a state where nobody else can make any progress on an article until you decide that you're happy with your contribution. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@Eitan Drutman, if any other editors have those pages on their watchlists, it is extremely disruptive. In addition, adding one letter at a time in mainspace does a huge disservice to any readers who happen to look at the article in the midst of your editing spree. Maybe you could spend/waste your time with that method in your sandbox? And then when you're "done", paste your edit in whatever article it's intended for. Schazjmd (talk) 15:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

1. Well, I didn't know that... :(

Eitan Drutman (talk) 18:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Is it sanding them messages or so? How disruptive is it? Or is it juat appear on some log(s?)? Eitan Drutman (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Anyway, again, sorry! I didn't know that... I thought the only place it may appear is the general edits log (of the entire English Wikipedia)... Eitan Drutman (talk) 18:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@Eitan Drutman, every edit you make sends a notification to everyone who has that page on their watchlist - articles, drafts, noticeboards, every single page. So if, for example, anyone has this noticeboard on their watchlist, they've gotten at least twenty-six notifications from you in this thread. Could you please try to put all your thoughts/points in one edit, rather than a new edit for each one? As an example, these 8 responses:

I did the edits because:

A. You didn't come to a conclusion about the topic and issue, yet.

B. It was in a new arcticle I've created, so I thought it is fine there...

It was not okay as well. I get it now.

Although I can't entirely see why, so I would love if someone will explain why on new articles it is not okay as well.

I'll say it again: I'm sorry. I was doing wrong. I would aprreciate if I will get a second chance. I won't do it again.

Pinky promise lol :-)

<3 ♥️

All of those could be just one edit/message, and you would get exactly the same information across to us without 1) at least 8 notifications, and 2) continual edit conflicts for anyone else trying to add something to the noticeboard. If you're worried about losing your text, maybe first write it out in Notepad or as a Google Keep note, then copy-paste it over once you're done? That way you can take as long as you want to craft your edit without losing anything, and you can also avoid causing other editors a lot of frustration.

If you want a paragraph break, hit enter twice so there's a space between lines in your edit box - the space between the lines won't be there, but it will start a new line so you don't have a huge wall of text. :) StartGrammarTime (talk) 08:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I did it because the paragraph thing. I just don't like the way it is shown... Eitan Drutman (talk) 12:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

And, 2 more things. 1. I love the hierarchy it is doing when I reply this way, and 2. Sometimes, just like now, I reply and then another thing just pop to my mind... Eitan Drutman (talk) 12:22, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

2. What is the "sandbox"? How is it working and how can I work with it? Eitan Drutman (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh and beforehand, thank you! Eitan Drutman (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@Eitan Drutman, start here: Help:My sandbox. Schazjmd (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Eitan Drutman (talk) 02:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! @Schazjmd Eitan Drutman (talk) 02:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

In addition to the concerns already raised, it also makes reviewing the page history, a crucially important aspect of maintaining and protecting Wikipedia articles, significantly more difficult. Even while this discussion is going on, you're still continuing to do it. You've added more than two dozen one-character edits just since you posted to this discussion. Wikipedia is an enyclopedia, not a fidget spinner. I think you ought to be indefinitely blocked if this doesn't stop immediately. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

1. Well, I know nothing about reviewing edits and stuff like this and about maintaining a proper Wikipedia, so I didn't even thought that it could cause issues in this aspect...

Eitan Drutman (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry again for causing issues with it. Eitan Drutman (talk) 18:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

If I, hopefully, will get unblocked, I won't repeat and do it again. Eitan Drutman (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I understand it now. :) Eitan Drutman (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

2. I did the edits because: Eitan Drutman (talk) 18:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

A. You didn't come to a conclusion about the topic and issue, yet. Eitan Drutman (talk) 18:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

B. It was in a new arcticle I've created, so I thought it is fine there... Eitan Drutman (talk) 18:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

It was not okay as well. I get it now. Eitan Drutman (talk) 18:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Although I can't entirely see why, so I would love if someone will explain why on new articles it is not okay as well. Eitan Drutman (talk) 18:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll say it again: I'm sorry. I was doing wrong. I would aprreciate if I will get a second chance. I won't do it again. Eitan Drutman (talk) 18:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Pinky promise lol :-) 🤙🙏 Eitan Drutman (talk) 18:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

<3 ♥️ Eitan Drutman (talk) 18:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

It's worth noting that, after Eitan last commented here, they made 43 edits to add fewer than 50 characters. Bestagon ⬡ 16:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• I've blocked the editor from mainspace since they continued with their pattern of adding one character at a time after replying here. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 16:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  You didn't come to a conclusion or something when I replyed here, the edits I made was on a new arcticle, that's why I did it. If the final conclusion is that I can't do that on any mainspace, okay. Reply with telling it, unblock me please and I'll stop doing it. Eitan Drutman (talk) 18:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, you cannot do that on any article. Even if it's new, or rarely-viewed, or anything else. Adding one character at a time like that isn't ever acceptable. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  Okay. I get it now. And well... I got my warning already :). So I would appreciate a second chance. 🙏 Eitan Drutman (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'll leave that up to Isabelle Belato as the blocking admin here. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  Okay. Fair enough :) Eitan Drutman (talk) 18:48, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'll second (or third, fourth, whatever) what's being said against this one letter per edit business. Do not do it. Ever. Yes, it's disruptive. Good block, and I too will leave it up to Belato as to whether to remove the namespace block or not. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, was busy earlier. I've unblocked the editor hoping they understood why what they did is disruptive. I think it'll be useful to leave this thread open for a little while, in case we have to return to this conversation (though I'm hopeful this won't be needed). Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 21:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you. 🙏 Eitan Drutman (talk) 02:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Isabelle Belato, I'm afraid the suggestions to use their sandbox have been ignored. Eitan Drutman's edits today on Ariel Atias (athlete) show little change in approach. Six edits to add a wikilink: [9][10][11][12][13][14] Eight edits to add a minimal infobox: [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] And I pity any editor that has watchlisted their talk page, since edits to their user page today will go on screen after screen as they add one character at a time...[23] Schazjmd (talk) 13:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, I've been watching all ~370 edits (and counting!) to their userpage come across my watchlist. I was just glad it wasn't in the mainspace... I'm still suspecting trolling here. Bestagon ⬡ 13:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  I did it on purpose...

  Isn't it okay? It's my own user page after all... Eitan Drutman (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  Isn't it enough? Should I go even more than that? (I mean even less edits...) Eitan Drutman (talk) 16:47, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, the first couple of edits was a mistake, then I went kinda okay. Again, isn't it enough? I did it because I needed to copy the general structure from another athlete... Eitan Drutman (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Eitan Drutman: While it isn't as bad as doing it in main space, it's still somewhat disruptive to do one byte edits to your own userpage. My recommendation is to, first of all, use your own sandbox to make smaller edits, which can then be copy-pasted onto the desired page; and second, stop doing byte-sized edits overall. Your edits to Ariel Atias (athlete), for example, are an improvement and, while still not perfect, would be more desired overall. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 20:37, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• @Isabelle Belato, feel free to reply here to (my) this reply:

  1. The Ariel Atias (athlete) **info** edits were mostly because I needed to copy the general structure of the infobox from another athlete; the first few were a pure mistake, with it getting messed up there.
  2. Regarding the user page, I see why you recommend to just not edit one byte at a time... As an overall advice, it is understandable. But still, how *exactly* is it disruptive?

  (Because it got too narrow) Eitan Drutman (talk) 21:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@Eitan Drutman: (Every quote here is copied from others' messages to you.)

"...other editors...will get in an edit conflict for the entire time you're adding one character at a time to write a single paragraph..."

"You say you don't want someone to delete what you did because they perceive a lack of progress, but you put the article into a state where nobody else can make any progress on an article until you decide that you're happy with your contribution."

"if any other editors have those pages on their watchlists, it is extremely disruptive."

"...adding one letter at a time in mainspace does a huge disservice to any readers who happen to look at the article in the midst of your editing spree."

"...every edit you make sends a notification to everyone who has that page on their watchlist - articles, drafts, noticeboards, every single page..."

"...it also makes reviewing the page history, a crucially important aspect of maintaining and protecting Wikipedia articles, significantly more difficult..."

(And before you pretend like you didn't know this applies to everywhere including your talk page...)

"...stop doing byte-sized edits overall."

"Do not do it. Ever."

I know you read and comprehended those last two because you replied to both. It's proof that you know there's quite literally not a single place on this website where you're allowed to edit like this so that you've kept it up is you being deliberately disruptive. City of Silver 22:47, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Nonsense. We were talking about the main space. Sorry for being rude, but you play yourslef a smart***. Again, we were talking about the main space and I, indeed, see the problem with it now. I wasn't aware of that before, now I do. But still, it does not apply to semi-private stuff of mine like my user-page. That's why I asked to expalin to me how and *why* *exactly* it applies to my user-page as well, if it actually is. Because I can't see it myself.

And you, instead of actually explaining it to me, you just quoted what I already understood ***about the main space***. Or as I said, and again, sorry for being rude, you played yourself a smart***.

If you have an actual, **valid**, reason to why can't I do it on my user-page, I would love to hear it; and maybe I will understand it as well, if I will agree with it, or after a little discussion. Otherwise... well, I'll keep this conversation respectful and keep it for myself.

Thank you. Eitan Drutman (talk) 01:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

You need to reconsider this message, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Knitsey (talk) 01:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I tried my best. It just pissed me off.

1. I censord the 1 kinda not civil word.
2. I told that I have a lot of not civil stuff to say instead of actually saying them.

Apart from that, I think this message is perfectly fine. Eitan Drutman (talk) 01:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Plus, I added now some more censoring. Eitan Drutman (talk) 02:01, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

You've used up your second chance. Indeffed, again. Acroterion (talk) 02:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Your user page is not semi-private. There's a reason multiple, very experienced editors urged you to use the sandbox and not another area. Your user page and talk page are there to facilitate progress on the Wikipedia project. As I said above, Wikipedia is not a fidget spinner. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

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

Regarding User:CriticallyThinking

The user CriticallyThinking has repeatedly ignored feedback regarding edits made to a handful of articles, and regrettably discussion has been reduced to mudslinging on more than one occasion; on this most recent occasion I am attempting to curb falling into this behaviour by warning the user and subsequently filing a report.

For example, on more than one occasion, despite my best efforts to adjust the structure of Tom & Jerry (2021 American film), specifically the visual effects and animation section, the user has often removed quotes I have attempted to embed from sources, in favour of paraphrasing that usually only serves to make the relaying of information more confusing. It has sometimes come down to hasty edits to the page for the sake of dominance.

Here is a passage I worked on embedding quotes from in order to make the production process of the film clearer:

Revision as of 20:22, 23 July 24

To evoke the original Tom and Jerry shorts' character designs, movements, and expressions, animation director Michael Eames stated that Framestore "developed new rigs that enabled us to squash, stretch, and at times totally deform the characters." A 2D draw-over phase was introduced in which 2D artists guided the 3D animators with hand-drawn poses and expressions of the characters over a rough edit. Eames explained that the draw-overs were a reference for the 3D animators to "refine and better sculpt shapes we were not fully able to achieve in the production process." An automated tool was also developed to generate 2D outlines into the models. Story described this technique as "2D-plus animation."

This was admittedly my preferred iteration of the paragraph. During our dispute, CriticallyThinking would make changes that were grammatically poor, complicated the intent of the original source and removed those quotes.

Revision as of 20:29, 23 July 24

To evoke the original Tom and Jerryshorts' character designs, movements, and expressions, and their 2D finish,the production introduced software for every traditional animation technique, ranging from the models' outlines to their deforming potential. A 2D draw-over phase was also introduced, where 2D sketchviz artists guided the 3D animators with hand-drawn poses and expressions of the characters over a rough edit. Animation director Michael Eames explained that it's to help "refine and better sculpt shapes we were not fully able to achieve in the production process", to bypass CGI's creative limitations and replicate their 2D execution.  Story described this technique as "2D-plus animation."

This was quite frustrating, as not only were what I felt were concise and easy-to-follow quotations being removed, but they were being replaced with passages that were hastily written without much thought, and contained an implicit and recurring bias that frequently veered into original research despite defences to the contrary.

Thus, I am adding this topic to protect the sanctity and integrity of my own contributions, and to hopefully take a step toward preventing further disruptions like this again. I would also like feedback on how I could have handled a situation like this differently, because I think I could have prevented it from becoming quite so volatile in hindsight. Thank you. Ciscocat (talk) 22:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Read the paragraphs and the cited sources again. You are outright trying to re-write history and removed insightful information and sources that proved the direction and how high the demands were for the production and animation. Admins, because of you, protected this page from vandalism and called you out for being biased. In the end, you'd be better off seeking therapy rather than throwing a fit because it's not done your way. CriticallyThinking (talk) 22:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

If it wasn't for how obsessive you are over stalking me day after day, which you always do on every social media platform I am in, you wouldn't have an issue and moved on with your life. Regardless of how you feel, the production behind it innovated and was a first-ever attempt at a CGI workflow cloning the look and feel of traditional 2D and with many software tools introduced to achieve the part. This isn't me trying to make the film look like it's postivitely received. It's just a fact behind its production, and the sources proved it. Take it with a grain of salt and move on, because it's better than being a biased, uneducated vandal. CriticallyThinking (talk) 22:44, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't exactly have a horse in this fight, but can you cool it with the personal attacks? MiasmaEternal☎ 22:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

If you did not have a history of attacking peers of mine, unprompted, across multiple platforms (because people would not defend the 2021 Tom & Jerry film and you would literally beg them to like it) and gotten yourself temporarily suspended a number of times, I would not have gotten myself involved. Any flippant jokes I may have made were in response to your behavioural pattern of harassment, insults and self-victimization, and a shared amusement/frustration among those communities. Also plagiarism, which is why moderators removed you from Letterboxd and a good reason to be concerned about you editing Wikipedia. Ciscocat (talk) 00:47, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

And one thought off the top for you: you had better, right the heck now, take a look at WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. You've already had a block for edit warring, in your short Wikipedia career, and an insult like you just levied against Ciscocat is blockworthy in of itself. Stop that at once. Ravenswing 22:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Please explain to me how embedding quotes directly from a crew member is rewriting history. And no admin has ever admonished me for being biased in this ordeal. On the other hand, considering your opinion on this film is very apparent in spaces such as the edit logs–

"Stop throwing a fit because a movie you didn't like managed to be unique."

"Creative and artistic liberties are shown, regardless of how much you want to re-write history."

–I would say you’re leading with a certain agenda. You’ve also demonstrated that you have misread the sources you have often coveted by, for instance, referring to it as “the first project in all of animation to introduce software for 2D animation techniques.” You have amalgamated sources and came to a conclusion that does not exist within them, or taken phrases that were partial or subjective and extrapolated them as fact (i.e. believing that the visual effects vendor’s description of the animation as “hyperkinetic” is factual). Ciscocat (talk) 22:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

One thought right off the top, without respect to the issue of your complaint: there's no protection to be had for the "sanctity" or "integrity" of your contributions. Any articlespace edit you make is subject to being changed, replaced or removed, and we all agree to that as a precondition of any edit we make. Ravenswing 22:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you. Ciscocat (talk) 23:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you. Ciscocat (talk) 23:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

There was a very long drawn-out edit war between these two users on 23 July at Tom & Jerry (2021 American film) that required an admin to fully-protect that article for a week. It looks like some of that edit-warring behavior between the two has since carried over to The Looney Tunes Show, albeit to a lesser extent. The reported user has a history of being blocked for edit-warring, though that doesn't exonerate the filing editor's conduct from being examined as well; it takes two to tango. We may need to consider topic bans and/or blocks from specific articles, especially if this behavior persists. For feedback on handling this type of situation, it's simple; don't edit war, and use the article talk page. Left guide (talk) 22:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify, this heated dispute is over Tom & Jerry (2021 American film)? I just want to be sure because it's not stated in the initial complaint. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@Liz: Well yes, mostly, at least from the on-wiki perspective, which is the lens through which I made my initial reply. From reading this thread, it also appears that these two users have had skirmishes with each other on other websites, and their "rivalry" has spread to this site. Pinging @Star Mississippi: who made the full protection, in case you might have additional insight as to what's going on. Left guide (talk) 05:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Zero interest in article content; it appears that CriticallyThinking’s version is simply subpar at a WP:MOS and grammatical level, introducing syntax errors, (unencyclopedic) introduction of contractions, and jargon. Julietdeltalima (talk) 23:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Is there a way that can be rectified? Ciscocat (talk) 20:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Some insults/name-calling have come my way.

Just face history and re-writing it won't change anything. Find something better to do than to stalk people on the internet, even after deliberately cutting ties with an egotistical jerk. At this point, I can assume you're either a bot or a troll. CriticallyThinking (talk) 01:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply] Ciscocat (talk) 01:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

User:清风与明月 multiple issues

I have been attempting to improve several articles as of late that pertain to Chinese literary figures, particularly female poets and the like. In doing so, I have noticed that User:清风与明月 seems to be engaged in activity that appears to be pushing a point of view at best and censorship at worst. Particularly, the user in question has been scrubbing any mention of courtesan from several articles as well as removing sourced statements from articles that do not agree with their stated agenda. Often, their insertions or re-writes actually damages the quality of the article. Some brief examples I have run into:

• [24]They remove a sourced statement about the Qinhuai Pleasure District with no explanation as to why.
• [25] Again, with no explanation as to why they deleted a sourced statement
• [26] While this removal did appear to be valid in terms of the content being removed definitely being WP:OR, they still made no summary as to why it was removed.
• [27]They arbitrarily renamed the article as part of what seems to be a wider pattern of trying to erase the word courtesan from several areas of Wikipedia. An activity which they were warned about[28] here.
• The entire Gējì article is filled with numerous quality problems and so many insistences that Gējì were not prostitutes that it feels like WP:BLUDGEON and WP:SOAPBOX. They routinely insert sources which are not properly formatted, nor does the content of the massive article and its 200+ citations meet the quality standards of Wikipedia.
• They arbitrarily rename the page Gējì with the justification that Gējì was used in Ancient China, but Yiji wasn't. [29] despite Wikipedia:Use modern language
• Likewise, some of the content seems to be copied and translated without attribution to [[30]]
• Likewise, on the Gu Hengbo article, they have continued with the same pattern, adding unsourced information [31], removing the word courtesan and Yiji [32], and removing sourced content with no explanation [33] as well as modifying content seemingly to 'sanitize' it [34], sometimes adding quality issues [35] to the article.
• Their activity has likewise been discussed [36] here, where they state I have a comprehensive understanding of the culture of ancient Chinese gejis, most of the dancing women described by ancient Chinese literati were singing and dancing artists. So in the wiki related to art and culture, I don't want to further confuse them with high-class prostitutes, which is both a statement of purpose and an assertion that they essentially know better than the sources that are calling them courtesans.

I'm bringing this to the admin noticeboard because they are doing this across multiple articles on the Wiki, to the point that it is going to take an exhausting amount of time to correct the problems they've created. They have already been warned about WP:OR and WP:CENSORSHIP, but they have continued on regardless. I have been doing what I can in some articles to undo the damage, but the amount of work needed to fix the Gējì article now is massive. Brocade River Poems 23:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, BrocadeRiverPoems, you are supposed to come to ANI if other forms of resolution have failed. I don't see that you discussed these problems on their User talk page, have you discussed this on an article talk page or in a dispute resolution process? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I came to ANI because other people already tried to discuss the problems with the user and they continued to engage in the same behavior after the fact. The sheer number of articles they have edited and the amount of problems they have introduced in their edits is beyond the scope of being able to reasonably discuss them with them, and previous discussions they were involved in resulted in no change in their behavior. Their issues were discussed here and here in January here, which I saw when I went to their talk page as well as a warning for edit warring. Given the chronic and widespread nature of their edits across a multitude of articles, I did not anticipate that I would need to create a fourth discussion with them about why this conduct isn't appropriate on Wikipedia. I also do not know what dispute resolution process could be utilized for such a wide spread problem that has recurred after multiple different discussions that have told the user to stop engaging in this conduct and the user has persisted in the conduct across such a wide array of articles. Brocade River Poems 00:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the question of whether courtesan is a synonym for prostitute, I did not say that the two must be equated. I have mentioned many times that in English, all are called courtesan, so it is impossible to further distinguish more content. Ordinary people cannot understand the content directly like scholars. Regarding this, the question of courtesan, I stopped revising it when I learned that India used courtesan and prostitute to distinguish. As for other people's questions about courtesan and prostitutes in ancient China, as well as Geji, I have also communicated with others. Except for a few individuals, others have not said that this cannot be further explained and distinguished. I am also very sad. Not only you, I also hate to make revisions again. I can only say that China did not insist on distinguishing geisha and courtesan like Japan, and China did not strictly distinguish between courtesan and prostitute like India and Pakistan. In ancient China, they were all called courtesan in this way. All of them were courtesan, or most of them were courtesan. Sex workers and female artists were all called courtesan. Ordinary people really cannot understand more content as well as scholars who write books. I really have no ill intentions. I am actually more angry than you. You are not Chinese and do not understand this culture. I have learned about this profession and I also like this kind of female artist culture. I am 10,000 times more uncomfortable than you. 清风与明月 (talk) 19:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

For the record, I am not attempting to get the Geji article, or any of the articles deleted. I am contending that you have been told multiple times that your behavior was inappropriate and you continued to engage in the activities after you had been told as much. You were told when you were editing topics about Indian courtesans that you couldn't just go removing the word courtesan because you don't like it [37], you were warned for edit warring over this [38] where you were removing courtesan for dancing girls [39], you were told here [40] that you needed to source these claims, you were told here [41] that your changes appeared to be WP:OR, you were invited to write on the subject to fill in the gaps with Chinese language sources, but you did not seem to understand what was being suggested to you here [42]. You apparently did not understand what you were supposed to do and improve with your draft article and resubmitted it without changes, which resulted in you being accused of wasting people's time [43] here.

There appears to be a serious case of WP:CIR at work here that is damaging to the enyclopedia as you seem to not be fully understanding what is being explained to you. If you are Chinese with proficiency in the Chinese language, might I suggest that you might find more fertile ground editing the Chinese wiki found here? Brocade River Poems 19:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

There are also lists of people on Wikipedia, such as lists of female poets and female artists. I have also kept geji for this, because this list is a big summary, which is convenient for users who want to know more about each person to click on it to learn more. Keeping geji also makes it easier for people who are interested to click on them to learn more about them. 清风与明月 (talk) 05:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The two of us have successfully communicated in a friendly manner and reached a co-editing agreement. 清风与明月 (talk) 05:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

(This is a conduct forum) As for the content, it seems correct that the word "yìjì" (here 藝妓) is probably a misnomer: I understand it specifically to mean geisha, a Japanese occupation. I'm not sure if "gējì" is an improvement or a term used by English language sources, and the article is linked in the language switcher to a zh.wp redirect to their article zh:交際花, the en.wp version of which is courtesan (although it's not a close translation). Meanwhile, zh:歌妓 (gējì) is a redirect to the zh.wp version of sing-song girls.

No comment yet on conduct: haven't followed the diffs. Folly Mox (talk) 03:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware that this is a place for conduct issues. The reason I broached the subject here is because of their conduct. Particularly, the conduct which is problematic is their removal of sourced statements with no explanation as to why, their continued sanitization of articles because they believe the word courtesan to be synonymous with prostitute and their removal in one instance of "the Qinhuai River district of Nanjing", and instead leaving that she was in the in the Chongzhen reign area of Nanjing, and at times erasing "Qinhuai Pleasure District" (which the sources use) or removing the word courtesan when the sources use the word courtesan. The Gējì article's overzealous attempts at denying gējì are prostitutes comes across as forced. There are over 70 mentions of the word prostitute in the article, and over 200 sources used on the article. I did not post here because of a content dispute, I posted here because the user in question has repeatedly ignored previous discussions and warnings about their insistence on removing or changing the wording that the sources use. Mostly, there seems to be a serious case of WP:CIR A mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess that needs to be cleaned up. When patterns of behavior emerge that indicate an editor might not be capable of making constructive contributions to the encyclopedia, it may be necessary for the community to intervene. The user has been told in multiple discussions that they should stop doing this, they have been reverted, and have been involved in at least two discussions where it was explained to them that their opinion or understanding of things doesn't mean they can change the words of the sources, and they've continued doing so. Brocade River Poems 04:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

BrocadeRiverPoems, my apologies, the "conduct forum" text preceding my earlier comment was a self-own directed at my own failure to engage with the conduct issues you'd laid out. I suppose I didn't make that sufficiently clear by juxtaposing it with a comment on content. You've certainly painted a picture of an editor whose approach requires adjustment. Folly Mox (talk) 11:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh, it's alright. I'm not upset or anything about it, I just realized from the (this is a conduct forum) statement that it could seem that I have some objection to the content, but it's not the content. I think defining Geji is reasonable, as Geisha are so defined on Wikipedia. So I wanted to clarify that my problem was with the conduct of the user who from their responses to prior attempts to discuss their issues does not appear to fully understand what is being explained to them, and so continued doing what they had been doing. Assuming good faith, I think it might be a case of WP:CIR, particularly language issues. However, the sheer volume of edits that they have made in this way is damaging to the enyclopedia, and at times very much veering into the realm of unintentional (I imagine) WP:TEND in the sense that they're engaging in WP:RGW, WP:REMOVECITE, and WP:INADEQUATECITE. Brocade River Poems 11:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, please do not delete the Wikipedia of "Geji", it will be improved and modified later. And about the introduction of some Geji in ancient China, their occupations and the regions they came from, I think it is not necessary to describe the occupations and regions in each article, it is more convenient to directly link to the "Geji" Wikipedia. Reference materials and content will be gradually supplemented. Because I have too many things to do recently, I have not improved the Wikipedia of "Geji" for the time being. The current content is just an outline, and reference materials will definitely be supplemented and improved later. What I want to say is that the word "Yiji" was not used in ancient China, and it should not be used as an entry name.

I am not against "courtesan", but because in English, for ancient Chinese professions, English calls ancient Chinese high-class prostitutes and female artists "courtesan", and everyone calls them "courtesan", which makes it difficult to distinguish their specific information intuitively. Because related professions in China are not strictly distinguished between courtesan and prostitute in English like India and Pakistan. It is also not like Japan, which only uses its own words to distinguish between courtesan and geisha. So I just want to clarify the specific difference. Calling them all "courtesan" is easy to cause misunderstanding.

I did not say that the "Geji" in ancient China did not participate in prostitution at all, but that they were different from high-class prostitutes. I have not yet added that some of them were also involved in prostitution and some were sexually exploited, because I was too busy and sick recently, so I did not have time to add relevant content. Please do not delete all my edits. I really edited them carefully and ensured that the content information would be relatively accurate. I really studied this culture. I think that if there is ambiguity, different content should be added, rather than deleting all the edits. Reference materials can be replaced and supplemented, rather than deleting content. 清风与明月 (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I know that the word "courtesan" is used in English articles and materials. I just want to leave a Geji entry for popular science. At the same time, I want to link the Geji figures who have influenced ancient Chinese art and culture directly to the Geji wiki for easy and intuitive reading. I am not saying that the English word "courtesan" is bad, nor that there is anything wrong with using courtesan in English literature, but many women in ancient China were generally called "courtesan", which is really not easy to distinguish further occupations.Let me give you an example. Du Shiniang was a prostitute. She was a sex worker, and her prostitution targets were rich people. She was called a "courtesan" in English. Female artists like Li Shishi were also connected to the emperor and the court. She was also called a "courtesan" in English, so it is not easy to distinguish between the two. Scholars who have studied Chinese culture use courtesan in English and can intuitively understand which one it is and the difference between the two. But for ordinary people, who have not studied it specifically, they will not understand the difference between the two. They are both "courtesans", so what is the difference? Because ordinary people are not like scholars, it may be necessary to explain this further. 清风与明月 (talk) 19:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I just want to keep a systematic "Geji" Wikipedia as a popular science, and it will be improved soon. Regarding sexual exploitation and forced prostitution, these will also be written up, and I really don't intend to whitewash or beautify their profession. I ask you not to delete the content of Geji's Wikipedia. You can add different opinions, but please don't delete things. If there are better reference materials, you can add them, and you can also let others add them. I can also look for them again, but just don't delete the content. 清风与明月 (talk) 19:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I will add more content and find more appropriate references. It is not a malicious modification. So I also agree to use courtesan for some female artists' Wikipedia entries, which is more standard and more beautiful. But I think it is inappropriate to change all the content of “Geji” 's Wikipedia entry to courtesan, because Geji is a further interpretation of the identities of some ancient Chinese female artists. Ordinary people cannot understand it directly like scholars, so it really needs more or less an article to introduce this in more detail. I will change the Wikipedia entries of other female artists back to courtesan myself, so you don't have to work hard, to avoid you thinking that I made malicious modifications. 清风与明月 (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Please do not change the Wikipedia entries of other female artists back to courtesan myself. I agree with your sentiment that if we allow Geisha to be defined as Geisha, we should allow for Geji to be defined as Geji, but you have to accept that a majority of sources available to use refer to Geji as a type of Courtesan. It is appropriate to list Geji as Geji, but the issue is that we cannot scrub all mention of the word courtesan when the sources are defining them as a type of courtesan. If you want to work together collaboratively, you have been invited to do so in the past. My main concern is that you are not fully understanding what people are explaining to you since you have continued to do things you had been told to stop doing. If you want to provide Chinese sources and offer translation to those sources, you can utilize the talkpage to furnish them and I can add them to the articles in a way that meets the quality standards of Wikipedia, if you wish. Brocade River Poems 19:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I have communicated with the other party and reached an agreement on effective communication and co-editing. Regarding the issue of words, I have changed many Wikipedia entries from "geji" to "courtesan", which is indeed more convenient and easy for the public to read. The reason why some Wikipedia entries have not been changed back is because I want to expand other content, and I will change them back when I expand soon. However, for entries like "Li Pingxiang", I decided to keep the word "geji". Her experience is more complicated. In her era, using geji can better distinguish her from ordinary "Changsan". There is an article in the Chinese reference material that describes her as "Yiji", but now the word Yiji is first used for Japanese geishas in Chinese, so I use geji here. There are also pages like Chinese attractions, which involve related content. The Chinese introduction directly writes geji or singing girl, so I also keep the word geji on the pages about Chinese attractions. For some fictional novels and characters written by ancient people, I also keep geji, such as those related to Water Margin and Peach Blossom Fan. I have explained this issue before or in the "Geji" entry. The "Geji" Wikipedia is also being improved. I need to say that most of the more than 200 references are not in violation of the rules. The most they may be is that they are not the first book references. I am also gradually translating the ancient Chinese references into English. References from other Chinese news websites can be opened directly and automatically translated. There are not many permission requirements for articles published on such Chinese news websites. As long as they are not used in their entirety and only a small amount or part of the content is quoted, they can be used to participate in the editing of the encyclopedia. As long as the link is brought over and it is stated that it is a quotation, it does not constitute an infringement of these Chinese news websites. For example, articles from these Chinese news websites are often used to improve China's Baidu Encyclopedia. These Chinese news websites have always agreed to be used as references for various encyclopedias, as long as comply with the above regulations. 清风与明月 (talk) 05:28, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I want to clarify that the term "sing song girl" is not the English translation of a Chinese singing girl. This is a historical legacy. The English term "sing song girl" is actually about "Chang San", a sex worker in China during the late Qing Dynasty and the Republic of China. I hope that when you change the Wikipedia of some ancient Chinese women, you can add other documents, or change the term "Geji" back to "courtesan", but please don't delete the version I have improved. The content is fine, and it is just a dispute over the use of words. I used to edit the entry related to "Indian courtesan", but later I learned that India and Pakistan have a strict distinction between courtesan and prostitute, so I did not change it again. But the ancient Chinese are different. They are all called courtesan in English, and there is no strict distinction between courtesan and prostitute, such as the examples of Du Shiniang and Li Shishi, so I made a systematic improvement. It is really not a malicious edit. I just want to give a little respect to women who have contributed to ancient Chinese art and culture, and I don't want them to be confused with high-level sex workers, because ordinary people really can't understand it directly like scholars. 清风与明月 (talk) 19:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Per User:Liz's comment and recent discussion with the user, I wish to withdraw my complaint. While I do think the user is unintentionally damaging the encyclopedia, I jumped the gun on going to ANI because I assumed the user had been involved in enough discussions telling them to stop that I would achieve nothing by attempting to do myself. Brocade River Poems 20:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Buster7\sandbox/Kamala

User:Buster7\sandbox/Kamala This was in the mainspace. No idea if the well-established autopatrolled account is compromised or if there are previous issues, but this seems completely unacceptable and needs swift action. Fram (talk) 13:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

They're a non-Trump supporting Republican, so. SerialNumber54129 13:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

A few more of these seemingly non-encyclopedia-related political invective sandbice: User:Buster7/sandbox-Trump lawyers, User:Buster7/sandbox- MAGA. jp×g🗯️ 14:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I thought the plural of sandbox was sandboxen. EEng 14:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

For the record I mostly do not care if people have weird or dumb stuff in their userspace, Lord knows I do. For the sake of BLP, I don't know, maybe we could just find-replace all the LYIN' HILLARY and MOSCOW DONNIE stuff with "guy #1" "guy #2" etc. Is this anything? jp×g🗯️ 15:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Members of The Osmonds would work. SerialNumber54129 15:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Allowing some dumb stuff is one thing, but a ton of this seems to violate WP:POLEMIC even outside of the severe BLP violations. There also looks to be extensive copyvio here, pasting entire paragraphs from other (often uncited) websites. There's also User:Buster7/False Biden memory claims, User:Buster7/Sandbox-Paid Operatives, User:Buster7/Great Replacement Theory, User:Buster7/King v Burwell, User:Buster7/Sandbox-Walmart, User:Buster7/OBAMA, User:Buster7/On Tyranny by Timothy Snyder, User:Buster7/On Tyranny by Timothy Snyder, and plenty more at Special:PrefixIndex/User:Buster7/. Since it's in Userspace I think we can give a little time to respond on most of it, but a lot of it probably needs to be deleted as U5, G10, or G12. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

No comment on the other speedy deletion criteria, but in my reading U5 doesn't apply when the editor has edited constructively outside of userspace (i.e. they have to be a "non-contributor" for U5 to apply). I suppose the purpose of that condition is to give an experienced contributor a chance to defend their pages to the community at MfD or similar, whereas someone who never does anything but use their userspace to host their RPG stats or something needs no such opportunity. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 19:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

As the two articles I mentioned have now been deleted, I will now clarify that they did not actually say "Lyin' Hillary" or "Moscow Donny" or anything of that nature -- they just had a bunch of claims about how a variety of politicians were lame and crappy etc (which I assume everybody here would have agreed with at least one or two of). jp×g🗯️ 19:56, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked. The Kamala article is so out-of-line and seemingly also out-of-charcter for this user that I've blocked as possibly compromised. A user on their very first day here should know better than to post something like that. The older page probably qualified as an attck page but the one today was way, way worse. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  For the record, after reviewing this a bit more: the Kamala page is also a copyvio, the entire thing is word-for-word from an article written by conspiracy theorist Josh Hammer. So, I guess it is possible Buster intended to use this for something, but I can't imagine what unless it was to write about examples of the lowest type of foaming-at-the-mouth rhetoric that still manages to get published somehow. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  Well: the one titled "Trump lawyers" said:

  • MAGA in a nutshell: loud, threatening and, in the end, impotent"

  His own userpage had (still has, as of right now):

  • "The last time...despite knowing every evil he committed...74 million people still voted for Trump."

  The one titled "MAGA" said:

  • "An elephant or other large entity, such as a former president, having been rejected by the voting masses, isolated in his Florida castle, living alone and apart from the herd, and having savage or destructive tendencies toward all who have ever slighted him"

  It seems to me like calling Kamala:

  • "intellectually challenged and an empty vessel for Democrats to project their basest desires"

  is around the same tier of thing. Why would this indicate a compromised account? jp×g🗯️ 07:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with JPxG, I don't see anything here that implies that a compromised account. The page referenced in the complaint initially was in mainspace because they mistyped a slash, I don't think it was deliberately published to mainspace. The userpages aren't great but they do fit into the user's general contributions dating back to approx 2013. Sohom (talk) 09:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I've requested a quick CU (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations#Compromised account check) to check if the account is actually compromised. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 06:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we need the busy work stuff at SPI. FYI Just Step Sideways, Buster7 'confirms' confirms they're in control of the account. SerialNumber54129 12:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Imo, this was a heavy handed and bad block to begin with. There wasn't any actual evidence of a compromise, just a few userpages that looked odd and a obvious mistyped slash. Instead of waiting for an actual explanation from the editor, we jumped straight into "what if this is a compromised autopatrolled editor". :( Sohom (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. (WP:BLOCK) With compromised accounts, damage can be any amount at any time, and from what I can grasp, it looked like a big serving of Wiki disruption was on the way, with those pages. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 13:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

The various user sandbox pages have been accumulating over years. Buster7's editing track record points to the opposite: no disruption was imminent. I agree that any copyright violations should be dealt with, but a block isn't necessary in my view, when the content in question was being collected in user space as potential sources for future content. (I agree with the suggestion made on Buster7's talk page that it would better to keep this information off-wiki somewhere.) isaacl (talk) 16:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• It's clear now that the Buster account was not compromised. He showed poor judgment but it was a mistake, and I am sure it won't be repeated. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  It's morning where I am and I've just logged back on for the day. As it does appear Buster is still in control of the account and that was the sole reason for the block I have unblocked them. The rest of these weird sandbox pages are a different issue, but we probably don't need to discuss them here when WP:MFD is a thing. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  When I say "he showed poor judgment," I am doing so on the basis of how the page in question was characterized. I have not seen it. If Buster made a mistake I am sure he won't repeat it. He is a longtime editor and scrupulous. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  Just a note that this kind of thing happened to me a few years back, although I wasn't blocked. I was working on an article about the history of climate deniers in my user space, and a fairly new user at the time (they are still pretty active and well known in the climate change space, but I won't name them) indirectly alluded to my work and misinterpreted what I was doing as promoting climate denial. I think, even to this day, this user thinks I'm pro-climate denial, which is somewhat funny. So I can sympathize with Buster7 here. Viriditas (talk) 23:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Let me just say while I have the chance and the inclination to be more than a Malcolm Milquetoast waiting for people to step on my feet and then thanking them for the privilege of their attention. In the words of Coach Walz....."Why don't you people mind your own bizness"!!!! I am determined to make a nice big pitcher of Lemonade out of this fiasco, drink it all down and move forward. Someone I admire said I should be Proud to be Blocked. I'll work toward that state of mind over time as I bump into other ex-cons along the road. Anyway. I needed to say that. I hope you wont tell my parole officer! Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 12:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Doping in China, WADA, USADA, Doping in the United States

Similar concerns have been raised earlier, but now a group of editors with strong views on the ongoing WADA vs USADA feud have started pushing their version of events to other articles as well. The problem here is that they ignore what the RS say, misrepresent facts and frequently rely on unreliable sources to back their claims of a supposed "doping scandal" in the United States, while diminishing or outright denying the existence of one in China. The problem is that the Chinese doping scandal is widely covered by RS, of which the latest WADA accusations against USADA are a part of. These editors even fail to mention that the alleged cover-up by USADA involved drug cheats that were used as undercover agents to catch other drug cheats, not to allow them to win medals for the United States despite having committed anti-doping violations.

Some reliable sources on the matter: With the Summer Olympics in full swing, sports anti-doping agencies escalate feud, Athletes undercover? Global and U.S. anti-doping agencies clash over tactics, WADA, USADA clash over American agency’s use of ‘undercover agents’ to catch drug cheats

An example of an unreliable source they use: [44]

And the main issue is that these editors (while failing to even format refs properly) write entire paragraphs based solely on what WADA say or claim, obviously taking anything they put out at face value, which is wrong given that they are not an uninvolved party. Example:

In one instance, an athlete, who competed in Olympic qualifiers and international events in the United States, admitted to taking performance-enhancing drugs such as steroids and erythropoietin, but they were allowed to continue competing until retirement.Despite the confession, the athlete was not punished. In another instance involving a top athlete, USADA failed to inform WADA about its decision to lift the athlete's provisional suspension—a decision that can be appealed—even though the Code mandates such notification. If WADA had been informed, it would not have permitted this action.

Thank you for your help. Pizzigs (talk) 07:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

References

@Pizzigs: Can you please provide usernames of the group of editors who you believe are causing problems? (and notify them accordingly). Many uninvolved editors and admins aren't willing to do the digging for things they are unfamiliar with, and it's unlikely for administrative action to be taken unless we know who's causing problems. Also, this noticeboard doesn't adjudicate content or source reliability, only user conduct. Left guide (talk) 07:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

This issue is currently being addressed on the talk page on World Anti-Doping Agency. [45] User repeatedly violated WP:NOPA by labeling other editors who disagree with their arguements "pro-China editors." [46] Despite being warned about avoiding personal attacks [47], user continued to engage in such behavior by saying "pro-China edits that include propaganda sources" [48].

Additionally, the user has been involved in edit warring and violated the three-revert rule by making five changes:[49] [50] [51][52][53]

I’m an editor involved in the disagreement regarding the article about the World Anti-Doping Agency and am making an effort to remain patient, but it’s evident that the other user not interested in building consensus. LilAhok (talk) 07:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

LilAhok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), TinaLees-Jones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), GaussianTW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), MingScribe1368 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pizzigs (talk • contribs) 07:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

All users are involved with China-related articles and follow a similar editing pattern. Pizzigs (talk) 07:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@LilAhok:, I cannot in good faith debate with an army of pro-China editors who do not address any of the issues raised. I believe your approach is fundamentally incorrect, as it involves an uncritical acceptance of WADA's claims, and ignores what RS say about the WADA vs USADA conflict and its link to the Chinese doping scandal. Pizzigs (talk) 07:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Having the ability to make an egregious slanderous and vile accusation, surely this can be a natural person's right. This is of course contrary to the current rules of Wikipedia's use. As with drug use, each country applies a different standard. And I certainly can't fathom a country that doesn't have laws and rules to control fentanyl, any more than USADA goes against WADA's rules to use people who plead guilty to being a mole. And all of the above has been comprehensively reported by either CNN or BBC or Reuters, and I don't think it's against Wikipedia's rules to cite them. Unlike your position, I am willing to communicate with anti-Asian racists. TinaLees-Jones (talk) 08:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

My statement regarding the futility of debating pro-China editors still stands. Instead of addressing the specifics of my concerns you keep resorting to the most pathetic and disingenuous ad hominem attacks one can ever imagine. Could you clarify what makes me an "anti-Asian racist"? The willingness not to uncritically accept WADA's and CHINADA's positions? You got me. Pizzigs (talk) 08:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Dear fellow editor User:Pizzigs, I urge you to respect the rules of Wikipedia, which you have violated WP:3RR by [54] [55] [56][57][58]. Wishing you a good editorial day! TinaLees-Jones (talk) 08:16, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Everyone needs to stop edit-warring on that page, World Anti-Doping Agency, including you, before an admin locks it down, and editors start getting blocked. I count eight reverts by three editors since yesterday, August 9. Content disputes must be discussed and settled on the talk page. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I counted exactly three reverts from User:Pizzigs (The first and fourth link you posted are not). There is no 3RR violation here. BrokenSquarePiece ^{(complete me)} 09:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, flat out: do not accuse someone of being racist without some strong evidence. Unsupported accusations like that are a personal attack and can result in you being blocked. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Read the talk page. Your concerns have been addressed there. LilAhok (talk) 08:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

As noted in the initial report, this appears to be an extension of the "Doping in China" issue above (permalink). Courtesy pings to those who participated there @Normchou, Liz, Snow Rise, Johannesvdp, Donkey Hot-day, Remsense, Allan Nonymous, and Red-tailed hawk: Left guide (talk) 08:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I can only contribute the following observations as an uninvolved party looking in on the issue, though they are telling: after the previous report was opened here last week regarding the Doping in China article, I took a look at the situation there, and the evidence of a sizeable swarm of sock and meat puppets was pretty substantial: numerous accounts registered within days or a couple of weeks of the dispute, plus numerous IP users all geolocating to the same area, and all of these accounts edit warring towards the same massive re-working of the article which attempted to remove or recontextualize reports unfavourable to China's image, and predicate every last negative statement that wasn't removed with unencyclopedic soapboxing about how the accusations should be viewed. Even the lead sentence was reworked to say basically "If China has a doping problem, it's not as bad as that of the United States", where such claim (even if it were appropriate to the lead sentence, which its not) seemed to be based on dubious WP:SYNTH reading of cherrypicked sources.

The members of the massive SOCK/MEAT farm were also typically SPAs, registered after the dispute started and showing up for this one article or just a handful of articles all relating to Chinese public image. The behaviour of a number of the accounts was also problematic even if they weren't WP:ILLEGIT: there's been a fair bit of bludgeoning on the talk page and a number of WP:PAs and WP:ASPERSIONS there, in the edit history and here at ANI, particularly when it comes to blanket statements that all resistance to the edits this group wishes to make can only be explained by bias and Sinophobia, but also just more general denigration of their opposition among other editors.

All of which is to say, this is about a clear a case of WP:DUCK as I think I have ever seen. My recommendation in the previous thread was to take this matter to SPI, as I think the evidence is so strong that checkuser requests might not even be necessary: a lot of these accounts could probably be blocked on behavioural evidence alone. I don't wish to get drawn into the war of words between the farm and the group of editors attempting to check them, some of whom have speculated that this farm could be constituted by 50 Cent Army workers; that suspicion may not be entirely irrelevant to an analysis here, but its also not really necessary to reach the (in my view, fairly obvious) conclusion that this sudden coordinated effort by numerous new accounts involves a lot of abuse of multiple accounts, and off-project coordination/canvassing.

All that said, whether the community decides to engage with the deeper question of whether or not this is a weak tea example of organized state-sponsored propaganda or a smaller group of individuals with their own agenda, the scale is significant enough that I think you could argue that this situation is a test of our responsiveness to the type of efforts that are likely to become more and more common and pronounced for the project as time goes on. So my feeling is that the community should not keep kicking the can on this one. That said, I'm confused as to why we now have two reports of this issue on ANI right now from those tangling with the apparent farm, and yet still no effort to raise the issues at SPI, as would seem appropriate. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:47, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Snow Rise. Rather than deal with one editor, one edit, one article at a time, a report should be filed at WP:SPI by those familiar with what is going on here. If it is an organized sockfarms, it's more than one ANI complaint (or two) can deal with by a patrolling admin. It's just too extensive. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Many uninvolved editors and admins aren't willing to do the digging for things they are unfamiliar with, Sure, Pizz has got 3 names above, and I found 1 and an IP, but people aren’t going to be convinced that they’ve got all the names. SPI names want as much as possible up front, no?

Hmm. Is it worth throwing all 5 of those at SPI, Yes-ing a CU, and seeing if the Checkies find the rest, like a sleeper check but none actually sleeping? I’m tempted to have a go myself, but would like as many veggies for the pot as I can throw in, if I’m going at this. Oh and, who’s the Sockmaster? MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 09:41, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

The “master” is simply the oldest account among the ones reported. And that can be fixed later if there’s an error. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 10:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I’ll take a history tour down the 3 articles I can see involved. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 11:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

No, it’s easier than that. It’s the registration date of the account that counts. Not when they first engaged in the behavior. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 14:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Folding my cards, on trying to build an SPI on this. Like Liz said, a report should be filed at WP:SPI by those familiar with what is going on here. I thought I was familiar with it, having seen a newuser or two trying to do what seemed to be the same on other articles, but I am definitely not. CIR states the ability to understand their own abilities and competencies, and avoid editing in areas where their lack of skill or knowledge causes them to create significant errors for others to clean up. and it’s become painfully clear to me when looking at 1st August’s entries in that history, that lack of knowledge of this, will create errors. Striking intent to make the SPI. Whoever manages to put this together, don’t miss User:womensupporting ([59]) and User:JohnsonXie123 ([60]) MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 18:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

This revision was just restored by @TinaLees-Jones:. My concerns regarding formatting, bias, misrepresentation of events, and uncritical endorsement of WADA's and China's views remain unaddressed. Pizzigs (talk) 09:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I thought this rung a bell, so went through my contribs. I found a newuser who pulled all Doping related stuff off of China at the Olympics ([61]) which I reverted because their removal removed stuff that was sourced. Cue an IP coming in, and doing the same as the one edit account, later in the day. [62](Might be an NPA concern on that Edit Summary, by the way) it’s this one’s edit summary (Regardless if that perrson opinion is being reported some media.) tat convinces me to chip in again. So, third article that they’ve effected, I guess? MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 14:13, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• Coming here from an ANEW report (Permalink), I've full-protected World Anti-Doping Agency for 3 days to give time to sort out this issue and to prevent the ongoing reverts. If there's evidence of sockpuppetry, an SPI filing would be beneficial so that it can be actioned. I'll try to take a look at that as well, and any admin is free to adjust any administrative action I've taken (the blocks/protection) as needed. - Aoidh (talk) 20:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Similar Disruptive and Biased editing from different IPs, sockpuppets, and single purpose accounts likely owned by one person.

Good morning,

Many Wikipedia pages that discuss the social cohort Generation Z, Millennials, or the broad social cohorts of Generations are lately being edited disruptively to include a bias that goes against WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:UNDUE. This began on July 20, 2024 when I (user:Zillennial) removed one single word in the header of Generation Z following WP:UNDUE. The editing change followed this:

"Researchers and popular media generally use the mid-to-late 1990s as starting birth years" to "Researchers and popular media generally use the late 1990s as starting birth years"1

On Talk:Generation Z, I created a discussion that gained consensus to change the header with two other users who have been contributing (like myself) to the page for years now. The discussion post also gives a warning that vandalism and disruptive editing will be reported. It also spots out a personal attack from one of said single purpose accounts.

Since making the Generation Z header change there have been several unregistered IP addresses, suspicious accounts that are possible sockpuppets, or brand new single purpose accounts being used to disruptively edit in the same information on multiple other Wikipedia pages that pertain to Generations. The list below notes the suspicious activity and accounts that are being used to disruptively edit and vandalize the various pages.

• Micsavege on July 24, 2024 disruptively edited Generation Z multiple times (going against the Talk page consensus).

• Kapartem from August 1, 2024 to August 9, 2024 has been told multiple times that their viewpoint is considered under the Date and Range sub-content area of Generation Z, however they keep creating more discussions on Talk page despite already having their concerns addressed, and viewpoint fairly represented.

• Georgii_Valentinovich is a new account (created on July 31, 2024) that has been disruptively editing the following articles with the same viewpoint as Kapartem: Millennials in the United States, Generation, and Generation Z in the United States.

• 91.224.254.182 is an IP address that made an edit on Generation 7 minutes before Georgii_Valentinovich finalized it. Likely the same person.

• 1.132.24.174 is the same individual as 49.191.53.187 - as noted in my talk page discussion. (copied below)

- The unregistered user (@1.132.24.174) who created the topic on this talk page above is also @49.191.53.187. That IP address originally replied beneath my response 45 minutes before @Wrldfait went and deleted what was written by them. Then replied to me with a personal insult and accusation and the same link included in 49.191.53.187's response.

• Wrldfait is likely one of the IP accounts above. Also personally attacked me by using a clown emoji on the talk page.

--Zillennial (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@Zillennial, have you considered requesting page protection? This seems like exactly the kind of situation it was designed for, especially if the disruption is ongoing. (Not to say this is the wrong board or anything, but protecting the page would hopefully cut down on the driveby IPs and brand new accounts) StartGrammarTime (talk) 07:32, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Looks like some of those pages are locked now. Unfortunately that doesn't fix it entirely because the user @Georgii Valentinovich is now disruptively editing a multitude of pages related to Generation Z and Millennials. Zillennial (talk) 12:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Now indeffed for disruptive editing by Doug Weller. MiasmaEternal☎ 22:41, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Edits to James Longstreet by User:Beyond My Ken

Beyond My Ken has recently begun making changes to the James Longstreet article. I reverted their changes, as I had many objections to them which I outlined on their talk page here. Basically, with their edits, they added information which was unsourced, changed sentences and moved citations around in a matter that corrupted source to text integrity, and made stylistic changes that I felt were unhelpful. These changes included changing the Bibliography section so that the citations and the works cited were all one section and eliminating the sub-sections, which I felt made it more difficult to navigate when editing. My version is permitted by MOS and the article passed featured article candidacy this way. Beyond My Ken also broke up paragraphs in ways that left numerous one-sentence paragraphs alongside much larger paragraphs, which I found to be stylistically and aesthetically problematic. For all of these edits, Beyond My Ken failed to use edit summaries to explain why their version was better. I brought the matter to their user page rather than to the article talk page because I found their corruption of the citations and failure to use edit summaries to be a user conduct issue.

Instead of responding constructively to my criticisms, Beyond my Ken simply re-reverted me. They added some sources to things that weren’t sourced but restored their unhelpful stylistic changes and their damaging edits corrupting the citations in the article, and even adding a new problem with citations by inserting two citations to a new source in the middle of text cited to two different sources without duplicating the original citations. Meanwhile, Beyond My Ken did respond on their user page, but failed to address my concerns about the citations that I had already voiced and did not explain why their stylistic changes constituted improvements. This is against the advice given in Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I reverted again. As I explained here, my objections were not to adding new information and new sources. Rather, my problem is with corrupting the citations already in the article and with making changes to the style that do not appear to be helpful and without a proper explanation. Beyond My Ken has reverted me once again, saying that they removed my latest comment on their user page without having read it.

I have brought the matter here for intervention because it seems as though Beyond my Ken is not interested in explaining their changes and only wants to edit war me into submission, and as I do not wish to get into trouble by continuing to engage with someone who I feel is behaving in a disruptive and uncollaborative manner. Display name 99 (talk) 17:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

On the one hand, it appears to me that User:Beyond My Ken has provided an explanation of his edits at Talk:James Longstreet, which is the preferred place to discuss edits to an article. I see that Beyond My Ken has requested that User:Display name 99 not post to BMK's user talk page, which means that the article talk page is again the preferred place to discuss. On the other hand, if this is a content dispute primarily, and it appears to be a content dispute, I am ready to conduct mediation at DRN. I will start by telling both users not to edit the article while mediation is in progress, and by asking each editor to specify exactly what they either want to change in the article that the other editor wants to leave alone, or what they want to leave unchanged that the other editor wants to change.

Are User:Display name 99 and User:Beyond My Ken agreeable to moderated discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

You write it seems as though Beyond my Ken is not interested in explaining their changes. There's a long explanation of them in the correct place, the article talk page, at Talk:James Longstreet#Well-sourced material being forcibly excluded from this article, posted 5 hours before you posted the above. NebY (talk) 20:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I will add that their recent content additions made after the latest revert, and which I have just looked over now, also appear to have problems. While they are sourced, they consist of adding what is mostly fairly trivial information to an already long article. I also have some concerns with sloppiness; there are two spaces between paragraphs at one point, and a reference to "Teddy Roosevelt" was added to the article without a link. ("Teddy" is also not his official name). Display name 99 (talk) 20:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@Display name 99: "I brought the matter to their user page rather than to the article talk page because I found their corruption of the citations and failure to use edit summaries to be a user conduct issue." Not even considering the WP:AGF issue here (do you really and truly believe BMK is trying to deliberately damage that article?), this was not a good approach. BMK is free to do (just about) anything they want at their user talk, including ignoring and deleting any and all messages others leave there. Even if you preferred not to take it to the article's talk page, you still should have since BMK would not have been allowed to delete your messages there, nor would they have been free to ignore you there while continuing to revert you at the article. City of Silver 20:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I would not be opposed to moderated discussion, but I believe that Beyond My Ken's failure to use edit summaries and continued reverts without explanation warrant a reprimand. NebY, if Beyond My Ken was interested in discussing the edits with me on the talk page, they should have pinged me. Their failure to do so meant that I was unaware of the post. I have since read the message on the talk page and it does not address or attempt to satisfy any of the actual problems that I voiced with the edits. So no, it is apparent to me that Beyond My Ken has no intention of explaining their changes but simply wants them to be accepted without question. This view is strengthened by the fact that they have not only banned me from posting on their talk page but also said that they did not even want me to ping them. Clearly, they are not interested in discussing this with me. Display name 99 (talk) 20:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I very much share Dn99's concern here. This isn't even close to the first time that a good-faith editor has been upset and confounded by Beyond My Ken's refusal to substantially explain what they're doing. If I correctly understand this message by User:Rhododendrites, BMK's edit summary allergy has been a major point of contention for over fifteen years. A lot of this complaint is regarding content but there are behavioral issues that need to be addressed here. City of Silver 20:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

The post directly below that by Buidhe about reference sections rings very true. BMK altered a perfectly fine reference section at the Longstreet article without explanation and ignored my objections that doing so made editing it more difficult. On their user talk page, they simply stated that my objections about style were "noted and rejected as irrelevant," with nothing further. Maybe going to their user page was not a great move on my part, but it doesn't excuse changes to content without explanation and re-reverting without attempting to address the concerns that had been raised. Display name 99 (talk) 20:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Leaving informative edit summaries is a good practice and I recommend it to all editors including Beyond My Ken. But edit summaries are optional and an editor cannot be disciplined for not leaving edit summaries. Editors are not required to explain each edit. The same with pinging, which is often helpful but not required. Some editors complain when they aren't pinged and other editors complain that they are pinged too much. The best place by far to discuss content is on the article talk page, not on user talk pages. Cullen328 (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Sorry if this is me sticking you with a big reading assignment but could you please go through this discussion from last December and give your thoughts? That thread, which is packed with editors (including several administrators) who were all exasperated about this exact issue, makes me think BMK came close to being the exception to the summaries-are-optional rule. That is, if there were a technically feasible way to force summaries on an editor-by-editor basis (and if not for real-life extenuating circumstances), BMK would have been under that restriction for a while now. No? City of Silver 22:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328, I know that edit summaries are not officially required, but they are very strongly encouraged whenever making changes to existing content. Not pinging me on the article talk page was not a technical violation of a rule, but it certainly doesn't indicate a desire to collaborate with me. The same goes for "banning" me from pinging them, which Beyond My Ken also did through a post on my user page. And even accepting that I should have gone to the article talk page rather than to their user talk page, does continuing to revert while largely not addressing the problems that I had with the original edits sound like a good idea to you?

Additionally, regarding Beyond My Ken's changes to the references section, I would like to draw people's attention to a post made on the article talk page here by Isaidnoway, which states that, per MOS:STYLEVAR – When either of two styles is acceptable it is generally considered inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. Unjustified changes from one acceptable, consistently applied style in an article to a different style may generally be reverted. If you believe an alternative style would be more appropriate for a particular article, seek consensus by discussing this at the article's talk page. Isaidnoway then goes on to say that Beyond My Ken's changes to the references should be reverted, and I agree. Display name 99 (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Per Help:Edit summary - According to the consensus policy, all edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious)—either by clear edit summaries, or by discussion on the associated talk page. While this is just an information page, and not a policy/guideline, I would suggest that help page has community consensus, and leaving edit summaries explaining your changes is also considered the communal norm. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd also point out that as recent as January 2024, an editor was blocked with one of the three reasons being "missing and unhelpful edit summaries", which linked to the above help page. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Isaidnoway, there is a very big difference between a missing edit summary, which is not blockable, and a deceptive edit summary which is lying, disruptive editing, and a blockable offense. Cullen328 (talk) 05:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• There is no excuse for DN99 deleting relevant sourced information because of an supposed MoS stylistic problem. I described the sourced information that DN99 was deleting from the article in the correct venue, the article talk page. Because they deleted without proper discussion on the talk page, and on the flimsy pretext of needing to revert stylistic changes to the reference section, I restored my edits, and continued to add more properly sourced information. I haven't been to the article or the talk page since then (and probably won't be able to until Sunday night or Monday) to see if DN99 has deleted that material or the old material again.
  I suspect, however, that DN99 actually gave away their real motivation above when they described my additions as "fairly trivial information". What I'm seeing in this is that DN99 feels a strong WP:OWNERSHIP stake in James Longstreet, and they are repeating the kind of behavior that @El C: partially blocked them for on Andrew Jackson and its talk page. If DN99 feels that the added information is trivial, the place to make that argument is on the article talk page, not on my talk page or on ANI. They do not OWN the article, and cannot make decisions about it ex cathedra simply because they have contributed to it heavily in the past. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, you are still failing to address my primary concerns with your edits: corrupting the citations by adding citations to a new source in the middle of text already cited to other sources while not adjusting the original citations and unhelpful stylistic changes that you did not explain. When referring to trivial information, I was speaking mainly about the content that you have added more recently, not so much what you added originally. I have major problems with your edits and explained them to you clearly. Even if it was not done in the ideal place, you still should have attempted to resolve them somewhere, whether at your talk page or the article talk page, rather than continuing to revert, per BRD. (The post that you eventually made on the article talk page ignored the core concerns that I raised and instead focused on explaining how the content that you added was reliably sourced, which I never questioned.) Instead of discussing these problems with me, you are instead stonewalling me and using whatever weak excuse you conjure up (me posting on your user page instead of the article talk page, bringing up my prior history, etc.) to avoid justifying your problematic changes. Me posting on BMK's talk page may have been a mistake, but it's not the main problem here, and is simply being used as an excuse by the editor to avoid explaining their changes.

Another editor has posted an objection to your changes to the reference section on the Longstreet talk page. Since you are so averse to discussing your edits on your user page, there is an opportunity to justify them in your preferred venue. Will you do it?

New pertinent information and new sources may be added to the article. The Varon book looks interesting and reliable; I have no problem with it being used. But this cannot be done while disrupting existing citations, and one cannot make sweeping changes to the article paragraph structure and references without explanation and while disregarding objections. Display name 99 (talk) 03:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

BMK, you were once a frequent visitor to ANI and you know that the correct response to an editor's complaint is not to ignore their points and make counter-charges against them. Can you respond to the issues they bring up about your edits to this article? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I am not going to block an editor for failing to use edit summaries because use of edit summaries, although encouraged, is optional and is not required by policy. That would be misuse of my administrator's tools. If any editor thinks that use of edit summaries should be mandatory, then they are free to go to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and make that proposal. Only if such a policy change was implemented could an administrator impose a sanction for failure to use an edit summary. Perhaps that policy could be enforced with a software tweak disallowing any edit without a summary. As for formally asking another editor to stay off one's talk page except for required administrative notices, that is a well established practice. I think of myself as a pretty easy going guy usually, but there have been a few occasions over the years when someone was so obnoxious on my user talk page that I made the same request. This is not a policy violation. Same for the ping or don't ping question. Any editor who wants to be pinged can say "please ping me" and any editor who does not want to be pinged can say "please don't ping me" and other editors should try to comply but should not be pilloried if they forget. Heck, I cannot even remember the names of the editors who I asked to stay off my user talk page over the last 15 years. I am 72 and do not hold grudges. The most striking thing that I observe here is that well into this discussion, Display name 99 has still not commented at Talk: James Longstreet. That seems bizarre to me. Perhaps it has something to do with the anti-Wikipedia screed on their user and user talk pages where they rant about the atheist and globalist ideology of the Great Reset, but on the other hand, maybe those two data points are unrelated. In my opinion, Longstreet is one of the most fascinating figures of the American Civil War, and that talk page is the place to discuss improvements to that article, not ANI and not another editor's user talk page. That article should be the best that it can be, and only collaboration on the article talk page can advance that goal. Cullen328 (talk) 04:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328, my underlying point in regards to the January 24 block, was that the blocking admin had linked to Help:Edit summary. In your opinion, do you think that informational page has community consensus? Or can it just be ignored altogether?

But leaving that aside for the moment, in this particular incident, BMK is an experienced user who knows that the communal norm is to always leave an edit summary explaining your edits. And per our editing policy, an editor should be helpful and explain their changes. I would also argue that in a FA, an editor should especially be mindful of explaining their edits, when those pages are on so many watchlists. And when BMK first started editing the Longstreet article on August 6, 7 and 8, he made a total of 22 edits with no edit summaries. That's not helpful. And then on August 10, after a dispute to changes of the content/style had been established by reverts, he went on to make another 13 edits with no edit summary. That's not helpful. Perhaps if he had been helpful in the first place and explained his changes via edit summaries, this whole fiasco could have been avoided. And speaking of collaboration, BMKs initial edit to the Longstreet talk page was a tad bit combative and accusatory, and not really an ideal path forward to collaborating with his fellow editors. At this point, I don't see a need for any sanctions, but I do think there is room for improvement to the behavioral issues raised here, and that should be acknowledged by the relevant parties involved in this incident. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Isaidnoway, that help page you mentioned says All edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious)—either by clear edit summaries, or by discussion on the associated talk page. Note the use of the word "should" instead of "must" and also the "either/or" formulation. Beyond My Ken explained his edits on the article talk page, which is clearly the best place to discuss content disputes. On the other hand, Display name 99 has said nothing on the article talk page at the time I write this. I have twice encouraged Beyond My Ken to use edit summaries in this conversation and so, again, for the third time, Beyond My Ken, please use edit summaries. I will say it a fourth time if you want, but who other than me is encouraging Display name 99 to use the article talk page to reach consensus on the content dispute? Cullen328 (talk) 09:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Right, so the 22 edits on August 6, 7 and 8 made by BMK had no clear edit summaries, so it was not obvious what the reason was for the changes. And you shouldn't have to encourage him to use edit summaries when he already knows edit summaries should be used. If you think a fourth reminder will change his behavior of not using edit summaries, please feel free to make that request, but personally I think it would be a waste of time. And yes, Display name 99 should go to the talk page to reach consensus on the content dispute, should I say that another two or three times as well, when he too, already knows this. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Mixed Conduct and Content Dispute

I said earlier that this appeared to be a content dispute, and was told that there are also conduct issues. I see that that is true. I will remind both editors that the ultimate objective should be to improve the article on James Longstreet. What we can do is either to identify and correct the conduct, or to focus on the content and minimize the distraction of the conduct issues. I don't think that focusing on the conduct is likely to be useful, because it is likely to result in more back-and-forth allegations of conduct issues. I think that the more useful approach will be to focus on the content. I am willing to act as a moderator. If the editors don't want to rely on my moderation, I would suggest that we ask for an uninvolved administrator to volunteer to moderate or mediate the content dispute.

I don't think that an inquiry into conduct issues is likely to be useful. It is too likely to result in one or both editors being topic-banned. However, I think that both editors can contribute to improving the article, so arguing about conduct will probably be counter-productive.

Are User:Display name 99 and User:Beyond My Ken willing to agree to moderated discussion aimed at improving the article on James Longstreet? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Between them both, they have been here for nearly 28 years and wracked up 19 blocks. 28 years. With hindsight, I'm sure moderated discussion is just what's been missing. SerialNumber54129 12:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I said before that I would; I await a response from Beyond My Ken. I have posted on the article talk page; maybe the content issues can be resolved there. Display name 99 (talk) 13:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken's refusal to use helpful edit summaries is permitted by policy and a constant source of disruption

I really didn't want to ping everyone from that December 2023 discussion that I've linked twice but I don't know what else to do. This thread has the potential to reach a constructive, permanent solution for this longtime, ongoing problem but not if the only administrative input it gets is User:Cullen328 lecturing people over and over and over on the right to not leave edit summaries while pointedly refusing to address the decade-and-a-half-long history of BMK weaponizing that right. (Note that BMK is also not saying anything about others' concerns regarding how they use edit summaries. I wonder if they've ever acknowledged this.) Here, again, is last year's thread and in order of participation there and with no other consideration, @HTGS, RegentsPark, Mackensen, Paul August, City of Silver, EducatedRedneck, Ivanvector, Swarm, Springee, Drmies, Rhododendrites, Buidhe, Morbidthoughts, Beyond My Ken, Andrevan, Ganesha811, and 78.26: can we figure this out once and for all? City of Silver 21:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

So, offering my sincere assessment as an administrator is "lecturing" now? And after I asked Beyond My Ken three times now to use edit summaries? How about assuming good faith instead? Other administrators are of course free to comment as well, and I hope that they do. Cullen328 (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328: So, offering my sincere assessment as an administrator is "lecturing" now? Yes, if you're going to do it like this. You've said, over and over and over, that edit summaries are optional. Not one single person you've said that to doesn't know that. Not one single person you've told that to needed to be told that. At no point was that relevant to this discussion. You knew all of this so what were you doing? Friend, you were lecturing. If this is how you give administrative input, you shouldn't bother because you're very bad at it. How about assuming good faith instead? Can't. Either you haven't read that old thread, in which case your input is uninformed to the point of being useless, or you have read it, in which case your stance that edit summaries should be optional for Beyond My Ken is you deliberately trying to disrupt this website. Other administrators are of course free to comment as well, and I hope that they do. As I said, I didn't even want to pester those other administrators. Like you, I hope they speak up but it's because I know that they, unlike you, have read that old thread so they'll create a wide consensus that BMK has to leave edit summaries exactly like they did last December.

I don't think you'll respond to this but if you do, read the old thread first because I'll be able to tell if you don't. (Hint: if you read it, you'll agree that BMK's refusal to leave substantial explanations is majorly disruptive to the point that it's in violation of policy and if you don't, you'll just declare, yet effing again, that edit summaries are optional.) City of Silver 06:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

City of Silver, I read that thread last December and I read that thread again the other day. I simply disagree with your conclusion. I do not appreciate your repeated assumptions of bad faith. Please stop with that. Also, please do not call me "friend" since you are obviously not my friend. Cullen328 (talk)

Given BMK's response in December I was hoping this sort of issue wouldn't occur again, but here we are. BMK's behavior toward other editors often falls into an uncomfortable place between the letter and spirit of the law. I'll repeat what I said then: BMK is a good editor who does good work. He's also a confounding editor who digs in his heels over trivial things and makes mountains out of molehills. I don't like the idea of BMK getting blocked, but I also don't like that BMK's approach to collaborative editing guarantees that we'll be back here again. It's a waste of his time, our time, and the time of whichever novice editor accidentally crossed his path. Hello everyone, we're back here again. Mackensen (talk) 21:45, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll let the discussion about edit summaries and BMK's history play out without intervening (especially because I have quite a colorful editing history of my own), but I have already commented at the article talk page and would appreciate if some editors went there as well to add some opinions to supplement those of Beyond My Ken and myself. I believe that BMK's edits to the article were on the whole disruptive and unhelpful. Is this the truth or have I gone crazy? I encourage anyone interested to take a look through the article history and let me know, either here or on the article talk page. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 21:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Since I was pinged... article space edits without a comment should be discouraged. It's always best if the nature of an edit is clear to others. Looking at the original complaint, it does seem like BMK has violated NOCON by restoring their own recent edits to an article without addressing concerns raised by another editor in good standing. If this is a long term problem then perhaps a 0RR restriction on challenged edits is in order. It's not really a bad thing to say that editors must discuss changes when challenged. Springee (talk) 22:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I am responding to the ping. I've spent a solid hour and change reading through this thread and the linked diffs, and while I wish BMK would just use informative edit summaries, I think the sizable explanation on the talk page satisfies WP:UNRESPONSIVE; there was substantive communication.

I'm also guilty of removing what I view as "bad" edits instead of trying to fix then, but per WP:IMPERFECT, the policy does seem to say it's better to leave the work in so it can be refined. I feel like this issue would have been much smaller had DN99 used a surgical approach to fix or tag the bad parts, rather than remove it all. I don't think DN99 should be censured for this, however. If anything, I wonder if that policy actually reflects community norms, but that's a WP:VP issue, not an ANI one.

I am not familiar enough with the article to see if BMK has fixed the issues raised by DN99. If they have, then I don't really see a problem. If they have not responded to the concerns, then there might be an issue with edit warring, but I'm not familiar enough to opine on it. EducatedRedneck (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

EducatedRedneck, thank you for the post. I had issues not merely with some of BMY's original edits but nearly all of them. I explained these clearly on the editor's talk page. Although I probably should have gone to the article talk page instead, I still believe that it was inappropriate for BMK to forcibly re-insert their content into the article without attempting to satisfy my objections. As for their post on the talk page, as I have said both on the talk page and here, it is inadequate. It does not address or seek to satisfy any of the actual problems that I voiced with the article but instead mixes personal criticisms of me with trying to explain that the information that they added was sourced, which wasn't what my problem was. It does not seem like a sincere attempt to solve a problem. To date, the article still contains the changes made by BMK; the only issue that I raised which they fixed were adding some citations to content that was not sourced. But even that created additional problems, as I explained on the talk page. Display name 99 (talk) 00:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

For my own curiosity, has BMK made anything that could be interpreted as an effort to fix any of the errors they introduced? I don't trust myself to judge given the multitude of edits BMK has made and my unfamiliarity with the topic.

And for what it's worth, I do agree that for BMK, once reverted, a wiser way to go about it would have been to add it back in piecemeal, as you'd suggested. I also agree that them claiming WP:OWN behavior on your part wasn't great, and could arguably be a violation of WP:CIV. This section was opened as discussing edit summaries only, which is why I'm mostly commenting on that. EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I believe this sub-section was opened to address a longtime, ongoing problem, according to the opening paragraph in this section. This particular incident is just a sliver of that longtime, ongoing problem. I've looked at BMKs last 1000 edits, and he has only left an edit summary roughly 4% of the time for those 1000 edits. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:28, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

That may be, but for good or ill, the policy seems clear that edit summaries are not required. If you've found one that says otherwise, I'd love to see it. Otherwise, perhaps I could borrow from an archived ANI thread where a similar situation arose: nothing was a blockable offense, but it was also clearly against best practices. Therefore, we just tell the offending party that the behavior (in this case, not using edit summaries) is not cool, and then move on. EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Our editing policy says - Be sure to leave a comment about why you made the change.Try to use an appropriate edit summary. It appears to me he is not even trying to be helpful to the community by explaining his changes. If he was trying, that would be a different story, but he's not, so simply saying; not cool, let's move one, seems kinda lame to me, when our policy and information page says otherwise. If that policy and info page doesn't have community consensus, then I apologize for my misinterpretation of those pages. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from, and certainly wouldn't be disappointed to see the community make edit summaries a de facto requirement. With respect to this specific page, there was a note left on the article talk. While it did not satisfy DN99, I do feel it qualifies as leaving a comment, which in my view satisfies WP:UNRESPONSIVE as written.

To be clear, I interpret leave a comment to be a requirement, which a TP post satisfies. I interpret Try to use an appropriate edit summary as optional due to the use of "Try". Do you have the same interpretation?

If you do, then I get the feeling you're implying that BMK's edit summary-less contribs do not have corresponding talk page posts, and thus do not satisfy WP:UNRESPONSIVE. That would be a good point. Taking my inspiration from you, I looked over the last 100 contribs, in which BMK made 10 mainspace edits without an edit summary, but only had 2 corresponding TP edits. (I ignored summary-less edits to articles that had previously been edited with a summary.)

I guess the next question is what to call that. WP:DE for violating the WP:Editing policy? I'd also like to hear from more editors on whether WP:UNRESPONSIVE is compulsory. EducatedRedneck (talk) 00:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I interpret "try" as - is he making an attempt or an effort to leave an edit summary? So, I believe the question should be - is he trying to comply with our editing policy. I don't think he is. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

He used some edit summaries, so some effort was obviously expended. I'd say yes, he is complying. I also respect your interpretation as valid. Hopefully others can chime in and form a consensus on this matter. EducatedRedneck (talk) 01:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

As are others, I'm responding to a ping. As before I agree with what Mackensen said above. I have not looked into the details of this current event yet, but right now I'm inclined to accept that some formal sanction is needed. Paul August ☎ 17:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

These two diffs, diff 1, diff 2, show where BMK changed the existing style of using section headings in the Notes and references sections, to using bold for the headings. No helpful edit summaries explaining why his preferred version should be used, instead of the existing style. And then on the talk page, states here, the change to the existing style is because his preferred version is "more efficient", without explaining why his preferred version is more efficient. I can't edit with a mobile device, which is how these edits were made, so is there a preference among mobile device editors for using bold in headings, instead of regular editable section headings? I don't get the efficiency of his preferred version, over the existing style. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

BMK's continued refusal to engage in discussion

Isaidnoway, Robert McClenon, City of Silver, NebY, EducatedRedneck Cullen328, Mackensen, this continues to get worse. I made a post on the article talk page clearly articulating my problems with BMK's edits. BMK answered with a brief snarky reply which absolutely refused to answer any of my objections, and insisting that I needed consensus to undo their changes, whereas it is my understanding that, per BRD, as the person seeking to add new material, the obligation is on them to discuss and seek consensus when met with opposition. Further down the page, in response to Isaidnoway's protests to their changes to the citation style, they claimed in a message here that MOS is optional. I can hardly believe that.

As I explained with this message [63], because they have refused once more to engage in discussion, even though we are now on the article talk page, am re-reverting them. I feel justified in doing so, as trying to resolve the matter through discussion is evidently pointless and because they should not have restored their changes without answering my original message in the first place.

I believe that formal sanctions are now warranted. Display name 99 (talk) 21:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I concur that as explained in the essay WP:BURDEN, BMK should not revert back to the work-in-progress version. If it's challenged, you need to get positive consensus before readding. I'll also note that the policy on editing WP:CAUTIOUS is very clear on this: Prevent edit warring by discussing such edits first on the article's talk page. The refusal to discuss the issues DN99 alleges also seems to fit into WP:DISRUPTSIGNS #4.

Moving forward, I think DN99 might want to consider identifying some specific passages or edits they object to and state why. This would make it easier for BMK to fix them. BMK might similarly wish to consider grouping their edits into a number of proposed edits for workshopping. This would make it easier to implement any requested changes. I also feel that if BMK reverts their work in progress back into the article without a positive consensus, it may be worth considering a short p-block from that article for edit warring/disruptive editing. EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you EducatedRedneck. With all due respect, I have explained both on BMK's user page and the article talk page numerous specific details about which changes I object to and why. I encourage you to look there. I've told BMK what problems I have. They don't want to listen. Display name 99 (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't see it on the article talk page, which is why I mentioned it here. You described things that are bad, but I didn't see where you linked that to specific edits or parts of edits from BMK. For instance, you wrote, In one place, you... but didn't specify which place. Perhaps I missed it, (the text-block is more difficult to parse than, e.g., a bulleted list) but if I did miss where you pointed to a specific area, it's not unreasonable to think perhaps BMK did as well. As for posts to BMK's talk page, I didn't look there because I don't typically associate article discussion with user talk pages. EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

That's fair, but I did specify on their user page. It's also reasonable to point out that, if they were unclear, they could have asked. I don't think that a lack of clarity is the problem. They literally failed to justify every problematic edit that I identified. Surely they can't misunderstand what I mean when I say that the final sentence in the third paragraph of the section "Later life" is missing a citation due to their edits. And yet they didn't fix it. Display name 99 (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I suppose I'm assuming too much good faith. I can see where you're coming from, and agree that the result of their behavior has not been great, whatever their motives. I also agree that, if they don't get consensus (presumably through fixing the problems you've identified, or else convincing you they aren't problems) then they should leave the article as the status quo.

While I still don't see this as rising to the level of sanctions, I've been wrong before. What sanctions are you envisioning? On a related note, if BMK does not revert again, do you still believe sanctions are warranted and preventative? EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

As for reverting their content changes along with the stylistic issues, let me restate my reasons for that, as I know that EducatedRedneck called that into question. The content additions were problematic in themselves primarily due to the careless placement of citations. BMK added citations to new sources in the middle of text cited to old sources while not adjusting the original citations. I do not see it as my job to surgically pick apart their changes so that the 5% that were good can be saved. The best path forward, as I stated on the talk page, is to revert back to the beginning and then from there work on restoring some of the content that BMK added, with properly placed citations this time. I feel justified in having taken the initial step myself because of BMK's failure once again to engage in constructive discourse. Display name 99 (talk) 21:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

EducatedRedneck also asked above whether BMK made any attempt to fix their mistakes. The answer was no. Even basic obvious stuff that I pointed out on the talk page that could have been easily fixed, like having two spaces between paragraphs, leaving a sentence at the end of a paragraph without a citation, and adding a president's name without a hyperlink was unaddressed at the time that I restored the article. Display name 99 (talk) 21:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

We have two editors who have both exhibited substandard editorial conduct, who are both alleging that the other editor is removing well-sourced added content. BMK rarely uses edit summaries. Their use is strongly recommended, except that an explanation on the article talk page is an alternative. Sometimes BMK has used the talk page to explain, and sometimes BMK has used the talk page to not explain. At the start of this quarrel, it appeared that BMK was using article talk pages constructively, and that DN99 was avoiding their use, giving an inadequate reason. As this quarrel progresses, BMK seems to be also avoiding the article talk page. The recent history of the article is a slow-motion edit war. I will introduce two proposals at this time, a topic-ban from the article James Longstreet against User:Beyond My Ken, and a topic-ban from the article James Longstreet against User:Display name 99. I am not at this time supporting or opposing either of these topic-bans, but I think that proposing topic-bans is more likely to result in some signal in addition to the noise, rather than just continuing the name-calling. I will also be outlining a possible content RFC, as more likely to result in some signal than just continuing to bang away. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I want to highlight that in Special:Diff/1239061662 BMK deliberately introduced pseudoheadings in the references section. He's been told, repeatedly and at length, why these "headings" are accessibility problems and shouldn't be used. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1004#Proposed image-placement topic ban for Beyond My Ken where this and other accessibility issues were raised, and which resulted in BMK being placed under certain restrictions regarding image placement. A personal preference for one editor that creates accessibility problems for readers isn't permissible. Mackensen (talk) 12:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Proposal 1: User:Beyond My Ken topic-banned from James Longstreet

For slow-motion edit-warring, failure to use edit summaries, and failure to discuss constructively, Beyond My Ken is topic-banned from the James Longstreet article. They are encouraged to use the article talk page, Talk:James Longstreet.

• Oppose for the time being as premature. Let's see what develops on the talk page first. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Weak oppose per Isaidnoway. My vote may change if BMK continues reverting or a long-term pattern can be demonstrated. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. BMK made edits, some of which seem pretty positive (adding add'l sourced info), engaged with explanations on the talkpage, agreed not to push through changes if they didn't have consensus, etc.; that's all as it should be. As near as I can tell, the only valid complaint here is about lack of edit summaries, but I find the explanation on the talkpage to sufficiently address a need for communication. Grandpallama (talk) 13:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Proposal 2: User:Display name 99 topic-banned from James Longstreet

For slow-motion edit-warring, and failure to discuss constructively, Display name 99 is topic-banned from the James Longstreet article. They are encouraged to use the article talk page, Talk:James Longstreet.

• Oppose - this one is not necessary in my view. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Strong oppose: While there are certainly things DN99 could have done differently to avoid escalation, the only thing approaching violation of policy has been reverting a large edit wholesale instead of combing through it to pick out the good bits. As this seems to be fairly standard practice for the community, I don't think that even moves the needle in terms of disruption. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Proposal 3: RFC

Since BMK and Dn99 will not discuss constructively, the next step may be an RFC. My first thought is that the RFC should be to restore all of BMK's edits that were reverted by Dn99 at 2132 GMT, 12 August: [64]. The guidelines for before an RFC specify that discussion is the best practice before an RFC. In this case, the best practice is not possible, but the worst practice can be avoided, and the worst practice will be to allow unproductive behavior to prevent improvement of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, this does not seem helpful to me. To begin, you say that both BMK and I are accusing the other of removing sourced content. That is actually not what I am accusing BMK of doing. You add: At the start of this quarrel, it appeared that BMK was using article talk pages constructively... As I and several other editors have pointed out, their initial talk page post was not constructive. I have since explained my objections thoroughly at the article talk page, which you fail to mention. You add, As this quarrel progresses, BMK seems to be also avoiding the article talk page. That is also false. BMK has made additional posts to the article talk page, only they too were not constructive as they once again did not explain the reasons for their edits despite my clearly articulated concerns. Lastly, you argue that BMK's edits should be restored. Under what theory? Per WP:Onus, they are required to have consensus, not me. Additionally, there are two other editors who have posted on the article talk page criticizing BMK's edits. Consensus is on my side.

Also, what would the RfC say?

Your inaccurate description of what has been taking place here makes me question whether you have looked thoroughly enough into the dispute before initiating this query. Display name 99 (talk) 04:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The RFC would ask whether to restore the edits that BMK made that you reverted. I did not say that I wish to restore BMK's edits. I said that the RFC will ask to restore BMK's edits, and an RFC is the usual vehicle for determining consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Very well, but an RfC is not "the usual vehicle for determining consensus." It is, as Isaidnoway stated, generally a last resort used only if the contributors already at an article cannot reach consensus. Already on the talk page, there is a consensus forming against BMK's stylistic changes, which BMK refuses to defend, while I am working towards restoring some of their content additions. An RfC is not necessary at this stage, and restoring all of BMK's changes seems completely out of the question. I also certainly don't feel as though I have done anything that should leave me banned from editing the article. Therefore, I do not believe that your proposal accomplishes anything productive. Display name 99 (talk) 14:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: I concur with DN99. Per WP:BURDEN, if BMK cannot establish a consensus for the changes, the changes should be discarded. If BMK does not believe the consensus on the TP, it falls to them to initiate WP:3O or an RFC. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. However, 3O does not apply here because it is designed for disagreements between TWO editors, and the talk page tally is currently 3-1 against BMK. Display name 99 (talk) 19:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose as premature. Retaining the existing style appears to have an early consensus, and BMK said that if a consensus here disagrees [with his change], I'm not going to buck it. So restoring all of BMKs edits should not be the question asked. There is some discussion taking place on the talk page, so let's see how that goes first, with a RfC as the last resort. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

User:CarterPD editing against consensus and ignoring talk page messages

This editor is changing the "start of term" date for newly-elected British MPs from 4 July to 5 July with edit summary "can't assume office until votes are counted", although it has been pointed out to them on their talk page that the UK Parliament site uses 4 July (example) and that this has been discussed in the past at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Archive 17#"Term Start"

Please block them briefly to stop them continuing. And has someone please got a way to revert all their edits of today, rather than them all being reverted manually? PamD 21:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Just picked up this message and have not looked at notifications yet. There is a subtle difference between date of election and date of start of office. CarterPD (talk) 21:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

You are wrong CarterPD. One could try to argue that we should use the date of swearing in because MPs can't vote until then. Its still wrong. They started on the 4 July. All your edits to the contrary will be reverted. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 21:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

It is long-established practice in Wikipedia to use the date of the election as the "term start": I've just checked Tim Farron (5 May 2005) and Diane Abbott (11 June 1987), to confirm this. PamD 21:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

It's possible to mass revert their edits but I've asked them to self-revert. Let's see if they cooperate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, the date of election is not the same as the date of assumption of office, which is the wording on Wikipedia so the confirmation of the former does not apply to the latter for reasons I outlined. An MP is applying for a job with the electorate at large. That application needs to be fully processed and known for the office to be assumed. Gavia, you state the opinion is wrong based on your reported conversation with two MPs but you argue with a strawman that glosses over the entire argument. To make it clear: if all the constituency ballots were destroyed in a fire would the person for whom the most votes had been cast be able to vote on bills, for example, or conversely have a duty to action their constituents casework? They would not. Thus while it's possible to say, in a very Shrodinger's Cat, metaphysical way, that they were elected, it cannot possibly be true that they assumed office. It is thus false to say that a UK MP "assumed office" on the 4th of July 2024, since no total vote tally was counted by then. It could be arguably true to say they are elected on the 4th, so I would be more than happy to edit the text to say that. CarterPD (talk) 08:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

CarterPD, everything you say above is, i'm sorry, irrelevant. The discussion here is not about content ~ who is right (and there are reasonable arguments made and to be made on both sides) ~ but about your conduct ~ that you are editing contrary to established consensus and practice and, possibly, reliable sources. Please re-assess this conduct and revert yourself. At that point you can start a discussion (not here) about how we should phrase and date the start of MPs' terms. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 11:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

CarterPD Per WP:BRD, please revert your edits before arguing further.--Launchballer 11:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

As another example to illustrate the consensus: Liz Truss is a featured article, so has been subject to intense scrutiny by experienced editors. It shows her service as MP for South West Norfolk as "In office: 6 May 2010 – 30 May 2024". The 2010 general election was on Thursday 6 May. (Found by looking at the list of Political biography FAs and picking one which I recognised as a UK MP). See also FA Ellen Wilkinson: elected for Jarrow on Thurs 14 Nov 1935. PamD 08:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Pending a discussion, i've reverted most of the changes. (To be clear, user:Kahtar is me, just an ID i use for semi-automated edits.) Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 09:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Lindsay for taking care of this. CarterPD, this is something you should have handled, other editors shouldn't have to clean up your errors once they have been pointed out. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Mass addition of unsourced degrees to BLPs

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

I'm not sure why this guy's still a "pending changes reviewer". He's added unsourced degrees to an awful lot of BLPs (see this, this, this, this, this, etc). I warned him, but he has removed the message with no valid explanation and refused to stop the behavior. Thedarkknightli (talk) 00:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

First – setting aside that you templated an editor of 18 years tenure with 173,000 edits, and with a very aggressive template warning at that – he's allowed to remove warnings from his talk page at any time. (If he were currently blocked, he's not allowed to remove the block notice while the block is in effect, but he may remove it once the block has expired. That is the only restriction to warnings and block notices.) Second, I checked all five pages you linked and every single one of them is supported by inline sources in the body of the article. I'm left wondering why you ran to ANI so fast instead of just, you know, asking him nicely. Katie^talk 00:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

might be worth checking out WP:INFOBOXCITE on this one :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I also checked the text of the article for the first diff only, for Aisling Bea. Therequiembellishere added to the infobox claims of a bachelor's degree (BA) from TCD and a second BA from LAMDA. The article text states only that she studied at those two institutions; it says nothing about what degrees she might have from them. The article source for TCD does state that she has a degree from TCD but not that it is a BA. A nearby source (21 in the diff numbering), used for an unrelated claim, does say she has a BA. The article source for LAMDA says nothing about a degree. So for both of those degree claims the specifics are neither in the article nor in the sources for the related claims in the article. Therequiembellishere should be admonished to be more careful. Whether this requires templating them and dragging them to ANI is a different question. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:37, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @KrakatoaKatie, @Theleekycauldron and @David Eppstein, thanks for your timely replies. Actually, I'd been well aware of WP:INFOBOXCITE when I started this conversation; while I agree the subjects' alma mater is well sourced, (I still think) none of the degrees are. The reason I "ran to ANI so fast instead of just asking him nicely" was because this editor'd been adding unsourced degrees to BLPs for a pretty long time, and I didn't find him civil (per comments like this, this and this). I admit my impetuousness, though. Thedarkknightli (talk) 14:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll just note that your examples of incivility are from 2 years ago and that this editor has not edited since before you started this discussion. It would be nice to hear from them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Imane Khelif should get 1RR Arbitration Enforcement

It appears there is large amount of edit warring happening on the article. I suggest it gets set to WP:1RR under CTOPS WP:GENSEX. It also appears that the two users User:M.Bitton and User:JSwift49 may need a temporary timeout as they're well past even 3RR. Raladic (talk) 02:51, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• I've filed a report for JSwift49 edit warring at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:JSwift49 reported by User:TarnishedPath (Result: ). I must have been filing it at exactly the same time that this was filled. TarnishedPath^talk 02:59, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
• Regardless of the outcome at WP:ANEW, I would concur that this should be classified under WP:GENSEX with a 1RR. This is the second time this week the article has made its way to ANI as a result of arguments around that topic area. Grandpallama (talk) 03:22, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  There's already a CTOP notice for GENSEX at the top of the article's talk so I agree that active arbitration remedies of either 1RR or compulsory BRD should be put into place given the edit warring and incivil behaviour from some editors. TarnishedPath^talk 04:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Appears that JSwift49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has cast aspersions in that discussion on two occasions based off a quick skim.[65][66], in addition to the blatant 3RR vio. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  03:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Neither of those is an aspersion. They're characterizations of another editor's conduct based on what's in plain view—whether or not they're accurate characterizations. An aspersion would be something like calling someone a pedophile without evidence. Accusing someone of proceeding in bad faith, POV-pushing, and violating NPOV are the same sorts of accusations that get made at this noticeboard all the time. I have no opinion on whether any of those happened here. Just chipping in because I hate seeing that term genericized to mean "saying something negative". -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 04:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I disagree there. Any negative characterisation of another editor's conduct which is lacking is appropriate specific evidence to substantiate such characterisation is an aspersion. Per WP:ASPERSION, "On Wikipedia, casting aspersions is a situation where an editor accuses another editor or a group of editors of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or particularly severe". Therefore, repeatedly stating to another editor that they are not engaged in good faith discussions without evidence to back that up is an aspersion. TarnishedPath^talk 04:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

1RR would be welcome. Note that edit war and incivil behaviour were shareed by both sides. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I am happy to strike the "good faith" comment, as it was not focused on a specific policy and that is not helpful. However I'm not sure why the other comment linked, where I mention specific policies, is an issue. JSwift49 12:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

You can't possibly justify your personalization of the discussion by claiming that your aspersions were in "good faith" (while doubling down on them on this board). The fact that you initiated a 3R report about me, after engaging in this one, speaks volumes.

Your only explanation for persistently violating the WP:ONUS policy, in a WP:BLP article, is according to policy good-faith additions should remain in article pending consensus (another claim of yours that has no basis in reality). M.Bitton (talk) 13:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Re. my policy comment that was a misunderstanding from an essay, which I have corrected. However, you still violated the 3R policy I'm afraid (as well as, as I outlined, sealioning). We have both received warnings and I think that is a fair call. JSwift49 13:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Your so-called "misunderstanding" doesn't justify the persistent violations of the WP:ONUS policy, nor does it explain your aspersions. M.Bitton (talk) 13:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi; not aspersions, I think it’s reasonable to point out if another editor is sealioning, which consistently was the case here. (This involved repeated asking of the same question while refusing to engage with other peoples’ arguments.) I would support 1RR. JSwift49 10:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

No one is here to WP:SATISFY you. I'm cognisant that your first edit after me leaving you a notice about a discussion concerning your breaching WP:3RR was not to remedy your breach by self-reverting, but to come here and further cast aspersions. TarnishedPath^talk 10:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm just sitting down now to look at all this :) happy to revert my violation, though someone had already changed it and added their own content. JSwift49 11:22, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like you might have lost your chance at self-reverting then. That's a risk when you engage in 3RR violations. TarnishedPath^talk 11:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

That's a baseless claim, just like the one you made about the fictitious policy that you keep mentioning to justify your multiple violations of the real policies. M.Bitton (talk) 13:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Sidenote, if Imane gets 1RR, arguably so should Lin_Yu-ting which is another olympic boxer caught up in same controversy with IBA Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Janjaem Suwannapheng should be subject to same rules too. The Thai boxer is vulnerable to same hatred Khelif received. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

In agreement with adopting 1RR & it also appears that the disputes have spilled over into this ANI report, as well as the EW reports. GoodDay (talk) 14:01, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I note that the disputed material, in clear defiance of WP:ONUS, and despite an obvious lack of consensus for its inclusion, has been restored to the article by JSwift49. It takes two to edit war, but policy around BLP matters, and if JSwift49 doesn't remove the challenged material, sanctions should be applied. Grandpallama (talk) 16:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Grandpallama: JSwift49 said above that a self-revert might have resulted in a block since their addition had since been edited by others. In light of administrator Ingenuity's designation of this as a 1RR matter, I just removed the contentious text in the hopes that everybody will stay on the talk page and off the article. City of Silver 17:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@City of Silver Related question: I understand the policy in this case as this is text that I had added and people objected to. So delete until consensus. However, I also started another discussion Talk:Imane Khelif#2nd lead paragraph: "public scrutiny" vs. "misinformation" where consensus seems quite far off re. which term/s to use in the lead. As far as I can tell the current term was added a few days ago and got reverted and re-added twice before I weighed in.[67][68][69][70][71] What is the best practice if no consensus or compromise can be accepted by both sides, and it’s a matter of word choice and not content addition? JSwift49 03:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@JSwift49: I've reviewed this whole mess as best as I could and I keep having the same question: why hasn't anyone started a request for comment for this? and that? and the other thing? Everybody hates RFCs for all kinds of reasons but it simply doesn't matter because they're the only workable way to get past a situation where every editor has dug in their heels, which has certainly happened at Khelif's talk page in several discussions. Don't you get tired of citing the same policies, the same guidelines, the same essays in response to editors who you have to know won't be convinced by anything you say? Aren't you tired of those same editors over and over citing the same irrelevant stuff to you? (If I were you, I'd have absolutely lost it by now at how many times WP:ONUS has been thrown at me by people who don't know that it can't come into play before a discussion is closed. Every single editor who's cited ONUS in response to you doesn't have the first clue what it actually means.) To my understanding, an RFC is the only way to get past issues where there's a completely, totally intractable "both sides" problem because it'll attract editors who aren't on any side at all. City of Silver 06:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@City of Silver Why does WP:ONUS not apply here, because there was not a discussion/consensus when the term was added? If so, should the contentious lead material be removed until consensus is reached? JSwift49 10:54, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Your parenthetical is not a correct understanding of the entirety of WP:ONUS. RfC is a good suggestion, though. Grandpallama (talk) 14:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I have taken your suggestion re. RfC. JSwift49 14:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@Grandpallama, City of Silver, Ingenuity, TarnishedPath, and GhostOfDanGurney: please have a look at these two edits (12:10 and 14:37) that were made today by JSwift49 (after casting aspersions and accusing me of sealioning). M.Bitton (talk) 15:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate that they've at least moved past aspersions and are bringing diffs, but nonetheless, this isn't exactly lowering the temperature in there. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  15:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

They are still commenting about me (this editor has a history ...) in unrelated discussions, which is the continuation of the aspersions that they started and doubled down on (in this discussion). M.Bitton (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Both of these comments were in fact direct responses to assertions by M.Boli that I 1) "ignored what everyone else said" and 2) "keep repeating the same argument that has been addressed multiple times". Especially the first comment crosses the line to an aspersion as they assumed I was "ignoring".

In my responses, I took care to only mention the fact that M.Boli had repeatedly asked the same questions verbatim, and I did not (by contrast) ascribe negative intentions. JSwift49 17:10, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Adding this editor has a history ... to a RfC is beyond the pale. M.Bitton (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately it is an accurate statement; and I have intentionally avoided reporting you for Wikipedia:Disruptive editing to give you a chance to weigh in. If you don't want other editors to mention that you asked the same question verbatim 4-5 times in a row, don't do it, and certainly don't accuse others of purposely ignoring you. In fact, my RfC proposal is based on a compromise that was in response to your original concerns. JSwift49 17:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Like I said, adding this editor has a history ... to a RfC is beyond the pale. As for the above baseless assertions, that's all they are, and serve no purpose other than to exhaust my diminishing good faith stock. M.Bitton (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Jswift has racked up an impressive number of notifications for contentious topics. Drmies (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies, three of those were mine that I provided to them in a bulk message. TarnishedPath^talk 04:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Now subject to 1RR. —Ingenuity (t • c) 16:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
  • 1RR should not be used lightly. It effectively "freezes" an article and should only be used for a limited amount of time. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
    • Kcmastrpc, I disagree, but I'm sure Ingenuity, who's a bit of a noob, appreciates your opinion. Drmies (talk) 12:21, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

      You can make snippy remarks all day, but look at the edit history of Marjorie Taylor Greene after May 2023 and prior to see an example of how chilling 1RR restrictions are. Most edits are now superfluous and the activity has dropped nearly 50%. I suppose maybe that's a good thing, I don't know. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

      Article stability is always a good thing. Presuming of course that there are no issues with the article. TarnishedPath^talk 13:07, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

      With someone as active of a public life as MTG, I might disagree. However, in this instance, Imane, through no fault of her own, is a very notable public figure now. Perhaps I'll do some research on how heavy arbitration remedies impact the encyclopedia both short and long term. (when/if I get laid off from my FT job). Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:36, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Behaviour of JSwift49

JSwift49 has engaged in repeated synthesis or outright misrepresentation of sources on the talk page in order to insert their POV.

Their current RfC,[72] which has been described by several users[73][74][75][76] as whitewashing the abuse faced by Imane Khelif, selectively uses quotes from sources in order to support their POV, and omits information in the very sources used that support the status quo[77][78].

Between this RfC and the preceding discussion,(version as of writing) JSwift has replied to every single !vote opposing them and has commented on many replies to support !voters. They have engaged in personalization of the discussion.[79]

They attempted to support the inclusion of a meeting between the far-right Italian Prime Minister and the head of the IOC (the locus of the above edit war) based on "textbook synthesis" (struck after this was pointed out to them, only to create the above RfC with a subsequent support !vote based on synth).[80]

I am quickly losing my good faith that JSwift is able to productively edit in the GENSEX topic area based off this behaviour and at this point am close to supporting a topic ban if they don't commit to quick behaviour changes. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  19:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok; let's look at each of your points here.

• Main point: the RfC does not selectively omit anything. The point of the quotes is not to say "misinformation" doesn't feature, but to show the ways each source describes other types of attention beyond misinformation. I made this clear below:
  • I believe "misinformation" is important to mention in the lead, but that the lead focuses too narrowly on it. Most reliable sources mention misinformation/false accusations, but these sources also include broader descriptions of what occurred:
• The RfC has nothing to do with the Italian Prime Minister; and regardless the part where I wrongly used synthesis was a small part of the argument. This was my main one [81] Getting banned for a mistake which I acknowledge and strike is nonsense. Learning from mistakes is exactly how we become better editors. It's why I started the RfC and am attempting to work toward consensus/a compromise solution.
• Re. personalization, I am happy to take a step back (was not aware too much involvement was unacceptable unless you were blatantly repeating yourself), however several comments were necessary to respond to. This has included:
  • Stating I want to remove the term "misinformation", which was a misunderstanding I felt the need to correct [82]
  • Providing explicit clarity on a question you had [83]
  • Responding to an aspersion of "ignoring" other users [84]
• Re. whitewashing accusations, this has been a contentious debate, but I believe my arguments are well-reasoned, and users have weighed in on my side re. adding "scrutiny" or "attention" alongside "misinformation". [85][86][87][88] In fact, my RfC is a compromise proposal based on concerns of all editors, as I outlined here: [89] (Also, one editor you cite said they opposed whitewashing because I wanted to remove "misinformation", which was inaccurate.[90])

JSwift49 20:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

In addition, I directly addressed your concerns about the RfC selectively omitting quotes here,[91] an hour before you posted this. JSwift49 20:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Multiple people opposed your proposal as a SYNTH/cherry-picking of sources; your "compromise" still contained the offending part that people were opposing. Obviously the Meloni part isn't related to the RfC, but it's directly related to your misuse of sources to push your POV, which is what you are doing again in the RfC.

The opposers are not looking for a compromise solution; they feel that the status quo is perfectly fine and does not need to be changed at all. Additionally, you are continuing to demonstrate WP:IDHT behaviour by doubling down against the latest editor to enter the talk page and say you are cherry-picking.[92][93] ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  02:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Whether the opposers are looking for a compromise solution is immaterial. The facts are, several editors besides myself supported some form of change [94][95][96][97] and the text arguably did not have a consensus to begin with, [98][99][100][101][102][103]

See my below post [104] re. cherry-picking and WP:IDHT. JSwift49 16:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

This looks like an attempt to undermine the current RfC. The RfC has been described by several users[131][132][133][134] as whitewashing the abuse faced by Imane Khelif, selectively uses quotes from sources in order to support their POV - what??? The "several users" are M.Bitton, TarnishedPath and GhostOfDanGurney themselves, who is literally quoting their own comment, plus Drmies, who apparently misunderstood the RfC: the RfC doesn't propose to remove "misinformation" from the lead - there's been plenty of misinformation about Khelif, and by all means "misinformation" must remain in the lead (no one is arguing otherwise). The point of the RfC is not to "whitewash abuse", but to acknowledge that alongside fake news and hate speech, there have been also legitimate concerns and meaningful public debate about eligibility standards in women's boxing competitions.

JSwift49 is very much involved and perhaps they should be reminded of WP:BLUDGEONING, but there is no reason to doubt their good faith and competence. The RfC is the correct path to follow, and should not be disrupted by frivolous accusations at ANI. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Gitz, I'm not known for my understanding, but saying there's been "legitimate concern...about eligibility" is just--how shall I put it, absolute fucking bullshit. Drmies (talk) 01:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

+1 M.Bitton (talk) 02:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies, this is the exact bullshit that @M.Bitton, myself and others have been putting up with in the article's talk. Editors constantly trying to POV push language which makes what Khelif has faced to have been on the basis of at least some reasonable concerns. Frankly anyone pusshing that bullshit should be topic banned from GENSEX. TarnishedPath^talk 04:36, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree, and I plan to post excerpts from articles and op-eds later in the RfC, which show that the "Khelif affair" has also been the subject of a reasoned (not bigoted, not hateful) debate on the criteria for inclusion of intersex people in women's sporting competitions. In the meantime, I suggest you and others take a look at this piece in The Atlantic [105]. You can agree or disagree with Helen Lewis, but you should not dismiss her arguments as "absolute fucking bullshit". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Why, exactly. Or look at the sources posted here [106] by two scientific experts in the BBC and WSJ. I have never argued that misinformation didn’t exist, but that the sources also support other reactions. @GhostOfDanGurney as I explained here [107] and here [108] the quotes I shared were meant to prove the narrow presence of something and not that other things don’t exist in the sources. Why report me to ANI instead of responding to my initial explanation? JSwift49 11:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

All three references in that diff [109], [110] and [111] are opinion species. Notably only one of person out of all those is a subject matter expert in developmental biology, being Dr Emma Hilton who is very briefly quoted in the first. The fact that the author of the second reference may be a scientist is entirely irrelevant as they are not subject matter experts in the content under discussion and more seriously for the judgment of their reliability on the subject they make the disinformed assertion that Khelif is a "biological male" when there is no reliable evidence for such a claim. The third reference is again a opinion piece by someone who is not a subject matter expert. Going back to the first reference, Emma Hilton does not directly address Khelif in the parts in which they are directly quoted and the only further information presented is that she is associated with a charity that thinks that Khelif shouldn't be boxing until further testing is perforemd. The opinion of the charity is not attributed to Hilton and no factual basis is given for such opinion. So no those sources absolutely do not support the argument that there are any reasonable concerns. Trying to pass off that there are any reasonable concerns is complete bullshit. Reasonable concerns have a basis in reality and such basis has not been appropriately established. TarnishedPath^talk 13:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

For the record, your BBC assessment doesn't tell the full story. "Dr Shane Heffernan has a PhD in molecular genetics in elite sports", and the article both quotes him and says "He believes that the International Olympic Committee is not basing its eligibility criteria on the best available science".[112]

But to avoid getting bogged down in details: the threshold of my claim all along has been that Khelif prompted "attention" that did not only include "misinformation". [113] Given that people including scientists have weighed in with reasoned arguments helps corroborate that fact, in addition to how reliable sources both use "misinformation" and broader terms to describe the reactions. JSwift49 13:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Even if they are scientists if they start weighing in and making statements about reality without sufficient evidence then that is misinformation. Statements about the nature of reality are not and never will be reasoned when there is no evidence to support such statements. TarnishedPath^talk 13:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

But that's the thing: the sources do not support that. The sources, as I outlined in the RfC, support that there was misinformation, and at the same time she received attention that was not. To state we should disregard the opinion of a PhD in molecular genetics in elite sports as "misinformation", whose opinion was published in a significant, reliable source (might I add, as part of a news story) it is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. JSwift49 14:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

It's an opinion peice. Per WP:RSOPINION, Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. The source made a statement about facts and notably did so without a providing a reliable evidentiary basis. Sorry striking that last bit because I got confused between the sources we were discussing. However in regards to Dr Shane Heffernan, he does not address Khelif and concerns himself with discussing DSD. Notably there is no reliable evidence that Khelif has DSD and Hefferenan does not make that assertion. His words do not demonstrate that there are any reasonable concerns about Khelif. You continuing to push it as some example of reasonable concerns which demonstrate that there was anything other than misinformation is a further example of your WP:POVPUSHING. TarnishedPath^talk 14:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not basing my argument on the opinion piece; reliable news sources mention that Khelif was the subject of "scrutiny" or "attention", or caused a "debate", in addition to mentioning abuse and misinformation.

Besides, if we can't consider the opinion of a PhD in molecular genetics in elite sports re. the IOC's criteria for women's sports eligibility, by that standard what opinions can we consider? JSwift49 14:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The hate campaign was exclusively because of the misinformation that was propagated by celebrities and the like (and their millions of followers). Whitewashing what really happened by cherry picking (again) part of the NPOV policy (while ignoring WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:WEIGHT) is wrong on so many levels and speaks volumes about your inability to edit a BLP. M.Bitton (talk) 14:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll address the repeated "cherry picking" accusations here:

• Cherry picking, according to Wikipedia, is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related and similar cases or data that may contradict that position"
• My RfC position is this: reliable sources describe that Khelif was the subject of both misinformation and other types of attention.
  • I believe "misinformation" is important to mention in the lead, but that the lead focuses too narrowly on it. Most reliable sources mention misinformation/false accusations, but these sources also include broader descriptions of what occurred:[114]
• I looked at thirteen major, reliable mainstream news outlets, I didn't find any sources that only mentioned "misinformation". Each also referred to some broader form of attention ("scrutiny", "debate", "accusations", "controversy") Khelif was the subject of.
  • If I was cherry picking, I would specifically ignore sources that described misinformation only.
  • In fact, I explicitly invited both M.Bitton [115][116] and TarnishedPath to share such sources. [117]
    • M.Bitton replied with an opinion article from The Nation, a partisan source.[118][119][120]
    • TarnishedPath simply replied by stating Many reliable sources say "misinformation" or "disinformation", which is what actually occurred. I have never disputed this.[121]
• As I outlined in the RfC, I support Khelif being the subject of "misinformation" remaining in the lead. So did the editors who opposed my proposal. The term "misinformation" was not a subject of debate.
• The main subject of debate was whether the term "attention" should be added, changing "misinformation" to "attention and misinformation".
• Therefore, all I needed to do was show that reliable sources referred to other forms of attention, in addition to referring to misinformation.
• I explained my rationale to GhostOfDanGurney in response to his concern,[122] and instead of replying or asking questions, they reported me to ANI.[123]
  • I later asked for more of an explanation, and did not receive a reply.[124]
  • I had previously engaged in good faith discussion with them about concerns they had.[125][126]

In short, I do not understand, nor agree with, these accusations at all. JSwift49 15:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

You are simply refusing (at this point) to listen to multiple editors who are telling you that any other type of "attention" was the direct result of mis/disinformation and that your repeated proposals dilute that fact. Until you get that through your skull, I have nothing to say to you. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  16:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the crux of our disagreement is, you say if it's a reaction in response to misinformation, we should count it as misinformation. I think if misinformation brings attention to a situation, and non-misinformation discourse/debate occurs as a result, then we should mention both misinformation and attention more broadly as sources do.

Assuming (for argument's sake) that a reaction prompted by misinformation counts as misinformation, I had another look at sources. Most sources describe the IBA and/or Carini fight as causing the reactions toward Khelif, but they don't describe IBA/Carini as misinformation. So since the sources don't describe all reactions as misinformation, or all of their causes as misinformation, I still see a reason to include some other term. [127] JSwift49 00:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@JSwift49, he wasn't even quoted with his opinion on Khelif's eligibility. He was quoted discussing DSD and eligibility in general. There's not even an assertion from them that Khelif has DSD and if there was it would speak against their reliability on the topic given that there is sweat fuck all reliable evidence for any such assertion. That you try and spin it as evidence of reasonable concerns about Khelif demonstrates that you are engaged in WP:POVPUSHING. TarnishedPath^talk 02:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Why, I think it's usually good to defer to experts unless we are experts ourselves. :) As I've always said though, let's look at how reliable sources describe this discourse.

"A frenzied debate has raged over the International Olympic Committee clearing the duo to compete in the women's boxing in Paris, despite them having been disqualified from last year's Women's World Championships for failing to meet eligibility criteria."

Sounds like the BBC views this as a debate that was spurred by Khelif's/Lin's disqualification, not just "misinformation". JSwift49 03:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote? The expert didn't address Khelif as a subject matter. They were quoted in regards to DSD and eligibility and nothing else. You continued pushing just confirms what I and others have said which is that you are POV Pushing. TarnishedPath^talk 04:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I don’t dispute that re. the expert, that’s why these opinions were never the crux of my argument. My argument is based on how reliable sources describe the attention she received. (As I said I do think generally disregarding expert testimony, unless they already have serious credibility issues, is not something that should be normalized.)

No point continuing to discuss ad nauseam, we’ve both made our points multiple times. JSwift49 10:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

This is just further WP:POVPUSH. You presented these sources because they had experts in them, but close analysis of the sources shows that any subject matter experts don't support your position of reasonable concerns because any reasonably put positions don't even address the subject. You have not made any point and continue to engage in WP:IDHT. TarnishedPath^talk 11:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

You are doing POVPUSH, by engaging in a conversation with me where I simply stated my opposition to a suggestion. I am only stating facts that there is no evidence against. I elect not to engage in further discussion with you on this topic. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 11:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I think perhaps you replied from the incorrect account there. MrOllie (talk) 11:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I hate when that happens. Remsense诉 11:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

They pinged me saying that I am doing POVPUSH under my comment. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 11:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

It seems that I replied under the wrong comment. I will move it to the place where I intended to reply. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 11:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@MrOllie you can check the other subthread where "tarnished path" is accusing me of POVPUSH, replying to my statement about XY chromosomes. Since I have notifications on for the entire discussion and they published a comment about JSwift49 doing POVPUSH shortly after replying to me, I mistakenly thought this message was another reply to mine. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 12:01, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

That's one explanation. MrOllie (talk) 12:03, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

These accusations are honestly tiring. I did not expect to face such baseless claims for joining wikipedia. You could just check the first IP address I have used to comment before creating my account, it is from Switzerland. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 12:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

This is hardly a baseless claim. MrOllie (talk) 12:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Then just check the IP address. I have nothing to add. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Kindly stop trying to edit or remove the comment in question. MrOllie (talk) 12:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Kindly explain if it is not allowed to edit your own comments? Fanny.doutaz (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

It isn't. See WP:REDACT. MrOllie (talk) 12:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it's one explanation. TarnishedPath^talk 12:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Fanny.doutaz (talk) 12:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

From a mobile device, it's impossible to read this discussion; one letter per line... JacktheBrown (talk) 12:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The fact that they've been called out for synthesizing or cherry-picking sources numerous times in a contentious topic area and demonstrating IDHT in response is not at all frivolous. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  02:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

+1 M.Bitton (talk) 02:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

See [128] strongly disagree re. "cherry picking" accusations, including w/ your referral of me to ANI while ignoring my explanation/question. The instance of synthesis had to do with one source and I struck it after being informed. [129][130] JSwift49 16:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

There has been exactly zero legitimate concerns about Khelif's eligibility to compete. Any such characterisation is an attempt to minimise and at least partially WP:WHITEWASH the misinformation and disinformation which has been pushed by various bad faith actors on social media platforms. TarnishedPath^talk 04:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Seeing the section below that JSwift49 started without signing (a very convenient "oversight"), the persistent aspersions casting (highlighted above, which also suggest that they hold grudges), the cherry picking to push a POV in a contentious topic (as well as in any discussion, including the below section) and their battleground approach to everything (editing, discussing, etc.), I think it's high time the admins started considering taking some kind of action. M.Bitton (talk) 01:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@GhostOfDanGurney, I appreciate you've not been part of a lot of discussions, but you missed them engaging in WP:CANVASING to further their POV pushing. TarnishedPath^talk 05:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

If you’re talking about this, [131], I rectified that by pinging all the editors from the (related) neutrality discussion, in response to your concern. [132] so the effect was notifying all editors who had weighed in on a similar topic. (Of course, M.Bitton violated WP:CANVASS on this very board, as I described) JSwift49 11:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Your misrepresentation of what people do and say has no limits. Pinging (on this board) those who are discussing the issue on this board to highlight your continued aspersions casting is not canvassing. M.Bitton (talk) 11:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I suggest you worry about the baseless aspersions you made about me “ignoring” you, and not when someone posts diffs proving you repeatedly asked the same question :) and for the record, you didn’t ping all users in the discussion such as Gitz6666 and GoodDay, only a group you selected, so yes that’s a violation. When you pointed out to me I was violating WP:CANVASS, I rectified it by subsequently tagging everyone in that conversation (as I hadn’t know the policy). Will you do the same? JSwift49 11:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Either you don't know what you're talking about or you're just being disingenuous as usual (more than likely). M.Bitton (talk) 12:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Pinging any editor in a discussion that they are already involved in is not WP:CANVASSING and never has been. TarnishedPath^talk 12:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Given that they start a new portion of the discussion by selectively pinging five editors it seemed to me like that would cross the line. JSwift49 12:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Further pinging other editors from an unrelated discussion (so that all editors from that unrelated discussion were pinged) does not change the WP:CANVASSING. You should not have been pinging any editors from unrelated discussions in the first place, let alone only those who you thought would agree with your stance. TarnishedPath^talk 12:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

It was very much a related discussion; concerning the neutrality of the lead paragraph, which my proposal also concerned. [133] JSwift49 12:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Now you're just playing with words: unrelated here means not the same discussion (I'm certain that you know that). If that's not the definition of being disingenuous, I don't what is. M.Bitton (talk) 12:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I actually didn't know that; but I appreciate you letting me know. What is the issue with pinging all editors from a discussion if that discussion is closely related to your own? JSwift49 12:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I have no reason to believe you and every reason to believe that you're being disingenuous. M.Bitton (talk) 12:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes exactly, that was what led to the wrong reply that @MrOllie pointed out. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 12:14, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes exactly, that was what led to the wrong subthread comment @MrOllie pointed out. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 12:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic ban from GENSEX

For failure/refusal to WP:LISTEN to others' concerns about their editing and proposals with regards to their POV-pushing/whitewashing of gender-based abuse faced by Imane Khelif, and their WP:BLUDGEONING of discussion with repeated "compromises" that don't address concerns, JSwift49 is topic banned from the GENSEX area, broadly construed. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  17:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support as proposer - JSwift49's first edit to the Imane Khelif article was to insert their POV that Khelif faced "intense public scrutiny about her biological sex" and removed the word "misinformation."[134] Ever since, JSwift has disruptively persisted in their attempts to add some form of language which dilutes the fact that Khelif was a victim of misinformation. They previously violated 3RR,[135] and since stopping the edit warring, have refused to listen to repeated concerns that their proposals whitewash the abuse faced by the article's subject. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  17:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  Lack of basis for this, and here's why:

  • My original addition [136] was based on the use of the term "scrutiny" in multiple reliable sources [137][138][139][140][141] I acknowledge it would have been better if I had sought consensus- at the time, I didn't see my change as controversial. However, the original "misinformation" lead was arguably not the subject of consensus before I weighed in.[142][143][144][145][146][147]
  • My original proposal, or changes along those lines, was supported in some form by several other editors.[148][149][150][151] (update: [152][153] [154])
  • After a discussion on the lead where there was no consensus, I proposed a compromise solution that incorporated the concerns of all editors who had weighed in. [155] This proposal gave "misinformation" prominent weight and changed the word "scrutiny" to "attention", as editors felt gave "scrutiny" gave too much weight to negative attention.
  • After further disagreements, I explicitly, and in good faith, invited editors who disagreed with me to submit sources that promote their POV.[156][157][158]
  • Failing that, I started an RfC, which was also a compromise proposal. I used thirteen reliable sources to promote my argument. [159]
  • I was accused of cherry picking, but don't understand why. The sources were reliable, and the quotes were meant to support the addition of a term, not that the existing term did not exist. Concerns, as I understand, have to do with not including quotes that support the (undisputed) existing term. For more information see my writeup above: [160]
  • I tried to resolve concerns about my proposal, before this, with GhostOfDanGurney in good faith.[161][162]. I explained my argument re. cherry picking accusations,[163] but before I was responded to, I was referred to ANI.[164]
  • Being accused of WP:WHITEWASHING does not hold water in my view; I wanted to account for the variety of attention Khelif received while still noting the significance of "misinformation". (One accusation also mistakenly claimed I wanted to remove 'misinformation' from the article. I want no such thing.[165]) Regardless, my argument was sourced and in good faith.
  • I am guilty of edit warring with M.Bitton, and we were both warned for violating the 3RR rule. [166][167] I have refrained from that behavior since and have tried to find consensus on the Talk page. Whatever other policy violations I was made aware of, I remedied or struck. This has been a learning experience, but I do not believe my conduct merits a ban whatsoever.

  JSwift49 17:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. As an uninvolved editor, the rationale for a tban doesn't add up. Wikipedia never required every edit to be perfect nor prevent editors from having opinions. The WP:3RR violation was already dealt with at WP:ANEW and the bludgeon often swings both ways. The content dispute is just a content dispute even if a handful of editors strongly oppose it. Yvan Part (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support: JSwift49 has constantly WP:POVPUSH to insert language that would at least partially WP:WHITEWASH or minimise the misinformation and disinformation in regards to Khelif by suggesting that there were legitimate concerns. This sort of POV pushing has no place in the CTOP area and therefore JSwift49 should be topic banned as a preventative measure to minimise the current disruption that they are causing. TarnishedPath^talk 01:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support:: It is exhausting to even skim this thread. No wonder M.Bitton sought help with this. The gender topic area is already highly toxic and absolutely does not need this sort of contribution. I may have more to say later if I can find time to look at this in more detail. JSwift49, answering every single post is not required and is in fact strongly discouraged as counterproductive to discussion. Elinruby (talk) 04:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose as uninvolved: based on the section below, the overall picture is much more complex than what is described by the topic ban request, the other faction of the dispute is guilty of the same behaviours, particularly with regards to the "failure/refusal of WP:LISTENING" and "WP:BLUDGEONING of the discussion", as well as being WP:BITEy and hostile towards anyone slightly disagreeing with them. I would certainly be in favour of banning from the article both JSwift49 and M. Bitton (and perhaps others), as we need a more collaborative environment and not a war between opposing POV pushers. --Cavarrone 09:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  I am happy to step away from the article voluntarily; I and my opponents have made our points multiple times, so I agree it’s now better to let others pick it up. This is definitely a learning experience re. not feeling the need to weigh in on every point you disagree with.

  I will emphasize that I think a difference here with some is that I have made efforts toward compromise/consensus, and to revisit arguments in response to others’ concerns. (More examples: [168][169][170][171][172][173][174]) JSwift49 11:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. Given that it is not clear whether the person is a victim of all the claims or not (the claims about them having XY chromosomes are neither proven nor disproved), it is better to use a neutral word about controversies in this topic. While it is not true that the person is male or transgender, the XY chromosomes is a question without definite answer. The article currently looks as if both the male / transgender claims and the "XY claim" are misinformation. There is at least a need to point out that the "XY claim" is not disproved and therefore cannot be classified as misinformation. Therefore, I support JSwift49 and think that they are right. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 09:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

"the XY chromosomes is a question without definite answer. The person has stated that they are female. Any assertion otherwise should require appropriate reliable sources. This muddying of the waters is entirely inappropriate and constitutes WP:POVPUSHING. TarnishedPath^talk 11:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I am simply stating that while the gender is not under dispute, having XY chromosomes (or the claims about it) is worth mentioning. Most of the sources that I have seen are saying that the person has XY chromosomes, not that they are male or transgender. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 11:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I think your previous statement is mudding waters by intentionally interpreting my statement as something that I did not state. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 11:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point with your further comments. TarnishedPath^talk 11:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

You are doing POVPUSH, by engaging in a conversation with me where I simply stated my opposition to a suggestion. I am only stating facts that there is no evidence against the person having XY chromosomes in addition to reports that state they do have. I elect not to engage in further discussion with you on this topic. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 11:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Nice WP:GASLIGHTING. By your logic you could argue that there's no evidence that the earth isn't flat. I'm sorry, that doesn't cut it. TarnishedPath^talk 12:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

There is the report by IBA about XY chromosomes. While that one cannot be regarded as proof, it can still legitimately raise doubts. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 12:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

IBA as a primary source is completely and utterly unreliable. For you to even put forward any suggestion about a report from the IBA is further WP:POVPUSH. You need to stop now. TarnishedPath^talk 12:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Where do you justify your claim of it being unreliable? Is that not POVPUSH? Fanny.doutaz (talk) 12:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

One can only argue this if they choose to put weight on the position that the configuration of one's sex chromosomes is ever of note to nearly anyone else for any reason that is unrelated to social categories of sex and gender. Remsense诉 11:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Not getting involved in further arguments; but for clarity I do not support mentioning XY chromosomes in the lead.[175][176] JSwift49 12:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• 'Support at minimum' Given the IDHT-ness displayed above. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. JacktheBrown (talk) 11:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that JackkBrown (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)
• Support, given what I've seen here and at the talkpage. The bludgeoning alone is exhausting, and it is not equally distributed on "both sides". Grandpallama (talk) 13:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Behavior of M.Bitton

For the record, I would like to submit these cases of sealioning and personal attacks/aspersions by M. Bitton on or regarding on Talk:Imane_Khelif, as I am questioning whether their conduct is conducive to editing contentious topics.

We have argued back and forth a lot, and I have not been blameless myself, in part due to lack of experience with applicable policies and in part due to not questioning my own assumptions (has been a learning experience). However, the pattern of personal attacks and sealioning by M.Bitton seems quite consistent here, not just toward me. I don't see any will by them to compromise or address concerns of editors who disagree, even after I worked on a compromise solution, [177] started an RfC based on that, [178] struck a remark I made that they saw as an aspersion [179] etc.

Sealioning

• Same question 5x near-verbatim, despite receiving replies [180][181][182][183][184]
• Same question 4x near-verbatim, despite receiving replies [185][186][187][188]
• Opposed incorporating description based on in five, later thirteen, reliable sources (including AP) due to "cherry picking" [189][190][191] while repeatedly citing an opinion article from a partisan source in support of their POV. [192][193][194]
• Pretty blatant example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT [195]
• Attempted to discredit three opinion articles (two of which by scientific experts) published in significant, reliable sources as "nobodies" by tying them to opinions from "nobodies" [196]
• Stated "I don't want anything" in response to editor seeking to understand what they wanted [197]
• Violated WP:CANVASS to assemble people in response to my pointing out sealioning (specifically, the 4 and 5 question repeats, with diffs) [198]

Personal attacks/aspersions

• Accused me twice of not reading/ignoring their POV [199][200]
• Called my statement (with diffs) that they asked the same questions 4 and 5 times "aspersions" [201][202]
• Reverted a 17-year-old new user twice asking to resolve a dispute on their talk page, stated "you're not welcome here" [203][204]
• Reverted user who posted to talk page expressing concerns about archiving of a Talk thread, stated "you're no longer welcome here" [205]
• Said "what a surprise" in response to editor who disagreed with his position [206]
• Stating "not an improvement (that's a generous way of describing it)" in response to a good faith proposal by a new editor [207]
• Goaded users on their "lack of courage of conviction" to report them three times in a row [208][209][210] even after asked to stop [211]
• "You're not fooling anyone with that extremely poor excuse" in response to a concern about unsourced lead material [212]
• Stating "you have an issue with silence" to editor during discussion [213] — Preceding unsigned comment added by JSwift49 (talk • contribs) JSwift49 01:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

This retaliatory hollow section by JSwift49 (who conveniently "forgot" to sign it) is a perfect example of their out of context cherry picking to mislead the readers while pushing a POV. It also highlights their battleground approach to everything. M.Bitton (talk) 01:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

This is confusing, it looks like M.Bitton filed a complaint about themselves. But, M.Bitton, do you have any comment about these specific instances? It would help if you provided a more thoughtful response as these do not all seem frivolous complaints. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

M.Bitton's behaviour has been very poor - very confrontational and harsh, and frankly unwarranted, since no one is trying to dismiss or belittle the notion that Khelif was subjected to idiotic fascist abuse. They are presenting a relatively minor disagreement over article content (should we mention in the lead that there's been also public debate about eligibility standards in women's boxing competitions?) as a fight between Right and Wrong, the ultimate resistance against fascism and bigots - I find it ridiculous. Anyway, their behaviour towards the young newcomer (who was quite civil and cooperative) is appalling. It's also worth mentioning (as a sign of their battleground mentality and WP:ownership) that they've made 8 (eight!) non-consecutive reverts in less than 24h (as I documented here) and the result was... that TarnishedPath reported JSwift49 at 3RR/N and not M.Bitton! These two users are blowing things out of proportion and disregarding common sense and civility - admins should step in. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for glossing over that JSwift49 had pissed all over WP:3RR in as much as the third revert shown in my report had a message in the edit summary in which JSwift49 lectured M.Bitton not to breach 3RR and then they breached it 4 hours latter. TarnishedPath^talk 10:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

You're very much part and parcel of the problem, so don't pretend to be a third party.

no one is trying to dismiss or belittle the notion that Khelif was subjected to idiotic fascist abuse then, why did you keep citing the crappy Italian sources (that you described as RS) that violate BLP?

Their behaviour towards the young newcomer (who was quite civil and cooperative) is appalling. that's a lie. The so-called newcomer is more than likely, like a sock who started casting aspersions (your stance is not neutral and that you are biased towards) and kept doubling down on them (this means you admit you are biaised), etc). M.Bitton (talk) 10:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is, you have made personal attacks against several different users on this one topic. At some point it becomes a concern for all contentious topics.

Re. 3RR this was reported and dealt with with a warning, and we’ve both done a good job since sticking to the talk page. JSwift49 11:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The section that you created to justify your aspersions casting and your usually cherry picking and misrepresentation of the sources, as well as what editors said, has been addressed. M.Bitton (talk) 11:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@JSwift49, the fact that you lectured another editor to not violate 3RR in an edit summary and then proceeded to violate it yourself is not reason to say that you've done a good job. It was demonstrably wilful behaviour engaged in to push your favoured version. That fact that you both got away with only a warning is largely due to the existence of this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 12:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Let's not forget that JSwift49 was edit warring while citing a fictitious policy to justify their multiple violations of the WP:ONUS policy (in a BLP article). M.Bitton (talk) 12:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I meant we had done a good job since receiving the warning :) JSwift49 12:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

that's a lie - I think you're wrong, M.Bitton. I have reviewed Fanny.doutaz's contributions - which is easy to do, since they amount to 79 edits - and I'm persuaded that they are a newcomer, not a sock, and that they are sincere when they describe themselves as 17y || Swiss || CSE @ MIT on their user page. You can check their comments in this thread - they are sensible, but are the comments of someone who is not aware of WP:RS. No experienced editor would make this comment. it will be up to Wikipedia to verify it in this comment is also the talk of a newcomer, as well as chat history in this comment. Here they ask M.Bitton about the meaning of ONUS - M.Bitton's reply? Onus is an English word. If you don't know what it means, you look it up in a dictionary. M.Bitton's behaviour in this thread and on their user talk (hereand here) was a disgraceful violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NOBITE by an experienced user who should know better. I'm pinging Bbb23, who closed the previous thread at ANI. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Others disagree with your baseless assertions about the potential sock. Regardless, what you said about me is a big fat lie given that they started casting aspersions and doubled down on them (see my previous reply to your comment).

Regarding the "Onus" word, they filed this report on the 9th and my response to their so-called question was on the 10th. The fact that you didn't provide the diff for my response cannot be an oversight.

Also, why did you keep citing the crappy Italian sources that violate BLP and that you falsely described as RS? This explains why you're defending those who share your POV. M.Bitton (talk) 15:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Since you pinged the admin, I will also ping the other editors (10mmsocket and GoodDay) who shared their views on the so-called "new editor". M.Bitton (talk) 15:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Uninvolved, but I also doubt that the "new editor" is all that new. The fact they immediately referenced IP addresses and UUID's on M.B's talk page makes it kind of obvious. WP:MANDY. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Friendly reminder to WP:AGF - looking at their edit history of another very young student from Switzerland and the talk page there with mention that they know the other student, I believe that this editor may very well also be a young talented student, which per their user page is studying computer science, which means they would be well aware what CS terms such as IP and UUID's are, those are not magical terms of Wikipedia, but of computing.

Some of the behavior cited above definitely does look a bit WP:BITEy as it appeared to come from a position of assuming a new user would know policies without having linked them from looking back at the discussion. Raladic (talk) 15:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

That's what they claim. They started casting aspersions and doubled down on them. That much, I know for a fact and see no reason to let myself be attacked by a so-called "new editor" (who strangely found their way to ANI after a handful of edits). M.Bitton (talk) 16:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Could you please share the diffs with the serious personal attacks by the newcomer that provoked your hostile responses? They are needed also to assess the "big fat lie" accusation that you just levelled at me, when I said that that newcomer's behaviour was overall civil and cooperative - they just happened to disagree with your POV. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I already have cited some of them (in green) and highlighted your bad faith comments (in bold). Now, feel free to answer the question that I asked you (about your POV pushing in a BLP article). M.Bitton (talk) 17:07, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok... So in conclusion it was not a lie? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

the young newcomer (who was quite civil and cooperative) since they most definitely were not "civil" (see this and their talk page), what does that make Gitz's baseless assertion? M.Bitton (talk) 17:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

If I understand you well, their personal attack on you was to say so this means you admit you are biaised. Well, keep your chin up... But what did you spotted on their talk page? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The above response wasn't meant for you (as far as I'm concerned, you made yourself irrelevant the moment you exposed your bad faith). Your refusal to answer the question about your POV pushing in a BLP speaks for itself. M.Bitton (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Your refusal to answer the question about your POV pushing refers to the question why did you keep citing the crappy Italian sources that violate BLP and that you falsely described as RS?. I think this is called deflecting, grasping at straws and wasting my time, but WP:EQ and civility require that I share the relevant diffs: [214][215][216]. Anyone can check them and assess whether my behaviour on that talk page was questionable. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

You can call your POV pushing in the BLP whatever you want. Collecting some shitty Italian newspapers (that you falsely described as RS) to refute "there is no RS to support such a contentious label" speaks for itself. M.Bitton (talk) 21:53, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The shitty Italian newspapers were ANSA [217], Adnkronos [218], la Repubblica [219], Il Messaggero [220], La7 [221], Radio DeeJay [222], and I shared them on the t/p not to argue that they should be used to describe Khelif as intersex, as they do (we shouldn't) but to argue that we should not suggest that the allegation that Khelif has DSDs is false: that allegation may be true, and many professional NEWSORGs and subject-matter experts ([223], [224]) either take it for true or debate the potential presence and nature of her DSDs. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

You cited those shitty Italian newspapers (with shitty headlines) and described them as RS to refute "there is no RS to support such a contentious label". I don't believe for one second that you didn't know what you were doing (you've been around long enough to know what RS and BLP are). M.Bitton (talk) 22:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I found my way to ANI after that you have threatened me to report me to ANI. Now you are using this to spread false information about me, saying that I found it without any context. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 20:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I said I will report you if you continued to cast aspersions. I specifically said "you're new, so you get a pass". This is how you thanked me for giving a chance to concentrate on the content. M.Bitton (talk) 21:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I have not been involved in anything here except for the one day when I reverted Fanny.doutaz's contributions and subsequently posted in support of M.Bitton when Fanny.doutaz took the matter to ANI. I stand by my assertion that Fanny.doutaz was not a new editor, was someone very family with Wikipedia editing and Wikipedia administration and was, in my opinion, very likely a sockpuppet account. New editors simply don't gain that level of knowledge within a few hours of coming to Wikipedia. On that occasion I thought M.Bitton's behaviour was entirely reasonable in response to an antagonistic editor. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:31, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I am not a sock puppet account. The knowledge that I have about Wikipedia comes from a friend who used to be active in this community. Apart from this, "M.Bitton" did not act in an acceptable way and nothing justifies their actions, given that my proposal about the article was legitimate, but they started to refute it without enough justification, and eventually started attacks such as the ones that I have mentioned. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 20:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I am replying after being pinged. Thank you for raising the issue about "M.Bitton". I have not raised it before, because I am currently busy with an academic project and therefore would not like to be overly involved in online disputes. I am glad that other nice people are helping to report this person, for their (in my opinion unacceptable) attitude towards multiple people including me. This attitude includes, but is not limited to, calling other people's opinion "useless" and saying that other people's proposal is bad without any justification. "M.Bitton" provoked me multiple times saying that I lacked courage and that "empty barrels make the most noise" when I pointed out their disrespectful behaviour. I found this behaviour unacceptable for an encyclopaedia community, especially given that they also refuse to resolve an issue that started to consist of personal attacks, while I proposed to resolve it.

I will not be able to bring much more information in this discussion, but I wrote this message to thank the people who raised this issue, for their help to make this community more welcoming (to be honest, "M.Bitton" scared me quite a lot as I make my first steps in this community). Fanny.doutaz (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

+1. JacktheBrown (talk) 09:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Fanny.doutaz: I remain available for any questions or curiosities you wish to ask me; I'm here to help you.
I advise you not to focus on users who don't treat you well (in this case the user you're referring to), as you would only waste energy that you could use in a healthier way. JacktheBrown (talk) 09:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Says the editor who has been been canvassed for their extreme views that led to them violating the BLP policy on more than one occasion (discussed at the ned of this report below). M.Bitton (talk) 13:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Bada bing and Bada boom. M.Bitton (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

You calling me a sock puppet is defamatory. [I have retracted the rest of the message, I was not aware that it was not allowed here, thank you MrOllie for pointing out] Fanny.doutaz (talk) 20:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

WHOAH, you can't make legal threats on Wikipedia. That's a big NO-NO. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

[retracted]. If this is not tolerated on Wikipedia, then thank you for letting me know. I will not say this again here. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

That is plainly a legal threat. Per WP:NLT you should retract that immediately or you can expect to be blocked. - MrOllie (talk) 21:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

After that you have told me, I declared that I retract it. I was not aware that this is not allowed here. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 21:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

 Note: Fanny.doutaz (the "new editor") is now WP:CANVASSING. Please see this comment. M.Bitton (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Liz:

First part:

• The first two is what they keep plastering all over the place with this editor has a history ... (to justify their persistent attacks). The claim that the questions were answered is has no basis in reality. They are also part of the edit war in which JSwift49 kept mentioning a fictitious policy to justify their multiple violations of the WP:ONUS policy (I have every reason to believe that this was done intentionally and not reason to believe otherwise, given that this is an experienced editor).
• I opposed the inclusion and explained why.
• Their irrelevant opinion of mine.
• A lie and another example of their bad faith: I described those who started the hate campaign as nobodies (as in non RS).
• The full comment speaks for itself.
• More bad faith: pinging (on this board) those who are discussing the issue on this board to highlight the continued aspersions casting by JSwift49 is not canvassing

Second part:

• Their repeated "as I said ..." to what was addressed by multiple editors is a prove that they are ignoring what is being said by others.
• Stating this editor has a history ... in a RfC is beyond the pale.
• My right not to discuss anything on my talk page (especially, with a suspected sock who has nothing but aspersions to offer).
• Same as above.
• The editor in question violated BLP more than once (I can prove it and I'm certain that they won't deny it).
• Not an improvement means "not an improvement" (that's my opinion and I stand by it).
• The previously mentioned sock repeatedly attacking me while refusing to either stop or take it to ANI.
• I fully stand by that comment: trying to remove the easily attributable content that is being discussed in a RfC (that they started), while arguing that it's unsourced is a very poor excuse indeed.
• My response to an editor who kept repeating that "silence is often considered an admission" and describing it as "the silence issue", to insinuate that she is what they think she is. M.Bitton (talk) 11:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I think this is quite revealing here. Not least the response to the sealioning by turning it around on me (Whataboutism). Even now, they call me "disingenous as usual"; [225] it seems the default response to any concern is to just turn it around on the other person.

• I will strike one point as they are right: the "nobodies" on second look was in fact referring to people who started the hate campaign. However, I still think it's concerning that they would discredit articles by experts by associating them with opinions of "nobodies" that happened before.
• The facts are, the pattern of behavior deals with content that several editors supported some form of change to [226][227][228][229] and which arguably did not have a consensus to begin with, [230][231][232][233][234][235] and this is not how someone editing contentious topics should generally behave.
• I hate to play into the "both sidesing" of this issue, but I couldn't find a single instance where M.Bitton expressed a desire to compromise or admitted they could have done something better, despite the consistent pattern shown above. And for my faults, I did make a good faith effort to achieve consensus and incorporate feedback. [236][237][238][239][240][241][242][243] JSwift49 12:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Your disingenuous assertions have been addressed. M.Bitton (talk) 12:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Noting here that User:Fanny.doutaz made a legal threat in this section and then deleted the subthread after WP:NLT was pointed out. - MrOllie (talk) 21:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I retracted it, my original message was stating that the sockpuppet claim against me was defamatory [and all the rest], but I was totally unaware that it is not allowed here. I have retracted it since MrOllie pointed it out. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 21:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

P.S. @Yamla told me that I should only edit my own message. Therefore the thread stays and I have now only edited my own one. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 21:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Did Yamla say that you can engage in WP:CANVASSING (like you you did with that comment)? I will also ping Doug Weller (the admin who warned you on your talk page) and see what they have to say about your continued disruptive behaviour. M.Bitton (talk) 21:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

If you ping them, then you should make sure they see the entire conversation. I did not say anything for days, until I have been pinged in this conversation. I pointed out your continued disruptive behaviour, and warned you about your defamatory claims. I was not aware that it was not allowed here to make such warnings, and retracted it immediately after that other people told me. But it does not make defamatory actions better and you should be aware of that. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Their behaviour proves beyond doubt that they are a new editor. WP:NOBITE is there for a reason. By disregarding this guideline, M.Bitton has made Fanny.doutaz's experience on Wikipedia quite unpleasant. I hope that admins will take action without repeating M.Bitton's mistake. It is clear who deserves sanction here. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

It's your POV pushing (in a BLP) that they should look at. A living person's reputation is far more important than the feelings of some random editors. For the rest, even if they are new (which I and others doubt), that still doesn't excuse their behaviour, and you're obviously defending them for the simple reason that their POV aligns with yours. M.Bitton (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Gitz6666: "By disregarding this guideline, M.Bitton has made Fanny.doutaz's experience on Wikipedia quite unpleasant. I hope that admins will take action without repeating M.Bitton's mistake": exactly, it's not correct for a collaborative project like Wikipedia to allow this kind of behaviour. JacktheBrown (talk) 22:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that JackkBrown (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)

• First of all, when you get canvassed, it's usually good practice to state it before commenting.
• Did you or did you not violate WP:BLP? M.Bitton (talk) 22:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I forgot to ping (to make sure you don't miss the question). @JackkBrown: Please answer the above question. A simple yes or no will do. M.Bitton (talk) 22:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Was your behaviour, based on what is reported here at ANI, disrespectful to several users (including me) or not? Answer my question and I will answer yours. JacktheBrown (talk) 22:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

No. Please answer the question about your violations of the BLP policy. M.Bitton (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

What I imagined; you never realised your repeated disrespect towards other users (you admitted it yourself: A living person's reputation is far more important than the feelings of some random editors), and, unfortunately for you, this is very serious for a collaborative project. I'm fair and respectful towards users, so I will answer you sincerely: yes, I made an error in a comment that I later deleted; for the rest, I didn't make any mistakes. JacktheBrown (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

You violated BLP on more than one occasion. This is important to note because it explains what you've been up to and why you've been canvassed to this discussion. I'll let the admins draw their own conclusion. M.Bitton (talk) 23:07, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

No, I was invited to this discussion because I, unlike you, was kind to the user: [244]; however, I'm not responsible for the invitation, don't accuse me. JacktheBrown (talk) 23:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't asking (you were canvassed because of your extreme view, as evidenced by your BLP violations). Also, please don't refactor your comment once someone has already replied to it. As for your "I'm fair and respectful towards users" claim:

Why did you write these (on the article's talk page) and can you please substantiate the last part of the second?

• unfortunately, a user (you already know who I'm referring to) is too convinced of their (questionable) ideas
• M.Bitton is a good user, but, unfortunately, also because of them the article isn't neutral.

I'm leaving now, so you have all the time you need to justify these and your other baseless assertions. M.Bitton (talk) 23:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• • Really? After the enormity of disrespectful comments you've written over the weeks do you think I'm the user who's wrong? Furthermore, you're contradicting yourself, because in the second comment I wrote: "M.Bitton is a good user" (are you complaining about a compliment?). Anyway, I wish you a very good night. JacktheBrown (talk) 23:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

    because of them the article isn't neutral is not a compliment and neither are the other baseless accusations that you're throwing around to whitewash the fact that you violated BLP to push a POV. M.Bitton (talk) 23:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

    You never realised your repeated disrespect towards other users (you admitted it yourself: A living person's reputation is far more important than the feelings of some random editors); what do you think about this? You admitted it yourself. Let's talk about what you were reported for, don't change the subject. JacktheBrown (talk) 23:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

This is generating far more heat than light. It needs to be closed, but as I've been pinged I'm not the right person to do this. And yes, it's more important to enforce WP:BLP than worry about editors' feelings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 10:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: "And yes, it's more important to enforce WP:BLP than worry about editors' feelings." Of course I'm aware of this.
I reported their comment to demonstrate that they themselves have confirmed their lack of respect towards other users, a lack which unfortunately occurred in many situations. I have nothing against this user, in fact I have said and repeated that they're a good user; however, it's their behavior that's not at all cooperative and collaborative. JacktheBrown (talk) 14:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Your disingenuousness knows no bounds. M.Bitton (talk) 14:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The insincere user isn't me: [245]. JacktheBrown (talk) 14:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Fanny.doutaz and legal threats

Earlier in this discussion, User:Fanny.doutaz made a clear legal threat, which they doubled down on after an initial warning. After more warnings they edited those comments to remove the threats, but did not really retract them. Just now, they made what looks like another such threat to me on their user talk page. I think something needs to be done here. - MrOllie (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I wish you two would stop fighting. JacktheBrown (talk) 12:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@JackkBrown I do not know how to forward edit history to another page, could you please help me showing the current version of the page where the "legal" statements happened, where I clearly stated that I retracted my statements (unlike what @MrOllie is trying to make others believe by showing an older version of the page)? Thank you Fanny.doutaz (talk) 12:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Fanny.doutaz: date and time of the edit? JacktheBrown (talk) 12:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@JackkBrown I cannot find the time of edits, but a message where I stated clearly that I retracted it was on 21:16, 13 Aug 2024, in UTC time. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 12:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Fanny.doutaz: here. JacktheBrown (talk) 12:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Fanny.doutaz (talk) 12:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Just so this is clear: I stated that defamation is bad (literally just this), because @MrOllie accused me of things that are completely untrue. Stating that defamation is bad does not mean that any legal measures would be taken. It is just from a moral point of view, and I do not see where the legal threat comes in. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 12:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I also did state clearly that I retract all the legal statements yesterday. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 12:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@MrOllie As I clearly stated on my talk page before you brought it here: it was not a legal threat, and it was only a moral blaming against you. Would you explain what your intentions are, as you accuse me of legal threats in a statement like "defamation is bad", despite that I already explained clearly previously that it does not mean any legal actions will be taken? Fanny.doutaz (talk) 12:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the admins can handle it from here, I don't plan to argue back and forth in this section. MrOllie (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Summary message for admins: @MrOllie is making fake accusations of 1) me not retracting a "legal threat" after it being pointed out, I was not aware of it being disallowed on Wikipedia (I am new) and I did retract it clearly after being told it was not allowed, contrarily to what he claimshttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1240155873

2) Calling a message from me, namely "you do know that defamation is bad, do you not", a threat, and bringing it to here after being told clearly that it was only moral blaming and not a threat. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 13:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• @JackkBrown. please stop pretending to be a third party: a) you have been been canvassed by anny.doutaz and b) you violated the BLP policy on more than one occasion (discussed at the end of this report). M.Bitton (talk) 13:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Are you stopping me from expressing my thoughts? Could you kindly finish justifying what you were reported for and stop trying to accuse other users, including me? I can't stand you anymore. JacktheBrown (talk) 13:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• @Fanny.doutaz: a veiled legal threat (after making explicit legal threats) is a legal threat whose intimidating purpose is crystal clear. What you think is neither nor there. M.Bitton (talk) 13:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  @M.Bitton I never explicitly threatened @MrOllie nor veiled legal threats. Also you seem to be obsessed with me, following discussions about me even where you were not involved. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 13:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

 Administrator note @Fanny.doutaz: This was certainly a legal threat. Thank you for retracting it. If you feel you have been the subject of a defamatory statement on Wikipedia, you should email info-en-q@wikipedia.org with details of the article and situation. Please do not post any further legal threats like this, as they will lead to a block on your account.

Re the other comments mentioned in this thread: you're certainly correct that calling something "defamatory' is not the same as threatening to personally take legal action. However per WP:LEGAL it is important to refrain from making comments that others may understand as a threat. For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous", that editor might interpret it as a threat. This appears to be how other editors have interpreted some of your recent comments. Can you therefore please stop using this terminology to describe posts by other editors, as it is disruptive to the editing environment. -- Euryalus (talk) 14:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Euryalus thank you for your message, I will keep that in mind. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 14:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Persistent addition of unsourced content by 82.59.100.176

82.59.100.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles (particularly making mass unsourced/unexplained date changes to articles about films), continued after final warning and hasn't responded to warnings. Examples of unsourced edits: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Waxworker (talk) 17:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Waxworker: In my opinion, if bad behavior has persisted past four escalating warnings, it's disruptive enough that it qualifies for a report at WP:AIV even if it's not by-the-book vandalism. It isn't a big deal at all that you reported them here, though, and I won't be surprised if an administrator resolves this with a block "per report at ANI" or something similar. City of Silver 17:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@City of Silver: - I would report stuff that I think is straightforward like this to AIV, but I've been previously asked not to report unsourced content issues to AIV as anything that isn't obvious vandalism is out of AIV's scope. Waxworker (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Waxworker: So if you make reports like this at AIV, you're going to get nagged by admins for being in the wrong place but if you make them here, you're going to get nagged by busybodies like me for the same thing. I don't think that's particularly fair to you so thank you for doing the good work anyways. City of Silver 17:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked them for a week. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Persistent addition of unsourced content by 2600:8800:1810:100:0:0:0:0/64

2600:8800:1810:100:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, hasn't responded to warnings, /64 was blocked 31h on July 23rd for addition of unsourced content and a week on July 26th, behaviour continued after block expired. Examples of unsourced edits: 1, 2, 3, 4. Waxworker (talk) 17:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

User talk:2600:8804:1689:2B00:B8E3:FC81:56C:B10B

This IP address is consistently vandalizing, and the bot is removing it from AIV because there is a partial block on the range. Beagall (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Also seeing the same vandalism from User talk:2600:8804:1689:2B00:35F5:98B9:7894:D48C. I think that range block needs Scarlet Witch added to it at a minimum. Beagall (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I've done a range block on the /64 which previously was siteblocked for three months. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:41, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE new editor on trans topics + apparently trying to harass me

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

---

I didn't want to bring things here and was planning on just getting back to editing, but Lemmaille apparently seems determined to harass me and get me into a discussion/argument about the legitimacy of trans people. Their first ever edits were on Grace Lavery where they removed all usage of female pronouns. It should be noted that Lavery is a trans woman. In between two reversions and the warning I left on their talk page, they came to my talk page. You can read that section here.

Some choice quotes from the discussion that happened include The subject indicates a preference for she/her; however, these are inaccurate (Link), along with I’m saying that she/her is inaccurate since the subject is not female (Link), among other such comments. I informed them about MOS:GENDERID and the rules about Wikipedia and refused to get into an argument about the sex and gender topic.

Per Drmies suggestion there, I didn't bother coming here to ANI and went on with editing. Since then, Lemmaille has twice commented on their own talk page with a link at me to try and get me to engage in some sort of debate with them. And now, when I didn't respond, has added a cn tag to the most recent article I was working on (which also is an inaccurate cn tag, but that's besides the point).

They're clearly here just to troll about trans related topics and engage in some sort of debate about the topic, with me as their chosen target in that regard. They do not appear to be here to work on the encyclopedia at all. Silverseren^C 18:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Editor notified. Silverseren^C 18:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

This here makes me think we are dealing with a troll. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 18:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Isabelle Belato, thank you for your comment. I did not think there was anything wrong with my edit, since I was simply introducing a synonym that I thought would read better in encyclopedic prose. Of course, if anyone disagrees they are welcome to change it back. All the best, Lemmaille (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

if anyone disagrees they are welcome to change it back I did. Schazjmd (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I see that, no worries! Lemmaille (talk) 18:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

That erected edit is very familiar. I feel that was at ANI in the semi-recent past with another troll. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

This SPI might be of interest, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Architect 134/Archive. The last addition (confirmed) was for Ambeskine who was interested in gender related articles and also had a liking for adding 'zany' to articles. See Lemmailles edit here [246]] see other socks on that list for gender topics crossover with 'zany' and 'dastardly' etc. (I've been asked to post this here from this [247] conversation.

See also [248]]

And [249]] likes to add erection. Knitsey (talk) 18:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I felt something was familiar here. Blocked as a WP:DUCK, though might want to ask for CUs to check for sleepers. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 18:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Changing "frugality" to "niggardly nature" supports the likeliness of trollhood.[250] Schazjmd (talk) 18:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I hope you’re well. And thank you, User:Silver seren, for providing me with a link to this discussion. I was merely trying to understand why people were accusing me of making “bigoted” or “anti-trans” statements. I will point out that I did not make any further edits to the article on the transgender subject mentioned above. As for the tag I added to your article, I felt that it was appropriate because there wasn’t a citation to support that one sentence. I only found it by checking out other articles you were working on, and my only intention was to help by making a small suggestion. All the best, Lemmaille (talk) 18:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

A citation at the end of each sentence is not needed. The citation at the end of the paragraph supported the sentence that you tagged cn. I've removed the tag. Schazjmd (talk) 18:22, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Isabelle Belato, User:Knitsey, thank you. I wonder how NinjaRobotPirate feels about a hardblock on the range. ;) Drmies (talk) 15:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

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

LTA by 2603:8081:81F0:2F90:0:0:0:0/64

2603:8081:81F0:2F90:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Vandalizes a few pages, waits a day (or month), changes their IP, and vandalizes again. 57 edits since June 2024; All reverted. 2603:8081:81F0:2F90:0:0:0:0/48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reveals a several more similar edits in March & April of 2024. IPs: ‎

• ‎2603:8081:81f0:2610:812b:119a:ea7a:7189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2603:8081:81f0:aaa0:4c1c:852a:b3fb:1272 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 603:8081:81f0:8af0:d01c:788:440a:b9ef (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Earlier edits in 2023 appear to be by a different editor. Added an ani-notice to User talk:2603:8081:81F0:2F90:DD1A:73AD:7807:9DAC, though doubt the editor still has that IP. Should the /64 be range-blocked? Adakiko (talk) 19:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Personal attacks and bludgeoning by Berchanhimez and Samuelshraga

Berchanhimez has been repeatedly calling me a liar and refused to strike this assertion even after having been asked multiple times (see first diff above), and even after I provided evidence for the claims in question. He also has been bludgeoning this and related discussions with repeated aggressive assertions that he's totally 100% right and no disagreement on any point could possibly be had in good faith (see first diff above again but also this reply to him as an illustrative example). Other users have tried to lower the temperature to no avail, and I've repeatedly said that it's fine if they think I'm wrong, I'd just like them to strike their very aggressive claims about me lying deliberately.

Samuelshraga similarly accused me of lying and refused to strike when asked. (But he hasn't been bludgeoning the thread, so I'm much more willing to let this one slide.) Loki (talk) 22:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Loki has continued to say things that they themselves have disagreed with in the past. They have provided "evidence" that does not support their claims. It is in fact Loki that has been bludgeoning the discussion - he has only tried to provide evidence at this point after replying to so many comments asking for evidence without having provided evidence. And his evidence is not even supportive of his claims. I will not strike claims of lying that are substantiated by the evidence present in the discussion, and if Loki continues to claim he is not lying by providing evidence that substantiates the fact they are lying, I will continue to call it out as lying. Ultimately, Loki is on a quest to use Wikipedia to designate groups they don't like as hate groups, to prevent sources that report on viewpoints they disagree with, and to censor Wikipedia to only things they agree with. And that's the true problem here. Loki refuses to accept that the arguments in the original discussion did not result in a declaration that a source that reports information they don't like must not be used on Wikipedia.

This has been going on with Loki since the original Telegraph discussion - where many users (both in that discussion and since) have pointed out that his initial claims are at best intentionally misleading. Loki seems to think that because enough other users want to engage in the same advocacy on Wikipedia that they do, that nobody can call out the misleading, misrepresenting (of the original sources), and blatantly false claims being made by Loki and others. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

This [251] by Loki includes: I didn't even catch this one the first time TBH, but Sex Matters is not that, it's an anti-trans hate group. Sex Matters is a registered charity:[252] It is difficult to see how anyone could seriously describe it as a ‘hate group’ in good faith. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:47, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

No, Sex Matters is an anti-trans hate group, allied with other anti-trans hate groups.123 Woodroar (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Why didn't Loki argue this in the discussion rather than say that act like people must take anything he claims as fact? That said, an article from a LGBTQ-allied program at a university, another one that is basically an oped in a journal, and an advocacy group masquerading as a news magazine aren't really proof that they're a hate group. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

When did I say you have to take anything I claim as fact? Loki (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

By bludgeoning the discussion (with your opinion) even when editors requested specifically you provide evidence. The one time you tried to provide evidence, it did not support what you were claiming. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

For heaven’s sake, Loki, are you now saying that none of your statements about the Telegraph are intended to be taken as factual? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweet6970 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

...no? And what a wild misrepresentation. I'm saying, as I've repeatedly said, I don't care if you think I'm wrong. It's the specific accusation of lying that bothers me. Loki (talk) 23:47, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Loki, I said are you now saying that none of your statements about the Telegraph are intended to be taken as factual?. This is a question. I do not see how, in good faith, you could categorise it as a ‘misrepresentation. Because I asked a question, you are accusing me of misrepresentation, i.e. dishonesty, as well as Battleground Behaviour. How about you strike that comment? Sweet6970 (talk) 00:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Do you mean to say that wasn't a rhetorical question, and that you did not in fact mean to say or imply that there was a reasonable possibility none of [my] statements about the Telegraph are intended to be taken as factual? Loki (talk) 01:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Why didn't Loki argue this in the discussion rather than say that people must take anything he claims as fact? Please can you provide a quote for Loki saying this as I don't recall it and haven't found it on a quick ctrl+f. In contrast I do recall you spending a lot of time asserting your opinion as indisputable fact. Thryduulf (talk) 23:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I've updated my statement to be "act" rather than "say", because while he did not explicitly say that, his repeated refusals to provide evidence and then when finally providing evidence that evidence not actually supporting his assertions are an "action" rather than a "statement" that he said. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:22, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I mean, you can read articles on Sex Matter's own site: "A person’s biological sex cannot change", canards about protecting children, "they do not have the right to compel anyone else to pretend they are a member of the opposite sex or to force anyone to share intimate spaces with them on this basis" or "We also believe that ideas and behaviours promoted in the name of gender ideology are misguided and harmful", more about defending children, etc. Woodroar (talk) 23:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

None of these sources say that Sex Matters is a hate group. And a flat statement that Sex Matters is a hate group which is not intended to be taken as true is just disruptive. Sweet6970 (talk) 23:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Having an idea/opinion you disagree with does not make them a "hate group". Wikipedia is not the place to advocate for your preferred worldview. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect here, I do not want to re-litigate the underlying issue, I want to litigate their behavior. I'm taking it you agree that their accusations are unfounded and I think we can leave this there. Loki (talk) 23:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

You brought this here, and your own behavior should be expected to be evaluated too. Including your bludgeoning, your refusal to hear that your initial claims were inaccurate, and your clear attempt to use Wikipedia for advocacy purposes. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

LokiTheLiar: yes, I believe their accusations are unfounded. Quite frankly, I'm surprised at some of the replies here, like citing WP:ADVOCACY while defending a hate group. Woodroar (talk) 00:10, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, a group having a viewpoint you disagree with is insufficient for them to be a hate group. Trying to cover up advocacy by labeling groups you disagree with hate groups is tendentious and not appropriate on Wikipedia, which does not cater to one viewpoint or another. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Sex matters is a registered charity, taken seriously on controversial topics by mainstream media sources like the BBC. Void if removed (talk) 07:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Both of those are independent of whether it is or is not a hate group. Thryduulf (talk) 12:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

This misses the point. Loki is claiming that any description of Sex Matters other than "hate group" is a direct falsehood. The fact that this group is a registered charity and quoted in sources like the BBC is evidence, as if it were necessary, that this is not so. Of course a different publication could call Sex Matters a hate group and still be reliable, it's just a question of POV. Samuelshraga (talk) 12:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

While this doesn't matter much either, in Britain, campaign groups and advocacy groups can register as charity, and that's the type of charity Sex Matters has registered as. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

To Thyrduulf: If you have evidence that Sex Matters is a hate group, then you should report this to the Charity Commission for England and Wales. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that it is or it isn't a hate group. I'm just pointing out that being a registered charity is not proof that it isn't one, only that the Charity Commission did not consider it a hate group at the time they granted it the status. There are multiple possible reasons why that might be the case:

• It is not a hate group
• It was not a hate group at the time but it is now
• It was a hate group at the time...
  • ...but the CC were not aware of that
  • ...but the CC could not at the time deny registration due to the combination of the evidence presented and the wording of the rules
  • ...but the CC made a mistake
  • ...but the CC deliberately granted the status anyway (for multiple possible reasons)
• There was no consensus at the time about whether it was or was not a hate group
• The definition of "hate group" (generally and/or as defined by the rules CC uses) has changed between then and now.

Whether a group is taken seriously on controversial topics by mainstream media sources is also not evidence of anything other than the media source(s) concerned consider them a relevant organisation in regards to those topics. Groups that are, by widespread consensus, undeniably hate groups can be and sometimes are treated as relevant and serious by mainstream media sources. Not that I think anybody is arguing that Sex Matters are not serious. Thryduulf (talk) 16:06, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

It does however sort the claim into WP:EXTRAORDINARY territory, as the regulator being incompetent or corrupt requires evidence, and makes accusations of being a "hate group" more likely hyperbole. Continuing to baldly state it as fact is not at all a reflection of the balance of sources.

The issue is that in the infamous telegraph RFC, not treating Sex Matters as a hate group was offered as evidence against the reliability of the Telegraph. As I pointed out at the time, that's a slippery slope indeed and one which begins by begging the question. If the Telegraph and BBC are in agreement, it's a mark against unreliability. That argument should have been dismissed, but here it still is, bubbling away in this discussion and the endless interminable debate over that RFC, weeks later. Void if removed (talk) 07:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Where does the BBC take sex matters seriously in that article? They only mention it because a Dr is a member. Looking through other times they seem to be viewed as a campaign/advocacy/lobbying group by the BBC and always seem to be balanced out with charities that help transgender people or just transgender people. LunaHasArrived (talk) 09:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Loki and I have a long history of being buddies and colluding via emails regarding how we should both respond to common topics. <- That is a lie. I said it knowingly and I know it to be false. I don't view Loki's comments as lies even if I don't agree with them <- That is not a lie. I actually might be incorrect in that Loki may have said something that I would consider to be a lie but since I'm not aware of this, I can, hand over heart etc, say I wasn't lying. Looking at the evidence provided I don't see "lies". As an editor who has been accused of lying I do think such accusations should be used very sparingly as they are hurtful and uncivil. If I can't convince an editor that my ideas are correct, well it could be I'm wrong or just that I wasn't able to articulate what is "correct". However, when someone says I'm lying it says that I'm acting in bad faith with the intent to mislead. That certainly does make it much harder to stay civil. Even though Loki and I seem to disagree most of the time and I may find their logic flawed (as I'm sure they would reciprocate), I don't see being "wrong" as the same as "lying". Accusations of lying should be reserved for when an editor is deliberately trying to deceive. If I truly believe the Earth is flat then I'm not "lying" when I tell you as much. I'm only lying if I don't believe it but try to convince you otherwise. I don't see any evidence that Loki doesn't believe what they are arguing thus I do not believe it is correct to accuse them of acting in bad faith. Berchanhimez and Samuelshraga, I would suggest retracting the accusation of "lying" as it implies an intent to deceive in bad faith that just isn't supported by evidence. That doesn't mean you have to say Loki was correct or even that it was logically sound. It just acknowledges that Loki wasn't trying to deceive or promote an idea they personally don't believe in. I suspect no one actually thinks Loki doesn't believe what they are arguing regardless if we agree with it. Springee (talk) 00:19, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I believe Loki is, at this point, engaging in the form of civil POV pushing that Liliana points out below and is intentionally trying to mislead people. They have been pointed out multiple times how their claims from their start of the original RfC until now have been inaccurate, at best, and they have refused to recant them. They are intentionally trying to deceive/mislead. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Come on, I was obviously referring to y'all, not to Loki. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

How is this a response to what Springee has said? Aaron Liu (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Springee was discussing whether there are technically lies or not. As such, I pointed out how Loki has been given an opportunity to correct their falsehoods multiple times and has not done so - leading to the only assumption being that they are intentional at this point. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I guess I see the connection, then. But still, a horrible argument is not a falsehood. WP:DONTGETIT is one thing, and lying is another thing much more serious. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't see civil POV pushing as lying. I've been accused of civil POV pushing. I don't think the accusers felt I was lying or didn't personally believe what they might have felt was total BS. If you think Loki isn't listening to reason and is constantly pushing a claim that others have debunked, yeah, that could be ICANTHEAR or POVPUSH but it's isn't "lying". Also, if Loki doesn't feel they have been corrected or that they are incorrect, regardless of the evidence, well that might lead to an issue but it wouldn't be lying. I think Aaron Liu is correct here, a horrible argument (that the speaker believes) isn't lying. Since the specific concern is the claim of "lying" I would hope that making it clear that, regardless of the validity of Loki's arguments, you aren't accusing them of willfully trying to deceive should whole mess up. Springee (talk) 01:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

It would be lying - if they've been shown their statements are wrong, there is a consensus (as there was at the original discussion) that their "opening statement" (and others) were wrong, and they still refuse to admit it and stand by their claims. I wasn't trying to say civil POV pushing is lying - but lying is certainly civil POV pushing. One doesn't have to accept that their statements are false for them to be intentionally making false statements - otherwise nobody would ever be "lying" because they would just claim "I believed it". Again, I ask others to think of someone parroting the Trump Big Lie ("the 2020 election was stolen"). If in the face of evidence that it was not stolen someone continues to make the claim that it was, that is a lie at that point. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@Berchanhimez How many times do you need to be told that whether or not there was consensus is your opinion, not fact before you start listening? Or are you listening and intentionally being disruptive? I hope for your sake is incompetence rather than malice Thryduulf (talk) 01:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I could ask you the same thing about your refusal to see the clear consensus (when weighting !votes accordingly) in the original discussion. You are also engaging in civil POV pushing at this point, and making personal attacks against me when you do. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The one thing that nearly everybody other than you can see from the original discussion is that there is no "clear consensus". Whether there was a consensus is disputed, but if there was one it was not remotely "clear". It is neither civil POV pushing nor a personal attack to point out when someone repeatedly bludgeons discussions with claims that their opinion is fact - especially when multiple people (involved and uninvolved) have called them out on it multiple times. Thryduulf (talk) 01:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Actually, many people opined during the close review that, had the closer evaluated and weighted the comments appropriately, there would have been a clear consensus. So you are now misrepresenting the consensus in the close review to further your claim that it was not a clear consensus. It is also absurd that you are claiming I alone am a problem when Loki has been bludgeoning both the original discussion and to an extent the close review itself. Being louder/having more people agree with you is not how Wikipedia operates. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The close review contained an explicit part where participants !voted on their preferred outcome of the discussion. Only a bit less than half of 1 !vote (JoeJShmo's, which also favored no consensus) believed that the close should've been overturned to a consensus. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with this analysis because it counts the !votes rather than the arguments. There were a significant number of people who voted for option 5 (reclose by another closer) - or in fact didn't comment in that section at all - under the understanding that another closer would've properly weighted the original discussion to result in the consensus that is clear when proper weighting was applied. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

From a sample of 10 uninvolved overturn !votes, only 1 thought that it should be consensus for G while 4 though it should be no consensus. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't see "no consensus" as a valid result. There should be a consensus found in a discussion where "no consensus" means an effective change (i.e. a backdoor downgrade of the source's reliability) - if it is at all possible. If no consensus is evident, the way !votes are being weighted down or up should be reconsidered. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

That's not how consensus works - you can't just manufacture one when one doesn't exist. The claim that no consensus is a "backdoor downgrade" has been discussed in at least two other venues and (imo) thoroughly debunked each time. Thryduulf (talk) 02:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying that's how consensus works. But "no consensus" should not be a cop out for not fully weighting the commentary of the discussion, especially when it results in a backdoor downgrade of a source's reliability. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

As has been extensively discussed at other venues, it should be a downgrading, and you should not be diverting the topic to something that should be discussed at WT:RSP. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Were any of these "other venues" for PAGs instead of the RSP essay-class page? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

RSP is a WP:INFOPAGE project page, not an essay, as it simply summarizes past consensus, thus not requiring any consensus of its own to vet itself. It holds the acceptance of the entire community and the entire RfC was towards changing a listing at RSP. Not being a PAG does not magically degrade its status as the correct venue in any imaginable way. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I correctly said "essay-class", just because an editor gave it a title doesn't negate that "In comparison to policies and guidelines, information pages, like essay pages, have a limited status, and can reflect varying levels of consensus and vetting." Since you didn't answer my question I'll take it your "venues" have nothing to do with PAGs. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

RSP is a list of how the community assesses sources according to WP:RS. The original RfC is all about changing the RSP-status of a source, and what a no-consensus outcome means for a source's RSP-status is of course best discussed at RSP. Whether RSP itself has PAG-level consensus is irrelevant. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

That is your view, which a ton of people disagree with. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Further comments: It’s late where I am and I’m going to bed. So these are sort-of pre-emptive comments as to what might happen while I’m asleep. From my previous experience of dealings with Loki, I believe that Loki believes that he is acting in good faith. But from the evidence of all the discussions involving the Telegraph, it would be entirely reasonable to think otherwise. Loki started this thread because he objects to being accused of lying. He has now accused me of misrepresentation i.e. dishonesty, because, for heaven’s sake, I asked a question. I think it would be a good idea if he voluntarily stepped back from anything to do with the Telegraph for at least the next 3 months. Sweet6970 (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Loki has not edited since you asked them to recant. I believe that both of you made perhaps slightly pointed ("for heavens sake", "misrepresentation" linking to BATTLEGROUND) remarks in good faith, and perhaps waiting and then apologizing would be a much better way than sanctions. I'm saying this as a near-native (i.e. none-native) speaker who thought that this was like the difference between disinformation and misinformation: the former has malicious intent. I'm surprised the word "disrepresentation" doesn't exist. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

You asked what I believe to be a very pointed rhetorical question. If you didn't intend it that way I'm perfectly willing to retract my accusation. Loki (talk) 01:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it was a request for clarity despite the intensifier. I can see how one may read it that way. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I can see the possibility but I still don't think it's the most likely reading. If it was a request for clarity, it surely was a very aggressive one. Loki (talk) 04:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@LokiTheLiar:You are mistaken. It was not a rhetorical question. It was a serious question. You said When did I say you have to take anything I claim as fact? as if you were denying that anything you said should be taken seriously. I was gobsmacked. Are you now ready to strike your comment? Sweet6970 (talk) 08:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

That's not what I meant at all, but I will accept that it's not what you meant either and strike the bit about it being a misrepresentation. Loki (talk) 16:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Thankyou. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Everyone in this discussion may be interested in this essay. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:28, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I think perhaps I haven't lived up in every instance to Wikipedia:Civility standards here. However, bringing this dispute here is ludicrous. First of all, Loki's sudden indignation about accusations of lying is ludicrously hypocritical.

Moreover, the key difference is that I backed up my accusation (the diff that Loki shared in his complaint), and therefore stand by it. If not lying, I don't know what to call it. Reckless disregard for the truth? Loki said things that are false, this has been pointed out at length and repeatedly, by multiple editors over months, and Loki just repeats the false claims. I don't know what to call this other than lying.

I don't know how to engage in a discussion if such tactics can be engaged in so shamelessly and this is taken to be legitimate. Obviously I can no longer assume good faith here, and I don't think behavioural guidelines call me to either. I will go along with whatever de-escalation @Liz or other admin conclude, but frankly the brazenness of the complaint here is just a small taste of the shamelessness and gaslighting that we've seen from Loki over the past months. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:43, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Your accusations in the third paragraph are a (relatively) extreme amount of escalation. As I have pointed out (though to Bercham, not you), "lying" is an interpretation of bad faith while WP:IDHT is right there. It implies that Loki is intentionally trying to damage and disrupt the encyclopedia, which I heavily doubt. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

On reflection, I have lost my temper (being dragged here only exacerbated the situation). We can call it WP:IDHT. If "lying" is the bridge too far, fine. I will stick by what I said lower down: Loki makes false claims about the contents of paywalled articles in order to try and get sources with different POVs downgraded. Loki repeats those claims even after they have been thoroughly refuted. I'm gobsmacked if that's not a long way worse than anything I've done in any of these discussions.

As I say, I've lost my temper and don't want to continue to engage too much, but it seems to me this is an important point to keep emphasising. Samuelshraga (talk) 16:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that any of the articles I've talked about is paywalled, at least they aren't for me. But I have fairly strong anti-JS extensions running so it's possible I might have missed something.

I also don't think that my claims have been refuted, but honestly that's a matter of opinion so I don't care about it here.

The rest of this I will take as an apology. Thank you. Loki (talk) 16:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Boomerang?

Personal attacks - specifically aspersions - are where an editor accuses another editor or a group of editors of misbehavior without evidence, emphasis mine. Evidence was presented, so that isn't what is happening here. Bludgeoning has occurred, but the complainant is equally guilty of that, so I suggest all parties step back.

However, it is worth considering the complainants behavior in more depth. Specifically, they claimed that the Telegraph endorsed the Litter boxes in schools hoax, and in support of that claim presented this source, which explicitly calls it a hoax. When this was pointed out to them, they refused to retract the claim, and have instead repeatedly doubled down on it. This is source misrepresentation that amounts to POV pushing, and is not acceptable. BilledMammal (talk) 00:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose boomerang, obviously, because there is only one correct POV here, and losing one's cool when someone is trying to push a different, and wrong, POV is very understandable. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

That's absurd and violates the essay you plugged yourself. Wikipedia isn't for you to convince the world you're right. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't for you to convince the world you're right. This goes both ways. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

You're the only one that's said there is only one correct POV here. Others (including Loki) have acted like that's what they really want to say. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I mean, when the other POV can actively harm me, you should at the very least understand why I'd state that. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

We completely understand and support your right to be, but radical-ish censorship can go both ways. It is important for us to avoid a POV so that both sides can correct each other's POV in case we are in the wrong. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I get that. I don't want to censor anyone for thinking differently than me, but I'm bummed that people consider a newspaper that deadnamed a trans teen who was murdered a reliable source for LGBT issues. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I would entertain a discussion on The Times, but that is a different source. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

To think I wrote my reply talking about the NYT's opinion piece on J.K. Rowling the day after Ghey's murder, then changed it to The Times after realizing I was talking about the wrong paper. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Having the right POV doesn’t justify source misrepresentation, nor mean that misrepresenting sources to advance said POV is not POV pushing. BilledMammal (talk) 01:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I sympathize with this reasoning, but this sympathy conflicts with the amount of !voters in the RfC that chose to accept the POV pushing, which conflicts with WP:Consensus is not a vote and would convert the "POV" into neutrality (as I believe bias to be relative). Compound that with the contentious nature of the discussion which boils everything on Earth, I kinda wanna wait this out on Mars. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose boomerang. Whether Loki is or is not right about The Telegraph they have consistently argued their position in good faith, and (broadly civilly) explained their reasoning in the face of personal attacks, misrepresentation and bludgeoning. Thryduulf (talk) 01:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

A source that says "it's a conspiracy theory that JFK was shot by the CIA but here's a bunch of people who could have shot him that aren't Lee Harvey Oswald" is still pushing JFK assassination conspiracy theories.

I will cop to the fact that I consider "litter boxes in schools hoax" to be a bad name for that hoax because I personally don't consider the litter boxes to be a central aspect of it, and it was apparent during the RFC that many people disagreed with me on that point. In retrospect, I should have phrased that more precisely as something like "a conspiracy theory very similar to the litter boxes in schools hoax", but except that one change I stand by what I said. Loki (talk) 01:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

it's a conspiracy theory that JFK was shot by the CIA but here's a bunch of people who could have shot him that aren't Lee Harvey Oswald

That's not what the source did, though. If you want to follow that hypothetical, the source said "it's a conspiracy theory that JFK was shot by the CIA, but here is a teacher scolding two children for bullying a third for believing in the JFK assassination conspiracy theories."

Claiming that that is equivalent to endorsing JFK conspiracy theories would be source misrepresentation and POV pushing, and what you have done here is source misrepresentation and POV pushing. BilledMammal (talk) 01:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Err, no, the analogy would be "here is a teacher who appears to claim she knows who really shot JFK" or something like that.

But, I'm not here to relitigate this. I'm trying to focus as cleanly as possible on Berchan's battleground behavior, and not on whether or not I was right to try to downgrade the Telegraph. I don't care if you think I was wrong about that. I understand many people disagree with me, and that's fine. That doesn't give any of them the right to repeatedly accuse me of lying or to respond to half the comments in every thread about this with very aggressive accusations that they are 100% right and everyone who disagrees is malicious. Loki (talk) 04:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Loki, you did lie. You said that they endorsed the Litter boxes in schools hoax; they indisputably did not. The fact that you have since redefined the litter boxes in schools hoax to any support for Otherkin - including "support" as limited as "bullying is bad" - doesn’t change that, and in fact makes the situation worse, as it involves significantly misrepresenting facts to advance your preferred POV. BilledMammal (talk) 04:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I am again not here to relitigate this. You already know my opinion on whether any of this is even false, much less "indisputable". Loki (talk) 06:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

And this is why we have a problem, and why I think a boomerang is appropriate.

You provided a source that explicitly disproves your claims, and then rather than retract them you tried to redefine the litter boxes in schools hoax to match the sources.

However, this didn’t rectify the issue, both because your redefinition is unsupported by sources, and because we know the "support" provided - a teacher telling off children for bullying - occurred.

Rather than at any point backing down and admitting you made a mistake, you kept insisting you were right - kept trying to push your POV despite the sources contradicting the allegations you made. This is disruptive behaviour. BilledMammal (talk) 06:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I provided a source that supports my claims. I have already explained at length across many discussions how the source supports my claims, and in response to that many people agreed and supported downgrading the Telegraph. I don't care if you don't, but I do think that coming here to accuse me of more stuff is also clearly WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Especially since you have already tried to accuse me of, among other things, this exact same thing at AE, and got slapped down pretty hard. Loki (talk) 07:06, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

You provided a source that says the exact opposite of your claim. Editors are allowed to make mistakes, but you’ve continued to make this claim long after your mistake was pointed out to you. BilledMammal (talk) 07:10, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Just a general question based on diffs. Is this dispute coming out of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliables ources/Noticeboard#RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues discussion from July? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Liz It's that discussion, but the offending comments are much more recent. Thryduulf (talk) 01:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Support boomerang Loki dragged me here because I accused him of lying. I of course provided evidence. Loki has made the same accusation, in the same discussion, but without evidence. This was pointed out to Loki before this complaint was opened, in a diff shared in the complaint itself. I think it's therefore pretty axiomatic that Loki's behaviour has been at least worse than my own, so I don't know how a boomerang could possibly be opposed.

(Added to the fact that bringing this here is clearly a tactic to stifle anyone from pointing out that Loki lied. He claims things about the contents of paywalled articles that he shares as evidence in RfC, that are untrue.) Samuelshraga (talk) 07:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I offered a resolution that would allow the discussion to come to an end without any of the disruption from “my side” (so to speak) or the “other side” (Loki and Thryduulf being the biggest two bludgeoners and IDHT on that side). Loki refused to accept it. They want me to be removed from this topic area so they can continue to push their disproven (time and time again) claims about the Telegraph. They are on a quest to censor a source that doesn’t typically support their POV and are attempting to use administrative intervention to further that quest. Loki’s continued misrepresentation of sources after being pointed out is what is truly disruptive - both in the original discussion and in the close review. For these reasons, if Loki is unwilling to agree to not comment further on the subject (for a period of time), I support a boomerang. The time has long past for Loki to correct their false statements or accept they were disproven. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 19:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I specifically do not want you to be removed from this topic area, and that was the main reason I rejected that proposal.

I think you're a fine editor except for making up wild accusations about everyone who disagrees with you. That is the behavior I want you to stop. Please just listen to any of the many people who keep on trying to lower the temperature. Loki (talk) 21:03, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The temperature isn’t high because me and others have been pointing out your inaccuracies (at best). The temperature is high because of your IDHT behavior and others (such as Thryduulf) who act like you are blind to the consensus present in the original discussion when it is weighted appropriately taking into account that your initial claims, which were the only “evidence” many people used for their !votes, were sufficiently disproven. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 21:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Loki has now openly admitted in this thread multiple times that their goal is not to bring an end to the discussions, but to "win" (or in their words, get anything). If that doesn't show that they're in this topic area to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, I don't know what will. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't see what you're quoting. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Here's the diff link. Sorry that I'm not experienced enough with the diff templates to just post it as the template diff. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with that comment nor how it's POINTy. I think what Loki wants, an affirmation that such an assumption of bad faith is not accepted by the community which would hopefully push the discussion to be more civil, is entirely reasonable (although I do think the best solution to the bigger conflict which would also resolve this one is from the 3 involved parties to stop interacting for a month). Unfortunately it currently seems to be pretty much just you, Loki, and me commenting, so such an affirmation would be a long ways away. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I would be happy to agree mutually to no farther interactions with Loki for a month. Samuelshraga (talk) 06:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I mean, of course my goal of bringing this to ANI was some sort of sanctions against the people I reported. (Well, or a retraction of the offending comments in this case.) Loki (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

You're digging your hole deeper. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

It's explicitly the point of ANI that this is the place you report people if you think they should be sanctioned. And I do think you should be sanctioned, because you made multiple personal attacks against me and refused to retract them, so I reported you here. I'm not sure why you seem so surprised by this.

Like, the point of ANI is not to resolve the RFC. I have in fact been trying hard to keep this thread focused on your behavior and not the underlying RFC explicitly because this is not the place to resolve the underlying content dispute. This is also why I wish I'd gone to AE to start, because AE is much better at focusing on behavior and not on the underlying content dispute. Loki (talk) 00:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

If you had taken this to AE, your own behavior would've been evaluated too. Your bludgeoning, your WP:ADVOCACY violating behavior, and your own IDHT behavior would've been evaluated there just as much as it is here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Possible resolution

In the interest of bringing this entire debacle to a closure sooner, I will agree to not comment any further on the current AN thread (close review and assorted sections) or regarding the original discussion anywhere if Loki and Thryduulf agree to the same. I firmly believe that both of those users are engaging in civil POV pushing and are ignoring their own behavioral faults in attempting to bring this thread, and I do not think this will be enough for a closure of this thread without considering a boomerang against one/both of them, but I will agree to this condition if it helps bring this to a closure. The IDHT behavior of both of them and civil POV pushing does need to be addressed still. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• I would LOVE to close this complaint which I'm afraid looks like it could continue indefinitely without any admin action being taken at all. We just need the participants to agree to go to their separate corners, abide by civility policy and stop trying to antagonize each other. This discussion is murky and I really don't see any patrolling admins laying down any sanctions. At most, you all deserve warnings but you're experienced so it's nothing you don't already know. You just need reminders. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Yep. I am more than willing to accept and admit that I have behaved less than ideally in the close review if the other users who have done so are willing to admit the same. Sadly, I think that it is unlikely they will do so - they don't see a problem with their civil POV pushing behavior even when it has led to them bludgeoning the discussion as bad as I purportedly have. But I figured I'd split this out so that, if they're willing to admit they have behaved just as poorly, this can simply be left to the eventual closure (of the close review and original discussion) without any of us further bludgeoning it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
    • I reject your proposal but I would like to propose a counteroffer. If you strike the accusations that I deliberately lied and stop making them, I'll drop this whole thing. I doubt you will, because I've already asked twice, but if we're trying to end this quickly I feel the need to offer again. Loki (talk) 03:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

      Nope. You chose to bring this here, and if you're unwilling to take my offer of resolution by agreeing to stop your own bludgeoning, your own conduct - from bludgeoning, to IDHT, to civil POV pushing - will be evaluated as well. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

      I mean, if you say so. But I don't think anyone else shares your view of the situation. Just wanted to note that I did offer. Loki (talk) 03:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

      Did you mean to include or exclude the part about ceasing activity? If nothing else, we won't have to deal with the high volume of kinda repetitive comments coming from Berchan and Samuel. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

      The part about ceasing activity is the specific part I meant to reject. My problem here is not that Berchan posts a lot. My problem is the aggression with which he posts. I'm looking for a logged warning or some sort of custom anti-bludgeoning sanction here, not any kind of removal from the topic area.

      So I don't want to accept a trade of no activity for no activity, because I'm not getting anything. I don't want Berchan to stop posting, I want him to apologize for making personal attacks. If he'd offered striking his comment for me apologizing for misrepresenting the sources or something I probably would've taken that. Loki (talk) 22:03, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

      You are claiming that an allegation (that you are lying) with specific evidence provided by both me and other editors (that you have refused to accept statements you have previously and continue to make are untrue) is a "personal attack". So you basically brought this entire thread to try and gain "first mover's advantage" for an issue that, frankly, isn't an issue except for your continued misrepresentation and attempt to use Wikipedia to push your POV on others. I will not strike a true comment just because it makes you feel bad. If you feel bad about being called out for your behavior, the solution is for you to actually listen to others who've told you you're wrong repeatedly and own up to the fact your original claims in the RfC were disproven, and your continued parroting of those claims amounts to intentionally being misleading. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

      Are you Aaron Liu? If not, what are you doing here? I'm not talking to you here. Loki (talk) 22:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

      This is a discussion between all users involved and administrators (and other users). Way to show that you are being disruptive and trying to silence others. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:43, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

      Throughout the close review, the only people accused of bludgeoning are you, Berchan (both of which have made a similar amount of comments), and Sam. Even though my non-admin opinion is that the label of bludgeoning is overused, the arguments used by these three do seem to be getting repetitive. While I believe that an apology to you would be essential even ignoring the bludgeoning accusations, the best resolution to the latter part would be to refrain from discussing the source for a while, in my opinion.
      I do not condone nor recommend "combining" the two offers as I agree that the others' unapologetic behavior is quite awful, but I do urge you to consider this later when we are ready to consider the bludgeoning and STUBBORN actions. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:36, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

      Eh, on reflection I probably should disengage anyway. I do admit that I probably have been too active in those discussions.

      I don't really anticipate much more discussion there (there really only needs to be one more close and then hopefully it'll be over) but I will try to not get involved with any future discussions about it, if they do happen. Loki (talk) 02:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that while both have a few thousand edits each, neither Berchanhimez nor LokiTheLiar seem that interested in building an encyclopedia. Both of them are here almost exclusively to participate in contentious discussions (stats can be seen at Xtools for Berchanhimez and LokiTheLiar). While I won't go as far as to declare WP:NOTHERE, I propose that these two stop participating in project space and that they limit talk page activity to articles that they're working on. The question is whether they'll do this by choice or if it will need to be enforced. Otherwise we'll just be back here in a few months and do the whole thing over again. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  Ah, yes, 4 good articles but just not having time recently (for the past couple years - ever since people started doing stuff again after COVID while not treating it as a real disease, my work has been hell) to do the immense research I put into those good articles for others means I'm NOTHERE. This is just another person trying to silence a POV they disagree with. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  I definitely wouldn't see that for Berchan, who has 26% of mainspace contributions (compared to 16% of projectspace, most of which are WikiProject discussions on various specific article issues). I wouldn't say "exclusively" applies to Loki either, who has 18% mainspace compared to 26% projectspace. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  Note that I also mentioned their activity in talk namespace. And take into account that Berchanhimez only became active again in May but most if not all of their contributions since then have been arguments, disputes, and other contentious discussions. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:19, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thebiguglyalien, I'm trying to deescalate this dispute while, for some reason, you want to prolong it. I don't see any urgent problems here. This is not a noticeboard to use to complain about other editors or share suspicions about them. There need to be policy violations for action to be taken and I don't see any in your remarks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  Then I suppose we'll close this thread, ignore the underlying problem, and let things get worse like we always do. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  The underlying problem is those trying to civilly push their POV and censor reliable sources just because they report things these users don't like. The underlying problem is not that I've not had time to put the effort I think our articles deserve into articles recently. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  Participating mainly in a contentious topic area is not the same as participating mainly in contentious discussions. I edit mainly trans topics, which are a particularly contentious part of GENSEX. As such, a lot of changes need to be hashed out on talk pages before being finalized. Statistics aren't everything and I don't appreciate you accusing either me or Berchan of being WP:NOTHERE.

  (Also for the record I'm not accusing Berchan of being WP:NOTHERE either. I do think that his behavior in the discussions spawned from the Telegraph RFC have been pretty suboptimal but I don't really see any reason to accuse him of anything more.) Loki (talk) 03:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with your sentiment here that a user participating mainly in project space doesn't mean you aren't here. And I hope I've never suggested you aren't here to build an encyclopedia - even though I think you are trying to civilly push your POV, I do believe that you're doing it to try to build an encyclopedia. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I was going to say that in the interests of not wasting more of people's time on this, I would be happy if Loki and I could mutually agree not to interact for at least the duration of any farther discussions about the Telegraph's reliability on trans issues.

However, if an admin is going to look into the conduct issues from the Telegraph saga, then I think that would be more than warranted. I know I wouldn't come out exactly smelling of roses - I have admitted that I lost my temper. At various times I was probably sarcastic or aggressive to some editors. I will try not to lose my temper further. I'll try to limit my farther involvement in the Telegraph issue too.

However, Loki has dragged me here for accusing him of lying. Loki has engaged in exactly the same conduct in exactly the same discussion, along with much worse, as I have said here - misrepresenting (not to use the L-word) paywalled content in order to get sources he doesn't like downgraded. I have evidenced my claim that Loki lied. Some here think it is important that we differentiate, that we still assume good faith about Loki's intentions, that this is just a case of Wikipedia:STUBBORN or Wikipedia:IDHT.

I disagree. Wikipedia:Assume good faith contains a caveat "unless there is specific evidence". Loki's own admissions against interest at the RfC are the evidence I brought. Loki did accept that the evidence was fatally undermined, and then spent the next two months pretending that it all stood up to scrutiny. That's not IDHT, it's gaslighting. Samuelshraga (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, This may not be obvious, but STUBBORN and IDHT are the same link to the same section of WP:Disruptive editing.
Secondly, as Loki has said below, he did not post inaccessible evidenced in bad faith. From this diff discussed, I believe that Loki still doesn't believe that quoting unreliable sources with proper attribution that characterizes these sources positively  or making misleading claims doesn't hurt the reliability of the quotee. He simply does not get or respond to the refutations that have held many including me and you, yet no one is obliged to WP:SATISFY you or me. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Broadly accurate, yes, but I've responded to the alleged refutations multiple times actually. I understand you don't find those responses convincing but I did make them. In fact I'd say it was the majority of my comments on the original RFC. Loki (talk) 21:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

You can check for yourself which arguments you repeated despite not responding to refutations (sometimes of your refutations). Aaron Liu (talk) 02:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Look, at the end of the day... the underlying RFC probably reached some variation on no consensus, the overturn has probably reached no consensus, both have been contested and reversed in various ways now. The one thing we can say for sure is that there isn't a clear-cut obvious consensus here, which means that your arguments simply weren't as strong as you thought they were. And that in turn means that accusing people of IDHT for refusing to accept them isn't going to work; if you're going to go "this person keeps disagreeing with me and won't accept my obviously correct arguments, therefore they are a civil POV-pusher", then you need to be on more solid ground yourself, consensus-wise. Even then it gets complex because being in the minority and holding an unpopular view or interpretation is not, itself, against policy - there is a very important difference between "willfully ignoring all arguments" and "hearing them but disagreeing with them." But in this situation in particular, where a huge number of people have weighed in and are clearly sharply divided, the aggressive presumption that people who are reading things differently than you are acting in bad faith seems unwarranted - is everyone who !voted for some flavor of less-than-full reliability in the RFC or who opposed overturning the result acting in bad faith now? ---Aquillion (talk) 02:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  there is a very important difference between "willfully ignoring all arguments" and "hearing them but disagreeing with them."

  The reason I feel this falls into the former are that some of Loki’s claim are indisputably false, and proven so by the sources they provided.

  Specifically, they promoted the litter boxes in schools hoax is incompatible with one of the sources supposedly supporting the claim saying tales of schools providing litter trays to cater for children identifying as cats have turned out to be hoaxes.

  As a whole, perhaps the topic is less clear - but that lack of clarity doesn’t permit the repeated statements of obvious falsehoods. BilledMammal (talk) 02:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  No consensus is a cop out. If arguments are weighted appropriately, based on their actual factual validity, there is a clear consensus in the original discussion - and this is why the the close review came to a consensus to overturn. There mere fact that tons of people voiced their opinion that isn't based on policies/guidelines does not mean there's no consensus. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  This is the third time you have STUBBORNly ignored what many have repeatedly told you or diverted this conduct discussion into the content dispute. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Do something: Here is what I know. Berchanhimez is definitely bludgeoning and the accusation of forum shopping is a personal attack. Accusations of lying probably are also. I am pretty sure that Loki, despite the user name, is not a liar. And yes, the Telegraph has a paywall. For the record, as best I recall, I voted in the original RfC but have not commented since. Not sure if that makes me involved or uninvolved. Since I can't see that source and don't want to subscribe, I am not convinced that Loki misrepresented it. I guess I have an open mind on that. But at the moment my takeaway here is that several people are to varying degrees trying to discuss, and one editor keeps repeating himself over and over. Elinruby (talk) 05:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  I wonder if it’s possible that these accusations happened because of Loki’s username? His username is LokiTheLiar (emphasis on the “liar” part) and while I don’t mean that in bad faith; I can see how someone can maybe get confused by it and assume that the user is here to cause problems. Usernames have meaning to them; for example, if I was to have my username changed to “Banned from Wikipedia”, what are you going to think? You’ll think I’m a sockpuppet of a banned user. So if I make my username “(Insert name) the liar”; there’s going to be people out there that think that I’m a liar, even if I am a perfectly honest person. See where I am going? West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 06:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  i am not in the head of the editor who keeps calling him a liar so I don't know. Nor am I in Loki's for that matter; we aren't especially close, although we have interacted a bit. What I do know is that he has never impressed me as a liar. also, in the Marvel movie franchise Loki is a rather sympathetic character, or at least I thought so, but that is pure speculation when it comes to his username. I have never asked about it. Loki is one of a number of trickster characters in various folklores such as Coyote who may or may not be emblems of the human condition, in case anyone doesn't realize that. And for the record I deeply regret choosing a female-sounding user name. But a username does not exempt other editors from AGF. Elinruby (talk) 11:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  Off-topic, but your username sounds pretty elvish neutral to me. You can set your preferred pronouns (which default to they/them) at Special:Preferences#mw-input-wpgender.
  I wouldn't think Loki's username has much hold here since his signature doesn't include the liar part. Anyone who would be distracted by that part probably wouldn't be paying attention to his full username. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with this except that the accusation of forumshopping is a personal attack. It's a reasonable reading we disagree with.

  Also, would you like to move this to the subsection below? Aaron Liu (talk) 14:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Remind Berchanhimez not to bludgeon or assume bad faith

FWIW, in the discussion fora I've got watchlisted or have participated in, virtually the only things I've seen Berchanhimez do are bludgeon discussions stridently presenting his opinions as settled facts, and periodically assume bad faith of editors who disagree, despite (as noted above) the efforts of various other editors to tone things down. (For diffs beyond the ones already provided above, it's likely easier and more informative to just Ctrl-F his name in even just the past week's edits to e.g. this rather than me pulling each comment out into its own link you have to open individually one by one, but one recent comparatively tame individual example is this asking me to square something I'd written with a "consensus" that was in fact just his individual opinion; obviously, no single comment in isolation can be bludgeoning, but see the other diff for [a one-week slice of] context.) He may be a stellar editor in other areas of this site, but based on the areas I've seen him edit — in which his actions have been raising the temperature in contentious topic areas where we need the temperature to come down — my suggestion is to issue a formal Reminder to refrain from bludgeoning, avoid assuming bad faith (re OP's diffs), and refrain from misrepresenting his opinions as established facts/consensus(es). -sche (talk) 06:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I've never interacted with Berchanhimez before this discussion, so I don't know about his general conduct. However, in this case bad faith hasn't been assumed, it's been demonstrated. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

You are assuming that Loki is acting in bad faith based on behavior that's just WP:STUBBORN. You have not demonstrated that Loki is claiming things he doesn't believe. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I think that even in the diff Loki shared as evidence of my behaviour opening this thread, I demonstrated exactly that. So I don't think it's an assumption, I think it's a conclusion based on experience.

I also think my accusation is a much less serious behavioural issue than Loki's direct and knowing repeated misrepresentations of paywalled content in order to push a POV/get sources with the opposite POV downgraded. See same diff. Happy to keep providing evidence along the same lines. Samuelshraga (talk) 16:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Honest question: what content that I've posted has been paywalled? I don't know if it's because I block most JS or if you're talking about something different, but as far as I have been able to tell there is no paywall on the Telegraph. Loki (talk) 16:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The Telegraph does have a paywall. If you allow allow scripts can read the first ~paragraph of articles but to read more it wants me to subscribe, however due to the way it is implemented if you block scripts you will be completely unaware of this. Thryduulf (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see.

Genuinely was unaware, sorry. If I'd realized I'd have linked to archive.org or similar. Loki (talk) 18:06, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oh, just to be clear: I would prefer a "warning" not a "reminder" but that's a tiny distinction and overall I support this. Loki (talk) 22:28, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
• I also support this. After discharacterizing Lokis IDHT behavior, Berchan is now openly exhibiting the same IDHT behavior as well. For example, in this very discussion, right after Thryduulf and I had to restate the rebuttal for Berchan's claim that there is consensus for reliability above,[ see thread starting around #c-Berchanhimez-20240812015500-Thryduulf-20240812015200 ] Berchan proceeded to repeat the same argument below, unmodified, without giving any mind to arguments that we have extensively offered.[ #c-Berchanhimez-20240813005900-LilianaUwU-20240812233700 ] Aaron Liu (talk) 01:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Let's move this to AE

This is a mess. The discussion is going off on all sorts of crazy tangents, the underlying RFC is being relitigated in several different places, Berchan continues to refuse to admit that he can ever be wrong in any circumstance, etc etc. I sort of anticipated it being a mess, and would have taken it to AE (since AE is usually much better about preventing CTOP issues from devolving like this) except I thought at the time that we were far enough removed from GENSEX that AE wouldn't be a valid place to file this. But now I've seen this discussion I'm reasonably confident that's not true. This definitely feels like a GENSEX discussion, broadly construed, and so I'd like to move this to AE where it has any shot of a productive outcome. Loki (talk) 21:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Nice attempt to FORUMSHOP. You don’t like that your behavior is being brought up too so now you’re trying to move it. You’re the only one who’s refused to admit you’ve been wrong. I’ve admitted that I didn’t need to be as repetitive as I did, but you still refuse to admit you were spouting falsehoods (provably so) and you are doubling down on them. If anyone needs to be removed from the topic area, it’s you.

Put another way, you don’t want to move it to AE for any shot of a productive outcome, you want to move it there because you want to avoid scrutiny here for your own behavior. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 21:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think that AE will be particularly friendly or merciful to anyone involved in this debacle, unless you aren’t opposed to yourself becoming one of those sanctioned. The Kip ^(contribs) 22:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The RFC itself was handled with little uncivil behaviour, but since the close the behaviour of core editors on both sides has been very poor. I would support moving this to AE and I completely agree with The Kip that doing so would likely cut both ways. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I've done here that makes you or The Kip think that this would cut both ways. Like, I sure have accused Berchan of stuff, but I have also given evidence and this is ANI, the place to raise behavioral issues. Loki (talk) 00:31, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I've done here that makes you or The Kip think that this would cut both ways.

That you still seemingly refuse to see how you’ve been about as disruptive in this mess as Berchan has is exactly why it will cut both ways. The Kip ^(contribs) 00:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I don’t see any suggestion of what might be gained by moving this to AE. It looks to me like such a move would just mean more time lost and more acrimony generated. What is really needed is a resolution to the RfC. Sweet6970 (talk) 23:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

We already had a resolution to the RfC, but people who wanted a different outcome are trying to overturn it. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, as it currently stands the RFC was closed the way S Marshall closed it.

Someone really should close the close review, again. Ideally an admin or a panel. If it doesn't get closed officially, which I'm increasingly worried about, it will be difficult to interpret. Loki (talk) 00:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Please keep engaging in the very behavior your essay warns about. There was a clear consensus at the original discussion (after !votes were weighted appropriately) that The Telegraph is a reliable but biased source. The close was a supervote, as confirmed by the consensus in the close review. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

We are not discussing the contents of the content dispute again, especially not one we have repeatedly demonstrated to you (Berchan) as frivolous. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:33, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

There was a clear consensus at the original discussion Are you not listening, are you not understanding, or are you trolling? Thryduulf (talk) 02:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• I will just state the obvious since editors weren't getting the hint from my comments. I'm 99.9999% certain that no sanctions will come from this unwieldy discussion unless a frustrated admin trying to make sense of all this decides to issue sanctions to all involved parties due to disruption being caused. But it's much more likely that nothing will come of this so at this point, you are just continuing to argue for argument's sake. My advice, since this complaint has virtually zero chance of action being taken, that you simply stop responding to each other at least here on this noticeboard (ANI). Go do some productive editing, work on an article that brings you joy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  While I agree that sanctions are probably a bit far gone, warnings would be great. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  Advice taken, thank you. Samuelshraga (talk) 06:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Time for an ArbCom case?

The disputes in the transgender topic area look to me to be intractable and to have reached a fever pitch. It seems to me there is a good case for an ArbCom case specifically dedicated to the transgender topic area separate from the original GamerGate case. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:31, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

As discussed in the above subsection, AE is a smaller and much better escalation Aaron Liu (talk) 02:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Putting together an ArbCom request is quite a commitment and a roll of the dice since, in my experience, cases, if accepted, rarely close with final decisions anticipated by those who initially filed the request. A case, if opened, typically lasts 3-4 weeks so it's not a venue for a quick resolution. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

At this point I don't think any quick resolution is going to solve the problems in this topic area. The GENSEX CT designation that allows for the use of AE has been around since Feb of 2021 and yet the temperature in this topic area continues to rise. ArbCom cases are long and messy, but the chain of events that led us to this point has been longer and messier. Pinguinn 🐧 02:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• An Arbcom case about trans people is absolutely inevitable, but it doesn't have to be now. January or February would be the ideal time, when there's a new intake of arbs at its most active, focused and principled.—S Marshall T/C 07:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

User: IP: 107.116.165.18 attacks on my talk page

Hello, recently I reverted some disruptive editing by IP: 107.116.165.18 on the following page Nauvoo Expositor. I gave them a warning, and they undid the changes again after another user issued a warning. After this, they went onto my talk page and gave me an "edit war" warning without any valid basis. I am requesting that their warning be removed from my talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Bois (talk • contribs) 03:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

John Bois, you can remove warnings from your talk page, this doesn't require admin attention. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Doesn’t that warning go on my record?

also the IP user is engaging in constant vandalism and disruptive editing John Bois (talk) 03:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

It should probably be noted that John Bois removed IP's comments (which appear to be legitimate) from talk:Nauvoo Expositor, without explanation. [253] This may very well have been unintentional, but I get the distinct impression from looking at the remainder of John Bois's brief contribution history (only 149 edits, as of now) that John might do well to take a little more time to learn Wikipedia policy (i.e. WP:VANDAL for a start) before handing out warnings etc. This dispute is also being discussed on the edit warring noticeboard, [254] and from comments there it seems that John really doesn't understand what he is doing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

If I’m in the wrong, I don’t mind admitting it at all, but the IP user removed a large section of the page without a consensus. Shouldn't that be considered disruptive editing? Also, another user reverted the same changes I did. John Bois (talk) 04:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

No, removing content without consensus is not in of itself necessarily disruption. Please add Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle to the list of things you need to read before you start accusing people of disruption, vandalism, trolling [255] etc. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The part of the page that was removed seemed well put together with valid sources, which is why I reverted the changes, just like Bahooka. If I did something wrong, it wasn’t intentional. I’m still fairly new to this, and seeing an IP user remove 4,500 characters in Recent Edits set off alarm bells. John Bois (talk) 04:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia permits people to edit as an IP, without an account. Such edits should be judged on their merits like any other, according to relevant Wikipedia policies. Policies which you appear not to be familiar with. I'd strongly advise you to stay away from patrolling recent edits for now, and leave such matters to people who have a better idea what they are doing.

Looking at the underlying issue, this is a content dispute, being discussed at talk:Nauvoo Expositor. If people go back to treating it as such, without the talk-page deletions and accusations of disruption, it may well be possible to resolve it without too much difficulty. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn’t mean to delete his talk just his edit as I believe it wasn’t necessary. John Bois (talk) 04:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Twinkle (mis)use by John Bois

• I am concerned with the reporting editor's use of WP:TWINKLE, this edit in particular [256] would appear to be unambigous twinkle abuse. I don't dount their good faith but I do doubt their readiness for this tool and access should likely be removed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  I agree, I have switched off that tool for now. John Bois (talk) 04:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe I'm missing something but all he did was revert an edit. You don't need Twinkle to do that. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

User:WP villlain

WP villlain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) comes from the Spanish Wikipedia as a self-proclaimed "villain" (see this deleted file in Wikimedia Commons), and has been harassing here a local patroller who is active in Spanish Wikipedia and insists on controlling the content of the Spanish Wikipedia article causing an edit war. He has been banned locally from Spanish Wikipedia for trolling and non-constructive editing. Taichi (talk) 04:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have to ask: what did the deleted image depict? I'm genuinely curious to know. Regardless, this user should definitely be globally permablocked, as it's a very obvious and blatant troll account.--LuminousDreamscape (talk) 04:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Already reported to SRG. Ahri Boy (talk) 06:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Globally locked. --Leonidlednev (T, C, L) 22:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Time-sensitive request about a proposed guideline

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

---

Hello, all, I think I need someone who isn't me to deal with this. The situation is:

• A couple of days ago, I started an official WP:PROPOSAL for WP:Notability (species) to become a new guideline.
• So far, we have followed the WP:PROPOSAL policy to the letter, including the line that says start a request for comment (RfC) about your policy or guideline proposal in a new section on the proposal's talk page.
• BilledMammal, who has been in the discussion since the beginning and helped form the RFC question, has suddenly moved the entire discussion to a village pump without any discussion or notice to the other 28 participants (or being aware of the policy, apparently). Since the the !vote is currently 24–2 against his view, I assume the hope is that the result would be different in a different location.
• He was informed that his choice of venue is against the policy, and I moved the discussion back. However, he reverted this again.[257] The result, as of when I started writing this, is that we have two copies of the discussion open, which is a WP:TALKFORK problem.

Between CENT and the Wikipedia:Feedback request service notices, this discussion is linked on more than 6,000 pages.[258] We need ONE (1) discussion, instead of a WP:TALKFORK. I suggest that the discussion be held in the location specified by the policy (at Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline; a notification was posted at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikipedia:Notability (species) when the RFC started), but the immediate need is just not to have the discussion split across two pages.

In the meantime, I'm going to bed. Thanks for your help, WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

This is a proposal to create a guideline that will result in the creation of millions of articles. Such a discussion should be held in a highly visible, central location, ensuring that the consensus reflects the communities view.

In this circumstance I think WP:IAR applies, and I haven’t seen any editor present a reason why we would want to hold it in a less visible location. If I have missed such a reason, I apologise - could you please link it. BilledMammal (talk) 06:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Asserting IAR does not grant licence to act via fiat, free of establishing a consensus for a proposed IAR act. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 06:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Of course not. But I would expect editors objecting to the IAR actions to present a reason why they disagree. BilledMammal (talk) 07:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Speedy move back to Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline. Not everything needs discussion. This is an unbiguous violation of the policy Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Creating a request for comment, BRD, EW, and is just rude to move other people's RFCs over their objections. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  I don’t think we consider RFC’s to be "owned" by the editor who opened them. However, is there a reason we want this to be held in a less visible forum?

  If there is a reason then I won’t object to moving it back, but blind obedience to policy when there is reason to make a rare exception under WP:IAR is against WP:NOTBURO. BilledMammal (talk) 06:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  Have you self-reverted yet? This should go back to the status quo ante until resolved. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• I’ve opened a discussion about this more broadly at Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines#New PAG discussion location BilledMammal (talk) 07:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  Per your preference that discussions not be held in "a less visible forum", why not just keep going here instead of moving/expanding to PAG, which gets far, far fewer visitors than ANI? City of Silver 07:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• I think having a guideline that if accepted could theoretically lead to a doubling of the amount of articles on Wikipedia to be discussed widely is a good thing, rather than on a page that receives little traffic. This is one issue with all these spin-off policies we have for individual subjects, they're not very widely watched/known about and it is easy for a minority to gain consensus over the majority simply due to lack of participation. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  VPP already has a section with a link to this RFC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikipedia:Notability (species). So do 6 other noticeboards and talk pages, and T:CENT. Plus the rfc tag summons random editors via the feedback request service. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  Since this RFC opened, WT:Notability (species) has received significantly more page views than Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) has.[259] It would be difficult to call those ~thousand page views "little traffic", without saying the same (or worse) about the village pump. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'm just glad this idea was brought to ANI or else I would have missed it. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• It doesn't matter where the discussion takes place as long as it is advertised widely, e.g. on the village pumps and WP:CENT, which was already done for the original discussion. RfCing changes to a page on its talk page is normal. And many of our most consequential discussions happen on subpages created for that purpose, which renders the "it has to happen on an existing heavily-watchlisted page" argument nonsensical. BilledMammal's edit warring over this was unnecessary and disruptive. – Joe (talk) 10:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  The discussion on the proposal should only take place on the proposal talk page.

  Sending the discussion to a pump section RfC disconnects it from the proposal, has horrible watchlisting downsides, leads to undesirable biases, and makes the history hard to follow.

  BilledMammal, as a proposal opponent, should keep clear of administrative actions, such as moving discussions or clerking discussions. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  How does placing the discussion at a more prominent location, one where the participants will be more representative of the community, lead to undesirable biases? BilledMammal (talk) 11:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  What makes you think the Pumps are more representative of the community? I don’t think they are.

  The content-creating majority of the community are unregistered editors.

  Editors with particular interest in species should be expected to watchlist the proposal. If the proposal is at the mature stage of being proposed to be accepted, it should be advertised widely, at the pump, at WT:N, at WT:DEL, but certainly not to have the most important discussion moved to one of these places.

  The bias coming from favouring participation by editors not particularly interested in species is, in my opinion, undesirable. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  That's a defensible argument, and if that had been made at the START of the RfC -- or, y'know, as one of the people who kicked the RfC off, it could have been made at the Pump in the first place -- that would be one thing. But you cannot credibly claim that the number of people chiming in is meager, or that the timing made this look an awful lot like forum shopping. Ravenswing 13:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  WhatamIdoing didn’t say they intended to hold it there - if they had I would have objected prior to it being opened.

  Once it had started I didn’t consider moving it to a more representative forum until I realised how unrepresentative participation was. BilledMammal (talk) 14:06, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  Given some of the background (previous similar discussions Wikipedia talk:Notability#Biology and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Species notability) of this in combination to your timing, it does come across as though you were forumshopping. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  Can you clarify why, as I don’t see it? Generally, forum shopping involves going to an equivalent forum, and doesn’t include efforts to increase the diversity and participation level of discussions.

  For example, moving a discussion from an article talk page to WP:NPOVN would rarely be considered forum shopping. BilledMammal (talk) 15:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  You said above that you wanted to a more representative forum, but you can't see why that sounds like you're trying to find ("shopping around") for a "forum" that you think will give a different answer (e.g., because it's "more representative")? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Looks like it has been cleared up. VPP is, needless to say, a bad place to editwar, but I think in this case no administrative action is needed, apart from a trout. Cremastra (talk) 14:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think it has. The RFC is currently in a less visible location, with participation not broadly reflective of the community.

For any consensus to be meaningful, and unlikely to be overturned when someone opens an RFC at the village pump, we need to return this to VPP. BilledMammal (talk) 14:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

It is still very visible from VPP - it's listed at the CENT box at the top, and is the focus of two topics [260] [261]. I'm not sure what info you are using to say that participation is not reflective of the community. BugGhost🦗👻 14:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

You unambiguously violated the policy Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Creating a request for comment, and it was reverted by multiple people. The RFC at its original location and with the notifications it left followed the policy to the letter. Not everything is a shade of gray that needs to be debated. I think this one is pretty black and white. It is time to end the filibuster and let this section be closed. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

NL, can you clarify why you believe, beyond merely following policy, that holding this discussion at VPP would be a bad idea?

I ask because elsewhere editors are saying they think holding it at VPP will increase the participation of editors with a low view of SNG’s, and I think the notion that we should be seeking to decrease the diversity of participation in significant discussions is problematic. BilledMammal (talk) 15:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd rather you end this filibuster. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

No-one else shares your views on this. Cremastra (talk) 15:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

That’s not true. Traumnovelle, for example. BilledMammal (talk) 15:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The idea that consensus on a policy or guideline is stronger when the balance of !votes in a discussion is more similar to what a random sample of editors might say if they were surveyed on a topic - well, that view isn't supported by either the policies or the ethos of enwiki AFAICT. The community appears to hold a view closer to deliberative democracy than plebiscitory democracy, allowing inter alia for the possibility that perspectives shift over time during deliberation. Newimpartial (talk) 15:28, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:LOCALCONSENSUS

And as a general rule, any PAG whose consensus only remains so long as participation remains unrepresentative will be unstable, liable to shift as soon as someone opens an RFC is a representative forum. That isn’t a good basis for a policy. BilledMammal (talk) 15:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

This reminds me of nothing so much as the line in WP:YDOW that runs "Multiple prior discussions may have been held, but these can be dismissed as having been insufficiently advertised, having happened on the wrong page, or showing insufficient participation (meaning any number of people not including the threatened power user). For example, the watchlist formatting change in 2012 resulted from an overwhelmingly positive, community-initiated, CENT-listed RFC at the Village pump (proposals), but, when it was implemented, these power users claimed that there was no RFC, no prior discussion, nobody knew about it, and nobody supported it."

This doesn't seem like a difficult concept, but let me just say it for the record: WP:CENT-listed RFCs do not result in a LOCALCONSENSUS. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

LOCALCONSENSUS is one of the most frequently misused and misquoted policies on Wikipedia. No, indeed, a local consensus cannot override a broader Wikipedia-wide consensus. Where, in this case, has such a consensus been established? LOCALCONSENSUS doesn't remotely mean that a consensus reached by a smaller number is invalid, or that it must remain in abeyance until a "suitably" large number of editors chime in.

Never mind this: if this RfC was on a talk page with what you consider an unacceptably small scope ... why did you participate and vote in it in the first place? You can't have it both ways, and that's what makes the forum shopping pretty blatant. Ravenswing 16:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks all. I do think we can mark this one as {{resolved}}, and I don't even think a WP:TROUT is necessary. I believe he didn't read the WP:PROPOSALS policy and thus genuinely had no idea that his preference wasn't a violation of the policy. New proposals are sufficiently rare that many editors have never participated in one and wouldn't have any occasion to learn the rules for them. Anyone interested in commenting on the relative (de)merits of the proposal is welcome to join us at Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline. I'd love to have all comments and questions over there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Magyar Andreasz

Magyar Andreasz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is continually adding misspellings and non-existent categories to the Barbara Butch page, and reverting other editors' corrections of these edits. This has been raised on their talk page, but they have continued the disruption. This might be an issue of WP:CIR rather than malice. Funcrunch (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Most of the editor's other recent edits seem unhelpful:

1. choosing to spell the subject's name differently from the article title and text
2. apparently POV editing and unsourced statements
3. apparently POV editing
4. removing helpful disambiguating dates from an infobox
5. a series of edits which include adding given names, calling the person a war criminal although he seems to have been acquitted, and adding material citing Jewish Virtual Library which has been found in an RfC at RSN to be "mostly unreliable" (and which had been added and removed a few days earlier).

Not a pattern of constructive editing. PamD 20:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

And repeatedly adding, duplicated, the non-existent category Category:French Ashkenazi- Jews while disputing (edit-warring?) whether the appropriate category would be Category:French Ashkenazi Jews or Category:French people of Ashkenazi-Jewish descent. PamD 20:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Magyar's user page seems a little problematic as well, with a serbian flag punching an albanian flag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insanityclown1 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Resumption of incivility by EEng and suggestion of self-harm

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

---

If I've tallied this right, EEng has been blocked by a bunch of different admins in:

• Aug 2014 for personal attacks or harassment (2 days)
• Oct 2014 for 3RR violetion (3 days)
• Nov 2014 for 3RR violation (1 day)
• Jan 2015 for personal attacks and incivility (2 days dropped to 1)
• Jun 2015 for disruptive editing and personal attacks (1 day)
• Jan 2016 for "not here to contribute to the encyclopedia" (indefinite dropped to 1 day)
• May 2016 for personal attacks or harassment (3 days dropped to 2 hours)
• May 2017 for personal attacks or harassment (2 days dropped to 4 hours)
• Nov 2018 for edit warring (1 week dropped to 4 hours after promise to stop)
• July 2019 for "repeatedly restoring tasteless mockery of a living person, even after warning" (1 day dropped to 30 min)
• Sep 2019 for 3RR violation (1 day)
• July 2020 from a user talk page for "gravedancing and trolling" (4 days)
• Feb 2021 (by me) for continued incivility (1 week dropped to 2 hours)
• Mar 2021 for insulting a BLP subject after being asked to stop (1 week, dropped to 1 day)
• Jan 2022, from WP:ANI for joking about an editor being harassed (3 days)
• Jun 2023, from an article for 3RR violation (1 day)
• Jan 2024, for "long pattern of incivility toward other editors" (3 days)
• Jul 2024, for personal attacks or harassment (1 week)

I see in this edit, pretty much as soon as the latest block expired, EEng went right back to attacking other editors. Another editor made a legitimate request for sources to back up text containing a strong aesthetic opinion. EEng could have chosen to simply supply those sources and ignore the sharp opinion that unsupported text was "not a good look", but instead chose to berate the requester, sarcastically referencing the existence of search engines and saying "you could answer that question yourself instead of demanding that other editors do it for you (which is also not a good look)". I'm sure EEng is well aware of WP:BURDEN, which makes this response not only uncivil, but unreasonable.

EEng has made a number of helpful edits, though also many, many unhelpful edits which are simply jokes on talk pages. (Xtools shows fewer than one third of EEng edits are in article space.) In some cases, those jokes have been insulting and offensive enough to merit blocks. Useful contributions are welcome, and tasteful jokes are fine, but given this history, it appears dozens of editors have been exposed to personal attacks and incivility bad enough to block for, and extrapolation suggests a whole lot more editors have been exposed to unacceptable levels of incivility that was not reported or which did not result in a block.

I was recently shocked to read a comment EEng made in the month before the latest block, mockingly urging another editor to commit self-harm. Even if other editors are being annoying or are clearly in the wrong about content changes, that type of comment is wholly unjustified. At some point we need to limit the harm these attacks are causing to the Wikipedia editor community, and the short blocks so far have been ineffective. Many editors have argued at past WP:AN/I discussions for indefinitely banning EEng, which would certainly accomplish the goal.

If we want to take intermediate measures to try to keep good contributions, looking through the contribution history it appears EEng's edits in article space are mostly tolerable, though the edit summaries are often sharp-elbowed. The worst chronic behavior problem is abusive berating of other editors whose edits EEng disapproves of, which provokes the other editors, distracts from content-writing, and is just demoralizing to read as a third-party editor. If we want a bright line, I would propose asking EEng to avoid commenting on other editors at all, and keeping edit summaries and talk page comments strictly to content and its merit. Avoiding derogatory statements about BLP subjects seems necessary given the past block for this reason. Given the history of 3RR violations, I would also impose a 1 revert per 24 hour limit, to encourage constructive talk page dialog and less antagonizing of other editors with edit summaries. EEng has also had a history of warring and attacking on WP:ANI itself, so I would apply the "no commenting on other editors" even there. This allows for defending one's own actions, but not abusive defenses like (my words) "this editor was acting like an idiot so of course I was enraged, what do you expect" and avoids tasteless and unhelpful jokes about uninvolved cases.

In order to avoid the ability of EEng to continue bad behavior indefinitely by simply going back to business as usually after the occasional short block, I propose that a finite number of remaining chances be given. I'm open to other suggestions, but to start I'd propose tripling the block length for each violation of any of the three rules ("don't comment on other editors", no derogatory statements about BLP subjects, and 1RR) on a set schedule, rather than tailoring each block to the severity of the latest attack. So the next block would be 3 weeks, then 9, then 27 weeks, and so on.

Sad that I had to write this, Beland (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Turning that comment into "suggestion of self-harm" is so pathetically over the top that I choose to ignore the rest of this. Playing that kind of rhetorical game disgusts me. People encouraging others to self-harm is an actual real horrible thing that happens, and you cheapen the victims of such when you smugly use that term here. Don't worry, I'm sure others who are more upset about the occasional use of the word "fuck" than an admin making such a loaded accusation will be along shortly to support you in your feud. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I take it the gravamen of it here is the single diff you linked, where he provides a full ten sources in response to the request? jp×g🗯️ 21:01, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

If Beland is sad that he posted here, I'm also sad that he posted here. If you think that was telling someone to self-harm, oh good grief, I don't even know what to say. Somebody please shut this down, before it becomes a shooting gallery. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

No, you didn't have to write this. It would have been a lot better if you hadn't. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The comment that prompted this thread doesn't even come close to meriting a filing here. The rest of your post is a wall of character assassination, including an egregiously inappropriate distortion that the other commenters have rightly disputed. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

While I am also fed up with EEng's inane, rude commentary... this example doesn't even rise to being in the ballpark of WP:NPA. And calling the other comment "encouraging self-harm" is the height of melodrama. I suggest withdrawing this report. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Personal attack by Beland

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

---

The most notorious occasion this problem arises is probably with the self-appointed civility cops. Someone can make a talkpage comment which twenty different people see and conclude is non-problematic, but it only takes one admin to misinterpret it and the editor in question gets blocked. EEng is probably the most obvious example of this ... [262]

Like it says at WP:NPA, accusing someone without evidence is a personal attack. Not mentioned there, of course -- because it's too obvious to require stating -- is that accusing someone using falsified evidence is a far worse form of personal attack. Beland's list of my "incivility" blocks, omitting the fact that almost all have been overturned, is just such a personal attack.

I'm not looking for action against Beland at this time, and it matters not to me whether this gets discussed before it's reclosed. But with apologies for the delay (very, very busy IRL) I'm putting the facts on record here in the same thread in which Beland presented their falsifications. I'm also putting Beland (and others of their ilk) on notice: make such deceptive statements again and I will seek sanctions against you.

Let's start with the block that Beland themself imposed:

Beland's story (from their list): Feb 2021 (by me) for continued incivility (1 week dropped to 2 hours)

What really happened: Beland's block of me was immediately overturned at AN, the closing summary being

unblocked by overwhelming consensus, Beland is reminded of the dangers and standards of adminship as well as the nature of blocks.

Community comments along the way:

• far outside of what we’d normally consider appropriate
• massive trout to Beland ... no valid reason ... punitive.
• punitive, not preventative
• Seems a bit silly
• you really don't know what the basic blocking policy is
• punitive ... block may have gone un-noticed if it were not of a high-profile editor ... could've led to an otherwise low-profile but productive editor to leave forever
• A block like this is not going to do anything for editor retention ... another example of a legacy admin out of touch with policy.
• Beland was involved ... ridiculous ... this is admin abuse and I would like to see a review of Beland's admin actions
• block was clearly punitive
• Beland lacks the necessary competencies to be blocking people
• not a good look
• Support unblock
• Support unblock
• Support unblock
• Support unblock
• Support unblock
• Support unblock
• dumbest decision I've seen for a while. Shame on you, Beland [263]
• Purely punitive

So let me ask you, Beland: How did you manage to turn the above into 1 week dropped to 2 hours -- as if the jury convicted me but then I was somehow shown mercy? Did you simply forget being raked over the coals as an abusive and incompetent out-of-touch legacy admin? But of course, for forgetfulness be the explanation you'd have to be willfully blind as well, since in extracting this block from my log you managed to avert your eyes from the adjacent unblock entry reading Per Special:Permalink/1005484396#Intent_to_unblock, linking directly to the discussion quoted above -- the one that was closed (it bears repeating) with an admonition that you remember the dangers and standards of adminship as well as the nature of blocks.

Or did you, Beland, in the certainty of the righteousness of your cause, deliberately falsify your presentation of my block history? It can only be one or the other, so while you ponder how to answer that I'll take the community on a tour of your forgetfulness, willful blindness, and/or mendacity. (I'm not saying which -- that's for you to tell us.)

---

Here's another of my blocks ... according to Beland:

Beland's story (from their list): Jan 2016 for "not here to contribute to the encyclopedia" (indefinite dropped to 1 day)

What really happened:

• Block overturned in 5 hours (not "dropped to 1 day"), the closing summary warning: this case can be used in the future for demonstrations of "administrator misbehavior" with respect to desysopping.
• The blocking admin apologized [264].
• The editor allegedly being attacked/harassed said they had appreciated and enjoyed my post [265].

Community comments along the way: [266][267][268]:

• this case is clearly that of a bad block
• clearly an unjustified block ... not acceptable
• that was a bad block
• I am appalled
• strongly suggest you undo this block immediately
• very, very bad block
• What kind of discouraging message does your action send to the rest of us?
• Only nine days in, and we already have the winning candidate for "worst block of the year"
• I've overturned your block of EEng, which was unjustified ... poor block and AN consensus was emerging to confirm that.
• a mistake
• block is extraordinarily bad
• someone else has to step in and reverse the block
• clear Nakon's block of EEng was in error
• has all the hallmarks of a block by mistake
• Extraordinarily bad block
• Clearly a misunderstanding
• error in judgement for sure
• looks like negligence or recklessness
• words fail
• hands-down the worst block I've seen in my time on Wikipedia, and I've seen some whoppers
• Frankly I was shocked
• Piss poor block
• totally unwarranting a block
• question why Nakon is still an admin
• wholly unacceptable behavior from an administrator
• malicious
• biggest boomerang I have ever seen
• righteous unblock for sure
• block was a serious error

Unblock log comment that Beland managed to overlook: Unjustified block [269] clear consensus to unblock

So again, Beland, did you deliberately falsify your presentation of my block history? Or do you just not know how to read a block log?

---

Beland's story (from their list): May 2016 for personal attacks or harassment (3 days dropped to 2 hours)

What really happened: Block lifted after two hours because my post didn't contain any personal attacks. [270]

Community comments along the way: None, since MikeV made no attempt to have the block reinstated or submit it to community discussion. Six months later he abruptly vanished an hour after filing an AE request which boomeranged into calls for him to be desysopped (see second thread headed "The Rambling Man" at [271]):

• if anyone deserves blocking it's Mike
• Remove MikeV's bit. This temper tantrum is unbecoming of an administrator
• Mike V. has apparently been acting autocratically and vengefully and without consequences.
• seems like retaliation for the rebuke Mike got at AN
• Appropriate action would be a block of Mike V

Comments at MikeV's RFA [272][273] turned out to be amazingly prescient:

• I question this user's ability to discern when blocks are necessary and when they are not
• Does seem to prefer drastic action rather than attempting to discuss matters first
• Talk page archive reveals a number of contentious or over-hasty actions
• eagerness to take punitive action rather than problem solving
• Over-eager with his desire to block

Unblock log comment that Beland managed to overlook: Per rationale at [274]

MikeV has been desysopped, but of course my block log lives on so that you, Beland, can misrepresent it. So again: was that really because you somehow overlooked the unblock log entry? Or did you, in the certainty of the righteousness of your cause, deliberately falsify your presentation of my block history? It has to be one or the other.

---

Beland's story (from their list): May 2017 for personal attacks or harassment (2 days dropped to 4 hours)

What really happened: Blocking admin read a post I made completely backward, and clung to his interpretation even after things were explained to him by several editors. Unblocked with this message: I've asked User:John to lift the block, as I think it was based on a misunderstanding ... in case he isn't online, I'll do it myself ... you have been unblocked. [275]

Community comments along the way:

• Astoundingly atrociously poor block
• one of the worst blocks I've ever seen

Unblock log comment that Beland managed to overlook: Block for this comment [276] was based on a misunderstanding IMO

---

Beland's story (from their list): July 2019 for "repeatedly restoring tasteless mockery of a living person, even after warning" (1 day dropped to 30 min)

What really happened: Admin who placed the block unblocked 24 minutes later and apologized. [277]

Community comments along the way: [278]

• Bad block ... you would benefit from reading (or re-reading) WP:PUNITIVE, WP:PREVENTATIVE and WP:INVOLVED
• Next oldschool administrator to lose their tools?
• Bad block. Should’ve been left to someone else if you genuinely thought it was inappropriate.
• Excessive ... abused their tools in a content dispute

Seriously, Beland: When parading someone's block log, do you really think it's fair to list blocks for which the blocking admin apologized?

---

Beland's story (from their list): Mar 2021 for insulting a BLP subject after being asked to stop (1 week, dropped to 1 day)

What really happened: This is the famous incident in which actor Keiynan Lonsdale said, in an interview,

I don’t want to go by ‘he’ anymore, I just want to go by ‘tree.’ I want people to call me ‘tree,’ because we all come from trees, so it doesn’t matter if you’re a he or a she or a they or a them. At the end of the day, everyone’s a tree. I want to call my friends ‘tree’ and me ‘tree’ and everyone ‘tree.’ So, I think, like now, when people ask me what my preferred pronoun is, I’m going to say ‘tree.’ ... I’m not high by the way, this is just me [279]

and I questioned the seriousness of that statement, given that for the subsequent three years, Lonsdale's own PR apparatus had consistently referred to him as he, and he had even referred to himself (in the third person) as he. I was also unsparing in my disdain for the lunatic idea that our article on Lonsdale should use "tree/trees/treeself" pronouns, as in [280]:

Lonsdale was born in Sydney to a Nigerian father of Edo descent and an Australian mother of Irish and Danish descent. Tree has eleven siblings. Trees first acting job was in 2007, with a bit dancing part in the film Razzle Dazzle: A Journey into Dance. The following year, Tree appeared in an episode of ...

One admin chose to interpret this as an attack on Lonsdale and blocked me, but once a critical mass of editors realized that I wasn't "insulting a BLP subject" but rather giving Lonsdale a compliment by adducing evidence that he (of course) didn't seriously intend for people to refer to him by tree pronouns (scroll my post at the very bottom of [281]), I was unblocked.

Community comments along the way:

• In some cases "unblockable" has meant "behaves inappropriately but has too many supporters to keep blocked". But in some cases it may mean "repeatedly triggers others to behave with inappropriate authoritarianism and is unblocked when it becomes apparent that the authoritarianism was inappropriate". I tend to think EEng is more often the second kind, and that this case is more of the second kind. I don't know; maybe that makes me an enabler. But the WP:AGF explanation that EEng thought, maybe accurately, "surely this request for a pronoun was always intended as a joke and therefore it's ok to treat it as a joke" seems to have been repeatedly missed.

---

Beland's story (from their list): from WP:ANI for joking about an editor being harassed (3 days)

What really happened: Beland's description (for joking about an editor being harassed) is complete fabrication; the actual block description was this:

Responding to an editor being harassed, you wrote "For a few seconds there I thought you were talking about the US Supreme Court Justice. And, sad to say, I was prepared to believe he'd do that."

I was poking fun at a US Supreme Court justice, not "joking about an editor being harassed" -- see what I actually posted here [282].

Just to repeat: Beland's description of the block falsely states that I'd been "joking about an editor being harassed". Anyway, since it was a page block no one cared.

---

So here's what we've got so far:

Aug 2014	"Personal attacks or harassment"
Oct 2014	3RR
Nov 2014	3RR
Jan 2015	"Personal attacks and uncivil nature against other editors"
Jun 2015	"Disruptive editing and personal attacks"
Jan 2016	OVERTURNED and blocking admin apologized
May 2016	OVERTURNED
May 2017	OVERTURNED
Nov 2018	"Edit warring"
Jul 2019	OVERTURNED and blocking admin apologized
Sep 2019	3RR
Jul 2020	page block ("Gravedancing and trolling")
Feb 2021	OVERTURNED by overwhelming consensus, Beland is reminded of the dangers and standards of adminship as well as the nature of blocks
Mar 2021	OVERTURNED
Jan 2022	Page block for poking fun at a Supreme Court justice
Jun 2023	Page block, 3RR

And so things stood until recently. Certainly I've gotten blocks that were valid, and though there are things that could be said about some of the others (e.g. a member of Arbcom termed "outrageous" my first block -- in which an admin blocked for criticism of himself [283]) but to keep things simple I'll own them for the purposes of this discussion.

The problem, of course, is that block logs can't be annotated to note bad blocks, making it easy for editors such as Beland to make false generalizations. It took no crystal ball for someone to predict (in 2016);

The potential ramifications ahead for EEng are pretty simple. One day another administrator comes along and doesn't like something EEng did (whether justified or unjustified) and uses this block as basis for his judging EEng in that instance. [284]

And sure enough, this past January I got blocked for a "Long pattern of incivility" in a thread full of phrases such as:

• someone with a long block log
• their extensive block log
• Extend the block indefinitely. Given EEng's block log
• This isn't the first time EEng has been blocked for "doing an incivility", it's the 11th
• blocked, by my count, 17 times

(That count of "blocked 17 times" included a one-second block labeled "Joke block" [285], but hey -- we can't really expect people to find out what the fuck they're talking about before mouthing off, can we?)

So at this point it's like the accretion of planets: as my block log grows it becomes a bigger and bigger target, attracting new blocks through a combination of direct collision and gravitational attraction. As someone put it:

He's had a long history of being blocked for things that he did wrong. He's also had a long history of being blocked for things that he didn't do wrong. And many editors, including me, are troubled by ANI complaints that seem to be "taking another swing" at editors who have been regarded as controversial. [286]

He was talking to you, Beland -- as was this editor:

I would take a dozen of EEng's sarcastic (or whatever) posts over a single one of your "Here's a 10 year old list of blockings, let's see what else we, The Cabal, can get this outsider for next" (yet perfectly) WP:CIVIL ANI filings. That attitude is the most toxic behavioural pattern on WP these days. [287]

I repeat that I'm not looking for any action at this point, but I warn you: you're always saying how sad you are to post your accusatory walls of text, but while AGF requires me to adopt lack of skill as an interim assumption for your behavior so far, if you try anything like this block-log bullshit again, then intentional deceit will be the only explanation and I will ask the community to make you really and truly sad.

In the meantime I suggest you go jump in the lake. Note: Figure of speech only; not a suggestion of self-harm. EEng 16:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Arbor-treeish break

• I jumped in a lake this morning, well technically the mouth of a shallow stream that empties into a lake but close enough. (I was not harmed, figuratively or literally).

Look, I think RickinBaltimore had the right idea above. I have been all about civility in the past (have my badge to prove it) and to some degree I still am. Maybe EEng has been uncivil. I probably have been too. But I think it's more harmful to take a person's comments out of context and try to force it to mean something that is very obviously not intended. It offers no benefit to discourse at all. I doubt a single editor from this community actually wants anyone to harm themselves over edits to an online encyclopedia. To quote the voice screaming in my head when I approach the line...Let. It. Go. (don't sue, not a copyvio) --ARoseWolf 17:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

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

My esteemed colleague Barkeep49: Perhaps you missed where I said: I'm not looking for action ... it matters not to me whether this gets discussed before it's reclosed ... I'm [merely] putting the facts on record here in the same thread in which Beland presented their falsifications. EEng 21:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
P.S. Brandolini's law.}}

SEO Spammer claiming to be Wikipedia editor

I received the following email: David s graff (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Just report the email. See WP:HA. Ahri Boy (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

You should follow procedures listed in WP:SCAM. Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Legal threat...?

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

---

New user CelesteCarlsonStanly (talk · contribs) has made a sort-of legal threat here. It's in a kind of grey area, but may be read less charitably given it's being made in the same breath as an apparent threat to go to the media (who I'm sure will be eager to cover the story of, uh, some self-published author being asked to conform to COI rules). Flagging anyway. --AntiDionysius (talk) 23:19, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Nah. Saying you're going to seek legal advice is not a threat. Sorry, this is not actionable under WP:NLT. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328 blocked for making a legal threat.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah I see I'm too late. I defer to Cullen328. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

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

Any administrator who disagrees with my assessment is free to unblock without objection from me. Cullen328 (talk) 01:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

uncivil, disruptive behaviour

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

---

User talk:TSA 1903 has repeatedly inserted misspelling and incorrect capitalisation into the article Eastern Railway of Minnesota. I have discussed this in the editor's talk page and made corrections, but the editor has repeatedly reverted edits with correct use of upper case and lower case and replaced them with incorrect usage. Jellysandwich0 (talk) 02:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Handled. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

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

RAMSES$44932

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

---

• RAMSES$44932 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can an administrator please take a look at this user's recent edits to Jordan Chiles? (Diff1, Diff2) I promptly reverted the edits and requested revdel so special glasses are needed to see the diffs, but IMO the edits were racist beyond the pale, so much so that I was stunned to see that they were made by an editor with 5,000+ edits. I posted a final warning to their user page but in retrospect I think I should have just brought this issue here to begin with.

While I think this merits a block of some sort, at the very least I think this incident should be documented here so there's a record of it. (This user has been brought to ANI before in this thread, but it doesn't appear that the issue in that thread rose to a level that merited administrative action.) Thank you. Aoi (青い) (talk) 08:53, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Apparently blocked already for 31 hours for vandalism, which seems to be a quite lenient response. Dekimasuよ! 10:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Happy for any admin to increase the value there. Initial block in reaction to the egregious nature of the vandalism and the editor's response being to continue with their day as if nothing unusual has occurred. Hope to receive some response on their talk but don't expect this to be the end of the situation. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 10:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I've raised the block to indefinite. If nothing else, we need an explanation of where that came from in the middle of what are many other constructive edits (as far as I can see). Black Kite (talk) 10:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Totally in support. Thanks. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 10:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

If I'd come across that it would have been an instant indef, edits like that require explanation and community convincing to reobtain editing privileges. Canterbury Tail talk 14:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Apparently it was "a joke" [288]. I am going to be AFK for a few hours so another administrator might need to consider this appeal. Black Kite (talk) 10:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  Given the ongoing BLP violations which @ScottishFinnishRadish had to redact, oppose any unblock. Being an experienced editor doesn't give license to be a nasty troll because she said it first. Star Mississippi 11:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  I've pulled their TPA after the use of further slurs directed at another editor. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  Aye, using a racial slur as part of an appeal against being blocked for using a different racial slur is definitely a suboptimal plan. Black Kite (talk) 14:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

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

Legal threat from Censorscominginlikeavengers

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

This user has made what appears to be a legal threat against Wikipedia because they were censored for saying Australians are upsidedown. See this Teahouse diff. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 17:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Blocked--I think the legal threat is implausible enough that it borders on being something we don't need to respond to with a block, but their overall behavior is clearly WP:NOTHERE beside the threat. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. That was not a serious legal threat, but the user's only edits were vandalism and trolling. (The username is borrowed from an Eminem lyric.) Good block. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:53, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad schooling us on Eminem lyrics. Today is a good day.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Who is Eminem? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:21, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Like -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:31, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Did you not have to use your AK? BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 11:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Noting checkuser account -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Volkish Kurden, part 2

Volkish Kurden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See the previous ANI thread for more info [289]. On 22 May 2023, Volkish Kurden got indeffed for "Disruptive editing - ethno-nationalistic editing, likely sock or meat". This is amongst the nasty things they accused me (a stranger) right off the bat;

Nasty and random attacks

"rvv, extreme pan iranic edits previously, dedicated to wiping out kurdic history, whilst the short explanation on the Corduene wiki about Carduchoi exists, it is insufficient." (This was their first edit, randomly reverting my half year old clean up edit, which I did in a number of articles at that time, such as Cadusii [290]. Apparently that warrants those random attacks. How did they even know of that edit? And why attack a random stranger like that? Also, including the Cyrtians as part of "Kurdic history" is on par with a Mexican saying that Aztec/Mayan/Spanish history is "Mexican" just because they can trace their ancestry to them) "...considering your pan-iranic bias and subsequently anti kurdish nature" "I decided to skim through your “contributions” to Kurdish articles and have found you constantly use the “right great wrongs” as a way to circumvent the removal of a kurdophobe from wikipedia, I would say that is a very smart move but it is fuelling the misinformation about Kurds." "merely using your logic against you, plus abhorrent kurdophobia is clearly bannable"

After they got indeffed, they then suddenly "realized" that they were on the wrong (imo this all an act, someone doesn't suddenly change like that, let's be real); "I was blocked due to my accusations of ideological bias against the other user which shouldn’t have been said or accused off, I should have taken the steps to appeal any rvs such as a talk/discussion and then leading to a possible admin complaint and such. It was unnecessary of me to label the user as such, and will not happen again.". They got unblocked due to that comment.

Their userpage history is concerning and screams WP:TENDENTIOUS / WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS / WP:NOTHERE;

• just a kurdish historian who believes in the truth and debunking any of our oppressors misinformation for good Who are these "oppressors"? And who is Volkish Kurden to judge what is "misinformation" and "truth"?

• Age matters (in terms of sources) only to those who wish to erase anything they don’t like. - (This is their current userpage) in other words, openly opposing one of this sites policies (WP:AGEMATTERS).

And now we know why they oppose WP:AGE MATTERS, because they're heavily relying on +100 year old outdated sources to push a POV (mostly through WP:SYNTH), something which late 20th-century sources can't help with because they're "anti-Kurdish" (You may disagree with my sources all you want, but they exist for a reason and contributed heavily to Kurdish historiography prior to the “anti-Kurdish” movement of the late 20th century.). Heck, they even admitted knowingly citing non-WP:RS from "infoisrael.net" just because they agree with it! "Whilst I can agree that Honigman (A Middle East analyst)isn’t reliable compared to the rest, his writing sets the basis..."

They showed some of their anti-Iranian tendencies again (the previous one being attacking me for my background, as seen in the list), by claiming "Thus Asatrian’s Armenian Iranian background can be used to explain his possible POV!" Which is very ironic - this user is an Kurd, so by using their own logic they're biased too since its their history that is the topic? Who am I kidding, ofc that logic doesn't apply to them, they're always right.

And Volkish Kurden went against their word in their unblock request by attacking me again, accusing me of having a "problem" with Kurds and their history "I was watching your edits on Kurdish pages, quite a while ago, because I wanted to understand what your problem was with us. My nation and our history." I don't think this user is a netpositive to this site (WP:NOTHERE), they're just one of the many new users who cause trouble in Middle Eastern-related article and end up getting indeffed. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Using past arguments? WP:AGE MATTERS - If my past behaviour has upset you, then I’m sorry, but it is set in stone.

///

You abhorrently stated that I was using the race card. I’m assuming in good faith you don’t have any racist views, even though that term alone is heavily adopted and used by racists, however, in the Kurdish community it is accepted that Asatrian has anti-Kurdish sentiments and has damaged the Kurdish historiography due to his pushing of the “Kwrt nomad theory” heavily in Cambridge and other academic circles, where multiple experts have called him out on such.

///

“ Who am I kidding, ofc that logic doesn't apply to them, they're perfect, everyone else of other background are biased, especially Iranians and Armenians! /s ”. Fellows, do I have to be the one to see the absurd nature of this message?????? I have never claimed to be perfect and nobody is, however, I find it deplorable that a certain POV is being pushed on articles about Kurds, but rather than accept this, I have been called a sock puppet… I even stated “Also I will add that M. Izady is unreliable in this context, due to his pro-Kurdish POV…“, I’m not even giving Izady a chance to be cited, I heavily disagree with his type of conclusions, yet apparently I only target “Iranians and Armenians”, so much for playing the race card.

///

Accusations after accusations even when WP:SYNTH isn’t in play: All my cited sources generally conclude the EXACT same thing: Kurds are native, or have been in the area for a long period of time, they all generally conclude that… that isn’t MY research. This is against the asserted Asatrian claim that we are merely “nomads”, which in of itself has anti-ziganistic roots.

///

In the talk, I was constantly told that NONE of my sources are reliable… not even those by academics, so why is that?

I asked “You have said many times about reliable sources, but what is reliable to you?” and even went on to give descriptions of each citation, but still, this wasn’t enough, it wasn’t anything from Asatrian or whatever fit the nomad narrative.

///

Carrying on: Prior to this, much prior, I had even stated a very fair compromise:“The point I’m making is that you cannot just include one side of the debate in the introduction, which PLENTY of people take at face value. When plenty of sources above link the Kurds to Herodotus’ Medes and Xenophons Carduchi. I’m all for having it there, but if I were to add all the information above to the article, not only would it add a new section but it would also mean the amending of the introduction to include all origin theories.”

This is very fair considering the original POV being pushed at the introduction of the article, refusing to mention other theories, only the Kurd Nomad theory.

///

Even after this compromise, it wasn’t enough, only ONE narrative had to be on the introduction… that is NOT fair in the slightest and one does not need to look closely to realize that thus is clearly POV. I believe it is fair to show other theories and have them be known rather than just the one which is degrading, dehumanizing and anti-ziganistic against the Kurds.

///

(imo this all an act, someone doesn't suddenly change like that, let's be real) POV pushing.

"I was watching your edits on Kurdish pages, quite a while ago, because I wanted to understand what your problem was with us. My nation and our history." Remember that they said this "will not happen again" in their unblock request? So much for that. It totally slipped my mind that someone can remember a person’s past just like HistoryOfIran has greatly remembered my past, I too have not forgotten.

///

I even asked “I do recall you stating that the Kurd = Iranian nomad theory is “a fact” rather than a theory, could you confirm that?” - He didn’t answer, so I did some digging to see if my memory was correct - and there I found it:

”It refutes my “claims” (those are not claims, but sheer facts) because he has authored an article you dont agree with?”

The fact here is that HOI clearly has a POV and agrees with a narrative, which I have explained above, damages the Kurdish historiography: Why is that source sheer facts whilst mine aren’t reliable??? No matter how many times HOI copy and pastes the same old “ Asatrian is a leading scholar in Middle Eastern-related studies…” it does not defer the fact, of which I have laid out, there is more deeper info than what is taken at face value.

///

If you want more, I am happy to explain anything, If I am wrong, I am happy to accept criticism or even a ban, but at least give me a chance to explain, because HOI’s years on wikipedia do not exempt then from punishment too (especially not after those claims against me which got ME banned). If those aren’t reviewed then it only goes to show corruption. Be fair and make love not war. Volkish Kurden (talk) 02:04, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

It's telling that when confronted with evidence that you made aspersions against HoI and are only here to right great wrongs, you decide to double down on these claims. You're not exactly covering yourself in glory here. MiasmaEternal☎ 02:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I have no desire to glorify myself, I hadn’t insulted HOI in the slightest, rather they decide to “play the race card” against me.

Once again, I proposed a fair compromise, only to be met with constant cornering and loaded questions.

If you rally with HOI, there is nothing i can do. Volkish Kurden (talk) 03:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, I find it strange that wanting multiple theories or none to be presented at the introduction is righting great wrongs. Volkish Kurden (talk) 03:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Volkish Kurden, well, I do know that HoI's experience has made them capable of lodging a complaint that is easily followed and evaluated. They presented diffs to specific edits to illustrate the points they are making. You created a very long narrative of randomly bolded phrases that is vague...what are you talking about here, an article (which one(s)?), talk page comments, user page comments? You need to present evidence if you are going to defend yourself or making counter-charges. We don't want your narrative of your interactions with another editor, use diffs/specifics to support your argument or defense. And be concise. No one has the time for overly long narratives. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your response, I will probably cite those when possible, just on vacation atm! Volkish Kurden (talk) 10:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Using past arguments? WP:AGE MATTERS - If my past behaviour has upset you, then I’m sorry, but it is set in stone.

Volkish Kurden does not even know what WP:AGE MATTERS is despite being so opposed against it. It has nothing to do with "past" arguments and behaviour, it's about sources. This is also hypocritical, since they've opposed it all this time, but now it matters to them? This is classical WP:GAMING, and more proof of WP:NOTHERE behaviour. HistoryofIran (talk) 12:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Request to block User:LelandDDDD99

Was previously blocked on the account "LelandDJF" for being a promotion-only account, and making unconstructive edits and creating a unnotable promotion/advertising only draft. This counts as block evasion, I'm pretty sure. Wheatley2 (talk) 02:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Just opened an SPI case. Ahri Boy (talk) 02:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Ahri Boy. Blatantly obvious sockpuppetry does not need an SPI case, -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked by Bbb23. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Hypersilly

Seems to be WP:NOTHERE. Most of their edits are experiments in their userspace. They have also made many inapropriate edits to talk pages (e.g. [291]) and their mainspace edits are either incompetent (e.g. [292]) or downright vandalism (e.g. [293]). (There, however seem to be two good mainspace edits to the article List of inorganic compounds.) Janhrach (talk) 09:01, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

LOOKS LIKE I SHOULD ADD MORE THINGS TO INCOMPLETE LISTS hypersilly ^(talk) 10:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Please avoid all-caps. See WP:SHOUT. Thank you. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 12:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

sure ok hypersilly ^(talk) 12:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

ALSO FOR [278] I DONT BELIEVE THERE ARE A MAXIMUM OF 30 IONIZATION ENERGIES hypersilly ^(talk) 10:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

ARE THERE ANY MORE INCOMPLETE LISTS hypersilly ^(talk) 10:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

also i cant write full articles and i also dont do citations hypersilly ^(talk) 10:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Trolling, Not Here. Take your pick. INDEFfed. Star Mississippi 12:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: the editor was active cross-wiki recently. Should a global lock be requested? Janhrach (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure best practices there aside from socks @Janhrach. Defer to someone else on that call and feel free to adjust my block if needed Star Mississippi 13:03, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. (Just a note: I am not an admin.) Janhrach (talk) 13:24, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Please revoke TPA for RealAOancea

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

---

Maybe a revdel too for this blocked user RealAOancea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) — rsjaffe 🗣️ 12:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

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

Block evasion by IP editor(s) on Johnel (among others)

The Johnel article was created by a blocked user, TheChineseGroundnut, and edited by their various socks. After they were blocked, they've almost certainly continued editing from IP addresses in the 102.88/89 ranges. Yesterday I requested G5 speedy on this, and an IP came along pretty soon to revert that, on the basis that it was created before the user was blocked (all of two days before, but still), so technically it's not eligible for G5. Okay, fair enough, I suppose. But I do find it ludicrous that (what I contend to be) blocked users can just evade their block by logging out and carrying on editing from IP. They're even taunting us with their edit comment ("This page was created before the user was blocked just like many other pages" – emphasis mine), clearly knowing that they've found a way around the system. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Committee for a Workers' International (2019)

An editor who has identified himself as a member of this organisation is persisting in editing the article Committee for a Workers' International (2019) in a partisan manner and has also copypasted an entire article from the organisation onto the article. This edit[294] appears to be an copypaste of this article. The editor User:Jamesation has made various comments asserting ownership of the article on behalf of his organisation: "I am a member of the International, at least go through the page before, attacking it, stop removing the map and banner from the quick info sections and take a look at the new link I made to the Chilean Section. Like I said before it isn't your International and you have free to say anything you want about us but not on our personal page."[295]. He is also now editing a related article about a predecessor organisation, Committee for a Workers' International (1974) in a similar way. [296] Wellington Bay (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

User is now also engaging in copypasta violations by copying and pasting entire articles from external sources. See (now deleted edits at) International Trotskyist Opposition and [297] which copy material from https://ito-oti.org/ito-lfi-declaration-2024-02-08/ and [298] and [299] which copypaste material from https://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/125065/23-05-2024/fifty-years-of-the-cwi/ . Wellington Bay (talk) 15:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Jamesation also removed one of the copyvio-revdel templates I put on one of the articles.[300] Please block this account until they can satisfy an admin that they understand the copyright restrictions and won't repeat their violations. (They should probably also indicate that they understand WP:COI.) Schazjmd (talk) 17:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked the account from article space until they can demonstrate some understanding of WP:PAGs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Holydiver82

This editor is exhibiting WP:NOTHERE behavior at The Acolyte (TV series). Despite multiple attempts to steer the user to finding a consensus, Holydiver has accused myself and others of being a sock[301] and of ownership[302][303]. After urging Holydiver one last time to AGF they responded by filing a malformed 3RR request against me.[304] Last week, I reported the user to the edit war noticeboard, but the admins instead pointed me to WP:ANI. I was just going to leave this alone, but this latest incident means I'm bringing it here. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I reported you because you revert every edit anyone makes on that page, in violation of the 3RR policy. all anyone has to do is look at the edit history of that page to see that you both revert every edit, and in the last 24 hours you have made 3 reverts. I have no idea why you have decided to take ownership of the page and refuse to allow anyone to edit it, including multiple people simply rewording poorly written sentences. If you simply allowed other people to edit the page there would be no problem. Holydiver82 (talk) 17:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Holydiver82, you know that content is being discussed at the talk page and there is no consensus for your changes. You can't keep making your edits every day or so and then complain that you keep getting reverted. Stop editing, wait for consensus to be found at the talk page, and then respect that decision. In your most recent comments at Talk:The Acolyte (TV series) you pointed out that you are new here and don't understand all the policies and guidelines. You should be taking it upon yourself to learn those rather than doing whatever you want and feigning ignorance. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content on Template:South Asia in 1400

@PadFoot2008: has removed sourced information from the template article, Template:South Asia in 1400. He is removing the term Gondwana and adding the vague term "aboriginal tribes" even though this is uncited. The cited source is A Historical Atlas of South Asia on p.39. See the link here:https://dsal.uchicago.edu/reference/schwartzberg/pager.html?object=076

As is clear on page 39, the term "Gondwana" is used to describe the collection of petty states in this region.

PadFoot seems to believe that his opinion supersedes a reliable source. He has also provided no source as an alternative. Please can this removal of sourced content be looked in to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ixudi (talk • contribs) 18:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)