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)
You're right, there's a tremendous number of edits invoked by Dominic3203 on other's userspace pages. I see a few other third-party uses, but it's very sporadic, 1 or 2 edits, unlike what Dominic3203 did. One problem is that Dominic3203 has a pattern of editing for a few days or as much as a week or two, then going away for a month or two, so the user may literally be not here to answer your query. — rsjaffe🗣️19:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I must be old OLD school because I don't understand how an editor "runs" a bot but it leaves no trace in their own contributions. He otherwise doesn't look like a very active editor. LizRead!Talk!20:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: I guess because he's using the toolforge expand citation bot so the bot runs on a page but it handily tells us who ran it on the edit description. I think that's why because its the bot making the edit but the bot also points out who's responsible for it.
@Rsjaffe: I had considered that but given he has edited (and run the bot) after I left him a message, I felt concerned that it best to report here because it feels annoying at best and disruptive at worst to be doing things like that in people's userspaces. The C of E God Save the King! (talk)20:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying it's your responsibility to do so, but just FYI, for a low drama way to stop this, you can put {{bots|deny=Citation bot}} on your drafts. I agree it's sort of uncool what they're doing, in a hard to define way. Not saying this is necessary at this point, but out of curiosity, is there actually a way to prevent someone from doing this? It's not on-wiki, so a block doesn't work. I don't know that there is a Citation Bot blacklist. Finally, not as an accusation but as a genuine question, did the Citation Bot run actually harm anything? Floquenbeam (talk) 20:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose not in terms of damage because its easy to just revert it but when its every single draft page page, its more of an irritant and very discourteous to be doing it without asking. I didn't know about the tag but it seems odd because no one expects to have someone to do this. The C of E God Save the King! (talk)22:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edits of my sandbox pages make no harm to anyone, but the excessive use of the bot on non-productive means which effectlively slows down the bot used for legitimate purposes of expanding citations on the main namespace - that is a point of concern. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:36, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any excessive use of Citation bot without double checking the results afterwards is cause for concern as well. I don't understand why Citation bot runs in namespaces other than 0 at all, and editors should not be modifying pages in the userspace of another editor without good reason (copyvio, povforks, blpvio, impersonation, etc are all good reasons; "a script might think it can improve citation metadata" is not). imho Folly Mox (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was looking at Citation Bot's edits in User and Draft space and it's not limited to this editor, apparently many editors do this. Now that I've seen experienced editors setting up bot runs, I don't think this editor should be penalized. It's unusual given their level of experience but it's done by other editors. LizRead!Talk!07:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm not mistaken, you do need to be unblocked to Oauth for the bot to run. However, I am not saying this user needs a block for this, as it is basically harmlessly eccentric. Andre🚐07:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrevan: I wasn't angling for a block for him at all. Just really wanted him to know that that sort of eccentric behaviour is not appropriate for Wikipedia and can be a little disruptive. I was hoping if the admins could impress that on him (as indeed consensus seems to say) and maybe find a way to stop it being used on userspaces without permission (albeit I know that last one might not be technically possible). The C of E God Save the King! (talk)18:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz, OAuth was implemented for the bot such that edits did appear assigned to the editor, but there were immediate complaints about that behavior, so it was changed to the current behavior. I would have preferred otherwise, but so it goes. A consensus could conceivably come to another arrangement, but that's a discussion for another page and time for what seems like a minor annoyance... IznoPublic (talk) 05:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dominic3203 has returned to running Citation bot on userspace drafts without having shown the courtesy of stopping by this ANI thread. These drafts are submitted to AFC, so that part isn't a huge deal, but Dominic3203 is 💯 not checking anything his Citation bot runs are publishing.
1 doesn't fix obvious miscapitalisation, author name misparameterised in title, or unrecognised language in citation altered
2 pointlessly changes a malformatted wikilink into an information-free {{cite web}}
3 fails to fix middle initials misparameterised as surnames, location misparameterised as publisher, or incorrect allcaps in citations altered
4 alters a duplicated citation twice in the same exact ways, without just naming and reusing it
All of these are from today. In none of these cases has Dominic3203 actually come back to any of the pages he is blindly shooting Citation bot at and actually fixed any of the genuine issues with the citations there. This type of editing is not at all helpful, and I think I'd like Dominic3203 to comment here before continuing this unreviewed bot action. Folly Mox (talk) 00:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings everyone, I am the main protagonist Dominic3203. Thank you for your time and interest to leaving a plentiful amount of comments. I have only one problem in mind, as if this tool is supposed to be used worldwide, isn't it awkward to have no 'Do's & Don'ts' anywhere, but instead blaming the user not following the so-called 'code of conduct'? I would like to hear your thoughts, thank you. Dominic3203 (talk) 13:49, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dominic3203: It's simple. Please do not use it on other people's userspaces or their drafts without asking them. It should be self-evident that you don't use it there because its incredibly uncivil because the majority of articles that are in draft in userspaces is because they aren't ready to have any bot run on them. Please undertake that you will not do this again. The C of E God Save the King! (talk)08:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dominic3203, thanks for responding here.The very first words at User:Citation bot read: Editors who activate this bot should carefully check the results to make sure that they are as expected. Personally, that's all I'm asking: Check the results of your bot runs. Click through to each article edited. Look for errors Citation bot failed to correct in the citations it edited, and check for errors it introduced. Fix these. That is responsible tool usage.If you don't have time to check 775 edits, limit yourself to running Citation bot against smaller categories where you'll realistically have the time and energy to check its results.It's unfair to those of us who manually clean up after Citation bot and other citation tools when the people who use the tools in very high volumes don't assist in the cleanup of their own actions. Folly Mox (talk) 11:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm allowed to be impatient and fatalistic: I would appreciate an admin replacing this block sooner rather than later, since I have had to resume the reversion of nearly every edit this user makes since it expired on the 14th. I cannot stress enough that their behavior is perfectly identical to before, including the total lack of interest in communication or discretion. Remsense ‥ 论23:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've closed the various formal proposals below - one which was carried with sufficient consensus of editors, and another two which did not pass. I pray, for everyone's sake, that this is the end of this for at least a little while — although I acknowledge that may be wishful thinking. But for now, closing this mega-thread with a note/prayer that hopefully we can avoid another one of these threads in the very immediate future. I don't think it's an unreasonable summation to say that should this general issue flare up again, the underlying community sentiment is that we probably want a more decisive resolution via the arbitration process; however, the best case scenario would be to avoid such a flare-up from triggering this altogether. Daniel (talk) 04:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I know, I know, we all thought we were done here, but LB is posting childish attacks on his userpage [1] apparently thinking he is very clever to be posting the names backwards. He clearly has a serious issue with knowing when to drop the stick. This immature foolishness needs to stop. I don't think simply undoing the edits is sufficient, this is a deliberate, malicious provocation right after a thread about his uncivil behavior was just closed. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today22:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, how about you just ignore it. Since you're complimenting AndyTheGrump on his "top billing", you're clearly not offended in the slightest. Suggest you find someone else to interact with, for a year or several. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:09, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JSS, you complain that Lightburst needs to drop the stick, but it looks to me like you are the editor who needs to do just that. I saw the user page edit, was mildly puzzled by it, but didn't understand the meaning (spell the usernames backwards) until you explained it here. After you posted this and this on Lightburst's talk, you did the opposite and kept watching, looking for something to raise here at ANI. You should unwatch, and move on. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've arrived at a conclusion not in evidence. I was not looking for something to raise here at ANI and I don't think shooting the messenger is an appropiate response to trolling. You don't seem to have considered other possibilities, including a third party letting me know my name was being dragged into user space trolling. I didn't expect this, or want it. I never would've imagined that he would actually be this infantile and I don't want anything to do with him, but he keeps bringing my name back up. He's not a victim here. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today23:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's truly indefensible is the conduct of Wikipediocracy users these past 8 months. The guideline you cite says "statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities". The list was related to Wikipedia, in that it relates to the conduct of Wikipedia users on WPO, who have acted in disruptive and hounding behavior. If you don't like Lightburst, simply stop interacting with them. Remove their userpage and talk page from your watchlist. Simple enough solution, instead of dragging them to ANI yet again. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see that Floq removed the userpage content that has been objected to here. I agree with that, and I think it solves the problem. I hope that we can all more on, now. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, we're just going to let trolling pass from someone who was just at ANI for their ridiculous behavior because one of the targets of the trolling happen to notice they were being accused of trolling/being a dick? Seems totally reasonable. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today23:48, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn’t appear that the community is going to be able to resolve this matter. Perhaps it’s time to refer the matter to Arbcom, including WPO’s influence regarding the entire mess. 209.212.33.81 (talk) 00:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to post the same. I don't know the full history here but this seems like an longstanding, intractable dispute between groups of multiple users. It's clearly not suddenly going to be resolved in this ANI thread, especially given the off-wiki element. Pinguinn🐧00:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's an interesting idea, but I don't know how that could work in practice. As much as I appreciate ArbCom for their help in regards to another issue I was involved with earlier this year, I concur with the user who suggested in the last ANI thread that the Trust & Safety team may be the more appropriate venue for this now. There are at least 1-way interaction bans that should be issued against several of the users who have been hounding and gaslighting Lightburst this past year... if not outright site-bans. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As has been frequently remarked here, in relation to other topics, nobody needs to obtain consensus or consent here at ANI to start an ArbCom case on anything. The same applies to contacting Trust and Safety. My only advice to anyone proposing to do either would be to take into consideration that their own behaviour is also certain to receive scrutiny. And in particular, that the repeated use of noticeboards etc to make allegations about alleged improper behaviour, unaccompanied by evidence to actually back it up, even after it has repeatedly been requested, has real potential to rebound. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get the full image, but the userpage diff provided is surely an evidence of unacceptable behavior (uhh, crossing the red line?). If someone can point me out where users are "hounding" LB (as Homeostasis07 said) that'd help me. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 01:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Such evidence cannot be linked on a public forum like ANI. For instance, AndyTheGrump accused me in the previous ANI of an "utterly evidence-free attempt to link me with imaginary doxxing on WPO." I was indeed doxed by a certain user on Wikipediocracy, who not-so-cleverly repeatedly misspelled my username as "homostasis" when posting what they thought were my personal details. I'm not homosexual, but I have LGBTQ+ friends and family members, so I consider the repeated intentional "misspelling" of my name to be a derogatory slur. But I can't provide a link to those WPO posts without one of the WPO regulars accusing me of doxing them. That's a fairly typical example of WPO harassment, obfuscation, and gaslighting that users here have been dealing with. And it needs to stop. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since I can find no evidence whatsoever that anyone was 'doxxed' on Wikipediocracy under the misspelled name 'homostasis' I am going to formally request that Homeostasis07 provide evidence of such supposed 'doxxing' by email to a member of ArbCom. Pick any ArbCom member you like. Just ask that they confirm or deny such evidence exists. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I object! Not to all the hot air being blown in this thread, but to my old nicely-organized userpage being turned into a chaotic mess! Images? On the side??? Put them in the centre, like a normal person! Lightburst, you can do better. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:02, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Htap T - Soldier troll"?
More baseless guilt by association bullshit that lacks any merit. This is the third time in a week that LB has called me a troll. ATG got a block for less than this last time. Do we have different standards for different editors depending on whether there has been pile ons regarding civility in the past? TarnishedPathtalk02:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, as an admin completely uninvolved in whatever off-wiki drama keeps getting alluded to here, do we have an editor (i.e. Lightburst) who, while in a dispute with a number of other editors, posted their names under the not-so-cleverly concealed header "dicks" and proceeded to label them as trolls on their user page? And most of you in this thread are, like, ok with that? If I had seen that post before I saw this thread, I would have blocked for 48 hours. Is Lightburst an exception to our policies regarding civility? Because whatever is happening (vague hand wave) over there is one thing, but this is unacceptable behaviour here.-- Ponyobons mots19:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there are incidences of trolling happening off-wiki involving Wikipedia editors, then evidence can be provided to Arbcom. Accusations of such behaviour are not carte blanche to violate our policies here. Are you suggesting that anyone who is in an off-wiki dispute, whether it be WPO or otherwise, can host personal attacks on their talk page regarding active editors on this project? -- Ponyobons mots20:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not "if," we are all 100% sure that trolling is happening on WPO, because it's public. You can go verify that for yourself if you want. Evidence has been provided not only to arbcom, but also posted on wiki. When WPO trolls Editor X, I wouldn't characterize Editor x as "in an off-wiki dispute." Levivich (talk) 23:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WPO doesn't have any policies against trolling WP editors, there's nothing we can do about that. But WP does have policies against trolling and LB knows that, so what he did was wrong, and he knows that as well.Isaidnoway(talk)01:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WPO may not have policies, but Wikipedia does. Our policy on off-wiki attacks states that personal attacks made elsewhere create doubt about the good faith of an editor's on-wiki actions. Posting personal attacks or defamation off-Wikipedia is harmful to the community and to an editor's relationship with it and that Such attacks can be regarded as aggravating factors by administrators and are admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process. So I'm not sure there's strictly nothing we can do about the former. We can and should do something about the off-wiki behavior as much as we can and should do something about the on-wiki behavior. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 16:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but what LB did was still wrong and he knows that, which is why this report was initiated in the first place. And as you correctly point out and quote, we do have a policy, and there is a process to follow, but for some reason, LB chose not to use that process, and instead, engaged in the same behavior as his tormentors, which can now be used against him as admissible evidence.Isaidnoway(talk)23:27, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's kinda easy to tell this 2nd ANI thread is not going to resolve the dispute. Even if this ANI is closed, the same issue would fire up some time later and get taken to ANI again. Where are we heading with this? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 02:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blocks are supposed to be preventative. Perhaps a block on LB’s account until they commit to cease the personal attacks? Could be over and done in minutes. 209.212.33.81 (talk) 02:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those edits to his user page are concerning and could be considered PAs. I can’t speak to the harassment on WPO, but I take you at your word that it’s happening. 209.212.33.81 (talk) 02:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Something going to ArbCom doesn't prevent the community from taking any action. Stating that it should be only handled by ArbCom may be a stalling tactic especially in the absence of an actual case. Even if a request is made to ArbCom for a case, there is no guarantee they will take it. TarnishedPathtalk04:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning left-and-right here, after taking a look through the mentioned WPO threads about LB and Homeostasis (and WPO site admin's "comments" on it), and examining how the thing in the thread has gone so far. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 04:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not start this thread as an intentional prelude to an ArbCom case, I expected an admin would see this childish trolling and issue a block of some sort, as it usual when someone with LB's level of experience suddenly just starts out-and-out trolling. Since that doesn't seem to be forthcoming I do think this may be a case of the community not being able to handle certain issues and it may be time for a case. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today17:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that that nobody in any of these comments is expressing surprise or puzzlement that LB made a "list of dicks" using an infantile secret code. Nobody seems to think this is out-of-character and the account may be compromised, they are just finding other excuses for it. It says something that this is the case. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today21:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to point out somewhere (maybe the previous section would have been better? maybe this section but not as a reply to JSS? too many choices too late in the day on a Friday) that the list has been off the page for a full day now. Not all policy violations require a block. Some of them can be smoothed over by removing the problem, letting tempers simmer down, and seeing if it recurs. Removal instead of blocking is not condoning or "finding excuses for it". I do not condone LB's post, nor their attacks on several WPians whose only "crime" is being a WPO member. That can't continue. But I can give afford to give some small amount of grace to someone who is being harassed by other WPO members, and see if just removing the list works first. LB has not edited WP since then. let's see what happens. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It has become clear in the discussion above that a wider examination of the entire circumstance needs to take place, either at ArbCom or even the Trust & Safety team. This is a preemptive CBAN proposal by a potential involved party, presumably in hope of the wider examination not taking place. So if anything... a WP:BOOMERANG for obfuscation. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 03:02, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Seems excessive. If LB wants to look infantile on his user page, it doesn't harm anyone but him. There may well be broader grounds for a block (the socking some years back, and the subsequent personal-attack-ridden denials come to mind), but they need to be discussed properly before any CBAN. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, unchanged opinion since the last time I !voted at one of these, which wasn't long ago, and am close to supporting one for Homeostasis07 as well for their disruptive defense of LB which includes multiple castings of WP:ASPERSIONS of their own. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)03:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and kick to ArbComm. ANI isn't going to resolve this and enough is enough. @Lightburst I say this politely: enough. Whatever the merits you feel with the Camp & Lake, trolling isn't the answer. StarMississippi03:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - In one of the multiple threads in the public forums on WPO about Lightburst, somebody named "TarnishedPath" posted an ironic message, The suggestion that canvassing had occurred it pure idiocy. Somebody else named "Beeblebrox" has posted there more than 10 times. I'll email the link to arbcom rather than posting here. What I don't understand is whether you guys think we won't notice this? Or we won't care? Or it's OK to do this? But I do support Floq's removal of the ill-considered userpage content, and @LB: don't sink down to their level, let it go. Levivich (talk) 04:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if that was a comment I wrote, there is absolutely zero evidence of me engaging in harassment. Claims of misbehaviour require evidence supporting them, not just stuff you don't like because hey fuck it lets just hang everyone for the vaguest of connections. TarnishedPathtalk04:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When one editor talks about another editor on both websites while pretending they're not talking about the editor on both websites, and then expresses indignancy at the other editor complaining about it, even going so far as to propose a CBAN, I find that behavior so blatantly duplicitous as to be morally repugnant, even more-so if the editor uses the same username on both websites. It stirs strong feelings in me and compels me to take action like emailing the link to arbcom. Levivich (talk) 04:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're talking out of your backside. You and I both know that any comments I've made have not been personal attacks. I first became aware of WPO precisely because of the complaint that LB started about ATG. I find your guilt by association bullshit morally repugnant. TarnishedPathtalk05:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment LB is not a new user and has had numerous conduct related issues come to this forum and others in the past; so given that context I find it absolutely baffling why anyone would think it's acceptable for them to make a "List of Richards" (e.g., "dicks") and not merit sanctions. This isn't a user who didn't know better. This is someone who took time and effort into making and then masking a direct personal attack against several other editors. I am not voting one way or another because I don't know if a CBAN is the right sanction or not, but a slap on the wrist and "don't do that" is beyond insufficient. ⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!05:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the fact is, Swatjester, is that LB is aware they are under scrutiny and they had to know that this addition to their User page would be noted pretty much immediately either here or on WPO (or both). And that's what happened. So, I don't really think there was a serious attempt to hide anything. It seems like basic trolling to me. LizRead!Talk!05:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's assume you're correct -- does that make any difference? Either way, it's deliberate and intentional, and we expect better. The issue isn't the poor attempt at hiding the personal attack, it's the attack itself. ⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!06:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that if anything "knew they were under scrutiny and deliberately attempted to provoke their perceived opponents" is an aggravating factor rather than a mitigating one here. Wikipedia userpages aren't a place to settle personal scores with 'enemies'.
I don't fully understand all the off-wiki background here, but if there is really an actionable case then LightbreatherLightburst should have taken it to ArbCom, who are capable of dealing with off-wiki evidence, rather than acting like the schoolchild who keeps poking at their classmate until they snap at them in order to get them in trouble. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 06:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC) (corrected by mix-up in editor names Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:42, 18 October 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Oppose, assuming Lightburst doesn't do anything monumentally shortsighted like restoring the user page. WP:BRINE aside, I don't feel comfortable with a cban given the circumstances. With that said, Lightburst has a history, and I can't promise I won't support if there's a next time. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose since this incident has been handled by Floq, however, if the conduct continues, I'd encourage an admin to take decisive action and block LB to prevent another ANI timesink.Isaidnoway(talk)07:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We're nowhere near that point yet. But that list was a major violation of user page standards (and of course of civility), and is a black mark on Lightburst's record. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Nowheere near CBAN territory, it does matter how the reporter found it, this report reads like an attempt to throw shit at the wall and see what sticks. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - out of proportion to the matter, which has been dealt with by an admin. An indefinite CBAN would require community consent to overturn, and that would be an unfair bar to clear, particularly as this seems to have been created in a fit of pique, and is not the measure of the editor. But it would be helpful if Lightburst would recognise that TarnishedPath did them a favour here in proposing the most stringent ban and not something more targeted and moderate. In the barely closed thread above I pointed out the aspersions being thrown around, and some fairly disgraceful comments intended to discourage a proficient editor [3] I say again what I said there: this has to stop. Sadly that thread was then derailed onto discussion of alleged provocation of Lightburst, but nothing excuses these repeated attacks aimed at that editor.Because that thread was closed early, the behaviour was not challenged, and Lightburst doubled down, e.g with [4] And it is not just the aspersions against one editor either. Guilt by association is also an aspersion. Yngvadottir sided with Lightburst throughout the discussion, and, it seems, does not hide their identity when posting on the taboo site. But here they are told that they cannot say they are not a troll simply because they post messages where alleged trolls can read them. Guilt by association. Aspersions. If there is off-wiki coordination to shepherd something off the platform, the evidence needs to be presented and action can be taken. But we are not going to assume every Wikipedian who has a Twitter account is a troll simply because they cavort on a platform filled with bullies and trolls. WP:ASPERSIONS are sanctionable. But not, I think, by a community indef. At least not here. Lightburst needs to bear this carefully in mind. Provocation is no more a defence here than the time I stood before my headmaster trying to explain why KS had suddenly acquired a nose bleed. The Tipex on my blazer was deemed irrelevant. We can behave better. This has to stop, and apologies are overdue. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and kick to arbcom I'm not happy about what lightburst did to me specifically the other day, but there needs to be an arbcom case here. The behaviour of editors on WPO is not acceptable either, and makes this case more gray than it otherwise would be. There's no reason to call it coördination (as lightburst seems to think), but I think a good case can be made for harassment. And when you don't seem to mind when the comment directly above yours is stuff like this... Look, the named wikipedia editors might be too smart to be the ones slinging insults directly most of the time, but they're still still playing a role, even if that role is coached in civil language. WPO has some lofty goals, but I don't think it's achieving more than upsetting editors through low level harassment in this particular case, and I want them to cut it the fuck out. --Licks-rocks (talk) 13:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't see this as trolling of other Wikipedia editors, so much as trolling people at WPO. (But yes, I do realize that quite a few of these people, including JSS, are also editors in good standing here.) I think someone who understandably feels mistreated by people at another website can vent about it without being CBANned for it. Floq removed the list of backwards names (and I removed the header), and Lightburst has not (at this time) restored any of it, so a CBAN would be very excessive. And a block would potentially be punitive, rather than preventive. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Lightburst was clearly attacking people from another website who comment on Wikipedia. Sure, these people happen to share the usernames of Wikipedians, but we have to assume they're not the same until they publicly disclose the account. Userspace should not be used for polemics of any kind and this was correctly removed, but it doesn't carry the full weight of personal attacks against other Wikipedians. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we assume, for the sake of common sense, that they are the same people, the context makes it distinct from personal attacks on Wikipedians. (If, purely hypothetically, LB were to have edit warred to keep the userpage material after it had been reverted, I would be taking a different position on a block.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, if a troll attacks people who we aren't sure are Wikipedians trolling is fine?
That's putting aside that several of those people, including myself, make no secret of the fact that they are the same person posting under the name at WPO, and (I know the haters won't like this as they assume the worst at all times about WPO) the mods there actually do their best to verify such things and will block accounts they suspect are using the exact same name as known Wikipedians if they seem to be impersonating them. The lengths you are going to to excuse trolling right in front of our faces, here on WP are baffling to me. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today21:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be fair here, the WPO people are trolling back at least as hard, and there's a couple more of them, Several of whom I would immediately seek sanctions against if their behavior were to be on wikipedia itself. Repeatedly calling an editor on wikipedia "brainfart" in lieu of their actual handle is not exactly the kind of behavior that invites a civil response. --Licks-rocks (talk) 22:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that. And under these circumstances, I feel that the best thing to do is to deescalate the dispute, rather than to roll out the banhammers, and that's what motivates the comments I have made. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have different rules because we are an entirely different thing than a critic discussion forum. We don't allow trolling here, or at least we aren't supposed to. Different spaces, both real and virtual, have different expectations. People don't generally act the same at their workplace as they do in a bar in the middle of the night, because the expectations are different. This is not a complicated concept. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today01:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And yet I would still step to HR if my colleagues kept referring to me as "Brainfart" at the bar after work.Or saying things like "A pod of Levivich's as he reproduces the only way he can... asexually. ". A joke @AndyTheGrump: elected to participate in without even a hint of objection, by the way. --Licks-rocks (talk) 12:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am 100% sure you are a Wikipedian and so is everyone else on that list. The lengths you are going to to excuse trolling right in front of our faces, on WPO, is baffling to me as well. Levivich (talk) 23:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Just Step Sideways: I must confess I'm at a loss as to what your actual opinions are about the extent to which Wikipedia's administration should police conduct involving offsite venues.
"It's none of our business and we can't police the whole Internet"
"We need to make sure people aren't baselessly impugning the integrity of WPO"
Well, it's neither of the things on your list there.
As far as admin actions based on WPO posts, it should only be for the most extreme type of behavior (and probably actioned by ArbCom as it would likely involve material that should not be reposted here). For example actual doxxing, which is vanishingly rare over there, if everyone keeps in mind the rather large gulf between what doxxing actually is and WP:OUTING as defined here, which is much stricter than pretty much the entire rest of the internet.
It is also worth pointing out that, as you are doubtless aware, there is considerable disagreement over there about some types of outing, in particular the posting of images of people without their permission (which seems to have stopped). And, as you are also surely aware, the main person who makes such posts is not an active Wikipedian at all and therefore entirely beyond the reach of any on-wiki authority. That, to my mind, is probably part of what motivates some people to vilify others who post there but do not partake in that sort of behavior, as a sort of proxy punishment for that person who is frustratingly out of their reach. We've seen again and again that you and others vigilantly read pretty much every single post, looking for material you think should be brought up on-wiki, almost always accomplishing exactly nothing.
If there is actual canvassing that could also be taken into account, but if people are just saying "look at this" and discussing it, that isn't canvassing. It's a forum, the entire purpose of it is discussion of what is happening on Wikipedia, without the rules that constrain what is and is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Some may not like the tone of those discussions, which is fine, I often feel the same way and there's tons of stuff there I don't even bother looking at, as others are also free to do.
This is not to say that WP itself should not have those rules, as I've said this is a different environment with a different purpose, and a level of decorum and civility is expected here that is simply not expected on an informal chat forum with avatars and animated emojis and reposts of YouTube videos.
As I and others have expressed repeatedly, commenting there is not a blanket endorsement of every other comment that has ever been made there. Collective guilt is not a concept that should be applied here.
Some have suggested that I could've ignored LB's childish trolling here on WP, without adding how incredibly easy it is for him, you, or anyone else to completely ignore WPO if they don't like it. You're clearly an avid reader of it, I assume you have an account but don't actually post, you just use it to get material for shit-stirring on-wiki. That is not the moral high ground flex you seem to think it is. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today21:45, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't find ignoring an entire group of people in a different site harassing me easy. Everyone has different views and levels of tolerations on this. While the userpage list was completely a childish attack, no matter the background that led to it was, I'm as much as concerned about the provided information about what might have led to this. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 23:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would not call it "incredibly easy" for editors to ignore when some crazy guy on a message board vigilantly stalks them and posts their real names and photos of their families, actually.
Maybe don't complain that I shared my opinion after you made a short list of what you imagined my opinion to be and pinged me in apparent anticipation of a direct reply. I didn't troll LB, either here or elsewhere. We have disagreed at times but I never resorted to trolling, while he very clearly did. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today00:55, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I asked what your opinion was about WP's policing of WPO conduct, so I appreciate you answering the question. I am not complaining about that -- I'm complaining about all the other stuff you said, which makes no sense. jp×g🗯️08:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a joke? Your suggestion is that we just obey whatever orders they give us, and then half-assedly hope they don't decide to screw us over anyway? jp×g🗯️06:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support for some block being issued, although I think a full cban is not warranted due to the fairly limited scope. It must be said: the thing that prompted this thread to be opened was unimaginably dumb. An utterly worthless thing to do. A list of dicks on your userpage? What in the world is the goal of doing that? At best it is pointless childish provocation, and at worst a deliberate attempt to waste a gigantic amount of people's time, as Lightburst often is wont to do, by sparking a giant pismire thread like this one. There really has to be some limit to how much of this nonsense we put up with. jp×g🗯️03:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. LB has, let me think, a minor violation of NPA, some arguing over an AFD, and perhaps some long-past sockpuppeteering. On the other hand, CBANs are mostly handed out for the worst of the worst, harassers, serial sockpuppeteers, malicious trolls, etc. Sincerely, Dilettante14:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Per the rough consensus of editors below, Homeostasis07 (talk·contribs) is topic-banned from discussing Wikipediocracy. Potentially more so than normal, a reminder that exemptions exist to topic-bans, which in this case would include the filing of (or participation in) any future request for arbitration. Speaking on a personal note, I would ask that editors who sit on the 'other side' of this ongoing dispute go out of their way not to bait Homeostasis07 regarding this topic ban, and would ask my colleagues to take action should they see it occur. Daniel (talk) 04:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
With the exception of an ArbComm case or providing evidence related to, Homeostasis07 is not allowed to discuss Wikipediocracy. This is at least the third discussion where they have made unsubstantiated accusations and been told how and where to provide them. They have not followed up and we're going in circles. StarMississippi03:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with the proviso that the ban be lifted immediately if and when actual verifiable evidence is provided - privately by email to ArbCom if necessary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
absolutely, and no issue with them actually providing that evidence. Alluding to it in multiple AN threads without the evidence and with no indication they'll stop is the issue. StarMississippi03:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the repeated stonewalling we are seeing (both here and at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests [5] I'm beginning to wonder whether a TBAN is sufficient. The requirement to back up allegations regarding contributor behaviour with evidence is core to the running of Wikipedia, and apparently this isn't the first time Homeostasis07 has done this. [6]AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: They have made multiple allegations and personal attacks, towards others (myself included) about supposed actions elsewhere without providing the slightest bit of evidence on any of the occasions. A TBAN as a preventative measure will ensure that Homeostasis07's disruption does not continue. TarnishedPathtalk03:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support with proviso stated by ATG. Formal sanctions are what happens when a user can't/won't listen to repeated warnings, and given that Homeostasis07 hasn't listened yet, I see no reason to believe they are about to start listening. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be more than happy to never talk about Wikipediocracy for the rest of my life. As explained here, comments made on Wikipediocracy cannot be linked on-site because it would constitute "outing". I'm awaiting confirmation from ArbCom as to whether those links can be posted publicly on an Arb case. In which case, I can provide dozens of links to doxing, harassment, homophobic slurs, insults, hounding and incivility. Not just regarding me, but for several users, many of whom I've never even interacted with. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 03:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just how many times do you need to be told that the issue needs to be dealt with publicly, but can't because of an RfC that determined posting links to WPO on Wikipedia is "outing". The harassment of Lightburst has clearly expanded on-site, with the multiple ANI discussions, so the overall issue is not just WPO conduct, but on-site conduct as well. The 2 need to be linked, which can't currently be done. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 03:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're entitled to that opinion, and I'm glad that you've finally reached out to ArbCom to inquire about the possibility of a public case. If only you'd done that in the first place, we could have avoided a lot of needless drama. As ATG has noted above, this is not your first go-round on the issue of unsubstantiated claims. When are you going to learn your lesson? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Homeostasis07: I do not think you understand how it works. If you have evidence you can't post, you are correct, you certainly don't post it. Instead, you email the committee your evidence. They then privately debate any off-wiki/outing concerns, etc., and decide upon the merits of a private vs public case. The point is: you do not get to choose whether the case is public or private. You can't: all you can do offer your suggestions. But ultimately they will decide whether the community is best served in a public Arb case or not, and that decision will be based on policy, rather than your opinion. SerialNumber5412913:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - there is a public forum thread on WPO entitled "Homeostasis07" where they posted links to what they believe are Homeostasis's social media accounts, as well as details about the person they believe Homeostasis to be based on information from those social media accounts. There's also a lot of mockery of Homeostasis in that thread. I recognize six names amongst the dozen or so who posted there (so far), and will email it to arbcom (along with a request that some arbs recuse themselves because they have participated a lot and/or recently at WPO). (Star, I AGF that you didn't check WPO before making this proposal?) No, I do not support preventing victims from talking about their bullies. Levivich (talk) 04:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is such a thread, certainly, though your description is a little partial. The thread was started after Homeostasis07 posted entirely false allegations about an alleged 'doxxing'. Like Wikipedia, Wikipediocracy takes note when people start bad-mouthing contributors. Would you expect any different from any other forum, anywhere? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It escalated from specific allegations made on Wikipedia, by someone who has refused to provide the slightest bit of evidence to back them up, even privately via email to ArbCom. Regardless of what goes on at Wikipediocracy, that is an issue for Wikipedia - and evidently this isn't the first time Homeostasis07 has done this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sure WPO has many fine contributors in addition to those whom we see posting here, but it is generally a toxic site with occassional redeeming features such as outing severe COI editors. The idea that WPO contributors need protection from Homeostasis07 is laughable. Johnuniq (talk) 05:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is suggesting that WPO needs protection. It is the ongoing on-Wikipedia disruption resulting from these repeated evidence-free allegations that is the problem. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought Lepricavark presented some evidence, well the best that could be done without including a link to the discussion thread.
And, just to acknowledge what is going unsaid, everything said on Wikipedia about Wikipediocracy, including this discussion, is fodder for comment and analysis on that website. So be aware of this. And I say this as someone who was also doxxed on WPO many years ago. But around the same time, I was also doxxed by Gamergate folks on 8chan and I was much more worried about what those folks would do than I was about WPO users. LizRead!Talk!05:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If this is enough to warrant a topic ban, then half the site would be topic banned from one thing or another. I don't have an issue with the fact that Wikipedians aren't supposed to identify offsite accounts. But I don't know what you expect to happen when you comment about other users and then pretend to be affronted (or worse, throw an actual tantrum) when people discuss these comments indirectly. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...when you comment about other users and then pretend to be affronted (or worse, throw an actual tantrum) when people discuss these comments indirectly is precisely what LB and HS07 have been doing. SerialNumber5412910:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have no idea whether Homeostasis07 is being harassed and bullied off-wiki, but what I do know is that Homeostasis07 is fully aware that there is a process to follow in cases like this, and Homeostasis07 also knows that endlessly talking about it on WP is not part of that process, so a TB seems appropriate.Isaidnoway(talk)07:42, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support unfortunately, it comes down to trust, and what HS07 says regarding WPO is by now thoroughly discredited and untrustworthy. Basically, he is so likely to lie about the site, its members and its discussions that it is a waste of the community's time trying to uncover any kernel of truth. ArbCom can do that better, and it will give HS07 the opportunity to submit his case against those he claims are are trying to discredit him. SerialNumber5412910:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's getting to the point of ridiculousness that HS07 can make claims on-wiki and then when their veracity is challenged, say "well I'm not allowed to link to the evidence". Either take it to ArbCom or stop bludgeoning every related discussion with it, either is fine. Black Kite (talk)10:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support if HS07 wants to endlessly threaten to contact ArbCom or T&S, they can put their money where their mouth is and actually do it. Since they can't give up the soapboxing, this topic ban will have to do. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Homeostasis07, if I may suggest: if you want a public case so badly, you should try to request one before this topic ban goes into effect? I'm sure the extensive documentation you've built up will be very helpful in doing so quickly and with minimal research in the time before an admin places the TBAN. If ArbCom accepts the case, I'm sure they will grant you an exception to the TBAN. Sound good? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support At this point, the failure to acknowledge that there is a proper procedure for reporting private evidence is being used as a cudgel to cast aspersions with no consequences. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per AndyTheGrump, and allowing that proviso. Bans are preventative. Constantly raising this issue without evidence is disruptive. It derails discussions, and draws editors into partisan support, which is unhelpful. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Homeostasis' refusal above to provide private evidence to Arbcom because "Best served in a public Arb case". If you're not going to let Arbcom handle what they're best equipped to handle, you're going to cause disruption. --130.111.220.19 (talk) 14:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose mostly per Levivich, but also because I feel like the idea of a topic ban about WPO is kinda nuts. If someone made accusations they were being harassed on reddit, and it was true that there were threads on reddit heavily criticizing them, we would not in a million years topic ban them from talking about reddit no matter how over-the-top they were being about the accusations. A topic ban just isn't the relevant sanction here at all. If HS07 is casting aspersions, and I'm not convinced he is, then we ought to impose a sanction about casting aspersions, not a topic ban about an external site. Loki (talk) 23:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If they kept angrily bringing up specific harassment on Reddit for which there was no evidence of existence and claimed to have private evidence that they wouldn't provide ArbCom, and continued to do so disruptively, they'd sure as sugar be topic-banned from discussing Reddit. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support at minimum, and I think this is too lenient. The last time I remember this editor's username was Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Sdkb when they claimed Sdkb was engaging in inappropriate offsite behaviour to facilitate editwarring (etc), and that evidence was being "Compiled now" to be sent to ArbCom. Unsurprisingly nothing was sent and Homeo disappeared for the rest of the RFA (ie catching the flu). These were blatant aspersions and are completely inappropriate. They're impossible for editors to defend themselves from. No action was taken at the RFA, action should be taken now to show these kinds of personal attacks are completely unacceptable. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer if the ban is interpreted to include any kind of accusations editors (including vague, unnamed groups of editors) are engaging in inappropriate offwiki behaviour, as that seems to be the pattern in these instances. That's regardless of whether Wikipediocracy is explicitly mentioned. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm divided on this issue. On the one hand, no editor should be making unfounded accusations against other editors. On the other hand, from what I've seen from Wikipediocracy from when I occasionally posted there years ago, these accusations seem very likely to be true although Homeostasis07 seems to be accusing the wrong editors of harassment. But having seen harassment on that site back in the day, there is no doubt to me that it has occurred for years and probably still does. It would be best if a topic ban came out of an Arbitration Case but that won't happen any time in the near future, unfortunately. LizRead!Talk!07:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Liz There is now a thread about HS07 on WPO, however it was started on Wednesday when he/she started throwing all these accusations about. No-one, including the mods, at WPO can find any evidence or posts to support any of HS07's accusations about historical harrassment or doxing. Black Kite (talk)09:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, and the next time we have one of these brouhahas, can we have separate sections for people based on whether they posted in the WPO thread in question? jp×g🗯️13:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This topic ban proposal was specifically started because Homeostasis07 repeatedly made entirely false claims about being 'doxxed' on Wikipediocracy, while refusing to provide the slightest bit of evidence. Prior to that, there had been nothing on Wikipediocracy referring to Homeostasis07 beyond a few mentions in passing, and absolutely nothing which even remotely attempted to link him with any specific identity. Anything posted since is a direct result these false claims. It is utterly absurd to suggest that Wikipediocracy should ignore these false and malicious claims, without response. If a few WP:ANI regulars think that evidence-free assertions are sufficient grounds to go around perpetuating complete falsehoods, that is Wikipedia's problem - Wikipediocracy is under no obligation however to engage in such charades. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, God forbid people on a website make scandalous accusations to damage reputations and then fail to back them up with adequate evidence, who would want to hang out in a place where that happened?
Better add a clarifying note to my comment, so that it doesn't get quoted on there, along with a bunch of random additional stuff I didn't say and don't believe, and maybe an additional paragraph of demented tinfoil calling me a child molester or a Nazi -- this is not an argument that everyone who has a WPO account should be banned, or whatever garbage people are going to pretend I said, instead of what I actually said, which to be clear is not that, thanks in advance. jp×g🗯️20:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - At some point all these insinuations have to run smack into WP:HARASS. There is a reason ArbCom handles matters implicating the privacy or real-world identity of others in camera, and it's to keep people from being revictimised again and again while they deliberate a case. If you keep making these insinuations in public in an attempt to drive off other editors, then either ArbCom needs to get involved or administrators need to 86 you from the project. And since the latter is pretty much off the table based on the above, he needs to be sending this to ArbCom via email instead of continuing this bald-faced harassment campaign publicly. —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques16:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SupportIf Homeostasis07 had reported the issues in a way that others could properly assess and respond to the issue, we wouldn't be at this impasse. They have had plenty of opportunities to fix their report and have failed to do so. Arb com is still available. In the meantime, this prohibition won't harm Homeostasis07's ability to contribute to the project and will hopefully put an end to this particular circus. — rsjaffe🗣️02:00, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. They have provided the links to back up their main claims and any measure would just have a chilling effect without improving WPO-related discourse. One can argue this faff was due to Homeostasis07 misinterpreting a joke, but if that's the case it's perfectly normal to get flustered and confused when you're being made fun of; it shouldn't warrant a block. If Homeostasis07's interpretation is correct, I don't need to explain why a block would be wrong. I request a closure is held off until at least 24 hours after when Homeostasis pinged everyone. Sincerely, Dilettante03:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The joke was made in response to claims Homeostasis07 had already made about supposed 'doxxing'. Claims for which absolutely no evidence has been provided. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Lightburst and AndyTheGrump are subject to a two way interaction ban appealable after six months. This would only apply on-wiki since ANI, to the best of my knowledge, does not have the power to regulate off-wiki comments. Sincerely, Dilettante14:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support as proposer. Though not every dust-up or argument in this history is between these two users, it certainly exacerbates the issue and would be good for both of them. Sincerely, Dilettante14:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral (only because I'm about to hop on a cross-country flight w/ limited responsiveness, otherwise this would be a Oppose). I don't see the grounds for Andy being subjected to this. Unless I've missed something somewhere, JoJo Anthrax is right -- this is a one-sided thing. And with regards to that, I am not sure even a one-way IB against one single person would have any impact on the core problem that brought us here. Sanctions are likely in order but this is the wrong one. ⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!18:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose two-way IBAN, supporting one way IBAN per JoJo. IBAN probably is needed to stop one of the greatest issues that has been brought up (The "List of Richards"), and considering how this already would have been a TBLOCK (citing Ponyo on this one). ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 23:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 1-way because ATG has been writing negative things about LB on WPO long before, and more often, than LB ever wrote negative things about ATG on-wiki, so I strongly disagree with the suggestion that this is one-sided. Neutral on 2-way as I hope the both of them will voluntarily leave each other along so it won't be necessary, though I understand if others don't want to extend any more rope here. Levivich (talk) 23:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral on the iban itself, but we should consider the practical aspects. A two-way ban would remove Lightburst's ability to comment on ATG, but it would not stop ATG from directing comments at Lightburst. In this situation, we will be incentivizing Lightburst to escalate so he can respond in kind, which would absolutely have spillover back into the community and bring us right back here again with greater animosities. If an interaction ban were to go through, Wikipedia:No personal attacks#Off-wiki attacks would need to be considered. Actually, that's policy. Why isn't it already the main focus here? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose IBans rarely work in practice. Editors think that IBANS mean fewer ANI discussions between editors in a dispute but it actually increases complaints when one or both of the editors bring complaints about the other editor breaking the IBan. It can become a game of "gotcha". They only work if the parties truly agree to have nothing to do with each other and in this case, it would be imposed on them and so it is less likely to be honored. LizRead!Talk!07:44, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JSS states several of those people, including myself, make no secret of the fact that they are the same person posting under the name at WPO just further up this thread. Regardless, this is a blatant violation of NPA and I request you strike it, Silver Seren. Sincerely, Dilettante16:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If JSS is not one of the people supporting the CBANned trolls and harassers, then I'm not referring to them, as I pointed out above. And it is not directed at anyone on Wikipedia, so how is it a violation of NPA? SilverserenC16:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RPA'd. Don't wikilawyer, User:Silver Seren. When you say everyone on WPO, that encompasses everyone. It's quite clear from above in this thread that numerous Wikipedians reply to banned users, and are thus encompassed by your statement. Sincerely, Dilettante16:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, when I specifically point out only those on WPO that positively support the CBANned trolls and their harassment activities, that means everyone on WPO? So every user there is participating in said harassment, you're stating? SilverserenC16:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Considering your argument above doesn't whatsoever address the well known and well documented years long harassment of Wikipedia editors by WPO users, driving many off of Wikipedia and personally harming several, I don't see how your statement there even attempts to respond to the topic at hand. You seem to be acting as if such claims are made up. SilverserenC16:27, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, no-one has endorsed your post—or even claimed it's a constructive contribution—besides you. I recommend you log off or move onto another area of the wiki, come back in a couple hours, and see if your views are accepted by even just a decent portion of the community, or just facile wikilawyering. You're not convincing me, merely digging that hole a little deeper. 16:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC) Sincerely, Dilettante16:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the people thanking my posts. I do wish they would speak up, but I understand why they wouldn't want to get involved with WPO nonsense. SilverserenC16:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since my previous post was off by a grand total of one user at the time, I think it’s only fair I amswer your questions rather than dodgin them. So, when I specifically point out only those on WPO that positively support the CBANned trolls and their harassment activities, that means everyone on WPO I made it quite clear I was objecting to the first sentence of your second paragraph where you stated it was addressed to everyone on WPO and to the claim that no-one has explicitly connected their two accounts on-wikis. If you’re asking for my opinion, however, yes, most WPO users support trolls and harassment. I’ve made it quite clear I’m more-or-less anti-WPO elsewhere so this isn’t exactly a gotcha question. So every user there is participating in said harassment, you're stating No, but most are encouraging it.
(after edit conflict) I wasn't going to reply to this, but as you bring the issue up I must state that I fully endorse Silver seren's posts here. It is time we got rid of the cowardly, childish bullies. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also endorse Silver seren's posts. Although I have not (yet) been the target of WPO bullying myself, I have seen its effects. We are all seeing the effects of it right now, it has pushed an editor over the edge to the point of making personal attacks against the editors they believe started all this. I will not defend Lightburst's actions, but this and similar cases will only continue until we take care of the problem at the source. - ZLEAT\C20:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't cut it. Next time you have to specify that all of the Wikipedians who engage on Wikipediocracy publicly as themselves are very fine people. You're only engaging in personal attacks against the Wikipediocracy accounts that are not publicly connected to any Wikipedian (even if they happen to have the same username). That way you're not violating WP:NPA, as it only applies to attacks directed against other Wikipedians. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(I saw you self-reverted, so I'll just leave my reply here) The point of it is to showcase how WP:NPA is broken and not followed in the first place. The active harassment and even doing so in the personal lives of editors by WPO users is actively ignored and allowed. A large part of this is because so many Wikipedia long term editors and admins here are a part of that WPO harassment group and so defend any sort of attempt to deal with the problem. It has been an ongoing issue for years and despite explicit evidence being shown time and time again, and despite off-wiki actions being covered by WP:NPA as well, they repeatedly use the defense of "if it happens elsewhere, then nothing can be done". Usually falling back on the "but you can't know they're the same users" defense. SilverserenC16:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Silver seren: Please check your trolling at the door. For someone whose largely just staying out, you've got plenty of personal remarks to make and the fact that you don;'t name names does not make them less personal attacks. Homeostatsis07 has tried something similar: be mindful. It merely shows you do not understand WP:NPA (or WP:POLEMIC or WP:FORUM for that matter). Your new "section" is based on your opinion, and does not have the traction you think it does. SerialNumber5412916:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I could name tons of WPO user names. That's not difficult at all. You likely are already aware of all the ones I would name and already know about their activities harassing Wikipedia editors. Please, do explain WP:NPA though and the application of off-wiki harassment through claimed unrelated accounts. Does WP:NPA policy apply or not? It seems like the answer has long been no, no matter what the harassment is and no matter what real life harm is incurred (though only so long as the ones doing and protecting the harassment are long-standing Wikipedia editors, it appears). SilverserenC16:41, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point of [the post] is to showcase how WP:NPA is broken and not followed in the first place. That seems spot-on for WP:POINT. I'm glad you didn't revert the redaction. If your intent is to convince others that WP:NPA as-written has flaws and should be fixed, perhaps making a discussion at WP:VPP would let people engage on the merits and perhaps develop a solution, rather further inflame an already heated discussion and have your points dismissed due to context and presentation. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Something that I just want to note is that this entire grouping of ANI threads is reaching the point of diminishing returns. JSS feels badly treated by LB, which is understandable. However, there is little chance of there being consensus for much of anything in the way of sanctions against LB, with the understanding that LB, whenever he returns to editing, needs to accept the reverting of what he had on his userpage. Increasingly, editor comments are becoming unproductive. Pretty soon, we would do best to just move on. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I check in on Wikipediocracy from time to time. There are several participants there that I think are inappropriate, but to be honest, I sadly think WPO discussions overall are more civil than those here at WP:ANI.
Outside of, you know, actively harassing Wikipedia editors off the site and the multiple cases of them even doing things like contacting the employers of Wikipedia editors, among other harassment. SilverserenC01:38, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They already know about it. There's been multiple incidents (and even Arbcom cases) over years involving WPO users doing such things. Many of the threads involving that are even in the archive here. It's well known information for those of us that have been here a while. SilverserenC17:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, most of the stuff on the site is basically fine, and often a great boon to us as editors, although I must say the psycho dox stuff is a rather substantial and hard-to-ignore negative presence there. jp×g🗯️03:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This pretty much sums up my feelings on the site as well. The WPO members involved in this dispute are a minority of WPO members; AFAICT most don't engage in negative behavior, but the few that do have become increasingly hard to ignore. Levivich (talk) 03:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll third that. There's a range of outright doxxing issues to general harassment/following that really get a be a problem over there. There's plenty of just venting, etc. over there that's not an issue, but at the least Silverseren is bringing up a very legitimate issue here that I'm concerned seeing how it's been dismissed in some comments here. Unfortunately I don't think we're going to get a solution for the issue here though. KoA (talk) 01:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This time last week I didn't care about WPO and whatever feuds they engage in. But now this is all just... sad. This single-minded rampage against everything about them, this sophomoric complex that they've developed over there, it just makes everyone seem really childish—and some more than others. Like, these little arguments and gossip forums are really what they want to dedicate their lives to? I'd say kick to arbcom at this point for their own good, since that seems to be what everyone wants anyway, but this particular iteration of arbcom has been rather inactive and hesitant to address issues. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Of course, it's the old tactic when for those who find themselves defending the indefensible, broaden the discussion with vague assertions to muddy the waters until everyone is distracted from the issue. SerialNumber5412914:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can't say I blame LB for hiding/waiting it out, he obviously knew what he did was completely indefensible, but that if he shut up others would defend it anyway, but other than the topic ban for HS I don't really see any admin actions forthcoming, so yeah, it could probably be closed. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today22:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Just Step Sideways: you've been talking about this guy on two different websites on like a daily basis, now you're complaining that he's withdrawn. It seems nothing will stop you. Would you please take your proverbial foot off of his neck and give it a rest. Maybe just one week without commenting on any website about what Lightburst is doing on Wikipedia, please. Levivich (talk) 23:47, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I no longer need to self-dox in order to expose doxing on Wikipediocracy, so am happy to proceed. The WPO user I referred to as "the dancing guy" here is the WPO member "Midsize Jake". For the purposes of this public thread, I will not post a direct link to their doxing in WPO's private forum. However, I sufficiently agitated their ego in the preceding link that they owned up to doxing me on the public forum here. The response is full of the usual WPO snark, but the user says "That's me, I think." and "All this nonsense about "continents" is just [Homeostasis07] not knowing the difference between an island and a continent." ArbCom know where I live. It's clearly a direct response to what I wrote here, and an admission to doxing by Midsize Jake.
The entire website is being used to dox and harass multiple Wikipedia users. One need look no further than their home page to see evidence of that. The last 3 "news" articles they posted dox and insult three different long-time Wikipedia users: [7], [8] & [9]. So between me being doxed and the very public doxing on their homepage, the claims that doxing doesn't take place on WPO are patently false.
Although the claim that users cannot delete, edit, move, or in any way modify their posts is true, this does not mean that posts written on WPO can't be deleted, edited, moved, or in any way modified. The forum was created using the phpBB script, so has the exact same tools used on every other phpBB forum created since 2000. This official phpBB support document for forum creators clearly states that admins/moderators can indeed delete, edit, move and modify posts.
As I'm sure you're all aware by now, in their attempt to discredit my claims of being doxed and harassed on the site, a Wikipediocracy user has created a public thread about me, where they post links to my other social media accounts, along with a ton of harassment and insults. I thank @AlphaBetaGamma: above for advising me to protect my Twitter account, but the babies can have that bottle. In addition to this, there are multiple threads on WPO that are being used to coordinate and insult dozens of Wikipedia users. In addition to the one about me, there is also one on Lightburst that has been used for almost a year to coordinate harassment of that user, as well as "News from ANI", where vested users can look up what's being said about them on ANI so can dog-pile on any discussion about them. More to come. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back, Homeostasis07! When you refer to "WPO's private forum", are you admitting to having an account over there? And when you link to this post by "Midsize Jake", which I had thought to be a joke—guess the joke's on me—are you admitting to being Carrie Ann Inaba? Because otherwise, you're still not providing evidence of doxing (I believe you mean outing), rather to the contrary. Have you sent ArbCom the private evidence that you assert exists? ... Also, don't Wikipedians have the right to know when they're being talked about at AN/I? (If by "them" you mean WPO as a whole, that would make for a shorter thread than the "News from ANI" one; the forum doesn't often come up on this noticeboard, it's not that interesting or urgent.) Yngvadottir (talk) 01:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed this is a comically inept attempt to prove doxxing. Here's is the text of the entire post:
"That's me, I think. This sort of thing has been a problem ever since I won Dancing With the Stars with my partner, Doja Cat (T-H-L). And I didn't dox her here, I doxed her on my first appearance on the show (that's "Dancing With the Stars," folks, in case y'all missed it the first time) when I discovered that Homeostasis07 is, in fact, Carrie Ann Inaba (T-H-L).
All this nonsense about "continents" is just Carrie Ann not knowing the difference between an island and a continent. I wouldn't worry about it."
So, 100% not an actual confession to doxxing.
20+ Wikipedians have endorsed banning Homeostasis07 from discussing WPO already, this just adds fuel to that fire, rather than proving any sort of confession to doxxing them. I don't know if Homeostasis07 thinks enough people are afraid to even read WPO that this wouldn't be fact-checked, or if this is some bizzare backwards trolling, or what, but clearly this needs to stop. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today01:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The suggestion that Midsize Jake posted "an admission to doxing" in the thread linked [10] is absurd beyond belief. The comments are clearly and unequivocally intended as a joking response to WP:ANI drama. And isn't 'doxxing'. Not unless Homeostasis07 Jake really won Dancing With the Stars alongside Doja Cat, and unless Homeostasis07 really is Carrie Ann Inaba. Absolutely no evidence has been offered to support Homeostasis07's claim that Jake (or anyone else on WPO) had attempted to dox him "earlier this year". Just look at the date stamps for the two posts. [11] As for the waffle about phpBB support, this is an utter non sequitur, given that one can say the same about any data saved in a digital format, anywhere. Homeostasis07 previously claimed to have saved evidence regarding such alleged material "on webcite". [12] No links to such material have been provided, leaving us with nothing but pure conspiracy theories to support the evidence-free claims of doxxing by WPO that led to a later WPO response. The only think that can be verified with regard to this alleged 'doxxing' is that after Homeostasis07 made a claim for which no evidence had been provided, WPO responded - by noting the lack of evidence, and by taking the piss. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:23, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Me having an account on WPO is irrelevant. Are you suggesting I post on a website that doxes Wikipedia users to inform them that they're being talked about at AN/I? You, Beeblebrox/Just Step Sideways and AndyTheGrump seem perfectly aware of this discussion, and immediately available to jump to WPO's defense. With regards to the text quoted from Midsize Jake's post, as pointed out above, the text relating to Doja Cat and Carrie Ann Inaba is just sarcastic nonsense. For one, I see no evidence of Doja Cat ever being on Dancing With the Stars, but Midsize Jake makes specific mention of me residing on an island, which is true, and would only be known to the doxer. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Midsize Jake makes specific mention of me residing on an island"? Nope. Jake makes a rather lame joke about Ms Inaba "not knowing the difference between an island and a continent". Interpreting that as 'doxxing', or even as evidence that Jake has the slightest clue where Homeostasis07 lives is pure paranoia. Or at least, that's how it seems to this island-dweller. I suspect that most island dwellers (9% of the worlds population, according to Google) would think the same. Along with the in-continent... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to this strange claim that Carrie Ann Inaba is somehow known for confusing continents with islands, I see no evidence of that. What I see instead is me saying that the doxer linked me to the wrong continent, no information about me residing on an island being publicly available anywhere else, Midsize Jake publicly stating in reference to me being doxed that I reside on an island, and a bunch of WPO defenders rushing to the website's defense while ignoring the multitude of other evidence linked above of other Wikipedia users being very publicly doxed on the website. I don't know what AndyTheGrump, Beeblebrox and Yngvadottir think they're doing here, but their true intentions are blatantly transparent. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:58, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or..... Midsize Jake invented an absurdist DWTS alter ego to fit the description of the "dancing man" figure you claimed tried to dox you, syncretized you with DWTS judge Carrie Ann Inaba, and incorporated the detail of her being born on an island into your narrative about the doxing being "off by a continent".If you really have all that evidence of deleted posts doxing you, what's stopping you from scribbling out any personal info in those screenshots and uploading them here? JoelleJay (talk) 02:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your description doesn't really make much sense to me. An "absurdist DWTS alter ego" based on a Dancing with the Stars judge who was born on an island off a continent to "fit the description of the 'dancing man' figure" I described previously... well, that just seems like a reach. And I seriously doubt any uploaded screengrabs with redacted information would last very long if hosted on-site. And externally-hosted URLS would probably last a lot less. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:55, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
....Midsize Jake jokes that Carrie Ann Inaba doesn't know the difference between a continent and an island, possibly a reference to her being born on an island that is technically not on the same continent as the country it is part of. JoelleJay (talk) 01:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would give my first born pet for this entire LOOONG discussion to be closed. But there are several outstanding proposals that have to be closed first. I urge editors to not respond defensively and just let this conversation sputter out from exhaustion. Don't allow yourself to be provoked, that doesn't end well for anyone. Find an article to edit. LizRead!Talk!02:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would be fine with me. Like I said above, I'd be happy to never again talk about Wikipediocracy on-site after this, so me being topic-banned from discussing that website is no skin off my nose. Just Step Sideways/Beeblebrox made an interesting point above though, many of the supports above said they were waiting for links. Now that they have been provided, it's only courteous to ping them to review. I know I don't watchlist high-traffic pages like ANI, so out of courtesy: @Star Mississippi:@Lepricavark:@Lulfas:@Malcolmxl5:@Lavalizard101:@Black Kite:@Licks-rocks:@AirshipJungleman29:@CoffeeCrumbs:@Sir MemeGod:@Jéské Couriano:@Rsjaffe:@Alalch E.: I don't care if you change your votes or not, and completely understand if you don't want to be involved any further, but thought you'd appreciate the ping. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 03:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging a bunch of people who already support sanctions against you for refusing to drop the stick to a thread in which you are once again refusing to drop the stick is certainly a choice. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The advice that content should be discussed on article talk must be followed. Any further claims regarding other editors should take place in a new section focused on behavior and without commentary on article content. There is too much here to follow but a few diffs I looked at do not rise to an ANI incident. Johnuniq (talk) 07:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I write to raise concerns regarding the recent conduct of FlightTime towards other editors. I have not had a great deal of involvement with them, but I believe their behaviour to be unwelcoming, rude and incompatible with AGF. My goal in raising this incident is that it will prompt FlightTime to review and change their behaviour.
Specifically, this editor continues to revert others (often in the name of vandalism), but refuses to engage with the other editors when they ask for an explanation. The reverts are sometimes justified, but the general dismissive attitude towards other editors contributions - in my view - is not. I first noticed this conduct regarding the Eddie Van Halen article, but a cursory review of their edit history shows this was not an isolated event (the additional examples below are by no means exhaustive):
On 13th October, FlightTime reverted 2 ([1] [2]) edits by Cebran2003 to Eddie Van Halen and left a warning on their talk page. They then proceeded to report them to ANI for edit-warring (a report they later withdrew). When the user responded, they said "Then please use edit summaries, tell us what the hell you're doing". FlightTime did not respond further, or restore the original pages but proceeded to remove the note I placed on their talk page about biting newcomers (which they are, of course, entitled to do - but this is a common theme).
On 18th October, FlightTime removed 178.232.112.187's comments on Talk:Ghurid dynasty. The IP user followed up on their FlightTime's talkpage, these comments were also promptly removed.
On 1st August, FlightTime reverted SeanMatton's contributions to Tim Chapman ([1] [2]) branding them as a "Vandal" and reporting them to ANI for vandalism. SeanMatton commented on FlightTime's talk page to query the reversions, but their comments were removed.
I can relate to sometimes editing or reverting too quickly, but the correct thing to do is to acknowledge you were wrong and apologise. FlightTime is a long term contributor and has clearly committed a lot of the project, but I struggle to believe their general incivility and refusal to engage or explain their reverts is acceptable - especially given their elevated status as a member of VRT.
Today they rolled back in one go (just as twice within minutes five days ago), concurrently, my 100-byte (this time) initial contribution on a second article and a 137-byte contribution by someone else in the same paragraph. "Unsourced" was the one-word explanation. (I am relieved not to have been criticized again today, having in truth been a little late in furnishing a directly to-the-point citation.) Cebran2003 (talk) 22:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, they are less responsive about and more hasty about wholesale rollbacks than might be readily inferred from @OXYLYPSE's and my comments above. Five days ago, I chanced to guess wrong what content required speedy citing in their view; the reversion of this wrong guess constituted the entire difference between rollback 1 and rollback 2 (timed a few minutes apart). In fact, I have yet to receive from that person any indication of what they wanted cited (though I appear to have wound up guessing correctly a day or so later). Cebran2003 (talk) 23:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately not bothering to try to justify their call for citations with respect to my contribution of today, that person actually rolled back only the following where my 100 bytes were concerned. I had noticed an improbable statement characterizing two boys, two years apart in age, as being concurrently in a single grade in elementary school. I tracked down which of the two later reported (in an interview) having been in that grade at the relevant time. I corrected accordingly. I then deleted a dead link (for that interview), possibly thus setting the person off (unless I had already done so with only the correction). As I was preparing to carry over a good link from a related article to today's, the person took the opportunity to roll me back. Cebran2003 (talk) 01:35, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cebran2003 Hey Cebran. I get you're trying to thoroughly explain the situation here, but try not to excessively comment here on this thread as it might be disruptive. Doing so can bloat a lot of text on screen and deter possible contributors with this giant wall of info. Thanks. TheWikiToby (talk) 02:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My intention was only to cover the main points. I already considered myself done, and now in view of Toby's feedback I am declaring myself done, with thanks all around. Cebran2003 (talk) 02:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The perception of trolling explaining all, apology accepted. (I have yet to interact at all with FlightTime's talk, and my edit from yesterday actually included the citation from the outset rather than *the latter's* following by some minutes.) (Pardon the grammar, what with the occasional lapses like that.) All good now. Cebran2003 (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to bring attention to Cebran's talk page, specifically the alert I gave them here. Although that section is generally pretty weird, I'll specifically refer to this one sentence, I do love a good fi- er, challenge (Edit: Removed [13]), referring to this thread.1. I don't know what they mean by "fi-er". Is this censored or something? Is this a WP:PA?2. The fact they refer to this as a "challenge" makes me concerned about the possibility of some WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Could this be some WP:BOOMERANG situation? The amount of comments Cebran has published also makes me concerned about WP:BLUDGEONING, especially considering I've already warned them about bludgeoning here. TheWikiToby (talk) 01:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above has been shocking, to say the least. There was an earlier warning about something else, but I have seen no previous one about bludgeoning. I have not engaged at all in bludgeoning, battling, or PA; nothing that I have written (not gratuitously but in response to some intense criticism) appears to me to lend itself to boomerang. Cebran2003 (talk) 02:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see (another element of) what you did there. Your link to the bludgeoning article was meant to serve as a warning. I didn't notice the link at all before, but I will have a look at the article now. Cebran2003 (talk) 03:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheWikiToby I'm glad you brought up Battleground.
It states "Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. [...] Assume good faith that every editor and group is here to improve Wikipedia."
Would you care to explain how FlightTime's diffs I've linked in the original post and below demonstrate that, or are you just here to rip into Cebran2003 for being overly verbose and passionate about the article they (were) contributing to?
If you too cannot see the problem with FlightTime's behaviour, well, you're clearly ready for adminship with the old boys.
On "being overly verbose and passionate about the article": I resemble that ... portrayal, of course without at all resenting the characterization put in question form. Thank you. Cebran2003 (talk) 08:07, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Toby’s alert on my talk page: "There is currently a discussion at [ANI] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is [this very one]. Thank you."
That looks like the simplest of boilerplate, not like something to which a provider of alerts would want later to draw attention at all, let alone concerning which they would encourage (or themselves draw) specifically so much as one inference. Cebran2003 (talk) 21:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with FlightTime is I think he's usually right on the merits, but isn't very good at communicating this with people who don't understand Wikipedia policies, leading to all sorts of unnecessary conflict. Usually it's because somebody's added unsourced content, or has rejigged some minor part in the article against consensus. All in all I can't say it's more than a mild annoyance. However, if people can find a lot of hard evidence of WP:BITEing, as opposed to minor bits and bobs, we can revisit this. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)14:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies to everyone involved, at the time I thought the article(s) and my talk were being trolled, I was obviously wrong and thought I fixed everything, again wrong. - FlightTime (open channel)14:26, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm about to look again at those edits on Eddie Van Halen, and I think I might roll them all back. It's perfectly understandable why User:FlightTime reverted some of them. Those edits were unverified and totally unexplained (how is it that his place of birth was moved from Amsterdam to Nijmegen), and contained a number of errors of various kinds. Asking editors to a. explain and b. verify is fine, and this response Cebran is not. Drmies (talk) 19:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies has made a series of absolutely incorrect comments (with one notable exception) just above. Eddie was indeed born in Amsterdam. Correction of my small error on that narrow subject apart, by no means does anything warrant rolling back, particularly for real en masse, my edits of the past week. Cebran2003 (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, between Alex's 1953 birth and some time after Eddie's 1955 birth, their parents moved the family as so constituted from Amsterdam to Nijmegen. A previous editor had called Amsterdam Eddie's birthplace through what I thought until this evening to have been an understandable error. A certain Jakarta Post piece might well have been misread by that person to bring on the error if there was one, given what I saw of the interplay between source and body text citing it. To repeat, in the form in which I left them, my edits were almost uniformly accurate and were otherwise appropriate. Cebran2003 (talk) 19:32, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am mystified about how the impulse to engage in gratuitous and unfounded rollbacks has spread with respect to this article. Someone else repeated FlightTime's second rollback (of my nine initial EVH edits) six days ago, and now Drmies has set out to join the club (evidently with respect to dozens more). It is not supposed to occur at all, right? Cebran2003 (talk) 19:41, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed proceeding to carry out a (3000-byte) gratuitous and unfounded rollback of their own (before functionally disappearing, that is, reverting another 500+ bytes, potentially and counting, in a trio of additional edit variants), Drmies cited as authoritative a NYT article to which I lack access: Farber, Jim (October 7, 2020). "Eddie Van Halen, 65, Rock Original With Lightning in His Fingers, Dies". Perhaps the specific detail purportedly in the article was present and correct, but again I have been questioning whether it was both. With due allowance for the subset of tweaks by Drmies that may have been good, obviously (and not only in terms of slashed word count) the article is markedly poorer overall for their several unilateral acts of owning it. Cebran2003 (talk) 20:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Schazjmd, thank you. Partly given the two-fold improper because anachronistic surname prefix capitalization, the correctness of the location statement did remain in momentary doubt. (Perhaps the style manual's mandating such an ahistorical rendering is well and good, but this treatment is sure glaring now.) Cebran2003 (talk) 20:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Particularly enlightening is this gem, a key element of that absurd 3000-byte rollback: "an editorial note on Dutch last names or whatever is unnecessary, etc. etc." This was characterized by Drmies as unexplained and not a good edit. The note was in fact, as I had explained in the immediately previous history entry, inserted by me to replace a hatnote (not mine, of course) that was failing -- and has *resumed* post-massive-rollback its failure -- to do the matter justice. (I did not know, and indeed have yet to explore, how to tailor a hatnote; replacing it was evidently the best move for the time being.) Et cetera indeed. Cebran2003 (talk) 23:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that it was from (as can be readily seen by anyone troubling to "View history" for the EVH article) the Jakarta Post article that I found documentation of the two overseas stays of about half a dozen years each (1943-49 in Indonesia, afterward in the Netherlands) that in both cases preceded Eddie's birth (the latter stay destined to continue until the 1962 move to the US). Cebran2003 (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The actual issue being large-scale and gratuitous and at best uncertainly founded rollbacks, rather than the initial and long-gone misunderstanding between the two of us, FlightTime, evidently the discussion does continue to belong here. Maybe a new topic is called for, partly to ease your understandably possibly desired distancing from it? Cebran2003 (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having inspired through one of their deletions an improbable find that finally furnishes an irrefutably authoritative data point (potentially so for the body of the EVH article itself), Drmies does merit a little bit of credit. Amsterdam it was, as noted in a citation (thoughtfully left intact though now uninvoked at all) for which Drmies opted to delete the invocation. Substituting for said active online Dutch source the access-impaired NYT article would not have been my choice, but where there's a will to set even one element of the record straight, I must acknowledge there being a way. Cebran2003 (talk) 21:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly enough, in the article history Drmies has also opined, "'settled' in Nijmegen is a bit of an exaggeration"; what is interesting here is the evidence of their having imputed the wording to me, when in fact I had simply left that word intact in formulating my fairly extensive edit about the family's time in the Netherlands (relegated at this moment to "coverage" in a single sentence). Cebran2003 (talk) 23:27, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can be as verbose as you like, Cebran2003, but "The Dutch prefix 'van' was capitalized by the boys’ parents during the family’s immigration" is not verified by this, of course, and there's no racism "because of their mother's ancestry" after they moved to the US in this source, and who knows what a "a welcome expanded role" is; it's not in here. So I'll just let your edits speak for themselves. I'd like to think of "not verified by sources" as irrefutable authoritative data points. Drmies (talk) 01:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My inference as to who did the capitalizing was nevertheless an extremely strong one, in light of its evidently not being the immigration authorities despite the common myth (refutation of which I duly sourced) about that. The matter of racism (actually alluded to in the title and content of the NBC News piece -- identified just above by Drmies as "this source" -- and probably touched on by Eddie, although I am not in the mood to check just now) "because of their mother's ancestry" was, again, not my wording. It is the slash-and-burn substitute for a strategy on the part of Drmies that speaks for itself, just as throughout this discussion; no failing or failure of mine does so in any meaningful way. Cebran2003 (talk) 01:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Someone capitalized the prefix. It was not the immigration authorities, again despite the canard about its having supposedly been those officials so acting for many new arrivals. It was very probably none other than EVH's and AVH's parents in the course of immigration, possibly as shown in the ship's manifest or if not probably quite shortly after arrival. Cebran2003 (talk) 01:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the comments made just above by Drmies about those second and third sources are plenty revelatory, about the commentator of course, in and of themselves. The NYT source, yet again, was not mine, merely because it was in place when I began my very first edit. It did not become mine on account of my having occasion to cite it in an additional location in the body text. With respect to Eddie's help with Beat It, his doing more than providing the solo was explicitly and enthusiastically welcomed by MJ; I suspect that Drmies didn't deign to give that article a look. Cebran2003 (talk) 01:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to reflecting on another's possible practices of sourcing inadequacy, the standpoint held by the occasional content-editing critic, including of my own words in particular, is far from authoritative among data points. To review how I used the relevant phrase in particular, the Dutch document is irrefutably authoritative, whereas the content produced by the NYT (currently cited in the body text, substituted for a cite of the Dutch document) has less than a 100% accuracy record and is, moreover, not all that readily accessible. Nothing is apt to impress less than wrenching phrases far, far away from the context of their previous usage. Cebran2003 (talk) 03:01, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Collaborativeness is, though, staying put as where I am at. Bludgeoning activity, oddly imputed by implication to me by someone else here, is evidently where others (whose espousal of collaborativeness may at times be in question) are to be found. Cebran2003 (talk) 02:07, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To express it more simply (though not in comparison to my one-liner just above, of course), as Toby has implicitly advised … Collaborativeness is always my intention, and I usually act accordingly. Meanwhile, despite their first mention here of collaborativeness, Drmies is the one to have been doing all the bludgeoning and little else, leaving me to do little else than to fend off a few of their repeated personal attacks (or to point out some of the damage done through their rollover). Cebran2003 (talk) 03:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very happily indeed, the collateral damage from the precipitous rollback by Drmies of my every word for the EVH article has chanced to be startlingly minor. The improper restoration of an unknown infobox parameter bearing on a radio station, coincidentally removed by someone else on the 14th of this month, was inevitably achieved through the resorting by Drmies to a revision-in-spirit-and-effect-of-rollback going pretty far back. (No wonder 3000+ bytes, about 5% of the article word count, got slashed in one fell swoop, scarcely fathomable though it has been up to now why such a large number, never mind percentage, of words.) Cebran2003 (talk) 05:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, yet more has been lost from the article, by implication as well as in words. "Eddie cited [an Alex-and-others-accompanying musical] performance when he was in the fourth grade as key to his desire to become a professional musician"; citation currently in effect, one dead link, restored by Drmies. Someone else's allusion to school segregation (documented as having been mentioned by Eddie in the interview, definitively in effect in the school district, likely in effect even in the elementary schools), a topic that I had not introduced but only added some comments about, is gone. Mention of his mother's being Eurasian, likewise not made initially by me, is gone. And that is only what I see to be changed down through the "early life" section, which chances to be as far down through the article as I had made it when FlightTime and I had our minor and fleeting dust-up. Cebran2003 (talk) 06:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333 So you accept there is a problem with FlightTime's conduct that leads to "conflict", even if right "on merit"?
I do particularly appreciate how FlightTime was active but did not respond to this noticeboard, even after a request from Liz, however then musters up a brief response a mere six minutes after your comment of support. Intriguing indeed. OXYLYPSE (talk) 08:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that multiple administrators have come to support FlightTime's conduct (love an old boys club!), I'll just leave these here and withdraw at this time:
Taking the liberty of replying concurrently on behalf of @OXYLYPSE and in my own name, I thank Daniel but add moreover that thread-launcher @OXYLYPSE has not placed this discussion in their talk and that I have nothing to gain from removing and indeed zero incentive to remove anything related from my talk as it now stands. (FlightTime and I have, again, resolved our own differences, as of some hours past.) Cebran2003 (talk) 01:00, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(A handful of misplaced words there have wound up duly eaten and removed; apologies to anyone who may have taken them for anything bad, on account of poor phrasing and/or on account of being unexpectedly in the audience.) Cebran2003 (talk) 03:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel My original post covered how editors are permitted to manage their talk page, had you cared to read it before you hastily replied to defend. The issue here is the pattern of making a revert and then either refusing to engage or engaging in an uncivil manner when queried upon it, a point you said "no thanks" when asked to consider.
So far @Liz seems to be the only administrator that has been willing to consider that behaviour a problem. I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to speculate why that is.
This whole thing is a farce and has been successfully derailed by the old timers turning it into a content dispute.
I am inclined to give Daniel himself as well as Toby the benefit of the doubt. And now I will move on to @Liz ... Hers is a familiar name that I fondly remember from a probably related conversation. So, @Liz, I certainly hope that you will "feel free to weigh in on this rollback issue now brought more [and more] acutely into focus" (if I may repeat myself in this way). Cebran2003 (talk) 08:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the esteemed user whose latest revision (the edit immediately preceding my first-ever contribution to the EVH article) was what Drmies chanced to restore, @Hipal too may care to share their thoughts on the matter. Cebran2003 (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies forecasted: "I think I might roll them all back"; I am getting myself to give FlightTime too the benefit of the doubt, with respect to their thanks for this, as I choose not to believe that they noticed in saying thanks the scale of that late-breaking rollback. So, all is still good with them as well. Cebran2003 (talk) 08:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder for Toby: to love a good challenge is to love meeting same, not to go on offense. (Please bear with and consider even closely reading the scantly break-graced wall of text to follow.)
It is remarkable that last evening’s rollback inflicted on that oddly salient EVH article by Drmies has yet to be touched at all. Here is why.
In the sharpest of contrasts to my editing perspective and conduct that one can imagine, Drmies has engaged throughout this discussion in nothing but attack against me, casting the essence of shade on my abilities — including to write sentences that make sense.
I would never have imagined falling victim, on this platform and especially here in the ANI, to a gratuitous and groundless and one-sided and deeply personal flame war. And yet it has just happened.
As you will surely infer, I am particularly puzzled about how and why, having already contributed content to a fairly broad variety of other Wikipedia articles, I suddenly find myself under sustained heavy fire over an article about EVH in particular. Cebran2003 (talk) 18:47, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see myself mentioned here. But after reviewing this complaint, I'm completely lost on what is occurring here and what the problem is. The complaint started to be about FlightTime and now I see objections to Drmies. But the discussion is all over the map and I think it should probably be closed as there is no singular and clear goal being sought. Feel free to open a new discussion on a specific subject that you feel warrants review. But continuing to post your unhappiness about other editors and to vent is unlikely to lead to any changes and might just reflect poorly on you. If you have issues with a specific editor, I recommend discussing the problem with them on their User talk page. LizRead!Talk!02:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, at just about the time that FlightTime was apologizing for his incivility of a week ago (and I was promptly accepting the apology), Drmies took up the attack, literally, and not only flamed me far more viciously and more repeatedly (without actually inviting any of the explanations that Drmies declared my having never provided) but in the first moments of their opening flame incident rolled back -- with no little collateral damage to the material -- my 3000-byte contribution to date (5% of the word count) for an article that Drmies claims as some de facto owner (despite having evidently added no content in connection with or after the massive rollover). Cebran2003 (talk) 03:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rollback, not rollover; sounds like another Freudian slip on my part. In any event, please note that Drmies is obviously unapproachable by me on their User talk page, and that I previously tried running by FlightTime (fences mended, clearly) the idea of starting a new thread from which they could readily bow out if they chose. Cebran2003 (talk) 03:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let me take a different approach. You have explained your dismay at Drmies' edits and approach towards you, Cebran2003, but what do you expect will happen from this ANI complaint? What proposal do you have to make? If this complaint is just serving to air your disagreement without you having an achievable goal, then this complaint should probably be closed before there is any blowback on you. LizRead!Talk!05:23, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am proposing that the absurd rollback be reversed, and that any undoing of the reversal be impeded to whatever extent may be feasible. Just to be clear, I have no personal stake in the article and am intending to walk away; its recent degradation by Drmies is the only matter that still concerns me, as a matter of principle (although I continue to think that any admin sanctions that can be brought to bear should be brought to bear). Cebran2003 (talk) 06:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have spoken for myself only in offering up the proposal above. @OXYLYPSE, who launched the thread and just paved the way for me to reach out directly to you, @Liz, may have a broader one to make here. Cebran2003 (talk) 06:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
An editor posted the following to my talk page a few minutes ago. They claim to not want to be noticed by the user they were reporting in case of reprisals, so I doubt that they would actually bring it here if I advised them to do that, and specifically asked for me to remove their talk page post if I took any action on it — but since I'm in the middle of other things and don't want to get involved in something that isn't my circus or my monkeys, I'm simply reposting it here verbatim for somebody to address or ignore as you wish. Bearcat (talk) 16:27, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I ran into this edit on the Islam wikipage. I checked that specific user's history and they've vandalised a Jewish page too. They've been IP blocked before but appealed that it's an error. They mention on their talk page that they used to have a Wiki account with over 500 edits, but I can only extrapolate the meaning of that. So far they don't stick around, they hit & run and move on until boredom strikes and vandalise another page. I don't want to reach out to them incase I land on their radar and so by deferring to you, I'm hoping I can maintain a degree of separation.
Feel free to ask me any questions. But before you decide to take an action, like speaking to anyone else about this, can you please delete this talk entry? Don't archive it, just edit > backspace > save.
The edit to World Zionist Organization seems like a "poorly considered but not necessarily vandalism" type of edit. The edit to Islam, on the other hand, is basically hate speech, but all they got on their talk pages was an NPOV notice, which I do not think is sufficient. So, let's be real clear here: @Hadjnix: if you make even one more edit like that, you can and should expect to be blocked for it. This is an encyclopedia, not a place for you to display your personal prejudice. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today20:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bumping a thread on a regular discussion board or forum usually moves the thread to the top of the page. But, ActivelyDisinterested, posting again to an ANI discussion has no effect except for delaying an archiving of this discussion and since you just posted a comment on this thread yesterday, it will have little effect. If this thread is archived with no action, you can "unarchive" it and repost but right now, you just have to wait and see if anyone else responds to this discussion. LizRead!Talk!00:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware, but it's a slightly annoying thing that might get an admins attention to someone posting Islam also justifies pedophilia, child marriage, rape and radical extremism to the Islam article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°00:43, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yeah i'm honestly not sure how this isn't an open-and-shut case of hate speech. it should merit some kind of block at the very least. ... sawyer * he/they * talk11:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disruptive Edits and Misinformation by User "Ratnahastin" on AajTak Wikipedia Page
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dear Wikipedia Administrators,
I would like to bring to your attention the disruptive editing behaviour of the user "Ratnahastin" on the AajTak channel's Wikipedia page. The user has been repeatedly making edits suggesting that AajTak operates under the influence of the BJP, which is factually incorrect and misleading.
Despite previous attempts to revert these edits and maintain neutrality on the page, "Ratnahastin" continues to reintroduce this unfounded claim, which is compromising the integrity and neutrality of the article.
These actions are in violation of Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy, and the repeated additions of misinformation are causing confusion for readers. I request that the user be warned or blocked from making further disruptive edits and that the page be protected from further vandalism.
Please take the necessary action to maintain the accuracy and neutrality of this article.
All editors are expected to cite sources upon editing. It is clear that Aaj Tak is a BJP mouthpiece. Did some search on the web. Sources: 1Ahri Boy (talk) 06:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the citation provided above not being added to that passage, as that is seemingly their objection? Also, they ought to be informed of WP:3RR / WP:EW before blocks concerning these to come into effect. Ahri Boy, you cite it here but not in the article? I'm at a loss. But I will be p-blocking them from the article nonetheless; still, it's puzzling. El_C17:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See the sentences such as "condemned for being partial and supporting the ideology of the ruling government of BJP" and "Aaj Tak was fined ₹1 lakh and asked to broadcast apologies for fake news regarding Sushant Singh Rajput." Ratnahastin(talk)17:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The IP user 76.88.55.135 first began their grammar editing spree in April this year, had a few sporadic months, and they've been churning out these kinds of edits since September. I think they're doing their best to be constructive, but the quantity and speed at which they're churning these edits out is honestly quite disruptive and disturbing. Their contributions page says they've made almost 500 edits in the past 24 hours, and I am half jokingly starting to question if they're okay.
Regardless, down to the meat and potatoes of this matter. Their most recent editing spree has been an en masse removal of the "the" from any instance they could find of the sentence chunk "the Scripps Institution of Oceanography". If it were spelled Scripp's or Scripps', with an apostrophe, then they would be correct in changing the grammar. However, this isn't the case. While the matter is muddied by the fact that the Scripps Institiution of Oceanography is part of the University of California San Diego (and therefore might fall under WP:THEUNI), I brought the issue to ANI because the IP user has neglected the style consistency guidelines and failed to seek consensus before changing every single instance of the sentence chunk mentioned above to their preferred version.
I understand that providing diffs in the form of links is preferrable, but the IP user has made so many so quickly that it would simply be more efficient for me to just show this:
The IP user has edited approximately 400+ articles that so much as mention the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Despite having been warned in the past by other users, and most recently by @Dr vulpes and myself, the IP user has disregarded these warnings, blanked their talk page, and continued their edits. Diffs will now be provided.
[29]: Talk page warning being subsequently blanked
[32]: IP user's edit summary admitting they used a bot to do all the edits, despite them previously telling me they did all the edits manually
[33]: continued insistence of their preferred version
I would like to make a note for any admins that review this: I believe that the IP user's behaviour, while definitely disruptive, was not out of ill will. They have made multiple good contributions to articles in the past, but the use of a bot to enact en masse changes without seeking community consensus or even asking for discussion sticks out as blatant disregard, not ignorance. Nuking all of their edits is not really a viable option, they have almost 2300 edits on their IP address at the time of writing. Sirocco745 (talk) 07:04, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am the IP editor. I just like a clear talk page. I thought I read I can do with it what I want. I am a constructive editor that acts like a WikiGnome, just fixing links and grammar. If there was an issue, I apologize.
I searched the term I wanted to change and it was less than a 500 count page of instances so I just changed it manually. If you all think I was in the wrong, go ahead and revert those edits regarding the subject. I thought I was right considering the organization themselves uses no "the", as well as a large amount of media. Is there a specific manual of style guideline to refer to? 76.88.55.135 (talk) 07:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see, that was me replying to a revert by a spam bot that I am not affiliated with. Did you even check that before accusing me? Everyone of my edits are in good faith and made myself. 76.88.55.135 (talk) 07:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bottom line, revert the edits regarding this subject if they were wrong to make. I don't know how to do something that complicated to be frank. I appreciate the fact you all are trying to help improve Wikipedia, so I don't take any of this negatively. Have a good discussion. 76.88.55.135 (talk) 07:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't doubt that your edits were in good faith, it's just that while you were making your edits, you literally averaged 2-4 edits per minute for almost four hours. I (wrongly) assumed that no one would use four hours of their time to just... do that manually. Sirocco745 (talk) 07:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The specific guidelines I was referring to are WP:THEUNI, which talks about when and where using "the" is appropriate when addressing a university, and MOS:VAR, which is the first section of the Manual of Style main page and states, verbatim, "When either of two styles is acceptable it is generally considered inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change[...] Edit-warring over style, or enforcing optional style in a bot-like fashion without prior consensus, is never acceptable."
I apologize if I overreacted by bringing this to ANI, but there was no real evidence to the contrary that you were listening to the warnings Dr vulpes or I gave you or that this pattern would stop. Sirocco745 (talk) 07:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I get you're just helping, and my bad for the policy break. I am done editing on that subject. I guess the admins will decide whether or not there need to be reverts on it. I myself don't hold a strong conviction on either side after seeing the discussion. 76.88.55.135 (talk) 07:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies as well, it was not my intent to come off as authoritarian or "OBJECTION!"-like. I'm still getting used to the odd formal-informal style of Wikipedia discussions. Feels like you're writing an email to your boss but your boss is also your friend, if that makes sense. Sirocco745 (talk) 07:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Make an account and join us! You clearly care enough to do these small edits and I know that your contributions will be important and valued! We all make mistakes I know I have but we're a really welcoming community and I hope that I see more of your work going forward. If you ever need help or have questions feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Dr vulpes(Talk)08:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you can make all that effort, go through this "scolding", calmly accept it, and say afterwards you don't hold a strong conviction on either side, you are my hero! I agree with the good editors above: SIGN THIS IP EDITOR UP! We need more wikipedians just like them. BusterD (talk) 15:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This editors actions in blanking their talk page so that others had to work to understand the issues and the failure to correct themselves the Scripps Institution of Oceanography episode suggests a problem deserving administrator action. There is a bot at work and attempted cover up ChaseKiwi (talk) 19:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not use a bot. I literally just edited a lot for a few hours last night. I won't blank my talk page anymore, I thought that was allowed. 76.88.55.135 (talk) 19:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If so you could have started reverting your edits by now of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at your previous rate to show good faith instead of leaving others to clean up after you. You have been able to blank your talk page, which is allowed as its acknowledgement that you have read the page on several occasions since issue was brought to your notice. ChaseKiwi (talk) 19:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am waiting on an admin to reverse those edits if they were wrong to make, as they would have the tools/know-how to do so much quicker than myself.
I do not use a bot, and would like to see some proof that I do if you still insist I do. I don't even know how to use a bot.
I do think it is an interesting conversation on a nuanced topic, do the Clippers play at "the Intuit Dome" because it sounds better? It rolls of the tongue, but official media from the Clippers themselves and informed journalists omit the "the". How about the former Staples Center? Was it the Staple Center? Or just Staples Center? Did we remove the "the" when it changed to Crypto.com Arena? Where do we gain a consensus on grammar style?
Same with Sphere in Las Vegas, many people say "the Sphere". I understand each case has unique characteristics, such as the type of organization. 76.88.55.135 (talk) 19:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my edits on the subject were reverted. I guess that's fair since I should have discussed them in the first place beforehand. Though I do wonder if the edits were the better style regardless and should be restored after discussion? If it was "Scripps Center" and they themselves didn't use "the" as well as the media, but someone thought "the Scripps Center" was better, would it be? I guess the grammar of "(x) Institution of (x)" makes it sound too off not to include "the" beforehand? Oh well, i'm done on the subject. Goodbye. 76.88.55.135 (talk) 05:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What they seem to have been doing is loading multiple articles at once and changing them one by one. Since the change is mostly identical each time, they can just Ctrl + F to the proper section, click edit on that section so it loads less text, remove a single word and the space, and save. Plus since they pre-loaded the articles, they can quickly move onto the next article.
WP:THEUNI is only about how to title an article. It is not about whether to use articles in running text, the problem here. I would have thought that text like This guideline is about naming conventions for Wikipedia articles, and discusses use of "The", "A", and "An" at the start of an article title. and The preceding websites include title phrases "The University of X", but in running text, they refer to themselves as "the University of X". would have given this editor a clue: you should use "the" in running text for universities named like this. This guideline cannot be a valid justification for changing the text of articles, only for their titles. Any change using it to justify the incorrect removal of definite articles should be reverted, and if the editor will not stop doing it they should be blocked. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that WP:THEUNI certainly is only meant to apply to titles and that this IP editor's approach is disruptive, but Scripps is an interesting case and is often referred to as such. This is true for the various institutes and orgs named Scripps. Including the is not clearly right or wrong. When either style is reasonable, mass edits are unjustified. This editor should register an account, stop the mass edits, engage on Talk pages if they have a strong case for common or otherwise preferred styling of the name in running text, and just accept it and move on if they can't build consensus. -- MYCETEAE 🍄🟫— talk06:37, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Typical Albanian 4 rr on Gracanica monastery page [[34]], [[35]], [[36]], [[37]]. The same thing on Visoki Decani article, [[38]], [[39]], [[40]], [[41]] considering the fact that the editor was engaged in edit warring several times in recent past, most notably on city of Nish page, where due to a persistent vandalism there is applied rule of only 1RR of all editors in 24 hours, which they broke several times in short time [[42]], [[43]], [[44]], that they never use talk pages to explain their edits, that in spite the warning on their talk page [[45]] they just continued with their behaviour again without any discussion on talk page, that they using edit summaries to directly attack other editors, and since this is a sensitive topic, I belive this constitutes a typical WP:disruptive behaviour with typical edit warring and off course 4RR. Thank you. Theonewithreason (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first "reverts" of each article do not actually comprise of reverts in any form.
For the Gračanica Monastery article, here (the first link the User:Theonewithreason linked [[46]], I just added the Albanian language pronunciation of the word and placed it first since A (Albanian language) comes before S (Serbian language) alphabetically.
For the Visoki Dečani article, for the first link he provided (this [47]), there I just added a image. Is this a revert in your eyes? And for the second "revert" according to this user, ([48]), I did the same thing as in the Gračanica Monastery article. (Please check the history of the article, since the user did not rightfully link the diffs)
None of these actions/links comprise reverts! I did not remove the Serbian variants or revert any edits by this user or anyone else. I request that whoever reviews this situation takes a close look at who began the edit warring and how aggressively this user is pushing their POV. This user firstly reverted my edits and then escalated the conflict with the intention of making me violate the 3-revert rule and potentially face a block, which of course I did not fall into his trap, as a matter of fact he fell on his own trap! User's report is full of malice, and it’s clear that it was eager for me to break the 3-revert rule! In reality, if anyone deserves a block, it would be the reporting user.
The first reverts do constitute rr as the others do, so you did 4 RR on both pages, second you added an Albanian language but ignored addition of Serbian language, which is now presented in Visoki Decani article, those monasteries legally do not belong to Kosovo state and are in direct ownership of Serbian orthodox church [[49]] and as such been damaged and vandalised in last 20 years, but still you are the one who started with edit warring because you are the one who started with changes on both articles, without starting any discussion on talk page or reaching consensus to do so which means WP:Onus was on you, also the fact that you continue to attack and make personal accusation does not help you. Theonewithreason (talk) 19:40, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Typical Albanian is correct in so far as WP:3RR was not breached, but both editors were guilty of edit-warring. Either could have started a talk page discussion, and earned some brownie points, but neither chose to. Both of you, give up this silly nationalistic point-scoring and discuss on the article talk page what languages should be included. It seems to me to be pretty obvious that a monastary in Kosovo belonging to the Serbian Orthodox Church should be named in both Albanian and Serbian, but I know little about the region, Phil Bridger (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Theonewithreason exihibits same pattern he is attributing to others. I agree that both users should cease with nationalistic editing. Resolve this yourselves or open a discussion and seek a neutral opinion. This is getting pointless and I see this is not your first instance going this path. I'm speaking for both editors, which should warrant some king of measure. 78.1.146.147 (talk) 21:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A bit of a weird one here. Bairaag is a Bollywood film that, according to the sources in the article, was a flop. New editor FaisalTheGreat 1(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) doesn't agree and is declaring it a 'superhit'. The problem is, the sources saying it was a flop are, on face it, not very good. So maybe they're right? And they're an Android app editor, so I believe they can't see the templates on their talk page asking them to stop.
The phenomenon of Paid news in India makes it difficult or impossible to take seriously what many media outlets in India say about entertainment topics in particular. This is a real challenge to Wikipedia's integrity when covering Bollywood et cetera. Cullen328 (talk) 04:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi, I would like to receive assistance from an Administrator about an IP user, User:2A00:23C5:50E8:EE01:6826:7ED6:69A8:AF98. They keep posting on registered users’ talk pages such as mine and User:Yellerhater. They told me to write edit summaries and they told Yellerhater to stop hijacking pages, although I do not see any evidence that Yellerhater did such a thing. I hope to hear from someone soon to resolve this issue. Thank you. TeaLoverHistoryGuy (talk) 21:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, I can just go to someone’s talk page and warn them about vandalism, edit warring and hijacking? My apologies. I didn’t know that. My apologies for not notifying the editors and I will start adding edit summaries. TeaLoverHistoryGuy (talk) 21:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, after being told that editors are allowed to warn other editors about vandalism, your response, immediately after this message, is to blank the vandalism warnings on Yellerhater's page [50]? Yellerhater is allowed to remove those, but you know that these messages weren't obviously inappropriate, so why did you remove them from a third party's page? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hijacking a page is literally Yellerhater's first edit: Special:Diff/1252317139. (Hijacking a page means editing an already existing page to make it about some other topic, which they did.) And TeaLoverHistoryGuy has indeed been skimping on edit summaries. Looking at 2A00's contributions and talk page, they're clearly a serious editor. Also, the editors mentioned have not been notified, like the very prominent boxes at the top of this page and in the editnotice tell you to. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH)21:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. When hijacking continues (with edit warring), it becomes plain ol' vandalism (until then it was just possibly misguided editing, which the first-level template allows for). I'm sure people could debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin (it's 16, by the way) in getting a slightly different template with a slightly different message but repeated hijacking is vandalism, so why bother? 2A00:23C5:50E8:EE01:6826:7ED6:69A8:AF98 (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[...] Blatant advertising pages, and blatant POV pushes, are not vandalism, but frequently happen and often lead to editors being blocked. It's important that people creating inappropriate pages be given appropriate communication; even if they aren't willing to edit within our rules, they are more likely to go away quietly if they understand why their page has been deleted.
Well WP:Article hijack is an essay, not a policy or guideline - the act of replacing an article with another, is, as far as I know, just disruptive editing (*edit: oh, and WP:NOTHERE behaviour).
I mean it's pretty disruptive, that's probably why it has a "third" warning triangle, but the next step (if it's truly that bad) is uw-generic4. The only reason the quote is relevant here is that hijacking an article to add blatant advertisement is pretty similar to creating a new one to do it. – 2804:F1...ED:5881 (talk) 21:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC) *edited 21:57, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be honest here; it's more likely that I'm the reinanimated corpse of Ludwig van Beethoven, here to eat other people's ears in bitter revenge for my deafness, then it is that Yellerhater could possibly be unaware that what they're doing is inappropriate and why. This was pure, unadulterated nonsense that Yellerhater hijacked a page with and then started an edit war to keep in. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@KH-1 has recently edit warred by reverting 5 edits on one Article in 24hrs.
Not to mention on lots of other Articles.
He/She also marked most if not all of them with Vandalism tags.
In addition has not given any reasons for his reverts. He has reverted 14 times today as of now.
With a few of them being multiple edits reverted.
I have given him/her notice about this issue as you can see here.
Thank you for reading. Sheriff U3 talk22:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I regret to inform you that you have badly misunderstood the three-revert rule. Reverting five consecutive edits is one revert. You have also given them a notice that you were reporting them at WP:AN3 as opposed the here, which is ANI. As you've provided no actual diffs of anything actionable, there isn't much of anything for an admin to do here. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today22:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thank you for informing me that he has not edit warred.
But he has Reverted good edits as can be seen here and here.
Do I need to continue? If you check the reverts you will see the good edits he has reverted.
Also He has a history of this, and has not given any reason of it.
Even if you think it should not be here, it does need Admin attention.
They appear to me to be removing WP:LINKSPAM (they in fact have said as much is some of their edit summarries), or what they perceive to be linkspam. It would be nice if they were using better edit summarries and also warning/notifying users when reverting them, but neither of those things are hard requirements. You say he has not given any reason, but I don't see evidence that you actually asked them about it. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today23:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) It looks to me like KH-1 was reverting REFSPAM, exactly as they noted in the edit summary of this edit. suspensionsetups.com and aivafertiliser.co.uk are not reliable sources, they're businesses with blogs used for SEO purposes. We certainly shouldn't be using sources like that on Wikipedia. Woodroar (talk) 23:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's telling to me that they pointed out this edit [51] specifically as being a problematic revert. Removing an external link from the text of an article is always the right move, so I don't know on what basis they felt it proved any sort of misbehavior, and I rather think this user is in over their head asking for enforcement of rules when they haven't taken the time to actually understand what the rules are. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today23:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the OP has only been active as an editor for one week so it's not a surprise that they aren't familiar with all Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Sheriff U3, it was premature for you to bring this disagreement to ANI. This noticeboard is for urgent or intractable disputes. This one just needed some discussion between you and the other editor. LizRead!Talk!00:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[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)[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) 21:28, 22 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]
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]
As per the user's talk page, the IP user has 8 warnings (the latest of which I just added now) this year asking them not do add unsourced information to Wikipedia. These warnings have all seemingly been ignored.
User:Ervin111899 has apparently been warned [52][53][54][55][56]. They have responded to several of these warnings, re-iterating Wikipedia's copyright policy and assuring that they understand it, and that they will follow it. (See [57] and [58], for example).
Today, on the article TV Patrol, they added this edit, containing material almost directly lifted from [60] as you can see here .For convenience, I have bolded the overlapping words:
"Following this election's campaign handle Bayan Mo iPatrol Mo, this endeavor encourages Filipinos to guard our votes and serve as responsible citizen journalists who are able to report any election–related cases such as vote buying. Similarly, STI's year-round campaign dubbed as Citizen STI, which is the institution's commitment to mold individuals to become catalysts of positive change, perfectly coincides with ABS-CBN's endeavor."
"Following this election's campaign handle Bayan Mo iPatrol Mo, this endeavor encourages Filipinos to guard our votes and serve as responsible citizen journalists who are able to report any election–related cases such as vote buying. Similarly, STI's year-round campaign dubbed as Citizen STI, which is the institution's commitment to mold individuals to become catalysts of positive change, perfectly coincides with ABS-CBN's endeavor."
I am sorry for copying and pasting from other websites. It is not intentional. Starting this time, I will now write on my own. Thank you. Ervin111899 (talk) 05:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ervin111899 Why should the community believe you? You said you've understood this before "If I am editing Wikipedia, much better I will not edit pages involving copying from anything anymore as it is a violation of copyright rules or property rights of owners of anything that I find online, in books, in magazines, in newspapers, or any other media." ([61])- and you said this in late July 2024. What's changed now? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 05:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to the 2 instances cited in the original post above where the user said that they understand the relevant policy and will comply with it...
The second instance is, for the most part, directly copied and pasted from the standard notice given to users in relation to copyvio. The first one is, at best, heavily paraphrased from a similar source.
To respond with further copy/pasting when asked to abide by COPYVIO is clearly absurd and indicates that the user has, at best, serious WP:CIR issues. Axad12 (talk) 07:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Copying text requires a conscious decision to highlight a block of text and then click "copy". Pasting text requires placing the cursor where the editor wants that text to go, and clicking "paste". Or the equivalents. These actions cannot possibly be unintentional, and repeated violations of copyright law are taken very seriously on Wikipedia. Accordingly, I have indefinitely blocked Ervin111899. Cullen328 (talk) 07:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I was just looking at the user's talk page and found the following rather amusing example:
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Cartoon Network, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. The Grand Delusion(Send a message) 15:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes. I must not add or change content like what I did at Cartoon Network, without citing a reliable source. I will review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you and you're welcome. Ervin111899 (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC).
And then later in the same thread, after a similar example:
Do you just repeat people's messages back to them? Trivialist (talk) 22:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Trivialist that I just repeat people's messages back to them. I will now change my comment. Thank you and you're welcome. Ervin111899 (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
This edit saying they'll just bump over to tl.wiki makes me think that we need to warn them so they don't return to being a new headache there. Also with the 'fan HR' trash on the TV Patrol article (which is about 70% tracking the month-by-month clock-in status of the show's anchors as every article about a Filipino TV show seems to be), what they added shouldn't have even been added in the first place. Nate•(chatter)22:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MrSchimpf The exchange underneath the declined block review request is fascinating, in that post much every single comment is made up of copied text from the one above it.
It reads like a really confusing game of Telephone.
If they were a troll, they were in it for the long haul and I'm kinda of impressed by their tenacity - they were clearly dedicated to WP for whatever reason, so it's a pity their behaviour never changed. Blue-Sonnet (talk) 23:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@Ratnahastin seems to be a person who hates other castes he has been putting negative information in articles related to Ahir/Yadav. He is definitely a hater. First he said Hcsrctu stock See here [62], then this Hindukshatrana sock see here [63]. He does not look at the sources. If he feels that something wrong can be added related to Ahir/Yadav then he tries to add it. If something good has been added in the article then he removes it. Look at his actions [64], [65], [66] which make it clear that he hates this community. 2409:4085:9216:99AD:0:0:C3A:98B1 (talk) 11:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you must have the wrong links there. They do not show any opinion about this community, let alone make it clear that he hates it. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC) You forgot to leave a message for Ratnahastin saying that he is being discussed. I have done so.[reply]
Comment: worth noting that Ratnahastin has been increasingly been targeted here by frivolous allegations by malicious and sometimes WP:CIR users from and regarding a certain geographical area. Borgenland (talk) 17:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Vandalism and disruptive edits by Anonymousguywhoisaneditor
Primarily I wanted to check that my message left to them was the right action or whether it was an overstep or not enough, and just check that the discussion there was within the norms. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 17:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an overstep. Opening up an ANI report (which is where we deal with editors who are demonstrating serious behavioral issues) is. Most editors would consider that a pretty major escalation, and very unnecessary in this case. To ask these questions, you would have done better to just ask on the talkpage of an available admin. Grandpallama (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
March8613 (talk·contribs) has been uploading redone versions of company logos to retailer articles such as Media Play and claiming said logos as their own uncopyrighted work (most of them don't fall under text-only logos not unique enough to be copyrighted). I strongly suspect this is someone in good faith who doesn't understand copyright, and their edits should be dealt with accordingly. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?)21:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'd like to know what I can do to fix this issue. I'm new here and will like to know what I can change. Any recommendations? I uploaded them under that category as I saw some listed that way in the past. I can delete any that I shouldn't have uploaded. I have been stuck as I don't know how copyright works for companies that no longer exist. I don't want to get in trouble or anything and am nervous that I may have done something wrong. Many of these logos I created myself by looking through old newspapers. March8613 (talk) 01:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@March8613: Even if a company is defunct, another company may still hold the rights to their logo. For instance, the Perry Drug Stores logo is likely still owned by Rite Aid to prevent someone from opening up another store with that name and logo. Some of the logos that consist entirely of text (for example, the logo of Family Fare) are fine, as they do not consist of any uniquely copyright-able element. Those should be tagged as {{pd-textlogo}} or something similar. If there's a symbol of some sort in it, then it might be copyrighted and you should go with {{non-free logo}}. I admit I don't know everything about this myself, which is why I brought it here so others can help me figure it out. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?)02:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really appreciate it. I'll fix these asap as I don't want to get into any trouble or anything. I LOVE retail history a lot and I think went too fast. Malls are a huge hobby of mine. March8613 (talk) 02:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
March8613, definitely love your enthusiasm, but walk before running—many logos are complex enough to be copyrighted, so you can't just start calling them all PD! You'd need to understand how the threshold of originality works, and why that particular logo didn't meet it. On the other hand, a logo like Wikipedia's own (the puzzle globe) is creative and complex enough to be copyrightable, so you can't just go around putting {{pd-textlogo}} on logos unless you really know how to tell whether it's appropriate in that case. (And to complicate things further, the rules are different in different jurisdictions, too.) If you're not sure, you're probably best off asking at the media copyright questions noticeboard; a lot of editors who are pretty familiar with how copyright applies to Wikipedia hang around there and can help. You'll probably start picking it up as you go along and as those questions get answered. Copyright is a pretty complex beast, so don't be in too much of a hurry and don't hesitate to ask about something you're not certain of. SeraphimbladeTalk to me20:05, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a new editor with just over 50 edits. They have been changing content on earthquake-related articles and were warned for introducing incorrect information on 2 October for making random changes to figures on a good article [67]. The second warning came after more random changes to a featured article [68]. I then gave a final warning after more changing text (including reference titles) [69]. Today, more ref title changes [70]. No conversation has taken place with this person; just the warnings. Dawnseeker200022:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While this doesn't excuse the issues with their edits (and the account might need to be blocked from editing if they continue without responding), none of the warnings on their talk page actually explain what the problem was. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hope it's ok that I AGF'd & added a quick message to their talk page, since we're both similarly inexperienced and interested in similar topics. Figured it might be less intimidating & can't do much harm! I can't give them much advice but can try to direct them to the right areas to find it, at least. Blue-Sonnet (talk) 00:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Editor continues to add unreferenced content to BLP articles despite multiple warnings. Editor has only made edits to mainspace and draftspace, so may be unaware. --Hipal (talk) 23:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hipal, if you want any action to be taken here, you need to provide "diffs" or examples of the behavior you find troubling. Without these, there is nothing here to respond to. LizRead!Talk!23:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps as background, this user has made more than 1200 edits since February 2022 & after looking at a dozen of their edits at random I can't see a single source in all that time. They've submitted a draft article in July (Draft:BoAt) that was rejected for lack of sources - the editor did go back to it after rejection (so presumably saw the reason?) when they changed a tiny bit of an infobox then never came back.
I can't see any engagement in any talk pages, only mainspace edits for Indian politicians, celebrities and businesses.
For context, there are almost thirty unheeded warnings in their Talk for lack of sources, incorrect/broken disambiguation links & various infobox issues going back as far as March 2022, only one month after they started. Blue-Sonnet (talk) 00:47, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like they're editing through a browser on mobile. I do the same quite often and I tend to miss some notifs until I log in on a PC. I think it's that you don't get told that you have a new notif so you have to actively look for it. I don't remember if edits to my TP are affected by that. Might it be a case of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU? QwertyForest (talk) 07:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is that Wikipedia password-reset emails were bouncing (likely because the underlying IP they're on is blocked, which can and does interdict any reset emails) and so they created a new account with a new email address since they lost the password to the old one. —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques05:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Page protection is not nearly as important of an issue as the edits from this newbie editor. Please look at their talk page as well as to the promotional material they have consistently been adding to that page, both as Editorialph (talk·contribs) and as various IPs before that. I'm done with that issue--is up to others to clean that page from now on. 50.81.237.112 (talk) 14:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who are now really fool who was trying stop someone from editing from the website that anyone can edit? Lol 🤣 and by the way a website that is known from academic institution a not reliable source 🤣 Editorialph (talk) 01:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could an admin assist with some serious threats please?
Regarding 7G (talk·contribs). I noticed this message [74] at Reading Beans (talk·contribs) talk page. I reverted the message as it was a serious, multilevel threat. As I felt it was such an egregious threat, I left a level 4 warning on their talk page.
They have now doubled down on the threat [75]
Being a long term user, I feel this is best addressed by an admin rather than going to AIV.
I agree that those appear to be serious threats @Knitsey. I’ve indefinitely blocked 7G and have alerted WP:EMERGENCY. For the sake of review, I’m not revision deleting the edits; there’s no personal information from what I see, so they don’t meet oversight criteria, but they may meet RD3/RD2 revdel criteria. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk)14:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I need advice from the administrator, I usually edit the Russian-language Wikipedia, so I am not so well versed in the rules of conduct in the English-language Wikipedia. One of the users HistoryofIran, who adds sources to articles without citations (and as I discovered, incorrectly interprets sources) refuses to provide citations and threatens to contact the administration against me. In the Russian-language Wikipedia, if you add a source without a citation (and if this source is not on the Internet with free access), then at the first request you are obliged to provide a quote. The editor not only refuses to provide citations, but also deleted my request from his discussion page, and in the description of his edit he also insulted me:
The only thing you can "expect" out of me is a report straight to WP:ANI. The nerve you have to constantly "expect" stuff out of folk because you don't agree with WP:RS.
I don't really care about his insults, I just want to understand if he has the right not to cooperate with me? And if he refuses to provide quotes for the sources he cites, can these sources be removed from the article? Rs4815 (talk) 19:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By all means, please provide diffs for your claims. I already have diffs at the ready. You have tried to overemphasize Armenian stuff and underemphasize non-Armenian stuff several times now. WP:OUCH:
Replaces a sourced map in the FA Parthian Empire with a unsourced one because they don't want to see Armenia included in it [77]
I still don't fully know what you were even trying to do here, it barely made sense, as the info had nothing to do with each other. It seems like an attempt at opposing Shahbazi's statement that the legendary figure Tigranes was most likely based on a Persian hyparch of the same name. [78]. Which I also noted here [79]
Altered sourced info at Sames II Theosebes Dikaios[80], removed the link to "Iranian peoples", putting your opinion above that of several WP:RS with your comment "Iranian was the founder of the Orontid dynasty, who lived 200+ years before Sames".
Completely removed Persian as a language at Commagene, despite the citation literally saying that it was spoken by them at least before the end of the kingdom [81]
I was actually pondering about that myself earlier. I would personally say no (but I'm not too sure), but if it is, Rs4814 is not even allowed to edit those articles per WP:GS/AA, having under 500 edits. HistoryofIran (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's far enough removed to even come under "broadly construed". It might be convenient to prevent Rs4815 from editing these articles under the rules for contentious topics, but I don't think it would be wise. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are trying to change the topic of the discussion. If you want to discuss the articles you mentioned above, create a separate topic. We are currently discussing your attempts to distort information from sources from the article about Commagene and your refusal to cooperate on the topic of quotations to sources that you yourself added. --Rs4815 (talk) 07:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rs4815, yes, please provide diffs. Your comment implies that the Russian Wikipedia does not allow references to sources that are not on the Internet with free access. I do not know if that is the case there, but this is the English Wikipedia, and we have our own policies and guidelines. It is perfectly acceptable to cite offline reliable sources here, or sources behind paywalls, as long as complete bibliographical details about the sources are provided. Just so you know, HistoryofIran is a well-respected editor here on English Wikipedia who does a great job pushing back against ethnonationalist POV pushing, so you need to furnish convincing evidence of your extraordinary claims against that editor. Cullen328 (talk) 20:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, you misunderstood me, Russian Wikipedia allows you to refer to sources that are not freely available on the Internet, but in controversial situations, you can request a specific quote from this source, which is referenced by the participant who added the source. There is even a special template "request quotation", which can be substituted for the desired source in the text of the article. There is something similar here in the English Wikipedia:
This is used to request a direct quote from the cited source, so that it may be verified that the source can verify the statement or that the editor has interpreted the source correctly. This is particularly helpful for: *sources that are not available online
As for the diffs, I provided them on his talk page when he tried to distort the meaning of the source information twice, but he removed them. The particular source says:
Although all of the rulers became increasingly Hellenised after the first few generations - is is unlikely that any of them spoke Persian in the end - they retained considerable Iranian sentiment and character, particularly in the field of religion.
At first he tried to refer to this source to present everything as if "Persian was the native language of Commagene"[82], then, when his distortion was revealed for the first time[83], he continued to insist that Persian was "the language of the ruling dynasty"[84], while the source itself claims the opposite, that the ruling dynasty very quickly stopped speaking Persian. Only after my intervention was he forced to present the information correctly[85] (with this edit he literally admitted that he was wrong! It took him 4 and a half years to do this) while threatening me that he would ask the administration to block me[86].
Also in the article there is a claim that the ruling dynasty (a Hellenistic dynasty descended from Armenian kings and ruling in a country with an ethnic Syrian population) were an "Iranian dynasty" (a political term), to support this claim the editor cited many different sources, but only some of them call the dynasty Iranian, many call it a "dynasty of Iranian origin" (in the ethnic sense) or just say something like "King Antiochus claimed descent from the Persian royal dynasty of the Achaemenids through his great-great-great ... great-great grandmother". This is not the same as calling the dynasty Iranian. I told the user that I was going to check each source separately (on the talk page of the article) and that some of them are not available online, so I will need quotes[87], to which he again threatened to contact the administration[88] and deleted my request from his talk page.
"HistoryofIran is a well-respected editor here on English Wikipedia" just because he is a well known editor does not mean he always does everything right, please consider this issue without prejudice --Rs4815 (talk) 07:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At first he tried to refer to this source to present everything as if "Persian was the native language of Commagene"
Doing your best to cast WP:ASPERSIONS I see. "Native" was meant to refer as the native language of the dynasty. However, I realized that could be misrepresented as the language of the population, thus I later changed it.
he continued to insist that Persian was "the language of the ruling dynasty"[9], while the source itself claims the opposite, that the ruling dynasty very quickly stopped speaking Persian. Only after my intervention was he forced to present the information correctly
Wrong again. This is what the full quote in that citation says "Commagene was the only one of those neo-Persian kingdoms whose royal family bore mainly Hellenistic names, despite their claims to Iranian aristocratic descent, whereas both the Pontic and Cappadocian royal families retained Iranian names throughout. Although all of them became increasingly Hellenised after the first few generations - it is unlikely that any of them spoke Persian in the end - they retained considerable Iranian sentiment and character, particularly in the field of religion." In other words, they spoke Persian at least until the end. Yet, you completely removed Persian [89], because you want to underemphasize non-Armenian stuff. I did add "early" after reverting you [90], however, that's vague and I really shouldn't have added it. I only did it in the hopes of ceasing your WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. I will not give in to that again. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also in the article there is a claim that the ruling dynasty (a Hellenistic dynasty descended from Armenian kings and ruling in a country with an ethnic Syrian population) were an "Iranian dynasty" (a political term)
You're even further proving my point that you want overemphasize Armenian stuff and underemphasize non-Armenian stuff. By all means, cite all those quotes of those sources that you don't agree with, it will be a even more glorious WP:OUCH. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While we wait for Rs4815 to finally post evidence of me adding sources "without citations" and "incorrectly interpreting sources"/"distort information", I have found even more diffs of their WP:TENDENTIOUS editing:
Removed sourced info about the Iranian origin of Mithrenes[91]
Dipesh's edit is pretty good actually, except for the first change. Maybe it's an issue with varieties of English (I'm a Brit) but I have never known anyone who is not involved in marketing to use language like "works in the vertical of". Phil Bridger (talk) 20:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Phil Bridger, speaking as an American, this is not an ENGVAR issue. In my opinion, "works in the vertical of" is bullshit marketing jargon. I do not think that it is specific to India. Cullen328 (talk) 20:47, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would someone please be able to take another look at @Mohitprajapat1082? Their only main space edit was an attempt to add a Linkedin for the cofounder [1] after a failed AFC for an apparently promotional article for another business [2]?
They've not been active for a couple of days so it might not be worth doing anything, but it still looks kinda suss to my (admittedly inexperienced) eyes... The other two don't really stand out, but this one doesn't look right to me. Blue-Sonnet (talk) 02:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mohitprajapat1082 created an account two days ago, made 6 edits, only one to main space and 5 to their sandbox. To my eyes, they haven't shown enough disruptive conduct to warrant a sanction. They are simply behaving like a new user who is not yet familar with our policies and guidelines. It would be a better use of your time to help instruct them about improper external links. LizRead!Talk!02:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These anons keep adding maintenance tags (specifically {{cleanup rewrite}}, {{copyedit}}, {{more citations needed}} and {{unreliable sources}}, enabling the pattern to be identified). They were asked to stop, but they seem to continue. Some of their other edits are also disruptive. Both IPs are from Indonesia, it seems.
In addition User:2001:448A:1020:3F01:112C:511D:68E2:1BFA was adding the same tags to a number of articles that seemed related only by the fact that I had edited them all recently, while clearing the backlog at Wikipedia:Database reports/Pages containing too many maintenance templates. I could find no explanation for this pattern. To demonstrate the number of articles affected by this editor's tagging, the total number of articles listed at that maintenance page rose from 318 in early September (or late August, I can't remember), to over 380 the next time the report was updated. Most of these articles were topics related to the Filipino television/media industry, or to other topics related to the Philippines or media in other Asian countries. In only very few of them were the issues suggested by those tags even relevant to the article.
Use specific tags (find them here). {{cleanup rewrite}} and {{copyedit}} are about as general as you can get, and in most cases, they weren't the problem with the articles you tagged. Better would be {{fanpov}} or {{tone}} for the Filipino celebrities, {{original research}} for the media organisations.
Identify the problem. When you add a very general tag, at least say in the edit summary or on the talk page where/what the problem is. Just adding a copyedit tag on a very long article doesn't help. Every article on wikipedia could use copyediting, probably. And you were adding {rewrite} on articles that were actually pretty good, the work of hundreds of editors over years. It makes it look like you had not even read them. Jdcooper (talk) 09:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a link to a list of active admin. Maybe reach out to one if it's not addressed in the next day or two. DN (talk) 22:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've applied a short range block to 2001:448A:1000::/40 for the continued disruptive editing despite multiple warnings. If the IP range continues the behavior after the block expires, I'd recommend applying a longer block as the logical next step in order to try and stop the disruption. I haven't yet looked into any of the evidence regarding the user accounts listed here, but I can certainly do so if needed. Since the 36.76.6.183 IP hasn't edited since October 15 (one week ago), I elected to hold off for now. If they begin editing disruptively again, let me know. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)00:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As shown on their talk page, Lovemuhcko (who began editing in 2019 and became more active in 2023) has recently showed issues with IDHT and competence:
Moving an unfinished stubby draft to mainspace: [93]
While they are sometimes good at giving me ideas on what articles to create, they have still continued their disruptive behavior despite being warned that this could get them blocked, so I'm concerned they're WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE with this project. ミラP@Miraclepine01:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So I not edits for in the future and I will limit these edits anymore and please not been blocked or banned to edits and still continue to editing will to limited from now. Lovemuhcko (talk) 02:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lovemuhcko: I don't think promising to restrict your edits is enough here. The general issue here is that you've repeatedly ignored people's concerns about your editing, so there's a substantial chance that it might later spill over to other areas on this project, leaving us with more work to clean up afterwards. ミラP@Miraclepine02:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I remember this editor. My first encounter to them was on April 2023 when they removed the Stub tag on Madoka Asahina article without an explanation. I restored the tag, explaining that the article was currently assessed as Stub, and warned them on their talk page. Since then, I restored the Stub tags that they removed from other articles, to the point I got exhausted and just removed those articles from my watchlist or just started ignoring them even if I know what they did was wrong. It seems that their editing involving Stub tag removal doesn't stop, with recent being this week. I hope this ANI will get the editor's attention: they can expand the Stub articles instead before removing the template. Centcom08 (talk) 08:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am new and Wikipedia suggest me to add some references and citations. I mentioned several citations and I found that website relevant. These issues were already fixed by administrators and we had a talk as well. Thanks Alinadeemalkhan (talk) 03:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recently, this user has been continuously crawling me and even tried to report me several times. I replied and even tried to defend myself but his behavior is still angey towards. I have done several other contributions on Wikipedia and added valid sources as best as I could do but now whenever I try do something this user named Counterfeit Purses immediately reports against me. I have checked his history and his behavior was same with another writer. Can you please help me regarding this issue. I am feeling very disappointed by this user. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alinadeemalkhan (talk • contribs) 18:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alinadeemalkhan, the best you can hope for from this section is to avoid sanctions yourself. Your behaviour so far on Wikipedia has been truly awful. I cannot say this too strongly, WP:DROPTHESTICK and withdraw your complaint immediately, in your very next edit. --Yamla (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alinadeemalkhan I don't see anything rude in his conduct. As for wrong...more editors would consider spamming behaviour to be a much bigger concern than biting the newbies. I echo Yamla's suggestion to withdraw your complaint. —C.Fred (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a rather angry discussion taking place between me and User:Revirvlkodlaku at the Talk:Alisa Xayalith page. I rarely ever use these means in my 22 years at Wikipedia, but in this case I felt it necessary. The issue is the use of New Zealand versus New Zealander. I am willing to admit I may be wrong and stopped reverting, he is not willing to admit the same.
Sorry to do this, we hqve a vandal with 50 vandalism edits and counting. Would anyone be able to take a look at the AIV noticeboard please? Thank you! Knitsey (talk) 08:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A wp:spa whose sole purpose here seems to be to push ther paper in a haughty, aggressive, and confrontational way [[94]], demanding that if we do not read it we can't reject it (ignoring issues of wp:rs). This has included accusations of trolling [[95]] and is just a tike sink.
My purpose is not to "push my paper in a haughty, aggressive and confrontational way". My purpose is solely to ask whether it is Wikipedia's policy to permit edits of pages when new evidence becomes available, and providing the evidence, but everyone simply ignores it, which is frustrating. The insults and threats don't help either.
A question more than one user has answered (with links to policies) with your response being "Have you read my paper, if not do not comment". We can't "correct information" from 100's of experts based on one expert's paper. Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Our standard for "misinformation correction" is pretty high. See WP:RGW. We can only record the righting of great wrongs that have been done elsewhere. We can't right the great wrongs ourselves. Unfortunately, with the vast amount of material that is published in the world, a single paper is not good enough. What we need are independent evaluations that say, "oh, yeah, that's a good point." or whatever. Try to get those types of sources written about your paper and then we can start to write copy about it here at Wikipedia! jps (talk) 15:20, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be sure, Wikipedia rules allow you to suggest edits on the talkpage. That's perfectly fine. You might also read this essay for other advice that is not required but tends to, when followed, lead to more positive outcomes in my experience. jps (talk) 15:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the essay and other advice. I'll flag it in my emails. No intention of meatpuppeting by the way. I have little enough respect for academics as it is, without sinking to their level.
Garethfloydmorgan was notified on their Talk page about conflicts of interest (here) and contentious topics (here), both of which they blanked here. They were also warned about making personal attacks here. At this discussion they have written the following about other editors: A person who can evaluate content without even reading it. You must be very special...Any editors out there able to read? (here); I think you have some serious issues, Bon. (here); Are you, in fact, simply a Troll? (here); Anyone here who can read? Anyone? (here); Are you seriously an editor here? (here). There are probably a few more, similar comments that I missed. A brief timeout might be appropriate before things get really out of hand. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot You'll remember that the Michelson-Morley experiment overturned the expert opinions of every single physicist on the planet,.and I think you'll find that my (major) experimental breakthrough does the same for human evolution[96], which I think pretty much says it all. EEng04:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect, but have not done the hard work to confirm, that the culture in other venues where AAH/AAT is discussed is extremely caustic. This would go a long way towards explaining the often strangely combative approaches seen in the archives of the Aquatic ape hypothesis talkpage. For my part, I think that our new user's replies to me have been banking towards the baseline culturally appropriate approach required at this website. jps (talk) 18:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Informing you of the consequences of ongoing misconduct is not a threat, Garethfloydmorgan. Nobody should insult you and you should not try to push other people around. You need to comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, including its behavioral guidelines, if you want to contribute to the #7 website in the world. This is a collaborative project so please try to act that way. Cullen328 (talk) 21:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Number six website in the world is Twitter, so get over yourself.
"which I think pretty much says it all." -- Insulting.
"Fringe theories often bring out the worst in some people." -- Double insult.
"Informing you of the consequences of ongoing misconduct is not a threat" -- Threatening.
"you should not try to push other people around.." Accusation.
We're not accusing you of trying to push others around, we are stating plainly that this is what you are doing. Unfortunately, just as you have such a right, others are perfectly entitled to draw conclusions about your conduct: you are overly defensive and seem increasingly unlikely to be able to collaborate with others. That you think Multiple unsolicited critical comments amounts to bullying alone makes this clear, I'm afraid. It's not all about you. Remsense ‥ 论07:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Kulasperes's unreferenced edits and inappropriate behavior
Recently, this user has been making unreferenced edits.[97][98] When they were warned in their user page about it, they made these comments[99]. The editor called me "Uguk" - from Google translation means "stupid" in English. They also told me to speak in Tagalog language, and called me "Hotweak". Last August 2024, they made this comment in my talkpage.[100]. "Kaltukan kita dyan" means smack me in my head.Hotwiki (talk) 15:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My attorneys have already begun the paperwork to serve Wikemedia for his slander. I’m sure y’all will retaliate against me and ban just like you removed my pages and claimed I’m associated with the companies- when I’m not. Slander is not only against Wikimedia Rules - it’s against the law. Pacificgov (talk) 15:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the editor's previous history (for example, a fair number of edit summaries that are beyond the pale), I'd be hesitant to unblock even if the LTs are withdrawn. --SarekOfVulcan (talk)18:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not worth SPI as they're so clearly the same user it hurts, and they're getting round the {{uw-vand}} ladder by switching accounts, so can someone block:
It doesn't really matter if they're socks or not (though it seems likely they are, as they were created just 11 minutes apart). I've indeffed both as vandalism-only accounts. Bishonen | tålk23:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Avrand6 (talk·contribs) and I have had an unnecessarily confrontational dispute several days ago concerning the articles War of 1812 and War of the Sixth Coalition—I will admit that I wish my own conduct had been calmer and more immediately helpful, though my initial less-than-helpfulness does not excuse their deliberate malfeasance later while I attempted to be as clear as possible. I feel it's no longer a content dispute, and has to be treated as a conduct problem.
Their preferred versions of both articles are not supported by reliable sources, and I have explained WP:BURDEN to them multiple times,[101][102][103][104][105][106][107][108] and each time they insist that some "consensus" needs to be established first to remove the offending material—when any glance at policy indicates that the opposite is true. I feel I have adequately pointed out and explained policy to them, but my attempts have gone unacknowledged or worked around, e.g. via their fabricating a reference claimed to verify their statements, that they copied directly from Napoleonic Wars[109]—they openly admit they did not check that the book in question actually verified their statement, though I did, and it does not—but they unilaterally consider it to be a "viable minimum stopgap" regardless.
While I reverted them multiple times, I did not violate 3RR—but they reported me to the 3RR noticeboard regardless, citing my null edit notifying other editors of the situation as one of my reverts. After this report was closed, I thought they had moved on. They have now reappeared to restore their unsubstantiated, preferred version of War of the Sixth Coalition again.[110][111] I did not want to bring this here or cause any more disruption about this, but I don't feel there's anything left for me to do. Remsense ‥ 论17:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I have explained in the previous report, User:Remsense has only been reverting to meet their own historical biases, without any concern for either fact, source, or consensus. Their new instance to reopen this issue is unfortunately unsurprising. I opened discussions on talk pages about both the War of 1812 and War of the Sixth Coalition (and advertised those on several wiki projects in order to get more opinions), while maintaining the WP:StatusQuo as consensus was reached. Despite this, and even adding a reliable source that supported the claim as an interim measure at the request of the user "Remsense" (which was used on several other articles as well), they have been nothing but hostile and acted in bad faith multiple times during the wait for consensus. On the War of 1812 article, enough people have weighed in that consensus can now be said to have been reached, and I have acknowledged that the position counter to mine was the majority opinion with cordiality and good faith. However, no consensus has yet been reached on the War of Sixth Coalition article, yet Remsense continues to engage in this unproductive behavior. I have tried to maintain a cordial tone throughout this experience, despite him lying about me "falsifying a source" and initially belittling me as well. I did report them previously (the first time I've ever reported a user on Wikipedia) because I felt it was warranted, I assumed it was a 3RR violation, and only after they cut off dialogue and threatened to report me. In my frank opinion, Remsense seems like a user who would rather attempt to bully less seasoned users into accepting their historical biases then reaching a consensus (the standard way to resolve a disagreement on here). I could see many new users unfamiliar or intimated by the site being bullied away by the heavy-handed and unkind approach of a user like Remsense, whether they were in the right or the wrong, and I simply find this attitude and approach unhelpful and toxic. I hate to vent, but I have been disgusted with how Remsense has attempted to handle this situation, in contrary of established norms, and I find it dispiriting. (Even the little things, like wiping anythhing from his talk page he doesn't like, while completely kosher, seems to have bad intentions.) I'm unsure what the solution to a situation such as this is, I have tried to give this user their space for the last few days, but they are still belligerent.
TLDR: They're in the wrong about WP:StatusQuo, they seems loathe to wait for a consensus, they've lied about a source because it contradicts their worldview, they've engaged in edit warring, and they have a very bad attitude (certainly not a crime lol, but I don't like it.) AvRand (talk) 20:20, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They have now decided they have sources to verify the same material they lied about having verified before. I am pre-emptively objecting to its re-addition to the article before they post the sources on the talk page to establish consensus first, per WP:BURDEN. They have exhausted my assumption of good faith, and I have no reason to trust that they are doing what they claim to be doing. Remsense ‥ 论21:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Avrand6, it looks like you've misinterpreted "status quo"? Your edit on War of the Sixth Coalition is the one that introduces the disputed change, so the status quo is this [112], not your edit. Status quo isn't "what it said a month ago, before I made my edits", it's "the edit that was there before the dispute began". It's perfectly fine to pop up a month later and say "hang on a minute, someone introduced an error back here", but that doesn't retroactively make the start of the dispute go back to September. -- asilvering (talk) 22:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[114] (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 ([119], [120]) 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[121]. 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]
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?
The article is subject to the WP:contentious topics restrictions. The remedy instructions at the top of the article's talk page explicitly state that blocks can be dispensed by any uninvolved admin even for a first offense violation. Scu ba has engaged in personal attacks and casting of aspersions at the talk page. I informed Scu ba that engaging in such conduct could result in immediate sanction. They have decided to double down with additional aspersions. I request a temporary page block in line with the remedy instructions. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I called out disruptive editing - No, you asserted that editors that hold an opposing viewpoint to yourself are disruptive. Your words were ... and still some disruptive editors .... You didn't mention any editing at all. Similarly, you paraphrased those editors in such a fashion that it is immediately obvious who they are. You don't want to name them? I will: Slatersteven, FlemmischNietszche, Cinderella157, and myself. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr rnddude, you've said that Scuba is engaging in bad faith, which is hardly better than @Scu ba saying other editors have been "disruptive" (I might call it worse, but I haven't looked at anything beyond these diffs). This is obviously not block-worthy stuff. The two of you can simply apologize and get back to editing. -- asilvering (talk) 22:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No I did not, asilvering. I said: [y]our aspersion about editors who hold disagreement with you being disruptive is in bad faith. That is not the same as what you are claiming I said. I never said anything about their engagement in the discussion. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with apologizing, I'm starting to see where the other editors are coming from regarding the troops not being on the front yet. Scuba01:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it - I haven't been involved at all in this, but this appears to be a content dispute ongoing here over what exactly is required for North Korea to be added as a belligerent, and Mr rnddude is taking a fairly restrictive position on this. The complaint is about aspersions being cast, and scanning the page I see people making reference to other commenters being "brazen", and a vague wave in the other direction.
Other than just admonishing all involved to turn down the temperature a notch, I don't see a need for action at this point. FOARP (talk) 08:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Users User:Ybsone and User:Mr.choppers are engaged in stalker-esque behaviour ever since I had edited Lancia automobile pages. The latter user has been clearly following me around on Wikipedia based on edit history as seen here [1]. It is evident that the said user never made any edits to the graphing calculator page and is clearly doing policing ever since the admins did not give the desired outcome on WP:AN3. Such toxic behaviour by these two editors such as not engaging in a talk page discussion which they have so posted on the talk page here [2] along with their collective inability to engage in the talk page discussions on the contentious articles' talkpages as well as enforcing their edits just because they are "a decade old" is highly discouraging to anyone making contributions on the platform. I request the admins to take action on this matter, especially when I have stopped editing those automotive articles in the first place. This is not the first time these users especially User:Ybsone have engaged in such practices. Past evidents indicate complaints from other users as well as seen here [3] for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.29.234.202 (talk) 06:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wish there was a nice way to tell new editors "you are not being stalked. no one cares about who you are per se; instead, someone saw one of your flawed edits and decided they need to check in on the others because some in all likelihood have similar problems." sometimes we're wrong or rash doing that, and unfortunately it's not the most fun you can have to be on the receiving side of that while trying to learn—but we're not stalking, we're prospecting. Remsense ‥ 论06:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, many edit summaries I'm reading scrolling down your contributions are borderline uncivil to over the line—the fact that it's pretty constant is a bigger problem. What's more, I only see four edits of yours in Talk namespace—this would indicate to me that you are at a bare minimum equally responsible in collective inability to engage in the talk page discussions on the contentious articles' talkpagesRemsense ‥ 论07:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also please see how many edits and talks it took to make you comprehend your original research error Centro Stile Alfa Romeo under Walter de Silva was responsible for the completion of the detail work and the design of the interiors, as Pininfarina's proposal was not accepted. claiming that Enrico Fumia was the designer of the interior, when you simply substituted Pininfarina for Enrico Fumia, not knowing how many more people worked there, and who was actually responsible for said interior proposal. You just don't want to listen to people smarter than you. When you buy yourself Mr Gianluca Cavalca book on GTV/Spider "Alfa Romeo GTV e Spider. Più Alfa che mai" see the special acknowledgement to me, Yaroslav Bozhdynsky, automotive historian and an expert on GTV/Spider, page 193. YBSOne (talk) 07:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your frustration here given the endless back and forth here and lack of tact on the IP's part, but You just don't want to listen to people smarter than you. is not really appropriate: not to insert myself into this, but I didn't need that to intuit the experience and competency gaps here. Remsense ‥ 论07:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right, I didn't phrase it to sound as I wanted, and a bit of frustration seeped in. I apologize to the IP editor. YBSOne (talk) 07:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not only that but the behaviour this user is also borderline appalling in some matters. I don't understand how they expect new people to act "civil" while acting in an uncivil and hostile manner themselves. Clearly seeing the history of this user specifically, they have not learnt from their mistakes as a results of multiple ANI discussions brought against them. 223.29.234.202 (talk) 08:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"results of multiple ANI discussions" could you provide those results? Or want to keep guessing the outcome based on the title alone? YBSOne (talk) 08:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend dropping this point: it in itself is not compelling to other editors who have experience with variables of ANI. Three reports in a vacuum can be the mark of a hero. Remsense ‥ 论08:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look how many edits and reverts it took to defend a position that you could clearly see from the timeline template. You have made an assumption that just because something became a "flagship" through the absence of a more luxurious and larger car then it is a clear successor to the last flagship, no matter what market niche it was on. Glad you didn't discover the Lancia Ypsilon is currently a "flagship" and therefore a successor to Lancia Aurelia, right?. See how many times people added Alfa 159 or even Giulia as a successor to 166, just because 159 became defacto a flagship, due to absence of E-segment successor. This is false and needed to be shown. You will always find sources that claim what you want to find, and I quote: "Alfa 4C is basically an 8C without 4 cylinders"... YBSOne (talk) 07:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And because of that I have to sort through your edits, and majority of them are not only fine, but very enriching. I will focus on the factual stuff, just because this is my expertise. YBSOne (talk) 07:50, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am having trouble understanding why the OP/IP is discussing a Japanese digital watch on the talk page of an article about an Italian car that ceased production over 55 years ago. Cullen328 (talk) 07:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect they tried to make a point on similarity of faulty infobox information. But at the same time safeguarding any attempt to add more information to make it more informative on the "just because I don't see the reason" grounds. YBSOne (talk) 08:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because the main reason given by the user was that the edit was a "decade old" and "no one had any problem with it". Its clearly a case of failing to see issue with the content as on the article of the said digital watch where equally hostile behaviour was seen. 223.29.234.202 (talk) 08:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand how frustrating being the recipient could seem. It takes two to tango, though, so here is my suggestion: as has been outlined to you multiple times, both parties are equally free to be the first in taking their conflict from edit summaries onto the talk page. I think if you tried to adopt the WP:BRD cycle for yourself, no matter how annoyed or right you are about it—things would suddenly get a lot easier for you, because a lot of this mutual resentment would dissolve. As someone who tries too often, it's a lot easier to have discussions with someone you're not on edge with about the possibility of reverting you again. Leave the article to one side and talk until everyone's on the same page—that's how this could work. I think it's incontrovertible that you specifically could do a lot more to avoid edit warring, even including reverts that aren't yours. Remsense ‥ 论08:14, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be easy if this user specifically refrains from opening up ANIs and posting messages on different admin noticeboards for every little conflict as seen here [4]223.29.234.202 (talk) 08:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When it takes you 2 days of back and forth to drive your factual argment home, the other side will always say they were hounded. YBSOne (talk) 08:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked x 31 hrs for disruptive editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Requesting immediate archiving...
. Myrealnamm (💬pros · 📜cons) 22:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
.png){kind=link}