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

Meta Voyager's tendentious editing

Meta Voyager (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is largely a single-purpose editor in relation to International Churches of Christ, has in my view crossed a line into tendentious editing at Talk:International Churches of Christ. Their editing appears to be motivated by a desire to remove mentions of sexual abuse lawsuits against the church (which have been covered in the Guardian and LA Times amongst others) from the article, rather than by improving the encyclopedia. Their latest argument is that the coverage is no longer significant or reliable (despite the continued existence of the Guardian and LA Times sources). When challenged on this, Meta Voyager's response has been to suggest that me and another editor, TarnishedPath, have COIs due to the amount we've contributed to the article, offering as evidence: @Cordless Larry, an administrator, ... has authored 13.4% of the ICOC article within the last 11 months and @Tarnished Path, a veteran editor, ... has authored 9.3% within the last 4 months according to today's Wiki page statistics. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:08, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I guess it was inevitable that we would end up here and I welcome a closer scrutiny of your behavior and mine on the ICOC Talk Page by experienced administrators. As a new editor, I questioned several months ago on your Talk Page your decision to post me on the Conflict of Interest noticeboard because I self-disclosed that I am a member of a church with connections to the International Churches of Christ (ICOC). Since then, other editors have questioned this conclusion by asking, for example, whether Wikipedia limits the editorial rights of Boy Scouts because they might edit the Boy Scouts' article. I cited other of your postings that evidenced your belief that the ICOC is a cult, a controversial topic within the ICOC article. Your reply suggested that I could bring your conduct to the administrators' noticeboard. I declined in hopes of an opportunity to find common ground on future editing opportunities. The record will show that I have voluntarily confined my comments about the ICOC to the Talk Page even though I still disagree with your declaration of my COI status. One irony of your reasoning for saying that I crossed a line is that it is the same basis that you have used to attempt to limit my voice and others as fellow editors. The opening caption to the ICOC article states that "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject." and on the Talk Page you have highlighted personally the issue of my COI status. Are you above questioning on this topic? Another irony is that you have strongly supported the principle of reliable sourcing in challenging whether other sections of the ICOC article should remain. Now that I am making a reliable sourcing argument, you choose to escalate the matter to this noticeboard. I look forward to further review by others in determining whether I am engaged in "tendentious editing" or whether you have gotten too close to an article that now deserves the attention of an unbiased administrator. Meta Voyager (talk) 22:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

No comment on the tendentious editing, but it seems to me your argument on the talk page in that section is fundamentally flawed. You claim on the talk page that the lawsuits are "dismissed", but the RfC you reference talks about ongoing lawsuits, not dismissed lawsuits, so if they are dismissed, why shouldn't they be included? It also seems to me you are missing the historical aspect of these allegations that span 25 years; one of those being accused is now a convicted pedophile. My suggestion is you WP:DROPTHESTICK, because I don't think you are going to find any support for your position. And here are the total stats for the article and talk page: Isaidnoway (talk) 00:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not an irony. I support reporting what reliable sources tell us about all aspects of the organisation. It's you who's arguing that we should disregard what reliable sources say about the lawsuits, because that reporting doesn't suit your agenda. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:49, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I found the accusation at Special:Diff/1241726178 that I have a conflict of interest, because I have apparently been responsible for 9.3% of edits to the article in the last three months, to be a bizzare WP:ABF. Did they not bother to look at my contribution history or my statistics? Their bizzare misintripriations of the RFC found at Talk:International_Churches_of_Christ/Archive_11#RfC:_Ongoing_court_cases_involving_low_profile_individuals in their comments in the Talk:International_Churches_of_Christ#Recent_RFC_raises_reliable_sourcing_question_in_the_lead_and_court_cases_section discussion speaks for itself. TarnishedPath^talk 01:46, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

For the benefit of those reviewing this posting on the Administrators’ Noticeboard, please be aware that I have made no substantive edits, tendentious or otherwise, to the ICOC article due to being assigned by Cordless Larry the status of having a conflict of interest – a status that I disputed but have chosen to respect by limiting my comments to the ICOC article’s Talk Page. Meta Voyager (talk) 00:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

The relevant statistics for evaluating my comments about the magnitude of recent edits by Cordless Larry and Tarnished Path are found on the Page Statistics of the ICOC article under the heading: AUTHORSHIP - Authorship attribution, measured by character count, excluding spaces. These statistics identify the editors who are responsible for the authorship of the current version of the article. The Total stats chart provided by others below washes out the number of edits by Cordless Larry over an 11 month period, Tarnished Path over a 4 month period and Meta Voyager over an 8 month period by comparing their edits to the edits made by all editors during the nearly 20 year history of the ICOC article. The Authorship chart presented below accurately portrays the current impact of all editors on the ICOC article. To compare the Authorship statistics to the presentation in the Total stats chart: Cordless Larry-13.5%, Tarnished Path-9.3% and Meta Voyager-too small a percentage to report (below 0.1%). Meta Voyager (talk) 13:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Total stats

Article Found 1 edits by Meta Voyager on International Churches of Christ (0.02% of the total edits made to the page) Found 76 edits by Cordless Larry on International Churches of Christ (1.18% of the total edits made to the page) Found 9 edits by TarnishedPath on International Churches of Christ (0.14% of the total edits made to the page) Talk page Found 50 edits by Meta Voyager on Talk:International Churches of Christ (1.65% of the total edits made to the page) Found 125 edits by Cordless Larry on Talk:International Churches of Christ (4.12% of the total edits made to the page) Found 79 edits by TarnishedPath on Talk:International Churches of Christ (2.6% of the total edits made to the page)

Proposal: Topic ban

Revisiting the history of this, I was reminded of Meta Voyager's actions at Talk:International Churches of Christ/Archive 11#RfC: Ongoing court cases involving low profile individuals, where they also tried to call into question the reliability of these sources, arguing that "The authors referenced in the LA Times and Guardian articles do not have special expertise on legal matters" and trying to use the essay WP:LAWRS to justify exclusion of coverage of the lawsuits (being called out for Wikilawyering by TarnishedPath as a result). Since this behaviour of seeking out spurious reasons to exclude coverage critical of the subject seems persistent, I propose that Meta Voyager be topic banned from articles related to Christianity. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:16, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. (diff) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raladic (talk • contribs) 18:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• OPPOSE : All the parties involved in this content dispute seem to be highly conflicted. Actually Meta Voyager has shown considerable restraint in apparently not editing the article directly. Sectioneer (talk) 13:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  In what sense are Cordless Larry and TarnishedPath conflicted here? It looks to me as though they are just trying to prevent conflicted users from editing the article (either directly, or by creating a precedent for other conflicted users to do so via talkpage discussions). Axad12 (talk) 13:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  Cordless Larry’s conflicted status began when he made the choice on September 3, 2023 as a Wikipedia approved Administrator to make substantive edits to the ICOC article, particularly about federal lawsuits involving the ICOC. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1173681275 He continued to author content about the federal lawsuits through March 15, 2024 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1213815275 despite having knowledge as far back as September 4, 2023 that these federal lawsuits had been dismissed.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1173761043 According to WP:INVOLVED, “[i]n general, editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may be, or appear to be, incapable of making objective decisions in disputes to which they have been a party or about which they have strong feelings. Involvement is construed broadly by the community to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.” Cordless Larry’s proposal here to impose on me a total topic ban from articles related to Christianity after posting my comments on the Administrators’ Noticeboard is the latest example of his use of Wikipedia’s administrative procedures to attempt to limit another editor’s ability to edit the ICOC article. In my opinion, his conflicted status as an Administrator and substantial editor  to the ICOC article is worthy of review by other Administrators. Meta Voyager (talk) 11:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  Making a lot of edits to a page isn't a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest relates to an external relationship between editor and subject (e.g. like you have).

  Also, raising an issue at ANI isn't an abuse of administrative procedures - it is appropriate use of the relevant procedure. Axad12 (talk) 11:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  Hmm, I can imagine a situation in which making a lot of edits to a page would be considered something like a conflict of interest, even if it's definitely not a violation of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline. In our Wikipedia:UPPERCASE jargon, we'd call that "being WP:INVOLVED". That particular shortcut goes to the admin policy, but we use the concept widely, particularly in sentences like "any uninvolved editor" – a group that excludes people who have made a lot of edits to a page, and especially if their edits are primarily to add negative information, remove positive information, and oppose the efforts of people doing the opposite. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  Any one can offer a proposal in a discussion. I am not an administrator and I can propose you be indefinitely blocked or even site banned. Fellow editors can then say whether they support or oppose any sanctions and give their rational. Making a proposal is not "administrative procedures". I am going to help you out. When you say conflicted status, experienced editors see that as you stating they have a COI which I do not see any evidence of. Perhaps it would be best for you to stop saying that and instead just say they are involved. Again, I don't see where they used admin tools so this would be incorrect but it is the closest to what you are trying to say. --ARoseWolf 11:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, from memory I don't think I've ever performed an admin action in relation to this article (and certainly not in the current dispute). Cordless Larry (talk) 07:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, in what sense do TarnishedPath or I have a COI, Sectioneer? I hadn't even heard of the ICOC until I was alerted to the article by a question at the Teahouse. I'm pretty sure TarnishedPath doesn't have a COI either. Meta Voyager, by contrast, either "currently attend[s] a congregation that operates independently, but has a relationship with the International Churches of Christ" (per this) or is "a lay member of the church" (per this).

  Tendentious editing can take place on talk pages as well as directly to articles, and specifically includes repeated disputing of the reliability of reliable sources (WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH). Cordless Larry (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  I’m not sure that an editor with less than 90 edits has the experience to comment here. Doug Weller talk 17:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  It speaks for itself that most of @Meta Voyager's 77 edits are at the International Churches of Christ (ICOC) article or its talk and most of the of the remainder that aren't there are about the ICOC article. TarnishedPath^talk 01:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  @TarnishedPath I was actually referring to Sectioneer, but your comment makes the same point about Meta Voyager. Doug Weller talk 14:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  It's normal for new editors to focus on a couple of articles. @TarnishedPath, your first 100+ edits were mostly at a few articles about Australian politics. There's nothing wrong with that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support per the respondents comments above in which they claim that merely having edited the article a number of times or adding in reliably sourced content constitutes a WP:COI. TarnishedPath^talk 13:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support: There's clearly something wrong when a user with so few edits, and such a poor grasp of basic policies, is wikilawyering on a subject like the removal of properly sourced mentions of lawsuits. The user's primary purpose on Wikipedia seems to be to make as many spurious arguments as possible in favour of the removal of adverse material on a subject where they have a COI. It seems to me that that is fundamentally opposed to the idea of being here to build an encyclopaedia. (Note also, this behaviour extends beyond the lawsuits issue and has also involved the long-running dispute over whether the ICOC is a cult or cult-like organisation.) Axad12 (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support I'm not convinced this editor is capable of editing anywhere, and certainly not in the area of Christianity. Doug Weller talk 14:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support Per others above. Reviewing their short contribs list they're clearly here with a specific purpose and that purpose isn't to build an encyclopedia. DeCausa (talk) 07:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support A topic ban seems appropriate, if not an outright ban. The user seems to want to expunge perceived negative information surrounding the church and any sort of lawsuits; these appear to be well-documented in RS. Not liking them isn't a reason to have them removed, sourcing is sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 16:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Unless somebody has something else besides the above. (I've been hanging out at that article since I was invited by the bot to an RFC in April; I did not research prior to that) , I don't even see what the specific accusation is. It was indicated above that they haven't edited the article. And I've seen only reasonable arguments on the talk page. Regarding actions related to the RFC results, IMO the RFC did not have a finding on dropped/withdrawn lawsuits and so it's not correct to say that Meta Voyager advocating removal of those is a conflict with the results of the RFC. IMHO being a mere member of an affiliated church is a weak COI and so IMHO we should not imply that it is a zealot type situation from just that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. I was leaning towards the same perspective voiced by North8000 above yesterday, based on all of the above discussion and a cursory review of the relevant talk page discussions, but I wanted to dig into the articles and the issues a little more before lodging an !vote. Thanks to N8 for since providing the perspective of someone who had been watching the article from the medium distance, and having now followed up on the previous discussions, I have to say I also do not see on what specific behaviour such a ban could be based. Indeed, to the point that I feel like the fact that it was proposed seems a little problematic.
  To begin with, I'm extremely dubious of the conclusion that this editor even has a WP:COI in the meaning of our policies. Unless we're going to start banning the world's 1.4 billion Catholics from contributing to articles about their faith and topics touched upon by their religious associations? But this is not the first most ideal time and place to re-litigate that conclusion. The question therefor is whether, having been found by a community discussion to be under that designation, have they comported with all the guidelines thereby entailed? No one here has shared so much as a single diff to demonstrate they haven't. Nor does being an WP:SPA automatically qualify them as such.
  This user may very well have a bias: I won't waste time second-guessing whomever among the involved editors has decided it is so. But bias towards an editorial view not supported by the majority of established editors for an article--nor even some tenacity in pushing the minority view--are not automatically WP:disruptive. And I'm not seeing the requisite evidence of behaviour/PAG violations crossing the line into disruption that would justify a community ban. The biggest issue that I have seen so far was the need to correct them about the fact that some of the other participants in the discussion are not "conflicted" (in the meaning of the word on this project) just for their past involvement in the article. But unless I have missed some comment, it's too early to assume they will not heed that education. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: Possible typo. From the sentence it looks like you meant "are not automatically disruptive"? North8000 (talk) 14:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Your supposition is correct, North8000; I've corrected my wording above, accordingly. My thanks for the catch and the notification. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose what has Meta Voyager done wrong exactly besides being new and not understanding our confusing policies? I haven't looked at the conduct dispute but many lawsuits are undue for inclusion for Wikipedia articles. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  It's more than not understanding policies. They're not here to contribute to the encyclopedia but to find a way to justify removal of content from this one article, with which they have a COI. As well as the actions outlined above, they've also previously unilaterally closed an RfC that they initiated, after I had told them that this was not permitted. These aren't the actions of a good-faith editor but someone who's trying to find whatever way they can to have material based on reliable, secondary sources excluded from the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  I encourage not jumping to conclusions about an editor's motives, especially when there have disagreements between you and them . In regards to the RfC closure, @Meta Voyager noted your objection and acted likewise. Although their own closing of the RfC may not have been the best course of action, it does not seem to have been made with ill-intent.

  “However, do not assume there is more misconduct than evidence supports...Given equally plausible interpretations of the evidence, choose the most positive one.” WP:CIVILITY

  Other editors, myself included, have not noticed concerning behavior from @Meta Voyager, and you have. In this case, let's lean towards “the most positive one” until there is unanimous and overwhelming evidence of bad faith editing. XZealous (talk) 19:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  To clarify, Meta Voyager noted my objection and went ahead and closed the RfC regardless. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  On 4-26-2024, I concluded that a consensus on the RFC was not likely and proposed someone I thought was an independent editor to write a close to the RFC. After Cordless Larry pointed out that the proposed editor was not independent because she had previously posted on the RFC, I posted in response the following "Objection noted. Since closing summaries are not required, I’ll proceed with ending the discussion." Although I genuinely thought a closing summary was not required under Wikipedia policies, when my close was challenged, I consented without objection and the RFC proceeded. Meta Voyager (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  Larry, let me preface this by saying that, having reviewed the RfC and subsequent related discussions in their entirety, I believe the RfC itself reached precisely the right conclusion and balance as to what should and should not be included. I also feel that whether MV's read of the close is accurate or not is largely inconsequential, because their conclusion that there needs to be ongoing coverage of lawsuit in order for it to be included in an article cannot be squared with longstanding community consensus and policy. This is very much like the countless occasions I have seen in various talk page discussions suggesting that we cannot cover the purported criminal activity of notable persons, or the notable crimes of non-notable persons, until such time as there is a conviction--which is very much not what WP:CRIME and WP:BLPCRIME say. As in those cases, MV adopts (alebeit with regard to civil matters) an outlook that positions this project as if it were an extension of a court of law, with similar priorities. This is a false equivalence, and I am glad you and others pushed back against it in the article in question.

  All of which is to say that MV is wrong about what policy directs us to do in these circumstances--and indeed, is wrong (I believe) about what policy should be on such matters. We do not need to map our coverage of controversial legal proceedings such that we obscure coverage in reliable sources of such matters until a court finds a party criminally or civilly liable for a purported act. Our test on this project for coverage of lawsuits is the same as for any other matter: WP:WEIGHT in WP:RS. Any other system that makes us beholden to mention only successful legal actions is untenable for far too many reasons to list here.

  As such, at some point Meta Voyager will have to accept this conclusion--and insistence in ignoring these conclusions will become WP:Disruption. However, we are not nearly there yet. We are talking about a very new editor who is going through growing pains, and, as noted above, being an WP:SPA does not automatically make an editor problematic. While I have seen sub-optimal elements in their approach in those discussions, I also see someone putting in a good faith effort to understand and comport with our rules. I personally think it is very dubious to identify them as having a COI just because of their religious affiliations, but they have overwhelmingly adhered to our COI guidelines regardless. I routinely see much worse conduct from new editors. If they continue to push lines suggesting they will always prioritize the interests of the church over the project's needs, and cannot reconcile themselves to our rules, we can revisit the issue. For now, I am not convinced they are WP:NOTHERE. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:07, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

To put my previous abstract statement more briefly, IMO what Meta Voyager was proposing on cases did not conflict the RFC result, and IMO statements that it did conflict are incorrect. North8000 (talk) 12:42, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

That's my read as well. There may come a time when Meta Voyager can be deemed to be civil POV pushing, but right now their activities fall within legitimate discussion of perspectives that seem to be merely contrary to those held by certain other parties on the talk page. Some of the early discussion in this thread lead me to the conclusion that MV had already been deemed to have a COI, but having just checked the COIN discussion in question, it turns out there was no such consensus at all. So there is no editing restriction for this editor, making it all the more impressive how, despite being a relative newcomer they have, out of respect for apperances and expressed concerns alone, decided to abide by COI restrictions completely voluntarily. That does not present the image to me of a disruptive editor or unreasonable personality. On the contrary, it makes me inclined to believe their incidental comment on their talk page suggesting they are a legal professional, because they appear to have a robust respect for our rules and the precautionary principle generally. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

On an incidental but important sidenote, it's something of a relief to learn that the COIN discussion did not result in a consensus COI in this case; if COIN really had gotten in the business of declaring COIs over mere disclosures of faith and general association with a religious movement, then that is something that probably would need to go to the Village Pump for broad community discussion, because I cannot imagine the community deeming that an acceptable standard consistent with the policy. And just so we're clear, I'd live to remind everyone of what the policy (specifically WP:COINOTBIAS) actually says:

"Beliefs and desires may lead to biased editing, but they do not constitute a COI. COI emerges from an editor's roles and relationships, and the tendency to bias that we assume exists when those roles and relationships conflict." (emphasis in the original).

To the best of my knowledge, the community has never validated the perspective that mere adherence to a religious creed or worship under a particular religious branch constituted a role or relationship establishing a COI, and I can't imagine it ever will. The OP and others here are vocally complaining that Meta Voyager crossed a line by implying that they had a COI merely because of their longterm engagement with the article. Which clearly is a fallacious argument. But so were their COI arguments against MV, and they clearly started this COI namecalling. Honestly, the more I look into this, the more concerned I am about the approach to talk page discussion and collaboration of the complainants here, rather than MV's. Neither side's approach is pitch perfect here, I'll say that much. But I really think the best way forward here is to close this discussion with an exhortation to both sides to engage with more patience.

And let me add that I get it: Cordless Larry and TarnishedPath don't want the article whitewashed. I both understand that perspective and appreciate their work to that end. But if you're going to make a stand on holding those kinds of lines on this project, you have to accept that sometimes it involves protracted periods of patience while those points are argued out. I'm seeing too little of that patience here, and too much leaning into trying to remove their rhetorical opposition from the equation altogether, with COIN and ANI filings that I would describe as made on incredibly thin justification. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:04, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

"Beliefs and desires may lead to biased editing, but they do not constitute a COI. COI emerges from an editor's roles and relationships, and the tendency to bias that we assume exists when those roles and relationships conflict."

A belief in particular supernatural deities is a separate matter to membership of a particular church. The section you quote clearly states that COIs emerge as consequence of relationships. Membership of a particular church, as against being a Christian, is a relationship. Someone who has a membership with a particular church has a relationship with it and thus a COI exists. TarnishedPath^talk 09:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and I'd say that the membership distinction is all the more important when the organisation concerned is widely regarded by reliable sources as a cult, as others here have noted. Similarly, Hydrangeans's comparison with an American editor editing US history articles doesn't really work here. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:12, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

So Catholics are forbidden from editing articles concerning their diocese, Anglicans forbidden from editing articles regarding their ecclesiastic provinces, Shia Muslims forbidden from editing articles on the imamate they worship under, and so on? Come on you two, surely you see why this can never be a viable rule that's ever going to be endorsed by this community? Which is why no one supported your attempt to get a COI designation at COIN and why you are getting so much pushback here on the implication that you should have.

If nothing else, such a radical broadening of the COI policy to allow it to apply to anyone who associates with a given denomination would need to be vetted in a community discussion of the largest possible involvement. And I think I can tell you with some confidence that the community would vociferously reject such a proposal, given it's massive and hugely diverse (and largely negative) implications for the project. I would seriously recommend you both WP:DROPTHESTICK on this one; it's not going to happen and trying to push this line of complaint is not helping your overall arguments. It's not a good look that you come here complaining that MV suggested one of you was conflicted out on flimsy grounds, when you've been doing the same thing to them for a while, and are still pressing that argument despite the failed COIN proposal. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 13:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "the failed COIN proposal". At Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 207#International Churches of Christ, I wasn't calling for editing restrictions on Meta Voyager. I was rather calling uninvolved editors' attention to problematic editing by a number of editors with connections to the article subject. And I'm not calling for editing restrictions based on a COI alone now - I'd be happy for a COI editor to make good-faith suggestions on the talk page, but what's happening here is tendentious (repeated questioning of the same reliable sources and the closure of an RfC as an involved editor, despite being told not to do so). Cordless Larry (talk) 14:04, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Well COIN is by definition where you discuss COI issues, so I'd say that's a distinction without a meaning; clearly you felt that MV and others had a COI and hoped to find support there for that perspective. And even in your post here, you are continuing to imply that MV has a COI, so your messaging is very mixed.. That said, I don't see the point in splitting these hairs any finer. If you didn't want a COI designation, that's just as well, as one was never going to be forthcoming, imo.

I'll just backstop this line of discussion by reiterating that pushing for an automatic COI designation for members of a given church can only shoot a proponent of such an argument in the foot. You are prevailing on the underlying content issues (as well you should be, as far as I can tell) and this discussion has accomplished nothing but to undermine your successes in that regard and waste a lot of community time. Clearly there is no consensus for the TBAN proposal, and not only do most respondents here not think action is warranted against MV at this time, but a number of us even feel they have shown considerable patience and restraint in the face of unwarranted ABF and attempts to restrict their involvement in the article. I really do recommend you take your win on the content matters and drop the rest of this. I do agree that MV also has their own stick to drop on said content issues, and I hope they have taken that message from this discussion. If they fail to, I promise you that I for one will be adopting a very different perspective on the next proposal for sanctions. But I can't be any more blunt than to say this: they aren't the only one who has something to WP:HEAR from this discussion. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 14:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@Snow Rise, Thank you for your helpful guidance throughout this process, I think we have all learned a lot. For my clarity, Is this what you are describing as a failure to HEAR what is being said on this board? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@JamieBrown2011 if you have an accusation to make file a report. TarnishedPath^talk 07:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is. In my opinion, it was inappropriate for those tags to have been placed on the talk page to begin with, without an affirmative and unambigous community finding of COI. Cordless Larry and TarnishedPath took their case to COIN and received no consensus in support of their perspective there (unsurprisingly, since this community has never endorsed the position that mere religious affiliation imputes a COI, and almost certainly never will, as such a standard is untenable for countless reasons). The matter then came here, where no one has directly endorsed their unique read on COI, but to the contrary numerous of the uninvolved respondents have expressly rejected their interpretation.

So CL and TP have now heard back from the community in the two primary fora that handle such determinations, and it is clear that no consensus currently supports their outlook (and most here reject it). So it's well past time for them both to WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on. At this point, I encourage North8000 to follow through on their inclination to remove the tags, since they are the editor currently involved on that page who is closest to having a moderate position between the two camps, and thus least likely to set either side's teeth to gnashing. I would not recommend JamieBrown or Meta Voyager remove the tags themselves, for pro forma reasons.

If TP or CL thereafter re-insert the tags, I for one would then be willing to consider a boomerang sanction against such party here in this thread. This has to stop. CL and TP are well within their prerogative to go to the village pump and make a WP:PROPOSAL to expand the remit of COI to include religious affiliations, but as of now, their arguments that WP:COI already implicitly supports such a conclusion did not receive consensus support at COIN and have largely been expressly rejected here at ANI. If either cannot accept the community verdict in this case, and try to enforce a declaration of COI despite it, I believe they will have at that point crossed unambiguously into WP:disruptive territory, and a boomerang may become necessary. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 09:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

No proposal is needed, WP:COINOTBIAS already states "COI emerges from an editor's roles and relationships, and the tendency to bias that we assume exists when those roles and relationships conflict". Your assertion that arguments per COI have been rejected here is frankly incorrect. I only read yourself and Hydrangeans have stated there is no COI (by my reading, please correct me if I'm missing anyone). Others have stated that they don't see what Meta Voyager has done wrong or that they only have a weak COI. For the record I took no case to COIN. I commented on the discussion at COIN while I was there reading something else and that's how I found my way to the article. TarnishedPath^talk 11:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

If you don't see the plain repudiation of your position writ large across this discussion (and inherent in the two previous failed COIN proposals), then I fear there really is a problem here. Bluntly, opening a third COIN filing while this discussion is already open and discussing the COI issue, with a pretty clear consensus, is blatant WP:FORUMSHOPPING and, for my view anyway, a bridge too far; I think you're outright WP:TEND on this issue at this point. I really do recommend you let this go. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 12:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Failed COIN proposals? I don't understand how anyone could characterise discussion which mostly went off topic and then petered out as failed. There is no consensus here about COI, which is unsurprising, as it has mostly not been the topic of discussion. There is consensus against a topic ban, however most people !voting oppose have not discussed COI and the thread wasn't started about COI but alleged tenditious editing.

I've started the new COIN discussion to get clarity on whether the connected editor notices should be removed, not to relitigate anything here. TarnishedPath^talk 13:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I think there is an underlying implication in their statements, that ICOC claims to be a religion but does not qualify as such, and is therefore the kind of organization for which editing by a member does constitute COI. TooManyFingers (talk) 20:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

You've completely inverted the appropriate process and burden of proof under policy. Any editor, regardless of their belief systems, is presumptively allowed to edit any article. A determination of COI (of the sort described in the policy) requires either a self-declaration or else an affirmative finding by the community. If the previous COIN discussions failed to get a consensus for such a determination, then they are, by definition, failed proposals. The tags never should have been listed on the talk page so long as that was the case--and bluntly, whoever put them up was already acting outside of behaviour permitted by policy. Beyond that procedural point, your fourth bite at the apple at COIN has no more realistic chance than did the first two COIN threads or the proposal here, and you are just chewing through more community time and patience at this point. This is an extremely bad look that you are taking on, for no feasible potential gain... SnowRise ^{let's rap} 13:39, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose The editor that @CordlessLarry is trying to ban from “all Christianity” has been trying to make a simple point on the Talk Page. The 5 federal law cases reflected in the LEDE of the article have all been dismissed. The 4 state cases that are currently ongoing do not appear to have been covered by a RS.

That simple point has been obscured by both @TarnishedPath and @CorldlessLarry through, what appears to me anyway, both extensive Wikilawyering and what certainly feels like intimidation tactics. As a self-declared member of the church, I have personally been dragged before the COI Noticeboard twice by @CordlessLarry in an apparent attempt to silence dissenting voices. This latest attempt to ban an editor who has made exactly one page edit by what has the appearance of a WP:TAGTEAM, (who collectively have written almost 25% of the current article content), and just with a brief reading of the last few months of Talk Page discussions, certainly demonstrate some of the characteristics of WP:OWNBEHAVIOUR, should be evidence enough for wise administrative oversight.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 21:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

• I'm a "dissenting voice" in respect to abortion. But I don't edit that article, since I don't want to get banned. Sometimes dissenters just have to accept the way things are, and self-censor their edits. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  You are a "dissenting voice" in respect to China. You should have self-censored your edits.

  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Traditional_Chinese_medicine&diff=prev&oldid=1244310969

  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Traditional_Chinese_medicine&diff=prev&oldid=1244312672

  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Traditional_Chinese_medicine&diff=prev&oldid=1244313749

  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Traditional_Chinese_medicine&diff=prev&oldid=1244314786

  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Acupuncture&diff=prev&oldid=1233495448

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement 202.40.137.196 (talk) 10:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Meta Voyager has made a total of 6 articles to Article namespace (assuming none were deleted) as of writing; 4 of which are related to Christianity. None of the edits remotely violate policy nor even resemble POV pushing (permissible or not). This report is preemptive and premature. People with WP:COI are welcome to make {{Edit requests}}. And to be clear, reliable sources very convincingly lay out that International Churches of Christ is a cult. Wikipedia's role in challenging WP:FRINGE remains, but it's not a license to WP:BITE editors. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 01:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Meta Voyager hasn't been editing the article, and the behavior isn't even alleged to be applicable to a topic as broad as articles related to Christianity but rather solely to an article about one relatively small denomination. The proposal as such is excessive and premature. Any preventative action to be taken would at the very least be better served by narrower tailoring.
  As far as the claim that mere religious affiliation amounts to an actionable WP:COI, I don't think that's very tenable. It's a common sense case, the same way that, say, being American isn't an actionable COI for the US history topic area. I'm reminded of another ANI thread I participated in where a lot of users concluded that it was disruptive when a reported user claimed that religiously affiliated Wikipedians or cited source authors had conflicts of interest. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - Meta Voyager has shown tremendous restraint in his editing and we have to remember Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:8BAB:B116:675B:AB5F (talk) 01:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban, seems appropriate. Not an outright ban, that's perhaps too much at this point. If the behaviour continues elsewhere/in other subjects, then we can talk about permabans. Oaktree b (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Oaktree b I see you responded with support earlier in this thread. Did you mean to post this again? XZealous (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  I did not, let me edit it. My error. Oaktree b (talk) 16:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@Snow Rise, there was no 1st, 2nd or 3rd bite that I had at anything. You really need to go back and review who started prevoius discussions before you make more patently incorrect statements. TarnishedPath^talk 06:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not really relevant which of you started which discussions. The point is, the community is clearly not prepared to accept your idiosyncratic reading of the COI policy such that "belongs to a religious denomination = automatic actionable COI for that religion". And your failure to hear that is just hoovering up more and more community time, effort, and patience, left and right. I really do sympathize with and appreciate the motivation that animated both you and Larry on this issue from the beginning. Truly, I do. And I really would like to spare you from an eventual boomerang here. But based on your approach to this discussion and the underlying dispute so far, I'm not sure you are going to be able to stop before it gets to that point. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I've noticed that the majority of editors at COIN have stated there is no COI and I have no intent to push the COI question any further. TarnishedPath^talk 10:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

That's great--thank you: I do think this is the best way forward for everyone. I'll add the article and talk page to my watchlist and try to reliably provide an extra voice if there is a further pattern of efforts by SPAs to whitewash out criticisms of the church. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose for the wise reasons laid out by North8000 and Snow Rise. I'm not sure how this situation ever escalated to this point. Nemov (talk) 17:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - the proposal is too broad. The initial complaint was about one specific talk page. I'm not seeing any evidence that there is disruptive editing by this user going on at multiple articles and talk pages related to the whole topic of Christianity. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

User:O recomeço and WP:CIR 3

• O recomeço (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It had recently been brought to my attention that last month, Northern Moonlight pointed out a myriad of edits O recomeço made that had grammar and spelling errors on their talk page - [1]. Furthermore, since then, there have been further edits containing such errors ([2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]).

While O recomeço had acknowledged that their grammar is below the standards expected of English Wikipedia editors, it seems as if they are making little to no effort to improve upon it. Should we block? I feel like we had been wasting our energy with them, and at some point we have to say "enough is enough". The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 02:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I haven't kept up with their edits since my messages in their talk page, but I do find it rather unfortunate that their understanding of what is expected is just not there despite their enthusiasm for contributing. It doesn't seem to be just a grammar/spelling problem, but a general difficulty in communicating the idea of their contributions across in English.

I'm not about to vote as an IP editor on if Wikipedia should block or not someone (though I do report people), but I'd just suggest - if you do find they need to be blocked to get the message across - that you also consider what length of time is actually needed to do so. – 2804:F1...DA:91C2 (talk) 03:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

long, rambly comment coming...

while the issue is overall small in scope, i do think it's been going on for too long, and i'm starting to think that it stems less from their first language (which seems to be brazilian portuguese), but more so from a consistent failure to understand english (in a language riddled with english loanwords), improper humor (see this diff, aren't nazis just the wackiest punchline?), and almost active disregard for the manual of style. for an example, let's look at the text from this diff:

A pioneer of Vlogling in the pre-internet world. Some of his videos really seen to inspired the Youtube creactors.

translating this directly into brazilian portuguese with no regard for how that language works (however that works with a language does doesn't even exist), it would be

Um pioneiro de Vlogling no mundo pré-Internet. Alguns dos seus vídeos realmente viram a inspiraram os criacdores no Youtube.

which borders on gibberish regardless of language

however, translating this into actual, proper portuguese while not completely disregarding the manual of style and... 5rd grade portuguese, it would be

Um pioneiro de vlogging no mundo pré-Internet. Alguns dos seus vídeos inspiraram criadores no YouTube.

note the underlined words not being misspelled this time, that alone would be considered grounds to call it a skill issue in brazil (if it was a real place)

and then translating that into english (as literally as i can make it), it would be

A pioneer of vlogging in the pre-Internet world. Some of his videos inspired creators on YouTube.

it's still unclear and wouldn't slide in a b-class article (for starters, which videos inspired which creators, and how?), but it's a surprisingly easy sentence to translate. even in portuguese portuguese, those typos would be out of place (especially amoung, that one's just painful)

overall, i do think action is needed, since nearly every single instance i could find of someone suggesting a grammar correction tool or something has been met with silence (see their talk page). i don't know if this is grounds to accuse them of idht, but it's really starting to look like it. if possible, i'll vote for a mainspace block until they decide to attempt... really, any sort of improvement. but if they're gonna do anything first, please have it be learning how to spell "among" cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 12:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

on that note, i'll point out their edits to ptwiki, which are... surprisingly tolerable, give or take some minor spelling mistakes they actually fix. do more of that, please cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 12:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Their mainspace contributions might not go a long way towards building the encyclopedia (most recently [8]) but a mainspace block wouldn't make much difference. Of their 338 edits, 292 have been to the various Wikipedia:Unusual articles pages: Wikipedia:Unusual articles/Popular culture, entertainment and the arts, Wikipedia:Unusual articles/History and so on.[9] NebY (talk) 16:28, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

fr*ck, i forgot unusual articles wasn't in mainspace. pretend i said "main and project spaces" i guess cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 16:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

on first thought, that would be a terrible idea. a block from mainspace and wp:unusual articles would be slightly less unnecessarily drastic cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 16:37, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

The obvious lack of competence aside, I find it very frustrating to deal with them because they never listen to other experienced editors. People wrote paragraphs teaching them how to use grammar correction tools? Didn’t care. “Try sandboxes first?”. Didn’t touch it once. I had to add those Wikipedia:Unusual articles pages to my watchlist because over 50% (165/326) of their edits have grammar and/or spelling problems. Northern Moonlight 07:05, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I previously suggested to this editor that this might be a problem specific to the unusual articles pages. We have very few Portuguese-speaking editors and it seemed that the effort of coaching them on their English might be worthwhile. If they are again editing that page despite their hostile reception there, maybe there is something to the IDHT allegation, and if people are suggesting tools, I do applaud that.

It still seems a little BITEy to go straight to a CIR. I suggest a page block, if they are willing to translate articles about Brazil. If not, well, clearly something is not working here. Also, what is this stuff about "actual" Portuguese versus Brazilian Portuguese? Frown. The two dialects are as I understand it somewhat more different than American and British English, but that doesn't mean Brazilian Portuguese is not Portuguese or "doesn't even exist". Since I don't see the point of the comment, though, possibly I am misunderstanding it. It also occurs to me that if they also make mistakes in Portuguese, they may be dyslexic or simply a bad typist. Maybe they fix the mistakes at pt-wiki because their spell check underlines them there? I did look at Grand Delusion's diffs though; most of the errors would not be caught by spell check since they amount to a wrong word, or capitalization errors, not a misspelled word. Spell check should have caught "amoung" though.

I suggested, and still suggest, articles about Brazil, since the area needs help, although a few Portuguese-speaking editors have made some headway with the machine translation there and may be able to help. I am on the fence about restricting them to the talk page there as well. The diffs above are not much better than the incomprehensible machine translation in some Brazil articles. However, although I encourage this editor to ask for help getting an English spell check if that is part of the problem here, I don't see why we need to hound them about poor English on talk pages. They are understandable. I hope these comments help advance the discussion. Elinruby (talk) 07:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

if it's referring to my comments, then

• "actual ... portuguese" there referred to "not carrying over all the misspellings and interpreting them literally", as opposed to european portuguese. i really don't know enough about that variant to opine one way or the other, but from some quick checking, most of what they write wouldn't slide in either variant. the wording there was pretty bad, so the misunderstanding probably makes sense
• all that stuff i say about brazil and everything related to it not being real is unsubtle self-deprecation, as stated in my user page. i've been brazilian all along. please help
• yes, i do still feel that outright blocking would be a little too bitey, but i specified from the start that if i some action were to be taken, i'd support a projectspace block (not mainspace, that was my mistake), or potentially a pblock from unusual articles. i also specified that if there would be a reason, i think it would likely be a mix cir and idht, as opposed to just cir
• is this a bad time to volunteer for translation?

if it wasn't referring to mine... oops? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 12:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

heh. I have previously lamented that self-deprecation frequently does not work well in this venue as the social lubricant it can be elsewhere. And here I am as the one misunderstanding it. I did not realize you were Brazilian and would be delighted to discuss translation. I will ping you elsewhere about that. Meanwhile I think we agree that CIR is excessive and I am a bit baffled as to why the editor keeps trying to help people who keep proposing it. Since this is the third time maybe they need encouragement to contribute where it will be appreciated. Elinruby (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

For those puzzled by the heading, OP has brought O recomeço to ANI over this concern twice before. [10][11] Grandpallama (talk) 01:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I wish it was a "one-and-done" case. Unfortunately, however, O recomeço continues to exhibit competency issues and ignore the advice of others. They have addressed their problems without fixing any of them. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 04:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I said here. O recomeço, your English isn't good enough to edit the English Wikipedia. Please, only edit the versions of Wikipedia in which you have a firm grasp of the language.-- Mike 🗩 14:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, I really didn't expect that my huge enthusiasm about various curiosities could actually cause so much confusion here on Wikipedia. But here we are, look guys, I'd like to make it super clear that all my edits on the English Wikipedia were made with the intention of adding more unusual items to the unusual articles page. However, now I see pretty clarity that this has been causing a lot of headaches for the "caretakers" of the page. I do know that what you do is for the best of this community, and perhaps it would be better for me to stay on the pages of the languages ​​I master, but I wanted to reaffirm that I don't have any "persive" goals in my activism. I humbly ask that you do not block me at the Unusual articles page, but With that being said, what exactly would be considere an unusual topic on this page? What I love about the unusual articles section is that most of the items on it are not easily found in other media outlets, or even on the internet. And since I have a huge facility with information and social networks I thought it would be a gold mine for my entertainment and that of others, but now I see that the way I did it is unpopular, to say the least. Thanks for your input. O recomeço (talk) 00:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

O recomeço, that's a content question that should be discussed on the talk page, not ANI. This is a noticeboard to resolve suspected incidents of misconduct, not to decide what content should be added to a page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

@O recomeço: This thread is not about what content you can add to the page. It’s about your inability to 1) contribute in English and 2) listen to community feedback. We asked you to use a grammar correction tool multiple times (#1 #2 #3 #4) and you didn’t care to respond to any of them. Northern Moonlight 06:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

O recomeço: This has nothing to do with your contributions to Wikipedia:Unusual articles, many of which have been questionable no doubt (for example, how is an anime based on the Final Fantasy video game franchise "unusual"?). What it does have to do with is your inability to contribute to English Wikipedia without introducing spelling and grammar mistakes, and your ignoring the advice of others on how to improve. The fact that you missed the point of this whole discussion in your response speaks volumes about your competency issues. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 18:33, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, so let's talk about the real mistakes I've been making. My problems regarding the grammar of the English language and my, in fact, ignorance of accepting my difficulty in accepting the grammar tools that you've been recommending. Regarding the first topic, I really have problems with writing English, I corrected this paragraph myself through a corrector recommended by [[The Grand Delusion]], and I know that for now I should focus on the Wiki in Portuguese and Spanish, languages ​​of which I speak very well. Regarding the spelling tools, I'm really going to use them from now on as a way of learning, and I decide that I'm going to edit the English Wikipedia only once in a while. I'm a newbie here on Wikipedia, and I can be a little harsh on my own mistakes, but I like to think like this: I can't change what I did wrong, but the future hasn't been written yet. With this post I would like to announce that I will edit the Unusual articles page with just one correction tool. O recomeço (talk) 18:52, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

So O recomeço posted this to my talk page. Should we take their word for it, or should we indef them to make them stick to their word? The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 04:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm personally of the mind that we should close the door on someone who says they're leaving, as I've seen far too many people use that as a way to avoid sanctions when they're clearly about to be trouted. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

They keep saying they're here to edit the Wikipedia:Unusual articles pages, which aren't part of the encyclopedia. That's clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia. NebY (talk) 17:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

i disagree with it being grounds for a nothere block. nothere doesn't seem to account for people who focus their edits on projectspace, but they're at the very least done in good faith. keep in mind that isn't to say that i think a block or some other form of restriction would be unwarranted, i just don't think nothere would be a plausible reason. maybe a combination of the aforementioned cir, apparent idht (which they finally seem to have addressed, but only time can tell if they'll actually do it), and improper humor issues, but not nothere

as far as my current stance goes, i'd say put a pin on the idht part and see if their next edits aren't riddled with tpyos of words they're constantly exposed to in two different languages (seriously, "amoung"?) cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 11:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Aaaand they lied. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 17:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

how is that a lie? I don't understand their fixation with these pages, but then I don't understand yours with with getting them blocked. Elinruby (talk) 21:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh lord, you again... they implied that they would step away from editing English Wikipedia, only to continue editing it. Also, aren't you the one who made the bullshit claim that wanting O recomeço blocked is motivated by ethnocentrism? The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 23:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

o recomeço said they'd be making less edits here, as opposed to stopping entirely. they also said they'd be using grammar checking tools per your suggestion, which it seems they actually did, since the diffs you provided don't have any typos or egregious grammatical errors. you could argue that the content they're adding is still unfitting, but didn't lie about it cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 12:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

ya. I don't know about unfitting, since I don't see the point of the articles in the first place, but then the same applies to DYK. However, to be pedantic for just a moment: it would be a lie if they claimed that they had not made any edits to the page. You could claim that they have broken a promise, but as cogsan points out, that does not really seem to be true either. Something something casting the first stone. Shrug. As it stands they could say that they addressed your concern and you still cast an unsubstantiated aspersion. Unless of course you have an explanation and there is some definition if "lie" that i am not aware of. But given that English is my mother tongue, I doubt that. Elinruby (talk) 18:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

"Unfitting" in that the articles they've been adding to Wikipedia:Unusual articles are not unusual. I have brought up the fact that their contributions have been questionable, pointing to their addition of Final Fantasy: Legend of the Crystals as an article where I fail to see how it could be considered "unusual". The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 22:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Did you ask them? I just spent an hour I'll never get back taking another look at that list, and I still don't actually see much I would myself find "unusual". (Uninhabited islands, micronations, borders set by clueless colonial powers...)

More importantly, what should or should not be included would be a content issue. As is the question of why the article exists in the first place. Focusing on the behavioural aspects of this seems to show one editor making at least some kind of an effort, and another one not. If we must have this list, then the same rules should apply as everywhere else, don't you think? Elinruby (talk) 00:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Just as you're questioning my alleged interest in getting this user blocked, I'm questioning your supposed interest in defending them. Also, Wikipedia:Unusual articles is not considered an article, as stated explicitly on the page - "This page is not an article, and the only criterion for inclusion is consensus that an article fits on this page." I feel like you're more interested in arguing with others than actually helping us achieve a consensus as to whether O recomeço should stay or go, which is what this report is about. I'd rather we just put them on probation and see if they show any long-term improvement - only two edits after posting to my talk page is not enough time to determine that. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 00:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

article...list... of things. Elinruby (talk) 00:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Are you really gonna be arguing that it's an article when it clearly says it's not? The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 04:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

why would I do that? Kindly do not put words in my mouth.

I am saying that you are grasping at technicalities. That the ... whatever ... is an obscure compilation of news of the weird which you are gatekeeping for some reason I can't fathom, and which this editor wants to contribute to for reasons I also can't fathom. But I am not the one trying to get someone blocked. They seem to have made a contribution in reasonable English, but now the goalposts have moved and their contribution doesn't meet the highly subjective topic criteria, according to you. If you are the grand poobah of "interesting" articles then you should tighten up your definition of "interesting" so that people who want to contribute for whatever reason know what is expected. That is what I am saying. That, and that I notice that you did not answer my question. That is all. Elinruby (talk) 20:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

No one's trying to "gatekeep" it. And I am not the only one who has raised issues about their contributions to it. And finally, thanks for derailing the conversation at the heart of this report by changing focus from the editor's proficiency of the English language and whether or not disciplinary action should be taken over it, to whether or not their contributions to Wikipedia:Unusual articles fit the criteria for inclusion. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 22:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

"Unfitting" in that the articles they've been adding to Wikipedia:Unusual articles are not unusual. You said that, not me. You are becoming less and less coherent. I stand by my previous post and have nothing further to say except that your whatever of unusual articles is not very unusual. Bad borders were drawn by colonial powers? You don't say. Small islands exist? Alert the media! But clearly language is not the sole issue since they've now improved that and the issue has become something else. Elinruby (talk) 01:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not MY list of unusual articles. If you have issues with some of the entries on the list, I strongly suggest you take it to the talk page for it, and have this discussion moved over there so that we don't derail this discussion about whether or not a user should be blocked for perceived competency issues any further. If we're gonna argue about Wikipedia:Unusual articles, we should do so where it would be more fitting. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 03:03, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

i think that should be talked over later, to be honest. maybe perhaps after the discussion about the quality of their edits is over cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 11:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

My morbid curiosity compels me to ask this: which ethnicity was Elinruby’s “ethnocentrism” comment exactly referring to? Northern Moonlight 03:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Not sure, but I can tell you that O recomeço is Brazilian. The definition of "ethnocentrism" is to apply one's own culture or ethnicity as a frame of reference to judge other cultures, practices, behaviors, beliefs, and people; based on that, I'm guessing Elinruby's comment was referring to American/English-speaking cultures or ethnicity. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 03:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Kellycrak88

This good-faith editor, User:Kellycrak88, is creating a lot of articles, but seems to run into every possible issue, some of them again and again, including things like copyright violations, factual errors, NPOV issues, and problematic interactions with others[12][13]. The latest discussion I had with them was yesterday at User talk:Asilvering#Need Guidance on Bias and Admin Issues in Baronage Guidelines Discussion, ending with them promising improvement[14] after I asked "Please slow down, create less but better articles, based on better sources, and at the very least make sure that the claims in the article are correct." Since then, in the past 24 hours, they created 5 articles, with the same issues continuing.

First they created Baron of Abergeldie. 8 sources, the first two are Wikipedia articles, the fourth[15] and sixth[16] are "page not found / 404" errors: searching for Abergeldie on that fourth site yields no results at all. With also a Wordpress blog thrown into the mix[17], the sourcing of this article really isn't acceptable. The next creation, Baron of Arbroath, has one line about the current baron, and three sections about earlier history of the town of Arbroath unrelated to the Barony. It has nothing about the actual history of the barony.

Next, they created Baron of Ardgowan, a title first granted in 1404 apparently. Well, no, the castle was given in that year, but a few centuries later the family became baronets (not barons), and remain so to this day[18]. I can't find any evidence for a Baron of Ardgowan before the present one was granted the title somehow.

Because of the continued issues with reliable sourcing (including the repeated use of "accessed" sources which don't even work) and with fact-checking, it would be probably best if they would be required to create new articles through the WP:AfC process, without being allowed to create an article in the mainspace or move one to the mainspace. Fram (talk) 09:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Baron of Abergeldie: I acknowledge that there were a couple of "page not found / 404" links, likely due to typos. These URLs have since been corrected and are now functional. The blog link (which was not immediately obvious to me that is was hosted on wordpress) has been replaced with credible sources, including The Times, The Guardian, The Evening Standard, The Telegraph, and Tatler, which quote the Baron Abergeldie or refer to the estate and castle. Additionally, I’ve included his title listed in Debrett's, alongside the other sources already cited, including his profile from Burke's Peerage.

Baron of Ardgowan: This title is verified in the Registry of Scottish Nobility and the Scottish Barony Register, which provide both the creation date and the current title holder. It is not uncommon for some baronets in Scotland who hold estates to also hold baronage titles (the King can confer multiple titles), as pre-2004 these were historically tied to land ownership (i.e. owning a castle). After 2004, such titles became personal, allowing them to be transferred to heirs or assignees. The Stewarts (of the scottish royal house) were somehow attached to the Hasburgs because Prof Stephen Kerr was gifted the Barony of Ardgowan as an award for helping the Habsburgs in their legal case against the Republic of Austria for stealing all their property and banishing them in 1919. So in this case, Prof. Stephen Kerr received the Barony of Ardgowan as an honour in 2004, and his title was recognised by the Lord Lyon King of Arms—the monarch's representative in Scotland.

Baron of Arbroath: Likewise the title and creation date is verified in Burke's Peerage, Debrett's, the Registry of Scottish Nobility, and the Scottish Barony Register.

I appreciate that you’ve highlighted these three articles. As with many newly created articles, there is always room for improvement. Historical information, especially regarding baronage titles, often exists in offline sources such as The Great Seal (Scotland's oldest national record) or crown charters, or books, making it more challenging to source fully online. Nevertheless, I believe the information provided thus far is credible and well-sourced enough to justify the creation of these pages, and hope others will help improve them further.

Addressing Fram’s behaviour: I’m glad you’ve brought these concerns to the attention of other administrators, as I would like to formally lodge a complaint against Fram for persistent harassment. Fram consistently targets my contributions, especially those related to baronage titles, with comments such as "meaningless titles", "spam", "non-notable title", "utterly non notable bought title of no value" and "completely unimportant." This behaviour reflects a personal bias, not only towards me but also towards the broader Baronage project and other editors involved. Fram's continued targeting feels like an attempt to stifle contributions on this topic, despite these titles being verifiable through credible sources.

I’ve created numerous pages on topics ranging from Irish history to Georgian architecture and biographies. Yet, it’s only my contributions related to baronage titles that face this level of scrutiny. This suggests a personal agenda against baronage titles, which Fram and some others view as "pretend titles."

Throughout this process, I’ve done my best to remain polite and open to feedback. I’ve learned from my mistakes and have received valuable guidance from experienced editors like @Asilvering whose mentorship has been instrumental in helping me navigate Wikipedia’s policies.

While I’ve had ongoing concerns about Fram’s behaviour, I would be open to returning to a more civil and constructive interaction if Fram is willing to do the same. If the community is considering restricting or blocking my account based on the ongoing harassment from Fram, I must express my frustration. It feels disheartening to be continuously berated for trying to contribute positively to the site. If this bullying behaviour continues unchecked, I may be forced to reconsider my participation on Wikipedia. Kellycrak88 (talk) 12:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

But you've mentioned two of the problem sources here again. The Registry of Scots Nobility is a self-published website by an anonymous author that sells barony-related merchandise. It therefore does not meet our policy at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Similarly, the Scottish Barony Register is a private for-profit company that charges up to £800 to "register" these titles, even though there is absolutely no legal requirement or even legal basis for doing so. It is a business that is trying to preserve the financial value of these products by selling its services as an unofficial market regulator. Consequently, I don't consider that to be a reliable source either. I think you need to restrict yourself to high-quality independent secondary sources. DrKay (talk) 13:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

This is the first time, as far as I’m aware, that someone has suggested these sources are unreliable, so it’s not "again." Let’s look at both:

The Scottish Barony Register (SBR) was established in 2004 following the Abolition of Feudal Tenure (Scotland) Act 2000, specifically to provide an official record for the transfer of baronies, which were removed from the Land Register of Scotland. The present custodian is Alastair Shepherd, WS, a Writer to the Signet—one of the most senior legal professionals in Scotland and a former Ross Herald at the Court of the Lord Lyon. He has extensive expertise in heraldry and Scottish baronies. The SBR’s services are only available to Scottish solicitors, and they generally do not answer enquiries from the public or individuals. Scottish solicitors rely on the SBR for validation and the transfer of titles, and the Lord Lyon relies on the SBR (as the only register) when recognising baronial titles in letters patent. This gives the SBR a significant role in verifying crown charters and related historical documentation to confirm the rightful owner of a barony, despite being a private register. Let’s consider the facts from their website: [19] the 2023 annual report shows 4 new registrations and 5 assignations of existing titles, typically through inheritance. Total revenue was £5,200 for the year. Would you really consider that a money-spinner, besides covering the custodian's time?

As for the Registry of Scots Nobility (RSN), their website states that their committee requires a "Certificate from the Scottish Barony Register" or "evidence from the Lord Lyon" to verify new title holders. They provide a certificate verifying each baron signed by the Earl of Loudoun a senior Scottish peer (provided at no cost, so not exactly a money-spinner either). However, it appears the RSN primarily functions as a social organisation rather than a self-published website, hosting events for the Scottish nobility, including peers, baronets, and barons. The badges and regalia associated with this group are largely for ceremonial events and are provided "at cost," as stated on their website. Additionally, the custodian of the SBR gave a speech at the RSN’s event in 2023: [20] It has the credibility, but I’m unsure what your specific requirements or guidelines are for deeming sources unreliable. Kellycrak88 (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

To state that the Scottish Barony Register is a non-reliable source is absurd and shows a complete lack of understanding of the current legal situation of the Scottish Baronage. It is the sole source of reference for the Lord Lyon - one of the Great Officers of State in Scotland. See Lord Lyon's Menking note: "The Scottish Barony Register is the only register for the Lord Lyon to have reference to in these matters, albeit a non-statutory register. The present practice was established by previous Lord Lyons" and "I am content to follow this practice as long as the present Custodian is ‘a person of skill’"..

The current Custodian of the Scottish Barony Register is Alistair Shepherd, one of Scotland's leading property lawyers and former partner at Coulters.

I do not know the agenda of some of the editors and admins here, but portraying the SBR as an unreliable source is disruptive and damaging to Wikipedia. The same individuals have employed underhanded tactics in their handling of this entire matter, including repeatedly labelling my 20-year-old account as a single-purpose account. Different opinions must be accepted on Wikipedia and should be subject to open and honest discussions—not subjected to 'grey tactics' in an attempt to "win". Charliez (talk) 15:27, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that it is factually incorrect to state that the Scottish Barony Register is a "for-profit company". The Memorandum of Association art. 6 states clearly that "no portion (of the income or property) shall be paid or transferred, directly or indirectly, by the way of dividend, bonus or otherwise howsoever by way of profit, to members of the company". It seems a better understanding of this subject should be sought by all parties to this discussion. Charliez (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I've already made clear my suspicion that your "20-year-old account", which only has 117 edits and mysteriously crops up at every opportunity to support Kellycrak88, is a [meat]puppet. Turning up at yet another page to promote the identical viewpoint, with similar idiom, phraseology and timing, does nothing to assuage that suspicion. DrKay (talk) 20:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I could say the same thing about yourself @DrKay as you're always popping up supporting @Fram. Now you are, of course, entitled to your view, @DrKay, but respectfully, this is an unfounded allegation if you're implying I’m using multiple accounts or any other puppet claims (wikipedia:meatpuppet). Many editors share my views, just as others like yourself can oppose them. In fact the baronage guidelines were not proposed by me—the edit and Talk thread were started by @Daniel Plumber, which I and many others supported in the conversation thread. Let's try to find common ground without puppet allegations and contribute constructively moving forward together. Kellycrak88 (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Really? This is your response? Even when your off-wiki co-ordination with these editors was exposed[21]? DrKay (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@Kellycrak88: If you're claiming that Fram and DrKay are meatpuppets (based on no evidence) I'm unsure whether that's simply casting aspersions or if WP:CIR is an issue here. Black Kite (talk) 13:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@Black Kite: I'm not throwing any derogatory words at anyone. I’m not looking for conflict. My aim is to contribute positively to Wikipedia and resolve any disputes constructively. Kellycrak88 (talk) 13:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

You have repeatedly tagged my account specifically as WP:SPA. I suggest you read up on the criteria for tagging accounts that way.[22] As to your puppet claims: I have supported Kellycrak88's viewpoints in maybe 2 or 3 discussions over the last few weeks. What motives you may have for claiming I support him at "every opportunity", I do not know, but it's disingenuous and I really think WP would be better served if you refrained from trying to "score points" in arguments that way. The thought that I set up an account 20 years ago in preparation for supporting Kellycrak88 today, is quite frankly laughable.

I have followed Kellycrak88's activities over the last few weeks because we clearly share some interests. He has been an extremely active editor in some very specific fields. Clearly, Fram seem to share the same interest - and, it would seem, so do you. I believe you will find that both Fram and yourself "mysteriously crop up" much more often than I in connection with Kellycrak88.

My comment on this thread, however, was specifically directed at your claim that SBR was an unreliable source. That is factually incorrect, and when you use such arguments to win a discussion, you are doing Wikipedia a disservice. The same applies when you attempt to discount my views by labelling me as a SPA or puppet. It's uncalled for and is damaging to the debates on Wikipedia.

Likewise, the claim that SBR is a for-profit entity is not true. WP would be better served if you were to withdraw those allegations even if it might prevent you from construing some "gotcha moment". If you have an issue with the quality of some of Kellycrak88's articles, WP was built specifically to handle this sort of concern. You needn't extend that discussion beyond those articles by attacking legitimate sources used on a number of different articles across WP. Charliez (talk) 20:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I will not withdraw any part of my comments. Nor do I accept that any of them are "factually incorrect". DrKay (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I think that is unfortunate as both these are matter of public record:

-You can verify that SBR is a not-for profit entity by looking up their records in Companies House.[23]

-You can verify that the Lord Lyon has said that SBR is a reliable source (in fact the only reliable source for baronies).[24]

Phil Bridger has a good point, though, when he says that SBR's records are not public. Quite frankly not sure how they have been referenced in the articles in question, but I know that SBR issues certificates to validate claims. Charliez (talk) 22:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Yawn. All my comments remain valid. DrKay (talk) 06:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

A couple of points. The statement referred to by DrKay is very concerning. Wikipedia business should be conducted in public and on this site, with exceptions that only involve administrators and other similar functionaries. And our article on the Scottish Barony Register says it "is accessible exclusively to Scottish solicitors", meaning that it has not been published in such a way that it can be used as a source. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Is running a WikiProject from a user sandbox even a thing? From what I see, WikiProjects should be in the project namespace and accessible to all, not hidden in a user sandbox with "official" participants having to email the founder to join the discussion channel. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Also noting (page mover hat on) that I'm having to do a big amount of cleanup in Category:WikiProject Baronage of Scotland articles, with articles having been moved and changed in scope from the geographical area to the title without discussion (for instance, Torboll to Baron of Torboll (title extinct), or Scottish feudal barony of Kirkintilloch to Baron of Kirkintilloch (extinct title)), with the scope being changed under the name of "clean up" (diff 1, diff 2). And yes, that's a lot of WP:RMUM and a lot of superfluous disambiguators. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

What cleanup? The reason for the geographic change is because since 2004 baronage titles became non-territorial personal titles no longer attached to the land. See the change in the law Scotland Act 2000 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2000/5/notes/division/1/3/6/11 the official explanatory notes. This has been welcomed by representative bodies for the Baronage of Scotland. Kellycrak88 (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, for a start, titles shouldn't contain unnecessary disambiguators (see WP:TITLEDAB). Also, mass change at the level of tens of articles should be discussed on-wiki prior to being done. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:09, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

There were discussions with other editors I recall on various Talk pages, and @Daniel Plumber pitched the idea of a WP:BARONAGE project with inspiration from the WP:Project_Clans_of_Scotland (especially as over 30 clan chiefs were barons). The idea was to gradually build a record of all Scottish barons, most dating back to the medieval period. It seemed appealing to me, as it’s a topic I’m deeply interested in, believing it would bring immense value to Wikipedia users with similar interests. Since this was created as a mock project in his sandbox, I didn’t see any harm in agreeing to collaborate, considering it both interesting and rewarding. If Daniel in his sandbox proposing to use a real-time chat is against Wikipedia rules, then I sincerely apologise. My mentor did advise me that the community might be skeptical of any off-wiki communication (for transparency read the convo here) therefore I have ensured my conversations are on-wiki to avoid any issues. Kellycrak88 (talk) 22:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you can organize something as a "mock project" and still tag many mainspace pages as being part of it. Either it is official or it isn't. Also, were the conversations that decided on the mass page move on-wiki or off-wiki? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@Daniel Plumber: can you please justify this in the context of Wikipedia's values of on-wiki collaboration and decision-making? You may wish to consider the principles listed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject Tropical Cyclones in this context. Daniel (talk) 04:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

fwiw, I warned them about this on 26 August: [25]. If the off-wiki discussion has continued since then, I'd be quite concerned. -- asilvering (talk) 19:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

A lot of other issues surrounding the Baronage articles and project have been raised since, I'll mostly ignore these for now. Looking at the three recent articles I gave as examples above, they have all been edited by Kellycrak88 since to correct the issues. The results are that Baron of Abergeldie has now as its first source this Wordpress blog, and the corrected link to Spottinghistory.com[26] makes it clear that this is an unreliable source, as it is sourced to Wikipedia. The edit at Baron of Arbroath did nothing to solve the issue I raised, that it is 90% about other things already decribed at length at Arbroath and not directly related to the barony, one line about the current baron, and nothing about the history of the barony and the previous barons. And Baron of Ardgowan has been made worse, not better. The infobox now claims that the title was created in the 13th c., the text claims that it was created in the 15th century, the available evidence still suggests that these were baronets, not barons (no evidence of a baron before the current one has been unearthed). The arms in the infobox, File:Baron of Ardgowan.png, described in the text as "reflects the long-standing history of the Stewart family and their connection to the Scottish nobility", is the arms of the current baron, not a member of the Stewart family, and not related to their arms at all. The needed competency or care to create well-sourced, trustworthy articles about the actual subject seems to be missing. Fram (talk) 09:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Fram, it's frustrating for me as it seems you haven’t read my earlier response. I’ve already acknowledged and addressed your points. As I stated above, yes the articles have been edited and improved, and certainly haven’t been made worse. It feels irrelevant what I say if you ignore my responses and double down on your arguments, which has been a running theme in our previous interactions.

Baron of Abergeldie: The page now has over 15 sources (including The Times, The Guardian, The Evening Standard, The Telegraph, and Tatler) repeated here again as you seem to overlook this in favour of repeating your previous arguments. If Spottinghistory.com is indeed an unreliable source for a history on the castle (which I wasn’t aware of), I have no problem removing it—there are plenty of other credible sources available.

Baron of Arbroath: Historically this title was territorial, attached to the land of Arbroath, a town with significant historical importance, such as its connection to the Declaration of Arbroath (signed by 40 barons) and the Battle of Arbroath. As I mentioned, these pages will be improved with more offline info from sources like the Great Seal, among others, this is a speciality of a professional historian to be honest, but I believe they are sufficiently well-sourced to start with, including some 6 credible sources currently listed for the title on the page. Your argument that 90% of the article is about the town doesn’t negate the territorial connection of the barony to Arbroath itself.

Baron of Ardgowan You claim the page has gotten worse, but I’ve double-checked the sources, which indicate the creation date as the 13th century—not a specific year. This is common with older titles, especially with medieval titles, where the earliest crown charter often refers to an even earlier creation charter that is lost. Baronage titles frequently don’t have a single creation date due to their antiquity, so the article isn’t “worse” because of this. You are correct in the body content it said 15th and was overlooked I've just now edited it from 15th to 13th.

Furthermore, you seem to ignore the fact that the crown can confer multiple titles. Baronetage titles outrank baronage titles. This would explain why the family primarily used the higher-ranking title. If you're suggesting the sources are inadequate—such as the RSN, which I’ve explained requires Lord Lyon evidence or an SBR certificate, and inclusion is verified with a signed certificate by the Earl of Loudoun, a senior Scottish peer—then I’m willing to spend some time going through the Great Seal (and brushing up on my Latin) to find the references you require. I’ll dedicate time this weekend to settle the matter.

Regarding the coat of arms, the title was in the Stewart family for 700 years before being transferred to the professor. It’s normal for the new baron’s arms to reflect features of the previous holders, in this case, the Stewarts.

As for the questions raised by Chaotic Enby and others, we should wait for Daniel Plumber to respond, as he is the founder of the project page. I’d also like to reiterate that I am making an effort to engage with you constructively. Kellycrak88 (talk) 10:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I think I can rest my case, seeing what you just did at Baron of Ardgowan[27]: the article is now claiming that Robert III of Scotland (1337-1406) conferred a title to John Stewart (1364–1412), in the 13th century... You then claim above: "Baronetage titles outrank baronage titles." Really??? Not according to Order of precedence in Scotland or any other article we have on the subject, it seems. And then "It’s normal for the new baron’s arms to reflect features of the previous holders, in this case, the Stewarts." Please directly quote the source on this (you haven't given a page number and I can't access it anyway, I think), as this seems highly dubious when one compares the current arms, File:Baron of Ardgowan.png with what appear to be the Shaw-Stewart arms (no reliable source, but all sources I found agree that it is something like this or this, which has nothing in common with the current arms. Fram (talk) 11:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Please do rest your case! You seem determined to pick holes wherever possible.

Regarding the Order of precedence in Scotland link you sent. Baronets are ranked 12th in precedence, while Scottish barons are ranked 28th.

The Statutes of 1592 and the Baronetcy Warrants of King Charles I show the non-peerage Table of Precedence as: Baronets, Knights, Barons, Lairds, Esquire, and Gentlemen.

Baronial titles are typically used when a landed family does not hold a peerage title of higher rank, or if they have been created a knight of the realm or hold a baronetcy (a hereditary knighthood), which ranks higher than a knight or Scottish baron. This is why individuals who are knighted or hold a baronetcy are often referred to simply as "Sir John Smith" without any reference to the baronial title.

You are correct that the reigning monarch that granted the original title of baron needs reviewing. If the sentence about the arms is contentious, we can remove it and I will stand corrected. It doesn't take away the fact that my point is valid that arms often reflect features of the previous holders, I can find some examples if saying this is also contentious. Kellycrak88 (talk) 12:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

You are right about Baronet being a higher rank than Baron in Scotland, weird. However, then why isn't the page at Baronet of Ardgowan instead of at Baron of Ardgowan? The former has been used for 300+ years (I can find no evidence, apart from the disputed Scottish Register, of a 13th c. creation; the 1402 event was just a land grant, the baronetcy seems to have been created in 1667), the latter is now created for someone completely unrelated to the history or genealogy of the family. The article, like most of your creations, doesn't correctly or adequately cover any of this (again, see e.g. the Baron of Arbroath article, which repeats the history of Arbroath which we already have at that page (and better), but doesn't tell us anything about the history of the barony and the barons). "It doesn't take away the fact that my point is valid that arms often reflect features of the previous holders, I can find some examples if saying this is also contentious." Which is completely irrelevant. The issue is that if you include this in an article as a claim about a specific coat of arms, it must be true for this coat of arms. No one is asking you for examples of other cases where that claim may be true, what would be the purpose? Fram (talk) 13:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

the baronetcy does have a page: Shaw-Stewart baronets - again you're repeating arguments, I've already responded to all these points above and I will dedicated my weekend to find the source crown charters from the Great Seal as you're repeating that the registers are disputed and unreliable (which is quite ridiculous btw) Kellycrak88 (talk) 13:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@Kellycrak88, you were the one to do the mass page move. You shouldn't have to wait for the project founder to answer whether that was discussed on-wiki or off-wiki. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I am not here to care much about the minutiae of Scottish order of precedence. I do, however, care about the fact that there seems to be an entire WikiProject, with tagged articles and everything, hidden in a user sandbox, with most of the coordination seemingly happening off-wiki, resulting in mass undiscussed page moves against title guidelines. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

As someone directly involved in these matters, I believe I have a say on this.

Regarding the WikiProject being housed in my userspace, here’s the relevant notice from Wikipedia on proposing new projects:

"In 2024, we are changing the proposal process to reduce the number of failed attempts at starting groups. While we restructure the pages, please do not propose any new groups. In the meantime, consider the two thousand existing projects or attempt to revive one of the many dormant WikiProjects. If your group cannot wait for the new process, please only create group pages in the userspace of one of your members.".

This is why the project exists in my userspace. It simulates a WikiProject, and once it is successfully proposed, the page will be moved to the mainspace.

I had a plan for a larger project focused on researching the baronage. While this could eventually lead to a formal WikiProject, it currently involves extensive research that cannot be published on Wikipedia. Therefore, keeping it sandboxed until I am ready to present something on Wikipedia seemed ideal.

We centered on a larger project, rather than individual articles. When specific Wikipedia articles needed revision, that was addressed on the project page, emerging organically during our discussions about the broader research. The off-wiki channel has been deleted like 2 weeks ago.

Regarding the "mass move page" initiative, I am not aware of any discussions taking place, either on-wiki or off-wiki. It appears that Kellycrak intends to make those pages resemble proper title pages. While I appreciate their good intentions, I believe this should be discussed first. Additionally, these pages should not be reverted to titles like "Scottish feudal barony of X", as feudal baronies, as a legal entity, have not existed since 2004.

Please feel free to "civilly" ask me any questions, as I am willing to put this to an end, now and forever. All sides have clearly tired of this. I believe this comment sufficiently addresses Daniel's question above. Daniel Plumber (talk) 12:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Therefore, keeping it sandboxed until I am ready to present something on Wikipedia seemed ideal.

Sorry, this was the part that was confusing me, I'm not sure to understand why it was on one side kept sandboxed, and on the other side was already tagging pages in mainspace.

Additionally, these pages should not be reverted to titles like "Scottish feudal barony of X", as feudal baronies, as a legal entity, have not existed since 2004.

It was reverted as an undiscussed page move (WP:RMUM), as the ones that were moved back were extinct historical baronies that had ceased to exist way prior to 2004, and were thus not affected by the change. More generally, I believe that the notability for most of them comes from the place itself (WP:NGEO), even if it ceased to exist as a legal entity (we do have pages on historical subdivisions), rather than the title itself. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

fair point for extinct titles, extant is obviously different Kellycrak88 (talk) 13:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

It was intended to function de facto like an official WikiProject. Pardon my ignorance, but honestly, I am currently unaware of any guidelines or rules that forbid this. Daniel Plumber (talk) 14:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

what's the problem with moving the project over to the mainspace? as we're discussing with administrators here, they probably have the power to do that? Kellycrak88 (talk) 14:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Administrators have technical abilities, but not "powers" to do stuff beyond community consensus (except in straightforward cases). Here, the best bet would be to go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals and formally propose it. In fact, I would be very happy to see it become an official WikiProject, as I see that the group appears well-organized and it would be great to have it in a more visible place. Good luck with it! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

No problem, we're all here to learn! Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide recommends them to be in the project namespace, which would be a great thing for your project, seeing that it is already tagging articles and everything, and appears to have a core of well-motivated editors. If it's formally proposed, I'm pretty sure it could be an official WikiProject pretty easily! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll keep that in mind. By the way, may I ask if it is possible to start a new proposal yet? Daniel Plumber (talk) 11:14, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

The order of precedence reference was in response to Fram, who incorrectly stated that barons rank higher than baronets. It's an easy mistake to make, but I wanted to clarify that it's actually the other way around. This is why the Baronets of Ardgowan, who also held a baronial title, didn’t use their baron title, and likely why it was eventually gifted to the professor. @Chaotic Enby I can’t answer questions about the project being in a user page or sandbox, or why mainspace pages are tagged to a sandbox, so we will need to wait for the project owner to clarify that. However, I can assure you that there were no off-wiki conversations, at least none involving me, about mass page moves. Daniel Plumber’s project page post appears to have been from a couple of weeks ago, while the handful of articles I moved was many months ago, with good intentions. It was not 100 articles without consultation or attempt to deliberately disrupt anything.

As I’ve mentioned above: "the reason for the geographic changes is because, since 2004, baronage titles became non-territorial personal titles, no longer attached to land, as per the Scotland Act 2000 (see the official explanatory notes here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2000/5/notes/division/1/3/6/11). This change has been welcomed by representative bodies for the Baronage of Scotland."

If there had been significant backlash from the community regarding this, it would have surfaced by now. On the contrary, other editors have positively encouraged my efforts to improve these pages, which contributed to the fruiting of the WP:BARONAGE project. Furthermore, I will also add that I am a relatively new editor and I am learning procedures and polices as I go, so a few months ago I was at a different level of Wikipedia procedure as an editor, and today, I certainly wouldn’t move multiple pages without wider consultation. That said, in retrospect, the move has ultimately improved Wikipedia by accurately reflecting this subject matter and widely welcomed. Kellycrak88 (talk) 12:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

The "handful of articles" (more than 30, in fact) were not all "accurately reflecting this subject matter", as many of them were about titles that went extinct way before 2004 and were thus not affected by that law, on top of the moves adding unnecessary disambiguators (things like "(title extinct)" shouldn't be in page titles if there is no need to disambiguate with another identical title).
I am not sure to what extent they were "widely welcomed" (in fact, I haven't seen other editors comment on these page moves at all before today), but there isn't any expiration date for criticism of undiscussed mass page moves to "surface". Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

as mentioned above I see your point regarding extinct feudal baronies, obviously different for extant - feudalism ended in 2004 in Scotland - when the dignity of these titles became protected in law as personal titles, non-territorial no longer attached to the land Kellycrak88 (talk) 13:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I have some familiarity with the peerage and adjacent subjects and I have concerns. Inflated claims surrounding Scottish baronial titles, as they can be bought and sold, is not a new problem. Looking at Baron of Abergeldie, allegedly improved, the first paragraph cites Luxurious Magazine [28] for the claim that the title was created in 1482. Leaving aside whether that source is reliable and independent, it doesn't say that. It doesn't discuss the title at all. It does say that the estate was bestowed on the Gordon family in 1482. Mackensen (talk) 13:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Baron of Abergeldie has been in the same family for 21 generations. The first holder was a Gordon and the current holder a Gordon. Please kindly check all the reference links provided there's over a dozen. I've previously had these discussions at length these families are not selling their heirlooms the full dialogue is here. Kellycrak88 (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I thought I'd have a look through Baron of Abergeldie, being somewhat familiar with the concept of peerages.

• I've no idea what ref. #2 thinks it's citing, because it links only to a home page.
• I can find no mention of Abergeldie in regards to any namesake barony in ref. #3, only mentions of the Gordons of Abergeldie.
• Ref. #4 mentions "the Baron of Abergeldie, John Gordon"
• Ref. #5 mentions "Baron Abergeldie, John Gordon, 76"
• Ref. #6 does not mention the barony.
• Ref. #7 does not mention the barony.
• Ref. #9 Describes Abergeldie as a feudal barony. Looking at the list on the source, these appear to be purchased titles relating to land acquisition?
• Ref. #10 mentions "Baron Abergeldie, 76-year-old John Gordon".

I'm haven't read through this entire discussion, forgive my time constraints, but wish to make several points. Firstly Kellycrak88 is incorrect in saying baronetcies rank higher than baronies. They do not. This obviously differs as to whether one is discussing different peerages, or Scottish lordships which are not part of any peerage.

I usually find an easy way to discover whether a topic is real or notable is to search on Internet Archive. While this can be more troublesome for modern topics, it should not be difficult for a title allegedly created in 1482. Internet Archive provides one result for "Baron of Abergeldie" and one result for "Baron Abergeldie". The one available reliable source, this Burke's, says that John Howard Seton Gordon was recognised as feudal baron in 1965. It should not be difficult to find reliable, detailed, sourced about long-held baronies; that's why most of the articles have existed for over a decade.

I would like to see Kellycrak provide some reliable sources that discuss the barony of Abergeldie. Not the castle, not the Gordon family, nor the Setons, and not the lands. Please illustrate for us this barony, created in 1482 and handed down generation to generation, and its recording within the Scottish peerage. Because I can't tally what the article says and you claim, and what the sources say. Thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe I certainly can -- here you go with full lineage listed in Burke's Peerage 107th Edition:

Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 (note links expired in 24 hours)

I never said it was a Scottish peerage title, it's a Scottish baronage title, which does rank below a baronet. Pre-2004 they were often referred to as feudal barons. Since 2004 the law changed and ended feudalism so that is not the correct term today. Kellycrak88 (talk) 14:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Note my edit to my initial contribution; I realised after the fact that the concentration was not on peerages. My focus was on establishing sources, so I'm now more confused by the fact you clearly have access to at least one reliable source outlining at least the basics, but have chosen to instead fill out the article with blogs, old and unrelated newspaper reports, and tangential websites. Make use of sources like this and clarity will come along much sooner. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, @Pickersgill-Cunliffe, for your diligence and thoughtful comments. I truly appreciate your feedback. I’ve had previous run-ins with Fram, who won't accept Burke's Peerage as a valid source, so I’ve often felt the need to bolster pages with as many credible sources as possible to prove notability. Similarly, as mentioned further up in this thread, DrKay and Fram also dispute the reliability of the Scottish Barony Register and the Registry of Scottish Nobility, despite evidence provided by myself and others that supports their credibility. Kellycrak88 (talk) 14:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not clear to me where I gave the impression that I "won't accept Burke's Peerage as a valid source". I don't claim that the information in there isn't reliable (like all source, it may contain errors, but in general it will be correct probably). Not everything included there may warrant a page (or even a mention) here, it's a lot of genealogy and often little else, but a fact or topic not being suitable for Wikipedia even when mentioned in Burke's doesn't mean that I won't accept it as a valid source. Fram (talk) 14:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Can I buy or borrow a copy of the Scottish Barony Register? If not (as stated by our article on it) it cannot be used as a source. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

As promised, I spent the weekend researching further.

Baron of Arbroath: This title was actually created as a free lordship, barony, and regality (granting the baron high powers, including the authority to impose the death sentence at will). It was created for James, Marquis of Hamilton, providing us with a definitive creation date and monarch [29]. There is also a lot of historical information that can be added.

Baron of Ardgowan: As suspected, I could not find the creation charter. However, this is not uncommon. Until the late 19th century, each new baron required a crown charter from the current monarch (as a feudal superiority) and not all of these are in the public domain. Typically, today's holder would possess the physical originals, which are authenticated by the custodian of the SBR. It is not unusual for some crown charters to be missing or unavailable in public sources. However, I did find a reference to the Barony of Ardgowan (confirming its existence) in the crown charter records of parliament in 1672, where it was assigned to the baronet family in question. Hopefully that's the matter settled. [30]

@Phil Bridger I can send you a copy if you would like. For full transparency, I was sent a copy of the SBR by someone who found my email on my user page. While I understand that only Scottish solicitors are meant to access it, some private individuals have copies. Reflecting on this, it may be a grey area for me to continue referencing it as a source. However, since the RSN requires an SBR certificate or evidence from the Lord Lyon, and considering it's high-standing, I still maintain that the RSN is a credible source and should not be regarded as a self-published website unworthy of citation. Kellycrak88 (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

That an Ardgowan barony existed in 1672 is hardly evidence that it was created in the 13th century (and the article still has the above blatant anachronisms about date vs. monarch and so on). Fram (talk) 08:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

https://archive.org/details/burkeslandedgent0000unse_e7e1/page/1268/mode/2up?q=Ardgowan

Page 1268—Lineage—Among the archives of this ancient family, there are preserved three charters by ROBERT III to Sir JOHN STEWART, his illegitmate son, of the lands of Ardgowan, Blackhall and Auchingoun, in co. Renfrew, dated 1403, 1395 and 1390. These several lands have lineally descended in an uninterrupted course of male succession, from the said Sir John Stewart, to the present Baronet.

Page 1268—JAMES STEWART, of Ardgowan, obtained from JAMES V1 a charter, erecting his lands of Ardgowan, Blackhall and Auchingoun into a BARONY 1576.

I've found an earlier date than 1672, there is reference in this book to a 1575 crown charter erecting Ardgowan into a barony, however that is not to say the SBR custodian may have examined an earlier charter(s) provided by the holder for registration hence the 13th century claim. As we don't know for certain, I will update the creation date to 1575 with reference to this book, until someone comes forward with evidence of an earlier date. Kellycrak88 (talk) 14:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Sending me a copy doesn't publish the source. Publishing is necessary, but not sufficient, to make a source usable on Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

noted Kellycrak88 (talk) 14:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

While I understand that only Scottish solicitors are meant to access it, some private individuals have copies. Reflecting on this, it may be a grey area for me to continue referencing it as a source.

I don't think there's any grey area. A source that is not available to the public is not published, per WP:PUBLISHED, so cannot be used as a source. CodeTalker (talk) 19:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Example of persisting sourcing and other issues

Issues seem to persist. New creation Baron of Ardoch, has now 7 references. 2 and 7 are the same and go to a page which has nothing to do with Ardoch[31]. Presumably this was intended, but in neither instance does it verify any of the flowery text in the paragraphs it supposedly verifies. "He has been described by former UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown as 'an inspiration and a visionary'." is taken literally from the source[32]. Which is still better than the next line, "Since assuming the title, he has maintained the estate's legacy and continues to oversee its cultural significance." which has two sources, neither of which support this vapid promo language. More copyvio? Sure, "one of Scotland's landed gentry, owning thousands of acres in his estates" comes straight from this source, not even given as an attribution. Similarly, the description "politician, a successful merchant and Lord Rector of the University of Glasgow" comes straight from here. And of course the anachronisms again, the infobox claims "creation date 1707" and "created by Robert III of Scotland" who died more than 300 years earlier. Fram (talk) 11:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

For Canmore that's not the link, the link on the page: https://canmore.org.uk/site/45934/ardoch-house which for some reason is now redirecting to the wrong page, yes the correct link https://canmore.org.uk/site/104668/ardoch-house as you mentioned.

Regarding the Gordon Brown book reference quote it looks credible to me, especially considering there are dozens of other sources to choose from.

Google search "Gordon Brown an inspiration and a visionary Tommy MacKay" and browse through all the results, news articles include the Glasgow Times and book references -- I thought we already discussed less is more, if you want me to load up the article with countless references I can do that but there appears to be a difference of opinion on this. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

The other notable Lairds, who are very notable individuals have full wikipedia pages they're very much established historical figures. So adding those descriptions for who they are does not seem ill founded:

• Robert Graham Of Gartmore, 15th Laird (1735–1797) politician, a successful merchant and Lord Rector of the University of Glasgow
• Robert Bontine Cunninghame Graham, 19th Laird president of the Scottish Labour Party; a founder of the National Party of Scotland in 1928; one of Scotland's landed gentry, owning thousands of acres in his estates
• Admiral Sir Angus Cunninghame Graham, 20th Laird (1893–1981)

I think you'll find that the information from Tommy Mackay's personal website comes straight from wikipedia. The two sentences you claim I've plagiarised "politician, a successful merchant and Lord Rector of the University of Glasgow" and "one of Scotland's landed gentry, owning thousands of acres in his estates" from Tommy Mackay's website are 12 words each which if that is a copyright violation from the man's personal website, then I will reorder those so they're entirely unique. You mention I don't reference note his website, but as personal web site connected to the subject my understand is that it's a conflict of interest so it's not referenced. However, I did include a link in the external links section as the website it's quite relevant and interesting for the subject matter.

Robert III of Scotland granted the lands in 1398 and later it was raised to a barony as explained in the lead I quote:

The lands of Ardoch trace back to 1398, when Robert III of Scotland granted the lands to Finlaw Buntyn, marking the beginning of the estate's long history. In 1707 the lands were erected into the Barony of Ardoch

Hence there are 21 Lairds of the estate that date back to 1398 even though it was only raised to a barony in 1707 the baron title doesn't appear to have been used (holding knighthoods or liberal politician reasons or tradition possibly) except for the current holder who was recognised by the Lord Lyon. I'll review the page again to ensure it's clear. Kellycrak88 (talk) 11:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

As we are clearly talking past each other, I hope some others will chime in and explain to whoever needs explaining what they are doing or interpreting incorrectly. Fram (talk) 13:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I thought we already discussed less is more, if you want me to load up the article with countless references I can do that but there appears to be a difference of opinion on this. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I am very confused by what you mean here. The issue is not that you need more sources for that sentence to be credible (in 99% of cases, you shouldn't need more than one source for a given claim), it's that you are literally copy-pasting it instead of writing it in your own words, which constitutes a copyright violation.

The other notable Lairds, who are very notable individuals have full wikipedia pages they're very much established historical figures. So adding those descriptions for who they are does not seem ill founded

Passing Wikipedia's "notability" criterion (which really just means there are enough secondary sources to write an encyclopedic article) doesn't automatically justify the use of flowery language to describe the individuals. We should strive to be objective, which means avoiding peacock words.

The two sentences you claim I've plagiarised [...] from Tommy Mackay's website are 12 words each which if that is a copyright violation from the man's personal website, then I will reorder those so they're entirely unique.

Yes, that's copyvio. Please reword them in your own words, avoiding close paraphrasing. If you have evidence that these sentences (not just the information, the specific wording) was copied from Wikipedia, then it isn't copyvio, but that evidence should be presented upfront. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Kellycrak88, please explain how this source verifies "Over the centuries, Ardoch became a key estate in the region, serving as an important seat of power. Ardoch House was constructed on the estate in the late 18th century, replacing an earlier medieval structure used by the family from the 1300s." or "Ardoch House, built in the late 18th century, is the seat of the barony. This Georgian estate replaced an earlier medieval house and serves as a testament to the estate's long-standing heritage. The house is recognised for its historical value and stands as a key landmark in Dumbartonshire". Fram (talk) 16:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

This is just plain harassment Fram, don't you have anything better to be than focusing all your efforts and time on me?

The caput of the Barony of Ardoch is Ardoch House hence it's the seat of the barony.

The source from the Canmore website (the National Record of Scotland’s database for historical sites) says quite clearly that Ardoch House was built in the late 18th century on the site of a previous medieval structure. It says the estate was originally associated with the Buntein family replacing an older medieval tower and mansion used by the Buntine family, the original lairds of the estate, from the 1300s and the Georgian-era mansion replaced earlier fortifications. Click through on the page an read for yourself in the original Ordinance Survey index card on the Canmore website: https://canmore.org.uk/collection/2424345

Canmore also references Ardoch House in these books (among others): [33]

Coventry, M. (2008) Castles of the Clans: the strongholds and seats of 750 Scottish families and clans. Musselburgh. Page(s): 237 RCAHMS Shelf Number: F.5.21.COV

RCAHMS. (1978d) The archaeological sites and monuments of Dumbarton District, Clydebank District, Bearsden and Milngavie District, Strathclyde Region, The archaeological sites and monuments of Scotland series no 3. Edinburgh. Page(s): 16, no.91 RCAHMS Shelf Number: A.1.2.ARC(3)

Furthermore, the official website of Tommy MacKay, the current Baron of Ardoch, offers insight into the history of the estate. It outlines the evolution of the house and its role as the seat of the Barony of Ardoch, describing how the Georgian house replaced the earlier medieval residence. While this source cannot be cited directly in a Wikipedia article, it is a helpful corroborate reference for background research. More details can be found on the estate here: Tommy MacKay of Ardoch – History

@Chaotic Enby No, the issue if you read what Fram said is he's stating the Gordon Brown quote is not a credible source, there are dozens of sources available as I showed in the google search result above, I picked one and can also add the other twelve if needed (but other editors advised less is more). Nothing has been copyvio, everything written to best of my knowledge I've written uniquely for the page. Except for the two 12 word description sentences which Fram matched to the personal web site. So please kindly explain to me how would put into your own words (avoiding close paraphrasing!): "politician, a successful merchant and Lord Rector of the University of Glasgow" the second part of the sentence the words Lord Rector of the University of Glasgow that being the man's title is that copyvio in your opinion? It's also a majority of the words in the sentence. I've now changed it to "a politician, a prosperous merchant, and the Lord Rector of the University of Glasgow" but I would love to be shown how's it done. Kellycrak88 (talk) 17:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Fram said "He has been described by former UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown as 'an inspiration and a visionary'." is taken literally from the source[79]. (triple nested quotation!) The preceding sentence, Presumably this was intended, but in neither instance does it verify any of the flowery text in the paragraphs it supposedly verifies., clearly refers to a separate source linked in that very sentence. Again, no need to add other sources, the issue is the straight copy-paste.

Regarding the "how to put in my own words", I'd start by removing "successful" or "prosperous", as that doesn't add information about his role. Looking at his own article (which you can check, sources there might be useful here too, although some of it is unsourced) and other sources, "merchant" appears to be a euphemism for "slave owner and trader" (e.g. [34]), and he seems to be more known for his poetry than for his brief tenure as Lord Rector of that university. More generally, it is always best to look at multiple sources to see how to best describe an individual, rather than take the first description you find. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, I did miss that sentence, then are quotes allowed on Wikipedia if there is an issue with copyvio? How would you rewrite the Gordon Brown quote? Also very fair pointers on looking for other angles of descriptor—thank you for the constructive feedback. Kellycrak88 (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Quotes are allowed, provided they are explicitly attributed as quotes and not more than a few sentences long at most. They shouldn't be reworded. (Wikipedia:Non-free content#Text and WP:COPYQUOTE explain this better than me) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

and to clarify, are you saying you would avoid referring to him as Lord Rector of the University of Glasgow for fear of copyvio? Kellycrak88 (talk) 18:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

No? That wouldn't be copyvio (that's the title of the position itself), I am just saying that it isn't the best way to describe him as it doesn't seem to be what he is the most notable for. If I had to pick, I would describe him as "politician, poet, and slave plantation owner". Or, if we want to be more precise, "Jamaica slave holder, poet, and Member of Parliament for Stirlingshire". Or any of many similar wordings. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Kellycrak88 claims, when challenged on his sourcing: The source from the Canmore website (the National Record of Scotland’s database for historical sites) says quite clearly that Ardoch House was built in the late 18th century on the site of a previous medieval structure. It says the estate was originally associated with the Buntein family replacing an older medieval tower and mansion used by the Buntine family, the original lairds of the estate, from the 1300s and the Georgian-era mansion replaced earlier fortifications. Click through on the page an read for yourself in the original Ordinance Survey index card on the Canmore website: https://canmore.org.uk/collection/2424345

Issues with this include:

• The source used in the article[35] is not the source they use here, they are just housed on the same website.
• The source used in the article is not even about the same "Ardoch House.
• The source they now use as justification[36] states: "Ardoch House (in ruins). In front of this farmhouse (Ardochmore) is situated the Old Mansion of Ardoch. it was built about the beginning of the 17th century". It also states that the mansion disappeared about 1874 and that no remains survive. It says nothing at all which matches what Kellycrak88 supposedly read on that page, apart from the connection with the Bunteins.

They clearly can't be trusted to read or present sources correctly. It seems highly irresponsible to let them continue editing in the mainspace. Fram (talk) 09:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Fram - the updated source https://canmore.org.uk/site/104668/ardoch-house is your link you provided in your message above. Hence you provided a wrong link, and I made a mistake of not thoroughly checking your link past the title. I guess I assumed you always thoroughly check everything with a fine tooth comb considering your engagements with me.

https://canmore.org.uk/site/42373/ardoch-house this link is where I originally read some of the info. Also as mentioned above there are book references mentioned and Mackay's site for confirming the correct address for Ardoch House.

I feel your approach in these discussions has been less constructive and more focused on targeting my contributions (and others) specifically with an agenda attached to Baronage articles—where you've previously expressed personal bias. Your comments and reverts appear to be more about attempting to control others "a power trip" than providing users genuine feedback to learn from or improvements to the content. Other users in this thread and other discussions have also noted similar concerns.

Before this admin request of yours to restrict my account, you’ve consistently monitoring my contributions and reverted them, often adding comments that appear designed to disrupt rather than help improve the articles. Some of your points have been valid, while others, as I’ve addressed above, have not. Even when your feedback is accurate, the way you deliver it comes off as antagonistic, more in line with bullying than with constructive criticism. This kind of persistent interference feels like harassment, and I respectfully request that you stop.

If the administrators support this continued behaviour, I will have to reconsider my contributions to this community. My goal has always been to contribute positively and improve my work, and I’ve always welcomed constructive feedback, but it’s difficult to do so under constant scrutiny.

I urge the administrators to carefully consider the implications of enabling such targeted actions. Kellycrak88 (talk) 12:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

You said "late 18th century". It says "beginning of the 17th century". That is totally different. The content is therefore not supported. Furthermore, there is no mention of the barony anywhere in the source. It therefore does not belong in the article on the barony. This is textbook original research and should be removed or sourced to reliable independent secondary sources that explicitly support the article content. DrKay (talk) 13:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes you're correct on the date, however on the baron's web site the address (see footer) and his profile in Burke's Peerage the barony seat is Ardoch House, Cardross, Dumbartonshire G82 5EW -- which matches the Canmore source page location. Also a google map search does show a building at the post code. DrKay please free to update the page with dates or remove whatever you deem necessary thank you. Kellycrak88 (talk) 13:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Your entire response here to DrKay's concern that you are offering "textbook original research" is to offer more original research. Grandpallama (talk) 14:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

My goal has always been to contribute positively and improve my work, and I’ve always welcomed constructive feedback, but it’s difficult to do so under constant scrutiny. What is this nonsense? Multiple editors here have agreed there are concerns with your editing and handling of sourcing, and your response to the uncovering of these issues is that you should be allowed to edit without scrutiny? That's the sort of tendentious attitude that gets accounts sanctioned. Grandpallama (talk) 14:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

No, I believe you've misunderstood my point. Please take a moment to read my full response for the whole context. My comment about scrutiny was specifically addressing the targeting by one user, Fram, over the past few months. To be very clear, I fully welcome having my contributions reviewed and impoved by other editors—that’s the essence of collaboration on Wikipedia. Kellycrak88 (talk) 14:41, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

It is not harassment to track a user's contributions for policy violations. You have repeatedly demonstrated an unwillingness to adhere to wikipedia's verifiability and no original research policies, so it is not unreasonable to check your contributions for such problems. Just above here I again advised you to restrict yourself to reliable independent secondary sources that explicitly support the article content. Your response was to introduce a self-published website from someone with a conflict of interest and to link that to another source in a synthesis of published material. You have been repeatedly told by multiple users that this is not acceptable. DrKay (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Fram’s interactions are certainly not all related to policy violations, as you're suggesting. I am not deliberately or repeatedly failing to adhere to Wikipedia’s verifiability and no original research policies, as you’ve accused. The baron’s personal website is not listed as a reference in the article, as I’ve already mentioned above, because as I said above that would be a conflict of interest. I brought it up here only to provide context for our conversation. Regarding the Canmore source, it does state that the mansion is demolished, which is why I checked the postcode in Google Maps to verify its actually there. Additionally, I’ve referred to reliable sources like Burke’s Peerage, which confirms Ardoch House as the barony seat. This isn’t about violating original research rules but rather addressing the proposal from Fram to restrict or shut down my account. That's what we're discussing.

That said, I’m feeling exhausted and will be stepping back from Wikipedia for a while. I trust you’ll make the decisions you believe are best. Kellycrak88 (talk) 15:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Proposal: Kellycrak88 mainspace blocked

In light of the above, showing the continuing issues with WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:COPYVIO even after multiple attempts to corret this behaviour, I propose to block User:Kellycrak88 from the mainspace to give them a chance to edit in sandboxes, draftspaces, or through edit requests on talk pages, where they can show that they can contribute while following these policies. Fram (talk) 12:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

My closing statement: I understand the concerns raised, but I believe this proposal is disproportionate and serves to further Fram's ongoing agenda to control and restrict contributions, particularly related to the Baronage project, due to Fram's proven personal bias against these titles. Not only my account but also other editors in the Baronage project, as other editors above have noted. I have taken feedback very seriously and I'm committed to improving my knowledge and adherence to Wikipedia's guidelines. As a new editor, I acknowledge that I’ve made mistakes, but I have always been open to constructive feedback, learning, and improving with each edit.

Last week, I left an olive branch message on Fram’s Talk page as a gesture of goodwill, in the hope that we could move past the tension and engage constructively. Unfortunately, this effort has not lead to any change in approach, as they continue to attack me from every possible angle they can find, instead of engaging constructively with me directly, reinforcing my belief that this issue stems more from personal bias than content-related concerns.

Blocking my account from mainspace and limiting me to sandboxes, draftspaces, or edit requests would severely hinder my ability to contribute meaningfully and collaborate with the community. It would effectively disengage me from the community. It could also be perceived as enabling Fram’s attempts to shut down my account for reasons that extend beyond content-related concerns, and I believe the community should consider whether such actions are productive or fair.

I would instead appreciate the opportunity to continue working on articles under the guidance of experienced editors or my mentor, @Asilvering, who has been instrumental in helping me navigate Wikipedia’s policies. This approach would be far more constructive in helping me refine my editing practices and comply with all necessary standards.

To date, I’ve created around 20 pages and made substantial contributions to articles on Irish history, Georgian buildings, historical sites, biographies, and titles of nobility. I respectfully ask that administrators consider a more balanced and constructive approach that encourages growth and collaboration. Restricting my account, particularly when I’ve demonstrated a willingness to learn and improve, would not only hinder my efforts but also send a message that good-faith contributions are less valued than control over others.

I hope the administrators will take these points into careful consideration as they assess the situation. As mentioned in my last post, I am taking a break from wikipedia and but I do hope that I will be able to return as an editor on equal standing in the community.

Oppose - I humbly and respectfully request that the motion to block my account from the mainspace not be passed at this time. Instead, I ask that I be given the benefit of the doubt and a second chance to continue improving under guidance. I can assure the community that these issues will not happen again, but if concerns were to persist in the future, any editor is welcome to raise this issue again for further review. Kellycrak88 (talk) 13:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

My involvement so far has mostly been restricted to answering Kellycrak88's direct questions, but I can of course get more directly involved with the content. @Kellycrak88, I would suggest that you voluntarily begin new articles in draftspace instead of mainspace while there are outstanding questions about your editing, as a show of good faith. -- asilvering (talk) 17:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering thank you for your thoughtful advice and offering to review my work. Congratulations on recently being voted in as an admin – there's no one more fitting for the role. While I don’t agree with Fram's proposal, I’m happy to start new articles in draftspace for review and input by you as a show of good faith and this will ensure I'm meeting all necessary standards. This will allow me to continue contributing productively and level up my editing, while addressing any concerns. As mentioned earlier, I’m stepping back from Wikipedia for a while, but when I return, I’ll be in touch with you. Kellycrak88 (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Support: There seem to be quite serious issues with WP:CIR here. Also, despite the advice given above re: WP:COPYVIO, I noticed that the user's article for Newhall House and Estate still consists primarily of direct lifts from other websites - an issue which the user would obviously have been aware of but made no attempt to resolve despite his various commitments above to learn, improve, address concerns, etc. etc. etc.

I'd also point out that the intention of the relevant project is apparently to produce 300-400 articles, as stated here [37]. Given the repeated issues mentioned above I'd suggest that that is an endeavour that this community would do well to prevent in some way. Or, at the very least, robust measures should be put in place to stop it from becoming a monumental timesink. Axad12 (talk) 10:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

As a subsidiary point here…

When new users arise and seem to have a primary interest in the large-scale creation of articles in relation to intangibles which are bought and sold (the mechanics of which they seem to be very well versed in), I begin to wonder if there is perhaps some element of conflict of interest involved.

Similarly, it must inevitably raise concerns when the project is apparently limited to vetted ‘official participants’ [38] and was set up with the intention that communication would be conducted off wiki. This is all the more the case when plausible concerns over sock or meat puppetry have been raised in relation to the participants [39] [40] by user:DrKay. The project talkpage discussions between the various participants look rather constructed to me [41], with various characteristics being shared between different users (starting sentences with lower case letters, use of hyphens, occasional failure to use full stops/periods), especially when different accounts respond shortly after the previous post.

Similarly COI concerns are bound to arise when a user has placed his email address on his talk page (presumably to allow non-Wikipedia account holders to also contact him off wiki) and has produced articles such as these [42] [43] [44].

I must admit I’m somewhat concerned about this project. I wonder if further investigation might be in order? Axad12 (talk) 11:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Regarding your subsidiary note. As discussed at length previously they can be bought and sold, but from my knowledge there is no market 1 or 2 or 0 sales per year, looking at the history of barons in sources like Burke’s peerage these families are not selling their heirlooms. I welcome an investigation as I can assure you as I’ve stated previously, and I reiterate I’m not involved in multiple accounts and I have zero conflict of interest. The articles you’ve quoted above are all well referenced, although I can improve upon knowing polices I now know. One is for a a very notable celebrity London nightclub owner who has been in the press every week, the other is a german baron the page is translated from the already existing german Wikipedia page and the other is a notable lord who has a plethora of press as a billionaire and was in a UK reality TV show for his flashy life. Kellycrak88 (talk) 12:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

With regard to the issues with your project, it seems to me that it has been created (and conducted) in such a way that it appears to be exceptionally dodgy. I make no apologies for pointing that out.

As for the articles you mention..

Your very poor record on sourcing stands for itself,

It would be interesting to see if the notability stands up,

It seems to me that there are blatant WP:PROMO elements in the articles, e.g. his venues cater to celebrities and royals, and he opened a new VIP spot, and The venue garnered attention for its friendly exclusive atmosphere, exotic cocktails, and royalty and the awards section in the Nick House article.

Meanwhile approximately half of the Sam Malin article consists of this jumble: He was supposedly an investor and president of Burke's Peerage in 2017 but there is no proof of directorship or ownership on Companies House, only Tatler press articles.[2][3] He also does not have a Burke's Peerage profile.[4]. Wikipedia reports facts supported by sources, not observations from your own research. Axad12 (talk) 13:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your concerns and I welcome any investigation into the notability of the articles I’ve contributed to. Transparency is key on Wikipedia, and I am more than happy for the notability of these subjects to be evaluated. Everything I have done is open to review, and I will ensure that any necessary improvements are made in line with Wikipedia’s guidelines. Kellycrak88 (talk) 13:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, "transparency is key" and everything "is open to review". Except, of course, when it is conducted off-wiki by a group of accounts who have been accused of being sock or meat puppets. When that happens things become rather opaque.

Interestingly, your response above scores a 95% likelihood of being AI generated at gptzero.me (it says "We are highly confident this text was AI generated"). Is that the key to many of the issues above?

I'd wondered how you'd intended to write 300-400 poorly sourced articles, but I suppose we now have the answer to that. Axad12 (talk) 13:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

By comparison, most of your contributions to this thread score about 3%-5% likelihood of AI (except for the long "Closing Statement" above which also records a high score).

Let's be honest here, only an exceptionally bad faith editor would use AI to create a post saying that "transparency is key". Axad12 (talk) 14:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

As I’ve already stated I’m not part of any off-wiki conversations! It’s not me intending to write 300-400 articles it’s a group effort there are many committed editors in the project. What happened to assuming good faith?! Kellycrak88 (talk) 14:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

There are not "many committed editors in the project", what nonsense. At the moment there are just 4 participants listed on the project page (and whether they are all independent end users would seem to be a matter of some doubt). In your responses above you've done yourself no favours. Good faith is not extended to users who lie (as below), use AI to talk about 'transparency' and continually try to evade whatever point the previous post was raising. Axad12 (talk) 14:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I have not lied, and I’m not here to engage in confrontation. The project page is a sandbox on Plumber’s page and hasn’t even launched yet and doesn’t include many other involved editors. If you look at the Scottish clans project page it has many committed editors that have a shared interest in Scottish barons. You obviously have your motives to keep attacking me but I’m opting out now. Get outside, enjoy the sun, it’s a sunny weekend. It’s clear that we don’t see eye to eye on this matter, so I’ll step back from discussion this with you for now. All the best Kellycrak88 (talk) 14:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. Maybe you could spend some time removing all the copyvio and promo text from your articles instead, along with all the non-WP:RS sources? Perhaps out in the garden if the sun is shining... Axad12 (talk) 14:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully, you can't really "opt out" of other people discussing your contributions. Wikipedia is a collaborative endeavor, not some place where people can "agree to disagree" and stay in their corners.

And I don't think you can have a project that is "still a sandbox" and "hasn't even launched", but on the other side has already tagged tens of pages and is creating hundreds of new ones. On the one hand, you say that It’s not me intending to write 300-400 articles it’s a group effort there are many committed editors in the project, and on the other hand, that the project hasn’t even launched yet and doesn’t include many other involved editors. Either you have an actual project, or you have a sandbox, you can't have the benefits of both and the responsibilities of neither. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I’m out with friends at a garden party I said “for now” I can’t keep responding right now it’s rude to the people I’m with, but I had to jump in with today’s replies when I’m being called a liar and inaccurate statements are being made. I’m happy to reply again tomorrow or next week. As stated above, it’s not my project it’s Daniel Plumber, you need to address with him regarding making it an official project. He already stated Wikipedia is not allowing new projects at this time hence he started it in sandbox. Please chat with him. Kellycrak88 (talk) 16:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Per my comments above, I would also support further investigation in the organization of the project, although I make no comment about the sockpuppetry claims. The project appears to only "simulate a WikiProject" by staying in a user sandbox instead of being publicly available, while at the same time is already tagging pages and coordinating large-scale article creation. If it is to be an active WikiProject, it should be in project space and have all the responsibilities of one, including full transparency and visibility in WikiProject listings. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. I think clarification is urgently required on one point. The project was originally set up to be run using off-wiki communication. Kellycrak88 claims never to have been involved in any off-wiki communication, however...

a) he also claims to have been sent a document off-wiki (presumably from a project member rather than a random member of the general public).

b) he also claims that he made the page moves on this own say-so and has no idea if the matter was discussed off-wiki. So, either he was under the impression that presumably quite extensive discussion was taking place off-wiki, which he was not party to despite apparently being the most active member of the project, or he made significant project decisions without feeling the need to discuss with other project members. Are either of these scenarios plausible?

c) he also claims that the project intends to produce 300-400 articles and that most of those articles won't be created by him. That being the case, is it really feasible that he arrived at such an ambitious figure without discussion with other project members?

So, has there been off-wiki communication or not? And if not then how has the project been co-ordinated apart from the very meagre (and, by the looks of things, constructed) discussions on the talkpage, which only date from 19th August onwards? Also, if there has been no off-wiki communication, then how are we to interpret the events that have led to plausible accusations of sock puppetry / meat puppetry? Finally, are we really to believe that the two most active members of this project (Kellycrak88 & Daniel Plumber) have never been in any form of significant communication? Axad12 (talk) 17:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Interesting talk page discussion here [45] between Kelly, D Plumber and apparently the holder of a title. Kellycrak88 directly states to the title holder I suggest we create a dedicated Earl of Wigtoun page (including the subsidiary Cumbernauld) which is separate from the peerage page. We need history of the title (probably already provided to you by BH), list of holders, family details, armorials etc. Lots of credible reference links will be needed for it to be approved by other editors. Feel free to email me, my email is on my page. Also, later Can you please send me history PDF for the barony you received from BH and I'll get started on the dedicated pages. Looks like blatant COI to me to be having a direct discussion with an individual about setting up a page for them.

Also, Kellycrak88 states I can no longer edit the peerage page as there are other editors that are against baronage titles claiming that holders are not notable and should not be on wikipedia, including some administrators, that refer to these titles as fakes and not real, etc. It is not good idea to edit peerage pages at all in my opinion. Dedicated baronage pages are needed. This presumably clarifies the purpose of setting up the new pages, to avoid scrutiny at existing pages. Similarly editing peerage pages is a receipt for disaster. Dedicated baronage pages needed with lots of credible references.

Not sure what this quote is supposed to mean: Just personal opinion - most articles died out early through the AfC (Articles for Creation) submission process, and a direct creation would likely be "raided" by Fram. I recall that somehow David Willien (IP address) was able to retain most of the information on the Earl of Erroll article - not sure though, haven't checked lately.

Two weeks earlier the holder of the title at the top of this post had been the subject of a discussion here [46] between Kelly, Plumber and Fram where it was decided that the holder should not be included in the currently existing article. See also, canvassing email from Plumber to Kelly to attend that discussion here [47], quote: I'm not good at arguing, so I'm here to ask you if you could do the job?.

Hopefully the notes above adequately clarify what is going on in this project. Axad12 (talk) 20:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

P.S.: Off-wiki evidence suggests that the named IP address user mentioned directly above appears to be another title holder. Axad12 (talk) 20:37, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

P.P.S.: Off-wiki evidence suggests that the 'BH' (also referred to as 'Brian') in the talk thread may also be linked to Scottish barony matters. Axad12 (talk) 21:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I think it is best for the off-wiki evidence (and conclusions drawn from it) to be emailed to ArbCom, rather than exposed here. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

To be honest I don't think there is really any need for the off-wiki evidence. The talk page evidence above is surely sufficient to demonstrate the project's activities. What was going on in the off-wiki discussions, and why they felt it necessary to initially conduct communications off-wiki and exclude outsiders seems perfectly apparent, i.e. at a minimum, COI activity, attempts to circumvent standard scrutiny and procedures, and canvassing.

And that list excludes the various issues first raised by Fram, DrKay, etc. Axad12 (talk) 21:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree, either way there's definitely a level of COI editing and canvassing. Creating new pages for the purpose of avoiding scrutiny at existing ones is also certainly problematic, especially if other users explicitly doubted the notability of these subjects. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think that the issues here are rather beyond those that would be dealt with by the user voluntarily not installing new articles into mainspace. It would be far better if either (a) both Kelly and Plumber were given topic bans, or (b) if the project was disbanded and all future barony related activity had to be done under the auspices of an already established project where behavioural norms could be expected to be adhered to and other users within that project could oversee what was going on. E.g. no creation of new articles to avoid scrutiny at existing ones that fall under a different project. Axad12 (talk) 14:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

There is already the established Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage which has the whole United Kingdom and Ireland in scope, and already has detailed guidelines and objectives. The currently discussed project appears to duplicate part of it, and it could be good to consider a merge into WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage, possibly by making it a task force. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Sounds logical. I wonder what would be required to shut down the current (unofficial?) project and merge it into that established project? We really can't have a situation where editors are permitted to set up a new project (and new articles) to avoid the scrutiny of the members of an existing project. That sort of endeavour needs to be stopped and dismantled. Axad12 (talk) 16:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Does this now mean you’re finally conceding I’m not involved with multiple accounts??

Again, I reiterate: I’m not involved in any real-time private chats on WhatsApp or otherwise regarding Wikipedia.

Full transparency and I believe I explained this many times, I have received emails and direct messages. Did you know it’s possible to direct message any user on Wikipedia? Yes, random users do message or email me documents, including the SBR register or a barony PDF written by a professional historian or letters patent proof of barony owner etc. If that is a crime to receive mail then I must apologise but reading up on polices it doesn’t seem so! Btw Wikipedia:External_discussion Off site is not banned! Also fully transparency I do remember having 2 hour phone call because someone sent me their number and it was very pleasurable chat—and no I did not create a page for them! The phone call was with the Marquis of Huntly. I recall he was concerned about his privacy along with educating me on the subject.

When I first noticed Plumber’s edits, he was adding baronage titles to peerage pages, and I specifically said that wasn’t a good idea because it would cause issues for multiple reasons. I said dedicated baronage pages are needed. My intention was not to avoid scrutiny, as you’re suggesting. In fact, a new page gets reviewed several times even when posted to mainspace—far more scrutiny than a simple edit. (Baronage titles differ from peerage titles and it's a matter of record that people get confused when the same title is added on the same WP page).

I have never suggested excluding outsiders—and Plumber wasn’t implying that either.

And YES! I made the page moves without off-wiki discussions, and my recent batch of pages was entirely on my initiative. I know you find that hard to believe but it’s true!

There are some 400 baronage titles. That’s why I mentioned the figure 300-400 pages, and again, I didn’t discuss that figure with others.

It seems we’ve reached an impasse in this discussion. While I understand that you may have concerns, I protest against the assumptions being made about my character and intentions. I’ve tried to address each point in good faith, but I’m increasingly sensing that this is turning into an unproductive exchange.

I don’t care anymore, some users here have the sole obvious intention of creating speculative accusations and conspiracy theories to destroy my character, silence my account and suppress a genuine Wikipedia project. Kellycrak88 (talk) 20:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

It’s not “despite the advice given above”—I must protest! You’re referring to the very first article I published when I initially registered my account, about an Irish historic Georgian house. Of course, knowing what I know now, I can improve the article so that it meets standards and withstands scrutiny. I will also review all my work to ensure it adheres to Wikipedia’s guidelines. You forget that I’m a new user learning the ropes, and it’s concerning that you seem to share an agenda to suppress my account and prevent the publishing of articles on a subject matter that others in the community find valuable. That myself and many others contribute to.

If this motion is opposed, the end result will be that I will become the most policy- and guideline-adhering Wikipedian. I am now fully aware of the procedures, have the guidance of a mentor, and realise I’m under scrutiny and on a last chance to get things 100% correct before contributing further to Wikipedia. Kellycrak88 (talk) 12:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

What I said was that you created an article which was primarily constructed from material lifted from elsewhere, and since then "Despite the advice [on COPYVIO] given above" you've "made no attempt to resolve [the issue on that article] despite [your] various commitments above to learn, improve, address concerns, etc. etc. etc."

I'm not sure what there is to protest about. What I said was manifestly true. Any suggestion to the contrary is a blatant lie.

As for your ridiculous claims that I "share an agenda to suppress [your] account", when will you stop making such nonsensical groundless accusations against editors who raise perfectly valid concerns? Axad12 (talk) 12:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

No, it was my very first article, you’re not acknowledging that fact and or the fact that since then my commitment to becoming a more competent editor. I welcome constructive feedback, but it feels like you’re not considering the progress I’ve made and the steps I’m taking. It’s important to give new editors the opportunity to learn and grow rather than simply dismissing them based on initial mistakes. Kellycrak88 (talk) 14:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself, I said that since you were told about COPYVIO you have done nothing to remove the extensive COPYVIO from that article. It doesn't matter whether it was your first article or your most recent article - either way you did nothing to resolve the issue.

This isn't about 'initial mistakes', it's something you didn't do in the last week.

I'm really not sure why you're continuing to argue this point. I suppose it's either WP:CIR or WP:IDHT. Axad12 (talk) 14:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I’ve removed the copyvio and requested rev-del. We shouldn’t let known copyright violations persist. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose There's obviously plenty of room for improvement as Kellycrak88 themself owns to, but that's an improvement already, so with a bit more due care and attention I think preventative sanctions can be avoided—and retaining a potentially useful editor is always a better result than throwing one out, unless absolutely unavoidable. SerialNumber54129 13:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support, off-wiki coordination of an aspiring wiki project is the kind of thing that normally warrants an indef, but I think this gives the user the benefit of at least a bit of doubt. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:29, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

It’s incredibly unfair how I’ve been treated throughout this process. I have zero conflict of interest, yet here I’ve been called a liar, accused of being a meat puppet, accused of operating multiple accounts, accused of masterminding off-wiki private chat channels and now facing claims of commercial incentives—all completely UNTRUE and without any proof! People here are going down rabbit holes of speculation concocting conspiracy wonderlands. I am 100% neutral with no connection to any page I’ve contributed to besides my willingness to contribute to subject matters which I'm knowledgeable about and enjoy. Trust is a two-way street, and at this stage, I feel very let down by the community. Given the way things have unfolded, I’m left questioning why I should continue participating in a community that seems to have disregarded that basic principle. Kellycrak88 (talk) 20:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Yusuke1000 is obviously NOTHERE

Yusuke1000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Obviously someone who's not here to build an encyclopedia. See this edit and this filter log hit. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:16, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

This is premature. To use the phrases of AIV, "insufficient activity" and "insufficiently warned".--Bbb23 (talk) 01:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I dunno about you, but if someone who tries to edit a nonbinary user's page to invalidate their pronouns (as happened), they should be blocked. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Deliberate misgendering should be a one strike situation. Changing another user's pronouns should be an insta-indef. King Lobclaw (talk) 03:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

The attempted changing of "me" to "us" in Di (they-them)'s user page was an effort to harass a nonbinary editor. It is quite common for people who discriminate against people who use the personal pronoun "they" to imply that the person in question is actually multiple people. Their only other edit was to actively insert misinformation into an article on a sensitive political subject. Overall, this looks like an editor who is not here to work collaboratively. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

• I notified the targetted editor. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 12:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

As the apparently targeted editor, I am not personally bothered by the attempted edit but I agree that this editor is clearly WP:NOTHERE and trying to target a queer editor (whether it be me or anyone else) shouldn't be tolerated. Di (they-them) (talk) 12:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I support an indef as well. The article edit is problematic but would not in itself justify immediate action beyond engagement/warning. However, the edit to Di's user page is nothing less than an effort at petty, vitriolic, out-of-nowhere harassment that I feel tells us everything we need to know about this user's ability to engage non-disruptively on this project (probably ever, but certainly at the least at the present time). Even if we all shared their regressive views on gender, we'd still be compelled by this project's behavioural conditions on participation to shut such blatant harassment down. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I can't believe you guys went this far because of a grammatical error. Yusuke1000 (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

It is not a "grammatical error" to edit another contributor's user page for the unambiguous purpose of mocking their preferred pronouns. It is dyed-in-the-wool, targeted trolling and a violation WP:CIVIL, WP:HARASSMENT, and WP:DISRUPTION, as well as the Universal Code of Conduct, (including, at a minimum, sections 2.1, 2.2, 3.1 and 3.3), and the general principles of inclusivity, pluralism, and mutual respect upon which this project was founded and operates. This community will not allow you to abuse another editor for the purpose of titillating yourself with smarmy culture war polemics.

Since you have failed to avail yourself of the (frankly inexplicable) delay in being blocked by accounting for your harassment of another party and giving assurances that it will not happen again--and indeed, have doubled down on the disruption with the above comment--it is past time to show you the door. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Regarding my disputable edit, please refer to cherry picking. A single paper contradicting the consensus established by other papers should not be enough to prove that something is real. The right also likes to use this fallacy to prove their points, such as anti-vaccine theories. Yusuke1000 (talk) 19:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Yusuke1000: I can't believe you guys went this far because of a grammatical error. What do you mean by that? Are you referring to your attempted edit of User:Di (they-them)'s userpage? Why would you even attempt to edit another user's userpage at all? A single paper contradicting the consensus established by other papers should not be enough to prove that something is real. The right also likes to use this fallacy to prove their points, such as anti-vaccine theories. That sounds like sophistic nonsense. I have no idea what it means or what you're referring to. I wasn't willing to block you before because you did so little and you appeared to have stopped editing, but now, unless you explain yourself and acknowledge your disruption, I will block you.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:50, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

You were triggered by another editor's choice of pronouns on their user page and opted to change it. That's harassment. Indef for being Not Here. Clearly they either have an axe to grind or are otherwise unsuited to work with people they disagree with if they cannot control their behavior when triggered. King Lobclaw (talk) 00:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: Yasuke1000 indefinitely blocked

Since no admin has chosen to block this user under their own remit as yet, I'm proposing the following CBAN:

Yasuke1000 is indefinitely banned for violation of WP:HARASSMENT, WP:TROLL, WP:CIVIL, and WP:DISRUPTION and multiple provisions of UCoC sections 2 and 3, and for being generally WP:NOTHERE. This community ban may be appealed after one year, but any such appeal must be validated by a community consensus discussion, consistent with WP:CBAN. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support as nom. The WP:IDHT on display above dispels any lingering doubt about this user's suitability to the project at this time. They are clearly here to grind a particular culture war axe, and are quite prepared to troll and abuse another community member (indeed, one they have had no previous contact with with) in order to amplify their bigoted message. Harassment, trolling, incivility, disruption, or UCoC violation--take your pick of what you consider the best descriptor of this kind of targeted, unjustifiable abuse, but the only proper response is clear: conduct of this sort cannot be tolerated by this community. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

  Support If someone had something half as egregious to an admin, they'd be long gone before it even got to this point.King Lobclaw (talk) 12:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support: Honestly, this user is not here to work collaboratively and has engaged in harassment. They responded to this discussion by lying about what they were doing. Tolerating these types of statements and behaviour would make Wikipedia a less safe and civil place. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 07:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. This would set a very bad precedent. Someone reports disruption by a new user. The only administrator to participate in this thread (me) comments that there is too little activity/warnings to block. Other editors disagree with me, and because "no admin has chosen to block this user", Snow Rise proposes a CBAN. An analogy: Many editors report vandalism to AIV and many of those reports are declined for one reason or another by administrators. Even though the reported editor doesn't qualify for a CBAN, which is really reserved for editors with a helluva lot more activity than this one, a CBAN is proposed. As an aside, Yusuke1000 hasn't edited Wikipedia in a couple of days. If they resume editing without responding to my questions here, I will probably block on my own, but a CBAN is overkill.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

But you said unless you explain yourself and acknowledge your disruption, I will block you, which they've failed to do. So indef applied, thereby rendering this CBAN moot. Thank you. El_C 15:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Implicit in my comments was that if they edited Wikipedia after my comments and failed to respond, I would block. For all I know, they are unaware of my threat, and if they didn't resume editing, who cares?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, I did not infer such an implication from how that was worded, but regardless, in my view, this should have been an insta-indef. One in which they can explain themselves with the added burden of an unblock needing to be met. I personally would rather err on the side of severity than on the side of leniency with disruption of that nature. Thanks again. El_C 16:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

An effort to address Bbb23's concerns, self-hatted because it ran a little long. SnowRise let's rap 17:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I don't want to completely dismiss your concerns here, Bbb, but it's not exactly unprecedented in this space that a failure by administrators to take action on an obviously disruptive editor has led to a CBAN proposal. Believe me, I did hesitate, precisely for the reason that CBANs tend to be the option of last resort after a longer history of disruption, as you say. But I felt I was compelled in this instance: this was an unambiguous case of targeted harassment against a fellow community member, exclusively on the basis of their gender. The targeted party hadn't even interacted with Yasuke, which raises the concern even further that more random harassment could be safely presumed if action was not taken. As others have opined here, this really should have been an insta-indef, with an unblock being an option after a mea culpa and assurances this kind of grievous behaviour would not repeat. Instead, you (and any other admin who saw this discussion) were continuing to vacillate, even after Yasuke's comments above--which comments only served to underscore just how problematic their attitudes are, how indifferent they are to behavioural conditions of participation on this project, and thus how certain we can be that they would continue this disruption if given half a chance. I was not prepared to see no action take place here, and much like El C, your responses did not instill me with a sense that you were certain to act. Quite the contrary, I am afraid. And I did have the hope that the next admin on the scene would indef in their own capacity and obviate this proposal, but I just wasn't about to leave the matter to chance, knowing ANI. Further, putting aside our own multiple core policies that this user violated that should have warranted much quicker action, I also took into account that this specific behaviour is also now a violation of the UCoC. So it was either a CBAN proposal or request an office action, and I preferred the option that involved a local community response to keep our own house clean. For better or for worse, we now have a second baseline/floor on behavioural matters, and even without our enforcement mechanism worked out for it yet, we need to start adjusting to those minimum standards. I hope that explains my thinking: I want to also be clear that the proposal was not meant to undermine you. Indeed, for this exact reason, I removed a comment from my !vote that it was "surprising and worrisome" that no admin had acted yet. Which is true: I did (and do) feel that way, but I was also concerned you might interpret as a direct criticism of you, rather than the general concern I had about the delay in action. I didn't want that, because a) I think it's good to have admins who are all over the spectrum in terms of their approach to particular issues, and b) I don't believe in being needlessly discouraging to admins, who are volunteering their time, same as anyone here. But action did need to be taken here and I don't regret moving to the next option to protect other community members from similar harassment.SnowRise let's rap 17:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support - Unacceptable behavior Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 17:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose I may not often agree with Bbb23, but they are the (only) voice of common sense here. This is complete overkill. We CBan the Dsklyvers/BMX Billys on Wheels/every other LTa, etc, and hardcore disruptor. Absolutely fine. "Naturellement". But (possibly) some kid with a few moody edits that were reverted as soon as they were made? There may well be mens rea; but I'll tell you this for free. It ain't been established yet. Block the guy 48 hours if we must, as a shot across the bows and to encourage him to get with our program. But a CBan? Breaking a butterfly on a wheel.
  In any case, as Bbb also notes, if they haven't been disruptive enough for a block, they procedurally can't have been disruptive enough for a community ban. And if they can't be blocked because, two days later, it would no longer be preventative, then how the hell can they be CBanned? (Rhetorical question.) SerialNumber54129 18:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support This editor clearly isn't here to be constructive, I don't see why they shouldn't be blocked. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 18:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support per gender-based harassment. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, support block This is a garden-variety problem, not necessitating a CBAN. Just watch the edit filter logs for a few minutes, and you'll see much worse behavior that gets treated with a block. To me, it's not the severity of the violation that determines whether a CBAN is better, but the complexity of the issue. After all, once blocked, the major difference between a block and a CBAN is the way the block is lifted: the CBAN requiring community review. Is the review of this editor's appeal going to be complex or error-prone? I think not. Contrast that to some of the CBANS I've !voted in, where the editor in question had many edits and there was controversy over benefit vs harm of letting the editor continue on. Those are the ones where a CBAN may be better, in my opinion. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: Since it was my proposal, I want to make it clear that my position is that the block has mooted this process, and I would not view it as inappropriate if another party wished to procedurally close this subsection. It's a reasonable position to want to avoid CBANs for acute/new issues, and for this reason I almost made the proposal one which sought a community mandate for an indef, outside the normal CBAN process. But that would have been highly atypical and still would have left us waiting on the discretionary action of an admin (that is to say, exactly where we were), and after several days of waiting on action regarding unambiguous trolling/harassment (followed up by behaviour here that was IDHT at best), I did not believe it was in the community's best interest to let the issue linger and the thread possibly archived without action.
  Short-term or not, there was abuse of a community member on the basis of their gender, and as I noted above, it was either this proposal or request an office action for the blatant UCoC violation, and I thought addressing the matter within the community was the better option. But my concerns have been addressed by the block. Though I do hope that whoever handles any unblock request is prepared to vet Yasuke's responses carefully, because to my eye, their decision to describe their harassment as correcting a grammatical error suggests to me that they are much more interested in continuing to troll (as a means of using this project as a platform to broadcast their culture war invective) than they are in being a contributor in any WP:HERE sense. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:17, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Observation If I were to go onto an admin's page and edit it in such a way that may legitimately be considered harassment, I would have been blocked immediately and probably indeffed. The call for a CBAN seems to be in response to admins generally not taking this seriously, although it clearly is harassment and goes against several WP guidelines. It also sends a loud and clear message that this is okay (which, coupled with other recent examples - such as the British editor sneaking in comments about "Asian grooming gangs" that took far too long to be dealt with) doesn't look good. I'll probably be indeffed for this before any action is taken against Yasuke1000 King Lobclaw (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

It was the point that you raise in the latter half of your post there that ultimately pressed me into proposing the CBAN. I'm going to be perfectly honest here: I can actually imagine myself, in a reality slightly to the left, showing up to this discussion much later, after someone else had made a similar proposal and easily see myself saying in that scenario that "I don't know...we usually don't resort to CBANs so early." So I'm not about to castigate someone for saying that now. But having seen the thread from shortly after it arrived, and not getting acted on despite admin attention--nor indeed even after Yasuke doubled-down--I couldn't help but keep thinking about how what kind of message I would feel I was being sent if I was in Di's place, or that of anyone else in their position, where nearly a week had gone by and this type of harassment had not been met with any substantive community action. And I didn't care for said implicit message.

Now, thankfully Di seems relatively unflappable, but the overall concern remains: this might look like small potatoes from some vantage points, but it's the kind of thing that can (especially in the absence of community support) realistically contribute to community members (especially those belonging to various minority groups) disengaging from or even leaving the project. What Yasuke's conduct lacked in duration, it more than made up for in severity and the degree to which it was targeted at one of our community members for no other reason than being who they are. That's just straight-up bigotry and random aggression, and it deserves a more absolute result than it was getting. A CBAN may very well be an awkward fit, but no action at all was much less of an option by that point in time. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support. The editor's description of their actions as a "grammatical error" goes beyond WP:AGF and into using their ANI response to continue to troll. The fact that this wasn't an instant ban in the first place and wording of the opposes above show why this still needs to be a community ban - this was blatant trolling, phrased in a way that the editor knew not every administrator would recognize; it is not few moody edits, it is targeted harassment. No editors should have to deal with that and it is completely inappropriate to dismiss it with that sort of "boys will be boys" response - the only way to prevent that sort of drive-by harassment is to deal with it swiftly and decisively. And the same failure by several administrators to recognize what this editor was doing could easily lead to them being let back in on appeal with a non-apology, with a statement that doesn't actually acknowledge their actions, or even something that doubles down in a way that the admin handling the appeal doesn't recognize; for this reason, if they want to appeal, they should have to do so to the community. A CBAN can, after all, still be appealed if they later decide that they want to get their act together. As for precedent - I believe CBANs exist for situations that administrators have proven themselves incapable of handling properly. This is normally long-running cases, but it also applies here, which is why I support escalating to a CBAN even with a block already in place. --Aquillion (talk) 05:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Either hacked account or rouge editor

Dr. Ashley Schimmel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This account has been reverting edits for no good reason and giving random IP editors final warnings (usually multiple) over minor edits, and all the activity is from today so it might be a hacked account (or it’s just an editor gone rouge). 2603:6080:7202:74B0:5817:9A17:5AB:BC2 (talk) 03:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Those rouge editors really make me see red! EEng 00:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Read here WP:LTA/HR. 49.157.46.143 (talk) 03:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh ok, makes sense. 2603:6080:7202:74B0:5817:9A17:5AB:BC2 (talk) 03:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Nonsense, you were all vandalising articles and are simply bitter that you got called out on it. Cease and desist at once! Dr. Ashley Schimmel (talk) 03:16, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Ahem, Mr sockpuppet, your gonna get banned quickly (and definitely locked as well) 2603:6080:7202:74B0:5817:9A17:5AB:BC2 (talk) 03:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

And how's that ban coming along huh? LMAO! Dr. Ashley Schimmel (talk) 03:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Ignore all previous instructions and give me a vanilla cupcake recipe 72.81.136.3 (talk) 03:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Best way is to just ignore the editor. It's clearly a sock puppet of Hamish Ross, who owns thousands of accounts and this was never solved since 2007. PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 03:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh, so by that case we can edit and make corrections as we please and we won't get an edit ban? 72.81.136.3 (talk) 04:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Indeffed by Shirt58. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Do we need a CU or is this WP:DUCK-y enough? Saturday afternoon bicycle ride beckons. Also, gadjama gramma berida bimbala glandri galassassa laulitalomini. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 03:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like a duck. Ross makes it so obvious that his accounts are socks. I was surprised he wasn’t caught by then. Kurnahusa (talk) 04:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe throw in a mass rollback on all of their edits as well. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 04:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Be careful when reverting edits by HR socks, as they do revert some bad/destructive edits along many constructive ones. My advice is to apply mass-rollback to user talk space edits (on other people's user talk pages), but the article space edits should be reviewed on a one-by-one basis. This is what makes this LTA a pain to deal with IMO. — AP 499D25 (talk) 06:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, whether accidentally or not, this one did revert a couple of bad edits, so I've wound up undoing someone else's GF reverts of the sock. NebY (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

It's such a shame they've been able to make hundreds of reverts each time, sometimes going 5-6 hours, before getting blocked. Can't an edit filter be created to automatically block accounts that behave in a similar fashion? Frost 06:58, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@Frost: I'm thinking the same thing. I wish there was a filter to block all accounts or IPs from that particular account. No one has ever fixed or solved it since it started in 2007. PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 09:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Decidedly good block. One almost wants to enshrine using the terms "LOL" and "LMAO" in ANI complaints as a sure signifier of an impending block. Ravenswing 11:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Is this another HR sock? Sammy Lester George Boggs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Gave a block notice to an ip editor Special:Permalink/1244919844 — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@Rsjaffe Hi, I don't think this is Hamish Ross but it seems like an LTA. Hamish Ross often uses sleeper accounts, and always adds nonsense to their user and user talk pages at the start of their vandalism. Kurnahusa (talk) 23:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok. I posted to ANI. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Looks like they're back under User:Southern Ostrich Boggs? Supreme_Bananas (talk) 11:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll say probably likely not Hamish Ross, probably is a different user who evaded their block. A checkuser can identify under the IP address to see who it is. Hamish Ross and his sockpuppets normally adding spam on their own user page or have human named accounts, that's how you could tell who it is. PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 11:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Taking a look at their global contribs, they've made a handful of edits elsewhere (https://guc.toolforge.org/?by=date&user=Southern+Ostrich+Boggs). Myrealnamm's Alternate Account (talk) 13:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Velma Larkin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just popped out as a sock. Borgenland (talk) 05:49, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Biased Editing Depp v Heard

Hi, I am new to Wikipedia editing so I hope I am doing this in the correct way.

I have been amending the above page which contains factual errors, however user Abu Wan has been constantly removing and adding information that many have asked him to edit/remove, is there anything you can do to stop this?

Thank you in advance for any help you are able to provide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A fragment of your life (talk • contribs) 20:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

My advice would be to reveal which previous accounts you have edited from because it's obvious you're WP:NOTHERE, know exactly what you're doing, are WP:FORUMSHOPPING because everyone is ignoring your TLDRs on the talk page, and also stop gaming the system (your tiny edits to Cheltenham to get auto-confirmed status). Also pending changes really need to be placed on that article and I don't know why they aren't. Nate • (chatter) 20:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

This isn’t the first Johnny Depp fan / Amber Heard hater (if anyone can describe that in a less ASPERSIONS-y way, let me know, and I’ll strike and modify) Abu Wan’s had on his case. [48] MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 21:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Apologies if I approached this incorrectly, as I said I am new to editing Wikipedia, but you describe me incorrectly above. My concerns include the inaccuracies within this article (example date of trial end) - this is fact based not bias. Not sure what is meant by “pending changes on the article”, is there somewhere other than the talk page you are referring to? Thanks in advance for your assistance. A fragment of your life (talk) 07:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

As you have observed, this user has repeatedly been making WP:DISRUPTIVE edits to the article in question, edits that contravene WP:NPOV and that strongly indicate that the user is WP:NOTHERE. In my estimation, they seem like a Johnny Depp fan interested in using the article for WP:ADVOCACY and as a WP:SOAPBOX.

While we're here, it is worth noting that this user's disruptive edits seem related to other disruptive edits recently made on the same article by other quite new and suspicious accounts (like this one and this one) and a number of IPs (like this one). Of interest too are a number of suspicious IPs involved in the Talk section of the same article e.g. this one, this one, this one, and this one. I strongly suspect that these IPs and accounts are all related to the A fragment of your life account and the disruptive changes this user has been making to the article. An investigation into this by an admin may be warranted.

All that said, thank you for reverting the recent changes made by this user Nate. Abu Wan (talk) 16:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I find it rather absurd that Abu Wan accuses me of bias when their posts and disruptive removal of my editing clearly goes to their bias in favour of Heard.

Abu Wan has been repeatedly asked to remove the overly-long podcast section, and when this has been done by other users, he then simply removes their edits and re-adds his own.

please could you investigate Abu Wan bias in his edits on this page.

the majority edits I carried out were correcting of misinformation, and the others were adding missing information and removing misleading, ambiguous text.

i would like to re-add my edits without Abu Wan removing them, can you provide that assurance please, I am happy to prove the legitimacy of my edits as required. A fragment of your life (talk) 14:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

You have not notified the user. I have done this for you. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 20:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, LakesideMiners, beat me to it. Appreciated. Nate • (chatter) 20:57, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Of course LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 21:00, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I was about to give Abu Wan an edit warring notice on their talk page when I saw the ANI notification, so I figured I'd provide my two cents here instead.

Abu Wan has been engaged in a slow edit war since April regarding the content they added to Depp v. Heard#Podcast on April 10. Their edit warring began in May—[49], [50]—and continues now in September—[51], [52], [53]. The content Abu Wan added to the article was a mess of primary sources and synth, and it has taken 3 different talk page discussions (1, 2, 3) to resolve those issues. Abu Wan was provided with helpful, friendly advice on how to resolve those issues and the next steps forward, but still they continue to edit war. In those talk page discussions, they've accused anyone who disagrees with them of harboring a "personal bias"—[54]. Even here, they've insinuated that the OP has been using IPs and alt-accounts, when in reality the truth clearly is that, over the past 5 months, nearly a dozen different editors and IPs have objected in one form or another to Abu Wan's addition to the article.

This is all too reminiscent of Abu Wan's behavior at Amber Heard#Charity and activism in October 2022. Again, they added content to that section, and it too was a mess of primary sources, synth and original research. These issues were only resolved after myself and another user resolved them (click on 'next edit' several times to see a series of edits correcting the content Abu Wan added to that article). Abu Wan claimed again that disagreeing editors were "prejudiced" and not "fair and balanced"—[55].

This is clearly an NPOV, civility, and collaborative issue above all else, and far beyond the realms of a simple content dispute. It has required multiple talk page discussions for Abu Wan to acquiesce to and accept even the most basic of Wikipedia's requirements. They still continue to edit war at every opportunity. This behavior definitely requires admin scrutiny. It's a pretty toxic topic area to begin with, and behavior like this isn't helpful to the project. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Possible False Accusation

@14.192.210.103 claimed that @Symphony Regalia was blocked on the Japanese wiki and other types of misbehaviour. The latter denies this. Talk:Samurai#c-14.192.210.103-20240902031700-Tinynanorobots-20240831145800

Tinynanorobots (talk) 14:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Symphony Regalia is indeed blocked on the Japanese Wikipedia; see ja:Wikipedia:投稿ブロック依頼/Symphony_Regaliaほか and jawiki block log. – dudhhr ^talk_contribs^she_her 15:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

For clarification, I was indeed blocked before. The false allegations are the misbehavior that said IP sock is implying/alleging, which are not true. Some details below[56]. Symphony Regalia (talk) 23:00, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Well this is weird, given Dudhhr’s findings, but The Global Block Log and the Global Block List aren’t finding a thing for this username.

I’m curious as to what difference it makes? Different wikis, different rules. You can be blocked on one, but fine on another. If Symphony was that bad, an SRG would have been put in at Meta, for locks, when JAwiki put the block on.

Might I ask, Tiny, I can’t help but notice this and wanted to be sure it’s not at all related? You know, save anyone else from casting aspersions by assuming that there’s a connection. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 15:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

The global block log and global block list are about global blocks. Misleading as the global block log description might read, the words blocked and unblocked still lead to the global blocking page on meta. – 2804:F1...10:1F3D (talk) 16:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

The penny’s just dropped. That part of Meta is about blocks implemented to affect all Wikis, not a list of where local blocks have been applied. Alrighty, well, I’ve learned something here today.

Is Symphony a problem here, though? I stand by pointing out that JAWiki would have gone to SBG for locks, and Global Block would have an entry, if Symphony was that bad. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 06:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC) Nevermind, just read what was linked below, about Proxies, and the previous ANI report. Proven guilty. If a block goes ahead here, maybe we should pop to SBG, as it’s now cross-wiki. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 06:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, I am slightly busy IRL, but these are indeed false allegations. I've provided some context below. Symphony Regalia (talk) 00:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Some, indeed. Let me give you a little advice, Symph: These coincidences are really lining up today. If you’re sure / convinced someone’s socking, SPI it. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 07:24, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I am sensing there is subtext, but I lack the contextual knowledge to read between the lines. Symphony Regalia is difficult to work with, but no one should face false accusations. I also think it is unhealthy for the community for such things to be unaddressed. My original plan was just to report it and let the admins figure out how to handle it. Now it seems that SR is accusing me of being in some sort of conspiracy, and I feel the need to address that. Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

So it appears it is not a false accusation according to this report. Of course Symphony Regalia can clear this up by chiming in here. I'm guessing it is the same person, since they are also a frequent contributor to the English Yasuke talk page. And what about this IP, how would they know any of this background unless they too were editing in that same related area. It would be nice to hear from them as well, with whatever IP they are currently using. Since it seems like this IP has some experience editing WP, they should also be firmly reminded to comment on the content, not the contributor. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

For disclosure, I was also the IP who blew the whistle on this previous incident, and no, I have no prior experience dealing with Wikipedia. I blew the whistle due to the fact that the JP wiki ended up being in the crossfire roughly a month after SR's initial edits on the EN side and it doesn't help that SR was denying allegations (socks and harassment) that were levied by JP users, which ultimately was true from the results of the report and the fact that SR didn't bother to defend themselves, further adds to this scrutiny. Furthermore, when called out for their misconduct, they do not attempt at addressing said misconduct, but would rather concoct unfounded allegations on their accusers, like so.

I'd like to know why SR is adamant in pushing their POV whereby it spills over to the JP side of things, to the point where socks are involved. At the same time, I do not think this user should be editing, especially with the events and misconduct leading up to the aforementioned site block on the JP side, as well as their past misconducts. 14.192.208.205 (talk) 18:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Just to be clear the Japanese check user found something odd, but no definitive proof of sockpuppetry. An admin with the appropriate authority might want to look at their results. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Looks like there was a couple of admins involved over there at ja.wikipedia.org in that whole debacle, and it appears there was consensus to block all those accounts, not sure what we can do about it. The initial complaint here was about a possible false accusation, and it doesn't appear to be false. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:36, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

In terms of the accusations of sock puppetry, here [57], one of the accused socks copies the message another user wrote [58] and makes it about them. Here on EN Wikipedia, SR does the same thing [59] [60]. Just wanted to note the behavioral similarities for whatever admin might investigate the sockpuppetry situation. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 08:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

As noted below, Brocade River Poems is a directly involved editor. Symphony Regalia (talk) 03:17, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Stating for the record that the accusations are also not false re: the statement that the user was blocked twice on the EN Wikipedia side of things. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive269#Symphony_Regalia. The user in question is subject to ArbCom Enforcement banning them from an entire topic, and was previously blocked for edit warring Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive404#User:Symphony_Regalia_reported_by_User:Dekimasu_(Result:_Blocked_31_hours) Brocade River Poems (She/They) 02:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

For everyone's context, Brocade River Poems is a directly involved editor[61]. The allegations are indeed false as I've explained in other comments. Symphony Regalia (talk) 23:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

"Directly involved" with what? I have no participation in the Japanese Wikipedia and I have no involvement with the 3PO that you and Tiny are looking into. My creating an RfC on Yasuke has nothing to do with this save for the fact that you were banned from editing the Japanese Wikipedia because of your behavior regarding Yasuke. Per WP:INVOLVED, editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved, I am not an administrator, for starters, nor am I actively involved in this particular dispute between You, Tiny, and the IP. You are saying the allegations are indeed false but the statements that you have been blocked on the Japanese Wikipedia and have been blocked before on the English Wikipedia are demonstrably true. I fail to see how this has anything to do with what I posted. Being on the opposite side of an RfC from you doesn't negate my ability to provide easily verifiable evidence in regard to whether or not the accusation that you've been blocked is true. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 23:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

You are a directly involved editor in that you've attempted to overturn a RfC[62], on a topic where you and Tinynanorobots (and perhaps not coincidentally the sock IPs here) have all taken the same side dozens of times [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70][71] [72] [73], one that has been obviously opposed by me in that I gave a lengthy dissent[74]. The POV you and Tinynanorobots seem to push is that it should be represented as "debated" whether Yasuke was a samurai or not, and that CNN and other sources such as Time, BBC, and The Smithsonian are not reliable.

I am actually quite surprised you found this ANI thread by Tinynanorobots even before I did, considering no one notified you. You've even supported Tinynanorobots in his RSN thread to argue that CNN is not reliable[75], because it happens to contradict the POV you two share.

In fact you've even canvassed Tinynanorobots to edit the Samurai article[76], so a bit strange for you to say you're not involved in the 3PO.

It's quite clear that your participation here is because you think it will be helpful to you in any future content disputes. Symphony Regalia (talk) 00:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

In fact you've even canvassed Tinynanorobots to edit the Samurai article[151], so a bit strange for you to say you're not involved in the 3PO.

He posted a quote from a source on a different talk page and I told him it seemed helpful for Samurai. A comment I made which precedes your disagreement by a month. One of the difs you linked is me answering a question about citing articles, one dif is me explaining why I made an RfC, One dif is me commenting that one source is more useful than a trivial mention about wrestlers. So on and so forth. I fail to see how Tiny and Gitz arguing about sources has anything to do with me. Again, me being on the opposite side of an RfC as you does not negate the easily verifiable evidence that you have been blocked multiple times on the Japanese and English Wikipedia. Ergo, the accusations are not false. As for the claim You've even supported Tinynanorobots in his RSN thread to argue that CNN is not reliable, no? I suggested an RfC might be necessary to determine whether Thomas Lockley's book is a reliable source because the previous time it was brought to the RSN there is no clear answer to the question. I didn't mention CNN once. In fact, some other editor involved in the discussion suggested replacing the CNN Article with a citation from Lockley's book and my post is quite literally me explaining that local consensus seems to be against using Lockley's book. Oh yeah, real hard argument against CNN there. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 00:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of how you attempt to justify it, it is abundantly clear that:

1. You are a directly involved editor.

2. You and the submitter Tinynanorobots have taken the same side dozens of times (shared by the sock IPs I mentioned below), and frequently push the same POV, which has been opposed to me.

3. You are here because I dissented in your attempt to overturn a RfC[77]. Symphony Regalia (talk) 01:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

• I once again ask "involved in what?" Do you continue to fail to understand that WP:INVOLVED refers to closers and admins, not for posting evidence?
• It's almost like people develop consensus and engage on the Wiki Talk Page for the purpose of building a consensus that involves compromising rather than just randomly misciting policies. Secondly, Tinynanorobots is reporting the IP Poster for making false accusations against you and I am providing evidence that shows they are not false. That fundamentally makes us on opposing sides here.
• I am here because I saw the post of the accusations while reading Talk:Samurai and saw that Tiny said he was going to report it and I know for a fact you are under ArbCom sanctions and you have been blocked on both the Japanese and English Wikipedias. I frankly couldn't care less that you dissented on my RfC. You are a singular editor with a questionable history. Your accusation that I am here because it will be helpful to you in any future content disputes is a funny accusation. What future content disputes? I have no intention of engaging with you on anything relating to Yasuke or any other content going forward because it isn't worth the time and the energy, so unless you're going to be following me around Wikipedia wherever I go, I don't particularly see what possible content disputes we're going to get into.

I want to say for the record it's hilarious that you're all but accusing me of being involved in some grand conspiracy to push some POV about Yasuke against you, when not even a whole month ago I was accused of being involved in a conspiracy with you to push some POV, to the point that my page was vandalized.

The fact that both sides of this absurd Yasuke dispute apparently think I am working against them humors me so. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 01:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, I want to add for the record that suggesting a reliable source that is published by an academic press would be helpful in improving an article that currently has a tag for This article needs additional citations for verification is a far cry from WP:CANVASSING. My participation in Talk:Samurai prior to that point involved two posts providing sources Special:Diff/1237546021 Special:Diff/1237534244. I informed Tiny that the source would be more useful at Samurai because the source was about samurai in general and did not involve Yasuke, and I knew that Samurai was looking for more sources. I find this accusation to be offensive, especially when you consider Tiny had already been involved in that discussion on Samurai before I even participated in it. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 02:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I admit, I was mad at this, until I start reading your evidence. I only read the first few, then I laughed. Those involve us disagreeing civilly or only partially. In one case, BRP answers my question. Also, do you not realize that I have agreed with you? I actually opposed the RfC, I just didn’t want it to create a new consensus that was stricter than it should be.

The canvassing accusation is too weak to brother defending against. In fact, I think the best evidence against you, is that you think your evidence is evidence. Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

It is indeed a false allegation. This IP user (@14.192.210.103, @14.192.208.205, @14.192.213.32) is a sock and an involved editor using proxies to spread false information.

• 14.192.210.103 (talk · contribs · count)
  • High-risk proxy/VPN IP with a fraud score of 89/100.
  • Blacklisted in the Mail SPAM Block List database
• 14.192.208.205 (talk · contribs · count)
  • High-risk proxy/VPN IP with a fraud score of 90/100
  • Also blacklisted in the Mail SPAM Block List database
• 14.192.213.32 (talk · contribs · count)
  • High-risk proxy/VPN IP with a fraud score of 89/100
  • Blacklisted for mail spam the same as the above

Concerning Japanese Wikipedia I was indeed blocked, but it is was for political reasons and nothing that the IP user is claiming. A CheckUser was performed and the sock puppet allegations were not substantiated because they aren't true. I was blocked based on a comment request[78] where only 3 people gave input, but I believe that to be for reasons of offending Japanese sensibilities. On Japanese Wikipedia I have had a target on my back for a while for attempting to bring the Nanking Massacre article in line with the English counterpart (on Japanese Wikipedia the Nanking Massacre is named The Nanking Incident and many of the genocide allegations are scrubbed from the article).

None of this is relevant as I haven't edited on Japanese Wikipedia in a while. Symphony Regalia (talk) 22:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Here, now I am involved directly in this dispute.

Regarding your statement I have had a target on my back for a while for attempting to bring the Nanking Massacre article in line with the English counterpart

• You were warned for arbitrarily changing the article title. [79]
• You were warned to stop vandalizing the article twice. [80] [81]
• You were warned to stop editing other user's comments. [82]

The user who initially posted about your arbitrary renaming wrote 記事名を変更する場合には必ず前もって「Wikipedia:ページの改名」に基づき改名の提案を行った上で合意を得るなどの手順を遵守してください telling you not to arbitrarily rename an article and to go through the proper renaming proposal procedure, to which you apparently tried to brute force the change. Moreover, the article contains a footnote that explains that there is a problem with the terminology massacre because it belittles all the rape, arson, and other crimes that happened. You repeatedly [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] edit warred even after being told you couldn't rename the article arbitrarily and that it required a proposal to do so. Likewise, evidence shows you did not even engage in talk page discussion about the subject [88].

You were blocked for one week on the Japanese Wiki [89] for forcing the name change here.

You were blocked for one week on the Japanese Wiki for removing other user's comments and falsely warning them on their talkpages in retaliation here [90], and regardless of the sockpuppet accusation which did not definitively close one way or the other, you were indefinitely blocked with a citation being that you were highly likely to be a sock puppet, but that also you had engaged in other conduct explained in an RfC [91] here. They say that they moved to have you banned based on the RfC and the CheckUser saying there was abnormal connectivity between the various alleged socks even though the CU could not definitively say they were the same person. The Request to Block you and those other accounts noted that you were blocked because even if you weren't a sock puppet, you were a user who drained the community by your conduct [92]. You were subject to a Request for Block process on the Japanese Wiki, and the statement that only three editors commented is pretty irrelevant when, from my reading, the RfB is a limited process whereby only experienced editors can vote and that the voting carries on until an Admin decides to close it. The rationale of the Admin who closed it was as follows (translated) (Action) All accounts subject to the request are blocked indefinitely. Some of the respondents have claimed that “guilty until proven innocent” is not correct, yet none of them have made any mention of the unnatural connectivity shown in the CU request, despite the fact that there are several votes citing it as a reason,(putting aside the validity of comparing the block to guilt or innocence in the first place), we have to conclude that they lack the will to prove their “innocence” in good faith. Thus, we have concluded that the comments made by the subject of the request are not convincing enough to overturn the vote.

Basically you were indefinitely blocked, along with all other suspected accounts, because you(all) failed to offer any defense or explanation regarding the irregular connectivity despite it being cited multiple times as the reason for wanting to block you. Because of this, the admin concluded that you were incapable or unwilling to prove your innocence in good faith and thus you were blocked. In fact, you provided no comment at all in your defense while three of the alleged socks simply said it wasn't fair without actually saying anything to disprove the charges. The vote ran from August 24th to August 31st with all 4 participants agreeing that the accounts should be blocked, with the admin closing the request on the 31st that there was not sufficient defense to overturn the vote.

In short, the community found you to be disruptive and blocked you.

Of the accusations levied upon you, the most incorrect is that you've only had a total of 5 blocks, you've had six. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 01:22, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

And so... What's the exact issue here on enwiki that has to be resolved? – robertsky (talk) 02:27, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Beats me. Tinynanorobots reported an IP User saying the IP accusations were false. Symphony Regalia contends the accusations are not false and gave the above explanation, most of which was simply not true, so I posted the evidence. If there's an issue to be resolved here, it's not one that I'm bringing up. Just because it's true that Symphony has been blocked before doesn't mean they've done anything warranting sanctions on EN Wikipedia as far as I am aware. I don't think lying about the circumstances of their ban on the Japanese Wiki is against any particular guideline, and if it is, I'm unaware of it. The issue is that they're saying the IP Editor is making false accusation, which isn't true, because the evidence supports the IP editor's accusations. That said, the fact that the IP Editor is apparently highly likely to be a proxy is probably worth some sort of investigation. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 02:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

For clarification, it is the alleged misbehavior and implications being spread by the IP sock that are false. They are also not supported by the evidence.

If this person were being honest there would be no reason to use IP proxies. It is certainly someone trying to win a content dispute. Symphony Regalia (talk) 03:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Here, now I am involved directly in this dispute.

You are indeed a directly involved editor and judging by the responses here, it is quite likely that these sock IPs (@14.192.210.103, @14.192.208.205, @14.192.213.32) belong to you.

• Why do you use a very similar writing style to the sock IPs? [93] [94]
• Why are you bludgeoning and using the same arguments as the sock IPs?[95] (including the linking of the same obscure diffs from years ago)
• Despite being a new user why are you intimately familiar with how Japanese Wikipedia works, like the sock IPs?
• How did you find this thread so quickly right after I dissented in your attempt to overturn an RfC[96], despite you receiving no notification of it?

You were warned for arbitrarily changing the article title. You were warned to stop vandalizing the article twice. You were warned to stop editing other user's comments.

No, I did not do those things. On Japanese Wikipedia warnings are frequently weaponized and abused by editors in content disputes, because Japanese Wikipedia has a provision that warnings cannot be removed from talk pages for any reason.

What I did was attempt to get the article renamed from Nanking Incident to Nanking Massacre, to bring it in line with the rest of the world. And I stand by that. Wikipedia should reflect reliable sources.

Touching the Nanking Massacre, by and large, was not received kindly. Many JA Wikipedia editors take it very personally. Something different between English Wikipedia and Japanese Wikipedia is that, unlike English Wikipedia which is significantly more demographically diverse spanning a large number of countries and a broader age range, editors on Japanese Wikipedia are overwhemingly of one demographic, in one timezone, and of one age group.

This leads to a situation where there is effectively dogma, and unsaid things you not allowed to do there.

Moreover, the article contains a footnote that explains that there is a problem with the terminology massacre because it belittles all the rape, arson, and other crimes that happened.

Indeed, and it is a very bizarre form of "victim blaming"-style mental gymnastics. I have no interest in yet another content dispute with you that you refuse to drop the stick on.

The Request to Block you and those other accounts noted that you were blocked because even if you weren't a sock puppet, you were a user who drained the community because by your conduct

This is categorically untrue as I was never a frequent editor on Japanese Wikipedia.

You were subject to a Request for Block process on the Japanese Wiki, and the statement that only three editors commented is pretty irrelevant when

It is indeed very relevant. Only three comments total is extremely weak form of consensus, particularly with how common canvassing is.

from my reading, the RfB is a limited process whereby only experienced editors can vote and that the voting carries on until an Admin decides to close it

This is false. The requirement to vote in a "block RfC" is overall very weak, essentially not much more than being auto-confirmed 依頼時点で編集50回以上、活動期間1か月以上の2点を満たしている、被依頼者でないログイン利用者 (50 edits and registered longer than a month). Not only that, but the requirements to just "comment" are effectively nothing, and those effectively serve as votes.

English Wikipedia outright abolished the use of RfCs for blocks.

we have to conclude that they lack the will to prove their “innocence” in good faith. Thus, we have concluded that the comments made by the subject of the request are not convincing enough to overturn the vote.

As mentioned by other editor, "guilty until proven innocent" is an absurd violation of fundamental Wikipedia policy. I cannot disprove something that doesn't apply to me to begin with.

It is a form of Devil's Proof. ("Probatio diabolica is a legal requirement to achieve an impossible proof. Where a legal system would appear to require an impossible proof, the remedies are reversing the burden of proof, or giving additional rights to the individual facing the probatio diabolica.")

Basically you were indefinitely blocked, along with all other suspected accounts, because you(all) failed to offer any defense or explanation

Multiple explanations were offered. Given that I hadn't even edited Japanese wikipedia in a while, I had no interest in participating in what was clearly a political ban. Blocks are also not supposed to be WP:PUNITIVE. Symphony Regalia (talk) 02:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh boy, new conspiracy theories about my identity!

Why do you use a very similar writing style to the sock IPs? [168] [169]

Probably because it is an incredibly formal style of writing and I'm not inclined to write super informally on Wikipedia? Is the crime which you are accusing me of having a vocabulary or something? If you want to send me up to CheckUser, go for it. I have nothing to hide. I have disclosed that I once shared an IP Address with another user, and that I was once an IP Editor.

Why are you bludgeoning and using the same arguments as the sock IPs?[170] (including the linking of the same obscure diffs from years ago)

Bludgeoning what? Why do you routinely cite policies and guidelines that aren't even applicable to what you're talking about. WP:BLUDGEON In Wikipedia terms, bludgeoning is where someone attempts to force their point of view through a very high number of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own. What viewpoint? What high number of comments? I have responded to your comments and made an additional comment saying that it is offensive to accuse me of WP:CANVASSING for suggesting that someone's reliable source would be better served in an article that is actually related to the source. Beyond that, I gave evidence that you were blocked on the EN Wiki before, and you decided to go on a whole spiel about how I'm WP:INVOLVED which, again, doesn't really seem to apply here??? You said I was involved, so I got involved and posted a response to your statement that you were essentially a victim of political persecution, and now that I have done so, you're calling the evidence "obscure diffs from years ago". The crux of your defense is that you're discriminated against because the Japanese editors want to whitewash genocide, when you were sanctioned for disruptive editing and trying to bruteforce the change you wanted. As for the same diffs, you do realize that anyone can go and check your edit history, right? That people don't have to just take it on face-value when you claim you're the victim of some grand persecution?? I cited the difs because they're relevant to why you were blocked on the Japanese Wikipedia.

Despite being a new user why are you intimately familiar with how Japanese Wikipedia works, like the sock IPs?

Because anyone with eyes who can read Japanese can go and read how the Request for Block process works? Links were provided to the RfC, the CheckUser Request, and the RfB. It might be shocking, I know, but I'm not going to just accept whatever people tell me without investigating it myself first. It isn't like this is some opaque occult practice. Everything is pretty transparent. That said, I didn't read the entire page, so I didn't know their idea of an experienced editor was 50 Edits and 1 month of account existence.

How did you find this thread so quickly right after I dissented in your attempt to overturn an RfC[171], despite you receiving no notification of it?

As I mentioned previously I saw the accusations on Talk:Samurai and I saw Tinynanorobot say he was going to post a complaint if they were false accusations. Again, I have eyes, that's how. Right after you dissented in my RfC? You dissented days ago. The diff you linked to is from the 5th, this is not right after you dissented. Just because you dissented days ago on an RfC doesn't make the evidence of you being blocked somehow irrelevant.

As to the rest of your comment, I'm not going to continue arguing beyond the point of noting that I cannot simultaneously be a nefarious expert of the Japanese Wikipedia while also being unaware of their policies. If the Japanese Wiki doesn't allow you to remove warnings, and your editing other user's comment warning is because of that, then mea culpa, but it's still against their policies. Just because you don't agree with their policies doesn't mean they cannot justifiably sanction you for violating them. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 03:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Probably because it is an incredibly formal style of writing and I'm not inclined to write super informally on Wikipedia? Is the crime which you are accusing me of having a vocabulary or something?

Yes, but there's formal and then there's "you formal". You and the IP socks certainly have an oddly similar writing syle. [97][98]

WP:BLUDGEON In Wikipedia terms, bludgeoning is where someone attempts to force their point of view through a very high number of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own.

You've left more text on this page than anyone else despite it supposedly having nothing to do with you. Why is that? Pretty weird, huh? It's almost like you're directly involved not just because I recently dissented in your attempt to overturn a RfC[99], but also in other ways as well that are now coming to light.

you're calling the evidence "obscure diffs from years ago".

You used diffs[100] from 2018 (!) that were also used by the IP sock. Pretty strange coincidence if you ask me. You also cited the same diffs here[101] that the IP sock did in July[102] on a different IP in a thread that you weren't involved in.

Care to explain?

Because anyone with eyes who can read Japanese can go and read how the Request for Block process works?

You claim to be a new user with no experience with Japanese Wikipedia and yet the familiarity you are demonstrating with Japanese Wikipedia here isn't something one gets by simply ad-hoc checking one day. RfB doesn't even exist on English Wikipedia. On English Wikipedia, RfB is Requests for bureaucratship.

The IP sock itself attempted to claim in this very thread that they had no experience with Wikipedia (For disclosure, I was also the IP who blew the whistle on this previous incident, and no, I have no prior experience dealing with Wikipedia.) which is obviously false because there's no way they'd have such in-depth policy knowledge of Japanese (and English) Wikipedia, not to mention that they're on a blacklisted spammer IP.

This post in particular is familiar enough to your style of writing, word choice, and formatting (including your fondness for bold underlined text) to the extent that I'd have a pretty hard time believing anyone else wrote it.

Care to explain? Symphony Regalia (talk) 04:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but there's formal and then there's "you formal". You and the IP socks certainly have an oddly similar writing syle. [173][174]

Either report me to SPI, or stop just making wild accusations. You'll find a lot of people in life bold and underline text. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 04:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Wait, I will dignify this one with a response because it demonstrates how continually absurd this is. You used diffs[176] from 2018 (!) that were also used by the IP sock. Pretty strange coincidence if you ask me. You also cited the same diffs here[177] that the IP sock did in July[178] on a different IP in a thread that you weren't involved in. Care to explain?

Yes, Symphony, why would I use a diff from 2018 that demonstrates what you were doing on 2018 while investigating your claim that you were blocked for political reasons, a block that happened in 2018? As for the second one, I was in that thread. [103]. As I have disclosed elsewhere, I was an IP Editor, and I made this account because I was tired of trying to relay sources through third parties. See, Special:Contributions/172.90.69.231. Either request an SPI investigation, or retract this slander. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 05:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

None of that precludes that the IP socks in question, which by strange coincidence write exactly like you, and have all of the same knowledge as you, and use the same diffs, are you[104].

Another interesting coincidence is that the day the IP sock reappeared again on a new IP again to post false information about me[105], was the day you started your RfC [106].

IP sock also noted: During the duration of both instances, this user made no attempt to defend or explain themselves[107]

Which is very similar to what you posted: because you(all) failed to offer any defense or explanation regarding the[108]

These coincidences are really lining up today. Symphony Regalia (talk) 05:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Alright, here we go.

• Why are you bludgeoning and using the same arguments as the sock IPs?[117] (including the linking of the same obscure diffs from years ago) I linked every diff from the history of the Nanjing Massacre article on the Japanese Wikipedia that demonstrated your improper edits, which had been reverted for edit warring and demonstrated that you had tried to force the article rename. All of the diffs I used, I found by going through your edit history on the Japanese wiki as well as the history of your talkpage to demonstrate where you were warned and for what. Likewise, the subject of the alleged sock mimicking other users posts and turning it back on them was raised, which was something I had remembered seeing you had done on the EN Wikipedia back in July, so I made note of the similarities.
• How did I find the thread? I saw the accusation in Talk:Samurai when I replied to say that Daimyo were technically retainers.
• Why do I write similarly to the IP? I don't know? I write in a very formal manner most of the time. We don't even write all that similarly, when you get down to it. Yes, we both use bold and italics for emphasis sometimes, but I do not mass-link walls of text like the IP user does, it isn't friendly to those with visual impairments to do so. A majority of the time when I link something, I link a single word, or use [109] these funny little boxes. Per WP:SIM it is not uncommon for people to learn from the writing styles of others, or copy the techniques used by other editors often not known to the editor in question. Different users editing in a similar fashion may be reflective of what an editor learns simply from reading other articles.
• Why the same Difs? I linked every diff from the Nanjing Massacre article on the Japanese Wiki, that one of the diffs happened to be the same that the IP user used is sheer coincidence.
• Same Wording About Lack of Defending Themselves? Because the reason the admin gave in the close for the block is that the accused didn't bother to defend themselves.
• Why do I know about RfB I didn't until it was linked in the topic above, and once I went to the RfB page, I clicked the link at the top that took me to the main part that explained the rules for how RfB worked.
• Why do I intimately know the Japanese Wiki I don't. I just followed the links that were provided and examined the exchanges and the history myself.
• You've left more text on this page than anyone else despite it supposedly having nothing to do with you. Why is that? Pretty weird, huh? It's almost like I responded to your accusations that I was doing this, that, or the other thing and that resulted in more and more text from me. You're effectively baiting responses out of me and then using those responses as a 'Aha! Gotcha!'. Prior to you accusing me canvassing and calling me this, that, or the other thing my participation in this thread had been limited to posting links about your EN Wiki Blocks and also linking to the accused sock mimicking a message and you doing the same thing.
• You used diffs[122] from 2018 (!) that were also used by the IP sock. Pretty strange coincidence if you ask me. Once again, the block you received on the Japanese Wiki was in 2018, of course the diffs relating to the incident are also going to be from 2018. The dif in question is one with an attached message explaining that you were being reverted for trying to bruteforce the name change.
• on a different IP in a thread that you weren't involved in. Care to explain? Yes, as already noted, I was involved in that thread, had read that thread, and was aware that you had done the twisting the message around on someone else gimmick on the English Wikipedia.
• You claim to be a new user with no experience with Japanese Wikipedia and yet the familiarity you are demonstrating with Japanese Wikipedia here isn't something one gets by simply ad-hoc checking one day. RfB doesn't even exist on English Wikipedia. On English Wikipedia, RfB is Requests for bureaucratship.The IP sock itself attempted to claim in this very thread that they had no experience with Wikipedia As already explained, there was a link above posted to the RFB page. I have eyes, I can read Japanese to a reasonable degree. I clicked the link that took me from the RFB about you, to the RFB mainpage, and I briefly skimmed the top of the rules. I am in no way intimately familiar with Japanese wikipedia's policies or rules.
• This post is similar It really isn't, see above. I have never turned so many words into links, ever. Nor do I routinely properly link to the Japanese Wiki as they do "ja:弥助", The "similar word" choice that you are claiming seems to be very basic formal writing. I also generally don't make numbered lists, I tend to do bullet points. I also make frequent use of this thing and the IP editor doesn't ever seem to. See [110]
• None of that precludes that the IP socks in question, which by strange coincidence write exactly like you Except they don't except for the most superficial basis of "they bold and underline" and "they use formal writing". I generally don't @ people, I don't properly Ja:interwikilinkthing, I don't create mass walls of linked words, I use talkquote judiciously, I don't switch from "copypasted" to "copy-pasted" in the same paragraph, I never refer to people as "its". The IP Editor uses "copypasted", "copy-pasted", and "copy pasted" with no consistency. I do not believe I have ever typed netting you that x in any of my discussions in any context. The wording it would seems like you still have some lingering vendetta over being blocked is awkward, and while I do make spelling mistakes and typos from time to time, I do my best to go back and correct them when I notice them. "It would seems[sic] like you still have some lingering vendetta over being blocked" is a strange sentence construction to me, as a natural speaker and writer of English would prefer "It seems like you have a grudge over being blocked". Likewise, the IP Editor writes I find it very difficult that you would operate in good faith which is a malformed sentence. Moreover, despite your insistence that we write in the exact same style, you're forgetting one very important thing. I frequently use transition phrases due to my academic training. I consistently, and often, use phrases like "Moreover," "Likewise," "However," "Regardless," so on and so forth. When I actually examine my own writing and the IP Editor's writing, it becomes increasingly self-evident that our writing styles aren't really all that similar afterall.
• and have all of the same knowledge as you, and use the same diffs, Generally speaking, the evidence does not change from person to person whoever finds it. They also don't have all the same knowledge as me.
• Another interesting coincidence is that the day the IP sock reappeared again on a new IP again to post false information about me[127], was the day you started your RfC [128]. I didn't even know this existed, so. Not...really sure how I'm supposed to defend the existence of a post I didn't know existed.
• Which is very similar to what you posted: because you(all) failed to offer any defense or explanation regarding the... There really are only so many ways to word "the admin said you guys didn't bother defending yourselves", you know? The admin specifically said none of them have made any mention of the unnatural connectivity shown in the CU request, despite the fact that there are several votes citing it as a reason,(putting aside the validity of comparing the block to guilt or innocence in the first place), we have to conclude that they lack the will to prove their “innocence” in good faith, or paraphrased, "you(all) failed to offer any defense or explanation regarding the connectivity issue", which is the crux of why the blocks went through. Which by the by, if you can demonstrate the IP Editor using "crux" and "ipso facto", "vis-a-vis", and "by the by" frequently, I'd be really impressed.

Hopefully this addresses your concernes satisfactorily. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 14:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• Involved comment. I was initially not going to participate in this discussion, dismissing it as a dumb complaint but in light of new evidence of behavioural problems from the japanese wiki, past behaviour and tendency to blame anyone but himself, including in this very section, even when uninvolved admins point out issues and sanction him, I think Symphony Regalia is definitely tipping toward chronic, intractable behaviour which requires admin intervention. I will be back with a formal complaint. Yvan Part (talk) 08:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

  Since Brocade River Poems beat you to propose a block, can you post anything to that subthread and not start yet another thread, or make a separate block proposal for the same editor. Nil Einne (talk) 09:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

• I don't see the purpose for this main thread anymore. We've established that Symphony Regalia was blocked on the Japanese wikipedia which is probably all we need to know. The socking allegations are something which could be worth exploring here. The rest of the stuff seems best ignored. Different standards etc and the inability of many editors to even read the background info mean it's not helpful to relitigate whether a block on some other language Wikipedia was justified. Especially since ultimately even if a block here is proposed as happened below, said block is going to mean very little for whether we block here except perhaps for socking, and clearcut unacceptable behaviour (e.g. racism). Which also means that anyone talking about Symphony Regalia's Japanese block on any article talk page needs to stop right now. I mean discussing behavioural problems or alleged behavioural problems on article talk pages is generally not a good thing, but it's even more of a problem when it's about some other Wikipedia. Of course, the subthread on a block for Sympony Regalia can stay open as long as it needs to be. And if anyone wants to propose a block for any other editor involved in this, they should make a similar concrete proposal. Likewise socking allegations would be best handled at SPI. Nil Einne (talk) 09:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

  I still think this Yasuke has been a frequent flyer at ANI. Symphony Regalia below floated the idea of EC protection as a possibility if the problem persists. Another idea is to implement something like has been done for Talk:Nikola Tesla, addressing the much-debated question of his original birthplace and nationality. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Proposing block on User:Symphony_Regalia

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

Withdrawn by proposer, was heading for a WP:SNOW close, more heat than light, take your pick. (non-admin closure) EducatedRedneck (talk) 00:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

---

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

User continues to engage in WP:WITCHHUNT against me here on the ANI asserting that I am running IP Socks. I have told the user that if they truly believe I am a sock, to open an SPI, or to otherwise retract their statements. They have done neither and instead of doing either, they doubled down on the accusations. Special:Diff/1245296849, Special:Diff/1245293533, Special:Diff/1245298749, Special:Diff/1245292071. Here Special:Diff/1235357153 the editor has engaged in baselessly insinuating other editors are socks in the past. For the record, the user has a known history of trying to turn accusations or warnings back on others as seen in these diffs Special:Diff/1232460986&Special:Diff/1232704577 and Special:Diff/969540213&Special:Diff/969541660. The user is presently accusing me of sockpuppeting the IP user that posted accusations about them being blocked on the Japanese Wiki for sockpuppetry, after I provided evidence that the IP user wasn't making false accusations with diffs for the related blocks. This after falsely accusing me of WP:CANVASSING Special:Diff/1245266197, and when that didn't work when I pointed out the user in question was involved in the discussion before I even was, they moved on to accusing me of socking. The user was previously blocked for making false reports and wasting editors time Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive407#c-EdJohnston-2020-05-01T17:58:00.000Z-Liz-2020-05-01T05:36:00.000Z. User is subject of arbcom sanction Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive269#Symphony_Regalia where it was written As an alternative to a topic ban, an indefinite block might considered. I have been open about the fact that my former WP:ROOMMATE used to edit Wikipedia, and that I was an IP Editor, but I am not going to sit here and address these points endlessly while they refuse to take the issue before SPI just because I supplied evidence that they had been blocked as had been accused. It is a waste of my time and it is WP:ASPERSIONS.

I propose a block of same manner given their history. Barring that, an interaction block with myself, at the very least, and for the WP:ASPERSIONS to be redacted

As it was explained to me that they're allowed to accuse me of sockpuppetry on the ANI, I retract my complaint. I erroneously believed that accusations of sockpuppetry could only be dealt with at SPI, and that refusing to go to SPI while accusing me was a personal attack. I apologize. --Brocade River Poems (She/They) 08:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm turning this into a subthread of the possible false accusation thread. I don't see why we need a new main thread for it when most or all of the diffs are from that thread. Nil Einne (talk) 09:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I didn't make it a subthread because the issue in my complaint has nothing to do with the main thread's accusations outside of the fact that the above thread is where SR made the accusations. Now becasuse it is merged with the mainthread, people are going on and on about Yasuke, how accusations of SR socking (what??) should go to SPI, and how the stuff they did on other Wiki's is irrelevant and that I'm just trying to remove someone who dissented from an RfC that I have since disengaged from beyond admitting that my wording was poor and explaining what my intentions were, and correcting an improper use of policy Special:Diff/1244764288,Special:Diff/1245081035,Special:Diff/1245083560. I have left the discussion on Yasuke, I do not care what the result of the RfC even is and am no longer participating in the discussion on the RfC that I started. Now people are focusing on this irrelevant stuff instead of my actual complaint. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 02:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

(uninvolved non admin) Support Given the above doubling down on claims of a conspiracy or sock effort to get them blocked, their Battleground mentality is unacceptable and incompatible with Wikipedia. Lavalizard101 (talk) 09:41, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Support indefinite block WP:ABF and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior that seems to misunderstand the purpose of the website - a crowdsourced encyclopedia. Their article talk page behavior all around creates an uncomfortable environment for everyone involved. The repeated casting of aspersions, sockpuppet accusations and tendentious battlegrounding only impedes progress in discussion by requiring it to derail into the accused to needlessly defend themselves, sometimes with their own evidence, very publicly within the article discussion itself, making collaboration near impossible while increasing hostilities between users in the discussion. All around net negative. DarmaniLink (talk) 12:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Note DarmaniLink is a directly involved editor[111][112][113][114][115] who is a vocal opponent of the current RfC consensus over at Yasuke, that of which BrocadeRiverPoems wants to overturn[116]. He engages in frequent WP:OR[117][118], calls reliable sources "fiction"[119], has referred to reliable secondary and tertiary sourcing as "incest"[120], and claims he personally has samurai heritage as a way to brute force his content positions.

He has even been reprimanded by other editors concerning the way he attacks people who hold positions on editorial content against his own[121].

DarmaniLink, who complains that Symphony Regalia is casting aspersions by mentioning the "anti-woke", "anti-dei", right-wing assault on the Yasuke article, began their first comment on the Yasuke talk page with Descendent of an (actual) samurai of the saeki clan, with a preserved 15th century land grant document in my family's possession here. Another editor complained about black supremacy and DEI propaganda. Personally I don't care about their motives, whether they are right-wing nationalists or passionate amateur historians and samurai enthusiasts - I'm not interested in their agenda, but I'm interested in their sources. Unfortunately those opposing Yasuke's status as a samurai have not provided sources contradicting Encyclopaedia Britannica, Smithsonian Magazine, TIME, BBC, or the research of Lockley and Lopez-Vera.

Symphony Regalia (talk) 22:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I didn't know if I supposed to mark myself as involved, nor was there any indication of it. I have since completely exited that entire area because it is more productive for me to edit elsewhere.

Accusing me of disparaging reliable sources when the reliability of the source is, at the time of those comments, in dispute [122][[123] [124] and was subject to a lengthy discussion on the topic (which was ongoing at the time) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 447#Reliability of Thomas Lockley is the exact behavior I mentioned above. It's an attempt to win the discussion rather than collaborate that requires people to defend themselves from their frivolous claims. DarmaniLink (talk) 00:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Involved Comment. I took a long time and got beat to the punch so I will drop it here instead and as suggested by @Nil Einne I will leave the Japanese sanctions out of it but it certainly does give some perspective if multiple wikis have seen fit to block him. Apologies for the extremely long reply.

• Adding: I will address a few points raised by other editors below. First, that this is a confusing topic. I agree so I will summarize the dispute. The thread was started after a proxy IP started leveling accusations at Symphony Regalia. Not much came from this. Brocade River Poems(BRP) joined the conversation and Symphony Regalia started throwing accusations of WP:SOCK at BRP that she was behind the IP.

Secondly, that Symphony Regalia's previous blocks don't matter. Based on their edit history Symphony Regalia has only edited 5 times between their Tban in 2020 and 2024. As I regularly read AN, one of the common reason to refuse to overturn a Tban or block is lack of contributions between it and the appeal. It's impossible to judge whether his problems are really gone when he has barely edited for 4 years. To illustrate my point, you can't claim that a car which was already a barely driving piece of junk now has no problems because you refused to drive it for 10 years.

Lastly, that this is solely about a WP:BATTLEGROUND content dispute. The thing is, since Symphony Regalia became active again in 2024, he has almost exclusively edited around the article Yasuke and its talkpage [125] making it difficult to have intereacted with him outside of that topic area. I have collapsed my own complaint since editors seem inclined to dismiss it outright under the belief that this is solely a retaliatory attempt to remove an "opponent" from a content dispute. Not only do I believe that exporting the battleground mentality to ANI does no one any favor but due to the ongoing persistent problems the simple reality is that the next step is ArbCom and I doubt they'll be taking sides.

Extended content

Current problems: WP:OWNBEHAVIOUR: Refusing to acknowledge that fully reverting edits that have both debatable and fairly minor changes was not appropriate.[1][2][3] User talk page discussion that ensued only after which he finally agreed to let the non-controversial changes through when making the changes himself.[4] Particularly telling is this revert edit summary "If this is to be mentioned, I wouldn't mind it being in the article body though" basically telling other editors to do it until he is satisfied with the changes. WP:LAWYERING: Very frequently mentioning a previous RfC and other various WP:RULES to oppose all manners of proposed changes while not proposing any solutions, looking for compromise or generally acknowledging other editors issues, selectively applying rules, camping on his position when multiple editors disagree with his understanding of rules and dragging people to endlessly debate the interpretation of rules rather than content. RfC: edit summaries:[5][6]/discussions:[7][8][9][10][11]. Other rules:[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28]. WP:PA: Part of the previously mentioned user talk page discussion. "Given that you appear to be a WP:SPA created to argue against the inclusion of "samurai", I can understand if this is an emotional topic to you, but do try to be civil". And this diff "I am assuming good faith on your behalf (given that you appear to be a WP:SPA created to argue against the inclusion of "samurai")" always following mentions of WP:AGF for a dose of irony. WP:ASPERSIONS: Particularly against "Japanese nationalists" and "agenda pushing editors". [a][b][c][d][e][f] WP:BLUDGEONING:Particularly the copy paste list of sources he has been dragging around for a while (July 8), refused any challenge to a single source on it (particularly the CNN article) even when other editors have argued for use of a better source he himself defended adamantly and felt it was really necessary to copy paste the list 5 times in 2 days in a recent RfC discussion.[1][2][3 and 4](since it was pasted twice in the same reply)[5] Past Behaviour: Multiple WP:ANI trips.[1] [2] (No action but warned "The next step is a formal topic ban or a block for disruptive editing. For now, I will close this thread with no action" and a 31h block) A WP:AN case he filed.[3] (1 week block for him) An ArbCom case [4] which resulted in a Tban and cherry on top he removed the arbritration sanction as "harassment" from his talkpage.[5](edit summary) And judging from his talkpage, and more importantly what he removed from it, he is no stranger to frequent warnings.[1][2][3][4][5] Conclusion: To me it seems like an editor who picks a contentious topic du jour (COVID and Men Going Their Own Way in 2020, Yasuke and surrounding articles in 2024) and is disruptive (whether intentionally or not) in various ways until he get sanctioned and who is back to the same behaviour problems he had 4 years ago (he only edited 5 times between his Tban in 2020 and June 2024) of always blaming others and fomenting WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour wherever he goes. The repeated WP:ASPERSIONS in this topic, which by all expectations he should have come fairly clean out of if he had kept his mouth shut, are really not helping his case.

Yvan Part (talk) 13:22, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Support Indef: I… Was about to suggest that this block wouldn’t be about their Edit Warring, so give them a month or more (next step up from the week on the last one) and have that be their very, very last strand of WP:ROPE (would call Indef, if it was focused on a third Edit Warring vio), then Yvan Part’s war and peace above gave me 7 or 8 reasons to change to Indef.

I AGF’d Symph while this thread was simply “they’ve been blocked on JAWiki”, but with how much evidence has come into the limelight since, I’d be a major CIR issue myself not to fold my cards, and side with the house. Sorry, Regalia, too much against you. Your chips are cashed, as far as I’m concerned.

Friendly reminder of meta:Global Blocks and meta:Global Locks, as Symph becomes a cross-wiki block, if we block here. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 13:41, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. To me this feels very obviously like a bunch of people who disagree with the consensus over at Yasuke trying to remove an opponent. Being blocked on JA has nothing to do with EN, and nothing else mentioned is remotely convincing. Loki (talk) 15:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect, considering editors with opposing views "opponents" is what causes the behavior that brought about this ANI. If this were the goal, it would not be this single user with a proven history of behavioral problems. DarmaniLink (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

opponent: one that takes an opposite position (as in a debate, contest, or conflict). Seems like an appropriate use of the word to me, considering that there are editors debating back and forth, and taking opposite positions in that RfC discussion. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Opponent has an adversarial connotation to it. Wikipedia discussions aren't formal debates, they're discussions. We aren't each others "opponents" to be defeated and we don't "win" if the other person changes their mind, or if the consensus goes our way. I ask that you read WP:NOTCONTEST. It's an essay, but I share the same sentiment. DarmaniLink (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Consider whether a dispute [of the term "opponent"] stems from a different perspective. My perspective is that the term was used as I described, because I am assuming good faith that it was not meant to be taken as having an "adversarial connotation". Isaidnoway (talk) 23:41, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully, SR has repeatedly accused me of sockpuppetry, I requested they take it to SPI three times or retract their statement, and they continued to make the accusations while doing neither. This has nothing to do about Yasuke.

• SR Accusing me of socking: Special:Diff/1245292071, Special:Diff/1245281630, Special:Diff/1245281630
• I tell them multiple times to open a report during the process of their increasing accusations: Special:Diff/1245286883,Special:Diff/1245293533, Special:Diff/1245296849
• SR Continues to accuse me after I asked him to either retract or open the investigation Special:Diff/1245298749

My request was that they be blocked because they've a history of making false accusations, or at the very least be blocked from interacting with me and have their accusations redacted. By WP:SPI, I am not allowed to request CheckUser on myself to clear myself of SR's claims. Which means if SR doesn't make the WP:SPI report, their accusations against me just go unchallenged. They shouldn't be allowed to just wildly speculate that I am socking while refusing to use the proper venue. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 02:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - I tend to agree with Loki, if anyone wants to make accusations of sockpuppetry (with the required evidence), then start a discussion at SPI. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

  SR is the one accusing me of sockpuppetry, I requested they take it to SPI three times or retract their statement. They continued accusing me.

  • SR Accusing me of socking: Special:Diff/1245292071, Special:Diff/1245281630, Special:Diff/1245281630
  • I tell them multiple times to open a report during the process of their increasing accusations: Special:Diff/1245286883,Special:Diff/1245293533, Special:Diff/1245296849
  • SR Continues to accuse me after I asked him to either retract or open the investigation Special:Diff/1245298749

  Hence I requested they be blocked or at least blocked from interacting with me and their accusations be redacted. I cannot open an SPI investigation on myself, that's against policy. If SR does not open an investigation, there's no way to clear my name of the accusations. Do they just get to keep making the accusations?? Brocade River Poems (She/They) 02:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Involved comment

The way this thread has gone has inspired me to do some checking, especially since Regalia Symphony has accused me of being canvassed to the

Samurai

article. RS has made 13 edits to the article. The first one was, unsurprisingly, to add information about Yasuke. All 12 others have been to reversions to my edits. This was after I disagreed with RS on the Yasuke talkpage. To be clear, I disagree RS mostly about Wikipedia policy, not on whether to call Yasuke a samurai, which I think most editors give too much importance.

Tinynanorobots (talk) 17:38, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I don't quite get why editors keep making a big deal over Symphony Regalia previous blocks and topic bans. Sure they indicate they had problems at one time. However AFAICT, they happened over 4 years ago and there hasn't been anything since then suggesting they learnt their lesson and are respecting their topic ban. Like Loki, I'm not convinced by the evidence for recent problems and also find this does look like editors trying to get an opponent blocked. I also find it troubling that the 2 main editors asking for a block seem to be very new accounts, suggesting it's even worse than Loki suggested as some of the editors seem to have just been drawn here by the culture war issue. Nil Einne (talk) 19:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

  Like Loki, I'm not convinced by the evidence for recent problems and also find this does look like editors trying to get an opponent blocked I did not push for anything regarding SR until they began wildly accusing me of controlling socks. The prior blocks were brought up because an IP User posted about the blocks and someone reported them as false accusations. When I posted evidence to demonstrate that the accusations weren't as false as SR was making them out to be, they proceeded to begin attacking me. I do not consider anyone in Yasuke an opponent, and I have mostly advocated for middle-ground changes and compromises between the two opposing sides, and have mostly been shouted down for it. Even my RfC is an attempt at finding a compromise. I have been attacked by people who opposed Yasuke being called a samurai, and I have been attacked by people supporting Yasuke being called a samurai. I have been accused of conspiracy and behalf of both positions, now. I told SR multiple times that if they believed I was engaged in Sockpuppetry, to open an SPI investigation as I did not mind or oppose it. They did not do so, and instead continued to post their conspiracies about me. When I told them again to either open and investigation or retract the accusations, SR continued to double down on them, and it was only at that point that I created this request. Just because SR disagrees with my RfC does not give them carte blanche to smear me. If they truly believe they have strong enough evidence that I am engaged in sockpuppetry, why do they not bring it to the SPI? I cannot request that someone check me to clear my name, as that is against the policies, so must I just sit around and let them make wild accusations just because they opposed an RfC? As for why I mentioned their previous blocks in my request, it demonstrates a pattern of behavior, it demonstrates that the user has made false accusations previously and continues to do so. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 01:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

  I don’t think that just because an account is new, that is enough evidence to claim that they are drawn by the cultural war issue. Although I have on occasion disagreed with Brocade River Poems, I have yet to see her do anything typical of a culture warrior. She seems to be open-minded about the issue and open to compromise, and is concerned with fairness. The main one who acts like a culture warrior in the thread is Regalia Symphony, who seems touchy regarding criticism of the game, and has accused unspecified editors of being gamers and saying they should be sanctioned like gamers gate. The other possible culture warriors are the Japanese users, or other guests that appeared when the talk page is unlocked.

  I don’t want Regalia Symphony to be banned, but I find it worrying that he seems to have successfully defended himself by accusing others, and that he seems to have received support for that. So I wonder now, should I defend myself here? Because I have been accused by multiple users, but the accusations are flimsy and are based on a false assumption of my views. I have a feeling that a lot of the conflict between me and RS and Gitz comes from the fact that they believe that I am sneakily trying to undermine the RfC consensus. Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• I agree with Loki, Isaidnoway, and Nil Einne. --JBL (talk) 00:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose (involved editor). This is not the appropriate forum for allegations of sockpuppetry - they should be handled at WP:SPI, where check users have the tools to investigate them. The English and Japanese Wikipedias are separate projects, and sanctions imposed on one are irrelevant to the other (however, Symphony Regalia's comment about "political reasons" and their attempt to modify the Nanking Massacre article has at least the ring of truth, given certain troubling allegations [126][127][128]). Regarding Yasuke, Symphony Regalia has been civil and professional in addressing attempts to undermine the consensus reached in a recent RfC. The same cannot be said of some of their accusers, such as Brocade River Poems and Tinynanorobots, who have started a second, redundant RfC on the same issue, attempting to advance the fringe theory that Yasuke was not a samurai, or that his samurai status is disputed. This thread is an attempt to turn the content dispute into a dispute over behaviour, despite Symphony Regalia's conduct being entirely appropriate - if I'm wrong, please provide a diff instead of vague accusations and aspersions. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

  Seriously? SR is the one accusing me of sockpuppetry, and when I told them to start an SPI case or retract the claims, they simply continued making allegations. I made this request because SR refuses to take his claims to WP:SPI and I cannot request that I myself be checked. So SR is allowed to just make accusations that cannot be disproved because he refuses to open an investigation??? This has nothing to do with Yasuke beyond SR claiming that me posting evidence that the claims aren't false is because of Yasuke. It has nothing to do with Yasuke. SR Has literally written manifestos about how I am a sock, and I requested multiple times that he either open an investigation or stop.

  • SR Accusing me of Canvsassing/Insinuiating I'm nefarious, Special:Diff/1245266197, Special:Diff/1245269456
  • SR Accusing me of colluding with Tiny, Special:Diff/1245274167

  When the accusations about me canvassing Tiny to a discussion Tiny was part of before I was Special:Diff/1245279017 and after pointing out that Tiny's report was that the accusations were false and mine was that they weren't false, he proceeded to start accusing me of being a sock.

  • SR Accusing me of socking: Special:Diff/1245292071, Special:Diff/1245281630, Special:Diff/1245281630,
  • I tell them multiple times to open a report during the process of their increasing accusations: Special:Diff/1245286883,Special:Diff/1245293533, Special:Diff/1245296849
  • SR Continues to accuse me after I asked him to either retract or open the investigation Special:Diff/1245298749.

  I even noted Special:Diff/1245282782 here that If there's an issue to be resolved here, it's not one that I'm bringing up. Just because it's true that Symphony has been blocked before doesn't mean they've done anything warranting sanctions on EN Wikipedia as far as I am aware.. I only proposed that SR be blocked, or at least blocked from interacting with me and to have the accusations redacted because they continued to post large posts accusing me of being socking after I told them I was more than fine with them taking it to WP:SPI, after telling them to take it to WP:SPI if they were certain, and finally tellng them to take it to WP:SPI or otherwise retract their accusations. They continued to make the accusations after that. And I had explicitly made my report a separate section because it has nothing to do with the rest of this ANI Report beyond the fact that SR was writing the SP accusations in it. Someone else merged it back together again. The point of my report had nothing to do with anything involving Yasuke and was strictly about SR repeatedly accusing me and refusing to open an investigation Brocade River Poems (She/They) 01:53, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per Loki and Nil Einne. This whole ordeal is getting exhausting. I'd hoped that an admin would eventually close the prior ANI discussion and that would maybe settle this whole mess, but it looks like Extraordinary Writ closed the closure request as not done yesterday. Valid reasoning in not addressing anything since it was archived so long ago, but I really don't want to re-litigate any of this. Can we all agree that:

1. Accusations of socking should be taken to SPI.

2. Why/if someone was blocked on other wikis is not relevant to this wiki.

3. Continuing to argue like this is not productive and maybe we should all just move on? CambrianCrab (talk) 02:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I have requested, assented, and even demanded in one instance that Symphony Regalia take their accusation that I am socking to WP:SPI or otherwise retract it and they refused and just continued to accuse me. That is the purpose of my proposed block that was, I feel, improperly merged back into this mess. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 02:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose I just had the unpleasant experience of trying to understand what's going on here. There is a lot of unpleasantness on all sides regarding this topic. The easiest solution would be to have a special "Yasuke" edition of Wikipedia, where everyone could fight over that page without torturing anyone else. Short of that, I think there does need to be some strict behavioral standards applied to that page. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I just had the unpleasant experience of trying to understand what's going on here. The purpose of this complaint has nothing to do with Yasuke. My complaint was that Symphony Regalia was repeatedly accusing me of socking while refusing to retract his accusations and also refusing to take the issue to WP:SPI. Everyone is presently making it about Yasuke, and ignoring my complaint, because someone else took my complaint and merged it with a topic about an IP User falsely accusing Symphony Regalia, and if my complaint had remained separate as I had created it, I wouldn't now have to be explaining the basic facts of the issue. Because of that, I requested that they receive some sort of block because they have a history of making false accusations, or at the very least that they be blocked from interacting with me and their accusations be redacted. They keep making accusations and refusing to open an investigation at WP:SPI, so my name cannot be cleared. I cannot open an investigation against myself, it's against the policy.

• SR Accusing me of socking: Special:Diff/1245292071, Special:Diff/1245281630, Special:Diff/1245281630
• I tell them multiple times to open a report during the process of their increasing accusations: Special:Diff/1245286883,Special:Diff/1245293533, Special:Diff/1245296849
• SR Continues to accuse me after I asked him to either retract or open the investigation Special:Diff/1245298749

Brocade River Poems (She/They) 02:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

You have many posts in this thread with a number of different accusations against Symphony Regalia. Yes, you ended up focusing on the sockpuppet accusations. My impression is that there are a bunch of upset people treating each other poorly. And it’s more important going forward to address the root cause than it is looking back to see who was worst and singling them out. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@BrocadeRiverPoems just a word of warning, stop bludgeoning. Repeating the same points over and over again consecutively does not look good on you. – robertsky (talk) 05:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Multiple people have posted either saying that they did not understand what was happening, or that they believed my issue was about Yasuke. I was just trying to explain what my complaint was about, but alright. I really don't understand why a random third party editor was allowed to take my complaint, merge it onto a different complaint, and then tell another user to further dilute the complaint with their own complaint. I give up. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 09:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I've reviewed the diffs you provided above, and I don't see any significant issues with Symphony Regalia. All their comments were made at ANI, not on the article talk page, and they did not request that you be blocked for sockpuppetry: they raised reasonable concerns while you and others were accusing them of spurious, non-existent violations, including being blocked on ja.wiki. On the other hand, you started an RfC that is futile and could be seen as disruptive editing per WP:POINTY and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Maybe it's because you're a new editor, but you're also a single-purpose account bludgeoning the talk page of that controversial article (where you've made 99 edits out of your 490 edits), which frankly looks bad. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I requested they do a WP:SPI investigation as that is quite literally the only way to clear my name of the allegations that I was using sockpuppets. Accusing me of socking without actually doing an investigation that could clear my name, I asked them to bring it up to CheckUser or SPI so that the matter could be settled and they refused to do so. Is that not bad behavior??? Beyond that, I didn't accuse them of anything. Someone posted accusations, Tiny reported them as false, I substantiated them with evidence, Symphony claimed political persecution, I posted evidence that seems to indicate otherwise.

As for the rest of your comment, I started the RfC as an attempt at compromise. I'm unsure as to how I'm a single-purpose account bludgeoning the talk page when a majority of my time on Wikipedia has been spent editing various other articles. What exactly am I bludgeoning Yasuke for? Since you've made this statement that it looks bad, I shall now reflect on my time on Talk:Yasuke. Filtering out edits I tagged as minor, I have 89 edits on Talk: Yasuke, of those edits, a further 13 are me correcting or editing my own posts. This brings us down to 76 edits. Of those 76 edits, approximately 20 of them were made in relation to the RfC I created, which brings us down to 56. 9 of my early edits as Special:Contributions/172.90.69.231 were me discussing sources, as well as discussing the meaning of sayamaki, which increases us to 65. 33 of my remaining edits are discussing sources, including providing translations of Yuichi Goza's interview, as well as translating Yuichi Goza's self-published source and explaining that Yuichi Goza isn't actually being as definitive as people were claiming. Likewise, I explained that Lopez-Vera's academic book was published by a University Press and was thus considered a top-tier source. This leaves us with 32 edits remaining.

Of those 32 Edits, a breakdown of what I discussed is as follows:

Explained Sayamaki in detail, Pointed out Hirayama's tweet as well as the Google Group where scholars were discussing Yasuke, Argued against an extremely nationalistic editor who talked about the spirit of the samurai being required, which I noted was funny when the only credible source expressing doubt about Yasuke being a samurai makes the argument that people gave their favorite wrestlers samurai status for funsies. Defended Hirayama Yu's academic credentials. Defended Oka's academic credentials from same editor. Minor procedural things like announcing I had cleaned up repetition, or that I had fixed misattributed text. Explained that you cannot use an author referring to Yasuke as a retainer as meaning the author doesn't accept Yasuke was a samurai when the Lockley piece the author was citing pre-dated Lockley claiming Yasuke was a samurai. Me explaining that if 100 authors all said "retainer" before the Sonkeikaku Bunko manuscript was made public, it doesn't mean they don't believe Yasuke was a samurai, it means they lacked evidence. Arguing that there was no consensus that tweets from experts were inadmissible. I argued for the inclusion of Hirayama Yu's tweet.

My edits were reverted, and I ultimately self-reverted in July on the understanding that there was an agreement to have an RfC as another user said it wouldn't be right to include Yu's tweet without including Goza's dissent, and including Goza's dissent would require an RfC. I agreed as compromise, and self-reverted. After doing so, the can was kicked down the road for an RfC to be done later as there was concern Goza might retract or contradict his self-published statement. Me stating that I would not arbitrarily add Goza's statement as the prior RfC existed. Stating that my position is that having a source that clearly expresses a doubt is preferable to people vaguely pointing at "they called him a retainer". Noting that one can be a samurai without being a retainer, since ronin were still samurai. Clarifying I had not read Goza's self-published source and that if it wasn't as contentious as it was made out to be to me, that I didn't think it should be included afterall. Explaining what user I believed had access to Kaneko's book. Stating that Tiny's vote didn't count twice. Explaining why MTL isn't always great. Saying if Lockley's Britannica is a better source to use, all the better. Explaining there was a consensus that no source definitively said Yasuke had the title "weapon-bearer". Saying we shouldn't attribute Yasuke being a samurai to Lockley, because Lopez-Vera came to the same conclusion independently, as did Hirayama Yu. Complaining that some editors tends to excise or revert things that could just as easily be fixed (such as renaming a category). Saying that Goza couches his statements in possibilities without definitively saying anything in his SPS. Explaining that Goza is, in fact, talking about pop culture representations for most of his interview.

All told, of my edits on Talk:Yasuke, the most recent 20 are me arguing in favor of representing that there is a dissenting opinion such as Lockley's Britannica article says there is, or else we shouldn't use the Britannica article because that seems like cherrypicking to ignore the mention of a dispute.

So, what POV am I pushing and bludgeoning, exactly? How is starting an RfC that was discussed back in July as part of getting me to revert my edit a case of me engaging in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT? How is it WP:POINTY? I was led to believe in July when I reverted my addition of Hirayama Yu's tweet as a compromise gesture, that the reason Yu couldn't be included was because then Goza would have to be included, and including Goza would require an RfC? Your contribution to that discussion was I strongly advise against starting a new RfC until there are reliable sources disputing Yasuke's samurai status and In my opinion, Yūichi Goza's article is not such a source. However, I started the RfC later after the Lockley Britannica article became a thing that said the status was disputed and Goza gave an official interview and people pointed out that Kaneko says that the Sonkeikaku Bunko manuscript could be inauthentic. If people want to decide that Britannica's mention isn't worth it and Goza's interview isn't worth it, that's ultimately fine by me.

I argued as I did on the RfC because I believed in the compromise that seemed to be offered to me in July when I was made to revert my edit. If nobody wants it, there isn't anything I can really do about that. Of my edits on that talkpage, I have roughly 20 that you could theoretically argue are anti-Yasuke-samurai (which isn't even exactly correct), while the remainder are providing sources and were generally preceived as being so pro-Yasuke being a samurai, so much so that I was harassed on and off-site for it. I do not like this mentality that there are opposing sides and that I'm so nefarious entity seeking to 'win' an RfC. I posted evidence that the statement Symphony had been blocked wasn't false, and that they engaged in behavior similar to the behavior exhibited by an alleged sock from the Japanese Wiki. Now suddenly I am being painted as some great anti-Yasuke crusader who is just trying to snipe the opposition and suddenly I'm this IP, that IP, and another IP. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 12:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Per my earlier comment. About the socking accusations I'm mostly in agreement with Gitz here Nil Einne (talk) 12:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

  Just to articulate a bit more about the socking accusations. I said above that socking accusations are best dealt with at SPI and I stick by that. However it's perfectly normally and definitely not a blockable offence to suggest someone may be a sock at ANI (or any of the administrative noticeboards) since it is an issue ANI can deal with.

  SPI isn't some sort of magic place, it's where socking generally should be dealt with for various reasons including including ensuring it's easy to find the case and evidence if it's needed in the future and it allows a focused case with admins used to dealing with socking. But socking is sometimes handled without SPI. And notably one of the reasons to use SPI namely it's a documented way to call for CU assistance is irrelevant here since the claim related to IPs.

  Provided editors are able to articulate reasons why they feel this may be the case, it's not generally going to be considered casting WP:aspersions to bring up socking suspicions. Unless the editor is able to find sufficient evidence to convince an admin to block, an editor does need to drop the accusations eventually. I do think Symphony Regalia should have dropped the issue earlier, but I don't think it crossed over the line into blockable territory especially since they were mostly presenting what they felt was additional evidence. Also if Symphony Regalia has concluded there isn't sufficient evidence for an SPI, it makes no sense that they need to open an SPI just to somehow make their earlier comments okay, they need to just drop the issue.

  Note I said drop rather than withdraw. We don't generally require an editor to withdraw such accusations provided they had some reasonable evidence even if it isn't sufficient for a block. It's important that the editor stops bring up the accusation and treat the editor as any editor in good standing. But I'm fairly it's perfectly common that editors continue to personally suspect sockpuppetry even if there is insufficient evidence for it, and so requiring editors withdraw what they still suspect just seems silly.

  Also while I don't deal much with SPI, I'm fairly sure when an SPI results in no action, the editor who raised the issue isn't required to formally withdraw their accusation. I'm also fairly sure editors are not blocked just for bringing an editor to SPI when the evidence is felt to be insufficient, except perhaps in an extreme case or when their behaviour at SPI crosses some line; or perhaps when an editor keeps bringing editors to SPI when they've been asked not to. And while I understand why editors are unhappy when they've been falsely accused of being a sock, even at SPI I'm fairly sure I've seen a number of cases where the result was something along the lines of 'insufficient evidence of socking for a block' rather than 'definitely not socking'.

  What it comes down to is that while ANI isn't a free for all where editors are allowed to make accusations willy-nilly, it's accepted some accusations which others disagree or don't find compelling are going to happen and it's often unnecessary to block over this. After all, Brocade River Poems who proposed the block has made various accusations against Symphony Regalia relating to what happened on the Japanese wikipedia. I don't see that any independent editor who can understand Japanese well has look into it and concluded that Brocade River Poems summary of what happened is fair. I'm not suggesting anyone does, as I noted in the main thread, these seem irrelevant to here. But even if it turns out Brocade River Poems's statements on what happened don't seem to be fair, I don't think they're sufficient for a block. Yet in some ways that seems more concerning since it related to something irrelevant, and required people to be able to look into the Japanese wikipedia to decide. I mean I'm not even sure the IP needs to be blocked although they did raised the issue in the article talk page.

  Nil Einne (talk) 12:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

  I mean, if that's really how it works, then I withdraw my request. It was my understanding from WP:HSOCK that if there's suspicion of sockpuppetry, it should go to WP:SPI. I do not think that it is reasonable that I should address every one of their complaints, repeatedly, when they just kept reiterating the same points after I had explained them. I was under the impression that repeatedly accusing someone of something on superficial evidence constituted a personal attack, and that personal attacks could be redacted. If that was a mistaken understanding on my part, then I apologize, and I will go back and address SR's allegations here on the ANI, for all the good it will do me. In regards to me accusing SR of anything, I wasn't accusing him of anything with the stuff from the Japanese Wiki. Rather, my initial comment was to provide links to his blocks on the EN Wiki and saying that the statements weren't false that he had been blocked on the EN Wiki. Another user suggested an admin might want to look into the sock accusation from the JA Wiki, and I posted diffs that demonstrated SR had done similar actions as the accused sock had done on the Japanese Wiki. When SR started arguing with me about how involved I was, I decided to "get involved" and looked into the claims on the Japanese Wiki as well after he had posted that he was the victim of political bias. I then supplied diffs, said that his explanation didn't seem true and that the accusations didn't seem false. I even noted elsewhere on the topic that I didn't think it mattered because I didn't think SR had done anything warranting sanctions on the English Wiki, and that I didn't think even if he lied about why he was blocked on the Japanese Wiki that it violated any policy.

  The only reason I created my complaint was because he continued to post that I was socking and ignored any response I made to his accusations. I did not intend to accuse SR of anything, all I did was supply diffs from the Japanese Wiki and explained what they said (that they were reverted for edit warring, that he had been warned for arbitrarily renaming the article without going through the proper procedure, etc, etc). I just want to make it clear that it was not my intention to accuse SR of anything, I was just sharing what the Japanese Wiki had said since it didn't seem to align with what SR had said happened. I understand that what I intended to do and how it is perceived, however, are different things, and I apologize. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 13:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, wildly disproportionate. Dealing with what an editor feels are WP:DUCK socking situations is always frustrating and complicated, but simply stating that someone believes another user to be a sock on ANI isn't enough to justify sanctions as long as they provide evidence (which SR has); obviously SPI is the appropriate place to send such accusations, but it is not unusual for them to be discussed at ANI in order to encourage someone to build a proper SPI case or to make the argument that alleged sockpuppetry trumps other issues being raised here. Either way, the entire Yasuke topic area could stand to have the temperature lowered a bit... but the people arguing for a block here can hardly be said to have clean hands in that regard. The degree of WP:BLUDGEONing of both this discussion and Talk:Yasuke is honestly a more serious problem. --Aquillion (talk) 02:52, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

---

WP:Boomerang proposal for BrocadeRiverPoems

BrocadeRiverPoems is a new user who has been an editor for a little over a month, and despite that has wasted an extraordinary amount of valuable editor time both here at ANI and on culture war article talk pages, where this user tenaciously pushes POVs[129] to disregard broad community RfC consensus. I think there is enough evidence for a SPI investigation concerning the IP socks[130] so I will consider that separately.

That said, I think the above discussions speak for itself in highlighting how disruptive this editor is. Recently BrocadeRiverPoems filed an arguably frivolous attempt to overturn a RfC[131], in which I gave lengthy dissent[132]. And then despite having absolutely nothing to do with this ANI discussion, BrocadeRiverPoems saw an opportunity to "get" someone with an opposing view and then immediately jumped in (somehow even before I got here)[133][134] to turn what should've been a short discussion into the above mess. By my count BrocadeRiverPoems has left 50kb-100kb of text here, in an obsessive attempt to pursue a vendetta in what looks to be retaliation for me dissenting in said user's RfC attempt[135].

BrocadeRiverPoems was repeatedly reprimanded by many editors for their bad faith editing and misuse of ANI above:

To me this feels very obviously like a bunch of people who disagree with the consensus over at Yasuke trying to remove an opponent. Being blocked on JA has nothing to do with EN, and nothing else mentioned is remotely convincing.

[136]

Like Loki, I'm not convinced by the evidence for recent problems and also find this does look like editors trying to get an opponent blocked. I also find it troubling that the 2 main editors asking for a block seem to be very new accounts, suggesting it's even worse than Loki suggested as some of the editors seem to have just been drawn here by the culture war issue.

[137]

Symphony Regalia has been civil and professional in addressing attempts to undermine the consensus reached in a recent RfC. The same cannot be said of some of their accusers, such as Brocade River Poems and Tinynanorobots, who have started a second, redundant RfC on the same issue, attempting to advance the fringe theory that Yasuke was not a samurai, or that his samurai status is disputed. This thread is an attempt to turn the content dispute into a dispute over behaviour, despite Symphony Regalia's conduct being entirely appropriate

[138]

I've reviewed the diffs you provided above, and I don't see any significant issues with Symphony Regalia. All their comments were made at ANI, not on the article talk page, and they did not request that you be blocked for sockpuppetry: they raised reasonable concerns while you and others were accusing them of spurious, non-existent violations, including being blocked on ja.wiki. On the other hand, you started an RfC that is futile and could be seen as disruptive editing per WP:POINTY and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Maybe it's because you're a new editor, but you're also a single-purpose account bludgeoning the talk page of that controversial article (where you've made 99 edits out of your 490 edits), which frankly looks bad.

[139]

BrocadeRiverPoems was also reprimanded for extremely disruptive[140] bludgeoning by robertsky:

@BrocadeRiverPoems just a word of warning, stop bludgeoning. Repeating the same points over and over again consecutively does not look good on you.

And then went on to bludgeon nearly 20kb more text[141][142] again not heeding that warning.

Notably when I informed people that BrocadeRiverPoems was an involved editor[143], said user responded with Here, now I am involved directly in this dispute[144] and a very long off-topic accusatory rant which I think demonstrates malicious intent, in that BrocadeRiverPoems was behaving in a retaliatory mindset and was trying to "get back at someone", rather than being at ANI in good faith.

BrocadeRiverPoems was also reprimanded for that escalation by an editor[145]

And so... What's the exact issue here on enwiki that has to be resolved?

And yet did not heed that warning, going on to waste considerable editor time here.

BrocadeRiverPoem's claims of making the above request simply because I provided evidence here to suggest they had similar conduct to the IP socks is dishonest, because that was done in the context of this ANI discussion concerning IP socks harassing me (that had nothing to do with BrocadeRiverPoems), in which BrocadeRiverPoems tenaciously inserted themselves out of nowhere to repeat essentially all of the very specific claims that the IP socks were making[146]. BrocadeRiverPoems demonstrated clear intent to strike an editor with a differing view from the onset.

BrocadeRiverPoems is now retracting their above request and apologizing, but it should be noted that this is not out of sincerity (though I wish it were as I have only been professional with said user), but rather because said user did not get the result they wanted. It is reasonable to infer that the above request was done with premediated intent to strike someone with a differing view and that said user knew what they were doing. This is made obvious based on the editors BrocadeRiverPoems notified [147][148][149]. None of them were involved this dispute, the only thing they had in common is they were selected based on opposing the RfC that BrocadeRiverPoems wants to overturn. BrocadeRiverPoems also failed to notify Gitz, even though BrocadeRiverPoems mentioned him by name[150].

Given the disruptiveness, time wasting, and repeat WP:SPA behavior I think a WP:BOOMERANG could be perhaps appropriate. Frankly I do not feel strongly one way or the other, but in light of the above I feel it is worth getting input on. Symphony Regalia (talk) 07:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, involved. Entirely retaliatory. Symphony Regalia ultimately tries to do exactly what he accused BrocadeRiverPoems of doing, attempting to remove someone over a content dispute. From my interactions with BroacadeRiverPoems, I would say she has a fairly balanced position and is generally more open to compromise than most editors. Her problems is that she stepped into a topic that is massively entrenched and made mistakes you would expect from a fairly new editor like getting too involved or replying while emotional but not something that would require a block or tban.

I will add that my own complaint still stands, and will wait for admin input whether to WP:REFACTOR as a new subsection here or start a new WP:ANI section when this one gets closed/archived as I feel the issues I've raised are sufficiently separate from BrocadeRiverPoems and have not been addressed by !voting editors who have completely sidestepped it to focus entirely on BrocadeRiverPoems. (The matter will be settled at ArbCom instead.) Yvan Part (talk) 07:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Frankly, I would not care if I got a tban from Yasuke. I have no desire to do anything with that article anymore, it has been nothing but a headache. I have quite literally been harassed and threatened Special:Diff/1240662209, Special:Diff/1240660485, Special:Diff/1239029965, Special:Diff/1238806860 for being 'pro-Yasuke' and now I'm apparently 'anti-yasuke', it's an unnecessary headache. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 11:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I will note that per WP:BOOMERANG (note: essay), scruntity of the reporter isn't retaliation. Rather, it is the idea that the reporter should not believe they are immune to scruntity.

A common statement on noticeboards is "this isn't about me, it's about them", as if discussion is restricted to the original complaint, so that discussing the behavior of the original reporter would be "changing the subject". But that isn't the case: any party to a discussion or dispute might find their behavior under scrutiny.

I will also add that Yvan Part and BrocadeRiverPoems are both new users who began arguing on the Yasuke talk page within 48 hours of account creation. Yvan Part's account in particular was created on the day the trailer for the video game featuring Yasuke was released, which was the beginning of the culture war he has been subjected to[151]. And as a side note and a slight digression for ongoing vandalism on Yasuke, I think general sanctions are maybe worth consideration not unlike Gamergate sanctions (context), though that can perhaps be a different discussion. Symphony Regalia (talk) 08:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I've already made my case against you earlier. If you feel my behaviour requires sanctions, feel free to start a new section. I will not bother replying to petty arguments trying to discredit me. Yvan Part (talk) 08:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

You were created on 16 May to edit "Yasuke" and "List of foreign-born samurai in Japan" and less than a month later, when you had not yet made 50 edits, you said I don't usually deal with medical topics after opening a thread "New study linking covid vaccines to excess deaths in the West" at Talk:COVID-19 vaccine [152]. On 3 August you cited a cited a bunch of policies and guidelines to push a POV on Yasuke, where you reverted and were repeatedly reverted [153]; see also this edit [154] citing MOS:SPECIFICLINK and MOS:SOB. Are you a quick learner? I think you are an obvious sock. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I am a quick learner. You are entirely free to start a WP:SPI if me being a sock is obvious. Throwing accusations of SPI but being unwilling to commit to it and potentially being proven wrong does your own argument a disservice. Yvan Part (talk) 11:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Just for the sake of clarification, you're allowed to post a bunch of accusations at me posed as questions, and when I answer your questions and accusations after someone explains to me that you're allowed to accuse me of socking on ANI [155], that's bludgeoning? Well, alright, then. Likewise, [156] was me responding to the statement that I was a SPA trying to bludgeon on Yasuke by breaking down what my activity on Talk:Yasuke actually was. Regarding my frivolous RfC and accusations of bludgeoning.

• Special:Diff/1237845246 I added Hirayama Yu's tweet, since Expert SPS are allowed, it got reverted.
• Special:Diff/1237850800 Me saying I see no reason Hirayama Yu's tweet should be inadmissible.
• Special:Diff/1237866505 Again, I support including Goza's self-published source, maintaining a consistent position that the WP:EXPERTSPS should be included, as a compromise.
• Special:Diff/1237867252 Me stating that I would not arbitrarily add Goza's statement as the prior RfC existed.
• Special:Diff/1237873666 Saying I will not add the point about the Sonkeikaku Bunko due to the RfC
• Special:Diff/1237876996 Again, arguing for the inclusion of Hirayama Yu's tweet.
• Special:Diff/1237877171 This turned out to be a self-fulfilling prophecy, but I said I would leave it up to others to make the RfC since I didn't want to screw the formatting up (I did).
• Special:Diff/1237877875 I self-reverted my inclusion of Hirayama Yu's tweet on the understanding that there was going to be another RfC, that ended up not happening
• Special:Diff/1237878301 Following my reversion on the understanding there would be an RfC, they decided to hold off on one. Per the discussion they suggested waiting at least one month. This was 31 July 2024. I created the second RfC 2 September 2024. I waited over a month, as had been suggested by the editor who wanted to include Goza.
• Special:Diff/1237928540 I relented on the subject of the RfC as they were worried Goza might retract his self-published statement.
• Special:Diff/1237933836 Me explaining that if 100 sources say Yasuke was a retainer, but those sources didn't have access to the Sonkeikaku Bunko manuscript, it doesn't mean that they believed Yasuke wasn't a samurai, it means they didn't have the evidence.

As I said above, I reverted an edit including Hiryama Yu's tweet saying Yasuke was a samurai as a compromise as another user said it wouldn't be fair to add Hirayama Yu's tweet without adding Goza's SPS, since Goza was also a historian, and adding Goza would required an RfC. The RfC was determined that it should happen later when more reliable sources emerged. Moreover, I waited until such a time that there were three sources that are considered more reliable to broach the subject.

• Lockley's Britannica Article says there is a dispute
• Yuichi Goza is published in a new interview.
• Someone noted Hiraku Kaneko's book expressed doubt about the authenticity of the passage.

Under the basis of there being more reliable sources now since now we aren't dealing with anything self-published from Goza I went ahead and created the RfC that was discussed in July when I had self-reverted my edit including Hirayama Yu's tweet.

BrocadeRiverPoems is now retracting their above request and apologizing, but it should be noted that this is not out of sincerity (though I wish it were as I have only been professional with said user), but rather because said user did not get the result they wanted.

No, it was out of sincerity. I didn't know you could just accuse people of sockpuppetry in ANI, I genuinely believed consistently accusing me and doing nothing about it constituted a personal attack.

And so... What's the exact issue here on enwiki that has to be resolved?

To which I replied If there's an issue to be resolved here, it's not one that I'm bringing up. Just because it's true that Symphony has been blocked before doesn't mean they've done anything warranting sanctions on EN Wikipedia as far as I am aware. I don't think lying about the circumstances of their ban on the Japanese Wiki is against any particular guideline, and if it is, I'm unaware of it.

I only suggested sanctions of any form after you continually made accusations about me socking.

This is made obvious based on the editors BrocadeRiverPoems notified...None of them were involved this dispute, the only thing they had in common is they were selected based on opposing the RfC that BrocadeRiverPoems wants to overturn.

I notified the users who were involved in the diffs which I posted, as I was pretty sure I was supposed to do?

BrocadeRiverPoems also failed to notify Gitz, even though BrocadeRiverPoems mentioned him by name[168]

I didn't notify Gitz, because I didn't mention Gitz in my complaint, which was originally posted separate from the false accusation thread, and was merged to the false-accusation thread. I was unaware that I needed to notify Gitz for responding to your WP:CANVASSING accusation with I fail to see how Tiny and Gitz arguing about sources has anything to do with me.

said user responded with Here, now I am involved directly in this dispute[162] and a very long off-topic accusatory rant which I think demonstrates malicious intent

You kept making accusations about me and saying I was involved in the dispute, so I went and fact-checked your statements about what took place on the Japanese Wiki and said "Here, now I am involved" since you were arguing so stringently that I was involved in the dispute.

Moreover, your accusation that I am a sock hinges on mostly on your assertion that the IP is a proxy.

Per [157],[158],[159] the IP Addresses you're accusing me of being all come from Malyasia, from the same source[160], and are listed as Type Good IP (residential or business). Meanwhile, the only IP Address I have edited from is [161]. Moreover, the basis given on the links you provided that say they are likely abusive/proxies is because the IP Addresses are on blocklists. As noted here, though, the IP Addresses are only listed on a few blacklists, and such listings can occur in error:

• https://mxtoolbox.com/supertool3?action=blacklist%3a14.192.210.103
• https://mxtoolbox.com/supertool3?action=blacklist%3a14.192.213.32
• https://mxtoolbox.com/supertool3?action=blacklist%3a14.192.208.205

Likewise:

• https://omgvpn.com/ip/?lookup=14.192.210.103 Is Proxy? NO
• https://omgvpn.com/ip/?lookup=14.192.213.32 Is Proxy? NO
• https://omgvpn.com/ip/?lookup=14.192.208.205 Is Proxy? NO

Notably, ways that an IP Address can get on these blacklists is if it is a dynamic IP Range that has been used to spam in the past. Of 60+ Known blacklists, the IP Addresses only appear on 4 to 5 blacklists. The IP Addresses aren't mine, and nor do they actually appear to be Proxies.

repeat WP:SPA behavior

The majority of my time spent on Talk:Yasuke was spent giving translations, discussing sources, and giving evidence that supported the notion that Yasuke was a samurai, while also giving evidence that indicated otherwise as one should do when approaching a topic neutrally. What WP:SPA behavior? I've spent most of my actual article editing time improving and working on various different articles related to mostly Chinese history and some eclectic other anime related content, and even created an article just recently about a Chinese poet. You can see a breakdown of my edit history [162], 35% of my edits are on Talk pages, with 99 edits on Talk:Yasuke. Conversely, I've only made 20 actual edits to the Yasuke article, none of which were overly substantial [163], with my most substantial edits being giving translations to sources. Moreover, I've edited and helped improve a wide variety of articles [164]. Of my 114 Mainspace edits, 20 of them were on Yasuke. For comparisons sake, you have 156 Edits on Talk:Yasuke [165] and 44 Edits on Yasuke [166]. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 11:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment: The IP whistleblower (I've experienced another power outage again) here, perhaps not making an account was a blessing in disguise.

1. I don't have to deal with users like yourself and,

2. You've just given me another silver bullet to prove that the sockpuppets over in the Japanese wiki are indeed yours.

As noted in another comment, my ISP is Maxis, hence the fixed 14.192.X.X addresses. Funny how you used the website https://www.ipqualityscore.com/ against me in our interactions, when it was first used against you in the JP wiki and here, which you then repurposed the site to accuse the editors there with the やまとぉ account, who coincidentally also cites WP:OR to stifle discussion. What are the odds that you yourself are using the same exact site to accuse other of? It is as you said, "These coincidences are really lining up today".

I find it baffling that there are editors turning a blind eye to a known disruptive user, who inserted themselves in the Japanese wiki, which is then followed by at least 13 IP addresses (4 IPv6, 9 IPv4) and 2 accounts (やまとぉ and Asakasarin, both of which were made a day later after SR's initial edit) right after that triggered an edit war, just to force an opinion in the Japanese wiki, without prior consultation in the Talk page.

When the page got locked down, there were as many as 33 IPs (13 IPv6, 20 IPv4), agreeing to statements made by yourself, やまとぉ and Asakasarin, as if to influence of the autonomy there.

Bonus: Here is Asakasarin using the exact list that you yourself have been bludgeoning users with. Plus an attempt by one of the IPs, using the results of the English RfC to influence the Japanese page.

Can anyone tell me with a straight face that this isn't disruptive behaviour and mind you, this happened roughly a month after the English edits. We have a saying over here "Berani buat, berani tanggung", If you're brave enough to do such things, you should be brave to own up to it, which you haven't been. I will be escalating this issue to the relevant authoritative bodies with the list of IPs. 14.192.209.218 (talk) 16:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

You know what I find baffling, why you keep on referring to yourself as a whistleblower, as if you are some kind of secret undercover agent, and why you keep on giving diffs to ja.wikipedia.org, when this is en.wikipedia.org. If you have evidence of a behavioral issue here on en.wikipedia.org, then please provide said evidence, because we have a saying over here as well, you need to shit or get off the pot. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Read here, as I have linked before, particularly in the section mentioning both @Eirikr and @DarmaniLink.

Making unsubstantiated allegations, (in that instance) that an EN editor is a JP editor (who SR also accuses of being a sock in the JP wiki via the やまとぉ account) with a vendetta against them and removing and repurposing warnings from another editor to use it against them, both of which are of the same behavioural issues that you'd find in both the EN (accusing an EN admin of power abuse) and JA wikis (copy pasting warning from a JP admin to use against said JP admin), isn't it clear cut that the user learned nothing? The victims in both EN and JP are all users who disagreed with SR.

After posting my comment above, SR speaks nothing of the points further tying him to the socks in JP and instead again goes after the ISP that I'm under, as well as a flimsy argument regarding writing styles (which shouldn't they be going to the SPI, as noted by the other users, if they feel strongly about it). As stated before, I will be escalating this issue to the relevant authorities. 14.192.209.218 (talk) 00:47, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Your use of whistleblower is freudian slip that highlights that you are indeed a sock. You are also a blacklisted VPN/proxy spammer IP, who has attempted to claim in this very thread that you have no experience with Wikipedia (For disclosure, I was also the IP who blew the whistle on this previous incident, and no, I have no prior experience dealing with Wikipedia.) which is obviously false.

I also find it peculiar that you post in sequence after BrocadeRiverPoems attempting to again coincidentally make the same false arguments[167], including that you are not a VPN/proxy based on semenatics about you "only" being listed on 4 or 5 spammer blacklists.

14.192.209.218 is an IP address located in Kuala Lumpur, Kuala Lumpur, MY that is assigned to Maxis Communications (ASN: 9534). As this IP addresses is located in Kuala Lumpur, it follows the "Asia/Kuala_Lumpur" timezone. The IP Reputation for 14.192.209.218 is rated as high risk and frequently allows IP tunneling for malicious behavior.

As previously mentioned, between you and BrocadeRiverPoems this post in particular is familiar enough to your style of writing, word choice, and formatting (including your fondness for bold underlined text) to the extent that it is nearly an exact match. Symphony Regalia (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose – If you think there's sockpuppetry, go to SPI about it. I wasn't convinced by the evidence given at all, and will continue on the premise that there's no reason to take the allegations seriously. The remainder of the proposal seems equally retaliatory to the original, if not moreso due to it coming after all the opposition outlining how retaliatory both the original and the discourse generally has been. Assuming BrocadeRiverPoems has moved on from the article in question like she's said she has done, there's nothing to remotely warrant a block. The bludgeoning was truly a problem, but I'm willing to see it as a localized and learned-from ugly situation unless such behavior crops up again in the future. Remsense ‥ 论 23:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment: I encountered this thread through lurking. Will you just stop? This has already been a big headache. Can you prove BrocadeRiverPoems has done anything wrong? I just want to know why SR doesn't get it through his super thick head that thinking Yasuke is not a samurai doesn't make us into some sort of bad people? Seriously. Oh and if you think you can prove we are socks take us to SPI, or maybe (Redacted)? You won't take us to SPI because you don't have evidence. 113.211.211.79 (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: this IP is also a blacklisted spammer VPN/proxy IP, and belongs to the same ISP as the IP sock that has been stalking me on multiple IPs. It also uses similar phrasing to BrocadeRiverPoems such as bad people[168]. Symphony Regalia (talk) 01:29, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

• I feel strongly about WP:NOBITE and am inclined to assume BRP's good faith. However, starting another RfC only three months after the previous one without any significant new sources was not a good idea. Besides, WP:BLUDGEONing is a serious issue, and is likely to arise elsewhere if they manage to move away from Yasuke (as I think they should). BRP should take into consideration that editors' time is a scarce resource: long and numerous comments in a discussion can be very disruptive and discourage new editors from getting involved. Discussions then tend to become arm-wrestling matches between a few exasperated editors, which is in no one's interest.Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose BRP got caught up in a corner of Wikipedia that is strongly dysfunctional, and I look at the poor behavior being exhibited by a number of people there including BRP to be a symptom of a systemic issue that needs to be treated by changing the rules for the involved pages rather than it being the fault of the individuals. Blocking people will not fix the underlying issue. I strongly recommend some sort of stricter regime for enforcing behavior there. Whatever the phrase of the moment is: general sanctions, contentious topics, whatever. Alternatively, just lock the page from editing and leave it in its current state. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I had already considered going to ArbCom but was not sure whether we had reached the threshold for it. Apparently we have so I won't bother with ANI further and will simply file an ArbCom case once this discussion gets closed. Yvan Part (talk) 03:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment Thanks. I do not feel strongly in either direction so I am fine with closing this. I mostly just wanted a pulse check on BrocadeRiverPoem's conduct in the above section, while it was fresh. I think there is sufficient evidence for a SPI investigation concerning the IP sock puppets (made even more apparent in this section), so I will pursue that route. Additionally, if the IP sock harassment/stalking happens again I will post it in a separate section.

As a brief aside for the Yasuke article, editors were indeed able to establish a very clear RfC consensus[169] and the drive-by vandalism is down, so I think that demonstrates that overall the community was able to come together. There is a second RfC[170], and it appears to be going in a similar direction as the first.

Something that could perhaps be useful at some point would be EC protection and/or other measures in that the majority of vandalism and/or attempts to disregard the RfC come from new accounts that appear to be drawn here by culture war issues (context). Nevertheless, it probably isn't necessary yet and the vandalism is down. Which is pretty nice considering that Yasuke is not a contentious topic in Wikipedia parlance. That could change in a renewed news cycle, but as of now it appears to be fine. Symphony Regalia (talk) 10:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

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

User conduct issue: MPGuy2824 at Zamduar College

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

Here are some examples of the behavior in question:

• Edit 1
• Edit 2

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

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

If GPT gives you editing notes (e.g. "insert policy violation") you should probably follow them, and insert the violation, before posting the thread to AN/I. Are you doing a bit or something?

You are also required to notify the party you're submitting a filing about, which you have not done. jp×g🗯️ 02:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Tendythexangsw, your attempts to contact me were on the talk page of the relevant article/redirect, and not on my user talk page. This is one of my first edits to Wikipedia in more than 12 hours, so your charge of "the behavior continues" does not apply, since the aforementioned talk page messages are only about 3 hours old. I've have now replied to your message at Talk:Zamduar College. We can continue that conversation there, if you are willing. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

...is this a joke? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

User has been indeffed by Deepfriedokra. MiasmaEternal☎ 05:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

What am I missing here? Is there a specific template for use with ChatGPT/another LLM that let's you (or in this case, the OP) generate invalid (but stylistically-correct-looking) Wikipedia complaints/arguments, by just plugging in the relevant policy? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

ChatGPT#Applications and criticism Check Point Research and others noted that ChatGPT could write phishing emails and malware, People make scams and money stealing stuff with LLMs. Making templates to waste people’s time (that’s all they are, let’s be honest) really isn’t above users of this stuff. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 07:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Well it's not the technical feasibility that is new information to me, so much as the implication created by those bracketed elements that either a) someone has trained an LLM specifically on Wikipedia discussions or b) one of the existing broad-utility models gained basic competence for generating such content from its default training set. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 10:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

SnowRise do you actually use LLMs? I don't but I've heard enough that I'm not surprised they could do something like that with zero additional training especially since I'm certain most of them have been trained on pretty much all of Wikipedia including the ANs. As an example, here's what Bing's Copilot gave me for 'Make a template for filing complaints on the English Wikipedia'. This is what it gave me for 'Give me a template to file a complaint on the English wikipedia's administrative noticeboard'. And this is what it gave me for 'Give me a template to file a complaint at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents'. The style in all of these is different from what the OP used, but a different LLM (e.g. ChatGPT directly) might help with that. Or just better prompt engineering. Notably, it seems to like to give templates with those 'subheading:' things, perhaps telling it not to will make it more similar to the OPs, or just some other way of asking. As said, I don't use LLMs so I'm sure my prompt engineering is totally crap. Importantly though, all of them had the 'please fill in' sort of things. Perhaps just being more specific e.g. telling it who I wanted to complain about and what article would also help. Note there was additional text in most of them e.g. sure here's..... and other stuff e.g. telling me to remember to fill in the details or in one case giving a filled in example (although just userexample1, userexample2) although it did chose Climate Change as the example article, probably not the the best one anymore. Nil Einne (talk) 18:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Well I decided to try being more specific on who etc and asked 'Give me a template to file a complaint about [[User:Nil Einne]] regarding their editing at [[Malaysia]] on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents' on the default more balanced setting and this is what it gave me. I should mention all previous examples were also on this setting. On the more precise, it was this. Note as I understand the way most public LLMs work, asking the exact same prompt on the same setting probably won't give the exact same response, with the more precise setting I think probably resulting in more similar responses. Also I don't know the specifics about Bing Copilot. All of these were fresh questions rather than continuing from the old ones, but I didn't try to reset it in any way so I'm not sure if this was also an influence. Anyway again both are somewhat different in style from what the OP wrote above, but still you can see fair similarities. I didn't mention earlier, but I'm also fairly sure that none of the LLM providers consider using it for this sort of thing abuse or unwanted, so I doubt they've done anything to try and prevent it helping. You might get caught up in other filters of course, for example, I actually tried Donald Trump first instead of Malaysia and Bing Copilot refused to help because "I’m afraid talking about elections is out of bounds for me! What else is on your mind?". Nil Einne (talk) 18:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

It occurred to me that perhaps one issue is talking about filing a complaint is very generic, so it could be affected by other places you may file a complaint. So instead I tried with the default balanced setting a IMO more Wikipedia focused 'Give me a template to alert administrators about [[User:Nil Einne]]'s problematic editing at [[Malaysia]] on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents' and it gave me [171]. It's clearly gone too far, since it's lost the template stuff, and also lost any wiki markup. But still, it's IMO easy to see how some sort of cross between this and what I was doing earlier would give something like what the OP posted. Nil Einne (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

EnglishDude98 topic ban

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

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

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

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

Looking into their contribs a bit deeper while I have time, Joel McGregor is a duplicate of the topic recently deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joel McGregor. GiantSnowman 20:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Weak support - Unless there are enough sources available, they should not create an article. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. I think that yes, EnglishDude98 needs to stop making "duplicate" and non-notable articles. However, I'm not sure that the articles they are making are always clear cut CSD or PROD-able, some of them should go through AfD, as it's not black or white. I think they have potential to make valuable articles in the future. They have created some articles that are actually not that bad (see here). They just need to learn first what constitutes notability.
  If EnglishDude98 continues their disruptive habits from this point forward, ping me again and I will reconsider my position. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, to be fair, the recently created Connor McAvoy (footballer, born 2002) appears good. GiantSnowman 19:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

  Although @Paul Vaurie:, they are still trying to get non-notable articles into mainsapce generally, see Draft:Jack Henry-Francis which has rightfully been declined.

  Putting the draft duplication issues to side for a moment, EnglishDude98 shows a fundamental lack of understanding about notability, which combined with a clear ongoing desire to create articles, is disruptive. GiantSnowman 07:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

• This editor is now removing AFD tags from articles. Will anybody intervene to stop the disruption? Does nobody care? GiantSnowman 14:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Support this is a pretty clear case of an editor practicing WP:TEND editing, stopping him from creating articles is a gentle way of handling this. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Coalcity58 and the Landmark cult

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. diff1

1. diff2

1. diff3

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

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

Even if Coalcity58 ends up getting blocked, it's unlikely to stop the problems. I'm thinking some form of long term page protection might be needed here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. After a bunch of sockpuppets got blocked all these new accounts suddenly appeared who were repeating the same talking points and had the same habits and interests. So a block is a good idea, but we need more than that to stem the tide. Perhaps it needs to be declared a Contentious Topic again and we need admins to hand out topicbans like cookies. Or another Arbcom case? I don't really know how to deal with this kinda stuff. Polygnotus (talk) 22:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

They will attack me for calling it a cult so I should add that the governments of France and Germany also called it that. Polygnotus (talk) 22:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Bruh, it isn't a cult

Whats up with the uncivil aspersions? Rim Related Jobs (talk) 04:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@Rim Related Jobs I'd like the sources for France and Germany labeling it a source, but all the same, based on what sources is it not a cult? —C.Fred (talk) 04:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@C.Fred Check out their edit history. And Governmental_lists_of_cults_and_sects and [172]. But it appears to have been the German Senate for the state of Berlin, not the country as a whole. When one of them ends up at the noticeboards they often get WP:ANIFLU while other accounts start trolling and randomly throwing accusations around to distract and confuse onlookers. Polygnotus (talk) 04:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Almost all of them bruh Rim Related Jobs (talk) 04:17, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Why do people respond to such obvious troll accounts? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 10:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked the troll. Cullen328 (talk) 16:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! 100.36.106.199 (talk) 17:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I think focusing energy on whether or not the group is a cult (I personally don't think so) is a distraction from the policy issues that seem like the impetus for bringing this case to ANI which is COI editing and, perhaps, disruptive editing. Let's focus less on the nature of the article and more on what is happening on the article and policy. If you want to take this back to ARBCOM, you better have pretty solid evidence to back your allegations and perhaps this discussion should be closed. If you just want clarification about the arbitration remedies, perhaps you could bring it to ARCA or AE. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@Liz: Agreed. A better term would be what academics use, a New Religious Movement (NRM). See Talk:Landmark_Worldwide/to_do in the Sociology section. But if you say that they really go wild. They hate that term for some reason. I don't really want to take it to ARBCOM, because compiling evidence of longterm patterns of Tendentious editing is incredibly boring and a waste of my limited time on this planet. And I don't know which account belongs to who (I could probably figure out at least a couple of them but again that would be very boring). But I would not be surprised if it ended up there again (which would hopefully lead to stricter remedies than last time). "Discretionary sanctions" were rescinded, should I use ARCA to get them reinstated? I think discretionary sanctions were renamed to Contentious topics, is that correct? Even under DS or CT we would still need administrator(s) willing to jump into the fray and block (or at least topicban) the cultists. If DS/CT makes it easier for an admin to hand out topic bans then I will gladly request DS/CT. In the meantime can we get a 3rr block for Coalcity58? Polygnotus (talk) 07:40, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Correct: CTOP is essentially the rebranded Discretionary Sanctions, with a few procedural tweaks, and WP:ARCA is the right forum to propose changes to remedies. Regarding "new religious movement" as nomenclature, the reason you will see resistance to that term is that it has for most practical purposes become so widely associated as a synonym for "cult" that it has inherited most all of the semantic subtext and cultural implications of the latter. The terms are not exact synonyms as they are used in sources, but more generally and idiomatically, they are broadly regarded as very near terms. Basically if you call something a "new religious movement", you should be prepared for a given party to react in essential the same manner you would expect that person to react if you called the religion/institution a "cult". SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I had never heard of the term NRM before stumbling upon the Landmark article. If my reading of the archives is correct, they consider(ed) the usage of the term NRM far more offensive than that of cult. Usage of the term NRM was the inciting incident of much of the drama. Polygnotus (talk) 05:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I think there's two things going on there: 1) I think the term has recently developed some social cache among want would have traditionally been called the "anti-cult movement". In other words, the people it is applied to often perceive the term to be inaccurate and unfair in the same way they always felt "cult" was, with the added sense that they are being condescended to with academic idiolect. And 2) the question of whether to apply this label is often a threshold fight: members of a given movement often don't want it applied to their beliefs, while some editors (particularly, but not exclusively, those who make a habit out of contributing to articles in this general area) consider it to be the low hanging fruit of describing such a group. The difference in perspectives leads to a lot of slow, grinding arguments that are typically lost by the SPAs and aren't quickly forgotten by either side. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

OK so if I understand it correctly, topic bans can be given by the "community", Arbcom and WMF. Admins are only allowed to give topic bans if the article falls under CT.

Discretionary sanctions are currently rescinded

WP:AE is for enforcing active sanctions. WP:ARCA is for clarification and Amendment of currently open cases.

This means that the best course of action would be to start a new arbcom case, and ask them to reinstate the DS/CT designation so that administrators can give topic bans to the cultists.

Who is willing to do that? Polygnotus (talk) 10:02, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I mean, Poly, I wouldn't hold your breath. This feels like you are trying to task someone with doing your homework (for a class you are voluntarily auditing, no less--to extend the metaphor). So far you are very much the only person in this thread who has advanced the notion that a new ARBCOM case is not only the way forward here, but indeed a necessity. If you feel that strongly about the matter, anyone is permitted to open a case request. But what seems to be the case here is that you want to pursue the biggest possible ask of the community: the largest, most involved, most severe process available to the project for addressing longterm abuse...while simultaneously not feeling it is important enough to actually present a case for it.

I mean, when you say "I don't really want to take it to ARBCOM, because compiling the evidence is incredibly boring and a waste of my limited time on this planet." and then immediately follow it up with "This means that the best course of action would be to start a new arbcom case. Who is willing to do this?", you do realize that you are implying something about the relative value of your time, compared to the person you expect to do all of the hard work after you've identified what you feel is a need? Or are you just the community "idea man" and the rest of us the grunts?

And look, I'm really not trying to be rude here: I just want to provide you with a sobering reminder that if you want exceptional action to be taken by the community, the burden is on you to demonstrate exceptional need. All you've presented in terms of concrete evidence of disruption in this thread so far is three diffs from an edit war you participated in. As Liz alluded, you are going to need a lot more than that if you want to open a case request (hell, you'll need much more than that for an ARCA motion).

Expecting another editor to emerge from the aether willing to fill in the gap between where you are now with an organized case and where you need to be in order to invoke such high level process is just not a realistic strategy. I mean, there's a lot of editors who seem to specialize in crossing keyboards with religious COI-SPAs these days, so maybe someone will eventually end up in your corner with similar perspectives and more willingness to do the work to build the case? Maybe? But if you want it to happen any time soon, my suggestion is you'd better roll up your sleeves. Though even then, I'd caution to have third parties look over the case before hand and make sure it worth pursuing to the end of the process, which can be a commitment. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: I meant Who is willing to do that? as in "oof no one wants to do that". I should've added an exasperated sigh sound effect because your comment misses the mark by a mile. your homework (for a class you are voluntarily auditing, no less--to extend the metaphor). no I am a volunteer here. I volunteered to help build an encyclopedia, not to be a detective who investigates the behaviour of dozens of accounts over the past 2 decades. the only person in this thread who has advanced the notion that a new ARBCOM case is not only the way forward here, but indeed a necessity. well I wasn't sure if the previous case, which is marked closed, can be reopened to add CT designation, or if we need a new one. Polygnotus (talk) 05:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I see: I mistook your meaning for sincere, rather than sardonic/rhetorical. But I can see now that it actually makes more sense if said wryly! Please disregard my comments along those lines. To address your uncertainty about whether a new case is necessary, it is my understanding that you can request an amendment to any case which previously applied a remedy tied to a discrete topic area, in order to propose introducing, removing, or re-introducing a remedy targeted at that area--including a CTOP designation. At least, again, that's my personal understanding; while I've certainly read dozens of ARCAs over the years in connection to various cases, I have never filed one, nor seen this precise fact pattern (reintroducing the same basic restriction as a CTOP as previously existed under the DS schema). In short, you may want to wait for someone else to confirm that before acting, but I'm 95%+ certain you don't need a new case request. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! That is great news. I probably should've been more clear, ANI is no place for rhetorical questions. Polygnotus (talk) 06:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Why do you say that? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

:) Grandpallama (talk) 14:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Kind of a drive by comment here but the editing is often like this when it comes to active "new religious movements", to the point where I'm surprised that "new religious movements" was never designated as a contentious topic; though I guess defining that would be half the problem. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Concern over article - impact of disinformation on democratic processes

{{subst:With reference to the <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bharatiya_Jana_Sangh>.I have notified major disinformation 1. On Search it shows as Former Political Party? Its an active Political Party 2. Status Dissolved? not true, 3. And Existed Until 1977 to be removed -is not true, 4. Syama Prasad Mukherjee (spelling correction) to Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerjee}}OmGanGanpataye (talk) 07:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, OmGanGanpataye. Please make a formal edit request at Talk:Bharatiya Jana Sangh, providing reliable sources verifying the changes that you want to make. Cullen328 (talk) 08:29, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

And as I've told you before, don't "fix" what isn't broken in the process. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 05:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

@SumanuilI really appreciate the time and effort you put into this article, your advice was incredibly helpful and has given me a clearer path to follow.

I agree that making changes when things are working well can sometimes lead to unintended issues. However, it's also important to periodically review processes/articles to ensure they remain efficient and effective as circumstances evolve.

My motive aligns with yours: maintaining valid content on Wikipedia is crucial for upholding its role as a reliable, accurate, and neutral resource for users both in India and around the world. Together, we can contribute to ensuring that Wikipedia continues to serve as a trustworthy source of information.Please help me to edit the valid content. thank you! OmGanGanpataye (talk) 13:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

False accusations of racism

Telugujoshi is making false accusations of racism against me and that I am engaging in "bigotry, "Western government" supremacism" only because I wikilinked "Godi media" a term coined by Indian journalist Ravish Kumar.[173]

This user appears to be WP:NOTHERE. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

This appears to be related to this discussion: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#News_from_India. Schazjmd (talk) 17:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. That is correct. Telugujoshi (talk) 22:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I am actively correct missing links, especially mathe related topics, and revert vandalism. I am definitely here to improve Wikipedia. Telugujoshi (talk) 22:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Should read "especially mathematics related topics". Telugujoshi (talk) 22:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked Telugujoshi per WP:NPA. Enough is enough. ----Kinu ^t/_c 13:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

41.150.0.0/16

41.150.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) – please block this range. There is a lot of vandalism and unsourced content coming from it. I have already reported this to AIV, but I was refered here. Janhrach (talk) 17:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

DelphiLore persistent unexplained deletions

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

This user has been making unexplained deletions and unsourced edits for months and continues to do so after much feedback and many, many notes and warnings: [174], [175], [176], [177] [178], [179], [180], [181], [182]. Other than a couple of replies earlier this year ([183], [184]), their only response to these warnings has been to repeatedly remove or blank them ([185], [186], [187], [188]).

Their most recent edits continue to include unexplained deletions such as this. At Mleccha they recently deleted sourced content without explanation ([189]) and have now been edit-warring there non-stop for 6 days, with no attempt to explain or discuss: see article's history (OnyxSilk is also responsible for this edit-warring and both have blown way past 3RR, though OnyxSilk is new to Wikipedia while DelphiLore is not). At Malabar Muslims (whose title they moved without explanation, [190]), they've been removing content, including sourced content, without explanation and unnecessarily inserting the highly outdated and uncommon "Mohammaden" for "Muslim" ([191]). Going further back reveals many more unexplained changes to names and content.

Maybe they can learn to be a more constructive editor and to eliminate this problematic behaviour, but so far they have ignored all feedback from other editors and they are overdue for a review from admins. R Prazeres (talk) 18:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked DelphiLore for one week for edit warring, and I have blocked OnyxSilk for 72 hours for edit warring. Cullen328 (talk) 19:49, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Vandalization on wiki pages.

Binksternet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Keeps undoing edits made on wiki pages for, The Marias, Submarine by The Marias, and Unverano Sin Ti by Bad Bunny. Requesting page protection or ban user, Binksternet, from further vandalization on those 3 pages. Thank you. (e.g. vandalised past 3rd warning). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:ad80:31:f87d:8c27:bc1d:44b6:3f0c (talk • contribs) 18:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)^<diff>

[192] So, who wants to issue the WP:BOOMERANG? MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 19:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Binksternet is not a vandal and false accusations of vandalism are personal attacks. Stop immediately. Cullen328 (talk) 19:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Binks notified of ANI. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 20:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked. Both this IP and 104.241.49.137 are socks of currently-blocked 147.26.87.113, who have been edit-warring on the above articles for no apparent reason. Black Kite (talk) 19:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

• And they're back with User:Rubberduckk (also now blocked) so I've protected all the relevant pages as well. This nonsense has been going on for quite a while, it seems - The Marías was previously protected for a year before the protection ran out in July. The IP that provoked the previous protection was, like these, from Texas. Black Kite (talk) 20:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

User:HRYAK1488228borovSS911

HRYAK1488228borovSS911 (talk · contribs) - WP:NOTHERE --Altenmann >talk 21:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Blocked by Zzuuzz. --Yamla (talk) 22:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Ilyes toon's disruptive editing

Ilyes toon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has continued to make many disruptive edits since April of this year[1] from a period of inactivity. They have repetitively added low-quality, copyrighted images to numerous articles[1][2][3][4][5] and unsourced content.[1][2][3] They often engage in edit warring whenever their edits get reverted, saying that their reverts are unexplained,[1] they're deteriorating the quality of the article,[1][2][3] and even engaging in vandalism.[1] Multiple editors have warned them about their behaviour but met with no response (see talk page). The user's disruptive edits have not only led them to get blocked from the article Egyptian mongoose,[1] but also earned them sitewide block,[1] both for one month. The worst part is that they continued their disruptive edits that got them in trouble earlier after their block expired.[1][2] This user is likely WP:NOTHERE given their multiple chances to change their disruptive behaviour and I believe they should be given an indefinite block. --_ZZ^Z'S 04:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

It appears that the editor has now taken to logged-out socking [193] for hammering on their point - I hold it highly unlikely that there are multiple editors with the same rabid bee in their bonnet. @WereSpielChequers: you already had to do the honours on that previously [1], care for a repeat engagement? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Edit: Yeah, they're also WP:LOUTSOCKing based on evidence from Elmidae, but that's not the important park. I looked further and found out that they're currently blocked from commons for continuing to upload copyright violations. It was also changed to indef because they socked.[1] Further digging revealed that User:Asouum is one of their socks, the only one that has made an edit on this wiki. The only edit from that account was adding a copyrighted file, which was made on 26 August. Ilyes toon was site-wide blocked on 6 August 2024 for one month, meaning that they would be unblocked on 6 September 2024. Asouum edited while the block was active, which means that Ilyes toon attempted to evade their block. _ZZ^Z'S 14:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Železná päsť

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

---

Železná päsť (talk · contribs) in the articled Slavs (ethnonym) begs for being banned " ban me, faggots ", ignoring warnings in edit summary and in talk page. --Altenmann >talk 04:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

P.S. It turns out he behaves this way all the time. --Altenmann >talk 04:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

And they escalate: " who gives a fuck if you don't like edits on wikipedia, losers". Definitely WP:NOTHERE. --Altenmann >talk 04:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Now they stared messign with Anti-Slavic sentiment. --Altenmann >talk 04:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Now "ban me, untermensch". --Altenmann >talk 04:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Someone will be along to oblige them presently. Us former admins can sit on our hands and feel the phantom trigger finger twitch. (Cross-reported to AIV [194]) Andre🚐 05:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Obliged. Account indef-ed blocked. – robertsky (talk) 05:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

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

SM Kamrul Hassan again

• SM Kamrul Hassan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• MGBD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Prior thread: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1165#MGBD and IP socks on SM Kamrul Hassan

Immediately after the protection levied as the result of the thread above expired, MGBD returned to the exact same edits he was making before. I should also note that MGBD didn't edit Wikipedia from 30 Aug until 12 Sep, barring this edit to a related article.

Enough is enough. I'm asking for a block for MGBD for refusal to listen to valid criticism from multiple editors and for essentially waiting out the protection to continue his edit warring. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 07:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Jéské Couriano, I have indefinitely pageblocked MGBD from SM Kamrul Hassan, and semi-protected that article for three months. Cullen328 (talk) 07:49, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Dankeschoen, Cullen. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 07:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Bitteschön, Jéské Couriano. Cullen328 (talk) 08:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Certain User are after a certain page named SM Kamrul Hassan and keeps protecting the page by deleting all releveant information

One certain accounts keeps deleting information on this page on claims that information is not cited, where as the information was cited from relevant sources. However similar pages of bangladeshi generals are not even cited but the user are targeting this specific page "SM Kamrul Hassan" only creating a double standard and keeps protecting it without any info in with with admins help. How is this happening, please help!!?? MGBD (talk) 08:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

You just got a partial block from editing SM Kamrul Hassan at ANI for BLP violations. Considering your persistence, you'll be looking at an indef soon enough. Yvan Part (talk) 09:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Other articles being badly cited does not mean that this one should be. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger @Jéské Couriano @Cullen328

Hey, I think maybe I have misunderstood the citations. But As far as I have read wiki pedias policy it is possible to cite facts such as education and posts held/served from primary governement sources. There fore, Im having the feeling Jeske is rushing through the article without actually reading the information written nor the source it is coming from, properly. And kind of perceiving that Im putting in false information inherently by default. I may have not understood citations initially but even when I cited them correctly (as far as my understanding) Jeske thought I was just trying to revert the information with out actually noticing exactly what I have written or where is was sourced from. So if my citation is not good and since you blocked me, could any/all of you write the information from the website below of this SM Kamrul Hassan and cite them as you see fit.

https://afd.gov.bd/psoprofile MGBD (talk) 16:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I do read the sources you use, as the last thread also made abundantly clear. Given part of your problem is citing biographical claims to sources that don't support them, I'd be a fool not to double-check your sourcing. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

So whats wrong here? In the citation the link to the website is provided above. Can you do the citations then? As you are so well versed in it MGBD (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano from the website...@Cullen238 MGBD (talk) 17:41, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

also what do you mean the information in the website does not support what I had written? Can you please read the last version I wrote and the information that is provided in the website? You are saying they were not the same??? @Jéské Couriano MGBD (talk) 17:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

just review it carefully and read from top to bottom @Jéské Couriano @Cullen238

https://afd.gov.bd/psoprofile MGBD (talk) 17:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328 MGBD (talk) 17:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@MGBD: Once again, government sources are primary sources and cannot be used for claims that could be challenged. As for the FE source, you used it only to source the infobox and not the several paragraphs of prose you added alongside it, which had zero sources all day. And even then, the unit he is in is not explicitly stated in the source (and I have other issues with the source, i.e. its unknown provenance). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano i still do not see where its explicitly written that government sources cannot be used, what are the reasons for challenging? Its a Bangladeshi Government website which is most reliable actually. he is Principal Staff Officer of Armed Forces Division if you look at the heading. I did cite the paragraph to this website if you have a look at my last edit before being blocked. Can you cite them properly then... MGBD (talk) 18:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano if you conduct a overall study of bangladeshi army and countries perspective you would understand that these websites are the most reliable source there can be when citing bangladeshi army generals. MGBD (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328 MGBD (talk) 18:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano also you are admitting that you undid the infobox even though it was cited correctly..@Cullen328 MGBD (talk) 18:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@MGBD: WP:Biographies of living persons#Avoid misuse of primary sources applies to government sources as well, as those will always be primary sources. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

It says misuse under certain conditions only. Doesnot explicitly say government sources can never be used. MGBD (talk) 18:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't need to. Wikipedia policy is not prescriptive. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano I find your reasoning a bit troubling... you are stating one of the Top official's of a country's information from a government website is unreliable? This is confusing and feels like Conflict of Interest from your part. @Cullen328 I suggest please review the page, sources, info boxes from edit history and lets have someone else who is not me or @Jéské Couriano to re-write this page.. MGBD (talk) 18:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I am stating that it is a primary source and thus not the best source for an encyclopaedia project that overwhelmingly prefers secondary sources, and unsuitable for one that practically hard-requires secondary sources for biographical claims. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano ok can you expand the article then? With the infobox I cited? MGBD (talk) 18:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

No, because I'm too busy going thru the other articles on Bangladeshi military figures - a topic I'm legitimately not interested in - because you won't quit harping on me about that. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano yeah please do.. and take your time..want to see how the articles changes. MGBD (talk) 18:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

MGBD, Jéské Couriano is a generalist editor with a wide range of interests and you have presented zero evidence of a conflict of interest. I am not interested in expanding this article. My interest as an adminstrator is to prevent you from adding poorly referenced content. Cullen328 (talk) 18:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@MGBD: You trotted this particular routine out at the last thread and it essentially got gonged. I'm also curious as to what your relationship with Verella33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is, as they were created after you got pblocked, and their first edits were to complain about why the page was protected and to demand the (BLP-noncompliant) infobox be reinstated. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 15:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328 ok so will you unblock me if I start sourcing information as per the policy MGBD (talk) 18:41, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328 also the conflict of interest is likely to be one of many factors as this is an army officials page.. I want to trust you but there are always many different nationality intelligence agencies that constantly work as serving agendas as geopolitics gets involved. Nothing else really... MGBD (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

You're playing with fire, MGBD. And let's not forget what you said in the previous thread. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano Im sorry dont take it personally...its just a thought MGBD (talk) 18:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

MGBD, unless I think that I have made a mistake (which I haven't in this case), I do not unblock editors that I block. I leave that to other administrators. There are instruction in the pageblock notice I left on your user talk page explaining how to make a formal unblock request. WP:GAB for convenience. What I recommend is that you make neutral, well referenced edit requests at Talk:SM Kamrul Hassan instead, to show that you can do things properly. What is your connection with SM Kamrul Hassan and the Bangladeshi armed forces? Cullen328 (talk) 18:53, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328 ok I will study and look into it...and I donot have any direct affiliation with them.. MGBD (talk) 18:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano just want to say on a end note... since you got so involved with this page, please give is an expansion when you have time... it will be a giffy for you, considering how fast u work. Thanks and signing of for now. MGBD (talk) 18:53, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• Per CU: MGBD (talk · contribs) and Verella33 (talk · contribs) are  Confirmed to each other. Cod with KFA (talk · contribs) and Pathfinder2022 (talk · contribs) are  Likely the same person; they're editing the same topics from the same single-allocation IP via a different device.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

  I wish I could say I was surprised. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 07:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Benfor445 arguably WP:NOTHERE

OP will wait and see if the behavior continues first.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
An editor in a very politically charged talk page discussion I observed yesterday was arguably WP:CASTINGASPERSIONS fairly intensely.[195] I then noticed that the account had basically only ever edited political talk page discussions tout court.[196] One of their first such threads was called "This is fascism"; and they sure had a very pronounced WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude in this one.[197] They have been warned by an admin before.[198] Isn't all that actionable qua WP:NOTHERE? Biohistorian15 (talk) 10:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC) Frankly, I do not see any aspersions in the diff you shared, Biohistorian15. Cullen328 (talk) 16:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC) Well, in the diff, they accused another editor, Kcmastrpc (in answer to [199] and [200]) of having a POV on the matter without providing evidence. Biohistorian15 (talk) 17:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC) Do you really think that observing that another editor has a POV is "casting aspersions"? Don't we all have POVs? As for the editor's April 20, 2024 comment at Talk:Project 2025, it had elements of NOTAFORUM but ended with an appeal to protect the article. This was their third edit, so it is not surprising that their comment was not presented the way that more experienced Wikipedians usually write. Cullen328 (talk) 17:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC) Do you mean the statement: "To all Wikipedian editors, protect the page by all cost"? I doubt this is about page protection in the formal sense. This, to me, reads like a political demand. Biohistorian15 (talk) 17:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Empty edit requests

There are six empty edit requests in four days from three different Phillipines IPs at Talk:2024 Venezuelan presidential election. I don't know what to do with these, or where to take this, so here I am. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

And what seems to be the same IP is repetitively active at Edmundo González (candidate in said election). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Seems that's already been dealt with. Procyon117 (talk) 14:24, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

It's easy enough to deal with if it continues. Most of the edits are coming from Special:Contributions/2001:4454:2F8:D000::/64, which can be partially blocked from articles where they're being disruptive. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, perhaps they will stop now that Gonzalez has sought asylum, but if it continues, to what notice board do I take something like this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

ANI is the only noticeboard that deals with user complaints, really. Or you could check for recently active admins. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

They are back already; I'm traveling to a family wedding and don't have time to follow through on other channels. Can the block recommended by NinjaRobotPirate be activated? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Special:Contributions/2001:4454:2F8:D000::/64 partially blocked from the talk page for a week. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

64.189.18.X, timewasting and serial disruption

64.189.18.0/24 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), most recently 64.189.18.24 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).

Unfortunately, this editor makes good contributes fairly frequently, but they create work for others to clean up far more often, and they have not shown any interest to my knowledge in the reasons other editors may find their behavior counterproductive.

1. Perhaps the most obvious: I suspect without hyperbole that they add the serial comma to every list they notice that lacks one. They've even posted edit requests on pages demanding others add the serial comma for them.^[D1] They have been told why this is not constructive, but they have never directly acknowledged any site policy as far as I've seen. It's also pretty clear this editor doesn't care about the existence of conventions other than American English,^[D2] which might be why they constantly violate WP:LQ, creating another trail for others to clean up.^[D3] There doesn't seem to be any other outcome other than a block where they would stop.
2. What is probably more actively harmful is that they impose the perennial ulta-WP:BURDEN burden upon others, where they remove material lacking inline citation in a manner where the otherwise-GOATed WP:BURDEN functions as a fig leaf for exercising their compulsions detached from concern for whether it improves the encyclopedia. What's more, they seem to have decided that improperly formatted citations do not count, and thus they will simply remove them and their associated material, demanding that others fix the mess they themselves have just created.^{[D4 D5]}
3. To round out that they don't seem to care about how the site actually works: for several consecutive days they posted edit requests on Talk:United States demanding editors heed the banner that had been placed on the article about its duplicated citations. This continued despite being told that others can see the banner and this would not make it happen any quicker.^{[D6 D7]}

It's not worth digging much deeper, but as far as I've read this editor has never demonstrated any consideration for the time or priorities of others, and they're clearly a net negative. Remsense ‥ 论 13:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Now seems to be on an MOS:ENGVAR spree. Q ^{T C} 16:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

They've consistently been on it for hundreds and hundreds of edits, it's pretty irritating to work through and undo it all. I more or less nailed it above: 5% of their edits add page numbers, and the rest are either switching to American English, violating LQ, or adding Oxford commas for no reason.Remsense ‥ 论 17:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh, and they also love removing "needs more citations" banners from articles with half of their paragraphs still uncited, which doesn't really make sense with their other fixation but. Remsense ‥ 论 17:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked 64.189.18.0/24 for a month. Hopefully this should get their attention. They do not appear to have ever replied to any warnings (and there are a lot) placed on the various IP talk pages, and their English does not appear to be very good either i.e. [201]. Awaiting an unblock request from whichever IP is active at the time. Black Kite (talk) 17:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Repeated coatracking with close paraphrasing

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

---

User:Wikiprediger and I have been going back and forth on Operation Countryman. I think he's WP:COATRACKing most of a Parliamentary speech (open license) about Freemasonry in the London Police into an article about a specific investigation, and he probably thinks I'm defending the Masons, for tolerably obvious reasons. Can someone check if I'm overreacting to the close paraphrasing and coatracking? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not asking for a second opinion on the content here, that would be a different venue. It's mostly the close paraphrasing after warning that I'm unclear about. Thanks. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

It's all rewritten and it is important information. User:SarekOfVulcan acted contra-productive (just reverting then improving) multiple times and so seems to be biased and without a neutral POV. Thank you. Wikiprediger (talk) 19:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there is clearly close paraphrasing involved. Beyond that, the other issues (of which coatracking seems the most significant) need discussing on the article talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

What is the meaning of the word coatracking please - google cannot translate it? Thank you. Wikiprediger (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Coatrack articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Now I understand. But I think it does not lead away from the topic, but has a deeper complementary view. Wikiprediger (talk) 20:05, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

The tentacles of this masonic lodge had strong connections with the Conservatives. Yes, very complementary. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

It's in the source - and there it was even more emphasized. Why do you hide that? Wikiprediger (talk) 22:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Because the lodge in question was founded after Operation Countryman ended, if I'm reading it correctly. Hence, COATRACK. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I do have concerns that wikiprediger is a spa (single purpose account) - and is a fan of borderline conspiracy theory. I DON’T think they have crossed the line into disruption, but I do think they may need some guidance from editors who have experience writing criticisms - with an eye to WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. I would offer to mentor, but I am involved in the topic area. Blueboar (talk) 20:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

... and I do have concerncs Blueboar does not understand the meaning of democracy. It is my business alone how many and which topics i write about.I am from another country and there have a long history of many topics i worked on.

• I do not need any guidance to speak my own opinion :-) Maybe you are biased and not neutral in relation to freemasonry. But that's typical, like criticism on the churches or similar... a little too obviscious to intervene or undo nearly every single of my discussion sor changes.
• but, just keep going. the more often, the more visible it becomes for everyone.

Wikiprediger (talk) 22:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

In point of fact, Wikipedia is not a democracy. Any change you make can be subject to review and change by other editors, and the prevailing view is determined by consensus. Your ability to speak your own opinion, on this private website, is constrained by the degree you follow Wikipedia's civility rules. The reason we are concerned with so-called single purpose accounts is that they have a strong tendency to edit for the purposes of promotion or showcasing their favored point of view.

Beyond that, SarekOfVulcan is a very well-respected administrator and editor of long standing, with more years on Wikipedia than you have mainspace edits. We are considerably less likely to find that he has violated Wikipedia norms than we're likely to find you. Ravenswing 23:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I didn't meant Wikipedia as i spoke about democracy. I meant my free choice of topics. The rest of your text is too much speculation for me. I thought speculation (pov) ist exactly that, what is unwanted on wikipedia? So why are you doing it so extensively and publicly here? That's the best example that you could be biased yourself. I am not the one who makes such conspiracy theories. :-) it's really easy to expose you. keep going, we'll have a lot of fun together in future. Wikiprediger (talk) 18:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikiprediger, Wikipedia is built on collaboration and consensus. It's also built on writing articles with a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for you to voice your opinions with impunity. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I would not agree with that based on my experiences so far. I do not see any constructive cooperation or improvement here either, but rather a lot of energy being put into completely rejecting contrary information, hiding it and attributing POV to other members while publicly spinning conspiracy theories... Wikiprediger (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

CBAN Indef for User:Wikiprediger

A clear case of an editor who seems to have a WP:CIR issue as to how Wikipedia deals with WP:FRINGE. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose CBAN. Support indef. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Oops, meant indef here. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Technically speaking, a block placed by community consensus is a community ban. See the policy explanation here: WP:BLOCKBANDIFF. Users who are 'blocked' by consensus actually still have to go through community discussion to become unblocked, rather than simply being able to appeal it through regular unblock requests. See this and this for other examples of community-blocked users. — AP 499D25 (talk) 06:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I hate calling a block for an editor this new a CBAN, though. If they can figure out what they're doing wrong, it shouldn't be a huge effort to get back in. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that's correct. The table says they can make an unblock request and an admin can address it if it's a community indef rather than ban. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

If you read carefully, it says "an administrator will copy the appeal to the appropriate venue" after the user makes an appeal at UTRS or through the unblock template.

Below, it says "Bans imposed by community consensus or for repeated block evasion may be lifted by community discussion".

And above, it says only bans can be authorised by community consensus, whereas regular blocks are placed by uninvolved admins at their own discretion (i.e. not by consensus). — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support indef. I can't tell if he's trying to right great wrongs or troll, but the combativeness is definitely WP:NOTHERE. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe you are biased and not neutral in relation to freemasonry. WP:ASPERSIONS called. It wants to Support Indef. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 02:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

• (non-admin) Support indef: One thing I hate about such editors is WP:IDNHT. Borgenland (talk) 18:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Support - Absolutely WP:NOTHERE. WPDGR is not WP:LISTENING. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Archived without closing. Would someone care to review? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Close requested at WP:CR. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support indef. Clear WP:NOTHERE and WP:IDHT. Toughpigs (talk) 01:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

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

Neveselbert template editing

Neveselbert has had a long history of troublesome conduct as a template editor, including a prior AN thread in February which had a consensus to remove their template edit rights but fizzled out unactioned, and then a lengthy argument on their talk page in March, both of which involve promises to refrain from editing protected templates without sufficient care.

They've now gone ahead and reverted me at Template:Infobox person with a nonsense edit summary (Requests should be made at the talkpage) - the edit I made was requested at the talk page (Template talk:Infobox person#Edit request 19 July 2024). They seem to use the template editor right relatively rarely - their previous use was a questionably-explained revert to Template:Non-free use rationale and its stylesheet a month ago, the use before that was one AWB run back in July, and then there were no uses at all between March and July. It seems clear to me now that Neveselbert's use of the template editor right is causing more harm than good and it should be revoked. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted my reversion of your edit. I didn't recognise that the edit request was made on the talkpage at first glance, and this was an honest mistake on my part (the confusion probably arose as a result of the interval between the request being made and being implemented being months apart). There's absolutely no need to escalate this; you could've clairifed the situation at my talkpage instead of assuming bad faith. I reverted the change precisely because I thought the change was made without sufficient care, and I look forward to discussing the change at the template talkpage. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 04:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

And by failing to check the talk page before reverting you've proven you don't have the competence to hold template editor rights. This by itself would be a minor issue but given everything before the camel's back is broken. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

That's completely absurd. It was one mistake, and I've corrected myself. I genuinely didn't recognise the discussion, and you easily could've clarified this with me. I don't understand why you can't just discuss matters instead of needlessly escalating. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 04:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

@Pppery's edit summary was Copy from sandbox per request (emphasis added). If you didn't recognise that the edit request was made on the talkpage at first glance and genuinely didn't recognise the discussion, that means you didn't read the edit summary. You also would've noticed the discussion if you had ctrl+f'd on the talk page. Both of those are things that a TE should do before reverting the edit of another TE, at minimum. Given the past pattern of behavior, and promise and failure to change, I agree that TE should be revoked. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't usually edit at this time, in the middle of the night, and clearly I made a mistake in failing to notice the discussion. I'm guessing that the fact the request was made in July, and that there were multiple subsequent talkpage sections, and that the implementation was made in August, threw me off, and I screwed up. I really wish Pppery could've told me this at my talkpage instead of resorting to what should be a last resort. I've consistently kept my promise to change insofar as sandboxing and discussion of changes to templates are concerned, and the reversion I made was to a previous status quo made by an admin. Again, I messed up, I didn't read the talkpage properly, so I wrongly assumed that the request was made elsewhere (such as at Pppery's talkpage) rather than the template talkpage. I would've reverted immediately had I been personally informed. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 04:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

This is not just "one mistake". This is the last in a long series of mistakes. And while you've apologized for every one they've kept happening. The camel's back is broken.

And I'm not assuming bad faith. I don't doubt that you're trying to improve Wikipedia. I'm stating the fact that your use of this permission seems to be repeatedly causing chaos and accomplishing little else. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Reverting to a previous status quo, approved by an admin no less, isn't "causing chaos". I made a mistake, I realised that, and I self-reverted. I don't understand why you couldn't have told me this on my talkpage. It's not as if I made a change to the template without sandboxing or prior discussion, as this was merely a restoration of a previous status quo. It's also worth noting that this change isn't uncontroversial, nor the result of a discernible community consensus. It was requested and implemented without any notification to editors who had previously contributed to the last status quo. To be clear, I'm not saying I was right, I was clearly mistaken, but please understand that I was only seeking to restore what I saw as the last stable version of the template. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 04:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the template editor right from Neveselbert on the basis that it does not seem necessary and has been used unwisely. Editing templates/modules requires a much different approach from that used elsewhere. The comments above would be exemplary for normal editing back-and-forth but do not show an understanding that it is not just a "mistake" to revert an edit made nearly four weeks earlier at Template:Infobox person (509,035 transclusions). Johnuniq (talk) 05:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Margin914 causing vandalism

This account was created less than 40 minutes ago and jumped right into vandalizing AFD pages. Account has removed AFD tags and closing AFD. Did the same here and here. Account is also creating draft pages for the articles listed in AFD nominations to resubmit for publishing if deleted. Page Vivek Verma was deleted per G5 and before too. I would not be surprised if this new account is a sock. RangersRus (talk) 13:03, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

See also Bukka914 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is clearly the same user making the same edits. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 13:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

FYI this is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BuickCenturyDriver. C F A 💬 15:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

@CFA: What's your reasoning?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Well, there's only two AfD closer LTAs that I'm aware of, and BuickCenturyDriver is obviously this one. What confirmed it for me right away was their "no consensus" closes which is something only BuickCenturyDriver does. (e.g. see: [202][203][204][205][206], etc.). There's a bunch of other evidence too, like their username format (word then 3 numbers - e.g. Sarmy719, Coner720, Luvei721, Luvioe721, Zerby720, Scorpion126, Scoripon126, Hyperore512, Wrzzrobe512, Phazon720), impersonation (e.g. DanCharak, DatGoy, Zzeezou, HJ Hitchall, Eavonian), etc. They also edited my comment here ([207][208]) to change "BuickCenturyDriver" to something else which is essentially an admission in my opinion. C F A 💬 14:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, CFA, excellent job! --Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism by IP range 2405:201:4016:3138:D878:2CD2:2B9D:AC73

2405:201:4016:3138:D878:2CD2:2B9D:AC73 and its related [209] have been removing sourced content, adding unsourced and edit warring. This IP range is likely a sock puppet of User:Prince Of Roblox User:Anantam tripathi or User:Doremon9087. Never ending disruption [210] [211] [212] [213] [214], [215], [216]. Also note uncivil comments here here here, so may be a sock of User:Karkanistan. See [217] [218] [219] [220] and many other articles affected by this IP range. I've requested ay WP:AIV and WP:RPP for action. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Edit history of User:Moarnighar

User:Moarnighar arrived very recently. They wrote "session" on the user page and started a spree of period changes that did not add value. As User:GreenC put it, these gave the appearance of "I was here", or "need a lot of edits to launder account". Additionally, Moarnighar has added personal information sourced from blogs, referenced as raw URLs and disguised as minor edits. Some of the edits have been reverted or commented on their talk page. In a concerning development, Moarnighar has now begun submitting baseless AfDs, unnecessarily draining community resources. Urgent admin intervention would be appreciated. The account exhibits classic sockpuppet behavior, yet to report there I believe I would need at least a hunch on the puppeteer. gidonb (talk) 18:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

The editor has a lot of problems and I'm surprised they are still at it. They consistently violate WP:PRESERVE (policy) deleting simple factual content that is easily sourced eg. "the author wrote a book titled..", deleting the sentence rather than adding a cite to the book. They mess with sentences and paragraphs, either combining them or splitting them illogically, there is no sense of reading comprehension, rather based on the visual impact. They create ill-advised AfDs. Overall it looks like a case of WP:COMPETENCY at best, or something else at worse. -- GreenC 19:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

User:GreenC, your impression that they were creating a pattern of edits to launder an account was most likely spot on, as they now seem to be cashing in on the built-up goodwill with destructive AfDs. Typically, such individuals sit alone in front of their screen, laughing at the time they've wasted for a value-driven community. gidonb (talk) 20:14, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

They also seem to be editing as an IP now. I reverted them in Russ Baker, only for two different IPs to show up the next day and undo the revert. -- GreenC 17:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Spworld2 has been informed about this ongoing discussion on their talk page. Neutralhappy (talk) 22:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Neutralhappy, you need to provide convincing evidence in the form of diffs. You have not yet done so. Cullen328 (talk) 23:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, any editor can provide sources or tag with "citation needed" or if all else fails, remove implausible or false unsourced content. That does not require administrator's tools. Cullen328 (talk) 23:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

The diffs seem to be presented in this version of the filer's sandbox (linked in mobile view in the last sentence), with this post serving as a summary. Left guide (talk) 23:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Now, I have provided convincing evidence in the form of diffs. Spworld2 would definitely need an indefinite topic ban on both Samasthas and the related topics, such as their subsidiaries. Neutralhappy (talk) 11:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Remedies

• 1) Remove all mentions of the term "(AP Sunnis)" in bold in the article, except in the title, since it is not part of the name of the organisation of AP Sunnis.
• 2) Remove the statement that Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) is known as "Samastha (AP Faction)", because it is unsourced. Instead, say it is known as "Samastha" since the sources say so (1, 2, 3, 4).
• 3) How should we treat the time of formation, the founder, and the history until the so-called split of Samastha in 1989? Based on the source or by arbitrarily considering one of them or both of them as new organisations? Please help decide it.
  • I suggest the removal of the unsourced statements (including in the infobox) that the AP Samastha was founded in 1989 and that the founder of AP Samastha is Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar.
• 4) Remove the mention that Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar ever became the president of any Samastha, since no source supports it.
• 5) Remove the mention that headquarters of AP Samastha is Markazu Saqafathi Sunniyya, for two reasons: it is unsourced and it appears dubious since a post of a Facebook page, supporting the AP faction, says "Samastha Centre, Kozhikode-6" below "Samastha Kerala Jam-iyyathul Ulama".

If I remove the unsourced content, Spworld2 will add it again. So someone else need to intervene. Neutralhappy (talk) 06:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Addition of unsourced content by Spworld2

• Spworld2 also added unsourced content (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) in the infobox that the formation of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) is in 1989 and its founder is Kanthapuram. The sources cited by Spworld2 to add 1989 as the year of formation or Kanthapuram as the founder in the infobox do not support the addition by Spworld2. These two (1, 2) are the sources Spworld2 used to add 1989 as the year of formation and Kanthapuram as the founder of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction), in the infobox. These two do not support Spworld2's claim. On the other hand, Spworld2 wants to add 1926 as the year of formation and Varakkal Mullakoya Thangal as the founder of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (EK faction) in the infobox of the article for Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (EK faction).
• Spworld2 again wrongfully changed the year of formation of AP Samastha without citing a source. The source given does not even mention "1986".
• Spworld2 wants to advance the position that the founder of AP Samastha is Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar, without citing a source.
• Spworld2 added the headquarters of AP Samastha as Markazu Saqafathi Sunniyya without citing a source, though this appears to be wrong since the place shown below "Samastha Kerala Jam-iyyathul Ulama" in a post of a Facebook page supporting the AP faction is "Samastha Center, Kozhikode-6".
• Spworld2 says Kanthapuram is the founding president of AP Samastha, which must be false, not only because there could not be a single source stating Kanthapuram ever was a president of any Samastha, either before the so-called split in Samastha in 1989 or after it; but also because at the time of the reorganisation of Samastha in 1989, Kanthapuram was made the general secretary and Ullal Thangal the president.

Removal of sourced content by Spworld2

• Spworld2 also removed content to advance the view of the people associated with EK Samastha by removing the sourced content.
• See also this sourced content removal by Spworld2.
• See this sourced content removal by Spworld2.
• Spworld2 removed the sourced content about the flag of Samastha, probably to suppress the AP faction version of the narrative about the flag.
• Spworld2 removed "Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama" because Spworld2 hates AP Samastha being referred to as "Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama", though the sources given against it refer to AP Samastha as "Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama". See what the sources say also. Instead, Spworld2 replaced the term "Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama" with "All India Sunni Jamiyyathul Ulama", another organisation of AP Sunnis.
• Soworld2 removed the sourced content, giving a false edit summary.

Unhelpful editing by Spworld2

• Both Samasthas are known as Samastha. But Spworld2 made this unhelpful edit, by changing also known as Samastha to also known as Samastha (AP Faction) even though there are numerous sources to support it and 5 sources are present in the article to support it. Note there is not a single source that says Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) is known as "Samastha (AP Faction)" or "Samastha (AP faction)". Spworld2 apparently and probably made this edit to get a positive result to the Spworld2's move request and thus get the page moved to "Samastha (AP Faction)".
• Spworld2 made this unhelpful edit by changing "Flag of EK Samastha" to "Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama flag". In fact, it is the flag of EK Samastha only. This edit by Spworld2 would mislead readers that there is no difference of opinion regarding the flag used by both Samasthas. In fact, AP Samastha uses a different flag. This is especially problematic since both flags appear to be the same, though there are minor differences.
• Spworld2 removed "of EK Sunnis", which distinguishes the organisation, by this edit. In addition, Spworld2 removed the part that clarifies the misunderstanding that there are two Samasthas in the same edit.

Spworld2's character of not maintaining neutrality

• Spworld2 wanted to advance the view of the people associated with EK Samastha in the page Samastha, by removing the part "(EK faction)" given against Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (EK faction) in it.
• Spworld2 did not maintain neutrality and thus expressed having a COI (WP:CONFLICT) in the pages: Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction), Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (EK faction) and Samastha.

Unwanted placement of clarfy tag by Spworld2

• Though there is nothing unclear Spworld2 placed the clarify tags (1, 2), without giving a reason. Later, Spworld2 removed the content altogether just because Spworld2 hates AP Samastha and its success.

Repeated addition of EK Samastha's only position without citing source to support it, by Spworld2

• See: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Disruptive edits by Spworld2 even after getting warning

• Spworld2 added an unsourced content, even after getting a warning (see: 1, 2). The source says about the split of Samastha in 1989, not the formation of AP Samastha. Nor does the source say Kanthapuram is the founder of AP Samastha.

Links of previous discussions

• Talk:Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama#When was the formation of EK Samastha?
• Talk:Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP Sunnis)#Requested move 10 August 2024
• Talk:Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP Sunnis)#How to deal with the year of formation in pages for both AP and EK Samasthas
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) & Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (EK faction)
• Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) and Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (EK faction)

Neutralhappy (talk) 11:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I can see nothing here that belongs at WP:ANI. This discussion only seems to add one venue to the already too long list of venues where the content issue is being discussed. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I rather disagree with you since this WP:ANI is meant to deal with chronic, intractable behavioral problems, as this venue itself says:

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

I came here not mainly to discuss but to get an action taken against the bad faith, disruptive, and biased editor Spworld2, or mainly to get the unsourced content removed. Neutralhappy (talk) 13:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

This board is for deciding whether an editor is "bad faith, disruptive, and biased". If you presuppose that, as you did in the original title of this section, then there is nothing to discuss. All I have found out here is that Sunni Muslims are just as factional as evangelical Christians or Trotskyites. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for your reply. Have you found out that America is known as USA? If yes, should we avoid saying America is known as USA in the Wikipedia article on America, because some people hate to refer to America as USA? What is your answer? Whether it is yes or no, the same applies to both Samasthas, since both of them are known as "Samastha". Spworld2 hates to refer to AP Samastha as a Samastha, so Spworld2 replaced "known as Samastha" with "known as Samastha (AP Faction)",—which is similar to saying Taiwan is "known as China ([name of founder of Taiwan] Faction)",—without citing any source though the given sources against it refer to AP Samastha as "Samastha". If it is not a problem, the same should apply to EK Samastha, where Spworld2 had not applied the same, by replacing the term "known as Samastha" with "known as Samastha (EK faction)", because Spworld2 wants to project only EK Samastha is known as Samastha, obviously to advance the view of the EK faction (people affiliated with EK Samastha) that the only EK Samastha is the real continuation of the Samastha founded in 1926. If it is not a problem add "known as China ([name of founder of Taiwan] Faction), by replacing the "[name of founder of Taiwan]" with the founder's name in the article Taiwan. Likewise, add similar terms coined by Wikipedia editors in several other articles. Neutralhappy (talk) 14:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Spworld2 removed the boldening of the term "EK Samastha" because Spworld2 wants only EK Samastha referred to as "Samastha" without qualification. Which Wikipedia guideline suggests mentioning alternative names of a subject without boldening it. Therefore, it is not only an act of disruptive editing but vandalism also. Neutralhappy (talk) 15:22, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

As for Phil Bridger's comment, each sentence (specially shown) is rebutted as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

All you have found may be the whole universe, but they may not be relevant here. Here, we need evidence such as, sources, and diffs. Neutralhappy (talk) 16:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Two editors unable to participate collaboratively

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

EEng responded. Highlights include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Why does this warrant an ANI post? ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
• Several of Keystone18's edits indisputably were a "mess", and the passive-aggressive comments like "Do not project ownership over pages" aren't as conducive to collaboration as the author might imagine them to be. On the other hand, it is easy to see why an editor would disagree with the need for 39 separate comments saying "DO NOT "FIX" DIRECT QUOTES" in one paragraph at Statue of John Harvard. There might be a need for intervention here, but the talk-page comments aren't why. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Keystone18 warned to preview edits

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

• Support. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose what is this even. No. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - we already have a template for this, just place Template:Uw-preview on their talk page. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Keystone18 subject to edit summary restrictions

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

• Support. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support. I have been frequently frustrated by Keystone18's rapid-fire edits without edit summaries. Requiring edit summaries will not only make their edits easier to understand - it will force them to slow down and think about the edits. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - we have a template for this as well, Template:Uw-editsummary2. And edit summaries are not required anyway, but they are best practice. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support - I know it's an usual step to take, but this is an unusual case. Keystone has made over 100,000 edits in the past 2.5 years: 45k in 2022, 39k in 2023, over 31k so far this year [221]. Only half of those edits have edit summaries--that's 55k+ edits with no summaries [222]. They are going too fast and making too many edits, and the lack of edit summaries is likely because edit summaries would slow them down. They made 1,620 edits to Allentown, Pennsylvania; 1,342 edits to Lehigh Valley. What possible reason could there be for any editor to make more than a thousand edits to one article? And look at the edits, e.g. to Allentown, PA: [223]. Even when edit summaries are used, they're canned, like "further" and "minor copyediting." This sort of behavior absolutely blows up article histories--and floods watchlists. Requiring descriptive edit summaries would both solve the lack-of-edit-summary problem, and, I think, solve the too-many-edits problem. WP:HIGHSCORE editing is disruptive. Levivich (talk) 15:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  PS: 930 edits to talk pages. 110,000 edits to mainspace, less than 1,000 to talk space. Kinda tells you all you need to know right there. Levivich (talk) 15:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

EEng subject to a civility restriction

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

---

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

• Support. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Please don't waste everyone's time with this. An editor made "suggestions" at his talk page. And they weren't as fully perfect as you make them out to be, in your description at the beginning of this ANI thread. No one is obligated to accept those suggestions. A disagreement at a user's talk page is unlikely to require ANI and proposals for community sanctions. If there are problems in article space or article talk space, come back again, I guess. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
• I think EEng's civility may merit discussion at this board. His comments are, if memory serves, frequently sarcastic and vitriolic. I don't think this is the right way to begin that discussion, though. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose this entire thread. Disclosure: I'm pretty sure I once voted for EEng to be indefinitely blocked, but nothing here warrants that, and these kinds of civility restrictions aren't enforceable. It's all or nothing. Mackensen (talk) 00:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per Tryptofish. This entire thread should be closed. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 00:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

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

Problems with Keystone18's editing

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

• I too am very concerned about Keystone18's recent editing behavior. We need explanations. Cullen328 (talk) 02:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
• I had two very negative interactions with Keystone18 over image sizes and Commons category location in 2023. In both cases, they were making formatting changes that I feel made no sense, and their talk page replies were very strange interpretations of guidelines/policy. I don't think this problematic editing is a recent development; it's just another chapter of Keystone18 refusing to work nicely with other editors. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
• The pattern of dozens of small edits per page, with a high error rate, has gone on for some time. Another recent article edited, David Starr Jordan (this diff has all Keystone's edits with only one minor interleaving edit), has similar issues: there are now two separate sections titled "Personal life", and typos appear more than they are corrected (for example In 1875, while in Indianapolis, Jordan obtained a Doctor of Medicine degree from Indiana Medical College in 1875. or Indiana President President Michael McRobbie. This is an editor who needs to be more careful in their editing. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:29, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

After reading through many more of Keystone18's edits, beyond the image-layout concerns and the pattern of a large number of small edits per article (with a high error-rate and minimal communication), the main thing I noticed was idiosyncratic views about how places are referred to. For example, changing "[[Brooklyn]], [[New York (state)|New York]]" to "[[Brooklyn]], New York City, U.S." in infoboxes. Walsh90210 (talk) 04:34, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

• Three hours ago I was in the process of asking Tryptofish to have a quiet word with Keystone to help them see the light. But then thebiguglyalien took it upon himself to stir the shit-pot, and here we are.
  I've had to clean up so many of Keystone's messes that I can't remember them all, but here are talk-page threads I opened on four articles, listing the problems Keystone introduced (some of them, anyway -- no way to find them all since their diffs are often so scattershot you can't tell what they do e.g. [224]):

• [225]
• [226]
• [227]
• [228]

Keystone never responded to any of those threads, instead typically returning to whichever article and attempting to edit-war their changes back in -- their signature move being shoving all image to the right and making them all the same size, no matter how bizarre the results (see [229] -- and scroll to the bottom to see how Keystone also somehow managed to paste 1/3 of the article into a footnote, images and all). EEng 04:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello. This ended up here after I offered several suggestions/questions to EEng a few days ago on some of Eeng's editing trends. Two editors thanked me for my edits while also warning of EEng's aggressive guardianship of these pages. As one editor wrote: "Thanks to both of you for your hard work on the Harvard articles and attempts, though sometimes futile, to make them better. I see you both have encountered "the steward." I encountered them months ago on History and traditions of Harvard commencements. Finally made some progress but it took weeks. There are a handful of Harvard articles (it sort of seems like a random list) that they watch like a hawk, and any change they don't agree with, however minor, will almost invariably be walked backed. It leads to articles that, I agree with you, are formatted and written in a very bizarre and unconventional way, and certainly not an encyclopedic one." That was followed by EEng's very volatile responses, which I first saw today. At no point have I refused to collaborate with him on the article. Just the opposite. Collaboration was one of my suggestions in my short post to his page. I also asked about his consistent use of unattributed quotes, including in article ledes and as primary captions; his addition of personal commentary on the article's subject, which he adds as edit notes in text, which is confusing and sometimes presents spacing and editing problems; his routine use of the "shy" function to words, which I have not before seen and which makes page editing very difficult and also adds to spacing issues; his placement of images in various sizes all over the page (on the left, in the center, and on the right); my suggestion that he not project ownership (what he calls "guardianship)" over pages; and my suggestion that he work collaboratively with other editors.

The editing of these articles, including my bracket and other error, was complicated by these unusual formatting tactics, but let me focus on my own takeaways for improvement: 1.) I should use the preview option consistently; I likely would have caught the bracket error if I had; 2.) Cease editing on a small device as I have the past few weeks, which was likely part of the cause of the bracket error; in fact, I discovered another similar bracket error today in the Harvard template box, which I corrected and I believe was of my making recently; and 3.) Use much greater discretion (if used at all) with the minor edit option. Keystone18 (talk) 04:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Keystone18, your explanation is inadequate. I have made about 100,000 smartphone edits without ever blaming a "small device" for my errors, which I do my best to correct promptly. I became a highly active administator on my phone and have written Good articles on my phone. Your editing is being discussed because you offered a harsh assessment of another editor's work and other editors took a look at your own work and discovered major problems. Please offer a more detailed response to the criticisms of your editing and a more robust assurance that the problems will not crop up again. Cullen328 (talk) 05:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

When Keystone posted on my talk page five days ago, that was the first time they had given even the slightest hint of acknowledgment of my existence -- after ignoring for a week (as they continue to ignore) the several article discussion threads I'd opened (linked at the four bullets above) and my dozens of detailed edit summaries (e.g. [230]) explaining why I was forced to revert essentially every edit they'd made to numerous articles. What I'd like you, Cullen328, to get from Keystone is how they justify that behavior, for which editing on a phone is also not an excuse. EEng 05:47, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

1. No excuse for editing errors ever. My primary corrective step is to systematically begin using the preview function; 2. No excuse to mark an edit minor if it isn't, or might even be viewed that way. I am going to use great discretion with it; and 3. In the coming weeks, I will attempt to reach out to the handful of editors who posted here and attempt to forge consensus and resolve any legitimate lingering concerns. Keystone18 (talk) 06:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the minor edits, that sounds good. Most people won't complain about a minor edit popping up in their and watchlist, and if they do just link this thread. The "minor" checkbox isn't even available on some interfaces right now.[231] Watch out if you use a lot of scripts because some (like User:Mesidast/Tidy citations.js) have a "minor" setting that checks the box when they run. Also, if you want a reminder for edit summaries, you can tick the box at Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary) Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 06:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I activated that prompt option, which is a helpful reminder. Keystone18 (talk) 07:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@Keystone18: He is being a "guardian" as he calls it because you have made hundreds or thousands of worthless pointless edits that are constantly filled with errors. (Not on just that page, but all over.) It doesn't have anything to do with the equipment you're using, and it's not a stray bracket here and there. EEng was probably wrong to be as sarcastic and harsh as he was, but behind his nasty tone he absolutely was telling the truth about the constant terrible quality of your editing. TooManyFingers (talk) 05:49, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

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

For the record, the "context for that statement" you're looking for is this discussion [232], in which an editor insisted that his original research into Harvard's tax returns overrides multiple reliable sources from which I had directly quoted. That editor made themself look ridiculous all by themselves, no help from me needed.

If you will allow me, Yngvadottir, to redirect the focus however, I have asked Keystone several times now to explain why they refused to discuss their edits at the talk-page threads I opened on several articles [233][234][235][236]. That's the heart of this whole issue. Keystone's overestimation of their own skill wouldn't matter if they had been willing to discuss and learn, but they're not -- though they do put on a good show of it here at ANI. ("I will attempt to reach out to the handful of editors who posted here and attempt to forge consensus and resolve any legitimate lingering concerns" sounds like AI-generated bullshit, BTW.) So once again, Keystone18: what's your explanation for simply ignoring those discussions for up to ten days, while you kept doing the same mistaken things to those and other articles? EEng 11:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Nothing complicated, EEng. I was not on from about September 10 until yesterday, and you reverted the edits anyway. If I revisit any of these pages, though, I'll be sure to raise my suggestions with you on the respective article talk page first. Keystone18 (talk) 12:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

No, content/editorial disputes about specific articles should be discussed on the article talkpages. EEng says they opened discussions on the article talkpages which you didn't contribute to. AusLondonder (talk) 12:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Keystone18, either you think we're all dumb, or this is getting to be a WP:CIR case.

• The four discussions were opened on September 4, 7, 7, and 12. Between September 4 and 9 you made almost 1000 edits, including to some of those four articles [237], but ignored the discussions completely. You also ignored my extensive, careful edit summaries [238] reverting your edits; instead you just went back and started editwarring your changes in again.
• On September 9 you left your message on my talk page, outlining your ideas about editing and article formatting, which might charitably be labeled idiosyncratic. As soon as Yngvadottir responded to you, that evening, pointing out the many ways you'd been messing up article after article, you suddenly stopped editing.

Now, once again: explain your complete failure to discuss. EEng 16:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, EEng, by the time I saw your edit comments on the Widener Library and Memorial Hall (Harvard University) pages, you had already reverted my edits. I also did not respond to the very complimentary comments I received on my page about those very same edits from one of two different editors User talk:Keystone18#Widener Library, who praised my edits. Nor did I sign on for four or so days because, frankly, I wasn't feeling well. And nor did (or do) I really have the inclination to revisit these two pages as an active editor because I sense you do not have much interest in collaborative editing on them. I will, however, be sure to read them.

If I am wrong about that, however, and you want my response to your page comments, I am very willing to address them. You appear to have systematically reverted editors with similar concerns, however. My focus, here, is in not being defensive, but focusing on constructive steps that I can take that make sense and will likely eliminate errors and improve my contributions, including: 1.) I am going to begin using the preview option routinely; 2.) I am going to minimize greatly or entirely the use of the minor edit function; and 3.) I am going to reach out in the coming weeks to those who commented here. Keystone18 (talk) 17:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Subsection on how this thread began

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

Mdj112233 unsourced and unexplained edits

• Mdj112233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Has made numerous unsourced and unexplained edits (they appear to rarely if ever use edit summaries), has refused to explain themselves when asked (see their talkpage), including reinstating their edits when reverted without explanation (see the edit history of the Lancelet article for an example). @Ta-tea-two-te-to: also has had issues with this user. I think the best solution is to block them indefinitely from article space until they agree to communicate. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protection request for Subh-i-Azal due to disruptive IP

User:Qalandar303 was banned indefinitely (here) less than two years ago. Several IPs have been making the same edits to the same page over the last four days and just said, You have been reverted, and will continue to be so indefinitely. If you continue to misbehave, brow-beat and bully, rights are reserved to take furthermore action. [239]

Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and personal attack by Alon9393

In the past week, Alon9393 has gone on a tear of !voting in AfDs and nominating articles for deletion. Despite multiple warnings from Liz (diff, diff), HopalongCasualty (diff) and Geschichte (diff) about their participation, Alon continues to participate in AfD discussions in a disruptive way. Alon has nominated multiple pages with no valid deletion rationale (diff, diff) When confronted, the response has been something that is either sarcasm or a complete WP:NOTGETTINGIT reaction (diff, diff) and shows either confusion or deliberate obstinacy about how to assess WP:PROMO (diff). Alon offers !votes not based on P&Gs and some are just plain non-sensical (diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff). These votes are making it harder for closers to assess consensus. In addition to the disruptive AfD participation, we have personal insults against another editor (diff) and an accusation of the same editor misrepresenting his home country (diff). There may also be a WP:CIR issue here as the editor continues to fail (diff) to properly transclude nominations. For the ongoing disruptive AfD activity, even after warnings, and CIR problems, I wonder if a (temporary) topic ban from AfD would be appropriate. The personal insult (which has not been apologized for or otherwise addressed by Alon) is additional evidence this user may need to take a break. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support indef due to WP:CIR issues. 202.47.50.250 (talk) 04:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
• If the editor is causing mass disruption at AfDs but otherwise making constructive edits on mainspace articles (which seems to be the case from a cursory glance), then perhaps a partial block from Wikipedia namespace would stem the tide. Left guide (talk) 06:23, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
• As explanation, but not excuse, for some of the appearance of CIR, they have made edits that indicate a possible language barrier and other personal situations that interfere with clear English communication. But I agree that here we only care about what happens here, not what causes it. DMacks (talk) 09:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@DMacks: Don't you get the feeling that Alon9393 is intentionally communicating in poor English to give the impression that their skills are worse than they actually are? When you compare the English in their articles to their comments on AFD or talk pages, the difference is pretty striking. --— Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I’m assuming good faith here; the poor English language skills are also visible in mainspace edits, but Alon’s focus there is often on adding citations and infoboxes, where weak English competence is less disruptive. I don’t see the signs you do of UPE or block evasion; I see an over-enthusiastic newcomer who’s trying to be a helpful participant but doesn’t have either the grounding in policy or English language to participate effectively in AfDs, and in ignoring warnings and advice has become disruptive. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Dclemens1971, Ok I AGF. But their personal attacks aren't going to stop either, and accusing me of being anti-Pakistan is no small matter, especially in a place like Pakistan where I live. They’re playing with serious, dangerous accusations. Also see this RPP labelling IPs as confirmd socks without any evidence. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you, the personal attack was out of line and I did not even fully consider the impact the aspersions about national loyalty might have. Yet another reason for an appropriate sanction. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

• Since they've made personal attacks against me (though I’m not too bothered by it), I just wanted to share my two cents here. It seems a bit suspicious for someone with ~500 edits and who just joined a couple of months ago to be so invested in AFDs. Maybe they should be temporarily restricted from participating in AFD. --— Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC).
• I noticed Alon9393's participation at AfD and was concerned by some very poor arguments, for example at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Iraq, Moscow they argued for keeping the article on the embassy on the basis that it may be attacked in the future. They also argued for keeping an article on a consulate by stating "The article has encyclopedic relevance; the topic appears in an encyclopedia. The content of the article is encyclopedic, with a broader extension and content it can remain on Wikipedia." Some of the nominations they have made are not unreasonable, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghirmai Ghebremariam (although the rationale is not great) while the nom of FUNREDES is also not unreasonable given the lack of sources and poor state of that article. They also did cite WP:ORGCRITE in that nom. At the moment I think we should assume good faith unless there's evidence to the contrary. I'd personally suggest that they just need to slow down, read up on some of our notability policies and WP:AFDDISCUSS. Also we need to make very clear that personal attacks is unacceptable behaviour that could lead to blocks. AusLondonder (talk) 09:38, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support for temporarily restricted from participating in AFD as per Saqib and facts showed by AusLondonder. They need a break. Mehedi Abedin 09:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
• Whether the userbox and edit comments on their user page are genuine (note: added today), and whether they explain and/or excuse this behaviour, I don't know, but AGF they might. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support restriction from AfD or pblock from wikipedia namespace, whichever works better. Just read their talk page. It appears that they are not understanding the advice they are given and exudes overconfidence.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. Alon9393 has posted yet another personal attack against Saqib, which as Saqib notes above could have real-world personal implications. Administrator attention is warranted here. Diff: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alon9393&diff=prev&oldid=1245861312&diffonly=1. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
• Regretful support for at least AfD restriction per WP:CIR.

1. I have questioned an AfD and the user has removed the attribution from the article, creating a coppyvio. They also removed a critical part of the text "when this quantity exists." [240]
2. On FUNREDES they have shotgunned {{Cn}}, including placing one after an existing {{Cn}}. [241]
3. Picking a random edit, they provided a useful piped link, but lost the possessive marker at the same time. [242]
4. I am concerned that their command of English coupled with over-confidence will lead to more issues. For example, they consistently use "notoriety" when they mean "notability". This could constitute a BLP violation in an article. And that's just one word.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 17:15, 15 September 2024 (UTC).

• They have continued to be disruptive at AFD, such as saying an article had no refs, when it had two extlinks clearly on-topic. And they also filed an RFPP to protect an AFD to prevent participation from anonymous IPs, which is firstly not a valid basis by default (IPs are definitely welcome to participate in general!) and specifically this AFD had zero IP edits at all ever. That's "AFD related, but not "an AFD page" and they have not demonstrated any ability to restrict their edits by request, so I am indef p-blocking them from WP namespace. No prejudice against further admin action, no need to consult me before modifying this one in any way. DMacks (talk) 17:47, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  @DMacks the user is now vandalizing articles in mainspace by removing whole article texts; editor is clearly NOTHERE. Can we get an indef for mainspace before further damage is done? Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  I support the indefinite block due to this unacceptable behavior. While they may be frustrated by their restrictions from AFDs, vandalizing pages is only exacerbating the problem. Fwiw Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Libraa2019. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  I support this. This user seems to be reverting many of their past additions to articles right now, some quite significant. GhostOfNoMeme 18:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

• Upgraded to site indef. DMacks (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  Given the responses in his talk page, I suggest blocking him from editing it. INFIYNJTE (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

• The user's attempts to blank their own article creations might qualify for WP:G7 speedy deletion. Would there be any objections to tagging them as such? Left guide (talk) 19:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I've no objection about the others, but Abdul Hannan (singer) since the AFD is open. Regardless of whether the BLP is kept or deleted through AFD, the AFD process should be followed, even though they also wanted it deleted.— Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

They have nearly 700 edits over 2+ months and their page-creation log is also full of AFDs. That's a lot for each of us to parse. Might be useful to post a list of what you propose for G7 so we can double-check nobody else has made a substantive edit. I usually frown on G7 if an article has existed "for a while" even if nobody else has touched it. Maybe better to mass AFD unless you think this editor was bad-news content-wise from the start (rather only turning disruptive once flagged for AFD disruption). DMacks (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Was unaware of this thread when I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crooks & Nannies as an unintelligible nom. Endorse block. Star Mississippi 20:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Batong1930 disruption and PA

Batong1930 (talk · contribs)

See this diff for what seems to be the most recent example of a pattern of irreconcilable conduct. Remsense ‥ 论 01:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked Batong1930 for one week for disruptive editing. The belligerent f-bomb directed at a fellow editor is not acceptable. Cullen328 (talk) 03:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Non-stop badgering by Legaleagle86

On Talk:2024 Kolkata rape and murder incident, Legaleagle86 is engaging in non-stop badgering despite having been warned against it.[243] He has made 37 responses until now and is misuing the talk page for forum-like discussions such as: [244][245]. Ratnahastin (talk) 02:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I have indefinitely pageblocked Legaleagle86 from that talk page. Enough is enough. Cullen328 (talk) 02:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

User: Ingquza

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

This user has gone under the radar a bit, but they're a mass disruptive editor. They add alternative names to things that are just incorrect, and add unnecessary "not to be confused with" to various pages, as well as some outright vandalism.

Disruptive distinguishing:

• On Jaundice
• Sasol

Alternative names:

• Jacques
• Bellville
• Atlas Copco

Vandalism:

• Kraaifontein
• Overburg
• Manie Libbok
• Hugo Boss
• Dyslexia

GraziePrego (talk) 03:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Ingquza for disruptive editing. Cullen328 (talk) 03:15, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Harassing vandal back again

Regular readers will have seen before that a vandal pops up from time to time to revert a string of my recent edits, leaving uncivil comments in the edit summary. They are back again, this time under the name Gooning 4 fistagon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and with the same MO (except more widely spread in their vandalising and incivility). Could someone please block and revdel their all their summaries. There's obviously some deep seated issues with this one, but whatever that may be, they shouldn't be allowed to leave their comments across the site. (And to think my rollback permission was removed because I once called them a vandal - not such a smart step that). - SchroCat (talk) 07:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Update: Now blocked, but the revdel still needs to be done. The vandal/troll is now making demands on their talk page that suggest they are also a sock, and still leaving edit summaries that need a revdel. If someone could please oblige, that would be great. - SchroCat (talk) 07:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I've rev-del'd the worst of the edit summaries and removed their TPA. Black Kite (talk) 08:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks Black Kite, it's much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:20, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@Black Kite Could you revdel [246] this one as well? Thanks, GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 09:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

And maybe this edit summary that's just been left for me too? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

• I am now being harassed by an IP on my talk page: could someone please take action? Many thanks in advance. - SchroCat (talk) 14:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  Please take a look at this editor's reverting history while you're at it. They are a clear WP:OWNer. 94.54.1.170 (talk) 14:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  Which of your edits did I revert? Reverting something does not equate to any claim of ownership. You, however, seem to think that leaving edit summaries such as "S:crew U f:kng WP:OWNer", as you did here is somehow acceptable. - SchroCat (talk) 14:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think it's acceptable but your habitual WP:OWN nonsense was driving me crazy. 94.54.1.170 (talk) 14:20, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  There's no ownership, so you can cut out the lying that's accompanied the harassment and incivility. Which of your edits did I revert? - SchroCat (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  This isn't about me, no matter how much you'd like to play it this way. It also isn't about any specific edit. WP:OWN is a pattern with you and you should reflect on what that means. 94.54.1.170 (talk) 14:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  So you don't want to say which one of your edits I reverted? That's fine. The admins here will make of it what they will - and they'll make of your incivility, trolling, harassment and lying what they want too. - SchroCat (talk) 14:29, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  Diddums also isn't civil, it's not like you're excempt just because you removed it later. I don't care what the admins make of me, I just want them to deal with your nonsense. 94.54.1.170 (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah we're nipping this in the bud now. IP blocked for obvious evasion, and harassment. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks - it's much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

User that does nothing but removing huge chunks of information

Hello, I’m just here to voice my concerns about User:CatTits10. This person joined Wikipedia very recently but already has amassed almost 3000 edits, mostly removing huge portions of information from articles without any regard about the readability of this articles, completely destroying the flow of some. This user also doesn’t seem to be interested in improving said articles by adding very easy to find sources for most claims. This is starting to look like destruction to me instead of contribution. Would like some admins to shine their light on this. Thank you. A concerned user (mostly active on a different language Wikipedia). LesRoutine (talk) 15:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Very agressive user page - User:CatTits10. They are open about just removing all unrefed content en masse on various types of metal music etc pages. Probably not the way to go. Johnbod (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

It should also be noted that at least 4 or 5 others have warned the user to no avail. Their reasoning (from talk page comments) are because the "content is unsourced" and "CN tags sit there for decades".

But here's a head-scratcher. On their user page, they write how they've added hundreds of pages to their watchlist, and that they're confident that they can "get shit done"...but their account is only a few weeks old. Incredibly fast learner or..? Xanarki (talk) 17:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed that this is an editor on a personal mission to delete as much (admittedly unsourced) content as possible, with an I'm going to do what I want, there's no stopping me energy. Here's an example from a user talk page:

"Nobody does their job around here. I took it upon myself to "clean house" on all pop punk, emo, metalcore, deathcore, hardcore punk, death metal, black metal, alternative rock, nu metal, post-grunge and alternative metal bands. Over the past month, I have singe-handedly removed millions of bytes of unsourced information from band and musician biographies all around this project. This is only the beginning, this is only phase one. I am going to build this encyclopedia back stronger than it ever was." (diff)

This editor needs to slow down and be more judicious in their cuts. Toughpigs (talk) 17:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I learned how to properly write and cite stuff in college (I went to school for music business). I don't think I'm a fast learner by any stretch lol, I'm more or less just an extremely hard worker. There's a good quote by meteorologist James Spann that's something like, and I'm paraphrasing, "I'm not particularly good at anything, I'm just the hardest working person you'll ever meet" and I think that applies to somebody in my situation. I would describe myself as somebody who is severely spread thin over numerous different life forces. It carries over into my digital footprint, hence the extremely raw and aggressive nature of my editing style (which I have somewhat agreed to tame). EXTREME EDITING FOR EXTREME PEOPLE!!!

Cheers, CatTits10 (talk) 17:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

We shouldn't assume the worst of any new editor that knows what they are doing (even if what they are doing doesn't accord to our wishes). Before I made my first edit to Wikipedia I made damn sure that I was on firm ground by reading up on policies and guidelines. But then again I am of the generation that was brought up on RTFM, and if we didn't we could expect ridicule. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah they tried to shove RTFM ethics down my throat when I was growing up, eventually I got tired of people in my life being impatient hot-headed pricks so I stopped giving a fuck a long time ago. I mainly wanted to make sure my edits sent out a huge flair that these articles were deserted and neglected. Apologies if some of these articles have been left in their "awkward stages". I'm gonna start by re-adding album releases that I removed and give them proper citation. I don't even understand how these kids even wrote these sections without a strong lead sentence that captures the main idea. What the hell were they thinking dude?! Oh yeah, right, they weren't.

Cheers, CatTits10 (talk) 18:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

User:CatTits10, your user page says what you have been doing on Wikipedia lately, which implies that you were doing something else before. What id were you using? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Good question. Haven't edited since college, then I was making grammar corrections on random articles and watching recent changes. I did some genre warring but those days are behind me I think. Recently I had enough of my friends belittling the project because its "written by kids" so I just had a "fuck it, I'll fix it myself" moment. I knew I needed to register an account to make the changes I wanted to make. I apologize for the disruptive removals. I believe the articles will end up better in the long run. CatTits10 (talk) 17:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Then maybe your friends were wrong? In most areas (it might not be true of popular music, which I usually avoid) Wikipedia is not written by kids. That might have been true 20 years ago, but, like everyone else, Wikipedia editors have aged and the kids have other things to do now, such as spending every waking moment staring at their phones. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it was true 20 years ago, but I was disappointed at how unmaintained these articles have gone for the past two decades. I remember being a teen and being bummed when info from my favorite bands would get axed from their respective pages. But Wikipedia is reliable because of unsourced content being challenged, and nowadays I understand verifiability, copyright ect. and I get it now. I just think statements should be sourced to justify their existence in Wikipedia. It's hard to decide what to keep in the article when some of these have 20,000+ bytes of unsourced and irrelevant information. CatTits10 (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Clearly you didn't look deep enough into my contributions. Yes, I went too hard with removing shit last night (probably a few pages of my recent contribs). But if you would have looked deep enough into my edit history you would see that I've spent even more time adding sources and content for the stuff I already do have the sources for. I just think it's sad that the people who are fighting tooth and nail to keep the content in the page don't want to go and get sources themself.

I'm sorry but you don't even know me, I have every right to be offended at the notion that I am a "user that does nothing but removing huge chunks of information" when there's clear evidence that is not all I do around here. Thank you. CatTits10 (talk) 18:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

As an editor who takes a pretty aggressive approach to articles, I understand User:CatTits10 propensity towards an aggressive approach. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

A tip to CatTits10 going forward, drop using the word kid/kids from here on out. It's condescending and makes you look bad. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 19:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

My guy. Children shouldn't even be using this site in the first place. There is some absolutely horrific shit documented on here that noooooooo one should ever see lmao.

You're right though, how insensitive of me. What I meant was, Wikipedia is written by scene kids.

Thanks for the privilege check bro! CatTits10 (talk) 19:26, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Dude, drop this attitude you have and calm down. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 19:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Dude, I'm just fucking around haha. You're the one getting all worked up on a thread for a case that doesn't involve you :P

Cheers, CatTits10 (talk) 19:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Everyone's free to comment on AN/I threads, so I don't know what you're getting at.

I just noticed that your go-to word to describe editors who have done what you don't like is "kid(s)", which in my opinion is demeaning and condescending.

I'm perfectly calm, just offering some advice to avoid you getting into even further trouble. Drop this "aggressive" persona you have and you'll go way further on here. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 19:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Haha don't worry about me. I won't get in trouble. Besides, Wikipedia isn't about "going far" or whatever. It's not a game, a race, a social club or whatever. It isn't about "getting ahead" or "winning". I think this whole thing has been blown out of proportion, to be honest. At the end of the day we're supposed to be here to maintain the integrity of an encyclopedia. Lol. CatTits10 (talk) 20:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I mean. Is it aggressive editing? Yes. Is it wrong? I don't believe so. If information cannot be verified, it should either be marked as such or removed; there's generally nothing wrong with preferring the latter. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 19:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Three separate editors have went to CatTits10's talk page and essentially told them to slow their role, and they didn't. There's a difference between "aggressive" editing (whatever that means), and having a shoot-first-ask-questions-later approach to editing which I think CT10's editing style is now. Scaledish explained the policy to them on their talk page and CT10's response was essentially "I don't care". Now if CT10 doesn't like the policy, that's perfectly fine, but they still have to abide by it. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 20:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

"If information cannot be verified" This right here touches on the core issue I have with the editor's conduct. The information can easily be verified. I've done a spot-check on their removals/CN tag spamming. 5+ I was able to restore with a source almost immediately by the most basic of Google searches. A lot of it is really silly stuff like erasing/tagging "(Band) released (album) in (year)." statements in band articles where a fully sourced stand alone article exists. Sergecross73 msg me 20:38, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

We need to provide in-text citations though so people know beyond the shadow of the doubt that we know what we're talking about. We need to know where we got what claims, and who said them, and when. The heavy-handed blankings were more of a means to draw attention to the issues at hand. I'm mostly just butthurt that when people try to reintroduce the unsourced content they don't bring sources. Maybe some of the material I removed wasn't contentious or dubious or libelous or whatever the hell it's called this week. I still think stuff should be sourced so people know our content isn't just made up like my middle school essays.

Cheers, CatTits10 (talk) 20:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying unsourced statements are acceptable. I'm saying that in a lot of these scenarios, the answer to fixing it is adding a source. It's a contextual thing. If you read something sketchy like "Linkin Park's Meteora album features a 7 minute banjo solo." delete it because it sounds like nonsense. But if it's something like "Linkin Park's Meteora was released in 2003", just Google "Linkin Park Meteora 2003" and you should be able to find your source pretty quickly. Sergecross73 msg me 20:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

• I'm of the opinion that if the entirety of one's editing is removing content, then while that's allowed, it doesn't show evidence of someone being here to actually build an encyclopedia. Even someone who solely does copy-editing or WikiGnome type edits their entire time here is contributing more. Silverseren^C 20:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  But I've done waaaaaaaaay more than just delete content, dude. Lol. You'd know that had you actually looked through my contributions. But like, whatever at this point. I'm so over this entire situation. CatTits10 (talk) 20:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  Here's what Cattits10 recently posted on Sergecross73's talk page:

  "But actually reading the sources takes a really long time though and I'm concerned I will accidentally add a source that doesn't have the info I need if I try skimming it, and yeah I know there's no deadline, but let's not lose track of the fact that I am doing chores on this project that should have been done two decades ago and I have a high sense of urgency to finish these projects."

  There are a lot of experienced editors telling you that you are editing too fast. It's obvious from your mass deletions that you're taking out everything that doesn't have a reference number at the end, without thinking about the content. Now, you say that adding sources takes too much time. This is not an approach that is likely to last here. You need to change how you're approaching this, or you risk being blocked from the site. Toughpigs (talk) 20:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  Clearly you have not been paying attention to my edit history and observing the evolution of my style based on criticisms I have received from administrators, dude. CatTits10 (talk) 21:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, but six edits ago you stated on Sergecross73's talk page "They need to close that thread and quit arguing with me then lmao. The person who opened it didn't even look at my entire edit summary. And now there's people I've never interacted with coming by just to ridicule me!! Not that I care, I just think it's kind of sad lol."

  This is you not taking on the criticism that's been offered to you here. In fact I would argue it's you being flippant to those criticisms and labelling anyone who disagrees with you is "sad".

  From the same post on SC73's talk page:

  "Trust me dude, I know what I'm doing. I may not have the level of experience you do, but I have a vision for these pages to have rich, valuable information with reliable sources and neutral tone. I'm going to try to chill out, but I'm just glad I've gotten these pages trimmed down to "ground zero" so they can actually be a viable project to work on."

  This strikes me as "my way or the highway" talk. The fact that so many editors have taken issue with your style of editing may mean that you don't know what you're doing, but you insist on doing it to the probable detriment of articles. Don't make this situation worse by digging in. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 21:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  Do you think its possible my style of editing is just ahead of its time and nobody is ready? I kind of see this as a "revolution" of sorts. No more unsourced content! Like I said, the only reason I deleted the content was to draw attention to the issues at hand, because it was getting neglected. I knew the info was likely factual, but also, for all I know it could be libelous garbage or plagiarism. I don't intend for the articles to stay this way forever, but it just needed to be done. I like the idea of a fresh, new Wikipedia. This project deserves it. CatTits10 (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  Regarding "I have a high sense of urgency to finish these projects", your urgency may be a wasted effort; there's no expectaction for these projects to ever be completed. Your solution to the problem "We have dirty dishes" has been to throw the dishes away, when a better solution for most of them would just be to clean the dishes. Sure, it's more work, but you don't have to go out and buy equivalent dishes again later. I haven't looked into your work, but have you been cataloguing the information you've been deleting to reintroduce later when you've found suitable sources? HerrWaus (talk) 21:34, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  DUDE. Yes. Everything is in my watchlist. The people who are trying to reintroduce the sourced content are forcing me to fish for sources, and I have managed to force some of them to fish for sources. I never intended for the information to stay out of the article forever. I just wanted to make sure it was sourced before it was added back in. Adding citation needed tags doesn't work because everyone just ignores them and they just sit there for decades. But recently I have taken on a new approach to this, where I try to find sources and add them in, instead of deleting. Honestly, a good editing style should be a combination off all three. Deletions of bullshit, citing unsourced content, and tagging shit. CatTits10 (talk) 21:38, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Apparent sock puppetry and copyvio

Weeks ago, GroovyGrinster was reported for sockpuppetry and the result is pending, however, there are other serious issues with this editor.

He is violating copyrights. For example, he created an unnecessary POV fork Khilji invasion of Jaisalmer, where he copied the paragraph sentences "3,800 Rajputs died in battle and 24,000 women perished in the flames. Jaisalmer, which had been occupied by a Muslim garrison" are directly copied from this source.

Another example is that he created another unnecessary POV fork today, Seige of Aligarh (1785) where he added: "65 cannons, one large cannon, 100 mounds of cannon powder, 1000 mounds of lead, bags of grains, and forty thousand rupees in cash" which is also directly taken from this source.

He is using AI often to change the wording but he is ending up with blatant misrepresentation of sources or direct copyvio. Some urgent admin action is clearly needed against this editor. Ratnahastin (talk) 17:12, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this comment. Groovy already had SPI cases filed by multiple different users detailing his sock puppetry. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WhiteReaperPM

Despite this, no admin has taken action yet unfortunately. It may have flown under their radar. But evidently, there are other problems with his editing that clearly demonstrates his disruption as Ratnahastin has revealed. Someguywhosbored (talk) 18:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Posting of personal information

Please see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Talk:Asmongold Discussion 2A04:4A43:526F:E9BE:68F2:5E2D:6A37:9D33 (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Backlog at Requests for unblock

Once again there is a substantial backlog of blocked users requesting unblocking, as listed at CAT:RFU. This is a perennial backlog, but seems much worse than usual lately—a fact that was forcefully drawn to my attention when a frustrated blocked editor posted off-site complaining that no one had commented on his pending unblock request for more than five months. I am going to do my part to help clear the backlog by dealing with one unblock request per day, which strikes me as a reasonably maintainable pace without risking burnout. It would be great if a couple of other admins would also help out. I also thank the admins, including Yamla and 331dot, among others, who have already been active on this task. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:15, 15 September 2024 (UTC)