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)
It’s also weird how Dustfreeworld blanked both their user page and talk page wanting some privacy for forthcoming edits as if they knew the dispute currently on the talk page would happen.
A comment on my talk page has been linked above. I have a very different interpretation of the comment, and I suggest disregarding this IP's claim that it's a sign of Wikipedia:Ownership of content.
I also respect and admire people who can correct their mistakes, and especially the editors who can publicly admit that they've changed their minds instead of doubling down on their original mistakes. For example, the alleged "ES" isn't an WP:ES, so maybe you'd like to go correct your error. (It's an HTML comment.) While we're on the subject of that point, I'll add that I was raised to believe that telling someone to shut up is not a polite way to communicate a wish for a conversation to end, but it's not actually a WP:Personal attack, and I suspect that quite a number of editors cheerfully use that phrase without thinking themselves to be behaving rudely, much less violating our Wikipedia:Civility policy. If it were, we'd have a bigger problem, because that phrase appears in significantly more than 10,000 discussions on wiki.
The only edits from this IP address are to post this here. I wonder which content dispute this logged-out editor is trying to gain an advantage in? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:23, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this IP is also me the OP, I should have clarified it but I didn't know that the IP would change. I did not care about the "shut up" in the HTML or the ES, or anywhere in general (hence I didn't bring up https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asian_News_International&diff=prev&oldid=1252101002), but rather the content that follows in the ES only. Especially the harassment accusation through the "forgetful" link. However what I would like to bring up in that diff I just posted is the editor's unwillingness to discuss their edits. Dustfreeworld states that BOLD is a lie to children, but it isn't if one is willing to explain your edits instead of where I quote "throw uppercase" to editors who then revert. During a content dispute with another editor who reminded the user of importance of discussion through BRD, the response completely ignored the point https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_Venezuelan_presidential_election&diff=prev&oldid=1239933205 showing how the editor is incompetent to judge when using BRD-is-optional arguments are appropriate.
You seem to be claiming that a note posted by this editor, on their User: page, that doesn't mention you or anything about you, is a message to you. I think that's unreasonable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since I really want to get my point across that the ES was targeted towards a specific editor, I’ll clarify. The ES was They want you to shut up. Whether it’s about war, about suicide, about PRESERVE, maybe even racism/inclusion, whatever. They want you to shut up. So you should. How forgetful I am. and I’ll focus on the bolded parts of this.
Firstly, They. The editor is clearly referencing someone/a group of people.
Thridly, the racism/inclusion. I’ve also bolded the maybe as I was unable to find an occurrence of this, so I’m guessing that the editor was presumptive about the intentions of Karnataka.
I'm not sure what an unrelated comment on my talk page has anything to do with the editor in question, and have purposely stayed uninvolved in this conversation due to my recent interaction with them. I would like to clarify, though, that in my diff'd comment, I was not telling John M Wolfson to shut up, I was acknowledging his "sit in the corner away from the mop" statement. That being said, regarding the WP:OWN complaint, I would like to point out this edit, including the statement "Your comment makes me wonder when have you put the ANI article on your watchlist. I didn’t remember inviting you to watch and then revert my edits there. I didn’t invite you to come to my talk to waste my time either."... - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would an admin or experienced user please assess if this report above violates WP:A/I/PIA (by mentioning 2 diffs from discussions about the topic)?
Additionally, I would very much like to know how you, IP, came across these interactions, seeing as you have not clarified who you are and I do not see any obvious related edits in your /40 and /32 ranges (the /64 range is empty, but that's common).
Some editors feel strongly about Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars, and our WP:UPPERCASE jargon (please click that link if you've never read that page) can be off-putting. We use it as a way of signalling that I'm in the in-group (and probably you're an outsider), as a way to avoid thinking and explaining clearly, and as a way of trying to "win" disputes. I wouldn't call it vandalism myself, because I have a pretty narrow understanding of that word, but if it's upsetting, even if you believe it "shouldn't" be upsetting, then it's best to find a different way to say what you mean.
I don't know if you're familiar with Postel's law, but following the general principle on wiki is helpful: Editors who want to communicate successfully should avoid communication styles that are objected to often enough that you wouldn't be surprised if someone complained (e.g., no profanity, not because we have a firm rule against it, but because you have real things to communicate, and you don't need your real point ignored while we have yet another discussion about whether profanity is always a blockable offense or only sometimes a blockable offense. [It's the latter, by the way]), and if someone indicates a less common but still workable communication preference, then respect that as much as feasible (e.g., to the extent that you remember this preference and have functional alternatives). If you happened to become aware of someone's dislike for the WP:UPPERCASE style of communication, then it'd be nice if you could avoid that. But, of course, if you don't know that, or if you happen to forget, then that needs to be okay, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The difference here is that Dustfreeworld’s handling is highly hypocritical. You will find WP links in almost every one of the Dustfreeworld’s talk page messages and many of ES, so how is it vandalism when it’s done only towards Dustfreeworld? As Dustfreeworld is consistently using WP links, surely they are actively indicating that the best way to communicate with them is also with WP links.
That was my understanding also. Considering how many WP shortcuts Dustfreeworld throws around, in almost every message they post, I assumed that they were part of said 'in crowd' and responded in kind. - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2A02:6B67, I regret that I must apparently be the one to break the unfortunate news to you, but: humans are not perfect. And Wikipedia editors are humans.
Complaining about ordinary human beings – with their ordinary human frailties, faults, and self-contradictions – is not the intended purpose of this noticeboard. Admins have no tools to make humans be perfect, and if we banned everyone who made an occasional mistake, or who discovered that they didn't like a particular behavior once the shoe is on the other foot, there would be nobody left to write articles.
Hello! I am here because I was pinged by the OP. I am not experienced enough to sling around a lot of WP:(whatever) policy quotations, but did want to leave my opinion here.
The editor mentioned by the OP has already received a broad ban from editing medical topics, which is clear evidence of prior repeated problem behavior. They came to my notice because of the Joss paper article, which had some errors in correctly paraphrasing at least one source (primary, actually,) as well as blank section headings and references which strongly implied significant health issues existed, etc., without proper sources or even any actual text at all. After some back-and-forth reversions, I discovered the medical topic ban and reminded the editor thereof. In the process, I came across numerous edits and talk page postings that persist in the same pattern of incorrectly citing policy and using dozens of allcap WP: links to basically smother disagreement.
Succinctly, the editor in question has a history of tendentious editing - just looking at the Joss paper editing and the username shows a likely problem with NPOV. There is a further unwillingness to engage properly in generating consensus; accurate complaints about problem behaviors/edits are met with hundreds of words quoting dozens of often inapplicable policies, or with "I don't have time for this," instead of reasonable replies.
Wikipedia has a lot of rules, for reasons, but I am a firm believer that if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, full genome sequencing may be unnecessary in determining which of the Anseriformes it is. This is clearly a problem editor.
I was going to link to a diff of the ~15:00UTC OCT 20 post by @Adolphus79 on the problem editor's talk page, but it's now in a purple box of some sort that I am too inexperienced to manipulate properly; I agree with it wholeheartedly. Hiobazard (talk) 16:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hi, I'm here because I was invited on my talk page. I don't have a good history with Dustfreeworld - we had some issues in multiple articles and I essentially wrote what I wanted to say to him in a long reply. I've attached the last edit made to the discussion before I removed it from my talk page Special:Diff/1244386082 and even though I was quite harsh I didn't know how to counter the WP:PA, WP:HOUND and the repetitive WP:PRESERVE argument that Dustfreeworld sent to me (and he was not using properly - see also links instead of content) to the point where I had to use shortcuts which is something I rarely do. — Karnataka17:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the OP is someone with whom I have content dispute recently, thought that they have lost, holding a grudge, and post as IP in order to evade boomerang. They also hope that pinging others (who also have content disputes with me before) to this discussion can increase their chance of “winning”. There are much representations in the diffs they posted, many of them are either aged or tangentially-related. They posted those diffs in the hope that they can get rid of another editor by sheer weight of numbers, especially where said diffs involving other editors (aside from Adolphus79) were only about content dispute discussions that had either died or already been resolved. There are too many misrepresentations that would need much efforts to debunk. Anyway please see the new section below. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:51, 22 October 2024 (UTC); --Dustfreeworld (talk) 04:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I may quote myself: 'or with "I don't have time for this," instead of reasonable replies.' The lack of self-awareness here seems profound. Hiobazard (talk) 13:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comment, @Hiobazard. FYI, almost all the 16 diffs posted by the IP are misrepresentations that are either cherry picked or quoted out of context, in the hope that they can get rid of another editor by sheer weight of numbers; not to mention the 20 links to policies and essays with untrue claims that Adolphus79 posted on my talk page. Even if I can find the time to respond to all the 36 instances, I’m afraid that I don’t know how to, because most are misrepresentations that are not talking about what the issues really are (e.g., it’s like someone pointing at a dog and asks you do you like cats). If someone is determined, it won't be too difficult to cherry pick 16 diffs out of an editor's thousands of edits.
I have never heard that “don’t have time” is something that the community disallow voluntary editors to say. I have heard that wasting the community’s time *is* a problem. If I may ask, how many times are you going to quote yourself? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dustfreeworld I have been following this thread and I think that it s unreasonable to complain about the links to policies and essays that @Adolphus79 when you use them a lot too for example with my edits and WP:PRESERVE. you didn't care about my response and linked another essay Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read at special:diff/1244269909 where the second paragraph in that essay says "It can be misused as a tactic to thwart collaborative editing", which is exactly what you did by not even responding to my point - that sometimes revert/removal is the only option. I also did my job and did inform you of the removals at Talk pages, but you chose not to rea-dd the images or dispute the removal and accused me of trying to "WIN"? — Karnataka16:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I want to make it clear that it’s nothing wrong to link to policies and essays. That helps facilitating discussions. However, I don’t think linking 20 of them in one single comment (like the other user did) is an appropriate use. That’s absolutely not something I will, or have ever, do or done.
Re Tldr, I linked to it in response to your preceding comment (last sentence) that “I do hope that you read the entirety of this reply.” I interpreted that as you thought your comment were too long for me to read. But, that said, I can be wrong and there could have been misunderstanding or language barrier. I don’t think it’s true that I didn’t care about your response. I didn’t reply or edited the article further because I was conforming to the tban (which IMO not aligning quite right). Plus, since I decided that I would let go and unwatch that article, I just didn’t feel the need to response further (I won’t / can’t edit that article anymore why should I continue a content dispute with you?). Also, from our interactions I had the impression that you had dug deep into my contribs / talk page and should have known about my restrictions, so I was annoyed when I was pushed to response while I really couldn’t. That said, again, there might be misunderstanding and I might have misunderstood. If you are unhappy about my notion about WIN, I’m more than happy to retract that. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 13:40, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dustfreeworld Sure I don’t really mind about retraction because what’s said has been said. I added that because it was the first time that I remember writing a long comment like that and didn’t want my efforts to be wasted but your response to my reply clearly showed that you dismissed it (certainly not a misunderstanding), calling it a “time sink”, and I did quote what the essay said about this in the link above. — Karnataka14:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dustfreeworld But I’m confused because none of the topics we had dispute on were related to medical topics… I don’t know how Israel-Hamas war and David Pui could ever be linked to medicine (suicide could be somewhat medical-related but you rea-dded the topic on my talk page after my Israel-Hamas war article reversions so I don’t see that as a valid excuse) — Karnataka14:51, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I’ve already said my linking to an essay isn’t a “tactic” as said, I don’t think my comment above is “excuse” either. To be frank, as those content disputes were weeks or even months ago, I don’t think our memories serve perfectly and I don’t think I can clearly figure out where the misunderstandings are. Can we just be more friendly and collaborative and AGF? I do believe we did AGF, as I remember I have made an edit summary that has earned a thank from you not so long ago. It’s really not worth our/ the community’s efforts/time to dig up those dead discussions/ content disputes again just because someone pinged you here because they hold a grudge against me ... I hope you understand that. Thank you. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC); --Dustfreeworld (talk) 01:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dustfreeworld I don't think they were misunderstandings, and I do hold my reservations about this entire thing but I think it would be best if I just stopped replying here as our main editing topics are completely different and it isn't the best idea to keep dragging this, even though I don't think that this was resolved. I'll monitor this for outcome like what Hiobazard said he'll do too, but this was an experience and I don't think I'll comment here further unless I'm brought up again as you have suggested since it will be the best for both of us. thank you — Karnataka22:48, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) After 4 days, you haven't had time to make a single comment regarding the content of the original report against you, but have had enough time to file two additional retaliatory "reports" attacking me? - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I’m still studying the 36 links and pages. That said, I believe that even if I did make a single comment regarding one of the thirty six misrepresentations, it will not be enough to debunk it, and, there are still thirty five left (and, I won’t be surprised if someone continues to add more.) I figured that I’d better spend my time in filing two reports stating the true claims about the misbehaviours of an editor so that everyone can know and understand them. By the way, you declared that you are not the OP, who would you say that my reports (against you, not the OP) are retaliatory?
Baselessly accusing me of using the OP IP as a sock, and filing 2 retaliatory reports against me trying to deflect from your own report, those are personal attacks. It also further proves the points made by the OP IP and every other commentor. BTW, me calling you out on your obvious personal attacks against me is not a personal attack itself, so please drop that stick also. This is your chance to defend your statements and actions, to give the community a reason to believe you are a useful and worthwhile member or can at least make improvements, but instead you are using it to attack others and only furthering the case against you. I'm not sure what you think you are going to "debunk" by continuing the same course-of-action that got you here, but you had better hurry before this report gets closed. - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat: “you declared that you are not the OP, why would you say that my reports (against you, not the OP) are retaliatory?” It’s a query, not attack.
And again: “I don’t think my reports that written based on facts ‘attack’ you. I hope that comment is not another attack against me.”
This is your chance to defend your statements and actions, to give the community a reason to believe you are a useful and worthwhile member or can at least make improvements ... you had better hurry before this report gets closed.
I don’t know what do you mean by “elsewhere” as we are talking about this same discussion thread.
Aside, I’ve never said that I won’t make further comments here (even in the diff that you linked to); it’s *you* who said so. Please stop making comments like ”How very hypocritical of you” on other editors. I believe that kind of comments can get you blocked. Thank you. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 05:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, OP again. I pinged every user who I planned to add a diff from and adding a talk page notice to Karnataka (as I had to describe a dispute regarding you and them to WAID), including SandyGeorgia and WAID who you supposedly have good relations with so they can all see the ANI. I recognise that you don't know them, but you also supposedly have a few supporters https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dustfreeworld&diff=prev&oldid=1252453886 in which several users who have a high edit count are mentioned. Unlike described below, I am not using a VPN and even though I seem to have multiple VPNs they are all from the same area. I will continue to keep who I am ambiguous. 2A02:6B67:D622:5E00:19A5:EA39:9B52:10CC (talk) 13:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t know why you are pinging so many people here. Sometimes you implied that I was having disputes with some editors, and then later you said I have “good relations” with some of them. I hope your pings have nothing to do with this (quote: “When notifying other editors of discussions ... don't preselect recipients according to their established opinions.”). I don’t know why “my relations with other editors” are relevant to this discussion (unless people are trying to telll those who disagree with your untrue claims, or those who agree with my edits, not to post here). I’ll never be able to know your relations with other editors, as you are not disclosing who you are. Again, people who are seeing this please also see the new section below. Thanks and regards, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC); --Dustfreeworld (talk) 04:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RE to the IP's I will continue to keep who I am ambiguous
Which of the legitimate uses of sock accounts (in this case IPs) are you operating under?
It certainly seems hard to scrutinize your edits, as is expected when you comment on this board, when you have hidden your edits by editing while logged out - there's certainly good reasons for us wanting to be sure that you are not also involved in any of these or related discussions as another IP range or account.
I declare it's not me, I don't know squat about domains or proxies or VPNs or whatever, which is why I always edit logged in cuz I'm stuck on the same redneck POS DSL I've been using since 2009... also, I know how to spell 'behavior' and 'apologize'... (haha) - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UOWN indicates a user may delete anything they want from their userpage.
I have had encounters with DustFreeworld previously as well. I believe their edits are, for the most part, those of an advocacy group rather than encyclopaedic. It's quite obvious they're here on a focused mission to bring their advocacy against pollution into Wikipedia. Many of their edits are not encyclopaedic and are akin to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS or WP:SOAPBOXing. They put the same content in many articles, use live articles as sandboxes and drafts, spam their images that fail MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, add irrelevant content and twist the narrative to push for their clean air advocacy. It's an admirable advocacy, don't get me wrong, but it's not encyclopaedia building. Canterbury Tailtalk18:40, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OP here. Thanks for your input, I’d really appreciate it if you could also include some diffs so we can all see the nature of the edits by the editor. I included diffs from the other editors above in my original post but I didn’t come across this scenario, although the username Dustfreeworld does paint a picture for a start. 2A02:6B67:D622:5E00:A16E:DF9E:D908:F02F (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All these refute the above accusations and explain why I removed their problematic posts (which were posted after the discussion was closed) on my talk. There are probably more diffs, but I think the ones we have now are enough for a boomerang possible sanctions.
--Dustfreeworld (talk) 20:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC); --Dustfreeworld (talk) 04:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please kindly note my use of words “it *seems* to me”. While I’m won’t oppose a checkuser procedure, I’m not sure if it can identity all users who are using VPN, proxies, etc. Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 21:04, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, “Please kindly note my use of words ‘it *seems* to me’”. Having doubts doesn’t mean PA (as you have linked to). Please AGF. That said, I won’t mind if you change the word boomerang into “sanction”. Thanks and regards, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 21:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, I'm gonna let your completely unfounded statement of "I think the ones we have now are enough for a boomerang" stand fully on it's own, especially after our recent interaction, I'm done... checkuser, please! - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hope “your completely unfounded statement” isn’t an accusation against me. I hope the diffs I posted above can be looked into by ... someone (checkuser or whatever?) too. Thanks and regards, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 21:24, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to make this clear, if I was going to report Dustfreeworld, I would have reported them, myself, immediately after our conversation on their talk page. And I would have reported only our interaction, I wouldn't have needed any other evidence from their past transgressions. I am (mostly) proud of my edit history, and would also want those edits to count towards my account. The fact that Dustfreeworld refused to comment on a single aspect of the report though, deciding instead to single me out and openly attack me without a single piece of evidence, says volumes about their behavior in regard to the original report. - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence of what? That I used UPPERCASE just like you do? Or that I lost my cool? I've already apologized for saying a bad word (which, BTW, is mentioned 10 times on AN/I right at this moment outside of this thread), after you had tried to bully me for 2 days straight. Or do you want me to apologize for removing a message from my own talk page that was obviously left in bad faith considering your two edits on either side of that one being continuing to bully and attack me on your talk page? - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DFW, I think this post does you a disservice. It seems to support the above assertions that you cite and misapply policy you don't understand. I'm not sure what policy you're alleging was violated with your first diff, as WP:UPPERCASE is an essay, not a guideline. The second diff does indeed show some profanity... which is not inherently forbidden, and is CERTAINLY not vandalism. The third diff is the closest to what you say, but I can't say I blame Adolphus for getting heated. It's not great, but it's not the smoking gun you seem to think. The last diff is something that, again, would be better to avoid, but really doesn't seem something that would warrant sanctions, especially as it was removing a message form their own talk page.
The above thread also doesn't impress. "it seems to me" is not a get out of jail free card to imply whatever you like. If we're in a content dispute, and I said, "Oh man, there's this really bad editor I've had a dispute with. Their username starts with D, but that's all I'll say", you'd be right to accuse me of WP:NPA even though I didn't explicitly say it. You often tell people to WP:AGF, but per WP:PACT, that has limits. Also, note that checkusers don't connect accounts with IPs, and even if they did, WP:CHECKME explicitly forbids it. EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If ever asked, I would have happily apologized for the naughty word, but it was not directed at the editor themselves, and its nothing worse that you hear on broadcast TV anymore. @Dustfreeworld, I'm sorry that I was so weary of our conversation that I said a naughty word in my final message to you. - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since we now know that no one is going to do anything about this report, what's the point of adding a redundant (second) complaint about what you've already complained about above ("he said it twice")? - Adolphus79 (talk) 13:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Misunderstood WP:NBASIC, which is a section of Wikipedia:Notability (people), and wrongly think that it’s used to decide article content (while in fact it’s used to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dustfreeworld&diff=prev&oldid=1252136646 (and failed to admit that they are wrong even after the policy has been clearly explained to them “You are citing WP:NBASIC, which is a section of WP:Notability (people), but have you read the very first part of it? On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article.”)
After other’s patient explanation, they continue to misinterpret policies such as WP:N, saying that it’s used to determine “how the person is notable enough for inclusion”, while the guideline actually says, “The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic may have its own article”. Instead of admitting their mistakes, they chose to post warning template and more Uppercase, etc. on my talk page later on
jlwoodwa, please kindly note that the page you linked to (WP:LISTPEOPLE) is a section of the page Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. At the top of the page it says, “Stand-alone lists (also referred to as list articles) are articles composed of one or more embedded lists, or series of items formatted into a list.” I think that guideline is for stand-alone “list articles” only (but not the article in question which also has other content). Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 08:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:LISTBIO, which applies policies like WP:DUE to embedded lists. I don't see any discussion on the talk page making a case that it's due weight, and it's up to you to convince others it should be there, not them to convince you it shouldn't. But we're getting into the weeds here. I think it's clear that Adolphus, whether mistaken or correct, had reasonable cause for their interpretation. Even if mistaken, I don't know of any policy that requires someone to admit that they are wrong. Rather, an essay seems to suggest the opposite. It's okay to have been mistaken, and laudable to learn from it and become more correct in the future. I suggest you drop what looks like a retaliatory filing; I think it is only working against you at this point. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If Dustfreeworld had simply provided additional sources that showed the person in question was in fact notable for inclusion in a "notable person" section, anything other than "he died", with barely a mention of his name in a news article about someone else, I would have happily rescinded my opposition. Instead, they told me to find more sources to prove their point, that ONUS didn't apply to them, and tried to bully me to get their way (WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM trumps all P&G, WP:NOBLANK says I can't revert their changes, etc.). I never implied UNDUE, never said "he can't be included", I only tried to point out that Dustfreeworld was adding a "notable persons" section with a single occupant, without providing any signs of what the person was "notable" for (other than "he died"). I was genuinely hoping that Dustfreeworld would find the additional information, come back and add the individual again with some source that showed he was an award-winning journalist, that he had published a book, anything that showed a hint of passing notability concerns; instead, I had WP shortcuts thrown at me that Dustfreeworld obviously hadn't read before citing, was bullied, and continue to have attacks lobbed at me even now. All because I asked for more than "he is notable because he died". - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that any chance of reducing the recalcitrance and wikilawyering by this problem editor via discussion or consensus building is close to zero. Every rational argument, or reiteration thereof, is just met by delay and another (incorrect, typically) reference to policy with no admission or recognition of their consistently problematic and tendentious actions. @ScottishFinnishRadish: is a well-respected editor and administrator who has already been closely involved with this editor's problem behavior in the past and may be able to put this to bed - one way or the other. Other than monitoring for outcome, I won't be commenting further. Hiobazard (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This discussion is going nowhere fast. I submit all of the above as evidence, and move that this report be closed as Dustfreeworld has failed multiple aspects of WP:NOTHERE, and shows no signs of future improvement. - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you learned a new WP shortcut, and once again want to show that you failed to read it before citing it. WP:ASPERSIONS "is a situation where an editor accuses another editor or a group of editors of misbehavior without evidence". What did I accuse you of that you didn't do openly with plenty of evidence? Also, the original report is not about me, so why would it be closed with a comment about me? Unless you are once again accusing me of using the OP IP as a sock? - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm done... I do not believe you are incompetent, I believe you are simply NOTHERE. You know HOW to edit just fine, but your disdain for any comments not strictly following your "interpretation" of the P&G means you just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper. There is no reason for me to make any further comments. CalGon, take me away! - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m done too. Thank you.
P.S. For the record, I had waited for almost two days for your reply about the discussion (Indoor air quality) you initiated on my talk page before I blanked the page for privacy [2][3] (for my forth-coming edits at another unrelated article Asian News International). You were more than welcome to comment on that discussion to correct my “disdain”, although you didn’t. Instead you chose to comment/follow my edits to the unrelated ANI article and start another content dispute with me (with grudges?) ... --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Hiobazard. I’m glad that you have removed that ABF comment (which says “any further interaction with Dustfreeworld here will likely be useless”) Thank you.
I suppose by “wikilawyering” you mean the linking of 20 policies or essays in one single comment by Adolphus79? For the record, you didn’t reply to my (only) comment on Sep 27, which was a response to the discussion you started on my talk. I left the discussion opened until Oct 17before it’s closed. I don’t think that not responding to comment, and then, thought that they had lost the discussion and holding a grudge, later (when pinged) accusing another editor with claims like “consistently problematic and tendentious actions”, is a good example of consensus building or collaborative editing ...Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Request 31 h block for Dustfreeworld Regretfully, DFW doesn't seem to be getting the message that they need to disengage and perhaps reevaluate their interpretation of policy. The original report was disorganized and did not convince me there was a problem. It's only DFW's response, including two retaliatory filings and several personal attacks in this thread, which changed my mind.
Discussion has not seemed to change DFW's mind, and they have passed up several opportunities in this thread to let the matter drop. If this were closed with a warning, I suspect DFW would avoid this specific conflict, yet would continue to misapply policy (or modify essays to suit their interpretation). I hope a short block would convince them to consider others when they disagree with their novel policy interpretations rather than continue to edit disruptively based on them. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
”The original report was disorganized and did not convince me there was a problem. “ Thank you.
Aside, you said my filings convinced you there was a problem. Can you tell us more? Do you think Adolphus79’s accusing me of being “silly”, “shit on them” or explicitly failed to assume good faith (supported by their ES) when removing my message to seek peace on their talk, etc., were what convinced you? Or, do you think that citing/misrepresenting policies which were irrelevant to the situation under discussion (we were talking about embedded list, but the policies that Adolphus79 linked to were about stand-alone lists) repeatedly , was what convinced you?
PS. I urge you to retract your potential aspersion “misapply policy (or modify essays to suit their interpretation)” and "edit disruptively". That edit of mine has been standing for over a month. I don’t think the editors who have been watching that page will agree with your potential aspersion. I don't think an edit of mine telling editors to follow our editing policy is "disruptive"(if you really think so, I would start to wonder if it's a sign of WP:NOTHERE). BTW, please kindly note that it seems to me that you are making a no-edit order to tell others not to edit that page. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 07:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This response is an excellent example of why I think there's a problem. I begin to suspect 31 h is indeed too short, and an indef would better serve. Hiobazard seemed to be correct that discussion is not productive. I'll give it one last shot anyway. Why do I think some sanctions are needed?
You're harping on Adolphus instead of addressing your own behavior (a Red herring), implying that Adolphus describing something as shitting on them is somehow sanctionable, asking leading and argumentative questions that seem designed to score points rather than gain understanding (WP:BATTLEGROUND), claimed that a criticism of your behavior on a behavioral board was a potential aspersion yet somehow not realized that you're doing exactly the same thing. And claiming I'm WP:NOTHERE is particularly rich.
You also either missed the point (WP:CIR) or deliberately avoided it (WP:IDHT) regarding the essay. Consider: WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM which you tout and linked to states fix problems if you can, tag or excise them if you can't. (Emphasis mine) Your edit read Always follow the editing policy and revert only when necessary which both gives the impression that one must ALWAYS fix the problem, and also the impression that your interpretation, which is not supported by the policy page, is ironclad. That is deceptive and disruptive.
Finally, if you really don't see the difference between "you shouldn't change an essay to reflect an interpretation that has no consensus" and "don't edit that article", then that's on you. Your claim of "I didn't refute that point" also doesn't convince me that you understood the problem. And your Tu quoque of "Well if you believe that then you have to fix this other article" doesn't strike the zinger of a point you seem to think it does. In fact, it shows you still don't understand the policy. Only one entry would be removed from that list; the rest have their own articles, and therefore meet WP:LISTBIO.
It doesn't seem that discussion will be fruitful, so like Adolphus, I'm going to sit back and see what other editors think. I was originally trying to get this resolved without sanctions, and if no admin is convinced by this, perhaps that's what'll happen. I just expect we'll end up back here soon enough. EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't bother... After 8 days, it's obvious no one is going to do anything. They are just going to ignore this, letting it get archived without any action. Dustfreeworld seems to enjoy impunity here (check the archives), free to carry on their behavior with a new set of WP shortcuts to misuse when they bully their next victim... - Adolphus79 (talk) 12:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
”I begin to suspect 31 h is indeed too short, and an indef would better serve.” Because you can’t win the discussion?
”That is deceptive and disruptive.” So you are determined to join Adolphus79’s smear campaign?
What’s the problem to tell editors to “always follow the editing policy”, with a link to the policy in which it says “fix problems if you can, tag or excise them if you can't.”?
The link was added so that editors can click on it and read the policy themselves, read that line “fix problems if you can, tag or excise them if you can't” and follow it. How “deceptive and disruptive” can that be? That is aspersion.
You are linking to at least six WP shortcuts (i.e., wikilawyering), misinterpreting/ misrepresenting my edit, failed to assume good faith, escalating disputes, in an attempt to remove an editor. You're harping on me instead of addressing your own behavior (a Red herring). Your comment is making it obvious that you are WP:NOTHERE.
Aside, the person I added to the ANI article was well sourced. I did provide more sources on my talk page to support that upon query. Even if, I say if, someone really thinks that entry isn’t notable enough, removing the whole section outright (which Adolphus79 had done) is *not* following “tag or excise them if you can't [fix them]”. This further shows that how common editors misinterpret our ES and that my edit to BRD is essential. (FYI, that section of the ANI article needs *expansion*, I can’t do it because I was dragged here. They should do that. You should do that. But you decided to escalate here. Another proof that you are nothere.)
That said, let me repeat: this is not the right place to discuss policies or article content, unless you are nothere and want to use that to remove another editor, which you are trying to do now. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 13:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I didn’t refute to your comment on WP:LISTBIO because a) I don’t think this is the right place for policy discussion, b) I want to avoid battles in discussions, which is exactly complying to WP:BATTLEGROUNDS. But that doesn’t mean I agree with you on that. As I’ve said, “I think it’s normal for editors to have different opinions/ interpretations on policies. I’m totally fine with that.” (but I don't think I will ever cast aspersions on editors because of that) I suggest you reread. (BTW, if you still insist that I my interpretations of policy are “novel”, I suggest you edit this article and remove this whole section. Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 04:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even sure how to respond to that. I didn't post that retaliatory report, I didn't baselessly accuse anyone of sockpuppetry, and I didn't show how oblivious I am to the P&G (or that I haven't even read the WP shortcuts that I do use). - Adolphus79 (talk) 07:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment is telling us that you won’t stop that campaign of yours.
I give up, you make Wikipedia not fun anymore. I am tired of your attacks, your harassment, your complete lack of couth. You haven't made a single edit in the last week that wasn't attacking me in some way, and I genuinely hope someone puts an end to this before I just leave the project for good. You win, I'm the worst editor in the history of the project. Now, please, leave me the fuck alone. - Adolphus79 (talk) 08:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC) - Sorry, don't want to upset the babies... - Adolphus79 (talk) 08:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC) - we all know no one is going to stop this, 6 days of this BS without a single word from an admin about your behavior or actions just reminds me how unwelcome I am around here... you win, you can say whatever you want about me, they won't stop you, I should've known better than wander out of mainspace... I hope you figure out who the OP is one day, to focus all your misdirected hate on them instead... I'm going back to my corner... thanks for nothing ANI... - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[5] (reverting to this edit, claiming it need valid reason)
"I need a source that would suggest that Khereids were Turkic" (article literally states It is unclear whether the Keraites should be classified as Turkic or Mongol in origin. The names and titles of early Keraite leaders suggest that they were speakers of Turkic languages,)
I was mistaken, so I erased the said message. I was not politically targeted. To answer your claims, I have added the source for the Bashkurd spelling. You have also removed the assumed flag of Keraites (which you should not have done without editorial consensus) You have also labelled the last version of the Keraites page as “pre-edit war” which is not true. I have then reverted the page to the version before my first edit. You reverted it too. Vofa (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am editing this Keraites page, etc. for years, this was added later by whom idk, and there is no single indication that this is a tamga of the Keraites, so there is no reason for a consensus. And the page initially had Turco-Mongol lead, which was changed later. Beshogur (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you prove that it was that way before?[when?] You can see that the version before my edits was “Mongols|Mongol]] or Turkic” regarding their possible linguistic groups. Historians cannot tell which group they belonged to. You should not assume that they had a Turco-Mongol lead, which would not add up with the tradition itself, and would disagree with a set of historians and sources. As the Keraites arose in 10-11th centuries. You must back up the erasure of the supposed flag of the ethnic group. I need you to present sources for the assumption that Mongolic peoples had a tamga. You may be mistaking the unrelated Kerei clan in Kazakhstan with the Keraites. Vofa (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bashkurd (Beshgurd) is a historical ethnonym for the Bashkir/Bashkort people widely used in historical sources by a variety of European and Russian ethnologists up until today. I am here to make an encyclopaedia. I have provided a source for that spelling in English. It should stay up. Furthermore, I understood that edit-warring is not allowed on Wikipedia. I remember it was 3 reverts per user (not sure about specifics) I will not edit-war again and will talk to my mentor if I have any issues. Regarding Kazakhs, I have resolved the dispute. I believe the page should be protected. As for Keraites and Bashkirs I have recognised my mistakes and believe I have the right way of solving the dispute(s). I do recognise that the flag is attributed to a Kazakh tribe, not to Keraites. Vofa (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s called cherry picking and would mean that every editor involved in previous disputes on the topic may have wasted their time. I will wait for you to answer to this.
I'm not going to take any admin actions here, since Vofa contacted me ([10], [11]) before this AN thread was opened (I am not sure why this is here and not at ANI?), but it's my position that WP:NOTHERE is an absurd thing to say about this editor, who is making perfectly normal new-user edits and being reverted with unhelpful edit summaries like rv great improvement[12]. Vofa is clearly edit-warring (see the back-and-forths at Bashkirs and Keraites), but it takes at least two to edit war, and the only talk page discussion I've seen so far is Talk:Bashkirs#Bashkurd, which was opened by Vofa. There has been, as far as I can tell, no attempt by OP to resolve this in any way other than a template notice and then a post here almost immediately thereafter. Communication and assumptions of good faith are sorely, sorely lacking here. -- asilvering (talk) 20:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering: sorry, my mistake, I was going to place this to ANI.
I still don't get what am I supposed to discuss about "Bashkurd" spelling. There is literally 0 of this spelling variant in the article. I don't get his purpose here. We can put 100s of spellings for every ethnonym.
Also this user, after all this discussion, still removed "Turkic" stuff from the lead from Keraites article. Also same thing applies for Turkiishh (talk·contribs), but doing the opposite.
This user is not the first one to call me something like politically motivated editor so I have been dealing these for years. Can you please tell me how this edit shouldn't be reverted? The article literally states they're likely of Turkic origin. Most of his edits is this way. Beshogur (talk) 21:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So this user always removes some source or his edits are always correct, but according to him, we're supposed to discuss whether he adds/remove anything. Beshogur (talk) 21:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't get his purpose here, the most useful thing you can do is to give an explanatory edit summary when reverting, and recommend that the editor who made a confusing edit talk about it on the talk page. "rv great improvement" is not that. Regarding "politically motivated", it's extremely common for people to believe that wikipedians are engaged in some form of political censorship. That editors who are reverted without much discussion or rationale conclude that we're trying to hide some truth or whatever is pretty understandable, given the circumstances. As experienced wikipedians, it's our obligation to assume good faith when dealing with other editors who don't yet understand community norms - that means accepting that the editor made those edits in an attempt to improve the encyclopedia (whether they did improve it or not), and respond to them with that in mind. If you don't have the patience to deal with some particular incident, I recommend referring the newbie in question to WP:TEA, which is frequented by editors, including admins, who are used to dealing with confused newbies. -- asilvering (talk) 22:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also this is getting ridivulous. This user should stop complaining about me on administrators articles. Another example of his behavior. Beshogur (talk) 08:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are not being "targeted". You both got into an edit war, you dragged this to AN, and now the best thing you can do is drop it and discuss the changes you want to make. Take the advice asilvering gave you above. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite17:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So I need consensus because this used adds something controversial and I revert disruptive editing?. I thought it was the opposite? Maybe check this users edit history before commenting like this. Beshogur (talk) 14:45, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If your reversions amount to participating in an edit war, which they did, yes, you both need to stop editing the article and discuss your changes instead. Please follow WP:BRD. If you give a substantial, helpful edit summary when you revert Vofa, and start a collegial talk page discussion in which you assume good faith, and Vofa ignores that and reinstates their edit, then you're on much firmer ground and it's more likely that Vofa will be blocked for edit warring. If you don't do anything like that and then you're rude to uninvolved editors at ANI, it doesn't look very good. -- asilvering (talk) 15:45, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have a non-extended-confirmed user who has been warned about contentious topics in April but is edit-warring in an article which is clearly on the contentious topic issue. For me, this is an invitation for a block or a topic ban.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On top of this, he has now started mimicking the start of this discussion, and is casting accusations of WP:NOTHERE against other editors. [14][15] I would think that the response Beshogur received here should have made it clear for Vofa also that such accusations should not be made lightly. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 06:43, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask why we won't get page protection to prevent these things happening at the first place? I asked to Keraites and Bashkirs for pp, didn't get single time despite his tendentious editing. Also this user has full of personal attacks and such edits in his edit history, feel free to check his profile. Beshogur (talk) 11:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have time to look into this further this weekend, but if you or any other uninvolved editor thinks sanctions are needed, feel free. I protected the page in lieu of blocking both for edit warring. StarMississippi13:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Star Mississippi:Reverting vandalism is not edit warring. I showed this user's attitude towards other users, and edits on other articles, yet you blame me. I asked twice page protection and it was not awarded. Beshogur (talk) 14:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Beshogur, what Vofa is doing is not vandalism. Vandalism is someone making changes with an intent to disrupt the encyclopedia. This is very clearly a user who believes the best version of wikipedia includes the information they keep trying to reinstate. They might be wrong and they're certainly struggling to gain consensus for their edits, but that doesn't make them a vandal. -- asilvering (talk) 17:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dispute was attempted to be resolved under user:Vice Regent talk page topic "Putting in American financial support for Israel in the very first paragraph of the lead".
User thought either as a joke or to make a point of pinging multiple editors across from the talk page of one article to the talk page of another article without their consent. Misquoted my words in their topic request and cited me as a reference for their topic.
Instead of engaging on that new unrelated article talk page, requested on user's talk page that they either remove the topic and apologize to those they pinged without consent or if their topic is sincere to alter it (removing the pinged people) and apologize to them.
Conveniently, this veteran editor can seem to remember WP and norms when asked to correct something they did which is normally against norms. Most upsetting is even if that editor fully believes that removing or altering that topic would now be inappropriate, they still have not apologized to those they pinged without consent. RCSCott91 (talk) 21:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CFAYour right, that wording sucks. When is it okay to bring a discussion from one article to another and attempt to include people who haven't shown any interest that they wish to be part of that discussion, including linking to part of the first discussion but misquoting it. RCSCott91 (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier: made a tongue-in-cheek comparison, Can I write in the Israel lead that it has extensive financial and military backing from the USA? And how the Israeli government contains extreme right wing elements and that Israeli settlers and illegal settlements and settlement organizations have been sanctioned by multiple countries? Etcetera. That will get consensus, right?
RCSCott91 replied, Possibly, get some sources together and go to the Israeli talk page. I'm not saying that exact wording would be agreed specifically because the USA normally gives around 3-4 billion and Israel spends 27-28 billion on military spending itself. So the word "extenstive" is doing a lot of work. But ~10% is ~10%.
Vice regent then opened a discussion at Talk:Israel, linking to that exchange, asking Would it be appropriate to put in American financial backing for Israel over the years in the very first paragraph of the lead? and pinging RCSCott91, Selfstudier, ABHammad, Eladkarmel, Czello, Galamore, and האופה (some, but not all, participants at the Hezbollah discussion).
RCSCott91 went to User talk:Vice regent and asked for the Israeli talk page post to be removed. They did not reach agreement.
4. You're right, I missed Makeandtoss and Raskolnikov.Rev. That was an honest mistake.
5. As I explained, I can't remove a discussion once others have responded to it. I am really not seeing any issues here. This is a content disagreement that should be resolved on article talk pages.VR(Please ping on reply)23:37, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regentHow often do you, a 17 year editor, take a discussion from one article to another unrelated article, misquote someone who was responding by ping to someone else's obviously hyperbolic statement and not even brings sources as the response said?
You were so keen on that topic, even supporting your mistake stating that policy doesn't allow you to amend what you've done. Yet, I came to your talk page after people had already responded to your topic, which you didn't even attempt to defend.
And all this time, if policy, which you can quote like the rules lawyer at a game of table top DnD was the only thing binding you from fixing your "honest mistake", Why have you not yet to apologized?
@SelfstudierI can kiss and make up. I've noticed it has been a few days, @Vice regent still hasn't responded, clarified their request, or brought sources to Talk:Israel. Maybe they could admit on that Talk:Israel that they were trying to make a point in the Hezbollah discussion, took it a little too far, and apologize.
Words might be cheap but they are the correct currency, for an apology, when someone feels slighted (or misquoted).
I am having a lot of trouble determining if Closed Limelike Curves (talk·contribs) is editing voting articles boldly or disruptively. For example, they rewrote Primary election so that it referred to partisan primary elections, and then moved the article in mid-September, changing primary election to a disambig page, which triggered a fair number of semi-automatic updates. After I moved it back to the original title a week ago, he held a short discussion involving two (I think) other editors and declared there was consensus to move it back to his preferred title.
Over at Instant-runoff voting, there was a similar problem. He tried to start a discussion at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, but there seemed to be broad agreement that there was not a content dispute, but rather a problem with CLC's editing methods.
CLC is not a newbie - they've been editing like this for some time. Their request for Page Mover in August was denied because of too many reversals.
Given the long-term disruption that this has involved, the time sink this has produced for multiple other editors, and the distortion of the neutrality of our voting articles, my suggestion would be to push them to edit some other topic that might be less fraught for them than voting. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CLC is not a newbie
Worth noting I've only been making substantial edits for under a year, so I'm still pretty new.
CLC also started a move discussion on Talk:Smith set, and when I told Lime that we needed sources for the name, not "it makes more sense", they answered Are we not allowed to include "this term makes more sense to normal people" as a consideration at all, when choosing between multiple similarly-notable names? That would certainly have changed my behavior with regard to most of the moves I've made, since generally that's the justification I've used—in all these situations, the page move was from one common name in the literature to another, similarly-common name that I think is more intuitive or memorable to the average person. On a new article, this would make sense, but after 13 years at a title, I think we need a bit more than that. --SarekOfVulcan (talk)17:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...huh. TIL there's a completely different policy for page moves than there is for edits. (In body text there's no presumption against changing things—"I think this phrasing is better" is a perfectly valid reason for an edit.) Sorry about that, then. I guess one more question:
Changing one controversial title to another without a discussion that leads to consensus is strongly discouraged.
When the policy says "controversial", does this mean something like "someone might like the old title better" (limiting undiscussed moves to stuff like fixing typos)? Or something closer to "the title is often the subject of dispute/disagreement"? – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't that problem caused by tagging the deleted article titled primary election as a disambiguation page and then people making semi-automated edits under the assumption that the tag was correct? Or is this a different incident? McYeee (talk) 04:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Involved editor here. Can you restore the deleted disambiguation to draftspace or userspace? I thought I remembered it having multiple editors, and that seems relevant to this thread. Regardless of how this thread goes, I'd also like to try to find those semi-automated edits again because they seemed to have a significant number of errors. McYeee (talk) 06:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to run a sockcheck, but I don't think our interests overlap much. I think in the first edit we're expressing almost-opposite suggestions, though; I was thinking of using AMS as the name for what most people call MMPR, i.e. the New Zealand/devolved UK system, then expanding the scope of the MMPR article to discuss other kinds of mixed rules. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 17:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For example, they rewrote Primary election so that it referred to partisan primary elections and then moved the article in mid-September,
I didn't rewrite the article much, except for the minimum necessary to change the title. The article was already about partisan primaries. However, at the time the article was written, these were the only kind of primary elections, and so the article did not make a distinction. The title "partisan primary" is more explicit and less likely to cause confusion.
In this case, the move was a response to the semantic drift, with nonpartisan primary having become a common way to refer to the first round of a two-round system, after the states of California and Washington adopted this terminology. The consensus on the talk seems to agree that the majority of the article belongs at "partisan primary", with disagreement about whether the old title of "primary election" should be a disambig or an article (McYee and Toadspike supporting an article vs. PhilosopherSpock preferring a disambig).
changing primary election to a disambig page, which triggered a fair number of semi-automatic updates.
I believe someone else changed it to a disambiguation page, which is what caused the disruption. I left it as a redirect, which shouldn't have caused any issues. I'm a bit confused by this ANI since nobody seems to have raised any actual objections to the move, just questions about what to do with the redirect that got left behind. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 16:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
my view is that this editor is an intentionalcivil POV pusher with frequent diffs, additions, or wholesale rewrites to social choice related pages to make them 1. more focused specifically on political elections rather than objects of mathematical study and 2. to emphasize certain refrains common in the amateur election reform community, namely those around IRV and STV's ability to exhibit certain behaviors, and extended & out-of-place soapboaxing about cardinal utilities vs ordinal
When called out on specific technical concerns this editor is willing to play ball by Wikipedia's rules, but the pattern of behavior shows an extremely clear lack of objectivity and technical expertise. And it is quite the burden of work for other editors to keep up with correcting all the affected articles.
One particular comment in the thread Affinepplan mentions above is where Lime claims The ANI thread is for the unrelated question of whether I made too many page moves. First, that's not an unrelated question, second, it's the quality of the moves, not the quantity, and third, it's not about if your moves are disruptive, but your editing in general. I'm focusing on the moves in this report because they can do the most damage, but they are hardly the only problem. --SarekOfVulcan (talk)20:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sockpuppet or no, CLC's editing at Instant-runoff voting continues to be out of control. Today, after being reverted for an 11k-character addition to the lead (!) with the reverting edit summary being "30 references in the lede, skipping levels of header - please review WP:LAYOUT" their response was to reinstate even-longer versions of the same changes, twice. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, @SarekOfVulcan reverted some of my changes on the grounds that I'd accidentally skipped levels in headers (i.e. went straight from 4→6), as stated in the edit summary. As a result, I reinstated the changes after correcting the formatting errors. If Sarek has some other disagreement regarding the content of the page, he can undo my edit and explain why he still dislikes the new version in the edit summary. (By the way, I did it twice because a user complained about the length of the restore the first time. I self-reverted the page back to Sarek's version, then broke the edit into two chunks to create an easier-to-read diff.) – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 23:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to suggest that Lime be restricted from moving any pages until they demonstrate that they understand when pages should and should not be moved. At Talk:Preferential voting, they just suggested moving the dab page to a (disambig) title and redirecting it to Ranked-choice voting, because TL;DR is that it looks like the majority of searches for PV are from Australia, which uses it to mean RCV. --SarekOfVulcan (talk)15:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a straightforward application of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I suggested the page instant-runoff voting/RCV is the primary topic, because "preferential voting" is overwhelmingly an Australian term used to mean RCV. I raised this issue on the talk page for discussion and did not move the page myself. How would that be disruptive? – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 16:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that proposing to move a page on a talk page should not be used as a basis for imposing a restriction on moving pages -- seeking consensus like this is what we should be encouraging. CapitalSasha ~ talk16:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Asking, or starting a move discussion, isn't what I'd consider disruptive. My concern is that Lime might go "ok, one person agreed with me, nobody else said anything, we're good" and moving a long-standing article title without any further input. --SarekOfVulcan (talk)16:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a reasonable thing to comment on the talk page, to make sure it doesn't happen. On the other hand, restricting a user's move privileges because they hypothetically could have used them incorrectly, but didn't, seems bizarre; if anything, seeing an editor ask for consensus shows they're less likely to move pages incorrectly.
(And is "one person agreed with me" never enough to declare consensus, even for minor moves? At the extreme, I don't think correcting typos requires any discussion on talk. I'd like more clarity on exactly how much consensus is needed for different page moves, ideally with examples.) – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 17:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are about 80 thousand examples of move discussions if you search for "Requested move" but usually the easiest thing to do would be to start one and list it at WP:RM (well a bot does that for you, you just need to use the template).You get free examples that way, and only in pages that you're interested in, and as an added advantage if anyone gets dragged to ANI it would likely be someone else. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m a fairly green editor and I find it very instructive to read and participate in open move discussions at WP:RMC and see how they are closed. You’ll see what’s controversial, the numerous policies and other considerations that support a title change/move, and how consensus is assessed. Typically if there is low participation or opinions are mixed a request is relisted or closed without moving. Moves are rather drastic changes and often arguments that might have been persuasive if we were deciding what to name a brand new article aren’t enough to change a stable title. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk03:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Problematic possibly AI generated articles by Jeaucques Quœure
While the words appear in scholarly literature, they do not appear to be much studied as generalized phenomena in the sense of, say, Eurocentrism or Anglocentrism. Top results suggest they're mainly used in a descriptive sense, as in 'Foucault may be guilty of a certain amount of Gallocentrism' (i. e. his citations are over-focused on France), etc. More troubling, of course, is the uncritical use of language model-generated text without an attempt to verify whether the sources exist (many of which don't). An explanation and commitment do seem in order. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 01:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My bad for not thoroughly searching the archives, but looking at that thread the issue seems unresolved. They did not make a clear commitment to avoid LLM use, and two people voted to indef him but the thread was archived without closure. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that previous thread makes clear the issue is unresolved and not only acute but also chronic, since Jeaucques Quœure received feedback about LLM use but persisted without changing tack. In fact, Jeaucques Quœure has moreover escalated from editing existing articles to creating new articles. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:02, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the poster of that thread, I was a bit confused by the lack of response, but didn't think much more about it. Now, I would support an INDEF. Remsense ‥ 论02:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have speedily closed both of these nominations as hoaxes. Additionally, someone noted that "Jeaucques" is not a standard spelling of the name, and would be pronounced more like "joke". Using my extremely high IQ, I was able to combine this with "quœure" and get "joker", indicating that this user is a troll and should probably be indeffed. jp×g🗯️10:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Going to push back on this one and play joker's advocate: this could 100% be the derivation of their name, but that in itself wouldn't imply any intent to disrupt or bad faith whatsoever—I don't even think it does that given their behavior here. Remsense ‥ 论10:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree that an interlanguage pun in the username is weak evidence of malicious intent. It's in the realm of possibility that it's a troll's joke to themselves, but it's a leap to get there when it could also just be a well-meaning user's joke to themselves. If my username were Jester, I'd hope that wouldn't be considered evidence of being a troll.More important is whether or not Jeaucques Quœure can recognize the issue here as the community has identified it and commit to not creating articles with hoax content using LLM generators. Since sanctioning is preventative rather than punitive, there's no strict need to demonstrate malice when there's other evidence the behavior is likely to continue (the failure to respond previously and now). While it would be unfortunate to lose a potentially well-meaning user to an indefinite block, I think it's necessary if Jeaucques Quœure does not provide a resolution. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 10:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The username is very weak evidence in its own right, but the previous ANI thread had them doing basically the same thing, with several people supporting an indef on that basis. I am in favor of us having lots of patience for people who are editing in good faith, but adding hoaxes over and over is simply not compatible with good-faith contributions. jp×g🗯️12:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I propose that Jeaucques Quœure be banned from using LLMs (AI text), and that if he is suspected of continuing to use them, he will be subject to escalating blocks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but I also think this may not be enough. The lack of response to the previous and current ANI thread bringing this issue to Jeaucques Quœure's attention shows the issue is already chronic. I realize it could seem like a bit of a jump, but sanctions are preventative, not punitive. A block from editing in mainspace is better tailored to prevent further disruption from hoax material created by LLM fabrication (whether intentional or inadvertent), as it'd oblige Jeaucques Quœure to give a self-accounting and communicate about this rather than ghost the thread. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 01:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative proposal: Block of Jeaucques Quœure from mainspace
Support: Saying that JQ is blocked from using LLM material means that someone else has to keep an eye on JQ's work and analyze whether they're using AI tools. This is an unnecessary burden on the community. There is no excuse for creating hoax articles with fake references, especially after being criticized for using AI before. The fact that JQ is ignoring this discussion makes it even more outrageous. They need to be blocked to prevent further disruption. Toughpigs (talk) 01:28, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support as sort of proposer in the other subthread. Toughpigs put into words what I was thinking about. There are kinds of disruption that are easier to notice, sus out, and amend, and for such cases a ban on the behavior could be a better call than a mainspace block. But in this case, the LLM-fabricated material is a big burden, especially since it's escalated to article creation which means AfDs, which are time consuming even with speedy delete criterion. What I'd like to happen is for Jeaucques Quœure to read this thread, talk to the community, and figure out how to avoid triggering disruptions going forward. But I think the only way that'll happen, if it'll happen, is if Jeaucques Quœure can't just ignore it and carry on with mainspace editing. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 01:33, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had previously warned the user that they had to respond to the serious concerns raised here. However, they continued editing without a response and I have therefore blocked them indefinitely. Johnuniq (talk) 04:30, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Several seasoned contributors in this discussion have made this suggestion: I'm boldly closing this thread without action or prejudice. If User:Warrenmck wants to try again, I earnestly suggest 1) they avoid taking this complaint elsewhere—this is the correct forum, 2) they take a breath, wait perhaps a day before reposting, and 3) they start any new thread using no more than 250 words with each and every accusation backed by diffs. If SMcCandlish chooses to engage they might hold themselves within the same restrictions. Both editors might utilize diffs from this discussion with some usefulness. Often, less is more. If the contributors can endeavor to use brevity, readers might more plainly see the broader issues for themselves. BusterD (talk) 14:19, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm coming here in the aftermath of a complete mess of a thread at VPP on the topic of religious tolerance and WP:FRINGE. I'm acutely aware that this may look like a vindictive ANI because the thread didn't go my way, and that's not my intent. To that effect, I'm not asking for any individual sanctions, I would merely like a statement and warning that calling someone WP:PROFRINGE for policy disagreements counts as WP:ASPERSIONS and isn't okay, and an apology for some of the more explicit accusations. I will also accept evidence that the accusations were grounded in lieu of any apology, because I'm not trying to be unreasonable here. That said, throughout the thread and in the closing of it, things got messy and personal, with editors on the majority side accusing editors on the dissenting side of being WP:NOTHERE (which both I and @SamuelRiv were accused of by @Bon courage) and the entire thread itself stemming from me being butthurt (direct quote) and other wonderful things like:
However, there is a common problem of proselytizers of particular faiths, especially but not exclusively new relgious movements [note to Warrenmck: that phrase is not a proper name and does not take capitals as "New Religious Movements", and your use of that overcapitalization, like much of your general approach here, hints at promotionalism]
(complete aside, but they're actually wrong about the use of capitalization in the field of religious studies, so it's a bit of a weird jump to view that as evidence of promotionalism) and, when asked to explain or strike the promotionalism comment, they decided to double down and accuse me of secretly harbouring fringe beliefs:
One does not get to (in this thread) support actions that would release a flood of fringe nonsense on WP by demonizing fringe-watching editors as a pack of bigots and undercutting the guidelines and processes they rely on, and (in the RfC thread) try to nuke the venue by which the community handles this, yet then claim that one is really an anti-fringe editor simply because there's a diff somewhere of one supporting removal of a fringe thing. Not all fringe material is created equal, and it's common to scoff at various fringe things while believing or being undecided about others.
This is, frankly, beyond exhausting. The actions they're referring to are specifically how I voted in an RfC, where I voted against weakening WP:FRINGE. It is possible to disagree with the status quo without that magically transforming anyone who holds that opinion into a crypto-fringe theorist out to harm wikipedia. A majority of my edits on wikipedia are removing fringe content (see the Shungite article, which I rewrote completely, for example). I've asked for this to be struck and I've asked for these accusations to be backed up and explained, but it's apparently easier to lob accusations and ghost.
Neither I, nor any editor on either side of that whole discussion, should have to put up with personal character attacks for a disagreement of opinion, especially in way that may impact someone's ability to be taken seriously as an editor in the future, which a WP:PROMOTIONAL or WP:PROFRINGE accusation risks.
If my behaviour here is out of line, I am absolutely willing to accept a WP:BOOMERANG. I legitimately just want civility restored and editors to walk back some fairly absurd accusations which have been thrown around pretty wantonly, not just in this thread but going forward in discussions that may come up around contentious topics. If I've played an instrumental role in that loss of civility then I probably deserve some sanctions here too, I know my frustration at the accusations bled through in places I probably should have stepped back from sooner. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ14:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Warrenmck: If you are truly concerned about someone's ability to be taken seriously as an editor, I suggest that you quickly withdraw this complaint. You have already raised this point several times, and because it has a clear (in my opinion) personal tone of re-litigation/sour grapes, it is unlikely to produce an outcome that benefits the project. Referring to your exhaust[ion] and frustration suggests that a much better course of action is to move on. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:33, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relitigation of what? The non-existent previous ANI thread? As far as I know the allegations of aspersions-casting were not discussed in any meaningful way in previous threads. WADroughtOfVowelsP16:35, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No thanks. And like I said, I'm open to a boomerang but I'm not really willing to just accept the accusations that have been routinely thrown at me and other editors. None of us should have to tolerate aspersions and verbal abuse (which was happening) because we disagreed with what ended up being a clear majority consensus. That you see it as sour grapes is fine, there's not much I can do to avoid some editors having that perception, especially to an editor who viewed even raising the RfC as inappropriate in the thread in question.
You have already raised this point several times
No, I haven't. There's a difference between the point being made in the underlying VPP thread, which is already well settled by the community, and the abject abandonment of WP:AGF and WP:ASPERSIONS taken up by some editors in response to an RfC and VPP posting they didn't like. Keep in mind that the accusations and doubling down partially came after the clear result of the RfC.
a much better course of action is to move on.
Of course. But in the same breath an editor doesn't need to, nor do they get to, double down on baseless accusations and expect the other editor move on. You can tell me to move on until the cows come home, but that doesn't change the underlying behaviour that I'm supposed to move on from. An ANI is the appropriate venue, and I shouldn't have to take the high ground: none of us should be accusing other editors baselessly. There's a reason I'm fully willing to have my own imperfect behaviour examined here. The best I can do to make this not look like I'm being vindictive in opening an ANI is ask for no individual, specific sanctions and ask for no policy changes resulting from this. It was very, very clear that people were mapping a policy disagreement to an assumption that someone is actively detrimental to Wikipedia and were acting accordingly. That's not how any of this works, but that's exactly what routine accusations of WP:PROFRINGE, WP:PROMOTIONAL, and WP:NOTHERE are.
Me being on the (overwhelmingly) losing side of a VPP thread does not change the acceptability of any editor's behaviour. And in not asking for specific individual sanctions, but rather an acknowledgement that a specific mode of casting aspersions isn't okay, I'm hoping that I'm making the focus of this ANI crystal clear in that my goal is to avoid editors going around ranting that someone who disagreed with them is WP:PROFRINGE when WP:AGF is right there next to it as far as policies go. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ16:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And "rather rude" would be a silly basis for an ANI if it weren't continually happening and being doubled down on, even in this ANI... Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ07:33, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is mindbogglingly hypocritical. Warrenmck and a couple of others have cast a vast WP:ASPERSIONS net (with little evidence beyond subjective personal feelings) against pretty much the entire body of regular editors involved in FTN, as a nest of anti-religion atheist PoV-pushers and censors, and this is not okay. That whole VPPOL thread and the RfC it spawned are worth a detailed read. Warrenmck returns over and over again to the same demonization shtick and will brook no contradiction, no alternative view of the matter; the way Warrenmck sees it must be the way it really is.
As I already conceded at the original thread, my initial comments at it could have been phrased more sensitively, but my underlying points remain sound:
Articles that are about or intersect with religion/spirituality (especially, but not at all exclusively, new religious movements) are frequently subject to attempts to push religious dogma, mytho-history, miraculous claims, etc., as if fact. When they cross that line, they are firmly within WP:FRINGE and WP:FTN territory, and this has no implications for whether WP's coverage of the religion or spiritualism topic is somehow "broken", when that material has been restored to being properly encyclopedic and not promotional or distorting of the distinction between evidence-demonstrable facts versus traditional, scriptural, or figurehead-declared "truths". Religion is not different in any way from any other subject in these regards, except perhaps in level of "angry that I'm not getting my way" emotion when the fringe material is blockaded. By contrast, there really is no "anti-religion crusade" that is wrongly suppressing factual coverage of what a particular spiritual or religious groups is claiming as their belief and practice. Rather, some people have difficulty distinguishing between "this is what we believe" and "this is fact", and are upset when their beliefs are not presented as fact (or, even more often, are not really encyclopedically competent to write material about beliefs that doesn't veer into claiming they are facts, even if they do not push back too hard when the material is adjusted to fix that discrepancy).
FRINGE and FTN are depended upon heavily by the project to protect it from PoV-pushing of fringe positions, including spirituo-theological ones. The thread in question and the abortive RfC that grew out of it had an explicit goal of eliminating or sharply constraining FTN, and merging FRINGE away, in piecemeal fashion, into other policies and guidelines, so that no cohesive approach to addressing fringe material would remain at Wikipedia. I.e., it was a "wiki-gerrymandering" approach. This is not in any way constructive, and no amount of "I'm not really a pro-fringe editor, see over here where once upon a time I opposed some fringe material of an unrelated kind" handwaving is going to do anything about the fact that pursuit of undermining WP:FRINGE and WP:FTN will in no way serves WP's interests or that of our reading public who depend on the editorial pool to clearly distinguish between fact and legend.
"FTN regulars" doesn't even include me – my reaction has been one of community-member defense of something the project badly needs as part of its memetic immune system, not personal defense of my own participatory interests. By way of analogy: what this really comes down to for me is much the same as what I observe among various relatives and colleagues in current American (and a lot of other Western) politics: One can deny all one wants to that one is a neo-fascist, but if (ostensibly to get some result unrelated to neo-fascist agendas, be it about tax rates, a desire for poorly defined "change", or whatever) one is supporting a party that has a neo-fascist platform, then one is effectively indistinguishable from a neo-fascist, by acting as a neo-fascism enabler, despite one's denials. The actions matter, and the words and posing and rationalizations do not. One doesn't get to cheer on the dumping of fuel on the building then claim one had nothing to do with the arson just because someone else lit the match. Trying to tear down WP's fringe-countering measures (and mass-slandering those who devote much of their wiki-time to it), while claiming to be anti-fringe-topic yourself, is "not on".
PS: When I point out that over-capitalizing of religion-related descriptive terms looks promotional, I'm making a simple observation about likely perception and about how English works; I am not magically reading minds as to intent or "goodness or badness of faith". [Even if someone were actively promoting a particular religio-spiritual PoV (which I did not accuse Warrenmck of doing), that would not in itself be a bad-faith activity; most proselytizers believe they are acting in the best possible faith. But that wouldn't make it a constructive thing to do here. In short, "bad for the project" and "in bad faith" are not synonymous. Neither are "critical of an editor's behavior or argument" and "assuming bad faith". Neither are "implication" and "inference"; they are opposites.] The overall point of Warrenmck's thrust here appears to boil down to "How you write things matters, and may affect others' perceptions and responses", so obviously Warrenmck is not somehow exempt from the very principle he wants to wield as a "muzzle and punish my opponents" weapon here. And, ironically, that principle is at the very heart of why we have FRINGE and FTN. It matters very much whether we describe a mytho-historical or miraculous claim by a particular group as something they believe, versus (even by implication through poor wording) as something that really happened. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 19:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it overcapitalization when the "New Religious Movements" spelling is regularly used by sources? I mean, it's certainly the less common variety, but it's not infrequently used in a capitalized form. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In what way does this matter? WP is not Facebook where typographic norms have basically ceased to exist. If people at this encyclopedia-writing project, written in rather circumscribed, formal, academic English, have a habit of presenting "capitalization for signification" in certain topics, this generally has a correlation to a promotional/aggrandizing PoV, and represents how they want/intend to write about the topic in article content. The capitalization rate of this phrase doesn't even hit 50% in ngrams [18], so it very obviously fails the test in the lead of MOS:CAPS. By its nature, it is a common-noun phrase (a descriptive label of a generalized category of things) not a proper-noun phrase; it is the same sort of thing, linguistically, as "political conservatives", "vegetable dye techniques", "rear-wheel-drive automobiles", "international drug-smuggling operations", etc. See Google Scholar results, in which lower-case dominates outside of title-case titles and headings, headwords being emphasized, and quoted material (and more generally in material that appears to be promotional of the subject) [19]. Books that capitalize this (in running text, not headings) are more often promotional of the subject and/or self-published that those which do not. The usage pattern is about the same as "neo-paganism" and "witchcraft" versus "Neo-Paganism" and "Witchcraft". "New religious movement[s]" is demonstrably not accepted broadly and by subject-independent writers as a proper-noun phrase (proper name) to be capitalized, ergo the reason to capitalize it is undue emphasis (promotionalism/marketing/aggrandizement), that which is covered at MOS:SIGCAPS. It is not at all unreasonable for me to point out that a practice of doing this suggests a bias. That is not equivalent to making a direct accusation of bias, much less an assumption that any such bias is necessarily bad-faith motivated. If it were not possible for us to present user behavior as evidentiary of a potentially problematic approach without it having to be, in isolation as a single datapoint, 100% concrete proof of that approach and its problematicness, then ANI and other noticeboards simply could not function. But, really, this capitalization thing is the most trivial aspect of anything I've said in relation to Warrenmck's agitation for the abolition of WP:FTN, and we should not devote another moment to it. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 23:33, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought worth a try as the only achievable positive outcome. Both were true statements but with some rationalization behind them. fiveby(zero) 11:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some detailed follow-up: Warrenmck's "in an RfC ... I voted against weakening WP:FRINGE" statement is misleading to the point of disingenuous. While he argued against demoting FRINGE to an essay or splitting FRINGE apart into multiple other pages (bad ideas for more than one reason), he also argued for abolishing FTN. Deleting the noticeboard by which WP:FRINGE is put into action would be, by definition, "weakening WP:FRINGE". Preventing the gutting of a means by which we protect the project every single day is a hill that a lot of editors would die on, so Warrenmck should not be surprised by resistance to his efforts (even if they were not the most extreme of the efforts, just the longest-term and most ranty) to produce that result, and criticisms of his vague fingerpoint-at-FTN-participants-as-atheist-zealots "rationale" for doing so. It really doesn't matter to me or probably anyone else what Warrenmck's declared reasoning is for heading in that direction; it is an undesirable result (according to how both of those intertwined discussions went); the end result being sought, not the excuse-making wording for trying to get that result, is what matters.
It's also interesting that in those VPPOL threads, as here, Warrenmck mischaracterizes other editors as attacking him, e.g. as "a butthurt POV FRINGE-pusher". But what was actually said (not by me) was "WP:FRINGE has no need for any such changes. The fact is that this all arose because FRINGE POV-pushers of religious topics got angry that their pseudoscience claims were being appropriately described in our articles as pseudoscience. It's ridiculous we're even entertaining this RfC at all when that's the background context and reason for it." This statement has nothing at all to do with Warrenmck (who did not open the RfC, but the thread preceding it, specifically to accuse FTN regulars of basically conspiring against religious editors). That quoted material is descriptive (as I have been at that page and here, above) of a generalized problem of religio-spiritual PoV pushing (often generated not by some bad-faith intent to warp our content, but a genuine faith-based confusion between spiritual "truth" and verifiable fact, and confusion of scripture and doctrine with reliable sourcing).
Again, please actually review those threads. They show a pattern, also evidenced here, of Warrenmck choosing unreasonably to self-identify, in a combative and grandstanding manner, with any criticism or concern about faith-based PoV issues and try to spin them into a personal wrong against him in particular, that someone else has to retract or be punished for. This is ultimately a form of WP:COMPETENCE problem (as well as a WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:WINNING issue), namely an inability or more likely calculated refusal to separate generalized from personal matters, issues from personalities. It makes communicating with, or even in the vicinity of, this editor unconstructively difficult. And as others noted in those VPPOL discussions, this "Down with WP:FTN and WP:FRINGE" stuff is a dead horse that Warrenmck has been beating for a long time across multiple venues without getting "satisfaction" from the community. WP:OTHERPARENT + WP:NOTGETTINGIT + WP:NOT#FORUM. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 23:33, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is a pretty good example of why I raised this ANI. This is clearly deeply conspiratorial thinking and not at all related to anything anyone was saying. SMcCandlish has clearly decided I have an agenda I'm not being open about and more than once they've actively changed anything I said to make me out to have a "Down with WP:FTN and WP:FRINGE" attitude which is completely out of line with anything I've said or argued at any point. I don't know how many times I have to say I think WP:FRINGE is important and shouldn't be changed for you to not interpret that as "well of course that's what someone lying about their anti-anti-fringe stance would say". Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ08:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say anything to that effect. If you want to discuss this, we could, but this is ANI, not VPPOL, and why that idea is a poor one has already been covered in detail over there. In short, NPOVN is busy, FTN is busy, so merging them would be impractical, and would have the effect of harming our ability to track and resolve FRINGE-related content and behavior problems. FRINGE is also not entirely or even mostly an NPOV matter, but a V/RS one and frequently also involves OR. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 18:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Warrenmck's response is basically hand-waving accusatory (without evidence) word-salad, and is actually projection. There's nothing "conspiratorial" about a single word I wrote. I have also accused Warrenmck of no agenda of any kind. I have observed their behavior, of: 1) long-term agitation against FRINGE/FTN process, in a won't-drop-the-stick manner, and pointed out that the community response to this has been negative, so Warrenmck feigning shock at being criticized for it is unreasonable; 2) aspersion casting en masse and without evidence against participants in FTN (the actual conspiracy theory here is of course Warrenmck's, namely that they're all bunch of rabid atheists colluding to chase away other editors because they are religious); 3) a communication- and consensus-thwarting habit of claiming that anyone critical of PoV problems introduced at religion articles is somehow attacking Warrenmck personally.
Of no practical interest is Warrenmck's pretense that A) my observation that his positions would harm the functioning of FTN (i.e. of community enforcemet against FRINGE material in our content) somehow equates to B) me accusing him of having an explicit agenda of causing that harm. I've made the point repeatedly, both directly and through analogy, here and at VPPOL, that Warrenmck's statement and apparent belief that the changes he would like to see would be positive doesn't make them actually positive in the face of obvious reasons they would not be; that the effect of Warrenmck's proposal being put into practice would be negative and Warrenmck simply doesn't see or accept it. Supporting changes that would result in less ability to police fringe material necessarily has the end result of enabling pro-fringe editing, no matter what one's expressed rationale or one's disbelief. I don't know how this point could possibly be made more clearly, nor how it could be any more distinct from something like "Warrenmck has a pro-fringe agenda".
This is turning circularly repetitive, and yes it's getting long because Warrenmck firehoses unreasonable accusations all over the place, which call for a lot of rebuttal, and engages in a great deal of WP:NOTGETTINGIT, which necessitates re-re-re-explanation of the same things. At this point, it's too tedious and pointless to continue, so I'm not going to respond further here unless someone pings me with a specific question or something. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 18:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing "conspiratorial" about a single word I wrote.
I genuinely struggle to see how pointing to a fairly standard capitalization of NRM as evidence of me being a promotional editor isn't wildly conspiratorial. You're tilting at perceived nefariousness in the capitalization of a specific acronym, which gets into tinfoil hat territory.
Supporting changes that would result in less ability to police fringe material necessarily has the end result of enabling pro-fringe editing, no matter what one's expressed rationale or one's disbelief
This isn't a healthy approach to policy disagreements. I, personally, disagree that the status quo helps wikipedia compared to an alternative, but I'm fine that the community consensus goes against that. Painting me out to be completely willing to accept harm to wikipedia because I don't see the same thing you do isn't WP:AGF. You cannot take it as a given that only your preferred outcome is allowed to be arrived at by anyone acting rationally or in good faith and that those who disagree are willing to damage the encyclopedia. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ13:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, you started that WP:VPP thread with a pretty hostile tone to begin with. You opened by saying how posting about how many posts on WP:FRINGEN end up ...feeling like a deliberate decision to exclude people who may be less hostile to a specific religion and comes across as WP:CANVAS, especially in light of how willing FTN regulars are to throw WP:CIVILITY out the window on religious topics to the point of multiple admin warnings and thread closures. My willingness to assume good faith is pretty low here considering the history of open hostility to (mainstream) religious/spiritual topics when they come up on FTN. Bluntly starting a discussion with such stark WP:ASPERSIONs and flatly stating an unwillingness to assume good faith is hardly an invitation to collegial discussion. Referring to specific posts by specific editors as this sort of r/atheism open hostility to religious topics (an utterly inappropriate characterization that you doubled-down on repeatedly) or saying that You've been around FTN long enough to know that there's a contingent that see religion as an inherent enemy is even worse. And, of course, the entire basis of your post was repeated constant accusations of WP:CANVASSing, which is also, obviously, an aspersion and was totally inappropriate to raise in that accusatory tone on WP:VPP. The fact that you tiptoed around naming individual editors doesn't make it any less of an aspersion given that everyone knew exactly who you were talking about and could trace back the discussions you were referring to if they wanted the names.
You call the linked discussion a a complete mess of a thread, but it was one because you made it so, both by launching it with that hostile tone and then WP:BLUDGEONing it with similarly aggressive responses to anyone who tried to point out how inappropriate it was - you replied to almost every person there, taking the exact same aggressive tone with anyone who was even slightly skeptical of your broad WP:ASPERSIONs or the utterly inappropriate way you were bringing them to WP:VPP without evidence. You have over 90 posts in that massive thread, most of them walls-of-text repeating the same handful of accusations, comprising nearly a third of the total!
If you really just want civility restored and editors to walk back some fairly absurd accusations which have been thrown around pretty wantonly, the first thing to do is to acknowledge that most editors on WP:FRINGEN who discuss religious issues are posting there in good faith attempts to address what they genuinely see as problems with fringe material and are trying to address this in accordance with Wikipedia policies. That doesn't always mean they get it right - everyone has their own biases, and it's always worth talking about possible improvements - but your constant aggressive accusations of deliberate bad faith against huge swaths of editors are poisoning the well for any sort of discussion along those lines and, if you don't tone it down, are obviously going to continue to derail discussions on this topic you participate in. Likewise, apologizing for the /r/atheism comments and committing to avoiding such language in the future would help reduce the room's temperature a bit. Otherwise - you mentioned a WP:BOOMERANG, and, yes, I feel you'd be better off topic-banned from that topic for WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct, a broad refusal to WP:AGF, and a refusal to WP:DROPTHESTICK. --Aquillion (talk) 03:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From the OP post: ... butthurt (direct quote) and other wonderful things like: ... [then quoting SMcC] [the quote "butthut" rendered in green in original not bold]. No diff was given. This appears to me to be representing that SMcC used the expression. JPxG, was it butthurt you were referring to when you posted: All else aside, I would agree that the comment you quote in the initial post seems rather rude? The term has not been used by SMcC (search the subject discussion and the associated RfC to confirm). SMcC made no comment to the RfC (see here). I also checked to see if it was removed by SMcC from their edits. I found no evidence. The term was used by Hob Gadling in the RfC here, who isn't mentioned in the OP. In a thread that is specifically about SMcC, I see no good reason to "quote" this particular word when SMcC did not utter it. The OP appears to me to be a gross misrepresentation (an aspersion). I do not abide misrepresentations being made by editors.
In the subject discussion I found this reply by Warrenmck: If you're so convinced there's nothing of merit here, why the WP:TEND? ... For someone complaining about civility and casting aspersions, this sounds way too WP:POTish to me. While SMcC's comments (quoted) may have been unnecessary (per WP:AVOIDYOU) they do not cast aspersion of misconduct. Promotionalism might alude to WP:PROMOTION which is part of WP:NOT. It is not a policy document about conduct but content. No link was made by SMcC though. On the otherhand misrepresentations and aspersions made by Warrenmck are inappropriate. I think that the bent stick is in flight. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I genuinely think that was TEND behaviour. If you want to read the whole context, which I very much understand if you don’t want to engage that entire mess, the poster I was responding to came in from the first post bludgeoning the discussion that there was nothing of merit and the whole thing should be shut down, followed by a farcical strawman rendering of an argument I (and another) poster were making. Just because I accused someone of TEND behaviour doesn’t mean I was doing that in a vacuum. I have no problem standing by that claim as something I genuinely perceived, and still perceive on a re-read. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ06:32, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
farcical strawman rendering of an argument ← except it wasn't, was it? It was responding to the words you actually wrote, but which you seemed be unaware you'd written and later had to concede you had.[20] Honestly, as is evident you seem to suffer from logorrhoea with little heed to meaning and sense of what you emit, which happens to be inflammatory. We see the result of it in the numerous clusterfuck threads you are responsible for, of which this is just the latest. Bon courage (talk) 06:54, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think this is a good example of the kind of shit that's unreasonable to expect editors to deal with over and over, actually. Bon is right that I mistook that he was quoting me at one point, to which I responded I have egg on my face and owned up to it. Bon also spent paragraphs attacking a version of the OP that simply didn't exist. Little of both. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ07:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's just a wrong, bad faith accusation. Again. It's almost like you think things mean what you say they mean and anybody else's interpretation must be wrong (it's panspermia all over again!). Bon courage (talk) 07:23, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bon, I think the VPP thread went to hell because of your strawmanning bludgeoning. You spent how much time listing out things that'd clearly be covererd as WP:FRINGE in the OP and saying "they're fringe, deal with it"? Yes. Those were never points of contention. Your first post was a rant about "not this again" when it was the first time the topic had been raised at the appropriate venue, and you spent days responding to everyone you could explaining how you didn't think the thread warranted existing. We got it. We got the memo. I don't think you even needed to waste your own time to get the outcome you desired, it's not like the community agreed with me and I can't imagine you made the overwhelming difference there. I don't see any value whatsoever, either individually or for wikipedia, for us to keep engaging. I've asked you, repeatedly, if we can just have a mutual IBAN that we both respect. I'm going to reitterate that, because I think at this point you're so used to behaving uncivilly that you've completely lost sight of what it means to engage an editor you disagree with respectfully and civilly. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ07:29, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the VPP thread went to shit because of your strawmanning bludgeoning ← I see. Everybody else's fault but yours. As to bans, I can think of one which would definitely help. I and others have floated a TBAN below, but am beginning to wonder whether a CBAN might be better, given that your communication issues seem endemic. Bon courage (talk) 07:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not. You can't throw out accusations at ANI and then hide behind a sudden pretend IBAN. If you keep off pages I edited before your account was even made (including FTN) I however would not complain. Bon courage (talk) 07:43, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a "sudden pretend IBAN", I repeatedly requested we avoid interactions at VPP. That's clear for all to see. Since I mentioned you here, I pinged you (and I should have notified, sorry). Calling for a TBAN/CBAN on the basis of FTN being where a majority of my posts are is not realistic, like it or not the page that spawned the whole VPP pump was worked on by myself and other editors at FTN to everyone's satisfaction; I am perfectly capable of disagreeing with attitudes of editors on a specific topic and then stepping away from those disagreements to improve an article in a spirit of cooperation. The status quo at Tukdam was written in part by me and in part by an editor who was viscerally disagreeing with me at VPP, we just left that aside at the article to work on it together. A habit you don't seem willing to try.
Most of my editing on wikipedia is on topics which would be considered fringe, and I've never been accused of PROFRINGE or low-quality edits. Maybe occasionally heavy-handed with anti-fringe perspectives, but calling for a TBAN from FTN would probably require demonstrating that my presence there hasn't been a net positive, which I think you'd have a hard time doing. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ07:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never intended to represent the butthurt line as by the SMcCandlish, to be clear. It should be pretty clear from the OP that this is more widely about the civility and behaviour in that thread, but the only actual complaint I’m bringing forward is against someone who threw out a PROMO accusation and doubled down on a large accusation after the conclusion of the thread when asked to explain or strike those comments. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ06:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so I see I'm raised at ANI without being notified. Nice. I'll just observe that the OP seemingly spends their time mostly on Wikipedia editing the WP namespace.[21] FTN (189 edits) and ANI (110 edits) are by far the pages they have most edited (compare their most edited article Otherkin, with 15 edits). So yeah, that savours of WP:NOTHERE. This is compounded with their spending around the last 12 months verbosely prosecuting this vague quixotic campaign against FTN in multiple locations (e.g.[22][23]). I'd say it is time for an indef TBAN from WP:FT/N (posting there and discussing the venue), out of respect for the limited time all of us (including the OP) have. Bon courage (talk) 04:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did pin you, but I left you out of being formally raised as one of the subjects because I was fixating on the person who doubled down and included the WP:PROMOTIONAL claim. Merely attempting to sing anyone who had called me WP:PROFRINGE would absolutely have seemed retaliatory. I explicitly pinged you and another editor to not leave you out of the loop, since you’ve previously mentioned your desire to weigh in on an ANI I’m involved in. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ06:28, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that may have been a misunderstanding on my part then. Should I be careful to leave that notice on all editors mentioned? Because I did leave it on McCandlish's page as the target of the ANI, but if that was a misunderstanding then sorry, won't happen again. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ07:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FTN (189 edits) and ANI (110 edits) are by far the pages they have most edited (compare their most edited article Otherkin, with 15 edits).
I'm surprised it's not somewhat obvious that noticeboards will be revisited more than other pages one edits? I'm very active on wikipedia, well beyond FTN and ANI. That I don't revisit the same articles 111 times for follow up edits doesn't mean I'm WP:NOTHERE and this sort of accusation is one of the big things I'm kind of just over. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ08:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not normal for productive contributors to Wikipedia to have 34% of their edits to WP:space, for obvious reasons. --JBL (talk) 18:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JayBeeEll, the namespace proportion depends on the kind of work you do. AFD regulars frequently have a very high proportion of edits in the Wikipedia: namespace, as do people who help out at the noticeboards. For example, Jclemens has 33% of his edits in that namespace, and JoelleJay has 44% of her edits there, and nobody thinks that's a bad thing (except possibly the UPE scammers). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to notify FTN (and relevant Wikiprojects) when I begin editing a fringe topic that had fallen outside their notice, giving me a somewhat tight relationship with my edit history in WP:FTN and the content edits I make on pages. This is pretty easy to verify. I wouldn’t be surprised if roughly half my ANI edits weren’t from the DrBogdan ANI, which turned into a tome. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ12:12, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Going back to the stated purpose of this thread, Warrenmck, there is no way any action can be taken on any conduct you are condemning without you providing "diffs"/examples of what you are objecting to. It's not reasonable to expect editors to read through an entire VPP discussion thread to guess at which comments you are objecting to and which are, in your view, creating an unhealthy environment. Without edits to examine, it's not a matter of taking action but just putting your word against that of other editors and that's not a way to resolve disputes at ANI, it just becomes bickering. LizRead!Talk!04:27, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I provided a diff to the doubling down, which is the only one I'm focusing on here. I think so many editors decided that painting "ideological enemies" as WP:PROFRINGE was acceptable that simply including diffs and attempting to call out those editors would seem retaliatory, even to me. The situation can be addressed via the editor who doubled down on the behaviour even after requests to strike, as I see it, since the alternative is me trying to drag a lot of people whose behaviour and accusations were a lot less egregious/cut and dry.
If that was a bad way of handling it, well, I'm not sure I saw a good one. My decision not to leave this alone came about because there's only so many times an editor can be attacked for improper behaviour and just let it stand unchallenged, and I didn't raise it here until a few days after asking the PROMOTIONAL comment be struck. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ07:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So if your complaint was "SMcCandlish wrongly called me PROFRINGE.[diff] I demand an apology!" Why did you give the section the title you did and write 600 word (rather than 20)? Did you even discuss on their Talk page. Is this really any ANI-worthy "serious incident"? Bon courage (talk) 07:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And just for the record, I didn't call Warrenmck PROFRINGE; I indicated that if what one is proposing would have a monkeywrenching effect on WP:FRINGE and WP:FTN and the editors involved in them, that this would enable more fringe material to get through, so would have a PROFRINGE practical effect, despite stated intent and protestations to the contrary. I am not wrong about this, and it was not "a wrong" to say so. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 01:50, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do think some of what I was here raising in the first place has become pretty evident in this thread (Honestly, as is evident you seem to suffer from logorrhoea with little heed to meaning and sense of what you emit, which happens to be inflammatory. is not a civil engagement with an editor with which you disagree.) I’m sure to some this ANI looks a little overkill, but there’s been a substantial amount of abuse hurled around that runs directly counter to WP:CIVIL, which is why the only sanction at all I’ve asked for is a declarative statement that this isn’t kosher, and an appology. My goal here isn’t revenge or catharsis, it’s keeping this same stupid bad-faith argument from being a constant refrain in policy disagreements.
Arguments that the VPP thread was rooted in aspersions feel weak when the context was a general trend rather than a specific callout of specific editors, and (importantly) I wasn’t the only one who saw that trend. The community disagreed that that was an issue, and that’s fine and I have no problems accepting that outcome even if I personally don’t agree. Consensus was clear and this ANI isn’t an appropriate venue for relitigation. I (and @SamuelRiv + @Hydrangeans) shouldn’t be expected to put up with this kind of character attack on the basis of “being on the minority side of a community discussion”. If any other user came to an ANI and accused another of “logorrhoea” I’d expect pretty swift sanctions.
No matter how you slice it, with the exception of the initial possible mass aspersions in the start of the VPP thread, the accusations of wrongdoing are mostly flowing one way, and loudly. I say mostly because I did accuse Bon of engaging in bad faith, to be fair to them, and that was uncivil of me. If I was out of line and deserve sanctions, fine. I’ll never avoid raising an ANI for fear of a boomerang, but for any third party reading along: how, exactly, do you expect editors to behave after fairly constant aspersions and verbal abuse? This ANI may seem silly and overkill but I’ve tried keeping the scope narrow enough to a single incident which was particularly egregious and which would have a resolution of setting a precedent that policy disagreements are insufficient to accuse someone of inherent and willful wrongdoing.
How about keeping what you write reasonably concise, and providing diffs as evidence of the things you are complaining about? Brunton (talk) 11:37, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to follow this as an outside is almost impossible. @Warrenmck and @SMcCandlishboth need to be a lot more concise. @Aquillion's contribution is also unhelpfully long, but they've only made one so that's somewhat mitigating.
Indeed it might be best if this thread were closed without action or prejudice, and, if Warren wants to try again, start a new thread using no more than 250 words with all accusations backed by diffs. If SMcCandlish chooses to respond to that they should also do so within the same restrictions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:59, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thirded. Post a few of the most egregious quotes and diffs from before this ANI and then don't post any further, give people a chance to read the diffs. Levivich (talk) 13:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think both of us have taken the stance that brevity risks losing too much nuance. The issue can’t be neatly summarized in a couple of quotes, from either direction. Trust me, I want to be brief as well. I’m sure SMcCandlish does, as well. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ13:48, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Warrenmck, it's worth working harder to be concise, as no one wants to read walls of text. If you don't think it's worth it to be concise to help us understand, why should anyone bother to try to help you?
And @SMcCandlish, if you respond to a complaint by posting walls of text, it looks very much like you're intentionally trying to create a discussion no one will read. You've been asked before, many times, to try to be more concise. If you cannot be bothered to respond concisely, IMO admins should not be expected to read your defense.
How about you both reply to any of your posts that are more than 100 words and give us a TL:DR version? We can always go back and check for nuance if we need to. Valereee (talk) 21:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The report is way too long & difficult (for me) to understand. Indeed the related Village Pump discussion is likewise a WP:TLDR situation. GoodDay (talk) 13:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
During a very contentious VPP, one cluster of editors abandoned WP:CIVIL and accused several other editors of engaing in bad faith, going as far as to smear them as WP:PROFRINGE for dissenting from what ended up being the consensus. @SMcCandlish:
Accused me of being WP:PROMOTIONAL (diff) and WP:PROFRINGE. When asked to strike it they ignored my comment but doubled down and wrote an essay about why I'm WP:PROFRINGE in response to someone else (diff, diff) and have repeated those accusations here. In addition, they continue to characterize me as hiding a secret WP:PROFRINGE motive, both there and in here.
[note to Warrenmck: that phrase is not a proper name and does not take capitals as "New Religious Movements", and your use of that overcapitalization, like much of your general approach here, hints at promotionalism]
As pointed out above, the capitalization is actually somewhat used in the field.
The line of reasoning I most object to here, is this:
If one is taking a position that would harm our ability to police the encyclopedia for fringe claims, then one is, as a practical matter, a pro-fringe editor whether or not one is engaging in self-denial about it.
Disagreeing on policy isn't WP:PROFRINGE behaviour, and as was pointed out in this ANI at no point did I actually advocate for getting rid of FTN, I advocated for merging it, which is decidedly not the same thing. Editors should be allowed to have fundamental disagreements on how policy should be enforced and interpreted without one side deciding it's open season to declare the other ideological enemies.
Now, as long as we're basically re-opening this ANI:
Bon Courage
Bon has accused me and User:SamuelRiv of being WP:NOTHERE, both in that thread and here (I'm struggling to find the diff at VPP but you can ctrl+f the phrase "which tells its own story", and diff).
He got openly hostile both in that thread and here (diff), Honestly, as is evident you seem to suffer from logorrhoea with little heed to meaning and sense of what you emit, which happens to be inflammatory. We see the result of it in the numerous clusterfuck threads you are responsible for, of which this is just the latest.
Bon has also repeatedly accused me of lying about my motivations (diff, diff) and called for me to be TBANned from FTN for this, or even CBANned.
This is completely absurd. My behaviour crossed the line in places, to be certain. I absolutely accused Bon of engaging in bad faith (Apologies for the lack of a diff, but if you search the phrase "gaslighting myself" on VPP you'll find it) and have repeatedly asked them to respect that us interacting isn't helping us or wikipedia. The bulk of the poor behaviour here is flowing in one direction, and it's not me. I have no issue accepting the consensus went against how I feel without seeing the need to paint Bon and SMcCandlish as fundamental ideological enemies.
I don't think it's reasonable for multiple editors to paint people who had the gall of not seeing eye to eye on a VPP issue as ideological enemies out to harm Wikipedia, and I think this is behaviour we can't allow to continue. It goes beyond "he called me WP:PROFRINGE :(" and straight into a breakdown of the norms that allow civil disagreements to be productive on Wikipedia. If I acted in the way Bon is here I'd fully expect to be sanctioned. By all means, look into my behaviour, but as I said above: how, exactly, do you expect editors to react to constant accusations of secretly being a bad faith editor hiding their motivations to harm Wikipedia? Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ14:47, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This just about sums up the problem yup. To use a diff which says[24] "I don't think you're lying. I think you're wrong ..." as support for an accusation that "Bon has also repeatedly accused me of lying" shows either mendacity or incompetence. Do you think people wouldn't actually read the diffs? Bon courage (talk) 15:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If people care that intensely I’m sure they can read the full quote, which you cut off:
I don't think you're "lying". I think you're wrong on the facts and damagingly oblique and confusing in your approach. Anyway, we shall see from the RfC how convinced the community is.
or they can look up my response to it where I made it clear I felt that was still an accusation, just one couched in a level of deniability that the rest, which you conveniently sidestepped here, weren’t. Me being “oblique” with my motivations is pretty clearly the same thing as you telling me I’m not being up front with them. A constant refrain here has been you attempting to only address what you personally feel is the weakest argument while pretending the rest isn’t there. I’m not particularly interested in continuing with this game and sincerely hope that whatever comes out of this mess, you and I go back to ignoring each other. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ15:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saying you are "damagingly oblique and confusing in your approach" is not an accusation that you are lying, especially when coupled with an explicit disclaimer that I don't think you are lying. This is yet another example of the disconnect between what you write and what words mean in normal human exchanges. And I stand by "damagingly oblique and confusing in your approach": you spew verbose walls of text which nobody can take in, but which nevertheless riles people up. We see it again here which is why admins asked you for a 250 word go-around (which you signally failed to do; your 'concise' second go is over 800 words - longer than your OP). Bon courage (talk) 15:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"...another example of the disconnect between what you write and what words mean in normal human exchanges." This is hyperbole. It is quite possible to interpret that as Warren did. WADroughtOfVowelsP15:25, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You gotta stop talking to people like this, or you will be sanctioned for it. There is no cause for you to ever write the words "you lack basic comprehension skills" on the website. Putting an "if" in front of it doesn't suddenly make it OK, it's clear that you're saying anyone who disagrees with your interpretation lacks basic comprehension skills or is ABFing. This is uncivil and you should stop communicating like this. Levivich (talk) 18:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1 for ADroughtOfVowels. When a colloquial figurative meaning of oblique is 'misleading', saying that someone isn't lying but is oblique (i. e. misleading) is itself, well, prone to seeming oblique. It's understandable to read it as the same thing as you telling me I’m not being up front. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:37, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Warren was being up-front, and said so. But they weren't lying (i.e. they had no intent to deceive). Using a statement of "I don't think you're 'lying'" to be an accusation of lying is just dishonest twisting (or a lack of basic comprehension) however. Bon courage (talk) 20:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Warren was being up-front, and said so. But they weren't lying (i.e. they had no intent to deceive): I'm not sure what else to do but dwell on the sheer contradiction here. If Warrenmck had no intent to deceive, then they were being transparent but verbose, the behavior was up-front, even if inconvenient to someone else or not how someone else understood or would describe the situation. If Warrenmck was not being up-front, then they were consciously withholding, they were misleading, were deceiving. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 00:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No: if somebody adopts an approach that is so reticent, unclear and indirect that it's not transparent what they are getting at, that's not lying, it's more a communications issue. You only need to look at this thread here for more of the same. Bon courage (talk) 02:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't going to comment further but this is actually important: Saying you are "damagingly oblique and confusing in your approach" is not an accusation that you are lying, especially when coupled with an explicit disclaimer that I don't think you are lying. Yep. There is a clear and consistent Warrenmck pattern here that is at least habitual and possibly calculated, amounting to a serious WP:COMPETENCE problem. It is latching onto any reasonable criticism and twisting into an "attack" through straw man distortion and willful, implausible misinterpretation (always in the most negative way possible), and playing WP:ICANTHEARYOU games with regard to disclaimers/qualifiers, to accuse Warrenmck's "opponent" of making precisely the accusation they are being clear they are not making, then recycling the same arguments over and over after they have already been refuted ("proof by assertion"). Warrenmck has done this to me constantly throughout this tedious mess, and also uses it with regard to other editors involved (here or at VPPOL) that Warrenmck is displeased with. It is increasingly difficult to conclude anything other than that Warrenmck is hell-bent on WP:WINNING at all costs and sees ANI, RFC, and other process as something to game toward that end, through every fallacious means at his disposal. I would suggest a topic-ban, but I'm not certain this behavior is actually confined to this "religion and FRINGE" internal subject area. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 18:25, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is asking for a declaration that incivility and direct accusations in the case of policy disagreement is uncalled for and WP:ASPERSIONS “winning” in any sense? I’ve fully conceded that the consensus is against my perspective, no sanction or resolution I’m seeking here changes that or has any influence on that and if you look at the discussion below I’m pretty hellbent on not reopening the VPP discussion. I’m not even seeking individual sanctions for aspersions. I’ve even provided evidence that the last time consensus went against me I left a topic alone indefinitely.
I'm just speaking for myself here but I don't really care what you have to say about the quotes/diffs -- you've already given the broad overview and as to the details, I can read them for myself -- and I also don't want to look at diffs without knowing which part I'm supposed to read, nor do I want to read quotes without seeing the diff they came from. So quote-diff pairs are what I'm looking for. So far I see two quote-diff pairs that show some rudeness but nothing I think of as so over the top as to be sanctionable. I suspect there are more, but it's getting lost in your commentary, which isn't useful when it comes to determining whether other editors violated policies. Levivich (talk) 18:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can try to be more concise, but I again want to stress that the only sanction I’m actually seeking here is a precedent-setting declaration that the logic presented above that I’m (or any editor is) WP:PROFRINGE and WP:PROMO for disagreeing with the best implementation of a policy is out of line and WP:ASPERSIONS. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ11:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"at no point did I actually advocate for getting rid of FTN, I advocated for merging it",
Warrenmck's "TL;DR (best I can do) with diffs" attempt to summarize doesn't raise anything not already addressed in the rest of this thread, so I decline to re-respond to it. "[B]asically re-opening this ANI"? No one seems interested in doing that. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 18:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Above I twice recommended to the OP that they withdraw/drop the stick. They unfortunately did not, and predictably we now have a colossal waste of editor time for which sanction(s) against the OP, but no one else, have become an increasingly likely outcome. I'm sure no one wants that to happen, so as a preventative measure could a passing, non-involved admin or senior editor please close it with some appropriate words of wisdom to the OP? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The original VPP thread starts with accusations of uncivil behaviour, canvassing and outing. It goes down hill fast after that. Everyone in that threads needs to back away and calm down a bit. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°18:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1 to Levivich. There are legitimate worries at play. The long posts are hard to read, but that doesn't justify the sea lioning and incivility and denial thereof (like denying any incivility while saying that a reasonable disagreement means you lack basic comprehension skills; or at no point apologizing for accusing someone of religious promotionalism because they... used a capitalization style that academics use). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:25, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do think we should maybe have some sort of boilerplate template to use to clue people in to the fact that posting massive walls of text strongly decreases the chances that an admin will actually do anything about whatever it is they are complaing about. The initial post is over six hundred words, and in only one day the thread has grown to nearly ten thousand words. This kind of sprawl with 2-4 users just going back and forth rarely if ever leads to any kind of decisive action, we've seen it again and again. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today20:48, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting strong vibes of that from SMcCandlish's contributions to this thread. That's not excusing the other walls of text, but, there are legitimate complaints buried in them and we shouldn't be dismissing them just because it's exhausting to do so. Thryduulf (talk) 21:27, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Potentially, but it is somewhat unreasonable to expect someone to respond to a wall of text from an OP complaining about you, by being uber-concise. The problem starts with the original posting as it sets the scene and, to some extent, the nature of the engagement for the rest of the thread (unless someone intervenes to adjust said nature of engagement, which should have happened earlier here). Put it this way, if I coppd a complaint of the type that started this thread (and the subsequent follow-up of similar length, only two hours later), I'd be using plenty of words to refute that. YMMV. Daniel (talk) 21:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree being uber-concise in response to a wall of text is not reasonable to expect, but it is reasonable to expect fewer than two walls of text from the respondent. Thryduulf (talk) 22:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe off-topic but I think there's some level of merit in limiting the intial submission of an ANI complaint (and the initial response from a reported editor) to 300 words and 15 diffs, as well as all subsequent comments to 200 words and 10 diffs (but unlike ArbCom, each comment is treated individually, rather than a cumulative total by editor) and by explicitly noting it on the instructions (and enforcing it). Danger would be everyone would submit the limit thinking that's what to do, but I don't think this would happen often, and I think it would help in making threads more actionable. Anyways, off to get a morning coffee and ponder how sunny it is outside. Daniel (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would love that. If people could not ramble on and on with vague accusations and far-reaching claims, but had to concisely make an evidence-based case, lengthy rebuttals would not be needed, and the entire matter could be quickly assessed by all ANI participants. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 02:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But there are some cases, like showing WP:CPUSHING, where it would be necessary to put together a lot of words of evidence (which is why such cases are seldom raised maybe?) Bon courage (talk) 02:33, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was wondering how long it would take my perennial antagonist Thryduulf to leap into an unjustifiable accusation of acting in bad faith. [sigh] Since this is obviously a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" trap, and I have already addressed Warrenmck's sparse evidence and own behavior, in more detail than seems desired, I don't have an incentive to re-engage any further [with the bulk of this thread]. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 22:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the completely unnecessary and unfounded ad hominem. Would you now like to address the actual substance of the articles or do you want to escalate to personal attacks? Thryduulf (talk) 00:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? This isn't a venue for addressing substance of articles (content); this is a behaviorial venue, and I've opened a pertinent side complaint about yours. That's not the meaning of ad hominem (trying to wave away a valid argument by attacking the character of the arguer instead of addressing the meaning of their words). "Someone criticized me" != "That was ad hominem". I'm quite focused on the meaning of your words. Specifically, you pointedly claimed that you have subjective and evidence-free "strong vibes" that my reason for not being as concise as you prefer was not substantive but specifically engineered to prevent ANI from coming to any decisive action in this case. That is prima facie a "mind-reading"-style assumption of bad faith, namely of gaming the system. (Doesn't matter that some of the wording was someone else's, as a general statement about what happens at ANI sometimes; you turned it into a specific accuation about a particular editor.) It's also weird and silly, since my material has been point-by-point refutation of misleading (and regurgitated) claims by Warrenmck, and I've made it quite clear that I think that party has been habitually disruptive in at least this subject area, with an explanation of why I came to that conclusion. I.e., I obviously did not want no action (though getting consensus for any seems unlikely now.) Finally, why would you want to goad an editor into escalation and attacks? While this kind of odd and unreasonable hostility from you isn't a daily issue, it has been going on intermittently but consistently for far too long and without any clear explanation. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 02:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Though there's a problem with finding willing volunteers to manage the discussion, I think having an initial round robin discussion phase would dampen rapid escalation of contention, and give the opportunity for calming viewpoints to be expressed. isaacl (talk) 21:25, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Warrenmck: What does this mean: "repeatedly asked them to respect that us interacting isn't helping us or wikipedia"? Over a month ago Warrenmck said, "I think I’m at least going to bow out of engaging with your replies here, and suggest we consider that mutual to avoid gunking up discussions more."10:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC) but since then has pinged Bon courage to join a discussion on their talk page,[34] started this thread at ANI, and left at least a dozen comments at WP:VPP either responding to Bon courage or talking about him. While looking through some of the Village Pump comments, I also notice that regarding the Panspermia debate (between Warrenmck, Bon courage, and Hob Gadling) there are many false statements:
One day after "bowing out" Warrenmck says, "The example raised above is a pretty good one for this. Wikipedia has a hard deliniation between Panspermia and Pseudo-panspermia, but this hard deliniation doesn't exist in the literature and "panspermia" is regularly and routinely used to refer to what Wikipedia calls "Pseudo-panspermia". Note that this isn't "the scientific literature is actually down with the fringe theory" but rather "the specific terminalogical bifurcation that Wikipedia is using is an artifice of Wikipedia and risks confusing readers who come to Wikipedia on this topic from credible sources." No amount of academic, primary, secondary, etc. sources that show that "Panspermia" can and is regularly used to refer to it landed with anything other than a wet thud and accusations from some of the FTN core. [...] There seems to be this attitude of absolute certainty that arises from FTN which outpaces the ability of people whose personal expertise is more rooted around fringe theories to evaluate. See: above with me being accused of not understanding specialist terminology in my own field."08:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC) Bon courage makes an update as a result of these discussions,[35] but Warrenmck has never edited either article. When I brought up this inaction at WP:VPP, Warrenmck responded, "Talk and noticeboard discussions prior to sweeping changes are perfectly reasonable" which is true but I also don't see any edits from Warrenmck on either talk page. At the ANI discussion they started about Panspermia last year, an admin tried to deescalate the conflict saying, "No one did anything sanctionable here IMO. If Warren wants to merge the articles, he should propose a merger."[36] and Warrenmck responded by explaining how they first need to block editors for a lack of civility, "I maintain that if FTN users can’t engage with civility due to burnout the solution is a wikibreak, not tolerating burnout manifesting poorly, and there does seem to be a lot of that explicitly going on."[37] And is now reigniting the conflict a year later for what?
"Here is the thread which is being very creatively represented above for anyone who'd like to evaluate it for themselves. FTN's "consensus" on this topic was exactly what @WhatamIdoing seemed to be worried about. This thread just feels like a huge waste of time at this point, and it really didn't have to."14:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)This is the actual thread with the quote. Bon courage and Warrenmck discuss Panspermia there and it does include Bon courage's quote, and Bon does provide a Science Direct source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/panspermia ! Warren has linked some other argument he has had about Panspermia to what? Make it appear that Bon is fabricating quotes or at least "creatively" misrepresenting them?
"This is the biggest issue I can see. It feels like people view themselves as WP:SMEs in “fringe” when that’s not exactly a thing, and sometimes editors assume their own read on complex topics is arrived at from a place of perfect understanding. Panspermia (discussed above) is still the most galling example of this to me, where source after source after source after source was met with “nuh uh” and the way it’s set up on Wikipedia is still potentially actively misreading to readers."12:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC) Warrenmck has never edited Panspermia or posted on the talk page.[38][39] Warrenmck is criticizing other editors for not doing work that he is also not doing, after joking about the proposed changes (at a previous ANI report that he initiated) being very difficult and likely to "result in multiple years of edit warring".[40]
"If both terms are used in the literature to refer to the non-front theory then “panspermia is a fringe theory” is misleading, rather a specific fringe as hell theory which is also referred to as “panspermia” is distinct from the “panspermia” used by scientists, which is why my proposal was “Panspermia (astrobiology)” and “Panspermia (fringe theory)”, not making some case that the fringe theory isn’t a fringe theory.14:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC) This was in reality proposed by Hob Gadling.[41] Warrenmck objected, "This still looks to me like Wikipedians pumping up a minor (though very extant, to be sure) fringe theory."[42] When Hob Gadling was not convinced, Warrenmck accused him of "concerted, explicit effort to make sure that Panspermia is referred to as a fringe theory"[43] and reported him to WP:ANI last year for saying "you are making accusations while claiming you are not" and then blamed Hob Gadling for Warrenmck not having edited either article.[44]
I'm going to stop here, but there are more examples of this at the Village Pump discussion (45,000 words and counting). I will admit that I really do not understand this pattern of communication. Rjjiii (talk) 21:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do sense the panspermia discussion (a year ago) was the beginning of all this, but can't exactly understand how (I was only a passer-by helping out with sourcing on that, as space stuff is not my usual area). After that Warrens's "FTN has issues" postings began. At least I don't think this was a theme before then? I don't think I was aware of that previous ANI complaint – now that does make interesting reading. Bon courage (talk) 22:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The panspermia discussion is living rent free inside your head, and I’ve long ago moved on from it. You brought it up unprompted in both the VPP thread and here, and while I responded to it, I genuinely haven’t even poked that bear since that thread. Again, I am willing to accept community consensus when it doesn’t go my way. That’s fine, I don’t own these topics. Once again you demonstrate a complete unwillingness to even entertain the idea that I mean what I’m saying without some kind of deep, nefarious motivation spawned from aeons of spite for something that really appears to be stuck in your craw. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ09:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe we're going here again. Alright. Let's address this and hope at least one person reads it, cause I understand that walls of text aren't landing.
The discussion can be found here, since I'm actually not sure how to pull diffs from an archived discussion. Main points/background:
1: I'm a WP:SME in meteorites. I don't expect anyone to take me at face value on this, but it's a field I know well and my long-term picture on my userpage has been me prodding a chondrite at a national lab. The only thing I expect editors to meet that with is healthy suspicion and maybe a sense that I can more quickly look up the literature.
2: My objection with the Panspermia article, which should really tell you I've intentionally left it alone since it's still there, is this line:
"Panspermia is a fringe theory with little support amongst mainstream scientists."
3: I provided a decent amount of evidence that what Wikipedia is referring to as "pseudo-panspermia" is sometimes just called "Panspermia" in the literature, and that this strong delineation is an artefact of wikipedia, and not the research behind it. I am not arguing that the fringe rendition of panspermia has any support.
4: Several posters at FTN argued that the Hoyle/Wickramasinghe definitions of Panspermia as the pseudoscientific one is WP:COMMONNAME, despite the fact that the delineation mostly vanishes in the literature when you control for peer reviewed papers, where it's pretty evenly split between both terms and "panspermia" is almost certainly too obscure a concept for a cut-and-dry WP:COMMONNAME.
5: My specific argument was, to paste most of the first reply here:
Considering pseudo-panspermia is the primary form of Panspermia discussed in the literature and is frequently just referred to as Panspermia, why is the primary article dedicated to the fringe theory and not the actual plausible theory which uses the same term? It’s absolutely erroneous to say “panspermia is a fringe theory” when modifications of it are mainstream within astrobiology considering the “pseudo-panspermia” distinction is not one universally made in the literature?
This is all seems track back to when FTN addressed your own muddle over panspermia where,[45] instead of grappling with the problems at hand, you perceived some kind of problem with the noticeboard that was solving those content problems. There you wrongly asserted It’s absolutely erroneous to say “panspermia is a fringe theory” which, ironically, shows the very lack of understanding of specialist terminology you are now attacking here in imagined others.
You were shown the sources to show why this was wrong and had to concede "The Science Direct link you provided is certainly evidence that both terms are used".
To reiterate, this was literally my argument, both terms are used, so saying one of them is blanket a fringe theory is misleading:
It’s absolutely erroneous to say “panspermia is a fringe theory” when modifications of it are mainstream within astrobiology considering the “pseudo-panspermia” distinction is not one universally made in the literature?
Bon again was the first person to bring up panspermia in this ANI. diff.
This seems to be a pattern from Bon, whose first post in the VPP thread (diff) started with "not this again" for a topic that had never before been raised at an appropriate venue. This line appears to have influenced SMcCandlish, who referenced it in the post that lead to this ANI. You will not (I believe) find me even referencing Panspermia as a topic since those threads. It seemed like a wholly unproductive avenue to pursue so I've left it alone.
This is why I've accused Bon of not engaging in good faith (non-wikiparlance version of the term) because they appear to just be throwing accusations at the wall to see what sticks, and via Brandolini's law I have to either dedicate a huge amount of time writing walls of text people complain about refuting specific accusations, or I just try to ignore them and suddenly other people start assuming there's meat there. There's some, to be sure, I'm not trying to be flippant in calling out my own behaviour which is why I've tried to provide specific examples of where I have been less than stellar.
This entire situation feels completely absurd to me. Like, beyond absurd. I clearly think FTN has an overactive immune system. I clearly think this causes content problems on Wikipedia, and I'm clearly not the only editor who feels that way. That doesn't mean I need to be disruptive or aggressive about it, but when there are apparent systematic issues then VP (and, if necessary) ANI are appropriate venues. Even if this ANI feels minor, if you take a big step back and realize that these topics cannot even be brought up without a few editors coming in super hot and throwing around accusations makes it hard to argue that the process is working as intended. It needs to be recognized that it’s impossible to discuss potential systemic issues without acknowledging that those systemic issues are in part driven by editor behaviours. That doesn’t mean that those discussions need to specifically accuse those editors of wrongdoing, and if the VPP thread is going to be characterized as broad aspersions repeatedly I’d like anyone to tell me how to raise a systematic concern without WP:ASPERSIONS issues. That’s why VPP was selected as a venue instead of ANI.
Are we forgetting that the context of the VPP thread was people getting pretty clearly bigoted when editing articles on religious topics? Like, cut-and-dry-I'll-defend-this-in-an-ANI WP:HID? Because that happened, and it's one thing to look at me as a frustrated editor writing too much and it's another thing to try to extirpate that from the context that led to the frustration. It feels like the sheer volume of vitriol being thrown my way is causing some readers to take it more seriously than is warranted. Which, again, isn't to say my behaviour has been unimpeachable.
If editors are allowed to think there is a systematic issue with a noticeboard's handling of a topic, that necessarily implies that some editors are part of a systematic problem. That doesn't mean that those editors are guilty of any direct wrongdoing, but yes, I did see the Panspermia topic as an example of FTN's immune system being overactive to the extent that it made WP:PROFRINGE edits. A whole pile of peer-review papers countering a direct statement made in an article should be compelling.
The fact that I left that whole thing alone for well over a year should also be pretty damn compelling evidence that I'm not trying to pick fights here and I'm willing to accept the consensus not going my way. I only thought it became warranted to discuss this issue with FTN having an overreactive immune system once it crossed some signifficant behavioural thresholds and got into WP:BIGOTRY and WP:HID territory, and I chose a Village Pump venue because I saw more value in trying to address (what I and others) perceived as a systemic issue rather than one best solved through individual sanctions. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ10:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This ANI literally started with a statement that the VPP thread was about "religious tolerance and WP:FRINGE", with the inevitable implication that religious intolerance on someone's part was involved. Brunton (talk) 11:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m absolutely willing to back that up, but it will involve extra participants and series of brand new complaints. It’s not even a subtle/ambiguous situation. Again, the decision to bring it to VPP instead of ANI was because it felt like the tolerance of WP:BIGOTRY was a symptom of a wider issue that wasn’t best solved by individual sanctions on the editor making that claim. I later stated that the VPP thread went to hell so fast that I wished I’d brought it up as an ANI to deal with the specific behaviour, and at this juncture it feels pretty inappropriate for me to do so since that would feel like pointless vindictiveness after a concerted effort to avoid it becoming an individual sanctions thing.
The specific claim of religious intolerance is pretty hard to view as an aspersion in context, but the context requires the tome that is that VPP thread. Again, a systemic issue necessarily implies that some users are part of that systemic issue, so either the mere mention of a systemic problem is WP:ASPERSIONS or we need to be able to decouple discussions of systemic issues from specific editors, which is mostly what I tried to do there. My hope had been a wider discussion rather than a per-editor sanction whack-a-mole. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ11:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m absolutely willing to back that up ← From WP:ASPERSIONS: "On Wikipedia, casting aspersions is a situation where an editor accuses another editor or a group of editors of misbehavior without evidence". Exactly what you've been doing all over the shop, then. Bon courage (talk) 11:47, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was enough evidence provided that multiple other editors found it convincing. I was not the first person to raise a WP:HID concern, that was a third party reading over the presented evidence.
I’ve avoided specific accusations in here, and I’ve avoided naming names. Obliquely “there was a problem, the evidence for it was presented elsewhere, and this isn’t the time or venue to relitigate” isn’t aspersions, and if I’m wrong about that then let an admin tell me and I’ll own up to it and either remedy it or accept sanctions as appropriate. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ11:55, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for at least conceding you were being "oblique". This, however, is part of the issue. Casting aspersions (you provide a textbook example of doing so per Wikipedia's definition) is a form of personal attack. You either need to substantiate or withdraw the accusation(s), pronto. Bon courage (talk) 11:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anybody is going to read that WP:MWOT but just to note when Warren says his complaints about FTN at VPP was on "a topic that had never before been raised at an appropriate venue", VPP was certainly not an appropriate venue. VPP "is used to discuss already-proposed policies and guidelines and to discuss changes to existing policies and guidelines" per the page description. Bon courage (talk) 11:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anybody is going to read that WP:MWOT... In that case, I'll condense the first part:
Warren's argument at the Panspermia thread rested on the fact that both terms are used.
Bon courage painted this as a later concession.
Bon was the first person to raise Panspermia in the VPP thread and this ANI thread.
Bon's first post at VPP made it seem like this had been raised multiple times at appropriate venues.
Warren, due to points 1-4, accused Bon of not engaging in good faith (in the colloquial sense).
Worth adding on, though not in the above, that much of Bon's early vollies in the VPP thread was filled with, I hope, unintentional strawmen. Even Bon's initial "Not this again" (diff) contained
[B]ut when claims from a religion obtrude into the real world (like claiming that Christian Science can cure disease or that the E-meter has a useful function) then WP:FRINGE can certainly apply
This was in response to a thread with a core policy question (diff) of
My fundamental question here as it relates to policy is should religious topics which are specifically relating to religious history and theology, as opposed to a specific empirical claim, fall under the “fringe theory” umbrella?
And it sure seems like they based their objection to the thread even being raised on this particular misreading of the post they were responding to (diff, diff, diff). In contrast, when Bon called me out for misreading something I immediately owned up to it (diff). I don't know what more I can do to demonstrate I've been trying to engage in good faith. Bon's response here. This is one reason I struggle to see Bon as having (in non-wikiparlance) engaged in good faith here. Spending a lot of time deconstructing an argument that nobody made while getting highly incredulous about it isn't WP:AGF behaviour. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ13:00, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that 'empirical claims' are not in opposition to 'religious history and theology' since the latter are lousy with empirical claims, so creating some kind of carve-out for history and theology invites a WP:PROFRINGE festival (we have enough trouble with the 'history' carve-out in MEDRS). The scope of FRINGE wrt religion has been repeatedly discussed in various places with no serious disagreement, so why this reprise of the same themes was needed is a puzzle. Anyway this is surely getting beyond tedious for everybody so if you want to change the scope of FRINGE it would be better to do so with a specific wording proposal. Bon courage (talk) 13:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Warrenmck, even when a discussion is archived, diffs are accessed from the history of the page where the discussion occurred.
Please do not silently amend a post that has been seen as you did here. Use underline and strikeout to amend and add an additional signature (in small) to the amending edit.
That was me changing language away from being unintentionally ableist, which feels pretty reasonable, especially as I did it before any replies were made. Per WP:TALK:
So long as no one has yet responded to your comment, it's accepted and common practice that you may continue to edit your remarks for a short while to correct mistakes, add links or otherwise improve them.
I’m trying to be brief, but there’s a lot of nuance in the above discussion that I’m not really sure can be addressed in the 300 words people want. I’m clearly not the only party in here struggling with the word count, but I’ll make a concerted effort to try harder Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ11:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Warrenmck has never edited Panspermia or posted on the talk page.
I got as far as FTN and everything went to hell in a handcart. The game of telephone from that thread has gone on so long that Bon came up in VPP repeating my own argument from that thread at me (that both terms are used) as some kinda gotcha. I can’t be bothered to deal with how hostile it is, which is why I’ve completely left panspermia as a topic alone.
This was in reality proposed by Hob Gadling.[78] Warrenmck objected, "This still looks to me like Wikipedians pumping up a minor (though very extant, to be sure) fringe theory."
This isn’t a fair representation of what I objected to. I objected to a disambiguation landing page, which I felt weighted the fringe theory equally. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ09:44, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And is now reigniting the conflict a year later for what?
I didn't re-raise it. Here, at VPP, at FTN, or anywhere, in well over a year. You're blaming me for the behaviour of another editor here who keeps insisting it must be the issue at play, which is why I said It feels like the sheer volume of vitriol being thrown my way is causing some readers to take it more seriously than is warranted.
To be clear (no diff means it's from the current ANI):
"Not this again" (diff): it was the first time it was raised as a dedicated topic and not a minor discussion in a tangentially related thread. I raised it in response to a specific incident. See the wall of text above for nuance on why I wasn't heavy-handed with diffs on the specific incident.
"I do sense the panspermia discussion (a year ago) was the beginning of all this": I literally haven't mentioned panspermia or edited in that direction in well over a year, this is purely imagined on the part of Bon.
but when claims from a religion obtrude into the real world (diff): literally the exact thing the thread explicitly was not about
"On Wikipedia, casting aspersions is a situation where an editor accuses another editor or a group of editors of misbehavior without evidence". Exactly what you've been doing all over the shop, then.: Evidence was provided, and some editors found it convincing. I did avoid too much specificity in the original post, which has lead to some aspersions accusations I can't as easily shake. My reasoning for this is in the walls of text above.
Honestly, as is evident you seem to suffer from logorrhoea with little heed to meaning and sense of what you emit, which happens to be inflammatory: Exactly how firmly does an editor need to abandon WP:CIVIL, again?
I think you are imaging (or maybe projecting) this "anger". Complaining about the supposes mental state of fellow editors is not useful. (diff): The post that they're responding to never mentioned anger. The post they were specifically responding to said [F]TN handles religious topics indelicately, inexpertly, and with a very gung-ho attitude.
I think the most galling example of Bon trying to set the tone is this exchange here: diff, which was in response to this: diff
Truncating a bit here, but no wording changed:
Bon: Nobody else is seeing "the problem" here because there is no "the problem" stated
Hydrangeans: I guess I'm nobody.
Bon: No, you're one of the editors who's bound your own take onto the meta-complaint. Hence your statement of "the issue" is different to anything the OP has stated.
Bon got so wrapped up in the idea that there must be nothing there that another editor who agreed with me couldn't have possibly actually agreed with me (and Hydrangeans and I failed to find points of disagreement Bon may be referencing). Bon is attempting to set the tone of the discussion by responding to basically everything with little regard to the content or tone of what they're replying to. There's clear evidence from the conclusion of the VPP thread that some of those claims ended up influencing peoples' perceptions of the situation. If you want to know a huge reason that I've been incredibly verbose, it's because I need to spend a lot of time addressing things that simply didn't happen, weren't argued, or aren't real.
I am not saying my behaviour has been perfect and it's all Bon. I have provided explicit references to where I think my behaviour was out of line for a reason: bad behaviour is bad behaviour, and me attempting to call out bad behaviour on one side while downplaying my own would look really petty (and, generally, bad). But I struggle to see how Bon's history in the VPP thread and here doesn't look a lot like intentionally trying to ramp up the temperature as much as possible. That's a genuine admission of fault on my part, but that doesn't make me not struggle to see it. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ14:07, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Everytime I interact with this editor in talk pages, they are always throwing the WP:OWN card on me, when I have explained thoroughly in the talk page why their edits were reverted or removed. Then their usual response is bringing up "WP:OWN" rather than discussing the content posted in the article.[46][47][48] This editor was blocked last year for personal attacks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotwiki (talk • contribs) 18:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding guidelines established in WP:OWNBEHAVIOUR, here's a list of diffs.
1. The editor might claim the right to review any changes before they can be added to the article: [49][50][51]"you are once again pushing for unnecessary changes"
3 & 4/ An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it unnecessary and without provoiding an edit summary that refers to relevant Wikipedia policies: [52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59]"No need to change the lead section, no need to mention"
5. An editor comments on other editors' talk pages with the purpose of discouraging them from making additional contributions. [60][61]
6. An editor reverts any edit with a personal attack in the edit summary. [62]"nobody agreed in the first place. Let it go"
Didn't I explain why those edits were reverted? Also you've added several incorrect information which I brought up in the talk page and I didn't resort to personal attacks.[64][65][66][67][68] I Can't link everything because there's too many changes that were contested, so I suggest read the talk page archive of that article. Hotwiki (talk) 18:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the administrators, I am bringing up this issue, because I want to find a way to continue to improve the article of Kylie Minogue, without being insulted by @PHShanghai: for the next time, they made another edit that I don't agree with or I find incorrect that I would need to remove or edit for the benefit of the article. The first time I interacted with this editor (last year), they changed the entire lead section. When I pointed out the first four albums of Kylie Minogue weren't teen pop albums, they responded to not having to listen to those albums in a long time.[69] Since then, they were too many edits from that editor that I didn't agree with. Hotwiki (talk) 19:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You mean this discussion?[70] I was explaining myself. If I was owning the article, I wouldn't have removed a content I posted several years ago. Hotwiki (talk) 19:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Statement 6 from the WP:OWNBEHAVIOR guideline page is "I can see nothing wrong with the article and there is no need to change anything at all." Here are the diffs of your previous comments:
[71]"This seems like another unnecessary change to the opening paragraph, that doesn't improve the article."
[73]"I suggest you edit other articles, instead of drastically changing the lead section whenever you make an edit in this article."
[74]"If we look up at the history of this article, you've always find something to change in the lead article – which in my opinion, doesn't improve the article"
[75]"No need to point that out in the lead section"
I did explain in those links, why your changes were unnecessary. You did change the lead section several times, to the point I've noticed misinformation which I later removed then discussed in the talk page, so you would have understand why they were reverted/removed/edited. Hotwiki (talk) 19:25, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PHShanghai, @Hotwiki, there's two of you involved in a content dispute. My recommendation is that you try to solve this in small chunks at a time via WP:3O or perhaps try WP:DRN. I see that this is has been a FA since 2009. If you think it's in really bad shape, you may want to try going to WP:FAR with the issues. Both of you need to try to keep this focused on content, rather than on each other - remove the word "you" from your vocabulary if you have to. @Hotwiki, this does look at least superficially like WP:SQS; please try to revert other editors as little as possible. No comment on the content dispute - for all I know, you're correct - but try to give a little, where you can.
@Asilvering: My final comment on this- I have gone to o DRN and follow their recommended guidelines before, to try and settle the content dispute. But ultimately the issue isn't a singular content dispute (like disagreeing on one part of the article) but having my (mostly minor) edits consistently suppressed, reverted and having passive-aggressive comments consistently thrown my way. If Hotwiki would stop the stonewalling for every single one of my edits and actually work together collaboratively maybe the article can actually start to be improved. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 03:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I didn't want to collaborate, I wouldn't have explained my edits directly in the talk page. If you look at the talk page of that article, there were several times, I pinged you to discuss the changes I've made. Look at how long and extensive the talk page is, just for me to get my points across and to prevent edit warring. You aren't being stonewalled, as you've made several changes in the article, that I didn't revert, I didn't challenge and still remain in the article – before you were reported here in ANI.[76][77]Hotwiki (talk) 13:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hotwiki, as gently as I can: those are really quite minor edits. Meanwhile, you have made over 1000 edits to the article. I recognize that you've been working on the article for nearly 20 years now and your edit count is likely to be high for that reason alone, but I'm finding it really difficult to see evidence of collaboration here. That doesn't mean neither of you have ever tried to collaborate, but it's clearly not working right now. Perhaps you both need to take a break from this one for a while and try again.
@PHShanghai, I should have mentioned this in my earlier comment when I told Hotwiki that this does at least superficially look like WP:SQS: it's clear that your edits to the lead of the article are the most contentious, so I would suggest avoiding any changes to the lead for now. I do think Hotwiki needs to give a little, but you're not making it easy for them. Start with the less-contentious parts and work up from there. -- asilvering (talk) 19:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
non-admin comment - @Hotwiki, I think it's time for you to chill away from this specific article. I really want to refrain from using medical terminology, as I am not a practising doctor, but this history you've got with this article brings to mind Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD). Over a thousand edits to the article; specifically working on this for some 20 years? Look, the average Joe or Jane would just lose interest in a given article over the span of a fraction of that time. Think there's also some perfectionism going on here, something that's clearly been a bit too consuming for you. It may be time to take the dog for a walk. BarntToust16:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based from this, I made my first edit in the article in year 2005.[78] From 2005 to 2024, I have made 1,064 edits - which from my recollection, most of my edits (from that article) were published from 2023 to 2024, if I'm not mistaken. As I don't recall editing the article during the 2010s especially especially during "off-eras" - years when there was no new album. The reported editor - PHShanghai, made several incorrect information/unreferenced claims - which were all brought up in the talkpage. The reported editor also has a history of personal attacks based from reading their talkpage and I wasn't the only one they accused of WP:OWN. See this link [79] about their experience in a different Wikipedia article. There wouldn't have been an issue in the first place, if the editor I mentioned wasn't posting wrong information. This month - they claimed a live album was released in 2022, when it was originally released in 2021. They claimed that Kylie Minogue haven't toured in North America since 2011, when the artist had several shows in Las Vegas in 2024/23, also another concert in 2018. Not only they were false information, they were also unreferenced. Then there were several other false claims throughout the last 12 months. They claimed singles had a "significant noise" when those singles didn't chart in the top ten of her major markets and had no certifications. Hotwiki (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I figured. Rather, the proper words would simply be "perhaps a bit too obsessed" with a given article, no? Duly noted, @Floquenbeam.
Otherwise, frankly, I think that this compilation of slight original research from the other editor and other general, non-overbearing content inaccuracies says zilch, until some diffs can be found. BarntToust20:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In which part I was uncivil with PHShanghai? I reverted the "misinformation" they posted in the article. I did not call them names. I'm the one who is reporting that user for personal attacks. Hotwiki (talk) 20:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just make sure communication is prioritised. Your edit summaries could be a bit more detailed as to why you remove the content, and the value of "not needed" as an edit summary is about as informational and as much as an attempt to communicate on issues of content as PHShanghai's "WP:OWN" remarks. BarntToust20:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read Talk:Kylie Minogue. Plenty of issues were brought up in the talkpage and I just didn't explain things in edit summaries. I've made several talk page sections to explain certain things to PHShanghai. I've told them in that talkpage to discuss things first in the talkpage, before making dozens of changes, due to their history of making false information (that weren't backed uo by a reference) and to prevent edit warring and the cycle of reverting each other's edits. PHShanghai have also brought up their "lead section" to RFC twice, and their proposed changes weren't implemented due to lack of support. Hotwiki (talk) 20:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I agree, looking at PHShanghai's talk page, they're on a history of a few disputes November of last... year, so on, so forth. But the way to deal with editors who may introduce a problematic dynamic isn't to just shove 'em off to the side and dismiss them with a couple vague words, a direct approach is preferred. Clearly, you're right, Hotwiki, but you have to keep up with the right way of taking out the garbage. BarntToust20:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I do have issues, which I am working on. I believe this person’s attempted smear campaign is completely inappropriate considering I left the talk page on George Floyd alone after being asked to, and this person’s comments on Amber McLaughlin’s pages hit home as I have been attacked by someone similar. Obviously, Czello would not have known that but I think they need to get off their high horse and look at another perspective. KylieNectar (talk) 21:40, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A whole of fourteen edits, and in that time has managed to be transphobic on multiple occasions and accused other editors of being rape apologists. That's a pretty bad ratio. — Czello(music)21:45, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“Other editors” speak honestly. I accused you and only you. Transphobia? Others made the same point as me. You’re not making posts about them, are you? Nowhere in my edits have I had prejudice against trans people. In fact, one of my edits is correcting the language used when referring to trans woman in an article. The only prejudice I have is against rapists who use a minority group to avoid punishment. Many trans people will agree with my point here. Perhaps my behavior on talk pages is inappropriate at times, but to create a smear campaign just because I insinuated something about you is unnecessary. You could’ve left this alone, or at the very least kept an eye on my edits and made this thread when I said more things that are unnecessary on Wikipedia, but you didn’t. Please, leave me alone now. KylieNectar (talk) 21:54, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you accused me of being a rape apologist. Thank you for owning up to that. It's inexcusable.
I've removed this as a vile personal attack. The words written more generally by this editor at that talk page show a battleground mentality and need to stop. While I agree with JSS that this editor is new and should be given a chance to change, they will actually need to change otherwise this will end in a block pretty quickly. Daniel (talk) 21:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not take kindly to being called transphobic by a stranger. Just as my personal attack was wrong, this is as well. We can discuss my behavior without labeling it. KylieNectar (talk) 22:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Think what you want to. But don’t create a discussion saying I am insincere, and certainly don’t state your opinion in the discussion above. Readers of this topic need an unbiased source, and claiming I am transphobic is in fact biased especially when I am trans myself. KylieNectar (talk) 22:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can see on my contributions page that the last edit I made of Czello’s statement was at 22:17 and I replied to your comment at 22:18. KylieNectar (talk) 22:24, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KylieNectar, consider this a formal warning: The Neutral point of view is a core content policy, and compliance with that policy is mandatory. We write about crimes and criminals neutrally and dispassionately, and let readers draw their own conclusions from the neutral content presented. If you cannot edit in the crime topic area without letting your rage and indignation get the better of you, then do not edit about crimes and criminals. And do not engage in personal attacks against your fellow editors. Cullen328 (talk) 22:31, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
INDEFfed AGF is not a suicide pact and their behavior belies their edit count. They're welcome to make an unblock request and convince a reviewing admin they're not here to troll. StarMississippi00:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not, myself, accusing anyone and wished to bring this to the attention of administrators for further investigation to see if this article has ground to stand on or is baseless. The editors directly mentioned in the article will receive an AN/I notice as the news article itself accuses them of violating Wikipedia guidelines and policies. I have done no further investigation and am just simply doing the initial alert to the matter. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)04:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The statement "Pirate Wires conducted a really detailed "investigation" into several Wikipedia editors over the last several months" is inaccurate. As I have said elsewhere, I see the primary utility of articles like this as
a useful reminder of the Gell-Mann amnesia effect
a way to identify actors with an elevated susceptibility to misinformation and manipulation and/or a willingness to generate or inject disinformation into Wikipedia's systems either directly or by employing external vectors.
The Tech for Palestine group is probably worthy of some investigation however, but as I said at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel#Canvassing, this does not appear to have happened, or at least no one has presented any evidence at the PIA5 discussions or at AE about individual accounts.
Ah. Now see, I did not know it was already being discussed in ArbCom/other places already. That pretty much answered that. This discussion (on AN/I) can be closed as it seems there is already something being looked into and my alert was just late to the party more or less. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)04:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Out of interest, and setting aside the casual defamation, I will be trying to track the effects within the PIA topic area. These kinds of articles are not unusual, but this particular one is quite a nice sharp external signal. So, it may be possible to see the effects as the information impacts the topic area and editors. I have seen this and this so far. "already being discussed" is maybe the wrong way around. There is discussion about a possible PIA5 case. The discussions have included quite a lot of statistical evidence. Unless it is a coincidence, I assume the article was produced to provide external pressure on ArbCom to reduce the likelihood of them not taking the case. So far me, as someone interested in the complicated dynamics of the PIA topic area, it is quite an interesting development. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be appropriate for each of the editors involved in the ARCA discussion around PIA5 to be asked to confirm or deny whether they had any involvement in the Pirate Wires article? Onceinawhile (talk) 07:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody needs permission to ask questions in the PIA5 discussion and hope for open and honest answers. I have already asked BilledMammal since the article uses some of their data. If they have some background/context, they can share it openly, or they may know nothing about it and be surprised by the way their work has been used. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sean.hoyland, that seems reasonable. Do you know whether the second analysis in the Pirate Wires article - on co-editing - was also prepared by a user and discussed at ARCA? It is a nonsense analysis of course - it would look much the same if you cherry picked a similar number of editors who spend time in any topic area. But the interesting question is whether that analysis was prepared by Ashley Rindsberg (the write of the Pirate Wires article), or by someone else. And how did they know how to pull the underlying data? Onceinawhile (talk) 13:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Onceinawhile, Zero0000 asked something similar here so you can see my answer there. I hope the analysis wasn't done by anyone allowed to edit Wikipedia because it is horrifyingly dopey, the kind of thing that would get you immediately fired and escorted out of the building in my world. I don't know how the data was generated but the account list obviously comes from BilledMammal's list of accounts that have made 100 or more edits within the topic area since 2022. But the connection between the authors "amongst top 30 members of this group" statement and reality is not obvious to me e.g. why is Surtsicna there? They might be quite surprised to learn that they are pro-Hamas Wikipedia hijacker and might consider it defamatory and want the author to pay for them to buy a new nicer house or maybe a new car. It's easy enough for someone with access to generate page intersection counts for 30 accounts and produce a crosstab with code and share it as a google sheet, or maybe someone foolish did it manually using the Editor Interaction Analyzer tool. Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In February, an explicitly coordinated effort was launched when leaders on a group called Tech For Palestine (TFP) — launched in January by Paul Biggar, the Irish co-founder of software development platform CircleCI — opened a channel on their 8,000-strong Discord channel called “tfp-wikipedia-collaboration.” In the channel, two group leaders, Samira and Samer, coordinated with other members to mass edit a number of PIA articles. The effort included recruiting volunteers, processing them through formal orientation, troubleshooting issues, and holding remote office hours to problem solve and ideate. The channel’s welcome message posed a revealing question: “Why Wikipedia? It is a widely accessed resource, and its content influences public perception.”
Uh, I am not an Israel-Palestine DS/GS understander, but I seem to remember when GSoW, EEML, etc did this we responded with something other than "close the ANI thread within an hour and tag the journo's page with {{notability}}". Is this being addressed at the arb case?? jp×g🗯️16:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Samisawtak is one of the editors involved in running the group. As for the article itself, it misses the actual issues with the group:
It is affiliated with an actual EEML-style mailing list, to the extent of coordinators recruiting for the list on the channel
It is used by community-banned editors, who have since being blocked engaged in the off-wiki harassment and outing of Wikipedia editors, to request edits be made - requests that are acted upon
It instructs non-ECP editors to make edits in the topic area
Ah yes, I forgot about the Wikipedia rule that even connecting 2 anonymized strings across the on-wiki/off-wiki boundary is treated as a form of outing, a rule so strange to me that I can't even remember it. Nevermind then. Thanks. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JPxG, I would say, no, the Tech For Palestine group is not being addressed in the PIA5 discussions in any detail, although it has come up. Some information about the group has been available since last June I believe, or thereabouts. One thing that is interesting about the Discord screenshots for me is statements like "I have been levelling up on WP by doing quite a few simple edits". This is what a lot of people do of course to cross or tunnel through the ARBECR barrier, but I would like to know whether this kind of "levelling up" activity is being done inside or outside of the topic area and whether the accounts have EC privileges or not. Most of the topic area is not EC protected. Many edits by non-EC editors in the topic area are given a pass/not noticed because they are "simple edits" or look/are constructive. This is a backdoor that is probably being exploited by activists and ban evading sockpuppets every day. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I learned about this article and thread because WeatherWriter pinged me on my talk page. I'm sure there will be a proper investigation but just want to preemptively say that I have never heard of TFP, do not work in tech, and don't even have a Discord. Thanks. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 05:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have heard of TFP, and despite being one of the top 30 members of a powerful pro-Hamas group hijacking Wikipedia, and despite having okay tech skills, I did not even receive an invitation to join the group. This is the kind of thing people with feelings tell me can feel hurtful. I admire your optimistic 'I'm sure there will be a proper investigation' attitude, a view that I do not share. Sean.hoyland (talk) 06:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Say what? This seems extremely farfetched and far too convenient to be true.
Given that the vast majority of this world's population aware of the Israel-Hamas War statistically seem to be against the human rights violations that are happening to the Palestinians, and this is the international version of Wikipedia, isn't it far more likely and reasonable that a larger amount of Wikipedia editors would simply also share this viewpoint, whereas the editors who support the actions of the government of Israel would, without external backing, be considerably fewer in number, whereas the cited news article in question is a doctored, possibly Mossad-ordered, smear campaign in order to get almost all hindrances out of the way, so any sources that the Israeli government doesn't like can quickly be discredited and banned from any usage, especially Al Jazeera, and then remove virtually all public documentation of ongoing Israeli crimes against humanity from all Wikipedia pages related to the ongoing conflict? David A (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like the kind of product produced by one or more fools for the sizable credulous fool market rather than by smart professionals in the IC. I assume the author's main objective could simply be engagement/chasing clicks, but the objective of anyone who helped them to produce the product, and that 'anyone' could be no one of course, is not obvious to me. It might become clearer over time. For example, it is already being used to undermine confidence in RfC closures and argue for relitigating RfCs, which is quite interesting. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that in my experience, play-acting being a part of the Israeli IC doing important collection work is quite a common feature of anti-Palestine/pro-Israel activists interested in Wikipedia, and it is a comedy goldmine. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there have been a few separate quite recent attempts to completely remove the English version of Al Jazeera as a reliable source in the past, as well as at least one attempt to remove +972 Magazine as well, so if this "journalist" succeeds in getting most of the editors who are against human rights abuses against Palestinians banned en masse, without any reliable evidence, that effort could easily be resumed by others and passed this time around. Then again, I have an overactive pattern-recognition. David A (talk) 06:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If admins want to investigate Tech for Palestine, I welcome it. Separately, we shouldn’t assume editors simply editing in ARBPIA are part of some coordinated campaign. Evidence is needed. I am neither involved in Tech for Palestine or a coordinated ARBPIA campaign. starship.paint (talk / cont)02:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Summary: User:Robert92107 (henceforth "Robert") has been disruptive, mainly at California High Speed Rail (CASHR) and its talk page. On the main article, it is mostly a consistent disregard for WP:POV, WP:CON, and WP:MOS. This is accompanied by increasingly disruptive behavior at the respective talk page, including WP:FILIBUSTER and lately culminating in WP:PA. I submit this notice because I won't be able to safeguard the integrity of the article without risking breaking the rules myself, such as on edit-warring. This notice focuses on the CASHR-article due to my involvement, but also points at broader disruptive editing. Context:
For a period of time, Robert was the editor doing most edits to the California High Speed Rail-article. However, it is evident that it was in bad shape by every measure, as the article contradicted basically all principles of Wikipedia. However, other editors did not end up doing much about it besides pointing those issues out at the talk page. After a culmination of complaints from the community, this article was then completely rewritten by another editor and me. Since that rewrite, Robert has been dissatisfied with the article and keeps making changes that make the article worse. This has lead to an increasingly hostile exchange on the talk page, to a point where I believe outside intervention becomes necessary. Specifics:
Robert has a history of highly WP:POV edits, which was flagged by different editors in the past: here or here. Similarly, he has been ignoring WP:MOS and WP:RS, as pointed out here or here. Other editors have also pointed out what seems to be his inability/refusal to engage in consensus building, such as in this tread. That was my first direct exchange with Robert, to my knowledge. Once can see on that talk page that it is virtually impossible to have meaningful discussions with him due his habit of WP:FILIBUSTERing. Exchanges between us have then evolved to be more and more hostile, such as here where the first WP:PA was made: deliberately misleading. The latest series has been in this thread, where I was honored to have been made the subject of his anger. Reaching out to him on his TP did not work. WP:PA continued in "my" thread: Basically, I don’t think you are being honest (although I could be wrong), the latter part of which I perceive as disingenuous hedging. He was given a chance by editor User:XavierItzm to retract, but did not take it. The latest warning was put on his user TP by User:Jasper_Deng to stop WP:CAPSLOCK, but evidently that warning had no effect at all. Outside my personal interaction
This has been my interaction on CASHR. However, Robert's disruptive behavior extends to the few articles he edits that do not relate to CAHSR, such as on the TP for Medical uses of silver: Why conventional medicine clings to an obviously fallacious idea makes no sense. That is unscientific. Also, the best cold and sore throat medicines in the world aren't even recognized in our conventional medicine. You take them in the first 24 hours, and the next day you're cured. Using these, my ex-wife hasn't had a cold develop in 30 years. So, you shouldn't be so smug about the state of conventional medicine!. He has pushed fringe theories in the past, and it's concerning that he is doing it now. "Disclosures":
It's my first time being involved in such a dispute, so to make sure: (1) Since I mentioned him above, I want to disclose that I consulted with User:XavierItzm on whether this is an appropriate avenue before opening one here. (2) Due to me reverting Robert's edits and vice versa, we have both been giving an edit-war warning by User:Jasper_Deng (here on my TP). DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 05:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the main thing is that Robert needs to calm down and stop editing. Originally it appeared both Dracaena and Robert were edit warring, but Dracaena's response has been great while Robert's is concerning. At this time all I think is needed is for an administrator to have their eyes on Robert and contact them. --Jasper Deng(talk)05:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Robert is dedicated to the article, and has kept it updated for years and years (as Dracaena says). However, his conduct can be a bit of a headache, such as arguing and edit warring over truly trivial points. For a representative example, see latest talk page message. At the end of the day, I'm not entirely sure what would help? WP:1RR wouldn't help because it's slow motion already. WP:0RR maybe, but that might be a bit much. Talk page discussion is already happening just with minimal to no compromise resulting. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Leijurv (talk) 06:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ganesha811 in March summarized the entire Robert situation best: «Robert92107, looking over the last few months on this talk page, I see that at least 5 separate editors (@Nweil, @Shannon1, @XavierItzm, @Citing, and @DracaenaGuianensis) have expressed significant concern about the style and content changes you have introduced. There have also been comments from other editors. Consensus seems to be that there are significant editorial issues with the article, largely arising from your additions and removals. While you are obviously passionate about the topic, I recommend you think about how to conform to the emerging consensus while still working collaboratively with others» [emphases added]. This was 7 long months ago. Sadly, Robert's non-constructive and usually-reverted-by-others edits indicate he hasn't taken Ganesha's recommendation to heart. It is exhausting to have to police the article only because of Robert. XavierItzm (talk) 23:14, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I hesitate to give a recommendation for a course of action (I am objectively too inexperienced with such incidents), I'd like to note that since the article rewrite, hardly any of Robert's numerous edits ended up being kept. At the same time, the amount of time I alone have spent engaging with his constant fusillades on the talk page is time I could not use for other editing, say for doing a collaborative push towards WP:GA. At this point, he simply is not being helpful, whether dedicated to the topic or not. Given the history of poor editing quality (WP:COMPETENCE?) and refusal to reflect his own contributions in the context of community guidelines, I really don't see this changing any time soon. DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 20:12, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus can be tough to achieve, and editing against an unspoken consensus isn't against the rules - indeed, it can be a good thing. Robert is obviously dedicated to this article. However, repeatedly editing against the explicitly discussed and implemented consensus, filibustering when opposed, and endlessly litigating every point is fundamentally disruptive. In my opinion, Robert exhibits a sense of ownership over the CAHSR article and some related topics, and over the long term, simply will not accept versions of the article that differ from his personal preference. He is nearly a WP:SPA. I will take no administrative action here as I am clearly involved, but think that a temporary block for disruptive editing would be an appropriate response and may help get the point across. Eventually, a topic ban could be necessary, but I don't think we're there yet. This is a collaborative project and Robert has proven to be exceptionally difficult to collaborate with, despite his clear enthusiasm. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm curious about how the admin handles an editor with only 40 edits who actively participates in AFDs and when challenged, initiates a SPI against other editors. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At SPI one looks at the evidence. As a trainee I learnt that sometimes, just sometimes, the best evidence comes from other socks. I'm reluctant to disregard a report just because of who made it. The editor interaction tool on the SPI indicates a level of overlap which may merit a look-see. If you have your suspicions about Bosecovey feel free to report them, otherwise WP:AGF. Cabayi (talk) 09:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the editor is not a new editor if they are diving right into AfDs right after account creation, however may need some pointers on consensus building. Not insinuating that the editor is a sock, as they might even be an anon editor previously. Nonetheless, opening SPIs right after AfDs are commented on may be bordering on bad faith, if they are aware that there are more than 110,000 active registered editors in the last 30 days and thus it is bound to have cases of editors having overlapping editing interests. If not, it may be prudent to let them know about WP:AGF and maybe WP:Personal attacks or WP:Disruptive if the repeated accusations do not bear fruits, as it might be taken as them trying to drive editors off the site through repeated SPI reports hoping that one land on a legit set of socks. They may want to ease on the SPI reports or even opening AfDs until they are more familiar with policies, guidelines, AfD processes, and the editing community at large. – robertsky (talk) 11:57, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support indef block: They are most likely part of an organized UPE farm. The first major edit done by them after creating an account was to spam theplantmother.com in a sophisticated manner (to avoid triggering spam filters) using templates like Template:Cite journal and Template:Cite book[86]. After a gap of almost a year, they became active on 24 October 2024 to AfD Umar Farooq Zahoor which has a history of UPE manipulation including this AfD where two paid editor, User:Plaxie, User:ToT89 (now blocked) voted delete in an attempt to whitewash the subject's history of crimes. Now they are WP:BLUDGEONING the current AfD and have filed frivolous SPIs. Clearly, they are not here to build an encyclopedia.
I have concerns about the evidence provided by fixfxx about Sannie Carlson not being the real singer of Whigfield. I find their evidence to be unreliable. I have provided counter evidence in the talk page. I have decided not to edit the Whigfield page as I feel whatever changes I make will be deleted by fixfxx. I have proposed that a possible rumours subsection be included as I think 5 paragraphs in the main section about Sannie not being the real singer is unnecessary especially when I have provided two pieces of evidence from Ann Lee/Annerley Gordon which states she is not Whigfield or the voice of Whigfield.
Ask for input at the talk pages of the interested projects. They're listed at the top of the article's talk page. Remember, keep your request neutral - WP:NOSOLICIT. The two sources you link here do not look like WP:RS. Cabayi (talk) 09:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, may I ask if these are reliable sources please?
I removed all of the contested content per WP:BLP, WP:NOR, etc. There wasn't even a question about it. Unsourced claims, uncited quotations from social media, synthesis used to combine low-quality sources and make them say something they didn't, etc.
Woodroar, what you are stating is absolutely false and baseless. It does not look that you are willing to discuss anything. You talk about low quality when this page looked exactly like Whigfield's official website and you just removed what you do not want to see. Obviously, you have been reverted because you removed the content that I had previously improved and checked with the help of experienced Wikipedia users, so it is not just my writing what you consider bad. Moreover, even though you like to get personal, this information is posted elsewhere on Wikipedia, not just here and not just by me, but I bothered enough to search for exact quotes, additional information and relevant sources -people and companies within the industry related to this act-, claims that you can check yourself if you really care, since someone is trying to censor not just why I included, but what everyone else have posted before regarding this on this particular page and language. It should also be noted for anyone reading, that the current producer of Carlson has tried to edit this page previously and it is suspicious that someone is "edit warring" (you accuse of what you do) everything related to this very important information that concerns both Carlson and Gordon and, therefore, Whigfield. You obviously do not want to improve the article, based on your acts, since you have not provided any objective information regarding this nor any suggestion, just negative attitude and behaviour. Fixfxx (talk) 22:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please,
I request help regarding the content of the English version of Whigfield. The Page has been "extended protected" by Woodroar in order to not have important content restored. The information that has been removed is relevant and is included in other Wikipedia articles, including Ann Lee (singer) and other language versions of Whigfield. The removed content includes the very important fact that Carlson has been accused of not being the real singer and Gordon being revealed as the real singer by producers and music labels. Previously, COI had been reported and many removals of information have occurred. Therefore, I strongly believe that this particular protection is ill-intentioned and that the erased content should be restored before protecting the Page permanently, so it includes the relevant information in an objective manner, like the other language versions, so the English version remains unbiased. This should also avoid recurrent censorship motivated by COI related to Carlson.
I understand that you might be busy, but I am not wasting anyone's time trying to improve the page. This is not original research and the sources are reliable and connected to Whigfield, including the original music label and music producers connected to Gordon. All this is included in other language versions of Whigfield and in the English version of Ann Lee (singer). Fixfxx (talk) 00:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other language Wikipedia projects are independent of each other, and accordinly what they do or do not include in articles is of no concern here. And please note that mere repetition isn't going to convince anyone that the content is in any way appropriate: it isn't, as anyone remotely familiar with the relevant policies can easily see. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, repeating that without any reasoning, when it clearly is appropriate, unbiased, and the quotes are literal and belong to persons related to the act is not proper implementation of the policies that you mention. Fixfxx (talk) 00:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise for posting on your Talk page. I brought the discussion here, since it had been reported COI on Whigfield, and someone is removing any mention of Gordon and censoring this in the English version, while it is available everywhere else. The Talk section of the page already has several threads about this issue. Fixfxx (talk) 00:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right at the top of WP:BLP: Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was not unsourced nor poorly sourced, so you did not apply the policies appropriately. It is actually something known since the 90s. Moreover, in the content I wrote with help from other Wikipedia users, I quoted persons directly related to Carlson and Gordon, specifically people that have worked with them, the music label Off Limits, that was Whigfield's, and the producer that worked with Gordon, Mauro Farina. It is absolutely reliable and important content that should remain as part of both pages. Fixfxx (talk) 01:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that either haven't read the policies I linked earlier, or lack the capacity to understand them, I see no point in discussing this further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You said that you were busy, then you did not apply the policy correctly and I politely explained why. If you keep resorting to offensive remarks instead of reasoning, I cannot help you with that. Fixfxx (talk) 01:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This issue has not been resolved, so I kindly request additional help to improve the corresponding page and avoid COI, previously reported on the page, and censorship.
The removed content from Whigfield and now also from Ann Lee (singer) by AndyTheGrump should be restored because it is relevant information backed up by reliable sources such as:
Gordon's producer Mauro Farina, who said, "Annerley Gordon, who also did Whigfield. She lent her voice for Whigfield, and it was a worldwide success."
Source:
Video interview available on YouTube with the title, "Mauro Farina confirms that Annerley Gordon is the voice behind Whigfield and Bandido"
A.Beat-C, Gordon's label posted, "Whigfield and Ann Lee were the top of artistic aliases by Annerley Gordon in Eurodance music."
Off Limits Whigfield's label, posted: "Annerley Gordon, better known as Ann Lee, is one of the most well-known dance characters in the 90s. She wrote together with Ivana Spagna "Try Me Out" and "I Don't Wanna Be a Star" for Corona and participated as a voice and author in numerous dance projects such as Whigfield."
Please, review the following sources and additional information available in the Talk section of the page in order to restore the removed content and protect the page from COI and censorship. Fixfxx (talk) 01:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unsubstantiated claims of a CoI are liable to result in you being blocked from editing. As for the rest, take it to the talk page, after carefully reading the policies you have been asked to. AndyTheGrump (talk)
As other users have posted previously regarding other topics you have participated in, please stop your uncivil conduct and stop your baseless accusations as well, such as CoI and threats such as being blocked, or you will be reported. I request help from other users to improve the page based on what I posted above.Ferfxx — Preceding undated comment added 03:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing anything actionable in ATG's remarks for lack of civility, and I'm not seeing anything in the recent threads on the talk page that indicate a conflict of interest. —C.Fred (talk) 03:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As can be checked by anyone, the conflict of interest was reported twice by other users and concerns the current producer of Carlson, who obviously would back up the side of the story that benefits Carlson, the face of Whigfield. Related to this, there are accounts that have removed content from the page written by other users previously.
Now, AndyTheGrump used "CoI" against me maliciously. If you did not see it, this is the what was written above: "Unsubstantiated claims of a CoI are liable to result in you being blocked from editing." This is a false accusation and it was the CoI reported on the page what made me search for sources and resources to back up this up and add to previous content and Talk threads on this very page and others, that are there for anyone to see and that have nothing to do with me.
I would really appreciate if this case was about these claims that have been made before and are available elsewhere, instead of resorting to uncivil behaviour and baseless accusations, in this case, by AndyTheGrump, who removed content from other users just a few minutes later, without having the time to check anything properly and whose attitude and behaviour has been disrespectful and hot-headed.
Once again, this is not about me, so I kindly ask f somebody that is not "busy" could review this case, check the sources included here and elsewhere, and improve the article so it is right and not just blurb? This is not about me, but about Whigfield and the two singers involved. Fixfxx (talk) 12:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fixfxx, these accusations of a conflict of interest are ridiculous. I've been editing Wikipedia for over 18 years and I have more than 18,000 edits. Yesterday was the first time I've ever edited the article or talk page on Whigfield. I'd never even heard of her until reading this thread. Your edits were also reverted by users who have been here for 13 years/1,000 edits, 2 years/41,000 edits, and 2 years/25,000 edits. It was also their first time editing the article. Do you really think we're Carlson's current producer, spending what is likely hundreds of thousands of hours editing an encyclopedia so that we can suddenly jump in and revert you on this random article? Or maybe, consider that we have a better understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and saw that your edits didn't meet our high standards. Please, just think about that.
Yes, someone involved with Carlson edited the article in 2015. That's 9 years ago! They admitted to it, their edits were reverted, and they were blocked. That's it. Woodroar (talk) 13:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to those edits that you mention at the end. The new accusations of CoI are ridiculous indeed, but were made by AndytheGrump, not by me. Please, check their words above. Fixfxx (talk) 13:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You definitely suggested that Woodroar has a COI here, among other bad-faith assumptions about their personal motivations. You can (and I'd suggest you do) strike those parts of your comments if you'd like to retract them, but you shouldn't pretend like they never happened. I second the comment by Johnuniq that further BLP violations should lead to a block, and I'd expand that to future accusations made with insufficient evidence. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstood. What I wrote is that the current producer of Whigfield has been reported twice. I did not accuse anyone else, but requested protecting the page from CoI, in general. My intention is to improve the page and include what is known about this act since the 90s. Fixfxx (talk) 12:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no way to protect a page from conflict of interest. We do what we normally do, which is check the edits and revert them when necessary. If necessary, we can block the editor(s).
That's exactly what happened during those two cases of CoI in April and July of 2015. Which, again, was 9 years ago. Throwing around vague accusations about CoI right now isn't helpful.
I will say, after looking through the edits from the past 4 years or so, there's been a steady stream of editors adding content about Gordon/Lee. If anything, that would suggest a CoI from the other side. But I don't think that's the case. It's more than likely just overzealous fans/followers of Mauro Farina, who appears to be very outspoken about this. But again, there's not much that can be done except to watch the page and revert when necessary. Woodroar (talk) 13:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a fan of Carlson nor Gordon, but nope, Mauro Farina only said that in 2021 in a very casual way, if you watch the interview. Besides, he no longer works with Gordon. He just said so because he assumes that everybody knows this. I recommend everyone watching that part of the interview.
The main reason why this has been discussed since the 90s is because Carlson never sings live and because of her real voice. By her real voice I mean when she ad-lib live, like in one of the videos I posted in the Talk section. She also lip-synched covers recorded by Gordon that are not part of Whigfield's albums, because the voice of those covers by Gordon and Whigfield's recordings is the same. She did this in the 90s. If Carlson was the real singer, Carlson's voice would be similar to Whigfield's albums.
When Carlson sings live, her voice is completely different, but the same as the new recording of Saturday Night and the new songs recorded by Carlson. I recommend you hearing these new recordings by Carlson and compare them to Close to You and Don't Walk Away. Not just the voices are different, but also it is technically impossible that Carlson is able to sing Close to You and Don't Walk Away. She is not able to reach those notes. Before anyone thinks of AutoTune, the voice on Whigfield's recordings is not heavily processed and sounds just like Gordon (Ann Lee) singing live. Gordon even sang Saturday Night live and it's the same voice as the original recording. Remember that there are two recordings of Saturday Night with different voices. The original recording has the same voice as Gordon. The second recording perfectly matches Carlson's voice.
If you listen to the new recording of Saturday Night, recorded by Carlson and the original recording by Whigfield, the voices are different, but if you listen to Whigfield and also Ally & Jo, the voices are the same, because Gordon lent her voice for many projects in Italy, including Ally & Jo and Whigfield. They sound exactly the same, if you listen to them. If Carlson was the real singer, Ally & Jo would not exist, it would be Whigfield that already uses Carlson's face, but for some reason the producers did not want to use Gordon as the face of any of these acts, but for the voice in many projects. This was considered fraud in USA, where she did not promote anything but the new album.
I also would like to thank you because your attitude in your last posts is positive. You taught me a few things about how articles are made even when they are not "right" or "complete", and you seem honestly curious about the topic. Fixfxx (talk) 13:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I request help regarding the content of the English version of Whigfield. The Page has been "extended protected" by Woodroar in order to not have important content restored. The information that has been removed is relevant and is included in other Wikipedia articles, including Ann Lee (singer) and other language versions of Whigfield. The removed content includes the very important fact that Carlson has been accused of not being the real singer and Gordon being revealed as the real singer by producers and music labels. Previously, COI had been reported and many removals of information have occurred. Therefore, I strongly believe that this particular protection is ill-intentioned and that the erased content should be restored before protecting the Page permanently, so it includes the relevant information in an objective manner, like the other language versions, so the English version remains unbiased. This should also avoid recurrent censorship motivated by COI related to Carlson.
I have folded this into the original section and removed the subheading (diff of change). Fixfxx, Andy is correct - please stop splintering discussions into other threads. Regards, Daniel (talk) 00:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, AndyTheGrump is correct about the duplicated discussion. This one was made because of the removal of content and extended protection, but I continued the discussion on the other thread that I had not made, so it was just once and I continued replying on the thread they created when I was advised. Any reader, please note that the most recent comments are now above this one. Regards, Fixfxx (talk) 01:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just letting you know that permanent page protection almost never happens and protection will not be put in place with the aim of retaining disputed content. QwertyForest (talk) 11:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would someone please notify me if Fixfxx adds rumors or similar inadequately sourced material to BLPs so I can indefinitely block them. I don't want to take the time to work out if that would be justified at this stage, but after reviewing a couple of diffs from above I would be happy to take action if issues like this are repeated. New users should ask questions and take things slowly to learn how Wikipedia works. Johnuniq (talk) 06:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could somebody please leave the fruitless negative attitude and personal accusations aside, be neutral, review this case, check the sources included here and elsewhere, and improve the article so it is right and not just blurb? This is not about me, but the article and the people involved. Fixfxx (talk) 12:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your sources are pretty weak and contradict other, better sources. You also seem to infer more from the sources than they actually state. For instance, the statement in Italian where it says Ann Lee contributed vocals and writing to Whigfield is not the same as saying "Ann Lee is the voice of Whigfield and Sannie Carlson is not". This is nice for some Reddit discussion about Whigfield, but here on Wikipedia the sources that back you up simply don't pass muster. Atlan (talk) 13:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you have read the History and Talk sections, but in the removed content, it was not stated that Ann Lee is the voice of Whigfield and Carlson is not. It was stated that she has been accused of not singing her songs and then some quotes to back this up, that also mention that Gordon was the real singer.
The sources are not contradicting each other, they are telling the same story, but some are more specific than others. There are dozens of people related to these singers that have discussed this publicly, but the most explicit that I have found so far is Mauro Farina, a dance music producer who worked with Gordon, that said in that interview "Gordon lent Whigfield her voice and it was a worldwide success" when they were talking about Gordon singing songs from other dance acts such as Bandido, which was a common thing in Italy in the 90s.
There is a difference between someone arguing what and how sources are used and I respect that, and someone denying all these claims and trying to hide anything related to this and turn the Page into official blurb, that's why the Talk section is full of discussion about this before I even read that Page, but I consider that if we want the Page to be right, this issue should at least be mentioned. Fixfxx (talk) 13:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the most explicit is a vague reference during an interview by someone connected to Gordon, then this is definitely not enough. And none of that should be here at ANI. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The most explicit that I could find, that is why I requested help, in order to improve the page and include these claims. The producer of Gordon is someone that would know this better than anyone else. It is not true that "Gordon lent Whigfield her voice and it was a worldwide success" is a vague reference, is absolutely clear. Fixfxx (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to share counter evidence regarding the Sannie Carlson and Annerley Gordon debate.
Here is an radio interview with Peter Lozio and Annerley Gordon uploaded four years ago on YouTube:
Peter: Tu non sei Whigfield, tu non sei Corona, quindi (You are not Whigfield, you are not Corona so...)
Annerley: No, no, no, no, no...
She later explains that she wrote songs for Whigfield but not the song ‘Saturday Night’. She later shares an anecdote during the recording of the song 'Another Day' and mentions that Sannie was in the studio. Peter states that Olga is Corona and Sannie is Whigfield to which Annerley replies, "Si, si, si..Sannie Carlson." (Yes, yes, yes...Sannie Carlson). Robinkoala (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I lent my mom my car last week when hers was in the shop. I lent my time to a local food bank last month. Mom doesn't secretly own my car nor am I secretly an employee of the food bank. That you think that a vague comment such as this that can be interpreted in a number of ways is some smoking gun, the best you have, in a strong suggestion that you're starting with the facts you want to insert and then trying to find the right source to squeeze it in. That's not how things are sourced here. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal: Fixfxx is topic-banned from Whigfield, broadly construed
This has been enough of a timesink, and there are enough instances of edit-warring, accusations against others, refusing to accept WP:BLP, and general WP:IDHT here for editors to draw a conclusion. I don't personally think it merits a stronger sanction, but I think it's clear that this editor should not be involved in this narrow topic in any way at this time. Broadly construed as their point of contention also involves other WP:BLP articles related to Whigfield. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. If Fixfxx wishes to do something useful on Wikipedia, this will present an opportunity to read up on the relevant policies, guidelines etc and do so, without wasting further time with this repetitive nonsense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the people involved here have not checked this case properly, otherwise they would review and acknowledge the evidence widely available about this, or at least there would be a discussion on topic. I have never removed or edited anyone's content, even when I knew that it was not correct, that is why I have only added information on several pages so far, but I have read hundreds. You all also had few edits when you began. Most Wikipedia readers do not edit.
The content I added is not my own research and it is that what has been removed. There are several threads about this in the Talk section that I did not made that are being ignored. I made a thread there that you can check if you want to read the background. The current version of the page is the official blurb. The truth is available everywhere else. I hope that someday Wikipedia reflects it as well.
I remark once again as it is needed, that this is not about me and I find offensive the negative attitude and irrational reactions of some users here, when all I want is this page to be right which is the main goal of Wikipedia. I am listening to all reasonable users, so I kindly request that the rest stop mentioning me unless it is to help me. I do not need more useless and offensive remarks. I will not mention anyone else, but I hope that they improve their attitude towards me and other users, as I see that their attitude have been disapproved elsewhere, unless they want Wikipedia to become a toxic forum.
Thank you to all the worthy users that have explained and replied to me respectfully, thank you kindly, and thank you to all the users that help other users, have a positive and respectful attitude, because their real goal is to improve Wikipedia and nothing else. That is how it should be. Thank you and please do not mention me again because there is no need to, unless is to help me editing and adding information or finding appropriate sources and how to use them. Fixfxx (talk) 13:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I'll attempt to correct a misconception you seem to have here. Again, I am expressing no opinion on whether your additions are valid or not.
You are incorrect that Wikipedia should "reflect" the "truth [...] available everywhere else", or that, similarly, "the main goal of Wikipedia" is "to be right." Per NOTTRUTH, "Wikipedia values accuracy, but it requires verifiability. Wikipedia does not try to impose "the truth" on its readers, and does not ask that they trust something just because they read it in Wikipedia." Now, granted, the above is an essay (albeit one that I think is generally agreed-upon), but the following, from PROOF, is policy. "Content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it."
In basic words, Wikipedia's principal goal is not to portray "the truth" (whatever that may be), but rather what reliable sources have to say about the subject. Stating you want Wikipedia to reflect "the truth" doesn't seem, to me, to illustrate a correct reading of policy.
If I may make a suggestion, perhaps try editing in other areas of Wikipedia, at least temporarily - plenty of other pages are in need of improvement, and this way you can hone your understanding of policy in a less contentious way. LaughingManiac (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the talk page section in question, per NOTAFORUM, and just noticed this thread. Considering the content of their talk page edits, their previous edits, and the number of warnings the user has already accumulated in the 7 days that they have been registered here, I support a block for NOTHERE. - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Back in November of 2023, one of Kjell Knudde's redirects was taken to WP:RfD, and the result was to delete. However, this was just the start of what would go onto become a potentially 1000+ redirect rabbit hole. A few days later in November 2023, I started up cleaning more implausible quote redirects, focusing on titles that were not mentioned and/or generally too long or too broken to be plausible search terms. I realized, however, that there were hundreds upon hundreds that were potentially problematic, but I started with a few to chip away at that number. In order to not flood the page, I condensed all of the notifications into a single section on User talk:Kjell Knudde#Redirects for discussion, hoping that would be the end of such titles. But not only was it not the end, but the deleted pages were being recreated months later at slightly different, but equally implausible spellings. This discussion occurred, even with the deletion of Hen-reeeeeeeeeeeee! Hen-ree Al-drich!. The same day, we went back to discuss a modification for the long-deleted Train leaving on track five for Anaheim, Azusa and Cu-camonga!
I no longer have the patience for combining RfD notifications on their talk page like I did in November of 2023, so nowadays I leave such notifications be, especially with CSD notifications in the mix. That being said, somehow, I was willing to excuse all of this, even though all of these redirects were created with misleading edit summaries about "adding more categories" to pages that never existed in the first place.
The tipping point for me was when I stumbled upon A-hunting we will go, a-hunting we will go, heigh-o, the derry-o, a-hunting we will go, being created in September 2024 as a redirect to Yankee Doodle, with the automated edit summary of "Added more categories". However, this isn't even a lyric to Yankee Doodle; it's the entire first verse of A-Hunting We Will Go. Now, if this was an isolated incident, I would not bat an eye; we all make mistakes. But after nearly a year of seeing these redirects be deleted, and now the creation of one that wasn't even pointed at the only reason it could have had for existing, I am highly concerned about the autopatrolled status of this user. Their most recent article, Dracula Cha Cha Cha, is improperly sourced, cites are needlessly duplicated and all of the URLs are bare. I think it would benefit to have a new page patroller take a look at and verify any new redirects and articles that get created here. Utopes(talk / cont)20:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Verifying that Kjell Knudde has the autopatrolled right granted:
Autopatrolled is an extra right, and those who receive it are expected to regularly demonstrate familiarity with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, per the autopatrolled information page. Based on the OP, Kjell Knudde is not demonstrating that:
Wrote misleading edit summaries (claiming to add categories when the actual act is page creation)
Created unhelpful redirects (like having lyrics for "A-Hunting We Will Go" direct to "Yankee Doodle" instead)
Created unpolished articles (on top of being sourced to user-generated content like Discogs, "Dracula Cha Cha Cha" also has inaccuracies; it says there was a cover performed by Rod McKuen, but closer inspection of the source indicates that 1960 cover was performed by a group called Jack Hansen & The Transylvanians.
Without in any way minimizing the problematic and bizarre editing that Kjell Knudde has engaged in, it is worth noting that Rod McKuen was credited for the "words and music" for the song "Dracula Cha Cha" upon its release by Coral Records in 1960, and that he also wrote the words and music for its B side, "Transylvania Polka". The Wikipedia article about McKuen says In 1959, McKuen released his first novelty single with Bob McFadden, under the pseudonym Dor on the Brunswick label, called "The Mummy". The McKuen-written song reached No. 39 on the Billboard pop chart. It appears that McKuen was involved with the genre called Halloween music during this early phase of his career. Cullen328 (talk) 06:26, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently McKuen translated and adapted a 1959 Italian pop song into English in 1960. It was later adapted into French and German due, apparently, to a lack of good music 64 years ago. You can find complete details on this web page, which includes a link to a (to me) painfully bad performance of the song, and promotional artwork clearly crediting Rod McKuen. Cullen328 (talk) 06:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shahray (talk·contribs) was blocked on 13 October for 24 hours and again on 18 October for 1 week due to continued edit warring. In their unblock requests (none of which were accepted), they did not indicate any understanding for their block. For example, they wrote: I haven't got any explanation about why one small revert from me is considered "disruptive", "damaging" or "edit-warring" and requires a block.[87]
Despite this, there has been no improvement in their behavior (if anything, it has gone the other way) since the block expired on 25 October. They made edits to Kievan Rus', which I reverted with explanation before they restored this again, saying "You are confused". I reverted again and asked them to start a discussion on the talk page. Rather than starting a discussion on the talk page, they replied to me in a completely different discussion at Talk:History of Ukraine telling me: I won't create hundreds of talk pages just because you always disagree with me for precisely no reason.[88] I told them this was a misuse of the talk page. I also noted that they had already started a discussion about similar changes (as an IP) before and there was no consensus for this. The same IP had previously left me a message on my talk page asking why I reverted their edits (made by Shahray), before they self-reverted and wrote the same message as Shahray.[89] I continued the discussion there, but Shahray's response was This is not a discussion done by me and why should I care?.[90]
They also made an edit to Old East Slavic that I reverted because there was already plenty of discussion about this on the talk page with clear consensus against such edits, but they restored their edit saying in the edit summary that this was "unrelated".[91]
I also asked an admin for advice at User talk:Asilvering#Question (more diffs there) because I found it impossible to discuss edits with Shahray without them accusing me of editing in bad faith but they decided to reply there and they wrote that I should stop complaining to other editors like a child.[92] This was also after I told them that I did not wish to discuss with them further due to previous comments they made to me such as this, even though I clearly explained why I opposed their changes. Mellk (talk) 22:06, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They also made an edit to Old East Slavic that I reverted because there was already plenty of discussion about this on the talk page with clear consensus against such edits I havent looked at other edits but this particular edit was legitimate. The discussion was opened on a talk page Talk:Old East Slavic#Old Ukrainian where you haven't responded but have proceed with removal, anyway. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is consensus against such edits (that you had previously made), as this was discussed at Talk:Old_East_Slavic/Archive_2#Old_Ukrainian_2024 and in previous discussions. You attempted to include this and there was consensus against this change. You decided to start a new discussion today without any new arguments. Mellk (talk) 22:43, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... where we see sourced opinions removed [93] because "I still think that a whole paragraph cited to one source is too much". That's not a valid argument for removal of an academic opinion in a field. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There you just rejected and undoed opinions sourced to academic researchers one after another without offering an improvement: Yes, except this is not an accurate summary of his findings. You are not telling where, in your opinion, it is not accurate, nor offering a better version.This is not how collaboration is supposed to be. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:12, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I still think that a whole paragraph cited to one source is too much" -- this is what another editor wrote. Multiple editor opposed your changes and you are still trying to make this discussion about this. Mellk (talk) 23:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should we take your approach and return edits, since there is also @Shahray now opposing your removal. Should we also remember that there were other editors in previous discussions supporting changes.Probably not, because this would lead to the Tyranny of the majority. Instead, we should not be calling to "there is more of us therefore we are right", but base our arguments on reliable sources and Wikipedia rules. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This editor @Mellk was already formally warned by other administrator to not make unreasonable reverts and be responsive [94].
After a few responses on the talk page, they refused to give any further details and dropped out of conversation [95], considering my request to simply not waste time of other editors because of their own poor understanding of the subject as a personal insult (rather than maybe improving upon their knowledge), use what they wrote higher as an evidence I guess.
I tried to continue the conversation and asked about what they don't have concerns with for example [96], they haven't given me any response, and instead they moved to complain to other administrator.
Also, I have added changes in Old East Slavic page according to the sources, yet they reverted them with a summary "see talk page", where there's just only one completely unrelated topic. Other editor was confused about why they deleted my sourced edit as well [97]. Yet here they act as if their revert was justified, furthermore they made another revert [98], despite there being obvious concern from two editors, and didn't go to the talk page.
So as you can see they don't care about the attitude they've been warned about, they continue to make more unreasonable reverts and be unresponsive on the talk page.
From my side, I wasn't reverting them. Initial concerns behind my blocks was edit warring, and I wasn't reverting this user recently, so it's unclear about what "behaviour" are they talking about, or why did they make this report in first place. Shahray (talk) 22:47, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another recent revert from Mellk [99], with no summary they removed Principality of Moscow and replaced it with Russia, which is anachronistic term for that time period.
And they are still edit warring now. The personal attacks were already a step too far, but this is getting ridiculous now. Mellk (talk) 06:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was not edit warring, I followed 1 revert rule everywhere respectively. I told the admin to look at Mellk's yet again unresponsive behaviour and unreasonable reverts, which they have been already formally warned about. I also addressed them how you told Mellk to go to a notice board with no evidence of my guilt [100] and then ignored my comment, telling to "use it as evidence" [101] (???).
Bear in mind that as always, reverting isn't a right so you can easily be unacceptably edit warring even if complying with 1RR or whatever. Also with highly contentious articles where it's likely something has been discussed before, it often makes sense to check out the talk page and archives and see if something has been discussed before. If it has, while WP:consensus can change, it would often be better to at least start a discussion before making edits rather than trying a WP:bold edit. This is especially the case if something has been discussed multiple times or had significant backing or support last time it was discussed. In fact in such cases it might even be best just to assume it's unlikely consensus has changed and so not start a new discussion let alone trying to make a change. And even if you do feel it's worth starting a new discussion, you should generally mention or even link to previous discussions and explain why you feel there should be a new consensus. Also while there's too much personalisation from all sides in the article talk page discussions to me, you do seem to be worse at it. Notably with your child comment which okay wasn't on an article talk page but was still a clear personal attack. I think all of you need to concentrate on the content issues in the article talk page. If you can't come to consensus by yourselves, use some form of WP:dispute resolution to try and get more people involved. Importantly, concentrate on what reliable sources say not your personal view or interpretation of history or whatever. Nil Einne (talk) 07:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While "childish" might have been personal, I think that's how you can describe this behavior. I haven't made personal attacks on the talk page, Mellk dropped out of discussion, yet continues to persist on deleting my changes.
I tried to continue discussion and told them to just let my changes be viewed by other editors [102], yet they haven't answered at all.
Above they have continued the personal attacks and they are still making unsourced POV changes like this. The issue of POV editing was raised before. In addition, they are claiming that they are being "deliberately targeted". I don't think there is any clearer IDHT than this. Mellk (talk) 02:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Believing that you have a valid point does not confer the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told otherwiseShahray (talk) 05:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mellk just told me here [108] there's no consensus about the fact that "Russia" didn't exist during Middle ages.
They implemented a change without consensus once again [109], and in noticeboard they wrote "This is false".
Below you can see they are continuing personal assaults in my side instead of solving the dispute on the talk page. I remind you they were formally warned to be responsive. Shahray (talk) 05:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here they removed all references to Russians, including removing the sentence "Russians were also hired as mercenaries" despite this being sourced. So this also shows they are here for WP:RGW. Mellk (talk) 05:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is WP:ONUS. They once again insist on mentioning "Russia" in the middle ages, despite the clear consensus in historiography there was no "russia" at the time. What's worse is that they don't want to solve the disputes themselves and instead focus on personal assaults like getting me banned, use all their comments above as evidence. They were already formally warned for that disruptive behavior. Shahray (talk) 05:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here they removed all references to Russians, including removing the sentence "Russians were also hired as mercenaries" despite this being sourced I checked the source and I can't find anything regarding "Russians were also hired as mercenaries" there. Please provide the quote. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 07:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. But the timing is a mess, the book talks about The army of the Second Bulgarian Empire was not, of course solely Cuman. The new state controlled large areas held by pronoia cavalry and other troop. Mercenaries were alo recruited, including Russians, unlike the wiki article which says In the 1350s. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 07:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is unclear what is meant by "Russians" in 14th century. WP:ONUS, and I don't think anachronisms should be included, what do you think? It would be proper to move discussion to the talk page. Shahray (talk) 08:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This has been in the article since at least 2015. You also cannot overrule what the sources say and dictate to others on what is an anachronism when you were earlier writing about 'supreme Ukrainian rulers' of Kievan Rus.[111] The issue here is that your editing is purely disruptive. Mellk (talk) 08:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't want to heave too readily onto the pile given they've only reverted once, but I can't discern a difference in behavior between that detailed here and that over at Christianization of Kievan Rus'. Maybe this is petty of me, but "I'm just sorting the list by alphabetical order" is one of the surest signs of tendentious editing I generally see—statistically speaking, you'll get to use the alphabet as a fig leaf for your otherwise-inexplicable sorting in roughly 50% of situations. Remsense ‥ 论05:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I would like to attempt creating an article on the Notre Dame de L'Assomption Church, La Digue (the first Catholic church built on the island, in 1854). However, the page title is currently on the blacklist, which restricts creation to administrators, template editors, and page movers. I haven’t been able to find any information on why it was blacklisted. As an Indo-Seychellois (of Gujarati origin) involved in WikiProject Seychelles, I have previously contributed by creating pages such as La Plaine St. André, Anse Intendance, and Roche Caiman Power Station, as well as updating the National Botanical Garden of Seychelles. I would like the opportunity to create a draft for the church. Also, I will keep it in draft form and ensure it only moves to the main namespace if it successfully goes through the Articles for Creation process. If there are any additional rules or restrictions, please let me know so I can contribute effectively. Charlie (talk) 05:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure it's SALTed? I just clicked on the redlink and it was ready to create a new page with no messages regarding any restrictions, and I'm a nobody. - Adolphus79 (talk) 05:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I got an error when trying to create a draft, though there’s no restriction on creating the page directly. Right after posting this message, I was able to make the draft. Strange! Could it be a browser issue, or was the problem resolved quickly? Charlie (talk) 05:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not certain if ANI is the right place for this query; I came here due to the page title being blacklisted. If I have come to the wrong forum, could someone please direct me to the correct one? Charlie (talk) 05:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CharlieMehta: Just as a note, people usually go to WP:AN for requesting the creation of a page that is in the title blacklist. ANI is for "[...] urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems." according to the top of this page, AN is for anything of interest to administrators. – 2804:F1...E4:60B (talk) 05:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have been working on a personal webpage for several days now, getting advice on how to improve it, and then last night an editor came on and summarily deleted it, with the only statement saying it was 'clear advertisement and self-promotion'. How does one person have the power to do such? More germane, I cant find the text I wrote anywhere - surely its my right to have the capacity to keep the source text I wrote, in case I want to generate a complaint or start a dispute, or simply just so I have a record of what I wrote, or so I can send it to someone else to put forward, giving that it seems such a problem to write my own wikipage (thought nowhere does it state that this is not allowed, only that it is not-encouraged).
Thanks for help with these queries, and if possible could I get the page I was working on undeleted, or at least the capacity to get the text back that I laboured on for several hours.
@ZigGibson A couple of things. First, Wikipedia is not a word processor. You should have been keeping your draft text locally or in a personal cloud account (Dropbox, OneDrive, iCloud, etc.). Second, Wikipedia is not a webhost, and personal webpages are routinely deleted when detected. Finally, you can check at WP:REFUND and see if an administrator will email the text of your draft to you, if you have an email attached to your account. —C.Fred (talk) 11:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, this is very helpful, next time I will keep a copy of what I create on a backed up word document on my computer - should have thought of that! (-: Alan 86.182.11.145 (talk) 11:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a spate of vandalism from multiple editors ongoing at Chromakopia. This appears to be a coordinated attack by either one user on muliple accounts or multiple users working in concert, such that the anti-vandals cannot keep up. WP:RPP is no responding quickly enough to prevent the damage on this page. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!!11:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I literally don't understand what this is about or when this was imposed, I've been free to make edits on the topic, which is my specialist area, for the past two years. Why have you suddenly decided I can't? 0lida0 (talk) 12:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. When reporting users, especially with suspicions of sockpuppetry, you should provide diffs of the evidence that leads you to suspect this. Accusing someone of being a sock without evidence can be seen as casting aspersions, especially if it appears to be a retaliatory filing regarding the previous WP:RUSUKR issues.Also, if the only issue is suspected sockpuppetry without obvious disruption that needs to immediately be addressed, WP:SPI is the way. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not retaliatory, it's unrelated - Melik's tagging me made me aware of this board and it seems like a useful place to draw attention to these suspicions. 0lida0 (talk) 12:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see that User:0lida0 attempts to shut down my work by gaslighting whereas themselves violating multiple Wikipedia rules. Here is the matter: There is Russians at War documentary, mainly anti-war, which, as one critic from Roger Ebert described it, "became … the subject of mass protests outside the venue by supporters of Ukraine believing it to be mere propaganda (none of whom had seen the film), and even members of Trudeau’s government excoriating the festival for playing the film at all" [1]. The film was screened only in two festivals since Ukrainian protests suppressed its public screening at other festivals, and none of the Wikipedia editors who call it "propaganda" (User:0lida0, Stoptheprop, User:Manyareasexpert) have seen it. These three editors constantly ignore helpful and well-sourced suggestions by other editors, some of them saw the film.
I was one of few people who watched the film. After reviewing its reception in media, I put together a comprehensive and well-structured page for this film (with 84 sources), as the current version is outdated, doesn't include recent festivals-related events and has only 47 sources. If you investigate this matter, please, please compare my version of the page at User:EVS-VR with the current version Russians at War. I recently received additional suggestions from editors, I will add them, but mainly this version was used by other editors to verify sources and propose new versions. So naturally, some of my pieces were used by others. Majority of editors working on this page are not extended editors so we had to ask extended editors, such as User:UrbanVillager and User:Manyareasexpert to change something on the page. The User:UrbanVillager made several attempts to post my version of the page but User:Manyareasexpert, who mainly edited the matter related to Ukraine and so does not have neutrality position here, constantly reverts the changes made User:UrbanVillager. Using their superiority in this situation, User:Manyareasexpert adds references from people who (by their own admission) haven't seen the film but ignores sources that I proposed to be mentioned on the page.
To underline: all my sources are Western media specialists and Western journalists, so they are neutral in terms of WP:RUSUKR issue whereas all three editors (User:0lida0, Stoptheprop, User:Manyareasexpert) vandalizing the proposed edits show pro-Ukrainian uninformed (haven't seen the film) bias. I am sympathetic with Ukrainians fighting Russian aggression but here they simply react to the noise without knowing what this is about, throwing the baby with the water. Anti-war films shouldn’t be edited by the sides that are involved in the war, as both sides will scream “propaganda”.
I, therefore, ask senior editors or administration to compare two versions of the page and to intervene, letting Western journalists to be heard, as the part of "Reception" section of this film's wiki page. EVS-VR (talk) 20:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both users may have violated 3RR by making 5 reverts over the last 24 hours. This article's history is a bit of a mess, but this edit war started when Inherli restored an older version of the article. Inherli has never used a talk page before, and is now (after writing one edit summary) simply reverting EarthDude's reverts without even explaining their own reverts. EarthDude's edit summaries and messages at Inherli's talk page indicate that they believe they're reverting vandalism. I believe we need an admin to deal with this issue. Nythar (💬-🍀) 13:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting the page to a months old version, as Inherli did, disrupted countless recent edits by many editors to bring the article to meet Wikipedia's standards of quality, which it previously did not meet.
Furthermore, I tried to get Inherli to talk about the specific reasons for the edits they were making, and suggested a discussion to constructively try and improve the page, but they ignored it and continue reverting the page.
If this is not the definition of vandalism, I don't know what is. I've given them the series of escalating vandalism warnings that's supposed to be given, but Inherli nonetheless continue to ignore them and persist with their vandalism.
Not only that, he is doing it to other pages that I edited specifically reverting my edits without reason, I feel like he is gonna keep doing this and I don’t think a block on one page will do enough, he should be blocked from the site temporarily instead. Teotzin190 (talk) 10:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits were reverted because you are adding arbitrary casualty figures, and your account is new, you're not a credible editor and apparently don't even understand the concept of vandalism. The recent changes at List of wars by death toll are also arbitrary and lack consensus, but you probably don't even understand the concept of consensus either. Inherli (talk) 10:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through the edits which you reverted, and they're not arbitrary at all. They're backed by El siglo de la Integración, which is considered to be a reliable source. Your recent actions seem to stem from the fact that @Teotzin190 reverted the List of wars by death toll back to its stable and consensus built version, and since you've been blocked from meddling with the page further, you're angry. The reverts you made against @Teotzin190 this time were also not explained, against consensus, and hypocritically arbitrary. This kind of retaliatory behaviour gives reason to believe that your reverts are not in good faith. EarthDude (talk) 11:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with a siteblock. Their frequent reverts with minimal explanation/discussion beyond this forum are completely unhelpful, and I think it's fair to say that they have no intention of stopping. Enough is enough. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 13:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked @Inherli from the page for a week for edit-warring and a failure to communicate. @EarthDude's behavior has also been non-3RR-exempt edit-warring, but as they've been communicating here I am not going to block as it doesn't seem necessary to prevent disruption, so long as they do not revert again. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:03, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Inherli, even after receiving multiple warnings and even getting blocked from the first page listed, continues to edit war and reverted a bunch of my edits to pages he could edit after I brought back a stable version of the List of wars by death toll. He removed a bunch of cited information by credible sources without providing an edit summary. He doesn't speak in any of the discussion pages either. Me and two other users agree that he should be blocked from editing site wide rather than just List of wars by death toll, and it doesnt seem like he will stop. Not only that, he tried to discredit my edits because I am a relatively new user compared to him and he made false accusations about the sources not being credible even though they are widely used and accepted. Teotzin190 (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some admins taking a look at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors would be nice. For the current DYK set, there are 4 requests, including 2 to pull a hook. One has been listed since the 26th but still hit the main page[114]. Only admins can fix these, as they are on the main page and thus protected. Fram (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IPs in the range [115] have been repeatedly adding unsourced editorialisation to Doug Sides (a recently deceased person so BLP applies) because the IP is fluctuating, it hasn't been been possible to go through the 4 warnings process but it is clearly the same editor. They have expressed in edit summaries that they are not interested in adding sources or otherwise following editing policy. As it is all one person I don't see that it would worth protecting the page. -- D'n'B-t -- 14:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're missing the point. This isn't about the AfD in itself, it's about the language Fram has been using in it, and (to a lesser extent) their immediate personalisation of it into an attack on me. You can't (although maybe Fram can?) refer to other editors in that way, it's just not on. Anyone else would be blocked already for phraseology like that.
I'm not against this AfD. I see it as part of an appropriate process, in the way that (read the article history) an undiscussed redirect (no merge, and to a largely empty article) was not. I would keep it (not even particularly strongly), but Fram was entirely right to open the AfD and put it to discussion.
My WP:IDONTLIKEWHOCREATEDIT comment was pretty obviously about the two other editors linked from that same clause and not Fram. Again, it's a procedural thing. OK, if they claim this article was created by a sock, and it should be deleted on that basis (which isn't a good reason for deletion anyway) then they first have to prove the sock connection, for which we have SPI. You can't just handwave at an article, say "I don't like this, so I think a sock must have done it, it's gone!". Andy Dingley (talk) 15:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
pretty obviously about the two other editors - Not at all obvious. This whole report looks to be based on Fram taking that as directed at him (which I thought it was, too). Surely you can see how it might appear hypocritical to have someone open with a personal comment about the nominator [or so it seemed], just to follow it up with a "please comment on content not contributors" kind of comment? — Rhododendritestalk \\ 16:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, you personalized the discussion first. It would be great if Fram hadn't reacted to your baiting, but it's certainly understandable. To then come here and complain is indeed hypocritical. Floquenbeam (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove it? Maybe if they'd done that. Certainly if they'd apologised for "hasty language" or something. But to remove it, yet highlight it as It's better not to post all truths on Wikipedia though – come off it! That is no sort of sincere or GF retraction. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where? By not mentioning Fram at all ? By linking the user talk page of the other two editors (not Fram!) in the same sentence? By replying, Fram, you are attacking me for things I have nothing to do with, please check again. ? (Oh no, that wasn't even me, that was Fram's reply.)
If this had been a newbie editor, I wouldn't have commented. But this is Fram: who has been here long enough to know what you can't and can't do, and yet has such an appalling track record for harassment that they had to invent a whole new sort of WP:SANFRANFRAMBAN to cover it. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If. Followed by a link to the other editor's talk page (which you conveniently omitted), not Fram's, and their discussion there of the socking issue and the response to delete-without-AfD. It is not unreasonable to phrase it as I did, and it's no slur on Fram to postulate that they might join with that viewpoint in the future (obviously they hadn't gone that way yet). I had no beef with Fram at this point, merely with the idea of undiscussed article removals and no AfD, without even bothering with checkuser. But Fram then had to start making it personal. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also interpreted AD's "IDONTLIKEWHOCREATEDIT" as a comment on Fram. It was at the very least seriously confusing, since at that point only Fram (the nom) and one other editor had commented. Describing the AFD itself as an IDONTLIKEWHOCREATEDIT would be a misleadingly oblique way to criticize editors who had not participated in the AFD. Not seeing the need for any action against Fram here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In this specific instance, I'm ok with Fram calling you a hypocrite, yes. I guess the most relevant part of NPA would be "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence", with this accusation being immediately adjacent to the evidence. I'm "ok" in the sense of "disapprove mildly of the phrasing, but not enough to consider even a warning", not "I think this was exemplary behavior". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I fully protected the article for a week. Whereas the arguments of the IP are not very promising, they still started the talk page discussion, and it would be good if the discussion can continue for a while. Ymblanter (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TheLawMan85 has been INDEFfed for a variety of reasons rendering the ANI complete. Discussion re: the source can continue via the usual channels. StarMississippi17:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It is not considered unreliable, there is no consensus on reliability. You are engaging in disruptive editing by removing the source. Thank you. TheLawMan85 (talk) 16:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quoted from WP:RSPThere is no consensus as to RealClearPolitics's reliability. They appear to have the trappings of a reliable source, but their tactics in news reporting suggest they may be publishing non-factual or misleading information. Use as a source in a Wikipedia article should probably only be done with caution, and better yet should be avoided.JoshuaJ28 (talk) 16:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
non-admin comment So, this may be better for WP:DISPUTE since the reliability of RealClearPolitics is in question. However, a no consensus on a source is the equivalent of saying this source cannot be used to justify GNG. When it comes to creating content, there is some leeway, though I would err on the side of caution. In this case, I would also avoid using RCP as a poll source. Others should also comment on this, but WP:DISPUTE may give better answers. Conyo14 (talk) 17:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Page-banned editor making malicious accusations again
Singleton4321 (talk·contribs), who was blocked from editing Oliver James (psychologist) following a previous ANI report (see link), has engaged in WP:IDNHT fights on their talk page with other editors reeking of WP:TRUTH, WP:FRINGE and WP:NPA, not to mention the same behavior that got them banned there in the first place. The difference being they blame everyone but themselves for their predicament and prefers doing so despite advice by editors on how to appeal otherwise and believe that falsely and maliciously accusing editors they disagree with of engaging in a collaborative conspiracy does not count as WP:NPA. Borgenland (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still say this is an imposter bent on making the article subject look like an inept self-aggrandizer. The world-renowned, universally feted, incomparably accomplished expert and best-selling author he keeps telling us he is wouldn't act this way. EEng05:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the last half-year or or so, User:QuantumFoam66 has been making numerous problematic CfD nominations of categories. While initially given the benefit of the doubt, it has become clear that they refuse to get the point and have either removed people's posts from their talkpage or not responded to concerns at all. They were warned numerous times about this type of behavior, including by an admin, in no uncertain terms, and that they should at least ask for assistance if they are unsure of Wikipedia's category naming policy, but they have ignored any warnings and taken it upon themselves to be a one-person category crusader, indicating they are not here to collaborate even if they are here to "build" an encyclopedia. While many of their nominations were successful and I even agreed with, many others waste hours of editors' time and energy.
In addition to this, there has been some instances of unexplained content removal. Overall I think that there should at least be a topic ban from editing or nominating Categories at all, so that they can focus on content creation rather than disrupting the backend of Wikipedia, though the unwillingness to respond at all to complaints suggests larger issues with being able to ever coexist with other editors.
Lol, yeah, the username had me confused. Come to think of it, that would likely be an accidental forgery so I would suggest she tweaks it somehow. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there. I need to address something. It is wrong to nominate categories or other pages for deletion or merging just because I do not agree with them. I have to be more concerned with non-defining traits than things I do not feel comfortable with. I understand how much bad karma I gave myself over all this, and I promise it will never happen again. Also, are trying to "topic ban" from categories and nominations? Because I am legitimately trying perk up at this point. We all learn from our mistakes after all. There actually isn't much left for me to do with adding/removing categories though.. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 01:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking, we all make mistakes sometimes. But when editors repeatedly keep making the same mistakes, without interest in learning from them or changing their ways, that's when we have a problem. I'm not saying you are, or are not, in violation of this, merely letting you know. Sergecross73msg me01:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't trying to imply that any individual thing, taken on its own, was disruptive. What is disruptive is continuing to do the same thing over numerous months without taking a step back and learning first. Especially when you're basically putting most of your time into categories. People expect a high level of accuracy or at least trying to learn from your mistakes. I get that it's meant in good faith, since some of your nominations have indeed been correct, but going to ANI has been a last resort here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
QuantumFoam, its not about bad karma. Its about how much time you've wasted of other peoples. And frankly, given your response here, I don't think you understand the scope of the problem. If you were trying to learn from your mistakes, you'd engage with the comments on your talk page and try to understand how to address the concerns raised. It's your lack of responsiveness. SMasonGarrison04:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
121Fam (talk·contribs)
Despite numerous talk page notices and a current COIN thread, user continues to edit without addressing the COI suspicions raised. Not sure what to do at this point other than ask an admin to take a look and advise a path forward.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked them indef until they start responding to concerns. This is a collaborative project. Any admin can unblock if they start participating in discussions. This is NOT a block for COI editing, just to force them to respond. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. And, clear on the block reason as well. At this point I am just hoping for a discussion so they can address the concerns. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could an admin please lock this page? There's been a lot of vandalism because of some recent events and the request for protection hasn't been answered (usually takes a while anyway, but there's too much vandalism). Thank you. Nythar (💬-🍀) 23:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This editor has made about 40 edits adding weights (e.g. "200 grams") to bird articles. The additions are always unsourced (example) and frequently have "chatbot-speak" (example). They haven't responded to any of the warnings I left on their talk page, and continue to make another edit every 1–2 minutes. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked the bird weight IP for 72 hours for persistently adding unreferenced bird weight content. If the behavior persists after three days has passed, we can consider other options to prevent the disruption. Cullen328 (talk) 04:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on the severity, persistent BLP violations or rapid widespread insertions are usually disruptive enough to be reported there. Getting back to this specific case, given the transparentgaming of AC and their failure to WP:COMMUNICATE, they should at the very least be blocked from mainspace until they engage with community concerns. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 06:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The network/kid's show space has a lot of these types of 'corporate name mix' vandals, so this has to be a sock of one of them, but which one I'm not sure just on a quick read. Nate•(chatter)17:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Complaint regarding user FromCzech's disruptive edits and retaliatory behavior
FromCzech(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) - I am writing to formally complain about user FromCzech's recent actions, which appear to be retaliatory and disruptive, following my proposal to move Lokotrans Aréna under the title Mladá Boleslav Municipal Stadium and opening this topic for discussion. After initiating this move, FromCzech—a Czech editor with no previous interest in Polish stadiums—entered the last article I edited, Białystok Municipal Stadium, and unilaterally changed its title to Stadion Miejski (Białystok). Subsequently, they began editing it to reflect their preferred version, despite no prior engagement with Polish stadium topics. FromCzech has cited WP:RMUM as justification for the move. However, RMUM guidelines state: If you disagree with a prior bold move, and the new title has not been in place for a long time, you may revert the move yourself. If you cannot revert the move for technical reasons, then you may request a technical move. The current title has been in place since May 25, 2024—long enough to establish consistency and stability. This recent unilateral move and editing style appear to be in poor faith, seeming less about constructive editing and more about escalating conflict over naming conventions. Such conduct undermines collaborative principles and detracts from Wikipedia’s commitment to fair editorial practices. I request that action be taken to address this behavior and review the recent move for compliance with Wikipedia's standards on etiquette and editorial integrity. Paradygmaty (talk) 07:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to emphasize that my expectation is for an administrator to restore the article title to what it was as of this morning (Białystok Municipal Stadium). The previous title had been stable and well-established, and I believe reverting to it would reflect Wikipedia’s principles of consistency and proper editorial process. Paradygmaty (talk) 07:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Jéské Couriano; my concern here is less about the title itself and more about FromCzech’s retaliatory and disruptive behavior, which I believe warrants an administrative review. Paradygmaty (talk) 07:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the affected user feels that this is a personal attack, then I apologize, it was not intended that way. With his link in RM, the user drew attention to an article where the name change was achieved without a proper discussion in less than a year, so I restored the original name. I did not expect such an aggressive reaction, I hope that I have the right to edit articles from other countries than I come from and concerning other interests than my own. FromCzech (talk) 08:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current title has been in place since May 25, 2024, and the previous title was there since the inception of the article in 2020 until your page move on May 25. WP:EDITCON does not really apply here on the new title as the number of edits between May 25 till now is limited. I would view the previous title as the last stable one. Please open an Requested Move discussion instead. – robertsky (talk) 11:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about WP:UE? Białystok Municipal Stadium goes for Stadion Miejski in Białystok. As a Polish editor, I believe I have a deeper understanding of the cultural and linguistic context surrounding Polish stadiums. For this reason, it’s important that any changes to established names involve input from those who regularly work on these topics. Paradygmaty (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Paradygmaty, you can make that argument in a Requested Move discussion. Except for editing restrictions, editors can edit any article unless they are topic banned just like your edits aren't limited to articles on Polish subjects. LizRead!Talk!00:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on my past years of spam-fighting, this guy will be back with another account unless his domain is blacklisted. Blacklist any associated domains, too.
A. B., it would probably be best to report this at the appropriate page regarding the blacklist. I don't think any action will be taken regarding this proposal on ANI. I know that I don't know how to add URLs to the blacklist and I don't think most editors or admins do either. LizRead!Talk!03:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Love the talk page comment "Let the corporations that step on the skulls of the oppressed masses pay through teeth for the right beat the largest drum." And unsourced.[135]Doug Wellertalk12:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at this thinking it might have been a different LTA, but it appears to be Canoe1967, who appears to have been socking under various accounts recently, some of which have been blocked for various crypto trolling. I'll raise a proforma SPI to record my findings and issue a few more blocks. GirthSummit (blether)12:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Roberto221 has implicitly threatened to contact my employer.
On a number of occasions, he has uploaded non-free depictions of coats of arms of Roman Catholic bishops using, in my estimation, improper licensing - free versions may be made, and there are indeed thousands of them made by various Wikipedia heralds; moreover, he uploads them using {{Non-free seal}} which concerns government entities. I have, as such, requested speedy deletion on a number of these uploads that seems to be improperly licensed, most recently File:Coat of Arms of Kevin Thomas Kenney(Saint Paul and Minneapolis).jpg. In response to my most recent request, Roberto221 stated "Who is your bishop, I'd like to have a word with him.." (cf. revision). I am a Catholic priest and this implicit threat to contact my bishop, an attempt to disrupt my employment based on good-faith efforts, is very worrisome. I would like it addressed in whatever manner is deemed appropriate.
I generally agree that Roberto221's implied threat to contact an employer was uncivil and unnecessarily escalatory, particularly given that it was over good-faith speedy tagging of likely copyvios. I think a simple warning to avoid similar comments is in order. Since no effort appears to have been made to release private information, I do not believe additional action beyond that is necessary. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be good form for Roberto221 to retract the threat to contact a bishop. While not exactly the same as a legal threat, it has a lot in common with one in terms of its chilling effect on editing, and should be considered unwelcome for the same reasons. Certainly, it should be clear that any attempt to double down or act on this threat is grounds for an indefinite block: Wikipedia disputes are resolved on Wikipedia, not through threats of offline discipline. signed, Rosguilltalk19:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the comments here all day, no one had posted a warning to editor Roberto221's user talk page so I have done so. Discussion at ANI isn't effective if no action is taken to inform editors that behavior is unacceptable. LizRead!Talk!00:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reverend, Once again you have failed to grasp the concept of non-free. It was uploaded as a non-free file with its use limited to ONLY one page as any other non-free file. If you keep persisting on these attacks, then I will have no recourse but to bring this up with the editors/admins. Who is your bishop, I'd like to have a word with him..
Regardless of the situation with the coat of arms, this was a completely asinine and unnecessarily belligerent escalation, and should not be done under any circumstances. It is fine (and desirable) to escalate a dispute to other editors, or to a noticeboard such as this one; it is absolutely not permissable to escalate them irl. Editors here are free to speak the truth, and to edit without partiality, on the basis of pseudonymity -- this is an obvious threat to carry out WP:OUTING. On the basis that there may have been a simple lack of understanding of the seriousness of the policies involved here, I am giving them a single warning -- anything like this in the future will result in a block. jp×g🗯️00:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was using a translator too, because I never studied Russian. I was legit trying to understand what her complaint was about, because there is nothing libelous in the article, but as soon as she trotted out the "I'm going to contact my lawyer", I stopped caring. Bgsu98(Talk)20:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I encourage all sockpuppets to confess at any administrative noticeboard. Patrolling administrators will be happy to block you lickety split. Cullen328 (talk) 06:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[140][141] Requests to both editors on their individual TPs to strike their comments as uncivil/personal attack.
Since the request Great Mercian has continued to edit but has neither struck the comment nor otherwise responded.
[142] Rc2barrington responded at their TP: There has been some evidence-backed allegations made that other editors have ignored evidence and have engaged in disruptive editing, against Wikipedia rules. [emphasis in original]
[143] Rc2barrington was advised at their TP that the appropriate place to raise an issue was ANI. The initial request was repeated. They were also advised of WP:GSRUSUKR. Neither action has been taken by Rc2barrington.
Cinderella157, so the personal attack is saying an editor(s) is dragging out a discussion? Were there other edits? Maybe it's the time I've spent on ANI over the years but that seems pretty mild. I'm not sure it warrants a visit to ANI. What resolution were you seeking here? LizRead!Talk!04:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is an aspersion of bad faith editing made even more explicit by Rc2barrington in a CTOP/GS area where higher expectations of conduct are expected. There discussions involve many editors in respect to adding North Korea in the infobox and more specifically when we should do this. The pressure to do this now is being pushed by many non-ECP editors or editors that have limited experience. It comes down to what NEWSORG sources are actually saying v what some editors want/see them to say. Listing a nation as a belligerent is an exception claim and "supported by" is deprecated except where there is a strong affirmative consensus (RfC). It is like there is a competition to add NK and the issue is causing disruption. Editors are starting to see this as a them against us battle. The fall of Bakhmut created a similarly hostile editing environment. These are not the only two instances I could raise but others are generally by drive by IPs. They will likely get worse. An admin striking these with an appropriate comment that the page is being watched (and doing so) will have some positive effect. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be little doubt among reliable sources that North Korean troops are now in the Kursk region near Ukraine. I do not want to intervene directly in the content dispute but it seems to me that describing the North Koreans as "belligerents" at this time is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence. They could be there for mutual training or to poke the nose of Russia's many opponents. A geopolitical warning, as it were, and preparation for elite North Korean troops to operate outside their largely closed society. If reliable sources in days and weeks to come report that North Korean troops are actively attacking Ukraine, and inflicting and suffering casualties, then obviously all previous bets are off. Until then, I believe that policy requires a cautious and conservative description of North Korean involvement in that horrible and bloody war. Cullen328 (talk) 06:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen328, you have effectively summarised the views of experienced editors but the TP (and at Russo-Ukraine War) is being bombarded to change this now. And the aspersions against those opposing a change now for the reasoning you give are starting too. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)But, Cullen328, do you think this complaint calls for admin action? It sounds like the whole talk page discussion is potentially divisive and that goes beyond two isolated comments by these two editors. If similar comments (or worse) are being made by other editors, I don't know that these two editors should be sanctioned. Maybe the talk page should be protected for a while if there are problematic drive-by comments. LizRead!Talk!06:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, I am not recommending any use of the administrative toolkit at this moment in time. I will probably be awake for another hour or so and then will need seven to eight hours of sleep until my California morning. Maybe when I wake up, the North Koreans will be engaged in full scale combat in Ukraine. Maybe not, I hope. My goal at the moment is to discourage editors from getting "too far in front of their skis" about what reliable sources are saying at the particular time that I make this comment. Cullen328 (talk) 07:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
Indeffed per WP:NOTHERE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Resolved![[133]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Trump_DOJ_BTC_chart2024_Q3Q4.jpg&oldid=1253594504){kind=link}
![[134]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Bitcoin_weeney_pack_Oct_27_2024.jpeg&oldid=1253690179){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}