Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Volunteer Marek and Gitz6666

• On 9 June Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) said that according to me Kidnapping of children after murdering their parent and forcibly Russyfying them is not a "war crime" but benevolent adoption by loving Russians [1]. I immediately told them that this was a gross misrepresentation of what I'd been arguing for and asked them to strike through their comment [2], but they didn't comply.
• On 20 June VM repeated that claim and made it even more ludicrous: I had made comments, they said, in which I claimed that kidnapping Ukraine children should be described as "adoption" and "naturalization" and that carrying out murders as part of a genocide aren't a war crime [3]. I asked them to provide a diff, they published this comment of mine and repeated that it proves that I am proposing to refer to the kidnapping of Ukrainian children (after their parents were murdered by Russian soldiers) as "Naturalisation" and "Adoption". In the same comment your wording actually manages to imply that it was in the interest of the (Ukrainian) child to have their parents killed and then be adopted by some Russians. [4].
• VM was referring to this discussion. Note the following:

1. As I mentioned in that discussion, I was one of the first editors who inserted in the article contents on forced deportations to Russia and arbitrary detention of Ukrainian civilians. On 24 March I added a reference to deportations in the lead [5], on 27 March I added allegations of illegal detention [6] and I created a section on detention of civilians and torture [7], on 29 March and 2 April I added many contents and sources about deportations [8] [9] [10]. Lastly on 2 June I added contents and sources on forced deportation of children [11]. All these edits show that I believe, or rather know, that forced deportation is a war crime.
2. Apart from knowing it, I also repeatedly said it. In the discussion VM mentioned, I said again and again that forced deportation of children is a war crime: This is a Wikipedia article on war crimes, thus we use "deportation" (or force displacement), we don't use "kidnapping", just like we use (wilful) killing of civilians, not assassination (or murder) of peaceful citizens [12], Of course I agree with this! Forced deportations of civilian is a serious war crime. [13], n. 2 [Kidnapping is not a war crime] is entirely false: where did you get this from? [14]. AdrianHObradors (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) even warned VM, @Volunteer Marek please, try to refrain from making personal attacks and assumptions. @Gitz isn't arguing that kidnapping children is or isn't a war crime, that is not the subject of discussion there [15]
3. In that discussion I made the following points.
   1. First, we'd better use the "forced deportations" terminology instead of speaking of "kidnapping". This view got consensus but unfortunately VM kept on forcing the "kidnapping" terminology upon the article, as they claim that "deportation" is an euphemistic weasel word for kidnapping [16] [17] [18]. I soon gave up reverting their edits simply out of boredom and frustration.
   2. Secondly, I argued that the Russian Duma drafting a law on adoption does not amount to a war crime in itself, no reliable source claim that it does, and therefore we should not report it. I wrote the following: I don't think that this decree is an act of generosity by the Russian state - not at all. But we cannot even depict it as a war crime (...) There are many different interests at stake here, and the interest of Ukraine in avoiding Russian naturalisations is only one (and relatively minor compared to the interests of the child). So this kind of content belongs to an article on Naturalisation during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine or Adoption during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. We cannot just say that it is "background and context" to an alleged war crime (forced deportation) and report it without any scrutiny directly from the Facebook account of Denisova. [19]. I haven't changed my mind on this; apparently I did not get consensus and we didn't drop that reference to the new Russian law on adoption. Maybe I was right, maybe I was wrong, but anyway editors must be allowed to share their views in an open discussion without being offended, trivialized and denigrated.
   3. Finally, I argued that genocide is not a war crime - which is simply true, genocide is not a war crime (see here a discussion and here a few references). For some reason this view (which is not a view actually, it's a fact) didn't get consensus either, and we still have a section on genocide. But no one could ever maintain that carrying out murders as part of a genocide aren't a war crime. Contrary to what VM claims, I've never said or even thought something so absurd.

• In attributing these views to me VM was deliberately and grossly misrepresenting my arguments. This way of doing is contrary to our policies and guidelines (WP:CIV, WP:GF) and is especially disruptive in a sensitive area as this one.
• This was not a one-off. VM is used to attributing mean intentions to fellow editors. A few examples.
• On the 18 June VM repeatedly removed a section on a missile that fell on Donetsk killing 23 civilians [20] [21]. As Donetsk is controlled by a self-proclaimed secessionist republic, it's possible that the missile was fired by the Ukrainian army. The incident was reported by Reuters and The Guardian, among others, and the section had been there since mid-March. Other editors, including me, didn't agree on removing the section and asked VM to discuss on the talk page. Which they did in the following way: we absolutely must have an article and text in this article about THAT ONE maybe-Ukrainian missile!!!!!! Because "balance" or some shit. I'm sorry but that kind of approach is just sick. And it's the quintessence of violating WP:UNDUE to push a POV ("both sides do it!!!!") [22]. VM claimed that there had been constant and repeated attempts to turn this article into a piece of Russian propaganda, and that If we were being honest here we'd have text on every single one of those tens of thousands missiles fired on civilian targets by Russia (actually we have nearly 20 sections on indiscriminate attacks by the Russian army, some of them with much smaller casualties that this one; we've basically been reporting what WP:RS say, that's it). In fact VM is now trying to have the main article March 2022 Donetsk attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) cancelled and in the meantime they are making a total mess out of it: [23]. But the point is: whitewashing Russian war crimes, not being honest, attempting to use Wikipedia as a Russian propaganda vehicle... how dare they say so?
• On 3 June, Of course genocide can be a war crime! Wth? Do I need to draw a Venn Diagram here? (...) This isn't hard and removing this info looks insanely bad faithed [24]. What, whose bad faith is VM talking about? On 22 May, speaking to Luizpuodzius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), If you're gonna come to an article in order to push a particular POV it helps if you actually bother reading it first, otherwise the WP:ADVOCACY and the WP:NOTHERE are kind of obvious [25]. And it goes on and on like that, VM's behaviour is unacceptable: talking to me and to Ilenart626 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), they said What you and Illenart are doing here is trying to give the readers a very skewed presentation of what reliable source say and falsely convince them that reliable sources portray Ukrainian war crimes as on par with Russian ones [26].
• Also their edit summaries are often unnecessarily offensive, threatening and contrary to Wikipedia:Assume good faith: Please stop trying to whitewash war crimes by sprinkling "alleged" in front of everything. That's a pretty clear violation of POV. [27] Seriously anyone who tries to claim that the murders in Bucha are only "alleged" needs a quick trip to WP:AE [28] these may very well be (are) human rights violations and crimes, but they are not "war crimes" and none of the sources actually label these as such. This is just another attempt at bothsideism [29] undo the obvious POVing and obnoxious attempts at whitewashing [30] you REALLY need to stop with this awful POV and white washing [31] no, these are obviously highly POV changes, they are not supported by sources and frankly, given the nature of this topic the changes amount to some very problematic and disruptive attempts to whitewash some horrendous shit [32]
• I find the accusation of being a Russian POV-pusher quite insulting. First of all I'm a friend of the Ukrainian people, also my family originates from that region, I think that Putin is a violent dictator, that the war is an unlawful aggression, that the Russian army has committed hideous war crimes in Ukraine, and I'd very much welcome if the perpetrators will be held on account. I wrote nearly 1/3 of the article War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, which means that I've spent dozens of hours documenting and describing horrible war crimes committed by the Russian army (here a selection of some of my edits on Russian crimes [33][34][35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] ).
• On the other hand VM, who always speaks about POV and WP:UNDUE, is the most blatant and disruptive POV-pusher I've ever encountered. They even reached the point of questioning whether shooting Russian POWs in the legs amounts to torture [63] [64] - seriously? They asked for RS stating that kneecapping is torture, they were given a lot of them [65] [66] and it's all ok, but it takes time and it's disturbing and frankly there's no need of it. On multiple occasion I had to revert VM pushing badly sourced war propaganda into the article [e.g., [67]), making gross misrepresentations of reliable sources [e.g., [68]) and removing an "alleged" here and there [e.g., [69]).
• I've tried to address their tendentious editing on their talk page, but what I got was not very encouraging Explain to me why I should bother reading past your first two and a half sentences [70]
• VM's edits summaries and comments show the basic and constant features of their contribution to the article (and possibly elsewhere): aggression, rudeness, lack of cooperation and a prevailing almost exclusive concern for the question "who is more guilty?" (the obvious answer being the Russians). VM gives a comparatively small contribution to the writing of the article and an enormous, often disruptive contribution to finding the "right balance", which for them always falls in one direction: emphasising the responsibilities of the Russians (which are indeed huge and catastrophic) and downplaying those of the Ukrainians (which occasionally are serious and worrying). They like playing the role of the self-appointed political commissar on that article, and they've done so in the most offensive, uncooperative and partisan way, always attributing mean intentions to fellow editors ("obnoxious attempts at whitewashing", "awful POV", "attempts to whitewash", etc.). They cannot even imagine that others might have good-faith reasons, different from "whitewashing", for mentioning Ukrainian war crimes in the lead and reporting them elsewhere in the article: e.g. trying to be objective and detached, trying to gain authoritativeness through independence, and trying to do justice to all the victims, no matter their nationality.
• In what follows I was not the victim of their insults, but still seeing a fellow editor Dunutubble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) treated in this way is humiliating and intimidating: For fuck's sake, this also restores the idiotic notion that two Russian soldiers being poisoned by some pies is ... ... CHEMICAL WARFARE!!! Gimme a break. There's absolutely no source for such a claim (probably because it's patently ridiculous). The given source certainly doesn't say anything so stupid. But it's also frankly offensive (...) even attempting such a comparison is offensive, vulgar and dishonest. I am very tempted to report this fairly transparent violation of WP:POINT. [71]
• This is the way they express their view and I find it aggressive, even abusive. We have a policy (WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL) that aims at protecting us from belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgemental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen", "snipped crap"). No editor in good faith should ever be exposed to such a treatment.
• Luckily User:Dunutubble is very calm and reflective and reacted like a true pro saying that Throwing a WP:TANTRUM is not the correct reaction to someone who made an effort to restore many of your edits. But unfortunately Anonimu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was less cool-headed. They reacted very badly to VM's editing style and started to repeatedly call VM a "vandal". So on 12 April VM submitted a request for enforcement and Anonimu was topic banned. Anonimu brought it upon themselves, no doubt, but I think that they were reacting to a deliberately provocative and contentious approach, which proved to be highly destructive on that article and talk page.
• I had warned against the risk of escalating the inevitable conflicts among editors: We are working here on a delicate article and we need to discuss in a peaceful and argumentative environment [72]. It's incredibly time-consuming and stressing to work in an environment poisoned by VM. I know they've been around for a long time, but I'm asking you to protect from them both the editors as individuals and the editorial processes taking place in an article as delicate and controversial as War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

  It appears to me that you are bringing here a content dispute Gitz6666. There are other ways to resolve disagreements, you know. You may want to consider outside input to assist in resolving your disputes such as asking for participation from uninvolved editors to create consensus for your desired modifications. Consider also Neutral point of view noticeboard – you can submit inquiries about the objectiveness of articles or Request for comment (RfC) to request replies from a number of editors. If you have an issue with the behaviour of a given editor, the first step would be to talk to them on their user talk page in a polite, simple, and direct manner. Have you tried that other than confrontational accusations of disruptive and tendenciousness editing? I will not be suprised if this report ends up in a WP:BOOMERANG -->[73] - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with everything Gitz has stated about Volunteer Marek’s conduct. In addition to VM’s abusive language, pov pushing and disruptive edits, he constantly writes misleading edit summaries and when you review his changes you find other changes not mentioned buried in the edits. Plus I have also noticed for any article he does not like he will place a pov tag without leaving any comments in the talk page. Ilenart626 (talk) 04:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

All of these accusations are false (note that not a single diff is provided by Ilenart626). Volunteer Marek 07:02, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Since you asked, here are the diffs that indicate the above statement is true:

Missleading edit summarry

[this one] VM's edit summary talks about "alleged". Scroll down and you find most of the actual edit is removing a section where the Ukrainian Parliament dimissed Ukraine's human rights chief Lyudmila Denisova, nothing to with with alleged.

adding pov tag without explanation on the talk page.

[|here ] Note that VM added the tag on the 9 May but only provide an explanation on the talk page on the 15 May after the issue was raised by another editor.

Ilenart626 (talk) 04:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm only going to reply to a couple points here because most of this is simply tl:dr territory.

• The context here is the forced abduction of Ukrainian children by Russia in the current Ukrainian-Russian war [74] [75] (what many sources refer to as "kidnapping" [76] [77]). Contrary to his assertion Gitz666 was NOT the first editor to add this info to the article - you can see here in the diff they provide that the section is already there [78], he's just adding a lot of "according to Zalensky". Once they added the "according to Zalensky" stuff in the very next edit they REMOVE the existing text [79]. So this is basically a sneaky way to remove well sourced text which simply states what is happening and replace it with a WP:WEASEL version of "it's only happening according to the President of Ukraine". Gitz666 has repeatedly tried to remove this info from the article under the very strange pretext that the Russian Parliament (Duma) passing a law which legitimizes this practice of kidnapping of Ukrainian children itself is "not a war crime". [80] Parse that. Since passing a law which gives legal cover to a war crime is not itself a war crime, according to Gitz6666, we cannot include that info in the article. Huh.

• But so far this is plausibly just a content dispute. The real problems are in some of the comments Gitz666 has made on the talk page [81]. The mildest one here is the " But we cannot even depict it as a war crime, can we?" "just-asking-question" strategy. The more problematic parts areGitz6666's assertion that There are many different interests at stake here, and the interest of Ukraine in avoiding Russian naturalisations is only one (and relatively minor compared to the interests of the child). Think about what this is saying. Gitz6666 is saying that the only reason why Ukraine is reporting on the kidnapping of its children is because it wants to "avoid Russian naturalisation" of its citizens. Not because, oh I don't know, kidnapping children's whose parents' you killed is freakin' a bad thing to do?!?! The part about the "interests of the child" is even more disturbing. The clear insinuation here is that while this kidnapping of Ukrainian children is not in the interest of Ukraine, it is "in the interest of the child". Excuse me???

• Along the same lines [82], Gitz666 proposes to remove the text on the kidnapping of the Ukrainian children entirely from the "War crimes" article (but remember, they say that they acknowledge that it is a war crime, so...? yeah, i don't understand either) and instead to create articles called Naturalisation during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine and Adoption during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Because armed forces abducting children whose parents they have killed (either through shelling, direct military assaults or worse) is just an issue of "naturalisation" and speedy "adoption". I guess the article on Kidnapping of children by Nazi Germany should be moved to Adoption of children during World War 2 as well, right? Sorry, not going to apologize for my view that this kind of framing is simply f'ed up. And it's pretty clear and blatant attempt at POV pushing. WP:CPUSH but POV push nonetheless.

• The assertion that "forced deportations" rather than "kidnapping" or "abduction" had consensus by Gitz6666 is simply false (it's a claim of false consensus). Note that this phrasing also tries to minimize the severity of what is actually happening.

• Then we have the whole "is genocide a war crime issue". Yes seriously, that is being actually debated. The thing is, yes, genocide as a concept is indeed distinct from the concept of a "war crime" simply because genocide can take place outside of war. For example the Rwandan genocide was not a "war crime" because there was no international war there. But to then use that to pretend that if genocide IS happening during the war it is not a war crime because sometimes it happens outside of war is just sophistry, pure and simple. And when you start using that kind of argument to try and remove reliably sourced info from the relevant article then once again you're clearly in POV pushing territory.

• For someone who claims that their views are being misrepresented, Gitz6666 really has some nerve to accuse me that I "even reached the point of questioning whether shooting Russian POWs in the legs amounts to torture [178] [179] - seriously?". Look at the diffs they provide. I say nothing of the kind. I am merely pointing out that the sources they use say absolutely nothing about torture.

• Gitz6666 also brings up another editor User:Dunutubble, whom they praise as "very calm and reflective". Right. This is the user who edit warred to try and pretend that Russian soldiers getting food poisoning from some pie they ate constituted "chemical warfare" by Ukraine. Seriously. [83] (bottom of the edit - but note also the top where Dunutubble tries to deny that the Bucha massacre was committed by Russian troops (something no serious source questions) and instead pretends that this is only a claim made by the Ukrainian government). Honestly, I should have reported Dunutubble right there and then (diff is from April) because this is just such over top WP:TENDENTIOUSness it really takes the cake (or pie, I guess) but I was busy at the time. Dunutubble has also been trying to move/POV the article on the Moura massacre by pretending it was just a "Siege of Moura" (with some unfortunates deaths as a side effect). Virtually ALL reliable sources call it a massacre. What's the connection? It was perpetrated by the Russian Neo-Nazi affiliated mercenary Wagner Group. So more attempts at whitewashing. What makes it even worse is the use of flagrantly false edit summaries to justify it [84]. There Dunutubble claims "HRW, Reuters, Guardian etc. all called it a siege". This is just straight up, blatantly, unashamedly, false. Here is HRW [85]. The title of the article is "Mali: Massacre by Army, Foreign Soldiers". The word "siege" does not appear at all in the article. Dunutubble is simply... telling untruths. Here is Reuters [86]. It says Survivors said white mercenaries suspected to be Russians took part in the massacre. The word "siege" does not appear at all in the article. Here is Guardian [87]. It's titled "Russian mercenaries linked to civilian massacres in Mali". The word siege does not appear at all in the article.

But Dunutubble claims "HRW, Reuters, Guardian etc. all called it a siege". How are you supposed to interact with someone who will just sit there and make blatantly false statements like that to justify their POV and edit warring? And this is the editor that Gitz6666 holds up as an example of someone wo is "very calm and reflective" and, you know, I'm being mean to them, by pointing out the problems with their edits (never mind that calling someone's comments a "tantrum" as Dunutublle does is not very civil, nor "calm", nor "reflective" - it's just a passive aggressive personal attack).

Gitz6666 also holds up editor User:Anoimu was another editor that I supposedly "provokoed". Anonimu is topic banned so I don't want to discuss them here since they can't reply, just want to note quickly that cotnrary to Gitz6666's assertion, Anonimu was NOT topic banned for calling me a "vandal" (which yes, that was bad), they were topic banned for "tendetious editing" [88]. Basically for making edits in the same vein and similar to the ones that Gitz6666 has been making.

The fact that Gitz6666 is holding up these two very problematic users (one of them already topic banned) as paragons of virtue in this topic area pretty clearly illustrates where the problem really lies here. Volunteer Marek 08:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• Point of information, there was a war going on during the Rwandan genocide. The Rwandan Civil War. Some (but not all, maybe not most) of those killings were probably classic war crime scenarios, but I'd need to doublecheck with the scholarship. -Indy beetle (talk) 13:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

• I'm definitely concerned by Gitz's clear attempt to slide in content with weasel word caveats while sliding out reliably sourced content in Wikivoice. I'm similarly concerned by the pushback on the idea that abducting Ukrainian children (and adults), i.e. the deportation or forcible transfer of population, is a war crime. This is a very clear war crime, and has been since 1948. Now perhaps the timing of this comment was just unfortunate, but just a day later, the war crime association was made plain as day by Reuters. However, the subsequent comment, after Ukraine had officially announced its war crime investigations into the abduction of children, is less excusable, and points to something else at work. Finding and assessing the readily available sources - like the Reuters one, which explicitly explain the nature of crimes related to forcible displacement - at this point was not hard. Should anyone who can't perform this basic function - availing of the information that sits in plain sight for all to see - be throwing their weight around on the subject? And yet Gitz was pushing the 'forced deportation' terminology (don't agree with VM that his minimizes it), which makes this yet more odd, since 'forced deportation' is precisely the type of technical language used to classify these activities as war crimes. So Gitz is espousing the technical war crime definitions even as he pushes back against the classification. Bizarre. Meanwhile, trying to tow the Russian line of masquerading these abductions as naturalizations or adoptions is a fairly extreme example of POV pushing. Is there anyone outside of the Kremlin's propaganda department and particularly gullible members of the Russian public that genuinely views these events this way? Iskandar323 (talk) 08:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

  I did not pushback on the idea that abducting Ukrainian children (and adults), i.e. the deportation or forcible transfer of population, is a war crime. I've never NEVER said or implied that forced deportation does not qualify as war crime and/or falls outside the scope of the article. I just said that the info on Russia passing a law on easing adoption of Ukrainian children should not belong to the section on forced deportation of children in the article on War Crimes in Ukraine; that information - I argued - requires more context and more sources, and basically should be the subject of a dedicated article. That was my argument, it might be right or wrong, but it was an honest argument, and I made a good-faith edit with a clear summary; once reverted, I exposed my views on the talk page and I abode by consensus. So I don't see why I should get flagged and blamed for that, let alone be grossly misunderstood and misrepresented. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:58, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I have edited at 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and related articles but I was unaware of this particular dispute. I am specifically aware of interactions with Volunteer Marek. I am pretty sure that I have interacted with Gitz6666 but would be pressed to specifically recall. Most editors on these articles have partisan views on the invasion and I would observe that VM is not an exception. However, my recollection is that, while they might be forthright in their opinions, their contributions could not be considered exceptional wrt civility or POV. I have found them to be generally acceptive of broader consensus. These particular discussions might be "tense" but I am not seeing anything exceptional in the circumstances. This is essentially a content dispute and most content disputes can be attributed to a differing POV. It should be resolved through the normal pathways. However, bringing the matter here with a claim to WP:CIVIL is another matter and I'm not seeing that this claim is clearly being substantiated. If there is anything to be addressed here, it would be incivility. But from what I read, it has been used as a throw-away add on. The case attempted focusses on the content dispute, which is a "not here". Waving the civility stick around is a matter that should be considered here. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
• This should probably be at AE rather than here. I am of the general opinion that that Gitz6666 is POV-pushing problematically here and I note they have had an ARBEE alert in April, so going to AE is possible. Black Kite (talk) 12:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
• Yeh, Gitz666 has a POV here. [89] - reverting to say that "The Russian military allegedly exposed the civilian population to unnecessary and disproportionate harm by using cluster munitions" instead of just "Russian military attacked the civilian population using cluster munitions". Is anyone in doubt that they in fact attacked the civilian population using cluster munitions? Or this - including word "alleged" 6 times where it arguably does not belong and well poisoning by including irrelevant content about living person. My very best wishes (talk) 18:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

  The second diff you just shared is actually User:Ilenart626 reverting Volunteer Marek. Note, by the way, VM's edit summary there, where no mention is made of the removal of contents about Denisova's dismissal. When I added those contents (22:33, 16 June 2022, diff. not available) I made it clear in the summary: Denisova's dismissal (+ sources) is relevant here as it was determined also by her unverified allegations of sexual crimes involving children. So that diff actually shows the difference between cooperative editing and POV-pushing. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

  Agree I specifically reverted Volunteer Marek’s edits as the edit summary was missleading, refer my comments and examples above. Ilenart626 (talk) 04:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

No, I think what you both did was misrepresenting or at least editorializing the sources because the inline references did not say and did not even imply a number of "alleged" you restored (a couple of the "alleged" could be fine), as I explained on article talk page [90]. My very best wishes (talk) 12:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

• Given the lack of qualified observers on the ground in the Ukraine, and how much misinformation (even if unintential) from both Ukraine and Russia sources, we should be careful on stating certain events as facts on Wikivoice until proven out through time. Eg much of the discussion would be better handled if NOTNEWS and RECENTISM were respected, knowing that a clear picture of events is unlikely in the short term. We don't need to include every detail particularly if there lots of questions around it. --Masem (t) 22:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

  Well, this is not about "sides", but about fairly describing what mainstream RS say on the subject. If they say "alleged" about something, then yes, sure. But if not, this is POV-pushing. What I mean is explained in more detail here. My very best wishes (talk) 03:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Dunutubble tries to deny that the Bucha massacre was committed by Russian troops

Read Talk:Bucha massacre, I've been one of the main contributors to that page and if you somehow see how any of my edits there "deny" the Bucha massacre (especially since I was one of the first editors to support the removal of the words "alleged" from the lede), I don't know where you got that idea from. The reason why I changed the text in that link was because I had used Twinkle to restore an earlier version of the page (and restoring doesn't mean you can pick-and-choose words like that).

Dunutubble has also been trying to move/POV the article on the Moura massacre by pretending it was just a "Siege of Moura" (with some unfortunates deaths as a side effect)

You didn't read the summaries I gave where I said that There was a massacre but it happened during the siege and Article also covers the siege; massacre occurred during the siege. Why somebody would cherry-pick my edits (coupled with the fact that it was I who actually started the article, so it doesn't make sense to think I'm tryin to deny what happened) is beyond me. It's not uncommon to have "Siege of X" or "Battle of X" instead of "X massacre" article titles which we can see with "Raid on Dartmouth (1751)"/"Dartmouth Massacre", "Siege of Tel al-Zaatar"/"Tel al-Za'atar Massacre", "Siege of Badajoz (1812)"/"1812 Badajoz massacre", etc anyway.

calling someone's comments a "tantrum"... it's just a passive aggressive personal attack).

I was pointing to WP:TANTRUM, which is a real Wikipedia essay on civility. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 20:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Dude, the diff is right here. In that diff, you:

1. Pretend that Russian soldiers getting food poisoning from eating some Ukrainian food is equivalent to Ukraine "using chemical weapons". Like, that right there, gives away your POV simply because it's so over the top and crazy that someone would try to put that into a Wikipedia article. Of course the source you pretend cites the information says absolutely NOTHING about "chemical warfare" [91]. So there's another instance of you blatantly misrepresenting sources and pretending they say something they don't.

2. You change the text "(Bucha massacre was) committed by Russian forces, including torture and deliberate killings of unarmed civilians, including children" which is well sourced and beyond doubt in any mainstream source to (Bucha massacre was) attributed by the Ukrainian authorities on the Russian troops" as if the culpability here is in doubt.

You say that you only restored someone else's edit and you had to restore all of it, including the POV parts, because you were using Twinkle. I'm sorry but "I was using Twinkle" is not a valid excuse for reverting problematic text back into the article. Just. Don't. Use. Twinkle to edit war.

And here is the other diff [92] for the Moura Massacre.

In the edit summary there you explicitly claim that "HRW, Guardian, Reuters" despite the fact - that as I've already shown above - this is blatantly false. All of them call it "massacre". NONE of them even use the word siege. I don't care if some other articles on "sieges" WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, how is that relevant? Volunteer Marek 21:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• Disclaimer: I'm the creator of this article; not currently active in maintaining it. I do not think that this is purely a content dispute. I think that almost all of the active editors of the article who are involved in this discussion at WP:ANI each have some valid edits and valid points in discussing the edits. However, some of the comments are either misleading or outright wrong (verifiable by checking the evidence), and several violate WP:AGF. We are now getting WP:WALLSOFTEXT. I think that as Black Kite said, going to WP:AE might be better than ANI, thanks to the tightly constrained format. Gitz6666's opening comment here is about 2388 words and 70 links (mostly diffs?), and Volunteer Marek's responses are long too. WP:AE's limit of 500 words/20 diffs would make it easier both for the participants and for uninvolved people willing to comment or propose sanctions or constraints (such as 1RR). Despite the abhorrent nature of the content of the article, constructive editing and respect for each other as Wikipedians should be possible. This is not the first, nor will it be the last, of Wikipedia articles on XXIst century war crimes. Boud (talk) 22:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• I have protected War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine for two days to prevent edit warring there. Please help the editors to find a compromise if you can. All editors of the article a good people, working in good faith. The topic is very emotional and occasionally good faith content disputes can offend participants. I implore everybody and especially Marek to assume good faith and before putting an emotional summary to an edit or an emotional entry to the talk page to think that that the other participants a live people who have their emotions too. I do not think any other administrative actions are useful at this time. Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Alex Bakharev good judgement.👍, I think the same. - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  There is not a compromise here. Gitz purpose (in this area) is to edit in and promote Russian propaganda and excuse/deny war crimes, that is clear from their editing. Just broadly topic ban them from the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not aware of this particular dispute but VM accused me of trying to push a certain POV that I wasn't trying to push, which I wasn't- I was simply separating the two to be more specific on who holds what. This probably falls under WP:AGF IMO. --Firestar464 (talk) 11:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I have vehemently disagreed with Volunteer Marek on a number of occasions and occasionally contemplated filing my own complaint against him. Some of the issues raised elsewhere about his behavior are well-founded, particularly his habit of dropping unexplained NPOV tags, then stonewalling when asked to explain them. HOWEVER on the article about war crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of the Ukraine, to the extent he pushed anything, it was *back* on Gitz6666’s extremely consistent advocacy of a Russian narrative on every single detail, minimization of sexual misconduct, and attempts to include vague Russian allegations of Ukrainian misconduct. Gitz is aware that he does this and discussed on his used page with another editor how uncritically he felt that the Ukrainian narrative was being accepted. This would be a respectable concern if evenhandedly applied, but it is not, and I as a long-standing editor perceived a chilling effect from Gitz’s behavior. I was involved in the article, first as a copy editor, without incident, then, after expressing some trepidation about the war crimes article, in particular, to ErnestKrause, in an initiative to move some material from 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine to this and several other spin-off articles. There were few confrontations as I was determined to avoid them, but I do remember one about the video of Ukrainians allegedly shooting prisoners in the leg where the article text simply did not match the source. I was also involved at WP:RSN in the discussion about Denisova as a source, (Raping and killing a 1-year-old in Ukraine as alleged by Ukr. politician and reported by Daily Beast and Yahoo News)and had to stop editing the thread after Denisova was fired, as I found the grave dancing revolting. I agree with My very best wishes that she was not accused of falsehoods, and I will add that most sexual assault is by its nature very difficult to verify. It seems to me that the Rada felt that there were more provable war crimes that were being neglected. Perhaps this is my own bias, but that is what I believe. I am deep in travel on unrelated business, and this whole thread is TL;DR already, but I have felt cowardly for not yet speaking up. Yes, VM can be aggressive and impatient etc etc but his actions in the War crimes article were a net benefit to the project, whereas Gitz’ were not, and I personally agree with the editor above who said that Gitz should be topic-banned from articles about the current war in Ukraine. I am not certain what is appropriate for VM, as his actions also pose issues, but in the context of the war crimes in Ukraine article I am very glad he was there. Elinruby (talk) 03:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Just wanted to note that DESPITE all the comments here pointing out to User:Gitz6666 that there are problems with his editing (by User:GizzyCatBella, User:Black Kite, User:My very best wishes, User:Only in death, User:Cinderella157, User:Iskandar323 and User:Elinruby), pretty much as soon as the protection on the article expired, Gitz6666 immediately began edit warring AGAIN. Last time they made 3 reverts in 4 hours. Now we got 3 reverts in less than 24 hours, pretty much tip-toeing up to that 3RR bright line [93] [94] [95].

This is getting ridiculous. There's a serious WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT problem here. Volunteer Marek 08:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Although I am now inclined to modify my position given the confusion that I have now come to believe stems from the MOS:ALLEGED guideline, which fails to draw several important semantic distinctions between "alleged" and "accused", and which I think may cause real problems among nan-native English speakers. I've subsequently raised the issues I believe it presents in a MOS talk page discussion. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek should learn how to follow the WP:BRD cycle, seek consensus, not to force their own will upon other editors. When their edits are reverted, they systematically re-revert to their version, and then re-revert again and again. It might take a bit of time to prove this, but it's also very easy: VM's contributions to War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine could be described as a relentless edit war with multiple editors [96]. Unfortunately that strategy is often effective, and editors get bored and let them have it their own way.

We shouldn't deal with contents here, but the recent controversy on using "alleged" vs Wikivoice in the lead section is a good example of POV-pushing, disregard for consensus and lack of civility. VM started to "de-weasel" the lead, as they say, on 18 June [97], and when reverted they went on [98] and on [99] and on [100] and on [101], again [102] and again [103]. While doing so, they were reverted or criticised on the talk page by some of the main contributors to the article: apart from myself, User:Ilenart626, User:Alaexis, User:AdrianHObradors, User:The Four Deuces. VM were using the edit summaries to attribute mean intentions (stop trying to whitewash war crimes by sprinkling "alleged") and to make fake accusations (Are you seriously saying that the mass murders in Bucha didn't necessarily happen and were only "alleged"????); they were constantly adding new contents to their original edit (+ missile in Donetss + attacks on nuclear power plants) making it even more difficult to mediate and reach a consensus. This is their battleground mentality: it had to be a capitulation and they were raising the stakes.

As I've decided to expose their behaviour here, I've also decided to block this relentless POV-pushing in that article. Therefore on the talk page I proposed to open a RfC on the issue "alleged vs Wikivoice" in the lead with regard to indiscriminate attacks [104]. What is VM's reaction to this? They post on that talk page all the comments here at AN/I by editors who have accused me of being a Russian POV-pusher: [105]. Those editors were seriously ill-informed about my contribution (please read here) but the point is that none of them had said or implied anything about the issue "alleged vs Wikivoice" in the lead (apart from User:Iskandar323, who however just said they are inclined to modify their position). So VM is blatantly breaking WP:TALK by publishing on the talk page of that article seven comments by fellow editors who think I'm biased. Moreover, VM is also misrepresenting what those editors said by concluding that That's seven editors right there telling you're in the wrong here, as "here" (on that talk page) the issue under discussion was the use of the "alleged" terminology. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to note that I was the editor that first removed "accused of committing" from the opening line of the lead, replaced with a more accurate, neutral, and sourced "documented committing". There's also a very deliberate and biased application of standards from Gitz when it comes to use of the words "alleged" and "accused" in the article. For example, accusations against Ukraine that are reported by a third party like the UN monitoring mission are described in vikivoice without "accused" or "alleged", but he injects "alleged" for similar instances of third party reports documenting Russian crimes. Selective application of standards is a persistent issue with Gitz and this article; small scale Ukrainian war crimes get detailed explanation in the lead whereas large scale Russian war crimes get sliced into small summaries that leave out key commentary like the notion that Russia is not just committing sexual violence but has weaponized sexual violence as a tool of war. Furthermore, Gitz and llenart routinely ignore talk page discussions when editing, claim their edits are not disputed while there are talk page threads actively disputing their edits, and never actually try opening an RFC thread to see where consensus really lies. The sidelining of talk page discussions to make disputed edits has become so problematic that I have withdrawn from actually trying to participate in the talk threads because it accomplishes nothing; the only way to contribute to that article at this point is to engage in edit warring.

And this may be besides the point at this juncture, but individual Russians have in fact pleaded guilty to committing war crimes in Ukraine, so the continual insertion of "alleged" or "accused" is becoming increasingly tendentious. But like always, I'm sure the goalposts will be moved and double standards will be applied to justify a POV that is much kinder to Russia than the actual reporting from reliable sources. Shadybabs (talk) 18:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

For what it is worth I have no objection to being quoted by VM, and agree with Shadybabs that the sealioning on that page is exhausting. I am here again however because Gitz6666 suggested on my talk page that I had misunderstood him with respect to the Russian prisoners. I have several things on fire off-wiki today, but felt the need to chase this down, as it is actually only fair that I be certain that it was in this article, and not me conflating with some exchange I had with, say, Ilenart626. I was in fact talking about the section on kneecapping, which I have found in the text, sourced to Le Monde.

This edit by Gitz again misrepresents the source, which does *not* say that the video was *verified* but that it was *geo-located* to a specific farm in Mala Rohan. There is in fact some nuance and hedging about what it appears to depict. It is not absolutely certain that a Ukrainian pulled the trigger, for example, although Le Monde seems to believe this. But no, “verified” is not really true, and French language is one of my fields of expertise. I initially thought there might have been a language misunderstanding — the discrepancy with the text at that time was about whether another video from about a kilometer away was part of the same incident. Le Monde does not say so and I translated the full passage on the talk page to make this point. This was dismissed as a minor issue, but, the source does not say this! And the passage is translated to English on the talk page so language is not an issue. I will dig the talk page section up later, if any of this is further disputed, but right now I really cannot.

Incidentally, as I was going through the history, I noted that on this page Gitz has also been denigrating Denisova as described in the current AE complaint about Mhorg, and btw, Mhorg is one of the two editors with whom Gitz discusses on his talk page how unfairly editors give more credence to Ukrainian statements than Russian.

I have not been involved in the dispute about “allegedly” but I see this as an example of what I have called minimization of Russian war crimes. I do not think that in his case this is a language issue, although this may be true for some languages. Glitz is an Italian speaker, and based on Google Translate, Italian, like French and Spanish, has precise equivalents for “allegedly”. Elinruby (talk) 19:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Elinruby says that this edit misrepresents the source, which does *not* say that the video was *verified* but that it was *geo-located*. However, Le Monde did verify the video, as they explicitly say, meaning that the video is not a fake, it hasn't been staged, people there are real Russian POWs and they were actually shot. Elinruby is right in saying It is not absolutely certain that a Ukrainian pulled the trigger, but I have never said or implied the contrary. In fact, in my immediately following edit I did not remove from the article "a video purportedly showing Ukrainian soldiers torturing Russian prisoners" and in the edit summary I explained I leave "video purportedly showing" for extra caution, but because the authenticity of the video has now been confirmed, I dropped video "likely" shot in Mala Rohan (RS say we know for sure where it was shot) which "purports" to depict (it actually depicts what it depicts, and the Russian POWs it shows were really Russian POWs. Both my edits and my edit summaries were correct, and Elinruby's allegation Gitz again misrepresents the source (by the way, why "again?) is simply wrong. I never said nor implied that the video (as verified by "Le Monde" and others) demonstrates that the trigger was pulled by Ukrainian soldiers.
Elinruby then says I translated the full passage on the talk page to make this point. This was dismissed as a minor issue and here they are referring to a different article and a different talk page: Talk:Torture of Russian soldiers in Mala Rohan. But I didn't comment in that thread, maybe I didn't even read it. However, it's quite funny because there Elinruby says that Le Monde is damning and leaves little doubt (...) I would have preferred it if the video was found to be fabricated, but if a Ukrainian unit went rogue and tortured prisoners, then a Ukrainian unit went rogue and torturted prisoners. So basically had I read their comment and followed their interpretation, I would have removed the "purportedly" in the sentence "a video purportedly showing Ukrainian soldiers torturing Russian prisoners"! But I understand Elinruby is now very busy in RL and maybe they can't be bothered with all these details.
Finally, my brief exchange with User:Mhorg is still there on my talk for everybody to see. Elinruby's statement Gitz has also been denigrating Denisova is simply false. The translation of what I said there is the following: Thanks, Mhorg, I was aware of this [Denisova's dismissal]. Perhaps one could place the information in the appropriate place of the War Crimes article. The discussion at RS/N took a surreal turn as the news spread and some users continued to say that the information [rape of a 1-year-old, etc.] was still sufficiently verifiable! Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

please don’t patronize me thankyouverymuch. I am dealing with a number of logistical problems in another country related to my dead parents’ estate, and need to leave by the first, so yes, that is considerably more urgent than debating the nature of reality with you. I do think that Ukrainian soldiers may have shot these Russians, keyword “may”. I find your assertion that you were hoping otherwise unlikely, as it goes against my experience with you, but never mind that. My point is simply that Le Monde did *not* say they had “verified” the video as you claimed. I said “again” because of the prior misrepresentation, but ok, if you insist on a blow by blow we can do that but not right now as I just loaded a van full of household goods I need to donate before I can take a shower, so good night. Elinruby (talk) 04:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're continuing to misunderstand my comments and make inaccurate statements.

First, I've never said that I hoped that the Russian POWs had not been shot by Ukrainian soldiers. Here above I was quoting you verbatim [106]: it was you who would have preferred it if the video was found to be fabricated, and it was you who said that a Ukrainian unit went rogue and torturted prisoners. While I feel deeply sorry for this Russian soldier and his family, I literally don't give a damn about the nationality of the perpetrators. I have no political allegiances in this war, I just would like it to end as soon as possible and not escalate further. To that end, I think that we should report war crimes accurately, without exaggerating them and without sweeping them under the carpet.

Secondly, contrary to what you claim, "Le Monde" did write that they had verified the video: L'analyse ... confirme son authenticité, they wrote. That doesn't mean they knew the nationality of the perpetrators, so I didn't modify the sentence video purportedly showing Ukrainian soldiers.

Most importantly, if the point here is the use of cautious, indirect language ("allegedly", "reportedly", "accused of") vs direct language (Wikivoice), one can see that I used Wikivoice myself to debunk Russian propaganda about the Mariupol hospital airstrike: a disinformation campaign that started trending on Russian Telegram and was repeated in a tweet from the Russian embassy in the UK, I wrote [107]. I used Wikivoice when I created the section on destruction of Ukrainian cultural properties [108], when I described Russian attacks to medical facilities [109][110] and when I described the Bilohorivka school bombing [111]. I also used Wikivoice when I accounted for Bucha in the lead section, which I made already on 3 April with the edit summary Bucha massacre is well-covered in the article and accounting for it in the lead might be appropriate [112][113]. Re lead section, you might be interested in knowing that apart from Bucha I also added by my own initiative both forced deportation [114] and kidnapping and torturing [115]: all crimes attributed to the Russian army. I know that I'm not a pro-Russia supporter and I know that you're completely misunderstanding three months of work on that article. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

You’re still patronizing me with your fr-1 language skills. If you didn’t read my big caveat on the talk page about the translation of the Le Monde source before you used it in the article lede, perhaps you should have checked the talk page, hmm? I re-reviewed the article last night and watched the video, and as a native-level French speaker, educated in French, I stand by my statement that they do not say they “verified” it. This is just one of many examples, and arguably one of the more subtle inaccuracies, so I will go to the article talk page to explain the fine detail of whyin case anyone else is interested. I am going to be arranging shipping for artwork for most of the day so it may not be until quite a bit later or even tomorrow. Elinruby (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

This type of dispute is better handled at WP:AE. I have formally notified Volunteer Marek of the sanctions. Notification btw does not imply an allegation or accusation of wrong-doing. I suggest we close this thread and take any future disputes to AE. TFD (talk) 20:50, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

+1 - should go to AE, but I also agree with Masem about RECENTISM. WP is an encyclopedia, NOTNEWS. If facts cannot be added to an article in a dispassionate tone per NPOV, or the material is not factual but rather, it is conjecture/journalistic opinion/supposition/state propaganda, then it doesn't belong in the article unless in compliance with WP:REDFLAG and WP:INTEXT. Atsme 💬 📧 13:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

OK what is up with this argument about whether Le Monde said in its article that it authenticated the video?

Here is a link to the Le Monde article. This sentence:

L’analyse, par « Le Monde » et des enquêteurs indépendants, d’une vidéo censée montrer des soldats ukrainiens tirant sur des prisonniers russes, confirme son authenticité.

translates to The analysis, by Le Monde and independent investigators, of a video supposed to show Ukrainian soldiers shooting at Russian prisoners, confirms its authenticity.

This sentence:

Une vidéo, diffusée le 27 mars 2022 et que Le Monde a pu authentifier et recouper avec d’autres images, documente une probable exaction commise par des volontaires ukrainiens contre des prisonniers de guerre russes.

Means A video, broadcast on 27 March 2022 and which Le Monde was able to authenticate and matched with other images, documents a probable abuse committed by Ukrainian volunteers against Russian prisoners of war.

I don't understand how this is in any way unclear? This edit by Gitz says On 13 May French newspaper Le Monde verified the video and confirmed its authenticity. I think "verified the video" overstates it a bit, but to claim that this edit misrepresents the sources is ... well, itself a misrepresentation. Levivich^[block] 16:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

No. It is not a misrepresentation. Your translation is somewhat inaccurate and I will not have time to fully spell out why exactly until somewhat later. And will do so on the talk page so as not to belabor a thread that people are already saying should go to another board. But let’s mention that although I have some doubts about this incident, Le Monde appears to tentatively believe it is “plausible” (vraisemblable) and therefore so do I. I didn’t like at the time but was talking to someone I thought was trying to minimize it. The video narration is couched in a grammatical form used to carefully attribute statements to others without endorsing them, for one thing, particularly in formal French such as used by this publication. “Censée” is the one of the most dubious of the possible forms for “allegedly”, for another. As I said, there is a great deal of nuance and hedging in the source and “verified” is inaccurate. More later, somebody is waiting for me and literally tapping his foot. Elinruby (talk) 17:29, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry about your loss, and really, if you don't have time for this, you don't need to spend time on this.

I do not see the word vraisemblable in this Le Monde article. However you translate vidéo censée montrer -- whether that's "video supposed to show" or "video allegedly showing" or "video purportedly showing" or "video meant to show" or "video expected to show", or whatever variation... it doesn't matter, because the clause confirme son authenticité means "confirms his authenticity" (in English, "its" rather than "his").

According to Le Monde, whatever that video was censée to show, l’analyse (the analysis) par « Le Monde » et des enquêteurs indépendants (by Le Monde and independent investigators) confirme son authenticité (confirms its authenticity). While I would write "Le Monde and independent investigators authenticated the video", and not "verified the video" (because in English verified means something different than authenticated), "verified" is hardly "misrepresenting the source". Levivich^[block] 17:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

It’s in the video narration. “Vraisemblablement”, actually, which just makes it an adverb. “Seemingly” is a better translation, on second thought. It literally means “seems true”.

You seem to be making some fine distinctions between an overstatement and a misrepresentation, but ok, I am saying that “vérifiéé” does not mean “verified”, so while it does not, (feel free to ask someone about this this, and other perils of cognates) I am down for the discussion. But I don’t know that the ANI board is all that interested in this one example, so I still think I should refer you to a lengthy discussion that I need to post on the talk page anyway.

However, since you are still politely explaining to me the meaning of words in what my country considers my native language — the US thinks it’s English — I will just mention a few things. I am not offended, mind you; the world is full of unfounded claims of expertise and I don’t believe that we have interacted before. I also thank you for your concern, but I am merely on an announced wikibreak, working on something with an immovable deadline. I realize I do not have to be in this discussion; all I was saying above was that I am simply very short of time (while at the RSN thread Gitz seemed to have enormous energy available to argue ad infinitum).

And yet. I feel strongly about the accuracy of information and given this thread, felt it was important to say that as angry as I have in the past been with VM, mostly recently over some editing he did about a pogrom in Poland, in this instance he persisted when I allowed myself to be intimidated or maybe just exhausted. I am sure Gitz finds VM frustrating. And yet. Gitz feels Russians are being demonized, and dismisses many claims about their behavior, in my opinion on very flimsy grounds. This is also extremely frustrating to other editors including me. And also no doubt to VM.

So. I will tell you again that “verified” is the wrong word, and creates a misleading impression, in the lede of the article about the incident. Language fact: The use of the conditional tense here indicates attribution and a distancing from the statements being made. It precludes endorsement, but does not necessarily imply the falsehood of the statement. The video “supposedly” or “seemingly” shows Ukrainians shooting Russians. Le Monde specifically says that the video came from Russian propaganda sources. I am not completely certain what they mean by authenticated here, but in general, in English, it means that the person is who they claim to be. Ask any information security professional; it is a term of art. Here, most likely, I believe that it means that the purported author is the purported author. I am not aware of linguistic drift with respect to this term. I believe it is a reference to social media videos shot nearby by the commander of the regiment, which *do* show him with these prisoners at a different but nearby location.

Basically, Le Monde checked the story (vérifier) and neither confirms nor refutes it.

They did determine some things. Based on weather, they say, the video was shot on the 25th at sunset. The unit accused of these actions was in military control of the vicinity on that date. The commander of the Ukrainian unit sounds like a piece of work and had just lost a brother to Russian shelling nearby. The particular video discussed and showcased by Le Monde does not offer enough detail to make out insignia on any of the men, they say, but the armbands indicate that the prisoners are Russian and the unit is Ukrainian. They slso say they could not determine the truth of this with certitude. Everyone in the video is speaking Russian. Le Monde quotes an expert who says that based on the pronunciation of the word for “what”, the captors would seem to be native speakers of Ukrainian. (There are some questions about this in other sources and btw, the BBC said sunup not sundown. But here, we are talking about this source.)

What Le Monde *specifically says they are not saying* is that these unidentified soldiers are from the unit named in the Wikipedia article, or, as I recall, that they were Ukrainian at all. I currently believe that this seems likely, but Le Monde definitely didn’t “verify” this in any sense of the English word and specifically declined to agree with the claim repeated in the lede of our article, supported by Le Monde as a source.

You don’t specify your own proficiency in spoken French, so I hope it will not seem condescending to mention that the article says that the video has optional subtitles in English, but I didn’t locate that control and so cannot speak to their accuracy. I am sure that in a Le Monde production they would be well-done. I apologize for the wall of text, everyone.

I will go into this further on the article talk page, and if anybody really is all that interested in this one issue they should follow it there. I brought it up here because it is the instance where I have looked into the detail.

Personally, I think that kidnapping children, and what Shadybabs had to say about sexual assault, are both more important. Elinruby (talk) 09:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

“verified” is the wrong word, and creates a misleading impression, in the lede of the article. "Verified" is not used in the lead of the article, it is used in the section Kneecapping of Russian soldiers. You can improve the linguistic quality or accuracy by editing there. Re Shadybabs on sexual assault (better: rape as a weapon of war) I intend to reply soon. Re kidnapping children, it's not clear what you're referring to because there were a couple of different issues (using "kidnapping" or "deportation", and reporting about a Russian decree/law on easing adoptions). We had various discussions on this, the main one being here. You're welcome to comment there if you have views on these two topics. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I do not need your permission to edit War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, but thanks for the invite. Life is short though, and I have stuff to do in four hours. My remarks above about translation concerned Torture of Russian soldiers in Mala Rohan. The remark about kidnapping and sexual assault refers to the comments of other editors in this thread here. I am going to sleep now; feel free to refrain from explaining further to me. I am not in your time zone, I do not want to talk to you and I am done here, goodnight. Elinruby (talk) 10:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Replying to Shadybabs (here above at 18:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)) is more difficult than to Elinruby because they conveyed a comprehensive assessment but did not provide any diffs. I'll try to address all the points they raised while also producing evidence of what I say.

First, Shadybabs laments that in the lead section accusations against Ukraine that are reported by a third party like the UN monitoring mission are described in vikivoice without "accused" or "alleged", but he [Gitz] injects "alleged" for similar instances of third party reports documenting Russian crimes. This is not accurate, as it is easy to check. The lead section has always used Wikivoice for many Russian war crimes, such as "damage or destruction of civilian buildings including houses, hospitals, schools, kindergartens, nuclear power plants, historic buildings, and churches", "overwhelming evidence of rape, torture and summary killings by Russian forces of Ukrainian civilians", "evidence emerged of a massacre perpetrated by Russian troops, including torture and the deliberate killings of civilians". As I demonstrated in the discussion with Elinruby (see the diffs there), I myself added those contents in Wikivoice to the lead. Moreover, the lead uses Wikivoice for one common war crime ("Russian and Ukrainian prisoners of war have been repeatedly abused and exposed to public curiosity...") and for the killing of Russian POWs ("...and on at least two occasions Russian prisoners have been tortured and killed"). The result is IMO well-balanced and broadly aligned to the coverage in RS: the vast majority of war crimes were committed by Russian forces and this clearly emerges from the lead. Wikivoice is supported by multiple sources and is the outcome of discussions to which several editors took part: see 21 March 2022, 23 March 2022, 27 March 2022 (all on having Russian POWs in the lead), 5 April 2022 (on Bucha), 30 April 2022 (on the talk page of 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, notified here), 7 May 2022 (again on POW in the lead) and 20 June 2022 (ongoing, on the "alleged" language).

So I think that when Shadybabs talks about the use of the words "alleged" and "accused", they are referring to the first two sentences on indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks by Russian forces, which Shadybabs modified two days ago so as to use Wikivoice [116]. It's a topic we've been discussing on the talk page in the last few days, where I argue that the "alleged" terminology is preferable at this stage. It's not a matter of bias on my part - I've spent hours describing indiscriminate attacks by the Russians and I'm also intending to write an article on the topic of indiscriminate attack. The point is that ascertaining this kind of war crimes requires delicate assessments, such as balancing human rights with military necessity, and two of the sources we quote on this (BBC and the Monitoring mission) use themselves a relatively cautious language. So the debate is still open and it's not at all clear if there's consensus for Wikivoice.

Secondly, according to Shadybabs Gitz and llenart routinely ignore talk page discussions. I strongly disagree. On many occasions my views did not prevail and I abode by consensus: e.g., with regard to targeting humanitarian corridors in Mariupol, ill-treatment and torture of Russian supporters and marauders, ill-treatment and humiliation of Russian POWs, attack on nuclear plants, ill-treatment of migrants in detention centres, use of human shields, genocide as a war crime, and possibly other discussions we had where either my arguments did not prevail, or they prevailed but a small group of like-minded editors succeeded in forcing their views via edit war (the missile on Donetsk being the last clear example of this [117]).

Unfortunately what I just said cannot be proved by simply sharing a few diffs. To have an informed opinion one needs to read the discussions we had in the talk page, especially in May/June. What one finds is that, on the one side, there's a relatively small, very cohesive and determined group of editors (Volunteer Marek and My very best wishes, occasionally Shadybabs and Adoring nanny), and on the other there's a larger but less cohesive and active group of editors (myself, Ilenart626, AdrianHObradors, Alaexis, The Four Deuces and Dunutubble, often IP 187). Members of the second group don't always join the discussions and occasionally have different views among themselves. The first group wins almost on every occasions, no matter if they are trying to remove contents (e.g. torture of Russian supporters and marauders, humiliation of POWs, ill-treatment of migrants, use of human shields, missile on Donetsk) or to include contents (targeting of humanitarian corridors, attack on nuclear plants, genocide as a war crime, Russian Duma's law on adoption). In fact, one of the reasons why I opened this discussion, apart from VM's incivility, is the frequent disregard for consensus on that article and talk page. In this sandbox I keep contents that have been removed from the article and that I would be happy to restore.

3) Finally, Shadybabs mentions "rape as a weapon of war" to demonstrate that consensus is disregarded by Ilenart626 and me. Yesterday I read the discussions again and I'm sure Shadybabs is wrong. What happened is that Volunteer Marek and Shadybabs had added to the lead that Human rights organizations have also accused Russian troops of using mass rape as a "weapon of war" [118] [119]. I thought that the sources (at the time, the following two [120][121]) were not good enough to support such an exceptional claim, first because the claim had not been made by several "human rights organizations" but rather by Ukrainian officials and (possibly, the point is not clear) by a human right organisation called "La Strada-Ukraine", and secondly because "rape as a weapon of war" doesn't mean "massive rape": it is rape used for military ends, with the complicity of the chain of command, and it is not at all clear that that is occurring in Ukraine. So I opened a discussion on the talk page and rather clumsily also a discussion at RS/N. In favour of modifying the lead there were Volunteer Marek, Shadybabs and My very best wishes (and possibly also Xx236 and Ixtal, who just shared sources); against including a reference to sexual violence as a weapon of war in the lead section there were Gitz6666, Hawkeye7, Boynamedsue and Otr500. So it was 3 (or 5) for including against 4. As per WP:ONUS, we didn't include it, and I can't see any violation of consensus in those discussions and outcome.
Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

tl;dr, sorry. But I do not think your diffs support your statements. After quickly looking at this ANI thread, I have an impression that you are trying to catch others on minor imperfections and legitimate disagreements, instead of trying to improve the page. For example, you accused VM of misrepresentation becase he included a comparison of Russian filtration camps in Ukraine and Chechnya. However, such comparison is a common place and was used in a number of mainstream RS, for example [122]. In the first paragraph of the thread you accused him of misrepresenting "of what I'd been arguing". No, he was saying this about your actual edits on the page, rather than your arguments on talk. And what he said was a reasonable interpretation of your actual edits. You are coming to ANI with such diffs and walls of text. This can be a reason for "boomerang". My very best wishes (talk) 14:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I understand that you are referring to this edit of mine [123]. I wrote that there was a misrepresentation of source because the quoted source, Politico, did not support the comparison between filtration camps in Ukraine and in Chechnya. I didn't look for other sources on that comparison, you are right, but I read the source we were quoting and - as you can see - I added "modern day" concentration camp so as to better use the reference VM had just added. I don't see how I could be blamed for that, as my edit was both useful (I removed a mistake) and cooperative (I retained as much as possible of the new text and source). Surely I could have done better - looking for further sources and retain the comparison - but what I did was not bad at all. As you are among the most active editors on that article, I thought you could have come up with a more serious shortcoming from my part. What you just mentioned is fully defensible. Plus, with regard to your second point, I don't see how "Kidnapping of children after murdering their parent and forcibly Russyfying them is not a "war crime" but benevolent adoption" (that is what VM reproached me for) could be a reasonable interpetation of this edit of mine [124]. At the most I could concede that it was a malicious, spiteful interpretation - the kind of interpretation you make when you want to pick up a fight rather then seek an agreement. And VM repeated it after 11 days, completely out of context, in a different discussion. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I recommend you use {{no ping}} to mention editors like me that have nothing to do with the dispute, especially in massively long blocks of text that are hard to read through, Gitz. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 17:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, Gitz6666}, please do not claim to have demonstrated this or that in a discussion with me, as it makes it sound like you claim to have demonstrated these things *to* me. Perhaps there is an idiomatic issue there on my part or yours, or perhaps I am merely sensitized by our prior discussion of child rape on the RSN board, which I found upsetting enough to ask a friend’s opinion of it. If it is me, I do apologize, but nonetheless I do still make this request.

Also, a friendly suggestion if you are willing to hear it: I note that you are involved in Wikiproject Law. If your work or training is in this field, perhaps this would shed a somewhat more favorable light on your rather disputatious discussion style. Please do not ping me if you answer this; I wish to disengage from the thread. But for the record, if you said anything to me about alleged or wikivoice, it was TL;dr, as I was not in that dispute and still do not wish to join it, simply because life is too short. I stopped myself from saying that your remarks were off-topic, as I did say that I agree that you seem to advocate for the Russian military, so AGF, I guess you were trying to provide examples of you not doing that? I was, fyi, in this article to see what it covered that could therefore be slimmed down in 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Only.

I did carefully read the entire article at the time, and do a copy edit. And I also read the recent talk page postings, which is good practice, btw. I saw a lot of disputes and formed an opinion about them but chose not to engage. I took issue with the representation of the Le Monde source because I could be absolutely sure of what I was saying about it. Only. Thank you for your cooperation and I hope the suggestion is helpful. Elinruby (talk) 21:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Gitz6666 I am part of a "cohesive and determined" group? Please. My last 50 edits go back to 13 May, and some are not even related to Eastern Europe. Also I didn't even notice this particular thread until just now. Care to reconsider your characterization of me? Adoring nanny (talk) 02:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I might have made a mistake in your regard, and in that case I apologize. The reason why I thought you belonged to that group of editors is your stance on the missile in Donetsk [125] which meant choosing the only attack which might have been committed by the Ukrainian army out of nearly 20 indiscriminate attacks, and remove it. I was also impressed by your removing the section on humiliation of Russian POW (re ill-treatment and exposure to public curiosity) while at the same time retaining the analogous section on "Humiliation of captured Ukrainian soldiers" [126], and by your including contents on unverified audio recordings circulated by the Ukrainian defence ministry [127] while removing the interview to the Georgian commander who justified the killing of Russian POWs by members of his unit [128]. I thought that these edits show that you had a political approach to editing on war crimes in Ukraine. If I was wrong and they fall in the grey area where editors committed to neutrality can reasonably disagree, I am sorry and I apologize for having misunderstood your attitude. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 07:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

By the way, being part of a group might sound too suspicious, like being part of a plan. I didn't claim that you or the others were coordinating yourselves. I said that one can identify two groups of like-minded editors discussing on that talk page, and that the first one is almost always prevailing notwithstanding the smaller number of editors. There may be some degree of simplification in this account, but the point I was trying to make is well-founded: it is false that I and the others had no respect for consensus. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

mmm but you do come across as sort of politely implacable and very determined to make certain changes.

This is probably a good place however to mention that the little spat above between us, where I took offense to being mentioned in a certain context, has been more or less amicably resolved on my talk page with mutual apologies for different things —- although I am still perturbed by some of your suggestions about sexual violence that I thought minimized the extent of the problem.

I was not involved in the missile in Donetsk discussion and while I am aware that the event happened, I haven’t read up on it. But my question about that is this: if one party to the conflict has devastated dozens of residential neighborhoods and another in one instance allegedly “might” have shelled Donetsk, what does the due weight principle require? One of these things is not like the other. One rogue commander kneecapping soldiers is not the slaughter of hundreds of civilians. (Although I don’t advocate removing our discussion of the kneecapping).

It is btw true that filming prisoners of war is considered a war crime. You are right about that, and Western media did call the Ukrainians on it. But there is is balance and there is both-sidesing. Rightly or wrongly, I have gotten the impression that you do the latter. However, a touch of humility such as you displayed above, however imperfectly, would help discussion on the war crimes page quite a bit.

It’s a sensitive topic area filled with horrifying details. Maybe VM shouldn’t be such a hothead but you shouldn’t be so legalistic either. If you have followup questions about what I just said, I will try to answer them at my talk page without losing my own temper, but I do suggest you take them there, because I suspect that people would like to let this thread gently self-archive as its own warning (?) that when atrocities are being discussed, tact and sensitivity are called for (?) Elinruby (talk) 18:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I think that my approach to war crimes is not legalistic but principled, and the principle I uphold is that a war crime is something that happens above all between the victim and the perpetrator rather than between Russia and Ukraine. I also strongly resist the argument that there are two sides or viewpoints - Russian war crimes vs Ukrainian war crimes - to be balanced one against the other. The argument has been explicitly advanced by Volunteer Marek on many occasions (e.g. [129]) and it goes on like this: as Russian war crimes are more numerous and hideous, we should account for Ukrainian war crimes only in exceptional circumstances (e.g. multiple reliable sources reporting them, high number of victims or systematic nature of the conduct), otherwise we would be creating a false balance or "false equivalence". I believe that that argument is flawed. War crimes are not "viewpoints" to which WP:UNDUE applies: they are the subject of the article. WP:UNDUE concerns should be relevant for the lead section, as per WP:LEAD, but they should never justify the removal of verifiable and notable contents for the sole reason that "the Ukrainian did it". Unfortunately that has happened on several occasions in the article War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. While I'm not at all a supporter of the Russian invasion or Russian regime, I'm upholding neutrality and resisting the attempt at turning that article into a tool of war propaganda.
Moreover, I think that VM lack of civility is blameworthy, and I don't understand why this community seems to be happy to accept that Wikiquette applies selectively and some editors are not bound by it. Precisely because I'm polite with everybody, I also want to be treated politely, and I don't accept to be disparaged by someone who is there, as far as I see, only to pursue a political agenda that for some reason they call "WP:UNDUE". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with the comments by Masem. Articles relating to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine‎ largely rely on news sources. Unfortunately, a lot of opinion presented in media is also being presented in a Wiki voice as fact and contrary to WP:NEWSORG. Wiki articles should be written at arms length from the subject in an apartisan circumspect way, regardless of our individual or collective outrage in respect to the events. However, I am not seeing this in several cases. I am even seeing the credentials of those to which opinion is attributed being significantly and inaccurately inflated. I would therefore caution that an opposing POV is not necessarily a biased POV and that the popular opinion is not necessarily neutral. I would state again that this is not the appropriate venue for resolving this issue. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:30, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Belittling behaviour and bad faith on several currency related articles

User talk:Oppa gangnam psy has been following me around for several days, getting extremely angry with me and refusing to listen to the points I have to make. Once OGP threatened me with a ban, and when I showed they could not do that they resorted to some of the most childish behaviour I've ever seen from an editor.

The most egregious of OGP's behaviour is at Talk:Soviet ruble. Where in response to evidence I provided in support of my statement they became extremely unpleasant and abusive.

• OGP has a biased preference for American English, and refuses to acknowledge all contrary evidence. See: Add to that post-1945 media torch passed from UK to USA, that's how the consensus for ruble was arrived at. and it's best to issue the check in RUBLES lest you risk a bouncing cheque in Roubles
• After I provided citations disproving OGP's assertion they threatened me with a ban. See: Being a difficult topic, the 2006 debate duly consulted various parties on this and they arrived at 'ruble'. And it's not within my powers to reverse this outcome. Dunno what's the penalty to reversing a settled decision like this. You'll very likely be banned and Above Talk:Soviet ruble#Requested move constitutes prima facie evidence of WP:CON arrived on this - move it to Soviet ruble and no more discussions. Breaking this WP:CON is a terrific way of getting WP:BAN.
• After it became clear OGP could not have me banned merely for starting a discussion, they started behaving in an extraordinarily childish way. See: With 2006 WP:CON firmly in place, what you feel about "rouble" is exactly just that... Feelings... nothing more than feelings... woe woe woe feelings... and Pursuing suggestions to write consistent with milieu, proposeth thee to write William the Conqueror artickle in Old English? ET IVLIVS CAESAR EN LATIN? Practible it maketh not. But MMVI WP:CON achieveth and Soviet ruble declareth it to be.

TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 06:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

• Complainant questions the finality of WP:CON arrived at in 2006 to finalize Talk:Soviet ruble which goes against what he wants 'rouble'. I can't answer how to reverse 'ruble' consensus and complainant piles pressure to get his way.

Complainant even wants a wipeout of the history of the pound sterling in Talk:Banknotes of the pound sterling by making "sterling", "banknotes of sterling" etc the final page names of "pound sterling" and "banknotes of the pound stering". Completely ignoring to billions worldwide that British currency is most famously known as the "pound".

So complainant wants to engage in historical revisionism by wiping out "pound sterling" and "ruble" from Wiki vocabulary. He wants "sterling" so Wikipedia sticks out like a sore thumb in the Google Search "What is British Currency"? And "ruble" for refusing to acknowledge the end of Pax Britannia.

Isn't it the pettiest of revisionisms to force to audience an unfamiliar word "sterling" and to force that "o" in "ruble"? Wiki audience declared "ruble" final in 2006 as per Talk:Soviet ruble consensus. Faced with an impossible task and an incessant pressure campaign, can I be blamed for running around the circles until complainant realizes the futility of it all?

And do look at complainant's recent edits re: Reichsmark symbol. What is his right to make dozens of Wiki pages look like an unreadable 1940 book with that Reichsmark symbol - without WP:CON? All those unsolicited edits deserve a citation at the very least. Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 07:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with complaint mechanics. But the complainant's name is TheCurrencyGuy and he's vandalized dozens of pages with irrelevant symbols unrecognizable to Wiki readers to make it look like 1940. Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 07:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Many of those pages already used the Reichsmark symbol, all I did was to add the Reichsmark template I made to make it easier for other editors to use the symbol. I adhered to the guidelines suggesting using a link in the first instance in a paragraph. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 07:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

ADMINS - MONITOR EDITOR TheCurrencyGuy FOR ULTRA RIGHT WING NATIONALIST DEVIANT BEHAVIOR. He already has a morbid fascination for the Reichsmark era. I wonder why. Add to that his penchant for wishing to rewrite history to how he wants it. That's precisely how we got to war last Feb 2022. Thank you. Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 08:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I have blocked you for 31 hours for this personal attack on another editor. Please calm down. Oz\^InterAct 13:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I decided to temporarily focus on one currency for which I made a template. This is bad faith (and bad taste in referencing an ongoing military conflict). Am I also a "FAR LEFT DEVIANT" for deciding to focus on the Soviet currency? TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 08:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I trust the admins to identify signs of ultra nationalists, historical revisionists, and imperial chauvinists. They can review your talkpage arguments as potential signs of that. Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 08:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Admins are also free to review Talk:Pound_sterling#STG_abbreviation on how the modern world has fallen short of your ideals. And how you wish a Final Solution by wiping off Pound from all British Pound references. Wiki admins deal with deviants like TheCurrencyGuy all the time. Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 08:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Believing in factual accuracy is not the same thing as believing in racial extermination. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 08:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Calling an editor an "ULTRA RIGHT WING NATIONALIST" for editing Reichsmark is an unacceptable personal attack, particularly since all they appeared to do on that article was replace some content with templates that produced the same content. BilledMammal (talk) 08:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Admins can make that assessment based on the totality of his actuations. Requesting a name wipeout of the British POUND. Reversing final Rouble consensus. And all those Reichsmark edits. It's normal for Wiki to attract folks wanting to rewrite history, no? And to even assume all of us have a revisionist agenda. Our edit history should be evidence what our real agenda here is. Thank you. Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 08:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, when I look at Talk:Soviet_ruble I see that it is you who often posts in a passive-aggressive manner (not to mention that you don't appear to understand WP:CON), whilst TheCurrencyGuy appears to make their points calmly. Meanwhile here, you're spouting personal attacks with no actual evidence in all capitals. What are we to make of that? Black Kite (talk) 09:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh my goodness the bludgeoning, lack of good faith, aggression and not thinly veiled threats, in that discussion by Oppa gangnum psy is pretty off the charts. TheCurrencyGuy raised valid points and was asking a reasonable question, and OGP just jumped all over it. Not what we expect from a cordial discussion. And looking at all Oppa's other discussions, this is a serious pattern and they simply cannot seem to accept that someone may not see things their way. They clearly cannot accept good faith, or have any discussion without excessive bludgeoning and strawman arguments and seem to have WP:OWN issues as well. Additionally only blocked for 31 hours for those comments? Generous. Canterbury Tail talk 13:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

If they indicate no lesson has been learned from calming down a bit, I have no trouble extending the block much further. Oz\^InterAct 15:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

He is now attempting to influence an article move under discussion by attempting to declare some editors "disqualified" when WP:RMCOMMENT clearly states that all editors are welcome to contribute. IP addresses are liable to change and a user might have regularly contributed but only recently made an account. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 03:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

And he's attempting to fillibuster again, making disjointed statements in all-caps and superfluous bold that are deliberately intended to take up space and be difficult to respond to since he just dumped so much text. This is extremely frustrating. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 04:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Your behavior isn't much better. See WP:BLUDGEON and let the conversation flow. As for pointing out new editors, there's a template that is regularly used to highlight new editors joining a conversation as the chances of WP:SOCKPUPPET, WP:MEATPUPPET, or off-wiki WP:CANVASS are high and a valid concern. However, The method they are using is less than ideal and their belief that consensus is required to accept the opinions those users or that such accounts are automatically discounted is false and a judgement to be made by the closer. Slywriter (talk) 04:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I may have to simply give up on WIkipedia, he seems absolutely intent on sabotaging me at every turn. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 05:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi all, I've been good since suspension lifted 30th June.

We can't trust folks online and I'm new here so I just had to do lucha libre last 28th June. No regrets if my worst suspicion is indeed true.

And now it seems @TheCurrencyGuy just sockpuppetted his own RFC. Can someone announced adjournment here for heaven's sake? What kind of ban does it warrant?

Oh yes TheCurrencyGuy I'm tracking your edits in real time. Because spider senses. Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 05:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

You seem absolutely intent on driving me off the website in your obsessional ways, accusing me of being an "ULTRA RIGHT WING NATIONALIST" and now accusing me of sockpuppetry. I have rarely encountered someone as frustratingly petty as you. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 05:30, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi admins see @TheCurrencyGuy sockpuppetry investigation ongoing now. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sockpuppetry_-_developing_story Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 05:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

You yourself admitted that you intended to keep hounding me and frustrating any and all edits I may make. Your behaviour is completely beyond the pale. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 05:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry - developing story

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

---

Sockpuppetry suspected in this ongoing consultation. Talk:Banknotes_of_the_pound_sterling#Requested_move_28_June_2022

I put in a note to this effect and user:TheCurrencyGuy defended "they are welcome to comment".

• Voting record: I and all other commentations voted "OPPOSE"
• While user:TheCurrencyGuy and the three new accounts voted "ACCEPT"

Below editors not notified so you can investigate. This happened just 1 hour ago. Thank you.

Commentators disqualified for making their first and only comment in this survey as per contributor records.

2600:1700:1961:AC00:157E:3EC4:901A:BE9E https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2600:1700:1961:AC00:157E:3EC4:901A:BE9E 88.144.12.208 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/88.144.12.208 Vulpelibrorum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Vulpelibrorum Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 03:37, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

According to WP:RMCOMMENT all editors are welcome to comment. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 03:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Oppa gangnam psy (talk • contribs)

• Noting that there is currently a connected discussion on ANI, WP:AN/I#Belittling behaviour and bad faith on several currency related articles. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 04:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

You can see that none of my 30 June comments violate the guidelines. CurrencyGuy must have reported to you even if I've been good now. It's in anticipation of a sockpuppetry complaint coming.

Also FYI: RFC is opened by CurrencyGuy. He and three new accounts are voting the same way. Is there any way to shut that RFC after you investigate this one? Thanks. Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 04:49, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

user:GoodDay now suspecting sockpuppetry and asking RFC suspension - check here. Talk:Banknotes_of_the_pound_sterling#Requested_move_28_June_2022 Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 04:53, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, that RFC should be closed down. Something just isn't quite right. GoodDay (talk) 04:58, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Note that you are being disingenuous and ignoring the fact John Maynard Friedman endorsed two of the suggested moves. Trying to claim "ALL" other commentors were opposed is demonstrably untrue. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 05:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Thats not the point, Friedman can vote freely as he is not a SPA. Your claim of being disingenuous is unfounded, the two IP edits and that other bloke whose username I cannot remember for the love of my life have never made an edit outside that specific talk page, and the fact all three accounts said Support all definitely warrants suspicion. The consensus appears to be oppose anyway... X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 05:12, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

As mentioned in an earlier incident, OGP has already been suspended for his bad behaviour towards me and appears to be intent on sabotaging me at every turn. I might as well just frigging give up for now and come back years later when OGP has either been banned or lost interest. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 05:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Respectfully, TheCurrencyGuy, I do not care about his behaviour, you can create a new thread about OGP's behaviour and I will comment on that. It looks like they're violating WP:HOUNDING and WP:BLUDGEON to a smaller extent. But for now, we are looking at SPAs and possible meatpuppetry at the banknote article. You can also file a request for an interaction ban if you feel like OGP's actions are disrupting your editing. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 05:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I did not report to PhantomTech, I am not out to get you. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 05:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I've tagged those three single-purpose accounts, GoodDay & Oppa gangnam psy. Hopefully this speeds the process up. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 05:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

You are required to notify affected users when you open an ANI thread about them - I have done so on your behalf. That said, this is a complete mess. The timing and contrib history behind the "support all" comments are suspicious enough that I'd have brought that directly to SPI. Worth noting that Vulpelibrorum (talk · contribs) was created in 2019 but never edited until today. —{Canucklehead} 05:10, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I wish to close the RM now, I may reopen it at a later date when OGP is no longer pathologically obsessed with me.TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 05:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@TheCurrencyGuy I will not give you to make major edits anywhere on Wiki. I'll keep this ANI sockpuppetry thread as evidence you cannot be trusted. May your efforts be richly rewarded in Wiki purgatory lol. And oh yea it's really Pound Sterling. Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 05:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Now you are just incriminating yourself, WP:HOUNDING, WP:BLUDGEON TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 05:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

FWIW - To the best of my knowledge, nobody has opened an SPI on anyone. GoodDay (talk) 06:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I have been closing a few RMs for like past 4 months. Never seen so many many new accounts jump in to cast a !vote. Even on high viewership articles like '22 Rus v Ukr or Muhammad remark controversy. Something is very suspicious, so I'll open a SPI anyway. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 06:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

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

Oppa gangnam psy's continuing bad behaviour

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

---

While OGP was suspended I took the opportunity to open a move request that he had opposed in an extremely visceral and uncivil way. He has since posted multiple walls of text and is now trying to get the entire request shut down anyway. For this reason I have decided I do not want to pursue the move at this time.

I believe his behaviour constitutes WP:HOUNDING and WP:BLUDGEON and it may be worth looking into putting a WP:IBAN on him, as he has admitted he intends to continue hounding me indefinitely.TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 05:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: OGP seems intent on WP:BATTLEGROUND with TheCurrencyGuy, whilst the SPI investigation is ongoing, I'm assuming good faith and maintaining his innocence, but I do think OGP's behaviour needs some serious scrutiny. Various aspersions, slinging of various politically charged terms around, gives off a very people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks feeling. I am getting Mrbeastmodeallday flashbacks... X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 05:49, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  Hi @X750 my edit record have been near-negligible. It's @TheCurrencyGuy in bad need of multiple edits. But I'm an expert on the subject matter so his unorthodox edits were highly suspicious. I'm new here don't even know all your acronyms but I'm offering my very, very negligible contributions to Wiki to humble scrutiny. Thanks. Special:Contributions/Oppa_gangnam_psy Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 06:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  You've already just come off a suspension for your behaviour towards me, do you want to make it permanent? TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 06:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support 2-way WP:IBAN per WP:BOOMERANG and OGP's conduct in the above threads. I don't know how many more threads these two intend to make about each other, but I think it would be unwise to find out. —{Canucklehead} 05:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  I have no issue with this, I do not wish to interact with him anyway as he does not appear to be interested in constructive discussion. He has admitted that he seeks out negative interactions with me, I have done my best to keep a civil head, but it can be very difficult. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 05:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Canucklehead my edit records have been near-negligible. It's TheCurrencyGuy in bad need of multiple edits. But I'm an expert on the subject matter so his unorthodox edits were highly suspicious. I'm new here don't even know all your acronyms but I'm offering my very, very negligible contributions to Wiki to humble scrutiny. Thanks. Special:Contributions/Oppa_gangnam_psy Oppa gangnam psy Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 06:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  there! Special:Contributions/Oppa_gangnam_psy Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 06:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  @User:Oppa gangnam psy The issue which the IBAN proposes to solve has nothing to do with your respective edit counts. Rather, it's the fact that you two have chosen to continue filling ANI with this WP:LAME bullshit instead of walking away and letting other uninvolved users look into the concerns you've both raised. You've been feuding with this guy for 2 weeks and you're doing the same things that got you blocked. The more you WP:PEPPER every comment critical of you, and the more you pre-emptively dance on TCG's grave even with the issue completely unresolved, the more negative attention you're going to draw to yourself. Just stop. —{Canucklehead} 06:49, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support 2-way IBAN, as both editors might end up getting each other banned from the project. GoodDay (talk) 05:58, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi admins FYI @TheCurrencyGuy just caught in sockpuppetry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Sockpuppetry_-_developing_story Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 06:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

First I was an "ULTRA RIGHT WING NATIONALIST" and now I'm hosting sock-puppet theatre, what will be your next accusation? That I assassinated Franz Ferdinand? TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 06:01, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi all, feel free to peruse @TheCurrencyGuy edits. His Reichsmark Germany edits have been... hmm fascinating :) Considering I know very little of that era. Since we're all strangers here, your guess must be good as mine. See if I could still trust my spider senses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/TheCurrencyGuy&offset=20220626145322&limit=100&target=TheCurrencyGuy Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 06:12, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I made my panicked URWN reaction based on appearance of above edit record. 31-hour ban wasn't bad since hey I have negligible Wiki edits as of late! I'm relieved to see this is coming to a conclusion actually. How's his sockpuppetry case going on? Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sockpuppetry_-_developing_story Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 06:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

You've used the word "negligible" in every single reply, playing the victim when infact you're the aggressor is not a good look. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 06:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

You are getting back to that unfounded accusation of me being an "ULTRA RIGHT WING NATIONALIST", do you want to be banned? TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 06:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Admins can say if my panic was justified. You WP:ANI 'd me so I wanted to be out however I could. We're all strangers here so your edit track record is all we have to judge character. They can review mine as well as yours. My goodness I'm almost tourist level here with mostly boredom grammatical edits! Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 06:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

You have already been suspended once for WP:NPA against me. And now you're doing exactly the same thing all over again, same WP:STRAWMAN even. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 06:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• Hi everyone review my edit record before June 15 Special:Contributions/Oppa_gangnam_psy I wanna leave Wikipedia alone man! Real life & socmed is more fun lol but then this bloke came along with multiple wrong edits. You'll see I'm not worthy of any further ban. And looking forward to the day I won't even bother with you all. Though for now I feel compelled to clean up this bloke's his mess before I go on much-deserved vacation. Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 06:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  This is one of the most insanely obvious cases of WP:HOUNDING I have ever seen. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 06:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  Goodness how come you know so many wiki acronyms? I can't even recite five. Still reading in WP:SOCKPUPPETRY right now how long you'll be blocked (hopefully over 31 hours). I just understand the three sockpuppets are banned forever. Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 06:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  The amount of naked aggression from you is unbelievable. This isn't even passive-aggressive anymore. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 06:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support 2-way IBAN per above, at least until this whole mess gets sorted out. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 06:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Support 1-way IBAN on OGP, if they are ever unblocked. As Black Kite points out, OGP has been far more uncivil, TCG's behavior never raised to that level and viewed with the perspective of what OGP was doing to TCG, TCG's behavior may be more understandable. Neutral on TCG side of IBAN. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 04:57, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support 2-way IBAN - these two editors can't stop sniping at each other. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 06:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  I'm emotionally drained from it all. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 06:51, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• At the very least the two editors should stop posting on this noticeboard until the behaviour in question is sorted out. If that doesn't happen voluntarily then there should be a formal ban. Their positions have been stated ad nauseam, so there's no danger of anyone not knowing where they stand, and nobody has time to look properly at the underlying issues while such bickering and opening of new threads continues. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support 2-way interaction ban AND a topic-ban from the article(s) in question AND a ban from administrative boards until this is sorted out. If all they're going to do is snipe at each other like sanctioned belligerents, they need to be removed from the area and their attempts to weaponise AN(I/3) need to be nipped in the bud now. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 08:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

OGP is still being abusive, and is trying to start an edit war @ Irish pound. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 08:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked for 1 week for personal attacks. They already served a 31 hour block for the same reason just two days ago, so the message doesn't seem to be getting through.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

TheCurrencyGuy, Oppa gangnam psy will not be editing for the next week at least, and I think it would be a good idea for you not to post anything further here. This will give admins a chance to look at the behaviour that has been identified already without these constantly shifting goalposts. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:50, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• 1-way IBAN - OGP only There's only one editor persistently getting blocked here for personal attacks, and if OGP comes back from the latest block and carries on, they'll be indeffed and this will be moot anyway. As far as I can see TheCurrencyGuy has been generally polite even when ranted at by OGP and when consensus on the talk pages has been against them. Black Kite (talk) 10:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
• 1-way IBAN - OGP only, broadly per Black Kite. Also acceptable would be no i-ban and just indef OGP when they come off their current block and immediately return to the same behavior. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
• I would not have opposed a WP:CIR block for OGP having seen their behaviour but that seems inevitable. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• I would have indeffed them as soon as I saw the threats to TheCurrencyGuy that they wouldn't let them edit again [130] and the very suspicious sockpuppetry allegation which they then spread all over Wikipedia as a fact with zero evidence. The week's block was extremely lenient. Black Kite (talk) 11:56, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  I'm almost tempted to open an SPI for joe jobbing based on the section above. That seems more likely to me than a user editing in a way that they know will draw a pile of attention when something is already under discussion at ANI. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  There is an SPI open but I don’t think it’s clear cut. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

OGP has been blocked for 1-month. I think this thread can be closed. GoodDay (talk) 13:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• I dunno, given their last comment, which happened just before 1 week block was applied, it seems that this is behaviour that cannot be tolerated on Wikipedia. I did warn them that if they say anything like that again their block would be extended, but given their behaviour I'm kinda regretting that and think they should just be outright indeffed for their comments. Canterbury Tail talk 13:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
• Since I have been mentioned by both parties above, I suppose I should leave a comment with no expectation that it be taken into consideration. (In case it is not onvious, I am not an admin.) My experience is that both these editors have strongly held views and have a rather confrontational style. In general, TCG is able to support their assertions with citations (though, as I have told him, examples of usage don't make satisifactory RSs, but only descriptions and explanations of that use): OGS just seems to make firm assertions without evident foundation and tries to bully changes through. [See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fiat_money&action=history in May, for example.] OGS writes with total but unfounded confidence and has had to be asked to stop contributing to some articles related to finance and economics because WP:competence is required. (Pinging @SPECIFICO: if they wish to comment but who I suspect has better things to do with their time.) Each seems absolutely convinced that there is only one correct analysis, in a worldview that is remimiscent of religious fundamentalism in its expression, though TCG is more likely to acknowledge alternative views. IMO, OGS should be at least TBANned indefinitely on all finance economics articles broadly construed; TCG should take a week to cool off or ask for a voluntary 30-day TBAN on same topics. I have no idea how an interaction ban can ever be realistic. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  I agree, at least with the last sentence. The two editors both seem to be interested in the same narrow topic area, so, if the editors want to game the system, a two-way interaction ban will simply lead to a race to get to an article or talk page first and so exclude the other. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• As an FYI even after being warned they continued to make claims that other editors are radicalized and related attacks. They were clearly warned that if they continued their block would be extended, and they kept going. So I've now indeffed them and removed their talk page privileges. Such speech has no place on Wikipedia and it's quite clear they are completely incapable of editing in a collaborative environment. Canterbury Tail talk 18:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  I think he is back at User:Battleofthebands2004, this user with little contribution history just dropped a message on my talk page out of the blue. This would lend creedence to him being the sock puppeteer. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 23:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

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

TCG’s faits accomplis

Although I do not condone any of OGP’s personal attacks, I believe TCG is also performing faits accomplis such as massive changes (e.g. Special:Diff/1094137400/prev) of the British currency’s name to “sterling” under the guise of “minor cleanups”, or “standardization” of pre-decimal £sd notations. As far as I am aware, TCG has not ”resolve[d] the dispute through discussion” - although there were attempts, they were not resolved. I hope my proposal is not too drastic, but I think a TBAN (time-limited or not) is in order. Thanks, NotReallySoroka (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

TCG had also moved several page names, with editors (including OGP) reverting some of those (e.g. at Finnish mark(ka)), attributing it (correctly) to a lack of consensus. Meanwhile, TCG has also massively “recoded” the former Israeli currency’s name from “lira” to “pound” which they presume to be “correct” - such changes can be found at their Contributions. Thanks again. NotReallySoroka (talk) 17:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

When writing in *English* the name of the Israeli currency was the "Israeli pound", Wikipedia notes that in its choice of article name on the Israeli pound article and the consensus reached on its talk page. I do not consider this to be a controversial decision.

As for the first point you raised, I do not see how it is controversial to refer to a currency by its name. For the time being I have decided not to pursue the idea of renaming any related articles anyway, and that was what the discussions were about. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 17:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong here, WP:UCRN dictates that we should use the common name, although there should at least be a move discussion, not an outright move. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 21:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

While this is getting into content dispute area, these changes look concerning. Any time a new editor comes along and "fixes" a bunch of long-existing article titles out of nowhere, it's an orange flag - I'd want to see substantially better explanations for such moves than a lame "similar related articles with drastically different names" being a problem (hint: that's not a problem). I'm not an expert here, but all of those moves look potentially controversial and should have gone through the WP:RM process. Making a ton of edits to adjust the links also seems to push the "fait accompli" tack. TCG, please consider first marshalling evidence for why those old names were wrong, then filing a formal RM using the RM process, and only then after the move succeeds adjusting links. I've reverted the moves for now. SnowFire (talk) 10:59, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

IBAN request

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

---

In light of TCG's comments here where the user linked to the above section behind my username ([[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#TCG’s faits accomplis|NotReallySoroka]]), I would like to request that TCG be subject to a one-way interaction ban from making comments about me, time-limited or not. Thanks. NotReallySoroka (talk) 22:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I made an honest mistake, I thought as the link included your name anyway it was fine. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 22:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Harassment/Hounding

Hello, long time reader here that recently started editing last weekend. Most everyone has been helpful and friendly so far, however in my short time here Zefr has accused me of:

• Having COI.[131]
• Being a sock-puppet.[132]
• Edit-warring.[133]
• Being a single-purpose account.[134]

As well as demanding I register an account[135], reverting three of my edits in a row[136], reverting my mention of this[137], reverting a source[138] added through consensus[139] during an active DRN where the moderator asked us not to edit the article further.[140]

For context: most of the content dispute has been centered around usage of drugs.com as a MEDRS-compliant source[141] and inclusion of sources showing lavender oil capsules as treating anxiety symptoms.[142]

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.45.170.185 (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Zefr has now also opened an admin noticeboard discussion against me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:50.45.170.185_reported_by_User:Zefr_(Result:_) 50.45.170.185 (talk) 19:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, as for Lavandula your first edit was at 6:56, June 29, 2022 ([143]), your second edit was at 7:37, June 29, 2022 ([144]), your third edit was at 7:48, June 29, 2022 ([]), your fourth edit was at 7:51, June 29, 2022 ([145]), your fifth edit was at 16:44, June 29, 2022 ([146]) and your six edit was at 17:57, June 29, 2022 ([147]), you already went pass WP:3RR and it is now a violation of the three revert rule. Chip3004 (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

He has opened another against me after User:Pyrrho_the_Skipper and I tried to revert his disruptive edits. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:50.45.170.185_reported_by_User:Zefr_(Result:_) 50.45.170.185 (talk) 18:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

This isn't going to go the way you think, it's quite clear you're edit warring to add in this material. If you add something, and someone reverts you, you take it to the talk page and discuss. You do NOT revert and edit war for your preferred version, you discuss. Canterbury Tail talk 19:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply.

Just to clarify, there already was quite a lot of discussion (including on DRN) for another page that contained the same content/sources. I was merely syncing this page's content with the one where the discussion already happened. Also I honestly don't think my changes count as reverts as I was trying to address Zefr's concerns as well as having opened up a talk page discussion about a revert he made (removing the Research section). 50.45.170.185 (talk) 20:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Also I'd like to thank everyone that participated in the DRN, including the moderator.[148]

Moderated discussion was definitely going well and I think was a great way to talk. Unfortunately, due to Zefr's actions the moderator had to close the DRN. I really wish we could have just continued with moderated discussion to reach a consensus. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 19:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi User:Daniel_Case I noticed you handled my case on the edit-warring noticeboard. I'd like to thank you and apologize in advance if this is asking too much but could you please look into this. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALavender_oil&type=revision&diff=1096004936&oldid=1096001065

I know that because of page-protection I can't edit the article for a week, but am I really not allowed to discuss the article either? 50.45.170.185 (talk) 18:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I gave him a non-templated warning about edits inconsistent with WP:TPO at his user page. Daniel Case (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

thank you 50.45.170.185 (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Zefr goes against a consensus established on WP:RSN https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALavender_oil&type=revision&diff=1096137909&oldid=1096095331

Calls me obsessed and to stop participating in the discussion when I point this out. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 00:41, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Zefr was not misusing the Warring template for 3RR Warning, you have gone past the Three Revert Rule. Chip3004 (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG is the likely the result, here. GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• One-time DRN moderator here: I don't know whether the IP user has a COI involving lavender oil. I don't know whether the IP user is a sockpuppet, and if CheckUser knows that, they aren't allowed to say. I do know whether the IP user is a single-purpose account. They are one. I know one when I see one. We know that the IP user was edit-warring. I can also see that the IP user is being tendentious about lavender oil and lavandula. I don't know whether drugs.com is a medically reliable source. I closed the DRN because the dispute was also pending at SPI, and it is now also pending at ANEW and here at ANI. I can also see whether the filing editor is harassing or hounding the IP user. They are not. They have a right to report an SPI, which may be closed without action by CU, and they have a right to report edit-warring when there is edit-warring. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for the reply Robert.

  I am not a single-purpose account. I have only been editing for 3 days and I've already participated in other things besides lavender discussion. I do not hold strong personal opinion about lavender oil, a substance that until less than a week ago I didn't even know you could eat.

  I believe my requests for MEDRS-compliant sources is not tendentious.[149][150] but feel free to point out how they are.

  Yes, of course every user has the right to report any other user. But when taken as a whole in the context of a content debate, where Zefr was the only one strongly opposed to the outcome, and additionally the short-time frame that the reports occurred as well as the other personally-targeted actions listed above, I would say it is very harassing behavior...

  Man, I asked for a moderated discussion and he got it closed down, this whole time we could have been improving the content of the encyclopedia. Such a shame. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 22:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

  Not to mention WP:NOBITING and WP:SPATG and WP:NOSPADE. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 22:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

  Continuing behavior of attacking me personally[151]

  This time to try to argue that he was right to remove the "Research" section once it contained information (cited by a MEDRS-compliant source) he personally disagreed with. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 23:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

  • The statement by the IP user that they have only been editing for 3 days is misleading, probably deliberately misleading, as is indicated by their discussion on their IP user talk page. Don't cite BITE. If you have been editing long enough to use that guideline as a cudgel, you are not a newbie. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

    Sorry Robert, your assessment is incorrect. I simply love reading, and have been reading all those fancy "WP:" things people keep linking everywhere, and in turn clicking links on those pages as well. I find user pages also sometimes contain good links to resources as well. If you go through my history you will find my knowledge of various things increasing as time goes on as well as today I finally figured out how to make that cool green quote text instead of "quoting everything like this" which was useful for my RSN posts.

    Also recently I've read WP:NOTCLUELESS, which you may find interesting.

    An example, I was reading WP:BURYES recently which links to WP:SENIORITY which had a nice quote by User:Paulmcdonald whose page linked to WP:ADMINGUIDE which I am now reading through even though I will never do such work for Wikipedia for free. I'd say you dodged a bullet with that one. Twice. (yes I read them both) 50.45.170.185 (talk) 04:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  • The request for medically reliable sources is not tendentious. It is the general pattern by the IP user, and especially toward User:Zefr, that is tendentious. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

    Could you be more specific about the details of this "general pattern"? 50.45.170.185 (talk) 04:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

    • • Look up Wikipedia's article on sealioning. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

        You're calling me a troll for making an RfC and RSN post about improving an article?

        WP:VEXBYSTERANG

        Let's be WP:CIVIL please. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 01:08, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) While the IP has gone seriously overboard in their reaction, it's worth pointing out that both sides are exhibiting bad behavior (as is often the case). It would nice once in a while to see admins have a little more backbone when it comes to the less-than-civil behavior of long-standing editors. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• When the OP says they've "just started" editing Wikipedia, per the admissions on their Talk page this isn't true, since there they say they had an account but got a courtesy vanishing. From the initial edits it's clear this is not a newbie. Given that, AGF rather goes out the window. Alexbrn (talk) 19:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
  • As Alexbrn says. Either the IP/OP is being misleading about being a new editor, or the IP/OP is being misleading about the previous account. They are acting like an experienced troll in using Bite as a cudgel. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

  I did just start editing wikipedia. I never used any previous account to edit pages outside of my own user-page that I just filled with silly boxes.

  also see WP:NOTCLUELESS

  Or you can see here where I didn't yet know how to make the green quote text Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kim99#Comments_by_other_users

  That was my second day editing, I learned how to make it the very next day for my post to RSN https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1095732775

  Always assume good faith 50.45.170.185 (talk) 20:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Persistent WP:NAT behavior that has escalated to WP:NPA - User:Botushali

Botushali has been warned by multiple editors for nationalist POV pushing behavior for many months. Their recent violation of WP:NPA in the course of their actions has triggered this notice. In November 2021, Botushali was warned by other editors for edit warring in the context of nationalist POV pushing.[152] In February 2022, Botushali was warned for disruptive edits across four pages in the context of nationalist POV pushing.[153] In June 2022, Botushali was reminded of the discretionary sanctions at hand for disruptive editing in the area of Balkan/Eastern European articles, an area Botushali dedicates 100% of their efforts to.[154]. Examples of Botushali's behavior includes use of extreme emotive language across talk pages and edits [155][156][157]. Botushali in recent times has had a fixation with the demographic history of Kosovo. Botushali has removed text that referenced Serbs living in the region in the Middle Ages on the basis that the Ottoman census at the time didn't mention ethnicity.[158][159][160][161] Botushali unsurprisingly added text that references to a historical presence of Albaniains in Kosovo during the Middle Ages, using references from the Ottoman census which they themselves claimed didn't list ethnicity.[162] [163][164]. Such one-sided edits create significant disruption and in defense of similar content, Botushali called another Wikipedia editors actions in removing such content as "pathetic" and that of "stupidity".[165] A sanction is requested in order to curtail this ongoing behavior. ElderZamzam (talk) 11:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Being interested in a subject doesn't make editing about it nationalist POV pushing. I am interested in Albanian history, but I'm interested in writing about it from a perspective which agrees with academic consensus. I don't see the language I have used in the selected examples as "extreme emotive" but ElderZamzam is free to report it on AE if he considers it a problem. In regards to the content itself, ElderZamzam says that I removed content about Serbs because "Ottoman defters don't mention ethnicity" but added content about Albanians even though in my previous argument I stated that they don't mention ethnicity. Like many problems here, this has to do with a misunderstanding of what has been written; ElderZamzam says that I added text that references to a historical presence of Albanians in Kosovo during the Middle Ages, using references from the Ottoman census which they themselves claimed didn't list ethnicity However, this is not the case [166] I cited the defter information but didn't connect it directly to Albanian ethnicity - rather, I connected it to Albanian anthroponymy in a linguistic sense because the defters themselves don't mention ethnicity. The problem isn't that I used the same argument for opposite reasons, but that ElderZamzam has to understand the difference between language and ethnicity. If I say that most people in a village have Albanian names, I'm not saying that they were Albanians in an ethnic sense. It's likely a rational conclusion, but it's not something which I've written because the source doesn't go that far. Furthermore, on the pages of Prizren and Novo Brdo, I have added sources on the prevalence of Slavic toponomy; you can distinguish between Slavic and Albanian anthroponomy based on the names of household heads present in the defters, but you cannot distinguish between a Serb and a Bulgarian since they both have Slavic anthroponomy and therefore those sources that claim "Serb" ethnicity of inhabitants with Slavic names are invalid.

[167] In this case I did use the term "pathetic" and I did so because truly it got to a point where a source was being removed and called "extremist" without any WP:RSN about it whatsoever. If everybody removed sources they consider "extremist", then Wikipedia wouldn't be able to function. There is a process which wasn't followed and nobody even justified any such edit on the TP Talk:Novi Pazar. This is why I reverted and used this term, which I wouldn't normally use on Wikipedia and don't intend to use in the future. The source was being called "extremist" because it allegedly mentioned Albanian presence in a village near a city in today's southern Serbia. Why would the mentioning of other ethnicities in modern Balkan nation-states which were once like most of the Balkans, multi-ethnic and multi-confessional, be extremist in itself? For this simple observation, ElderZamzam considers my stance to be "nationalist POV-pushing". Additionally, labelling a publishing house as an extremist organisation is simply out of order; extremist organisations commit acts of terror and violence amongst other such things, they do not publish books.

I am interested in Albanian history but I am interested in writing about it accurately. I checked to see what the "extremist" source writes but it doesn't mention the information. Content which was added, removed, added (by me procedurally as there was no RS reason to remove it), removed and added again by many users wasn't mentioned in the source. So I removed it myself [168]. I did so because I'm interested in writing valid articles and this isn't nationalist POV pushing, which is a comment on the reasons behind my edits and is in fact a form of WP:ASPERSION. I am open to any questions which any admins consider reasonable. Botushali (talk) 03:49, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:ASPERSIONS? Really? You mean like "...utterly pathetic. Stop the stupidity, it's just annoying? I believe you owe me an apology. Btw I have seen editors banned at AE for a lot less. Just saying. Khirurg (talk) 02:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

You called a Publishing House an "extremist organisation" - that's absolutely ridiculous. As I mentioned previously, extremist organisations commit acts of terror and violence, not publish books. As far as I'm concerned, the tone I have used with you is the same tone you have previously used with me, which has been condescending and patronising:

• Vjosa TP - "Desperation much?... You are new around here, so try to learn something instead of dishing out "advice" to users with vastly more experience than you. ... No, you can't because it's a bunch of nonsense."
• Kitsos Tzavelas edit history, 18th November 2021 - "We've been over this at Souliotes, no way." You used a similar Nope. on Markos Botsaris' edit history. Very dismissive, unamicable attitude.
• Illyrians TP - "Try again. ... Read my comment above and stop pretending you didn't hear that..."
• Illyrians TP - "You can ping each other and agree with each other all you want, it doesn't change anything..."

I do not see an amicable tone here, Khirurg? I believe an apology from you is in order. Let's not forget this same supercilious, dismissive tone is used by you against several other Wikipedia editors - I can show you many, many examples if you like. It's not a very nice way to interact with your fellow editors... Botushali (talk) 06:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

So instead of apologizing, doubling down and going on the offensive using anything you can dig up eh ("Nope"? Really?) That's ok. But be aware if this goes to AE, your record will come under intense scrutiny, and going on the offensive will not going to work there. Khirurg (talk) 21:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Abdunibnabd

On the page Nuh Ha Mim Keller there is a problematic editor that has repeatedly deleted reliably sourced material here, here and here from Middle East Eye based on the claim that it is defamatory (not established, substantiated or discussed, and in defiance of WP:NOTCENSORED), and more recently under the premise that it is irrelevant and unverified - obviously sub-standard reasons. A talk page discussion has been opened, but ignored, despite invitations in edit comments here and here, and on their talk page as part of edit warnings. Here they also removed a reliable book source, and here inline primary source tags, again described as "irrelevant". The user has recently ONLY been logging on to vet the information and I can only really conclude that they are WP:NOTHERE. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:30, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Abdunibnabd, the user in question, has made 20 edits and never edited a talk page. I think there's good reason to at least give them a warning. Outside of the Keller article their edits have mostly been unhelpful. This edit was vandalistic. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: And now we have this diff with the possible Freudian slip in which the editor either uses the Royal we, or is in fact acting as part of either a collective editors, or an external group, with a possible conflict of interest in editing this content - something not exactly contraindicated by their intense interest in removing the material in question. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

As is evident from the page history, the user is engaged in a slow-burn edit war, and continues to ignore the talk page discussion and dialogue attempts. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Concerns about Johnpacklambert's "corrections" of birth dates

Johnpacklambert appears to have been working his way through birth date categories for some time now. He goes through a category at a time and edits birth date categories if the text and category do not match. A few days ago I asked him about how he determined which of the dates was the correct one. His response was I assume text is more correct, especially when there are multiple statements in the text.. From this, I take him to be saying that he does no research other than looking at the article. He does not check what sources say. He does not do a Google search. He does not look at the history of page to see how the dates became different. I have asked him twice to confirm these assumptions, but he has ignored the question both times.

I will give the clearest example of the problem - Mr Lambert changed the birth date category for Julia Adler from 1897 to 1898 so it matched the text of the page. There is only one source used on that page. The source is an obituary which provides the birth date of "July 4, 1897". After I questioned him about this change (giving him the date in the source), Mr Lambert edited the date to "c. 1898".

I am concerned that Mr Lambert, with the best of intentions, has "corrected" many many birth date categories without taking the time to research the problem. He appears to trust Wikipedia text over the sources. What prompted me to finally report this here is that Mr Lambert has stopped replying to my questions on his talk page and has deliberately changed the way he edits birth date categories so that there is no edit summary showing the category change. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 15:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• I am correcting the birth dates to match the stated contents of the text of the article. The issue that is brought up above has since had people look into the text more and more sources have been added. I have tried to make sure that I am fully consulting the text of the article, and in multiple cases have reviewed the articles more indepth. I have tried to create discussion around topics in response to the issue as can be seen at [169]. Beatrix Bulstrode is an example of why insisting that someone do extra research to correct these problems is not reasonable. The article text makes it clear that the existing date was a transpostion error, she clearly was born in 1869 as the article says and not in 1896. The claim above that I have "stopped replying to questions on the talk page" is diningenous at best. The most recent ask on the talk page was about Eleanor Winthrop Young. After the question was asked on my talk page, I opened a discussion at Talk:Eleanor Winthrop Young which discusses the matter of when she may have been born. I maybe should have posted about that on my talk page to notify him of it. He further attacks me for doing a direct edit instead of using hot cat, and clearly is ignoring edits like the one I made on Beatrix Bulstrode where I explicitly state this was a correction of the birth year. With hot cat one does not have an easy option to explain the edit, so if I use the general edit I can explain the edits and somewhat anticipate the questions about them before they happen. I would also point out my previous attempts to explain the full issue, such as the case of Louise Little, where I explain why it has been changed to 1890s births, and he responds the way he does. I explain that I had gone to the touble of looking for more sources on Little's birth, and identify one I was able to find which justified the move to the 1890s birth category. When I initially found the article it had multiple statements in the text that said Little was born in 1894 and nothing that indicated any other year was the year of birth. When Polycarpa aurata asked about this, I dug further and was able to find the source, which I mentioned in my talk page and made the edits. His response was a set of questions you see there. I really could not find a good way to respond to those questions. So I figured that a response was not needed, especially since the issue at hand was what birth year Little should be categorized in, and based on the most recent New York Times source I think we can only place the article in the 1890s births category. Johnny Broderick the opening explicitly tells us that sources differ on the year of birth. From now on I will explictly make a note of changing the birth year in my edit summary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Harry Caples is an example of having such an edit summary explaining what I am doing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

    @Johnpacklambert After I tried to talk to you about your birth date changes, you stopped leaving edit summaries for those changes, correct? That makes it harder to see the birth date changes when looking at your edits. What was your intention when you changed how you made those edits? Polycarpa aurata (talk) 23:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

    • No that is not correct. Pretty much the only edit summaries I have made were after you brought this issue up. When one uses hotcat directly to make an edit there is no ability to make an edit summary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

      @Johnpacklambert From what I was seeing over the last few days, there was a consistent edit summary like "removed Category:1897 births; added Category:1879 births using HotCat". A couple of days ago, the edit summaries disappeared. That continued until today. For example, this edit changng a birth date with no edit summary. Why did you change how you edited birth date categories? Please bear in mind that edit summaries are not the issue here. I just want to understand why you changed your method of editing, because it had the side effect of making those types of edits harder to find. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 04:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I think if an editor were to go through every Category:Births in year page and change the cat to match the text, without checking any sources, it would be a net benefit to the project. If JPL is doing even an occasional source check, even better. Polycarpa aurata, if you intend to go through the cats and rigorously check all the date sources, I would counsel JPL to stop his work to avoid duplicating efforts. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. This looks to me to be simple good-faith and non-controversial editing. If there's a mistake, fix it. It seems that if there are mistakes it would be much less work to just fix it than to bring it up here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I am correcting the birth dates to match the stated contents of the text of the article. Please don't do this. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, as you well know. — TREY MATURIN has spoken 18:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I am afraid I come down on this side of the issue--though I will say that I do not doubt JPL's good faith here. If there is such a discrepancy, it means there must be an error somewhere along the line, and I am not convinced the text will always be more reliable. This process may in fact be hiding errors which should be rechecked and which would otherwise be plain to see. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. If there is any disruptive, or bad fait, editing historically which may change birth dates etc (happens all the time) then 99.99% of the time it's in the text. I don't think I've ever seen such a bad actor alter the categories. While I don't condone using it, I'd say it's possible in many cases that the category is more likely to be correct as that would have likely been set up at the article creation and sourcing stage rather than the maintenance editing stage. Canterbury Tail talk 19:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I believe the intent of "Wikipedia is not a reliable source" is with regards to being a source for other Wikipedia articles. I'm not sure the spirit if that pertained to categories of the articles in which they are referencing. I could stand corrected if specific text states the intent of that statement also included categories. I think I'm in agreeance with @Firefangledfeathers and @Paulmcdonald here. --ARoseWolf 19:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC) -edited 19:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

The relevant guideline here (WP:People by year) states that categories should be added according to the date of birth and date of death in the article. I'm not seeing anything particularly actionable in terms of sanctions for John Pack Lambert - synchronising categories with article text is a useful thing to do and the comments he has been leaving on talk pages suggest that he is putting some level of checking into his edits. There is also no requirement at all to perform category edits using hotcat.

I do, however, think that this is a case where the behaviour of the filer is worth looking at, and WP:BOOMERANG sanctions may be appropriate. In the 400 edits they have made to date they have spent a significant amount of time baselessly accusing other editors of disruption and conduct.

• In this AFD [170] Polycarpa aurata uses an unnecessarily combative tone and suggests that it's the fault of the other editors commenting there that no coverage except an interview cannot be found (is not notable because *you* can't find sources?). Later in the discussion they admit that they have made no effort to find sources themselves and imply the deletion is due to racial bias.
• This featured picture delisting nomination [171] was opened because of concerns about quality that were raised when the picture was scheduled to run on the main page [172]. Polycarpa aurata shows up, admits they have little knowledge of the process, and baselessly makes the accusation that the discussion was opened in bad faith to undermine another process [173].
• Here [174] they are criticised for taking an unnecessarily agnostic tone that implies bad faith in a discussion about a mass shooting [175].
• Here [176] They refer to another editor as "creepy" for adding information on a celebrity board member's involvement in a charity to an article.
• In this deletion review [177] they misrepresent an admin suggesting that they userfy a page as being unwilling to restore the page and refer to a couple hour delay for a response as I tried to follow up with them but they stopped replying.
• In this discussion [178] an editor tries to reach a consensus as to whether an image is suitable to run on the main page. After a few messages the op lays out a numbered list of the positives and negatives of the image. Polycarpa aurata ignores the message for 4 days, then turns up to accuse the OP of starting the entire discussion in bad faith [179]. Before the image is run the OP starts another discussion on the main page talk page to try to get feedback [180]. Polycarpa aurata again shows up to claim that the entire discussion was stated in bad faith [181]. FWIW consensus was essentially unanimous that the image was OK to run.

Polycarpa aurata badly needs to stop accusing everyone and anyone they come into conflict with or disagree with of acting in bad faith or with misconduct. They also really need to reconsider the tone that they use in talk page messages, and avoid agnostic language that is simply going to inflame tensions. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 19:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I've spent ages trying to understand your repeated use of the word "agnostic", and have come to the conclusion that you probably actually meant "antagonistic". Is that correct? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Agnostic behavior in hens. EEng 16:45, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I believe Mr Lambert is acting in good faith, but his actions are damaging the project. Please understand that I am not making an accusation - I am making a statement. Johnpacklambert is introducing new errors (category errors) which compound the errors in the text. He has been doing this for weeks, if not months. I do not know what percentage of his birth date edits have been problematic, but it was fairly easy for me to find the examples I left on his talk page. You are misinterpreting the guidance for categories. The text and categories should match, yes, but that doesn't mean one should mindlessly change the category to match the text without investigating how the error happened. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 23:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Extremely poorly thought out boomerang request. You did a deep stalking and that was the worst you found? None of that is actionable or even terribly concerning. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back I looked at some of the birth date changes that Mr Lambert has been making this week. Does that count as a "deep stalking"? That doesn't even seem like a light stalking to me, but everything on Wikipedia seems to have its own meaning. Anyway, based in what I found, Mr Lambert has probably introduced dozens of new category errors into Wikipedia as he "corrected" birth categories. I think this is worth telling people about so that the errors can be identified and fixed, and so that Mr Lambert will stop introducing new errors. I'm not asking for him to be punished, just to stop, although it would be nice if he would acknowledge that he understands why this was wrong, so he doesn't do the same thing with some other category. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Getting slightly off topic... Identifying an issue with a specific edit and looking at the author's edit history to see if the issue is limited to one page is one thing, it is entirely another thing to trawl someone's edit history for any and all errors or conflicts in the hopes of using them to influence an unrelated noticeboard discussion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

• I have not seen it so much in my run from 1927 births back, but back when I was reviewing articles from the 1300s or so, I saw 2 very common cases where those who had created the categories clearly did not understand what the article was saying. In one case there were articles with flourished dates. Another set of articles had the dates a ruler reigned in parenthesis and an editor had misinterpreted that to be the birth and death years. True the majority of rulers over time (as opposed to elected leaders) probably died in office, but very few were born the year their reign started. I have also found some articles in multiple bith year categories. Clearly people were not born in more than one year, so that is not right. As I said going forward I will be clear on what is going on with edit summaries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:34, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Johnpacklambert Edit summaries are not the issue. The issue is that you are not investigating *why* there is more than one birth date. You are blindly assuming that the text is correct and changing the category. You have not been checking sources already available from the page. You have not been looking at the page history to see when the error happened. You have not been trying to find the correct birth date. You are not correcting errors, you are just making two things match. Sometimes that will be fine, but in other cases it introduces a new error, as I have tried to show you on your talk page. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 04:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I am very puzzled by some of the comments here. @Firefangledfeathers, Paulmcdonald, and ARoseWolf: If someone created a bot that went through pages and just changed the birth date category to match whatever birth date was in the text, would you be ok with that? Polycarpa aurata (talk) 04:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be a net benefit to the project. I'm not familiar enough with the bot policy to comment on that. My experience is that errors are generally caught and fixed in the article text, but that editors rarely update the categories to match. You have presumably checked many of JPL's category changes. Have you found that errors in greater than 50% of these edits? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:29, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers I only started looking at Mr Lambert's birth date edits this week, so I wouldn't want to guess at the error rate but I was able to find a half dozen examples. That doesn't mean that the others were correct, just less obviously wrong. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 04:55, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

A half dozen out of how many approximately? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:57, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

The net number of changes on some birth year categories are in excess of 100. Some of these I process through in less than a week. So I am probably on average making over 100 edits related to birth-year categorization a week.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

To answer the question directly, yes, I believe a bot that did this task would be with-in compliance with, at least, what is written in the guideline, however, bot policies would also apply and there may be additional restrictions or hurdles that might need be addressed before such a bot was created. --ARoseWolf 13:44, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

That error rate is massive, were you aware that you were making so many screw ups before this thread was opened? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Since I was pinged back here: I'm not sure what was confusing or puzzling about what I said. It was pretty straight forward. The statement in quotations was being used to push the case against Mr. Lambert's edits and a) I don't think it means what the ones using it think it means (the comment by the IP seems to suggest guidelines say Mr. Lambert's edits are in compliance) and, regardless, b) I'm questioning whether this is an urgent, chronic and intractable behavior issue or a just a content issue that should perhaps go to dispute resolution. No where in the guideline does it say you have to check the sources before adding a category. In fact, it can be assumed with relative certainty that the ones that added the categories initially did not check the sources for accuracy. Some might, some might not. But what is clear is that we are asking Mr. Lambert to take an extra step that is not written in the guideline or clearly defined anywhere else in policy for this specific task. While the OP may have a legitimate concern, their focus is in the wrong direction here. If they are so concerned with making sure that anyone adding or editing a category check sources to verify what is written in the article then they should be asking for the guideline to be changed. There is a proper venue for that. --ARoseWolf 13:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Let met get this straight... there is a discrepancy between the birthdate listed in the text of an article and the birthdate category on the article. There is obviously something wrong in the article, whether it's the text, or the category, or both. No one disagrees with that. If it's left as is, the error remains in the article. An editor is making a good faith attempt to fix it. Now even if this correction is done randomly to match the category with the text or the text with the category, they'll be right 50% of the time (unless both are wrong). So, in the likely worst case scenario here, half of the articles are being corrected and now we're demanding that it should be 100% or none at all? Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:58, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Response-we're not talking about a bot, we're talking about a person. per WP:BOTS, Wikipedia policy requires that bots be harmless and useful, have approval, use separate user accounts, and be operated responsibly.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I noticed this editor on John Pack Lambert's talk page; they were constantly repeating the question What research did you do before you made your edit to the category? despite it already having been answered with I assume text is more correct, especially when there are multiple statements in the text.

I don't know much about categorization policies, but it did come across as uncivil WP:BADGERing. BilledMammal (talk) 14:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@BilledMammal To be honest, I found it hard to believe that someone could actually be doing what Mr Lambert was doing. I wanted to be sure that I understood the process he was following (ie not checking page history, not checking sources). When I raised questions about specific articles, Mr Lambert became argumentative about sources I offered instead of responding to my question about his process. So I stopped offering sources and just asked about process. When Mr Lambert stopped responding at all, I brought the issue here. If there is a more appropriate noticeboard for these types of things, please let me know. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 19:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

JPL, I think you should change your approach and here's why: what you're doing is like clearing a bug report without fixing the bug. If the text and category don't match, at least we are aware of a potential error. If you always match category to text, yes that's technically within policy, but it's not a good idea anyway.

Let's say half of the time the text is right and half the time the category is right. If you always match category to text, you'll never turn incorrect text into correct text, and that's good. But half the time you will have turned a correct category into an incorrect category. And 100% of the time, because you're matching them, you'll remove the evidence of a potential error (which is the mismatch).

So if there is incorrect text and correct category, if you do nothing, at least it's flagged as an error for potential follow up by someone else. But if you "clear" them all, you also clear all evidence of a potential error, half the time correcting the error, but half the time making it worse (change incorrect cat to correct cat) while also making it harder for anyone else to detect it (by removing the mismatch).

Instead of just changing the category to match the text without verifying the text, it should be flagged for further, manual, review. It's better to have a mismatch than to clear the mismatch without investigating it. Clearing the "there's a problem here" warning (mismatch of text and category) without actually investigating the problem, doesn't help, it hurts. What you're effectively doing by removing the mismatch but not actually investigating them is making sure no one else will even find any of these mismatches and know to check them in the future. Levivich^[block] 14:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight, you are asking Mr. Lambert to go above and beyond guideline and policy to meet a criteria not required of any other editor, whether when an article is created or after the fact. If you want guidelines or policies changed, which might actually have merit, then make the proper request. Don't put the cart before the horse. All that is required is for the category to match the text in the article. --ARoseWolf 14:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

But that's the whole point of this thread "All that is required is for the category to match the text in the article" - how do you know which one is correct? Levivich's post is a brilliant explination of why just making that one change isn't the best thing to do. I think Template:Self-contradictory should be used on articles like this. The example on that template isn't a million miles away from these issues - change "the cause of death" to "YOB/YOD text doesn't match the category" or similar. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

(You make me blush.) Yes, tagging with a template or otherwise applying a hidden maintenance category is a good example of the kind of adjustment of approach I had in mind. Tagging for follow up is better than just changing the category to match the text. Levivich^[block] 14:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

You got that straight Rose: I don't want anyone to do anything that makes the project worse, even if--and I want to make this next part absolutely clear--even if it violates no rule. The important thing isn't that we comply with our own rules, the important thing is we build an encyclopedia, and clearing bug reports without fixing the bug doesn't help us do that, it hinders us--even if it's not against any rule, still a bad idea. Levivich^[block] 14:57, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

We have a lot of issues on this encyclopedia. We have articles that contain contradicting information. If making the project worse was the only criteria by which we built or maintained the encyclopedia then we would have far less articles because that is very subjective. Who gets to say something that fixes 50% of articles is hurting the encyclopedia? Maybe its perspective. That's why we have policy and guidelines. Out of the hundreds and thoudands of editors on Wikipedia we can get hundreds and thousands of opinions on what hurts and helps the encyclopedia. Your opinion that this particular action hurts is contradicted by those that say fixing 50% helps. Your view is no more or less important than theirs, the difference is policy and guideline. I still don't see this being a behavior issue so this AN/I is misplaced. -ARoseWolf 15:03, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Who gets to say... We do. The community. That's why we're talking about this here and now. And as one member of the community, I say that clearing error reports without fixing errors hurts the encyclopedia. You're welcome to disagree about that, but spare me the Wikipedia cliche "If you want guidelines or policies changed...", and spare me the insinuation that I need to change a policy or guideline if I want to hold an opinion. You may better persuade others by explaining why you don't think clearing the bug reports without fixing the bugs is a bad thing--I explained why I thought it was a bad thing--maybe try actually engaging with the substance of my argument instead of just expressing outrage at it? :-) Levivich^[block] 15:20, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

And by the way, nobody is asking him to go "above and beyond" anything. It's more like asking him to refrain from doing something: please don't change categories to match text without checking for accuracy. One option available to him is to not do anything. Another option available is to tag the article somehow, rather than changing the category to match the text. Neither option is "going above and beyond" anything. No one is asking him to do more work, we're asking him to do the work differently, because the way he's doing it is making it harder for the rest of us. (We can't fix an incorrect birthdate if we don't know about it, after all.) Levivich^[block] 15:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Just a technical note but those saying "fixing 50% helps." are either speaking metaphorically or are factually incorrect. Thats just not how statistics works in this case. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

The relevant guideline and policy here are WP:RS and WP:V - WP:PBY is fine for adding a category if there isn't one, but it's not for correcting it. If Johnpacklambert isn't looking at what the sources say, he shouldn't be changing what the article text says (I'm using "article text" broadly here, to include the category). It's one thing if he looks at the history and sees that a seventeen-edit, now-blocked user changed one of the dates, and then undoes that; it's quite another if he just looks at the current version of the article and capriciously picks which one is right, even if he's always picking the same one. That's like "fixing" a copyright infringement by replacing random words with a thesaurus until the Earwig report's percentage match is "low enough". —Cryptic 15:17, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

...which, by the way, is something people do that drives me nuts: using elegant variation to lower an Earwig score but not checking the source, and in the process risking turning plagiarism into a V or NPOV or even BLP error. Levivich^[block] 15:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

My point is that it doesn't turn plagiarism into a V/NPOV/BLP error; it turns plagiarism into a V/NPOV/BLP error plus still plagiarism, and much harder-to-detect plagiarism at that. —Cryptic 15:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

• This complaint makes no sense to me. What citation is there for the original categories? If an article says that someone was born in 1890, and I add Category:2004 births (cited to nothing because categories can't carry refs), is it just required to stay that way forever? Is it not much more likely that they were born in 1890 than, say, 1896, based on the article text? Sure, it would be nice for JPL to add citations for birth dates. It would also be nice if he turned every article he edited into a GA, but it would be asinine to complain about someone not doing this. I sometimes use AWB to fix typos; am I about to get my ass beat at ANI for doing that in uncited sections? I think not. The choice here is not between a cited birth year and an uncited birth year -- it's between an uncited category that disagrees with the article and an uncited category that agrees with the article. I cannot fathom any way in which this is a problem, other than the fact that JPL has been abrasive on unrelated parts of the project, which has (and should have) nothing to do with this. jp×g 15:44, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
  • If you're reading an article and you see a contradiction in it, it's an immediate indication that something is wrong and you should look closer instead of blindly trusting it - it could just as easily be the cited 1890 date that's erroneous, say, because it's uncorrected vandalism. (Yes, yes, I know, readers should always look closer instead of blindly trusting Wikipedia, but they don't. We've got research showing that only a third of a percent of page views click on any references.) —Cryptic 16:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Right -- but the problem is not with the categorization, it's with an erroneous birth date being on the page in the first place. Verifying the content of a page is a separate task from aligning its categories. If an article says someone was born in 1890, it may be the case that there's no citable basis to categorize them as an 1890 birth, but there is absolutely no basis to categorize them as an 1894 birth. One of these situations is obviously worse than the other. Sure, there's the off-chance that the other birth date was vandalism, and maybe the cats could be used to detect this vandalism, but "deliberately retain self-contradictory language in articles so that forensic searches can be done for vandalism" doesn't seem like a policy I have ever heard of. jp×g 18:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

      Actually, vandals often change the article but not the category, so you should never adjust a category that contradicts the article without at least looking at the article history. —Kusma (talk) 18:45, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Nellie Casman

Here is an example of a birth date change made today by Mr Lambert. He changed the birth date category of Nellie Casman from 1896 births to 1890s births. The edit summary says he opening says 1896? for her birth year, saying it is less than clear, so we are probably safer saying she was born in the 1890s than committing to an exact year we cannot be sure of. The page has three sources, including an obituary in the New York Times. Each of those sources says that Nellie Casman was born in 1896. Why is Mr Lambert unsure of the date given by those three sources? If "we cannot be sure of" the year given by the three separate sources, how can Mr Lambert be sure that Casman was born in the 1890s and not the 1880s or 1900s? BY this point, I think it is safe to assume that Mr Lambert did not look at the sources at all, but made his guesses based on the question mark in the text. That question mark was added in 2018 by an IP editor. Why? I don't know and neither does Mr Lambert. I think we should go with what the sources say, not with an unexplained question mark. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 04:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

• I am waiting to see if he mentions my edit to Victor Gerson.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:08, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Johnpacklambert If you mean me, I'm not a he. We can discuss Victor Gerson if you wish, but I would like to hear your explanation for the change you made to Nellie Casman. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment look folks, editng and research can be tough work even for simple data points like "year of birth" -- can we work to get it right without having a HUGE discussion here? There's no bad fath that I see, no policy violation, no copyvio, no legal issue... just editing and research. Working to align year of birth categories with the content of the article seems to me to be a good thing. If there's a discrepancy--oops, it's a mistake. WP:SOFIXIT.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Fix it, yes; fudge it, no. Johnbod (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@Paulmcdonald Mr Lambert, until I started this discussion, was doing no research at all. He was not working to get it right. That is the issue. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Please leave me out of this discussion from this point forward. As noted below, there is no administrative action needed here--at least, none that I can spot.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

How do we find the discrepancy, after JPL changes the category to match the text? How does anyone ever know that there was a discrepancy? How does anyone fix it, after JPL???

Alternatives to what JPL is doing:

1. Tag it {{self-contradictory}} instead of mechanically changing the category to match the text
2. Mechanically change the category to match the text, but still tag it {{self-contradictory}} with a note saying "I mechanically changed the category to match the text, but there was a mismatch here, someone may want to follow up and make sure the text is correct"
3. Anything else that leaves an indication to future editors that there was a mismatch here that was corrected without being verified (so that someone else can verify it later if they want to), such as adding some other template or hidden maintenance category or message on the talk page or something.

This isn't really asking a lot. Levivich^[block] 15:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

...what JPL is doing now is like showing up to the scene of a fire and resetting the fire alarm without actually putting out the fire, on the justification that half the time there isn't a real fire anyway, and people are saying "we should thank him for shutting off the alarm instead of demanding that he put out the fire, too!" Levivich^[block] 15:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not thanking Mr. Lambert for his edits here. I'm saying there is no violation of policy or guidelines. There is no administrator action needed which is what this thread is for. All categories are based on what is written in the text of the article or what we know about a subject based on what is written in the article. No matter whether its just after an article is written or years after the fact. Currently, we don't require those adding or editing categories to do a WP:BEFORE search of sources to verify the information is correct in the article before adding or editing a category. Should we? Idk, but this isn't the thread to discuss that in. Is Mr. Lambert's behavior here a violation of policy or guidelines and thereby disruptive or not. If the answer is yes then perhaps action should be proposed. Otherwise it's a content issue or application of content guidelines issue. --ARoseWolf 16:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@ARoseWolf Surely "do not introduce errors" is part of a policy or guideline? And "when someone shows you that you are introducing errors, stop doing it"? Polycarpa aurata (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Polycarpa aurata, Are you now changing your position that Mr. Lambert is acting in good faith? That could alter the purpose of this thread and we can then begin to discuss behavior issues as opposed to content issues which may be drowning out actual behavior issues here. --ARoseWolf 16:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@Johnpacklambert I believe that Mr Lambert is acting with good intentions. I said as much when I made this report. I tried to discuss it with him on his talk page but his answers were not helpful and then he stopped answering at all, so I brought it here. I believe that he changed how he edits birth date categories to make it harder for me to find his changes, but I'm not really bothered by that. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 16:44, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that ANI is for asking admins to sanction someone. It's not. As the top of the page "This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems". At least in the opinions of some editors (like me), mechanically changing mismatched categories to match the text is an urgent incident, and to because this has been ongoing and has been raised with the editor without resolution, it's also a chronic and intractable behavioral problem. Again, you may disagree that this is an urgent incident, or an incident at all, or that it's intractable, or that it's a behavioral problem at all... but that doesn't make this the wrong place to discuss whether one view (mine) or the other (yours) is right. That is the discussion happening right now, right here, and it's the right place. Levivich^[block] 17:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

• Ermyntrude Harvey I have edited to move to the 1890s birth year category. The one source that is listed there that I could find online quickly does not give the birth year. The other sources either are not online or the link did not work. I figured since the category was 1896 but both statements of birth in the article were 1895, someone somewhere thought 1896 was correct. I am not sure where this was though.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:08, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Johnpacklambert I don't know why you are bringing this up here. More than one person has suggested marking these pages as "contradictory". Could you agree to do that and stop making guesses about birth dates? Polycarpa aurata (talk) 17:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

  • This is not a guess per se. We have people stating 1896 and 1895. Both are in the 1890s. There is nothing suggsting that the article would fall under any other range, and I have made a post on the talk page about this issue. It seems a reasonable set of actions to me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:17, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

    @Johnpacklambert I thought we were supposed to be looking for sources stating facts? Without those, you are indeed guessing. Your guess may very well be right, but it is not based on sources. What is wrong with labeling the dates as contradictory? Polycarpa aurata (talk) 17:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

    • Would you rather I removed the birth year category entirely at that point. Categories are supposed to flow from statments in the text which in turn flow from sources. Articles cannot be placed in categories otherwise. So Either I should remove the category as not being supported, or I should go to one that is supported. I think especially in this case in which it is clear that the date is based on the listed sources, I do not have easy access to those sources, that saying the birth was in the 1890s is reasonable until someone can fully review sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

      • Of course you are free to go remove the birth year category from the article on Harvey. I am not stopping you, and none of these edits involve anyone actually reverting an edit you did. So I really do not see why you brought it to ANI at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:34, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

  Incorrect, we are looking for what independent reliable sources say about a subject. Whether it is a fact or not is relative. A reader may read it and determine it is not a fact. That is their discretion. Wikipedia does not tell a reader what to believe is fact or not, nor do we present facts, per se. We make every attempt to verify and make sure what we are presenting is accurate based on what those sources say. Though I agree that we should not be guessing when it comes to content included in an article. That would apply to categories too. Keep in mind that a category is simply a navigational tool. Nothing more, nothing less. What does the article say? Theoretically that is what a category should navigate to. Should we add a template for inconsistent sources? I can go along with that given there is a clearly defined avenue to point editors to the use of the template. I will state this, WP:BLPCAT notes "Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources." This could seem to infer that reliable sources within the article should be consulted along with the stated text when adding categories or editing existing ones. I think Mr. Lambert should consider all that is being brought up here and evaluate whether what he is doing falls in line with WP:BLPCAT or not. This would seemingly only apply to BLP's as I can tell so far. I haven't looked at others.--ARoseWolf 17:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

• Cliff Henderson is a place where I 1-determined that the listed year at all places in the article did not agree with the category. 2-I checked sources. Only one listed a year of birth, that was the Western Reserve Historical Society Finding Aid. It listed the same year as the article. The other sources I checked did not tell us when Henderson was born. So I had the sum of the one source that mentioned his birth year and every statement in the article body, as opposed to a category that was only a year off. Based on this information I moved the article to the 1895 birth year category, and I believe explained what I did about as well as I could in an edit note. I am also going to add a note to the talk page.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Victor Gerson

Mr Lambert would like me to discuss his edit to Victor Gerson, so I will. The page was created by MrArmstrong2 in June, 2019. Most of it is a barely re-worded copy of the main source. For example, the source says

Gerson imposed strict rules on his members and despite the circuit being penetrated three times by the Gestapo (June, 1943, October 1943 and January 1944) and although some were arrested the group were able to continue its activities.

MrArmstrong2 wrote

Gerson imposed strict rules on his members and despite the circuit being penetrated three times by the Gestapo in June and October 1943 and January 1944, after which some members were arrested, the group was able to continue its activities.

That sentence has since been broken up into two parts, separated by a list that does not appear in the main source and is likely cut and pasted from elsewhere.

Smallchief changed the birth date from 1896 to 1898 with an edit summary of "fixing birth date according to ref". The main source gives 1898 as the birth date, so I suspect Smallchief looked at it before making the change. A different source used on the page, this one from the UK National Archives, gives the birth date as 1896. Other reliable sources also have the 1896 birth date, including the 1978 book Six Faces of Courage by M. R. D. Foot, which devotes a chapter to Gerson.

If Mr Lambert looked at the first source in the reference list and confirmed that birth date given there matched the text of the Wikipedia page, that is all I would expect him to do. I have done more than that because I think it is worth my effort to illustrate that doing this right takes time. I found when the change to the dates was made, by whom, and why (thanks to the edit summary). That edit summary made me check more than one source. This is complicated by the fact that so much information easily available online has its origins in Wikipedia, so mistakes get propagated. Doing this right is a tedious exercise and not something that can be done at the Mr Lambert's speed. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

• There are indeed some questionable and disruptive things that JPL has done on this project, but this really doesn't seem like one of them. If an article says something incorrect, that is a problem with the article, not with someone who is fixing a strictly technical error in the article (categories that do not align with article text). I don't understand what your alternative proposal is -- that somebody be categorized (with no citation) as being born in 1896 in an article that says they were born in 1898? Is there any circumstance in which this could possibly give useful information or benefit readers? jp×g

  If JPL goes around looking for these issues and is dealing with them not by finding out whether the article or the category is correct, but instead mechanically unifying them, that is potentially harmful and clearly something that should be stopped. Inconsistencies like this must alert us to the fact that there is a problem, and hiding that problem is worse than not touching it. —Kusma (talk) 16:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

  • • Categories aren't page content. They're subordinate to page content. If there are uncited birth year categories on a page, removing them does not require a burden of proof that they were born elsewhen. jp×g 18:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

      If you notice that a page contradicts itself, you should investigate what the problem is before making an edit, or just tag it. You should not make an edit to resolve the contradiction without checking that you resolve it correctly. —Kusma (talk) 20:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

    • I dont understand how this is potentially harmful. We can say that inconsistencies should alert us to a problem, but they dont, they dont even get noticed. As our policy stands right now, categories are meant to be supported by article content (WP:CAT says It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories). That being the case, if the category and the article mismatch the best thing to do would to check which is right, but IMO an acceptable thing to do is align the category with the text. Yes, there may be mistakes, but there are already mistakes in every single article that has this mismatch. nableezy - 20:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

      In almost all cases the category has been aligned with article content in the past, and then the article content has changed but the category hasn't. For example because an unsourced edit (whether good faith or not) slipped past RC patrol. If you align the category without checking, at least {{fact}} tag the text supporting that category so others are alerted to it being potentially uncertain or inaccurate. —Kusma (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

      • • I agree in general, but I think the view that categories follow pages is totally acceptable, and that aligning the category to the page content on that basis is likewise acceptable. I dont really know what drives somebody to go through hundreds of pages in a category to check if the text aligns but not also spend the time checking if the text is accurate, but I dont think there is anything actually wrong with doing so if thats what you want to spend your time on. nableezy - 21:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

        I certainly won't complain about this edit by Johnpacklambert: he found a contradiction, mentioned it in the edit summary and made the category more fuzzy, then posted to the talk page. That's a decent way to deal with the issue. —Kusma (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

• I added the above discussion to the talk page in question. I have also moved it to 1890s births since there is no clear consensus it seems to which year this person was born in.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Arthur J. Forrest

The birth year was originally given as 1896 (but 1 January is always suspicious). It was changed to 1895 (with a citation that I can't verify) by User talk:Grokett, who made other questioned changes. I haven't found any sources except for this nice contradiction: Findagrave says May 1, 1895 and shows a grave marked with 1896 as year of birth. Perhaps it is better to mark this kind of issues as self-contradictory than to sweep them under the rug? —Kusma (talk) 16:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

• I have copied this post to the article talk page.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:48, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Bringing this to resolution

So this doesn't go on forever, here is my suggestion: The problem, from a wikilawyer/policy perspective, is that JPL is engaged in WP:BOLD editing that turns out to be controversial. A significant number of editors disagree with it, though it seems an equally-significant number of editors agree. Of course there is nothing wrong with BOLD editing, but now that we know it's controversial, it should stop and consensus for the BOLD edits should be obtained before the BOLD edits continue. If JPL agrees to stop and seek consensus before continuing, I think that would be a fine outcome for this thread and it can be closed. Levivich^[block] 20:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Seems like a much better way to resolve this is for the person who brought the complaint to withdraw it as silly and pointless then telling someone to stop making the categories match the article text. One improves the encyclopedia, the other is a distraction. If people are concerned that the article text doesn't match the references then that's a good reason for them to organize an editing project and updating the articles they find with misrepresented sources. --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 09:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Isn't making sure that the text matches the references already a big part of the project? Maybe I just don't understand what Wikipedia is all about. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 14:29, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@127(point)0(point)0(point)1: and how are we meant to find these article to change them if the contradiction between the text and the category has been hidden by JPL? — TREY MATURIN has spoken 18:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that it improves the encyclopedia, as do others. That's how we know there isn't consensus for these BOLD edits. Levivich^[block] 17:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

It is not an improvement to the encyclopedia to changing dates without consulting sources so that 50% of errors will be removed and 50% of errors will be propagated, with the previously clear pointer to the contradiction removed. It stops editors from identifying the contradiction and resolving it with higher accuracy. It is worse than just removing both dates. It should not be done.

There is no consensus from this discussion that these actions are appropriate. I have defended Johnpacklambert in the past, but I am disappointed that their current course of action shows quite bad judgement: I would urge you to divide your edit rate by 100 and instead check the given sources to fix the contradictions between the dates. Where unclear, don't touch it and move onto the next article. — Bilorv (talk) 16:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

• I have since this was brought up consistently sought to either identify sources that will support a specific date, or to edit the article to reflect in its categorization that there is a dispute and have made notes making this clear in both my edits and oftne in the article talk page. I have responded to this and tried to make my edits even clearer and more openly identifiable. I think this is a reasonable approach, and find it disheartening that some are ignoring my change in approach and acting like it has not occured. In fact above Kusma identifies one of these edits I have done recently and says the whole thing is an improvement.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
• Robert Bitker is an example of my approach now. There was a disagreement between the article text and categorization. I search all the sources, and then did a google and google books search. None of this turned up anything other than Wikipedia mirrors and derivatives giving his birth year. So I have moved him to Category:Year of birth missing and explained exactly why in a detailed edit summary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

personal insults when discussing a wiki page

User https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Newimpartial responded with insult to logical, source-filled comentaries : If you are using your own, apparently limited, literacy in 21st-century English as a basis to argue that the singular they is confusing and should be avoided - well, I'm afraid you're going to need a more convincing argument. The idea that this article, and others using the singular they, are misusing the pronouns is fairly WP:EXTRAORDINARY in 2022 and would require something more than an editor's strongly held personal opinion / private language to back it up. on the page Demi Lovato.

I wish we could have calm discussions without having to bring out personnal insults in an effort to make a point when one has run out of arguments. Editor is invalidating my comentaries based on a red herring falacy tactic. I am indeed a native french-speaker, but I have always gone to english schools and university. I think my english skills are at least the same level as most americans, and this insult hurts deeply. Especially when I brought concrete examples from both wikipedia articles AND guidelines to make the article better. This is just a personnal attack that has no place here, and I feel deeply insulted. I have gone to an english university, but my efforts have been cast aside based on 'my limited literacy' ? Emli89 (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Emli89 made an argument based on the premise that using the singular they in the article in question - reflecting the BLP subject's genderqueer identity and pronoun preference - was misusing the pronouns. In fact, the editor intervened at some length to defend this position, interpreting phrases with which most native English speakers would have no difficulty as though they were ambiguous.

As I have argued elsewhere, this is not Simple English Wikipedia, and it is more appropriate to provide appropriate scaffolding for readers when needed than to allow the requirements of less-fluent English speakers to override accuracy and policy compliance in Enwiki articles.

As far as my phrase in question, my argument was that no editor should be making that kind of argument from personal experience, and that it was particularly unwise to so so in a situation where their examples would not be persuasive to a person more familiar with contemporary English. I made no personal insult, nor were my comments anything other than calm. Unnecessarily wordy perhaps, but not emotional. Newimpartial (talk) 19:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Emli89 pointed to a couple of ambiguous sentences, in a discussion that noted that the BLP uses both "they" and "she" pronouns while the article continues to use "they". Wikipedia isn't meant to be read only by native English speakers. One can disagree with a specific proposal, but it doesn't justify insulting someone's language competency for bringing up a reasonable concern.

Newimpartial seems to have a pattern of this; they also recently attacked Jdbrook here, saying, Do not bring your own WP:FRINGE perspective into this, please while reinserting a medical claim cited to a non-WP:MEDRS. That was part of Newimpartial edit warring against 3 different editors, [182][183][184][185] making 4 reverts in a little over 31 hours (compare WP:3RR: Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period will usually also be considered edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior.) Crossroads ^-talk- 20:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Crossroads, this isn't the first time you have intervened on a dramaboard to say, essentially, how about this unrelated thing Newimpartial did. One might think you were trying to remove an opponent from the topic area, or something.

As far as Stella O'Malley is concerned, the relevant issues - and consensus on the underlying matter of the dispute, as set out in the MEDRS - are clearly presented here; why you would revert this sourced material twice without even answering my question on Talk about the grounds for your objection - well, it doesn't really lend credibility to your intervention here IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about removal from the topic. Stopping the personal attacks and the edit warring against multiple editors is my concern. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Crossroads your own recent edit history is quite aggressive:

• June 4: Claiming stable text from a date shortly before a disruptive editor was topic banned did not exist and was WP:FAITACCOMPLI as though this were the status quo is what is WP:GAMING
• June 10: Calling out a single editor by name, in this case Newimpartial in a discussion about suitability of a set of older studies, despite as WhatamIdoing succinctly pointed out such objections on suitability are beyond those of a single editor
• June 10: Slightly later in the same discussion, calling out a single editor by name, in this case again it was Newimpartial, claiming WP:POINTy disruption for removing text that there was consensus to remove, and for which WhatamIdoing was writing up a recommendation to remove
• June 13: Threatening one or more users with a trip to WP:AE

You also have a recent history of edit warring:

• June 1: Removing text, that had previously been stable prior to a disruptive editor's edits, claiming "the distant past does not matter", while picking an arbitrary date in the middle of the disruptive editor's disruption
• June 8: Starting an edit war with aggressive edit summaries against consensus
• June 30: Starting an edit war over a fringe opinion within medical sources, then continuing the edit war while saying "Mind the 3RR." to the editor they are warring against (Newimpartial)

Based on this month alone, I would argue that you have a particularly acrimonious and antagonistic attitude to Newimpartial. As such I'm not really sure you want to be casting any stones here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:49, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Not the same thing. The June 1 and 4 stuff was opposed by multiple editors besides myself and the editor who much later was topic banned for separate edits (and especially because of their behavior at AE). The first June 10 edit was literally a reply to Newimpartial. The second June 10 edit occurred before any consensus for removal existed and is self-explanatory. The June 13 edit was because of an attempt to replace medical secondary source material with primary sources and other editors supported my edit in the history. For the June 8 and 30 edits, what you call me "starting" an edit war is just my first edit in each case. And both times other editors supported those edits, either at the time (for June 30) or later (for June 8, which ended up removed. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Crossroads. Let's take the June 13 diff as an example [186] - partly because, unlike many of the others, your AE threat wasn't placed directly at me. You are now defending that edit for being because of an attempt to replace medical secondary source material with primary sources and other editors supported my edit in the history. But you don't explain (1) why being "right" about this would make it appropriate for you to threaten other editors with AE; (2) how it could have been "right" of you to reinsert - against WP:ONUS - outdated medical content to which multiple editors had already explicitly objected; or (3) how what you did could have been in any way appropriate, as opposed to the intervention that ended that absurd edit war, which was my removal without replacement of the deprecated content to which you were apparently so attached, followed by the development of new content and discussion on Talk [187] [188] [189]. How you could interpret this as a situation where you were "right" to threaten other editors with AE - rather than a situation where you were wrong to reinsert disputed, discredited content and wrong again to edit-war about it - well, I hadn't previously considered you the creative type; let's put it that way. Newimpartial (talk) 03:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I was restoring the status quo, and that the material was "outdated" was in no way established at the time I restored it - it was just replacement of secondary sources with primary. Nothing wrong with going to Arbitration Enforcement to perhaps get page restrictions like 1RR in the event of a multi-sided edit war like that was. Even easier if just mentioning it could stop the carnage and prompt discussion instead. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

So, basically, it was fine for you to restore disputed content, against WP:ONUS, because you agreed with the content? That's an interesting fashion choice for you: sort of a left-side speedo for the dramaboard, and it leaves you looking a bit silly IMO. Multiple editors had in fact pointed out that the text in question defied mainstream MEDRS on the issue, which is why it had been repeatedly removed - your disagreement with those editors didn't give you a mandate to wedge in your preferred version, as you should have known. Newimpartial (talk) 10:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

and the editor who much later was topic banned for separate edits I don't think I would describe the sixteen day period between the version that was unstable because of the disruptive editor (12 December 2021), and when that editor was topic banned (28 December 2021) as much later.

Also while you are somewhat correct in saying that the editor was topic banned due to their commentary at AE, the only reason a request was brought against that editor was because of the disruption earlier in that month. The two are still intrinsically related. The primary issue with the earlier edits not forming a part of the reasoning for the topic ban was because the ds-awareness had expired, however multiple administrators did comment that comments made during the lapse in awareness were problematic and had the awareness not lapsed those would have warranted a topic ban. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

The singular "they", is confusing. But, I suppose its usage is here to stay, on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Oddly I find this confusing. I grew up in a not progressive English speaking country and I've been using singular they as a pronoun for people in general my entire life (and that's from the 1970s.) It's normal English where I come from and not even related to people's pronoun preferences. It's perfectly regular English English for situations where someone's gender is not relevant to the point being made. Difficulty with it seems to be a North American thing. It's been part of regular British English for centuries. Canterbury Tail talk 21:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, as I pointed out on NewImpartial's talk page, it was good enough for Bill Shakespeare. Dumuzid (talk) 21:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

(e-c)In my experience, there are two, slightly overlapping, categories of editors who "find the singular they confusing": (1) ones who were taught "rules of English" in which "they" only takes plural referents; (2) ones who will go to great lengths to object to the preferred pronouns of nonbinary and genderqueer people (the ones most likely to prefer "they"). I WP:AGF by placing editors in the first category, rather than the second, where the evidence is unclear. Newimpartial (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC

Sorry, relevance? I was taught the rules of English and I know fine and well that they can be used singularly and plurally, I do not see how this contributes to the discussion at all & it actually seems to be discriminatory, some people have not received the same level of English education as others but putting that down to WP:CIR is trudging close to WP:BITE, it is possible to let someone know in a friendly, or at least civil way that a word can be used in another way. I'm not one to brag about my own English literacy but unless someone's English is bad to the point where understanding them becomes difficult, there is no grounds for incivility. Like if someone places the odd capital letter in the wrong place or misses a comma, I'm not gonna throw the whole kitchen sink at them, however if there is a prolonged misuse, there's grounds to at least gently question them. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 22:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

On the surface, this is a content dispute over pronouns. This is sadly pretty common in trans and non-binary BLP articles, particularly for those who use either they/them or neo-pronouns. Based on reading the discussion at Talk:Demi Lovato#Demi using female pronouns again, Emli89 has explicitly mis-gendered Lovato when saying There is nothing surprising about refering to a woman with 'she/her'. (diff) Based on reliable sources, Lovato is non-binary and does not call themselves a woman at present.

There is also some relevance here when Emli mentions their cultural background. French, as a language, is heavily gendered, and while one dictionary has added a gender-neutral pronoun it has, unsurprisingly become part of the current anti-trans culture war. As such, I sympathise to a degree with the lack of familiarity with singular they due to it not having an accepted French counterpart, however that sympathy ends when it comes to our policies and guidelines which fully support its use in biographies where appropriate. I'd also like to point out that this is the only time that Emli has revealed that they are not a native English speaker. As such any implication about Emli's literacy as a result of this, while unfortunate, is purely unintentional.

Multiple editors at Lovato's talk page have disagreed with Emli's requested change, with many saying that the recent addition of she/her after they/them on Lovato's Instagram profile is a clear indication of preference to use they/them pronouns. I agree with that assessment, as pronoun order in social media bios is pretty frequently done so to indicate order of preference. When contrasted against MOS:GENDERID, I see absolutely no reason to change the state of the article at this time.

While I would not use precisely the same language that Newimpartial has used, I do agree with the broader points they have raised. As a frequent contributor in the GENSEX content area, I do find it to be a fairly extraordinary claim that many of our biographies on trans and non-binary individuals are as Emli asserts misusing pronouns (diff). Changing that practice would require a substantial discussion and RfC on amending MOS:GENDERID, as well as substantive and weighty evidence to assert that singular they pronouns should not be used. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello Sideswiped. I would like to make some things clear first. I am NOT in any kind of anti-trans culture war. PLease do not accuse me of such. As for my use of the word 'woman', I did use it reflexively , it was unintentional. It is true that Demi does not view herself as such, but her DNA is still very much XX chromosomes. So while I might have mispoken, accusing me of mis-gendering people is a bit far-fetched. I am careful with words, but will be even more so going forward.

Second, I do not disagree with the use of singular they, I disagree with abusing it. Singular they is used when the person is essentially unkown. For example: I wonder who stole my identity, they emptied my bank account... But in this case, we know clearly who we are talking about : Demi. Using singular they again and again where unnecessary is adding confusion. That was my point.

Now, I understand that a lot of editors do not find the current wording confusing, and that I accept. I can agree to disagree with y'all ;).

I am not here to make war, but I will absolutely not stand by when my literacy is, very intentionnally , being insulted. Newimpartial was very clear in his wording, and his attack against my english competency was very much a directed personnal attack. It had nothing 'nonintentional'. Just like people saying mother*ucker without knowing anything about the other person's mother still being an insult.

While I simply meant to increase conciseness and clarity, I understand that other editors do not wish to proceed as it would be too much work and time on their part.

I look forward to the discussions you have mentionned in order to change the current practice, in an effort to make writing more concise and clear. If you have the link, I would like to read those!

Lastly, thanks Sideswiped for the links you added to my page ! Much appreciated :D. Emli89 (talk) 22:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

but her DNA is still very much XX chromosomes. I can see why you are having trouble with singular they. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 22:48, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I am NOT in any kind of anti-trans culture war. PLease do not accuse me of such. I did not accuse you of such. I made a remark on the culture war in relation to the French language, not to you as an editor.

but her DNA is still very much XX chromosomes You might want to look again at the WP:GENSEX discretionary sanctions, because that statement of biological essentialism is very problematic in this content area. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

You may have hit the crux of the problem surrounding the gender-pronoun topic. It's not so much what goes in or is taken out of a page, that's a source of frustration. But rather, it's the restrictions on the talkpage discussions, that creates friction. GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Misgendering BLP subjects (and editors) on Talk pages would create friction even if there were no restrictions against it. Indeed, I dare say that if there were no restrictions, there would be more friction than presently. Newimpartial (talk) 00:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Re: You might want to look again at the WP:GENSEX discretionary sanctions.

I did say I would be more careful going forward. I'm not sure if you are threatening me with sanctions, but it is unnecessary. I simply meant to say that , it is not semantically wrong to say that a biological woman has XX chromosomes. It does not change how she, or they, perceive themselves. It is also not meant as an insult, it is merely a biological fact. My statement had nothing to do with Demi's identity, it came from a place of science only. My original phrasing should have specified as such, it is my omission. Emli89 (talk) 01:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh dear. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 23:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I would never intentionnally make personnal attacks. I will, however, continue to point out the limits of people's linguistic competence when that affects the arguments they make about what Wikipedia article text should be.

Re: but her DNA is still very much XX chromosomes - there really ought to be a rule against ungrounded speculation about the chromosome complement of BLP subjects. Like a rule against "OR" where the "research" is really just semi-educated guessing, right? We don't have a policy covering that, do we? Newimpartial (talk) 00:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

But you DID make a personal attack ? My 'literacy' has nothing to do with you disagreeing with me. There is a way you can explain your point without resorting to insults. Denying it is even more disgusting.

Re:Re: but her DNA is still very much XX chromosomes - there really ought to be a rule against ungrounded speculation about the chromosome complement of BLP subjects.

Oh my. How is that speculation? If you really think so, perhaps you should revise you biology classes... Here is an article you can use to educate yourself on basic biology. I want to bring your attention on the definitions of sex chromosomes: Females have two X chromosomes in their cells, while males have one X and one Y chromosome.

This should have never become the point of an argument. You are still very much deflecting every single issue. From the beginning we have only being discussing 1. your personnal attack on my 'literacy' and 2. the excessive use of neutral pronouns, making it confusing on whether it is plural or singular in a lot of paragraphs. We have already come to a conclusion on point 2. , as a majority of editors have agreed that it would be too time-consuming to modify the article. Please stop deflecting, a simple apology will bring this conversation to a stop. Emli89 (talk) 01:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh my. How is that speculation? Are you aware of any reliable sources that state that Lovato has had a karyotype and has discussed the results of it? If not, then it is entirely speculation as to what their genetic makeup is. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Emli89, okay, is your issue with the use of the singular they in Demi's article with readability? Because this talk of DNA and chromosomes gives the impression that your real worries lie within your personal beliefs and not with improving the article. --VersaceSpace 🌃 01:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

As I have said, I only want to discuss 2 issues :

1. your personnal attack on my 'literacy' and

2. the excessive use of neutral pronouns, making it confusing on whether it is plural or singular in a lot of paragraphs.

I already said I do not wish to discuss those side topics that have absolutely nothing to do with anything. But somehow, @Newimpartial keeps bringing up new issues...

I only want an apology from @Newimpartial, as the second topic has been closed already. Emli89 (talk) 01:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

correction : 1. your @Newimpartial 's personnal attack on my 'literacy' Emli89 (talk) 01:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

It's nice that you want that, I guess, but please review WP:BOOMERANG. I would like to see an apology to you, but I confess I am rather more troubled by your apparent approach here. Dumuzid (talk) 01:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean troubled ? I read the boomerang article, but I believe I did everything neutrally. I did not want want those side issues to pop up, but they did and I will not shy away from them. Just like your link says , i was ' up front concerning any of your actions that might have contributed to the problem'. I explained my reasoning, and apologized for the bad wording I unintentionnally wrote. Everything I did was in the spirit of cooperation, and I have no qualms amdmitting my wrong. I do not believe I have 'shot myself in the foot'. Emli89 (talk) 01:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Emli89, if you believe that females have two X chromosomes in their cells, while males have one X and one Y chromosome is a generalization that applies to all individuals, so that you can reason inductively from their assigned sex to their complement of chromosomes, then (1) please don't edit articles on human biology and (2) perhaps you should revise you biology classes. I haven't insulted you once in our interaction - my statement that you are using your own, apparently limited, literacy in 21st-century English as a basis to argue that the singular they is confusing and should be avoided is an observation, not a personal attack, and doesn't come close to your comments that I should revise (my) biology classes, or your repeated insistence that I am insulting you or engaging in personal attacks, for which the only evidence is that you feel insulted.

I don't want to involve WP:CIR, but to be clear, I did not make the ad hominem argument you are attributing to me, that because you are apparently an ESL speaker, that your argument should be dismissed. Rather, I noted that an argument where the examples you use were only confusing to you because of limited language competency, and would not be confusing to a competent speaker of 21st-century English (a minor premise that many other editors have subsequently confirmed), therefore your argument should be set aside. That isn't an ad hominem or an insult - some of my best friends and most respected colleagues have been francophone - it is a policy-compliant argument about how to edit article text.

Your decision to make a dramaboard issue out of this tells me two things: (1) you badly misinterpreted my argument and (2) your feelings were badly hurt. I'm sorry your feelings were hurt. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean either that you understood me correctly or that your views on English pronouns and gender (or biology for that matter) ought to be taken into account in editing Demi Lovato. Newimpartial (talk) 02:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, does every single BLP need to have a karyogram so that we can ascertain assigned sex at birth and rule out other associated syndromes such as Klinefelter's syndrome? If they do not exhibit signs of aneuploidy it's wholly silly to propose that... There does not need to be a policy either. You haven't explained to him why two X chromosomes and one X & Y chromosome is a generalisation (it is), it's because conditions such as trisomy X exist, you should at least try to explain to them why. We do NOT need a policy on this... unless there is suspection of aneuploidy I see it wholly unnecessary to have an idiogram in someone's article... X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 04:55, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I think this was meant to point out to Emil89 that without a karyotype, we cannot say '...her DNA is still very much XX chromosomes' and know that statement is unequivocally correct. To me it read as editors trying to explain that people may present as stereotypically one gender or the other, but that doesn't mean we know their gender - Emli89 assumes that Lovato must have XX chromosomes because they appear female, and that if someone has XX chromosomes then referring to them as 'she' is invariably correct. And so, instead of requiring a karyotype for every single BLP so we can choose pronouns based on their DNA (which would clearly be ridiculous, not least because DNA does not always align with the person's identity), we can only state for certain the sex assigned at birth and/or the identity currently preferred by the individual in question. (Edit: Whoops, I'm super late, didn't see the timestamp. Apologies if this has become clear elsewhere.) StartGrammarTime (talk) 09:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I believe this entire thread can be closed, as Emlie89 is no longer interested & has walked away from it. GoodDay (talk) 02:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Considering they decided to open this thread on ANI to call out another editor instead of talking directly to them first, then called some of the editors in this thread (particularly Newimpartial) ignorant of basic knowledge of Biology, and when things were clearly not going how they expected they bailed, I'd recommend either a very strong warning against further disruption, or a topic ban from Gender and Sexuality. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 02:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@Isabelle Belato I have not bailed. One editor kindly asked me to close the thread, another not so kindly. I have respected their wish. I'm genuinely confused if you want me to continue with this thread or not ?

If you want to give me a very strong warning based on what I said, please do so impartially and also give a warning to NewImpartial. Emli89 (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I've logged a WP:GENSEX warning to you, Emli89 (AEL diff) against engaging in tendentious prounoun-driven arguments. Please tread lightly. Anyway, as far as I understand it, she or he can also be confusing sometimes, when it's difficult to tell which person is being referenced (thus, you use that person's name in that instance). That problem, then, isn't unique to singular they. While, granted, singular they can sometime bring the added confusion of plural/singular, it's still quite manageable. And the pronoun choices of BLPs should generally be respected. Also, Crossroads, you know, you don't have to show up every time Newimpartial is mentioned (to the best of my observation, they are not doing the same to you). Oh, and I see that GoodDay is still going on about how much they dislike singular they — gotta play the hits, I suppose. El_C 03:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

For months I've been dying to use the new shortcut WP:VEXBYSTERANG. If Crossroads keeps it up I may get my chance. EEng 05:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I saw that today when I linked to Boomerang, and I suspected the hand of EEng must be involved.... Dumuzid (talk) 05:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

The credit goes entirely to JG66 [190]. EEng 05:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't normally. This time, though, based on what I had just been dealing with, I did. Nevertheless, OP (Emli89) did later on get more tendentious in starting arguments about chromosomes and such, so I'm not defending that. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Damn, I missed that (chromosomes, a place of science, etc.). My reading comprehension is... not great. Probably should have banned. Oh well. El_C 03:20, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Blocked 142.192.224.129 for one week — what is going on there? El_C 13:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason why you can't revisit the logged warning and replace it with a ban? If you think think the commentary you've read or re-read after is worthy of it, it seems strange to me that you can't reconsider the action. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Nah, someone else can do it (I have zero objections). I don't want to deal with a lengthy appeal over this, seeing as they've not edited the topic area much, plus my aforementioned logged warning. Obviously, if further problems arise, then that'd be a different story. El_C 23:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Recommend (again), this thread be closed. GoodDay (talk) 14:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Recommend you go do something else. Your comments on this matter on various pages are skirting the line. This is a formal warning alebit un-logged. El_C 14:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Question: Off-wiki behavior

Asking generically, if I were to search a user's name and find that they have a web presence demonstrating bigoted opinions that appear to be reflected in their problematic on-Wiki behavior, is that something that can or should be mentioned on forums addressing said user's problematic behavior? (Not this extreme, but Tyciol would be an example of someone whose off-wiki behavior was reprehensible and was related to his problematic on-wiki behavior). EvergreenFir (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I would email arbcom so there's no risk of outing. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Will do. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

MicoKovalevski part 2

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

I'm surprised nothing was done in the previous report [191]. Now this user has made another attack towards me: "From your username it is easily understandible that you are Iranian nationalist. Because of you, wikipedia is not the trusted source". They are obviously WP:NOTHERE. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Writing so it doesn't get archived. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:48, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Juice3kh

Juice3kh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This users talk page is filled with warnings, and loads of his edits have been reverted. They also seem to have anti-Shia and pro-Sunni motives, as seen in the last 3 diffs out of the 4 disruptive diffs.

4 January 2022 Removed sourced mention of the bolded bit; "A large number of Zoroastrians converted to Islam to avoid discrimination and the effects of second-class citizenship in in the caliphates."

8 April 2022 Removed sourced information that mentions that Al-Nawbakhti explained and defended the Occultation against Shia doubters

14 June 2022 Removed sourced information that suggested that the "Sunni Revival may have resulted in the decline of scientific output in the Islamic world"

30 June 2022 Removed sourced mention of "Shia"

And last but not least, some typical WP:NPA remarks;

"By the looks of it, it seems like you are an extreme Iranian nationalist trying to hide history."

"The sources literally states what I wrote. Can you not read?"

"If anything it seems you are the biased one?"

--HistoryofIran (talk) 12:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Writing so it doesn't get archived. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:48, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

6 reverts, all separate edits

I have spent a lot of time and effort improving a page over three days and essentially all of it has been reverted by User:SPECIFICO. This occurred at Trump Tower wiretapping allegations which is admittedly a touchy article but I have shown much willingness to discuss any issues on the talk page in order to get consensus. User:SPECIFICO, on the other hand, has been very unresponsive on the talk page, only posting twice asking what I'm "trying to achieve"? I'm trying to improve the page, which would seem to go without saying. This has occurred by the same user on the same page in 2017. And while those two users have seemed to mend bridges, the repeated occurrences are concerning and frustrating to relatively new users as myself. As far as I am aware, we should "revert only when necessary" (WP:BADREVERT) and prioritize making further edits to the page. The reverts in question are here: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. I'm not saying all of my edits need to stay. Fully admit that they were WP:BOLD. But reverts then not trying to resolve them is unsustainable. Nweil (talk) 15:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

ANI should just ignore the first two diffs (identified in the OP as revert 1 and 2), made prior to Nwel's comment of 18:12 UTC June 29 2022, because at the article talk, this user got feedback from a third party (User:TheTimesAreAChanging) and agreed to re-submit their desired changes taking the third-party's input into account.[192]. Until this report I did not know that article existed, and I have not yet looked at the other four diffs, but the first two (at least) should be considered moot. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

SPECIFICO routinely removes negative information about centrist Dems and adds supporting material, while doing the opposite for their opponents, regardless of policy. Recently, he is asking editors to read a book by someone who has been noted for Islamophobia and fake news on the Southern Poverty Law Center Hatewatch site.[193] TFD (talk) 18:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

You could be right, but that DIFF does not demonstrate what you claim. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

It does. The editor is willing to recommend a book, even though he knows it is not reliable. TFD (talk) 21:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I also recommend editors watch Fox News, NewsMax, etc. I don't recommend they cite them as sources for article text. But since the subject's come up, I would say Bolton is more credible than the Intercept on some things, not on others. Go figure. Please don't misgender me. SPECIFICO talk 22:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Casting of ass

Persians

Been a while since I trotted this one out -EEng
...... shouldn't this just be a single pic of cat asses? -NewsAndEventsGuy (talk)
Would you settle for a cat-ass-trophy [194]? -EEng

You'll need to provide more diffs and explain how they establish your claim, because the diff you gave merely has the editor saying "deny" via wikilink to WP:DENY. I have an open mind, even when my friends screw up, but I have no idea what aspersion you are trying to cast, much less the evidence on which it is based. Feel free to explain.... but please assume I'm stupid and walk me through it point by point. No hurry. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

SPECIFICO's original comment was, "You might look in some of the books that were published in the second half of his presidency -- by Phil Rucker, Woodward, Mary Pence, John Bolton, and others."[195]

This was in reply to, "You mentioned the idea of writing "a few sentences on the overwhelming mainstream reporting and analysis of Trump's use of various weak prevarications and deflections to chum up his base and right-wing media supporters ... without having to go into the details of what he said or to omit all or part of what he said each and every time." Do you have any suggestions on what that might look like and what sources we could use? That sounds much more encyclopedic than just cherrypicking several things he has said."[196]

So it seems that SPECIFICO has no concern about the veracity of sources, just what they say. They ask us to accept sources provided they support their political view, which happens to align closely with the Democratic Party establishment. Hence the comment, "I would say Bolton is more credible than the Intercept on some things." Hence they reject the assessment of the Intercept as generally reliable at perennial sources, and reject their statement that Bolton's Gatestone Institute, which routinely published false stories and conspiracy theories about Muslims, is a "fake news" site. Furthermore, it does not affect them that the SPLC specifically lists their article on a page they devote to what they interpret as Islamophobia and hate speech by Bolton.

SPECIFICO, your user page says, "This user prefers to be referred to by whatever gender pronoun makes you feel comfortable." When you post that and complain about misgendering, it seems that you are merely trying to score points. TFD (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

A good reason to suggest anyone read anything is (A) to learn what it says and (B) think critically about it. If you didn't like Specifico's reading suggestions, where exactly did you calmly suggest others? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:20, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I really can't imagine editing American politics articles without reading the works by and about its major figures. That was how I learned that Bolton is not part of the "Democratic Party establishment" SPECIFICO talk 02:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I would not suggest that someone use a book, written by someone accused in reliable sources as heading a fake news website, as a source for any article.

I also know that Bolton is not a Democrat, which is clear from his positions on Islam and many other topics. SPECIFICO is also aware of that, but suggests we read him because of his claims against Trump. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, the saying goes. But that does not justify using unreliable sources.

I have not read anything by Bolton, precisely because I have no confidence in his writing. However, I have seen him many times on television, beginning with his false claims about Iraq in the run up to the invasion.

TFD (talk) 03:16, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

You seem to make very broad inferences from very little data. This is rarely a good idea. Especially when there's little feedback that could correct a 49% error rate. The milennials would say you are Fooled by Randomness. I haven't read it, however, because some of what he said on TV is incorrect. This is not really the proper venue for your comments, so feel free to try your luck in user space. SPECIFICO talk 19:20, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

OK well this got off track. FWIW, I'm just going to keep improving this article. Any recommendations to stave off further reverts? Nweil (talk) 23:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Another CIR/IDHT editor - AmericanEditor350

While I do think this editor means well, their edits are ultimately disruptive and, well, pointless for lack of a better word and they seem to be unwilling to listen to reasoning from multiple experienced editors (Theroadislong, Curbon7, Rubbish computer, Velella etc...) They have created a handful of articles about x people in y place that are poorly sourced, unsourced or otherwise just a single factoid that can easily be covered in Immigration to/of XYZ country, if at all. Not to mention, in many cases, their content is outright incorrect, where they've done terrible original research and cited numbers that simply don't exist. I have repeatedly asked them to stop creating these, as have others and all of them are currently at AFD, overwhelmingly slated for deletion and other users make a relevant point, this opens up a precedent for silly things like Minnesotans in Iowa, etc...

• Malians in Sweden
• Kenyans in Norway
• Cameroonians in Norway
• Senegalese people in Norway
• Zimbabweans in Italy
• Sierra Leoneans in Italy
• Cameroonians in Italy
• Senegalese people in Sweden
• Guineans in Italy
• Beninese people in Italy
• Guineans in Sweden
• Kenyans in Italy
• (This isn't including any in draft space)

So here I am, after discussing with the user followed by their complete lack of understanding of norms here asking for a p-block from mainspace or an editing restriction prohibiting them from editing or creating such articles as they cannot be trusted to do so within the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia and are at best misrepresenting what sources actually say, if they exist at all.

I also recognize that I haven't been quite as diplomatic as the other editors who've tried to help them but it doesn't appear sugar coating things, breaking them down or being direct gets through. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

As an example of some poorly sourced crufty factoids: According to the 2016 census, there are 7,240 Guineans who live in Canada. 3,785 of those people are men, while 3,455 of them are women. Most Guineans are Muslim. Most Guineans in Canada live in Quebec (5,255) and Ontario (1,105). which I can't for the life of me figure out what it's supposed to be sourced to. from this PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I got the population information off of some website. And I know that Most of Guinea’s population is Muslim, so it would make sense to write that Most Guineans are Muslim AmericanEditor350 (talk) 17:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

This doesn't even begin to address the substance or merits of my complaint, like the rest of your "explanations." PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Warned. AmericanEditor350, attributing your claim to some website (sounds mysterious!) is basically meaningless. You need to adhere to the reliable soruces guideline (WP:RS), an essential pillar of the verifiability policy (WP:V), as well as avoid doing your own original research (WP:OR) or otherwise synthesis (WP:SYNTH). Thank you. El_C 17:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I think this user would benefit greatly from a WP:Mentorship. Curbon7 (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree given their inclination to ignore all other advice and do as they please anyway. They can have a mentorship simultaneously with a ban from mainpace/article creation of this nature. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Someone else may remember this, but I'm pretty sure we've had an editor previously who has created lots of articles like this. My memory isn't good enough to remember who, though. Black Kite (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

A few days ago I found a similar created article that was g5'd, but I can't remember what it was and I remember digging into a comparison and it didn't connect (as in, the dots didn't connect between the two accounts for me to pursue an SPI)

With that being said, there are many AFDs that have been used in the past to delete nearly identical articles, so there's a precedent already. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:04, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Ah, yes @Black Kite this was the relevant article that was deleted by way of AFD precedent, which I should have just used to tag the rest instead of wasting all of our time at AFD. And this one which you closed. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh, yes, Prax! Your suggestion is music to my ears! Atsme 💬 📧 18:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

hey, I mean if you wanna tag 'em... PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I honestly do need some mentorship, honestly. Am I am absolutely truly sorry if I have been disrupting Wikipedia. I should have token the advice. I do need some help creating articles. I never wanted to disrupt Wikipedia at all, or violate any guidelines. User:Praxidicae, User:Curbon7, User:Theroadislong, User:Rubbish computer, User:Velella, I just want to apologize to you all for not taking advice in the first place. I got all of this information off of websites that mention Statistics, such as Statistics Sweden, Statistics Norway, ISTAT, etc. I came here to Wikipedia with the intent to edit and create pages on diasporas. I never wanted to violate any Wikipedia guidelines, ever. AmericanEditor350 (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

As Praxidicae says, and as I have noted on AE350's user talk page, most of the information they added to the articles they created can not be found in the websites they used as sources – it's original research at best, and partially incorrect or misleading guesswork. Unfortunately, after their 24-h block expired, AE350 immediately made new disruptive unsourced edits of the same kind, [197][198]. I support a p-block from mainspace to limit the time sink for other editors. --bonadea contributions talk 11:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi AmericanEditor350, my offer for mentorship still stands. I would take a break from creating new articles for the time being, as a start. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 19:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

And I’ll be taking a break from creating articles for the time being. AmericanEditor350 (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

AmericanEditor350, please stop spamming user talk pages with the same question, as you've done here, here, here and elsewhere. Wikipedia is an encylopedia, not a social media site. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry don't forget this, this and this among others. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:17, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not spamming. I'm only asking that question once, and that's it. AmericanEditor350 (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

What relevance does this line of questioning have to editing an encyclopedia? Do you plan to use their answers as sources? PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:20, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

No. I’m just asking these questions out of curiosity, Praxidicae. AmericanEditor350 (talk) 21:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, it's a misuse of user talk pages and is unwelcomed. Listen, AmericanEditor350, not to be harsh, but if you can't focus on what this project is about—writing an encyclopedia (WP:ENC)—then maybe it'd be best that you find another avenues for this sort of thing, like a message board, a blog, and so on. El_C 23:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok. I won’t ask these question on User pages again. AmericanEditor350 (talk) 23:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

• And in case we needed more evidence that AE350's word cannot be trusted, they've continued to undo constructive edits after adequate explanation as to why.[199][200] PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours: User_talk:AmericanEditor350#Block. El_C 01:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

is this just a temp measure based on the edit warring or as the outcome here? PRAXIDICAE🌈 01:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes. El_C 01:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@El C: ah, understood. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみなさい, ping me when replying 05:18, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

GregKaye on Amber Heard/Heard v. Depp

GregKaye has a history of problematic editing with WP:BLP implications relating to Amber Heard and the Depp v. Heard trial. Among many other examples:

• 1. GregKaye wrote a lengthy post on Talk:Amber Heard entitled "How to really help Amber," in which he opined: "Cards on the table, I think Amber ~needs or could gain advantage from some level of psychological help. Sure, I know it's not Wikipedia's role to be greatly involved but, for the sake of background understandings, I thought it might be worth giving a potential prompt to people's thoughts on the subject. From what I've seen she is in denial and that's just for starters. She gathers people around her that agree with her and then her friends still leave her. Personally I think that the only way a person like this may actually seek or at least be open to help is if people, at any closeness of connection to her, are open that there at least might be issue/s. [...]"
• 2. GregKaye edited the Depp v. Heard article to read "Legal experts considered Depp's chances of winning to be better in the US than the UK," though the sources cited in his edit clearly said the opposite: "At the start of his recent trial, many legal experts suggested that Mr Depp had a weaker chance of winning than he did in the UK, because the US has very strong free speech protections."; "The perceived wisdom is that it is much easier to win a defamation case in the UK than in the US, where the enshrinement of free speech in the first amendment of the constitution is sacrosanct."; "Many legal experts doubted that Depp would win the case: The actor had lost a similar libel suit in the U.K. against the tabloid The Sun in 2020."
• 3. GregKaye added thousands of bytes of unnecessary, salacious information to the Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd article, including a (lengthy) verbatim text exchange in which Johnny Depp disparaged Heard as a "50 cent stripper" who was "begging for total global humiliation," with no secondary sources. After these additions were challenged, GregKaye conceded that "I've definitely made errors here and must certainly offer my apologies."
• 4. GregKaye falsely accused journalist Fran Hoepfner of lying (specifically referring to "commentary by Fran Hoepfner, a writer whose content is proven falacious (sic)"), all because he did not understand the difference between live chat and the YouTube comments section; he struck a small portion of his post after his error was pointed out, but even this was not the end to the saga (see bullet point six, below).
• 5. GregKaye diluted the findings of reputable fact-checkers PolitiFact and Snopes to the effect that Heard did not recite movie quotes or use cocaine during her sworn testimony with absurdly detailed in-text attribution (e.g., "Dan Evon from Snopes is among journalists with views such that"; "Nur Ibrahim of Snoops (sic) is one of several journalists observing"). Furthermore, he changed the article text to read that the former accusation was "implausible" but not necessarily "false" or "disproven," contradicting the sources (see, e.g., PolitiFact's "False" rating). On the talk page, he explained that he did this because he saw a YouTube video with 8,000 views titled "Amber Heard mimicking Rihanna," which he found to be credible, and which informed his view that "Wikipedia should certainly be wary against implying ... Heard did or didn't borrow from Rihanna's account of abuse survival." Moreover, he reiterated that his edits (and his talk page suggestion regarding Heard's testimony being likely "borrow(ed) from Rihanna") are based on things that he "heard of ... on social media."
• 6. Additionally, while GregKaye is usually careful to adhere to expected norms of civility and (as seen in some of the examples above) to at least partially walk-back especially controversial actions/statements when confronted, this veneer of civility falls apart on occasion. His edit summaries, even for copyedits and minor wording tweaks, routinely claim to be rooting out imaginary "misrepresentations" by a cabal of WP:TENDENTIOUS editors (e.g., [201]). At one point, he appeared to suffer a breakdown and left the following edit summary: "Wikipedia tenacious hacks can really be F******* deplorable, wanting to tenaciously smear with labels like wifebeater even though it NEVER appeared in a paper's PAPER edition and only appeared online for TEN HOURS. PLEASE STOP THIS SHIT! PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE!" On a related note, a few days after rescinding his accusation that Hoepfner's article "is proven falacious (sic)," GregKaye again referred to it as "provably fallacious nonsense," with no new evidence.
• 7. GregKaye's conduct has been a matter of acute concern to several editors active in the topic area, among them Gtoffoletto (e.g., [202]; [203]) and TrueHeartSusie3, who stopped editing the article in large part because of his behavior.

To be honest, I considered filing a report after just the first two examples, but instead I attempted to engage with GregKaye in good faith, reasoning that since he has the capacity for civility, it was possible to conclude that his desire to build a clean, well-written, and properly-formatted article would ultimately override his admittedly quite strong personal bias. Nevertheless, he has been given more than enough WP:ROPE and continues to prove me wrong; frankly, he does not seem to have the competence to sharply distinguish between his personal views, things that he saw on social media, and coverage in reliable sources. I am asking that GregKaye be topic banned from anything related to Amber Heard, broadly construed, to prevent further disruption and draining of volunteer resources.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:47, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

• Unfortunately some of the incidents described above by TheTimesAreAChanging have been misrepresented (assuming good faith, not purposefully) in a way that paints Greg in a harsher light.
  • For #2, this diff, made around the same time, proves that Greg changed the lede to reflect content he just added in the body. [204] Unfortunately, he didn’t change the lede’s references, and the new lede content contradicted the lede’s old references. starship.paint (exalt) 04:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
    • I don't see that any of the sources cited in that edit directly substantiate (or even relate to) GregKaye's statement (in wikivoice, and in the lede) that "Legal experts considered Depp's chances of winning to be better in the US than the UK." (To the contrary, as documented above, the preponderance of RS actually say the opposite.) At the very best, your defense means that GregKaye's edit constituted WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, but perhaps not deliberate source falsification. Either way, the conduct is concerning.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:15, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
      • I did say before on the talk page that Greg may have over-analysed this, as I don't think the sources actually explicitly said that the US trial was easier for Depp, though they did describe reasons why he won. Certainly, Greg needs to be much more precise. Yet, we should note that Greg may have misread content from this sources into making his conclusion - see quotes below. starship.paint (exalt)

quotes from sources inside - starship.paint (exalt)

WaPo - The outcome of the Johnny Depp defamation trial turned a bit of celebrity jurisprudence on its head — the long-standing conventional wisdom that it’s easier for a VIP to prevail with a libel claim in the United Kingdom than in the United States. The reason, according to legal experts, may simply boil down to the fact that Depp’s action in the U.K. — which he lost — happened to be decided by a judge, whereas his case in the United States was decided by a jury. [...] Mark Stephens, an international media lawyer ... Even though the Virginia case had a much higher standard to cross for Depp’s team, “that didn’t impact the outcome because essentially what you have got is a jury believing evidence that a British judge did not accept, so that’s where the difference lies here. Unusually, not in the different legal frameworks.”

Insider - Almost certainly the most significant difference between the two trials was who got to choose the winner. [...] While we can't know the details of what the jurors thought, Insider's Ashley Collman spoke with legal experts who said Heard failed to get the jury to believe her and that Depp's team successfully undermined her. Neama Rahmani, president of West Coast Trial Lawyers, said Heard appeared to be caught in a lie several times, such as when she described her interactions with the media. Rahmani also gave a lot of credit to Depp's personality in the trial: "The jurors loved him. The public loved him. Everyone on social media loved him." Depp's charisma likely had less influence on a professional judge like Nichol.

iNews But instead of shopping for a court in the UK, where defamation laws favour the plaintiff – the person bringing the case -he went shopping for something else: a jury that he could convince. That’s the key difference between the US and UK, and why Depp won his case.

Rather than a judge in Britain looking at the facts, the case went before a jury of seven people from Fairfax, Virginia – a location that wasn’t chosen by chance. Depp likely sued Heard over her Washington Post op-ed from 2018 in Virginia, where the newspaper’s servers are, because at the time it had weak protections against defamation lawsuits, known as anti-SLAPP.

Depp didn’t sue The Washington Post either, he sued Heard directly. Not that her legal team were shabby, but it would have been a very different story taking on the full force of a national newspaper and the deep pockets of its owner, Jeff Bezos ...

Another big difference between the UK and the US trial was that Depp was able to call various experts to bolster his case ...

It also meant the jury heard another key piece of evidence that was not aired in the UK – from two police officers who attended the scene in May 2016 after Heard claimed that Depp threw a phone at her ...

At the start of the trial Depp’s team briefed reporters that the part they were most relishing was that Depp would be able to tell his story more fully than in the UK. Rather than being asked pointed questions and giving limited answers, he could speak expansively about what effect this had on his life.

• • For #4 Greg’s assertion of content fallacious is not necessarily asserting “lying”, could be asserting a mistake. starship.paint (exalt)
  • For #5, actually the original Wikipedia text (Widely-shared falsehoods that Heard was passing off film quotes as her own thoughts … were disproven) could be interpreted as inaccurate, that’s why Greg made the change. Both Snopes and Politifact addressed that it was false that Heard quoted one specific film (Mr Ripley). However, Snopes also discussed different allegations that Heard quoted other films than Ripley, and Snopes stated that some social media users expanded the allegation to include lines from other movies as well … We reviewed several of these rumors and found the claim that Heard was “stealing” movie lines implausible. That’s where Greg got “implausible” from. Yet, Greg wrote the claim Heard stole movie lines, such as from the talented Mr Ripley, was implausible - which is itself inaccurate, and perhaps that is why TheTimesAreAChanging protested. This would be accurate: the claim Heard stole movie lines ... was implausible, but clearly the articles said that the Ripley allegation was false. starship.paint (exalt)
  • For #7, that diff [205] you provided of TrueHeartSusie3 is quite offensive and incivil, Dunning-Kruger effect on steroids here, esp with @GregKaye,@Rusentaja, @PizzaMan and @HurricaneHiggins […] please don’t burn yourself out in the process of trying to reason with MRAs and conspiracy theorists. Further context, TrueHeartSusie3 isn't afraid to show her POV on the matter on her user page [206] - lauding an excellently written summary [207] which had the sub-headline How a washed-up movie star, men’s rights activists, and true-crime fans duped America. starship.paint (exalt)

Response:

• I am an editor that puts cards on the table, I go by my own name without embellishment and what you see is what you get. Outside of Wikipedia one of my first reactions was to challenge harsh contents against Amber Heard on social media in fear that she might suffer a similar fate as Caroline Flack who also publicly faced accusations of domestic abuse. TheTimesAreAChanging is adept in not providing fair diffs on issues, which I give here:[208] I don't want to justify that post but it finished: Example text My thought was that content might have been removed with a bias based on views on what might be best for Amber and I rashly flagged up what I thought was an opposing view. I don't keep track of all talk page additions but it's been pointed out that editors can have opinions and still edit according to WP:NPOV which is something I fight for.
• As previously explained. "... I brought the topic of freedoms of speech into the article.[209] It was in those same four consecutive edits I also made a mistake by, I'm guessing, transferring wording from one side of a link, "US and the UK", directly into wording "US than the UK" on the other side of the link. The result was that I produced a link in the form: "[[#Differences between the US and the UK trials|in the US than the UK]]". In my four edits, I'd amended the total wording from:
     "Many legal experts had doubted whether Depp could win his case having lost a similar libel suit in the UK."
  to read:
     "Legal experts considered Depp's chances of winning to be better [[#Differences between the US and the UK trials|in the US than the UK]]", while also adding the freedom of speech material into the Differences between the..trials section.
  I was late in addressing this particular but this was in context of TheTimesAreAChanging failure to provide a contextualised diff in an intro of the previous related thread and I was busy addressing the other bullet point issues presented (which were largely shown to be my corrections of previous POV bias in article content). I previously spoke[210] of going "through the living hell of accusation, without a contextualisation presented for the edits" in a discussion on "edit warring between TheTimesAreAChanging and Rusentaja" These accusations perpetuate and still, as noted by the editor above, regarding "incidents [that] have been misrepresented".
• Yup, I admit when I'm wrong. That particular edit, if anything, made Depp look bad. It's hardly an indication of POV. The whole thing might have been sorted out a lot sooner if editors had pinged me to discussion instead of just talking about what I was trying to do. I suspect that this was part of an early attempt at WP:ROPE When finally getting notification, which came among TheTimesAreAChanging's other accusations, I added an edit[211] to the relevant page to give indication that I was "making some checks on the approach taken" which I did with appreciated response on the WikiProject Law talk page.
• Issues related to the Fran Hoepfner, Willy Womp-A article in gawker are discussed here
• The Wikipedia content presented had stated "falsehoods that Heard was passing off film quotes as her own thoughts ... were disproven." As indicated in the discussion[212], confirming that statement would take WP:OR, WP:CRYSTALBALL mindreading. The way editors had presented the issue was as opinion and I mistakenly evoked those related rules. I made an edit with clear edit summary. It was reverted and we've now moved on to a more encyclopaedic solution.
• I've encountered lots of misleading content such as the above and worse. Though I don't think I've said so previously I appreciate TheTimesAreAChanging's reference to cabal which I certainly see could apply.
  Again, in relation to the Fran Hoepfner, Willy Womp-A article in gawker, all this was covered here. In my reply I said, "(Also, following WikiVirusC's helpful comment, and as much as anything for my own peace of mind, I downloaded 33070 chats via the Save Live Streaming Chats for YouTube app from the chrome store and found one reference to "is cooked" and one for "is a cooked" with no other cooked references. I found 31 "I love you" references but with a significant proportion about "Issac")." I'm happy for my workings to be checked. Wikipedia certainly should research ensure that article contents are WP:NOTFALSE.
• Pinging select editors who have supported your views is not appreciated. Gtoffoletto harasses me pointedly and relentlessly as can be seen through talk pages as in example here.

The sheer level of spin in all the issues presented above displays clear POV bias and, if anything, it should be TheTimesAreAChanging facing the topic ban. GregKaye 07:04, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I would disagree that TheTimesAreAChanging needs a topic ban. I assume good faith and think that TheTimesAreAChanging needs to describe issues more accurately. I wouldn't say the above by Gtoffoletto is harassment either. I just feel that there doesn't need to be a war here between any editors of this topic. My analysis of the above incidents of Greg: #1 is problematic and unneeded, #2 is a mistake of overreaching analysis and carelessness, #3 is a mistake of using only primary sources, #4 is a mistake of research, #5 is a mistake in writing (Ripley fragment), #6 'breakdown' is also problematic, as for #7 ... personally I feel that Gtoffoletto may have overreacted regarding this topic, from what I quoted above, TrueHeartSusie3 should assume more good faith (or, if she cannot, at least, not be incivil). Context, I acknowledge that TrueHeartSusie3 has been harassed by an IP over their editing in this topic. Overall, Greg has certainly made several mistakes, and it is up to the community to decide if these are worth a topic ban. Personally, the mistakes do cause concern and I would support a warning for Greg. He has to be much more careful going forward. starship.paint (exalt)

• Oppose any action against GregKaye. I've not contributed much to the Depp v Heard article, and don't believe I've edited it at all since the trial concluded, but the page has been on my watchlist since day 1. I've been following the talk page discussions the whole time, and I find nothing eggregious with GregKaye's contributions. He's made a couple of mistakes, but has apologised and corrected them as soon as they're pointed out.
  I concur with starship.paint's analysis that the diffs presented above don't exactly match up with the actual version of events once you click on them. I would've been more than happy to support a topic ban for GregKaye based on #6 alone. Then I clicked the links. GregKaye has never in any way "routinely claim[ed] to be rooting out imaginary 'misrepresentations' by a cabal of WP:TENDENTIOUS editors", or anything of the sort. This is a clear-cut case of WP:SANCTIONGAMING#1. Also, saying that Greg "appeared to suffer a breakdown" is downright insulting. I'll leave it to others to decide if this requires boomeranging. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 16:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

"GregKaye has never in any way 'routinely claim[ed] to be rooting out imaginary "misrepresentations" by a cabal of WP:TENDENTIOUS editors', or anything of the sort." In just the past month, we have seen edit summaries/comments from GregKaye including:

• 1. "Wikipedia tenacious hacks can really be F******* deplorable, wanting to tenaciously smear with labels like wifebeater even though it NEVER appeared in a paper's PAPER edition and only appeared online for TEN HOURS. PLEASE STOP THIS SHIT! PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE!" (06/06/2022);
• 2. "The Broadcasting live should only have been relevant for the viewerships - unless editors are wanting to tenaciously (sic) suggest something without evidence." (06/08/22);
• 3. "Not sure why we're quoting Guardian journalist opinions but PLEASE GET IT RIGHT. even per this cite, the case was always trial by jury. pls, pls cut the WP:Tendentious editing." (06/22/22);
• 4. "rmv: 'in the stream chat' from WP:Tendentious editorialising on claims NOT made in cited articles. The 'stream chat' at Sky News shows 'Comments are turned off.'" (06/23/22);
• 5. "WP:NOTOPINION 'Although some topics, ... tempt people to "climb soapboxes", Wikipedia is not the medium for this.' (we'd at least need secondary refs to primary ref to journalistic opinion)" (06/24/22);
• 6. "chg to: 'the great majority of Depp's alleged assaults' editors keep misrepresenting content in citations." (06/29/22); and, of course,
• 7. "Though I don't think I've said so previously I appreciate TheTimesAreAChanging's reference to cabal which I certainly see could apply." (07/02/22).

Others should evaluate the diffs above to make their own determination, but to my mind none of GregKaye's allegations of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing or deliberate "misrepresentations" were properly predicated: #1 concerned text from a secondary source which accurately quoted The Sun's original article, as opposed to a later revised version (GregKaye replaced the secondary source with a link to the updated article on The Sun's website, implicitly conceding that the previous text flowed directly from the secondary source and was in no way "misrepresented" by any Wikipedia editor—if there was any "cherrypicking," it was by GregKaye himself, who did not like the coverage in secondary sources); #2 concerned text that simply noted the U.S. trial was "broadcast live" and that this "was a major difference between the two trials"; #3 involved GregKaye changing "Journalist Amelia Tait of The Guardian referred to the case as 'trial by TikTok'" to "Journalist Amelia Tait of The Guardian said that Heard v Depp had turned into 'trial by TikTok'," which is a minor wording tweak, not a desperately-needed correction of an egregious distortion; #4 appears to have been another misunderstanding by GregKaye; #5 is civil on its face, but radically misconstrues policy to suggest that opinion sources are unusable unless they have been commented on by other opinion sources—an interpretation so novel that GregKaye once mused "there's a chance it may change the entirety of Wikipedia" itself—and implied that editors who refuse to accept this misinterpretation are engaged in WP:SOAPBOX behavior; #6 involved GregKaye changing "[Nicol] found that Depp had lost his case as the allegations against him had been proven to a civil standard and were found to be 'substantially true'" to "[Nicol] found that Depp had lost his case as the great majority of Depp's alleged assaults had been proven to a civil standard and were found to be 'substantially true'"; and #7 is probably not the tack that GregKaye should be taking in this forum.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:26, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

• Why are we discussing Amber Heard's mental state and "How can we best help Amber Heard"? That is not our concern. We build an encyclopedia by reporting reliable third party research, we do not play armchair psychiatrist on BLP articles. Full stop. Wikipedia isn't therapy for editors and it's not therapy for your favourite celebrity either. Darkknight2149 05:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: Totally agree with Darkknight2149 above: Wikipedia isn't therapy. This is exactly the issue here unfortunately. I've been pinged several times in this discussion but I don't care enough to be dragged into this. I think this thread was just a matter of time as I've told Greg several times. A lot of time and energy has been wasted already. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:44, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I did (mistakenly) discus Amber Heard's mental state. I was notified rapidly that I was incorrect to do so and I have been in agreement that I was wrong in my action from that point on. I made a good faith edit on something that I thought was for the good. I stand (and have stood) corrected that my actions did not conform to policy. It's not a mistake that I've repeated. It's certainly a valid question why we're discussing this now. GregKaye 17:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

You keep saying you have made several mistakes and I agree you are improving over time. However this article is WP:BLP and does not allow such mistakes. Wikipedia must get the article right. and must Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. This is why my suggestion has always been to "slow down" and be extremely careful with your edits. You are still too WP:RECKLESS and making massive edits to the article several times a day. You can't make mistakes and just say "my bad". We can't afford those "mistakes" on a WP:BLP page. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 11:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Harassment by TheTimesAreAChanging

The continued misrepresentations in talk page discussions and here in a waste of time to other editors and a source of distress for me. I appreciate previous comments made above:

• by starship.paint to say that "Unfortunately some of the incidents described above by TheTimesAreAChanging have been misrepresented (assuming good faith, not purposefully) in a way that paints Greg in a harsher light."
• and by Homeostasis07 to say "Then I clicked the links. GregKaye has never in any way "routinely claim[ed] to be rooting out imaginary 'misrepresentations' by a cabal of WP:TENDENTIOUS editors", or anything of the sort. This is a clear-cut case of WP:SANCTIONGAMING #1. Also, saying that Greg "appeared to suffer a breakdown" is downright insulting. I'll leave it to others to decide if this requires boomeranging."

I mentioned going "through the living hell of accusation, without a contextualisation presented for the edits" and this kind of thing is continuing on repeat. When getting notification of this discussion I dragged myself into giving a by no means complete rebuttal and then just had to get away. It's horrible. Old issues are continually dragged up and misrepresented. TheTimesAreAChanging, as far as I remember, has never addressed me directly other than as response where I was addressing TheTimes directly. In all (or near to) other cases, TheTimesAreAChanging, has limited this to talking about and disparaging me often with misrepresentation. The irony is not lost on me that its in relation to an article on a defamation trial that these activities have happened.

TheTimesAreAChanging was the first to make accusation of WP:TENDENTIOUS misrepresentation as in Revision as of 00:37, 13 June 2022 in relation to my edits here I totally accept that I went too far various of my subsequent edit summaries but perhaps they can be viewed in context of previous pointed comment whilst also under the pressure of the misrepresented accusations mentioned. (My comments regarded misrepresentations in edits while having no idea in regard to a number of editors involved. My intention was to highlight the problem but not to specifically point fingers). So much heat was generated on the talk page that I felt the need to attempt cordial exchange with editors personally[213].

On the way to this I'd pinged TheTimesAreAChanging in a conciliation seeking edit[214] to explain "... I know of a specific editing instant that was pointed out to me which was a certain mistake. I'd like to get it in context. I'd previously made an edit[215] "Legal experts considered that Depp's chances of winning in the US were weaker than in the UK citing strong freedom of speech protections in the US." Later, when editing an internal link into this text, I had a real brain fart and mixed up the US and the UK with the result of producing this edit[216] to rewrite the same text as I'd previously written to say "Legal experts considered Depp's chances of winning to be better in the US than the UK."
The talk page subsection on "A quickly fixed mix-up between the "UK" and the "US" made within approaching 10,518 character edits"[217] has also been on the talk page at the end of TheTimesAreAChanging's accusation thread since 13:01, 16 June 2022. Here I'd stated that "I brought the topic of freedoms of speech into the article." Regardless of all this TheTimesAreAChanging persists in presenting the related accusation above.

TheTimesAreAChanging can insist that I withdraw accusations,[218] yet none of the accusations by TheTimesAreAChanging, even when full of misrepresentation, ever get withdrawn. GregKaye 16:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

"TheTimesAreAChanging was the first to make accusation of WP:TENDENTIOUS misrepresentation as in Revision as of 00:37, 13 June 2022 in relation to my edits ... I totally accept that I went too far various of my subsequent edit summaries but perhaps they can be viewed in context of previous pointed comment whilst also under the pressure of the misrepresented accusations mentioned." The timeline of diffs presented above suggests otherwise. For example, GregKaye left the edit summary "Wikipedia tenacious hacks can really be F******* deplorable, wanting to tenaciously smear with labels like wifebeater even though it NEVER appeared in a paper's PAPER edition and only appeared online for TEN HOURS. PLEASE STOP THIS SHIT! PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE!" a week before my first edit to the article. Unlike GregKaye, I presented evidence of a clear misrepresentation on the the talk page, which GregKaye (and every other user) accepted at the time; notably, GregKaye's explanation for the error ("I had a real brain fart and [repeatedly] mixed up the US and the UK") departs from Starship.paint's sympathetic evaluation above: "I did say before on the talk page that 'Greg may have over-analysed this, as I don't think the sources actually explicitly said that the US trial was easier for Depp, though they did describe reasons why he won.' Certainly, Greg needs to be much more precise. Yet, we should note that Greg may have misread content from this (sic) sources into making his conclusion - see quotes below."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Why are you using the “tenacious hacks” comment to rebut GregKaye’s statement that you are the first person to accuse them of tendentious editing? Are you not understanding the difference in those words and conflating their use of them with your accusation of their behavior? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:16, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Of course I understand the difference between "tendentious" and "tenacious," but it's not obvious that GregKaye does (cf. the GregKaye diff above about "editors are wanting to tenaciously suggest something without evidence"). In any case, elementary logic would suggest, if GregKaye is claiming "that I went too far various of my subsequent edit summaries [after June 13] but perhaps they can be viewed in context of previous pointed comment," then there should be no uncivil edit summaries from GregKaye before the putative June 13 "provocation". Therefore, it is material that he was leaving uncivil edit summaries like "Wikipedia tenacious hacks can really be F******* deplorable, wanting to tenaciously smear with labels like wifebeater even though it NEVER appeared in a paper's PAPER edition and only appeared online for TEN HOURS. PLEASE STOP THIS SHIT! PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE!" on June 6 and "editors are wanting to tenaciously suggest something without evidence" on June 8. Do you really want to play this silly "gotcha!" game or will you honestly acknowledge that such behavior is clearly unacceptable? (Keep in mind that WP:BLP applies to people the internet dislikes, such as Amber Heard, and that civility and decorum are expected even on much more serious life-or-death topics such as those involving war crimes.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

This what I've seen to be typical of the WP:Bludgeoning responses and interactions of TheTimesAreAChanging, repeating the same things over and over again. (I got the message the first time). It's reminiscent of the 970 word response[219] to the thread on edit warring between TheTimesAreAChanging and Rusentaja" within which TheTimesAreAChanging still managed to target me in an off topic link. I'd encourage editors to visit Talk:Depp v. Heard and its archives and look up references to issues such as WP:Due/WP:Balance as well as the concept that "the same rules need to apply to all" in regard to rules like WP:OR and WP:Coatrack which I think give further context for this discussion. GregKaye 15:08, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@GregKaye Commenting to point out this looks like a case of WP:BOOMERANG. A report was made against you on misrepresentations like other editors pointed out, presumably for the purpose of removing you from the discussion. However your being harassed and the edit warring between TheTimesAreAChanging and Rusentaja mentioned by GregKaye at these links [220][221][222] including attacks on Rusentaja as an editor are the more substantial issues here, and it would appear the report was made on you to deflect from this unbecoming activity regarding Depp_v._Heard. Unfortunately such engagement edit warring, WP:BLUDGEONING, engaging in ownership of articles especially those with lower edit activity like removing edits that defy a particular narrative being presented, removing edits proactively in spite of Talk page discussions, harassment, proactively reporting users when consensus or evidence is against them, and more, has been a common trend for years and is not exclusive to this case. The harassment and edit warring you point out are an ongoing example.

A few other easily visible recent examples

• An issue discussed was discussed on the Talk page and sorted out. An edit is made in line with that, and then TheTimesAreAChanging reverts that edit on the basis of personal opinion despite Talk discussion. [223]
• One of many instances of reverting an edit and removing a good source on loose basis on an article they "own", among others, and if you take a closer look, have driven a narrative on this article on the basis of a single 4-page controversial and refuted paper in contradiction to almost 30 years of data and academic study, including hundreds of studies, books, and other publications. It's an extreme case of WP:UNDUE and an ongoing example of WP:OWNERSHIP, tendentiousness [224]
• More reverts on personal opinion, which is the plurality of the editor's activity overall, often with a shaky editor note to "justify" removing sourced additions like "editing against consensus" when no such consensus exists, like recent edits on Trump_Tower_wiretapping_allegations and Khomeinism [225][226][227][228]
• but then will go ahead and edit articles on the basis of personal point-of-view such as [229]. When someone contests this, the response is edit warring like with Rusentaja and making ANI reports like this on GregKaye, or continued reverts of other editors like on the same Trump_Tower_wiretapping_allegations article linked above.

I'm not going to look through and link thousands of examples of this and other forms of editing behavior by the reporter here or point out other issues as this isn't the topic here. This is a sample of very recent times to point out what GregKaye is stating regarding the reporter of the ANI topic is not new editing behavior, to give context to why the ANI was created due to GregKaye's and Rusentaja's misdoing being not acquiescing to a user with an unfortunate track record of this type of editing, and to point out the accusations against GregKaye are being overblown.

A much better handling of this situation than engaging in edit warring against one user and witch hunting against another due to "losing" in a dispute is described here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Resolving_content_disputes_with_outside_help Saucysalsa30 (talk) 21:27, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Longterm disruption by multiple IP ranges at Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic

Aside from the obvious band aid of locking the article, the issues are how far back the disruption goes, and how deep a reversion is called for. Hoping wiser heads than mine can ascertain the answers. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3AA4 (talk) 15:35, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

• Ollieinc, you've tried admirably to keep up with this. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3AA4 (talk) 15:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Bookspamming

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

---

I've deleted several edits by Vedantabooks2022 (talk · contribs), issued a COI warning to no apparent effect, and reported to AIV. User is adding references only to books published by the Vedanta Society of St. Louis. Requesting more eyes. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3AA4 (talk) 19:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked by Widr. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:26, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by 50.45.170.185

I would appreciate it if admins could take a look at the recent editing habits of this anon IP. The editor has removed content that is verified to cited materials at the article on Kathy Ireland and American Football. The editor has also claimed they are doing the work of removing material added by a sock, but without disclosing which sock puppet and the relevant SPI case. In addition, the editor seems to have some sort of vendetta against articles and content on the historic Pennsylvania Van Leer family (see Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Need help completing AfD - Articles created by some sock obsessed with the Van Leer family; even though several of these articles have reliable sources (others need work). In addition, there has been recent concerns about the edits made to the Lavender Oil page, which you can read at the IPs talk page. All of this to say, there is a pattern of disruptive editing that needs to be addressed.4meter4 (talk) 20:29, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Concur. The user is removing cited content from History of Atlanta, History of Georgia (U.S. state), and Sugar Bowl, with similar edit summaries. For a new user, this is all quite odd. BilCat (talk) 20:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

It took me quite a while to write up an accurate and fair summary of the events based on the NY Times article.

Does anyone really think the sock puppet's text is better than the one I wrote? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Atlanta&type=revision&diff=1096175951&oldid=1096115594

I don't feel like I've removed anything, rather just changed it to be more easily readable and actually reflect the content of the source. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 22:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

First off, only 1 user has accused me of disruptive editing at the Lavender oil page. And an admin has already given him a warning for his constant warring with me. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AZefr&type=revision&diff=1096010398&oldid=1095847751

As for the Van Leer drama, I'm sure User:Drmies can offer insight here. I was simply there offering a third-opinion when the admin found the sock accounts. So I went ahead through their changes and saw how they have been trying to put Van Leer in every page possible even when it's undue. For example on Batman.

The particular change in summary of the 1956 Sugar Bowl is also an example of this. The sock added a paragraph about it on every possible page he could, but worded it in a weird way and tried to make it sound like Van Leer is the reason a black man was allowed to play in the game, when in reality it was protests, media criticism, the coach and players wishes, and eventually a vote by the board of regents. It's pretty obvious if you read the source https://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/01/sports/ncaafootball/grier-integrated-a-game-and-earned-the-worlds-respect.html 50.45.170.185 (talk) 22:20, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I think the thing to do would be to leave the source, and alter the prose to match what is in the reference rather than remove valuable sources from the article. That said, your zeal to undo the work of a sock has led to problematic editing. For example, you have made some inaccurate claims at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Need help completing AfD - Articles created by some sock obsessed with the Van Leer family. For example, it was very easy to verify the accuracy of the content at Maryly Van Leer Peck from the cited sources in the article and elsewhere in a standard WP:BEFORE search. (For example this source is from an official biographical document from the Florida Women’s Hall of Fame which is a state government program verifying that she founded the college https://flwomenshalloffame.org/bio/maryly-vanleer-peck/ ) Likewise, it's likely the majority of these articles would pass an AFD as there are sources with WP:SIGCOV if you bother to follow the steps at WP:BEFORE. I would caution you to be more careful in how you choose to address the edits of the sock within articles. It's fine to remove content not verified to the sources, but please do not remove RS from articles or remove content that is verifiable. It's best to look at the sources, and alter the prose of the articles to match the source if there are errors or misrepresentations. Best.4meter4 (talk) 22:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

That website claims she founded the 'Community Career College of the University of Guam', a thing that doesn't exist. The Community College of Guam website says it was founded by the Guam's 'Community College Act of 1977'. In fact, you can search their entire site for 'Van Leer' and you'll get no hits. She may have been a dean, so possibly could have deserved a footnote on the Guam_Community_College page, but since no other deans are listed about this tiny insignificant college I doubt it is due.

I would very much appreciate it if you or @BilCat revert to the clean-ups I did.

I will not fight you though. If you prefer the sock-puppet's version of reality to be what's on Wikipedia then it's no skin off my back.

Thanks. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 23:56, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

50.45.170.185 This is a perfect example of biased editing leading to false assumptions. A reliable source (the Hall of Fame bio) confirms a fact, and yet you are denying that it's accurate. If there is a contradiction the responsible thing to do, is to dig further. Doing a university library search, I was able to locate an offline reference which explains this discrepancy. William J. Fitzgerald (1989). The Overall Economic Development Plan for Guam: 1989-1993. Guam Department of Commerce. p. 157. details that the majority of the programs of Community Career College at the University of Guam were moved to newly founded Guam Community College in November 1977; thus it's accurate to say that she founded Community Career College at the University of Guam which is now part of Guam Community College. This is exactly what the first source stated and in keeping with the other reference.4meter4 (talk) 00:32, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

>details that the majority of the programs of Community Career College at the University of Guam were moved to newly founded Guam Community College in November 1977

Good source, but...

>thus it's accurate to say that she founded Community Career College at the University of Guam

Your source literally does not say that... what are you talking about? Also, public colleges are created by government, they don't have "founders".

>A reliable source (the Hall of Fame bio) confirms a fact

Self-published anonymous primary source, does not back up their claims, claims contradict other sources and simple facts like what a public college is and what the 'Community College Act of 1977' is. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 00:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Self published? It's an official document of the Florida Women's Hall of Fame and published by the Florida Commission on the Status of Women which is under the office of the Florida Attorney General. Claiming that this is A. Anonymous or B. Self published or C. Unreliable is ludicrous. Additionally, the hall of fame article states " She was the founder and dean of the Community Career College of the University of Guam, which is now the Community College of Guam." This exactly matches the history of the two schools as related in the other source. 4meter4 (talk)

The only source that claims she founded it is the hall of fame website. Which is impossible since it's a public college created by the 1977 act. If the hall of fame website claimed she worked as one of the cleaning maids for the 14th Queen of Guam would you just nod your head and say "hmmm yup this is a reliable source so it must be true even though Guam has no queen, being a maid isn't an exceptional claim! Neither is being a founder of a college!" like you are doing right now? 50.45.170.185 (talk) 01:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

You are making several errors and are confused. 1. Nobody is claiming she established Guam Community College. Not even the hall of fame source (which incidentally is not the only source we have on this as there are others cited in the article) 2. The sources say she established the "Community Career College at the University of Guam". This was am institution at the University of Guam not the GCC which existed for years at that university prior to the establishment of the GCC. 3. The sources state that in November 1977 the "Community Career College at the University of Guam" moved from that institution to become a part of Guam Community College. 4. Guam Community College was established by Public Law 14-77, “The Community College Act of 1977". This established the GCC as an institution but had nothing to do with the merger or move of the Community Career College at the University of Guam to the GCC.4meter4 (talk) 01:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

>The sources say she established the "Community Career College at the University of Guam"

Which sources say this besides the hall of fame website? And how exactly does an individual "found" an institution at a public university? They can't. Look man, the sock also claims that she founded the University of Guam itself when she was 22 years old. Something seriously fishy is up and I don't think we should give this sock the benefit of the doubt.

If you want to know just how non-notable her position was at the college look no further than her name simply listed among other non-notable people https://www.uog.edu/_resources/images/seprs/files/2004_retrospective-of-uog.pdf 50.45.170.185 (talk) 02:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

As it turns out, I was wrong on one point. I found another offline source which discusses Public Law 14-77 in detail. That law established Guam Community College by consolidating several pre-existing programs from a variety of institutions, including the Adult Evening School of the Guam Department of Education, the Community Career College of the University of Guam, the Apprenticeship Training Program of the the University of Guam, and other programs originally created by Guam's Department of Labor and the Guam Police Department. See Guam Economic Research Center (1980). Guam Annual Economic Review. Department of Commerce, Government of Guam. p. 12. Best.4meter4 (talk) 02:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I saw the IP's comments at Talk:Anthony Wayne; I believe they thanked me for my actions regarding the Dcgene/Drstrange/etc. sock. I am not going to look at all their edits, but I will say that their edit at History of Atlanta was an improvement. And it is true that the socks had an almost unhealthy obsession with the Van Leers, so I am not surprised to see the IP editing in a way that downplays their importance which had been inflated by the socks: I believe I was fully justified in making this big revert. Perhaps the IP needs to be more careful, I don't know, but the enterprise they had engaged in has merit. Drmies (talk) 22:57, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for assuming good faith. My main change has been doing this across the six articles where the sock injected this paragraph trying to imply that somehow Van Leer was the reason a black man was allowed to play in the Sugar Bowl, when really he had almost no role at all. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh, if we have any sleuths around--one wonders where the IP from Romania got access to to and knowledge of GA Tech archives, or how User:Kathrynlemieux materialized into Anthony Wayne. Drmies (talk) 23:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Drmies. I say the IP needs to link to some discussion of the sock when making such reverts, or at least identify the sock in their revert summary. I can understand removing Van Leer's name from some of the articles, but he probably is noteworthy in the Sugar Bowl article, the Atlanta history article, and probably the Georgia article too, which are the ones I reverted. BilCat (talk) 23:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@Drmies An IP from the same location as the sock's just posted a weird message on my Talk page. I think they are trying to make me look nefarious lol, but they are (once again) being way too obvious. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 15:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Two more North Carolina IPs popping up (same location as the sock's IP and the one that put message on my talk page trying to make me look nefarious).

They seem to be now trying to remove VanLeer mentions? But in a weird way that makes the effort look bad.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/174.99.194.50

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/75.182.148.215

thanks 50.45.170.185 (talk) 19:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

What edits have I made that you've been unhappy with my contributions @Drmies? Kathrynlemieux (talk) 15:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

• Editing from the IP is very clearly disruptive and I don't see how having an SPA account against an article subject is any better than the SPA that originally was obsessed with adding to them. Outside of this IP's obsession with adding pseudoscience health claims to the Lavender oil article, of course. The proposed AfDs were clearly out of order and being aimed at notable article subjects whose articles themselves openly made their claims to notability, sourcing included. Silverseren^C 02:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

  Since there are recent meta-analyses published to reputable peer-reviewed journals showing effectiveness, it would be incorrect to label it as " pseudoscience" and frankly the labeling is not constructive, we should focus on the content of the encyclopedia by summarizing reliable, third-party published secondary sources, from roughly the last 5 years as per WP:MEDRS guidelines:

  • 2021 meta-analysis, published to Brain and Behavior (a journal cited on Wikipedia 26 times)[230]
  • 2019 meta-analysis, published to Phytomedicine (journal cited 131 times)[231]
  • 2019 meta-analysis, published to Scientific Reports (journal cited 6424 times)[232]
  • 2018 systematic review, published to World Journal of Biological Psychiatry (journal cited 46 times)[233]

  Let me know if you have any questions. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 03:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - This is a continuation of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Harassment/Hounding, where the IP, who has been static so far, claimed that they were being harassed by User:Zefr. They then began claiming that everyone else was harassing them. See also User talk:50.45.170.185, where the IP states that they previously had an account, which is probably true, and the above, where they state that they have only been here a few days, and that everyone is biting them. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

  I have not claimed anyone else is harassing me. Why lie about something that is so easy to verify?

  And if you actually click the ANI discussion you just linked, it is clear that I state I have been here a long time but only started editing recently. Almost anyone that uses the internet is a long time Wikipedia user.

  And yeah, the biting is very discouraging. Makes me think the whole project is a lost cause. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 18:08, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Even looking at the edit history of the I.P, which is lengthy and extends back over a year to 1 May 2021 What are you talking about? You can see my oldest edits here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/50.45.170.185&offset=20220628165250&target=50.45.170.185 50.45.170.185 (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Appologies. I'm going to redact and remove the last comment, as it was based on looking at an IP address that was one digit off.4meter4 (talk) 20:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, you're just wrong. I explain why I am learning so much here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1095750752

Thanks 50.45.170.185 (talk) 20:08, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I read that. I'm not buying it.4meter4 (talk) 20:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Based on what? Did you go through that link I posted with my oldest commits?

First edits are edit warring. Straight up. Didn't even know it was called that at the time, quickly learned what that was. Started reading about it. Page says there are various other ways to deal with dispute like WP:DRN, so I open that next. Next are some edits on medieval technology just because I saw it linked on WP:DRN, where I ask about policy (because I'm still learning about it).

Then a sock-puppet investigation is opened up about me, where I defend myself using italics to quote because I don't know about the tq template yet for green quotes. I also mention at this time I had an account I courtesy vanished. Why the heck would I mention that if I'm trying to hide something?

This investigation gets the DRN closed down, so I look around for other ways to settle disputes. I find RfC, so I make that. Zefr posts on my talk page accusing me of all sorts of more things. I google what to do when someone harasses you on wikipedia and find ANI. What is there left to say? I've just spent way too much time here the past week reading stuff. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Scope Creep: revenge and disruptive editing part 2

Hi - I'm seeing some odd behaviour from a veteran editor @Scope creep:. He's marked several of my articles as reviewed, and then nominated them for deletion in rapid fire. Otrium was written in February, Cambrian Biopharma was written in March, and Contentsquare was just added this week. I looked at his block history and he has a history of being warned and blocked for disruptive editing, so I wanted to get some extra eyes. I don't mind defending articles from legitimate concerns, but this appears to be targeting. After the first nomination started to get heated, I tried to dial things down by reaching out on his talk page, but he doesn't seem to be able to read and understand what he's reading. He threw a fit when I mistakenly inserted a comment into a discussion, for which I apologized, but when I pinged him, and he replied by instructing me how to ping. He also accused me of being a paid editor, in a very condescending way, even after I told him I was trying to get access to the helper script for my work at the AfC help desk. Despite the rapid deletion nominations that suggest WP:BEFORE was not done, his work seems to be fairly good, so something weird is going on here. TechnoTalk (talk) 20:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@TechnoTalk ScopeCreep is an active participant at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers. It's not un-common for patrollers to review articles and then nominate them for deletion through speedy deletion, prod, or AFD. The latter process is used if the nomination is possibly controversial. I wouldn't take it personally, as Scope Creep nominates articles routinely on a daily basis as part of his work as a patroller.4meter4 (talk) 21:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

You need to take a deeper look at WP:NCORP if you are going to take on the task of creating articles for tech companies. A quick review of your created articles shows several more that are likely to be nominated for deletion as routine coverage of funding rounds do not satisfy notability requirements. Need in-depth independent coverage of the company. AfDs are a routine part of the Wikipedia editing process and the most important thing is to not take them personal. Slywriter (talk) 23:08, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

TechnoTalk, why not just find and include 1-2 sources that meet GNG requirements with the additional NCORP source requirements. That way you can avoid creating articles that shouldn't be created, avoid having your articles AFD'd, and get "keeps" on any that go to AFD. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

As NPP reviewer here. The tool we use allows us to mark the article as reviewed and file the article for deletion at the same time. It is common for us to do so as if the articles in question do pass the afd, they definitely pass whatever criteria NPP has for reviewing. – robertsky (talk) 00:06, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

• without comment on the merits of the articles or any history between the editors, I'd say That is completly illegal and abusive and its not done is a little over the top from Scope Creep. No one is going to jail for poor AfD formatting. Star Mississippi 01:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Response @North8000: Good suggestion. I'm adding the sources to my keep votes. TechnoTalk (talk) 20:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment What an absurd and slightly abusive ani report. The reality seems to be that can't accept the idea that your articles have to be sent to Afd because they are atrociously written and clearly fail WP:NCORP, a notabiltiy standard that you clearly don't accept and seem somehow to think don't apply to your articles, that in the majority, are private business articles, that look and read like native advertising. That combined with your bludgeoning behaviour at the Otrium Afd, is the real abuse here. Kicking up a stink because your articles are sent to Afd is natural, but this is the wrong venue and you've likely stymied your chance of becoming a page reviewer. scope_creep^Talk 08:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment While I do not condone Scope Creep's abrasiveness, as a New Page Patroller myself, I would support their choice to nominate several of your articles, as they do seem to fail NCORP with the citations currently provided. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 08:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Response @Scope creep: Can you confirm that you no longer target editors and their articles, and this was just random page patrolling that brought these articles to your attention? That would help me decide to withdraw this complaint. TechnoTalk (talk) 20:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Response @Padgriffin: If you think any of the articles I've written are not worthy, then I welcome a discussion and an opportunity to defend them. I spend a lot of time at the AfC help desk helping others improve their articles, and have a good sense of what makes a subject notable or not. Just don't mass nominate them out of spite on a holiday weekend. TechnoTalk (talk) 20:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Response There is no spite or malice involved here, honest, although it might feel like that, it is simply page review. When I reviewed Otrium, I saw 7 other articles that I thought were very poor. Some of them have been csd's already but they'll go to afd. However, your continual intransigence for over a week on the Otrium Afd, even when user:HighKing went into minute detail of how the NCORP standard works, and myself, is problematic. You refused to accept it, until several other editors became involved, with this notice. It is written in the very plainest language. That is not WP:AGF. Why is that? scope_creep^Talk 10:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I believe there is an extremely apparent lack of WP:AGF being demonstrated in this thread, as this insinuates that the AFD submissions were performed out of spite rather than out of a concern that an article does not meet notability guidelines during routine NPP work. In addition, I do not understand what you are implying by stating you were not given an opportunity to have a "discussion and an opportunity to defend them", as you were free to do so in the AFD nominations. The note that it was done "on a holiday weekend" is equally as perplexing considering that volunteer work such as editing Wikipedia is more likely to be performed in our spare time, which in turn would likely result in more edits (and AFD filings) being made over a holiday weekend. This also seemingly implies that the filings were made to inconvenience you during the holiday weekend, despite Scope not being aware that you lived in a nation that happened to have a holiday weekend. Your (self-admitted) claim that your rapid article outputs were made with the express goal of gaining access to the AFC helper script, overall hostile and non-AGF mentality in this thread combined with your apparent lack of understanding of notability guidelines present a rather clear case of why you should, in my opinion, not be granted access to the script. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 15:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment This appears to me as a bad faith nomination. At the root of this complaint, TechnoTalk would do well to pause their rapid article output which was for the purposes of getting access to the helper script and their BATTLEGROUND mentality. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. EVERYONE CALM DOWN! Throwing around accusations of bad faith and BATTLEGROUND behavior is just going to escalate the problem. How would you feel if multiple articles you worked on in the last few months were suddenly brought to AFD by one editor? And then that editor had a rather abrasive/ rude response to your inquiries. You might start feeling specifically targeted and harassed; particularly if that editor had a history of targeting editors in their block log. And you probably would seek help at ANI. I don't think we should start beating up TechnoTalk for having experienced a particular process in a certain way (even if that process was appropriate) and choosing to get help. I do think we should calmly and politely uphold our processes, affirm that Scopecreep was just doing his job as a part of his productive work at NPP, and de-escalate the situation by just letting it go and letting the AFDs do what they are designed to do. I will point out that if Scopecreep had been more patient and kinder with TechnoTalk on his talk page, this might not have ever been brought here in the first place.4meter4 (talk) 20:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

That's a fair point, I'm sure Techno genuinely felt aggrieved. But I'm not impressed once we dig a little deeper and especially given the context that Techno was in a rush to create multiple articles in order to access the Helper script and his comments at AfD. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I think he’s giving a normal impassioned defense of the articles he created based on his understanding of policy (which is flawed) at AFD. I’ve seen him learning about policy after key text at NCORP and other places has been pointed out to him (see my dialogue with him which was cordial at AFD for example). To my mind, this is an issue of a well meaning editor who tried to create meaningful content but missed the mark because they either hadn’t read or didn’t comprehend NCORP and what that looks like when it is applied. In other words, he’s learning through this round of AFDS. We have to give people some space to make mistakes and learn from them. Now if these issues continue with future article creation and AFDs, then I would say we have a deeper problem.4meter4 (talk) 13:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Avica1998

Special:Contributions/Avica1998 has been running riot over Taylor Lorenz with little but a hand wave at talk page consensus.

• I lost count of their reverts but they've blown past 4RR in the past 24 hours.
• Despite warnings, they continue to label the good-faith edits of other Wikipedians as vandalism (eg. [234], [235]).
• They are massively overtagging the article. For example, this version of the article has ten of their tags in a four-sentence section.
• Collaborating with this user is challenging or impossible. In this series of talk page comments, I responded to just one of their failed verification tags with a request for clarification and got stonewalled.

I haven't yet reviewed their contributions in other areas, but I'd like to see at least a temporary page block, as some more talk page consensus-building would help. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

one or more editors have laid claim to this article and refuse to allow inlines pointing out the deficiencies as set forth in the history section by multiple users. Avica1998 (talk) 21:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

That is an unfair assessment of what is happening, Avica1998. Avica1998 has been warned multiple times of edit warring, mis-labeling edits as vandalism, and failing to engage in meaningful discussion to build consensensus. Seems to want to just steamroll to get their way. I, and others, have tried ot make reasonable edits and comments, to no avail. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:45, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

In taking a look, I would agree that the editing by Avica1998 is disruptive to the article and disrespectful to the editing community at large. Particularly concerning is the massive reverts that falsely accuse other editors of vandalism and otherwise misrepresent the contributions of others or materials being altered. I think a temporary block of all editing privileges and a permanent article block is warranted as there appears to be an editing bias at work here which prevents neutral editing on this subject. 4meter4 (talk) 22:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

The only block needed here is a WP:BOOMERANG for you. Blocks are not given punitively for bad edits made in good faith, and you should know that. Metallic Lord (talk) 05:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Just noting that this is this editor's second edit ever, and their first edit is related to the same article that is being discussed directly one section below this one. Nothing suspicious here! Sergecross73 msg me 05:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:AGF, plus the litany of essays about new users not needing to be novice. And even assuming bad faith, maybe I'm Joe jobbing on behalf of Avicii. Or paid by a shadowy government organization to add minor errors to the source of truth future ai will use to train itself, leaving a few glitches for the future resistance movements to fight back against a robotic menace. Sus. Also, maybe I vented. Metallic Lord (talk) 06:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Someone else has now blocked this editor for socking, so please disregard. Sergecross73 msg me 13:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Reversions involving removal of [non-primary source needed]. Currently applicable to:

use of Substack as reference in "Early life and education" section. "Substack articles are self-published blogs (WP:BLPSPS)." Endwise (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

court documents used as reference in "2021 lawsuit" subsection. "you can't use primary court case documents in a BLP (WP:BLPPRIMARY)..."Endwise (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)"|date=June 2022}} Avica1998 (talk) 00:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Why is the article selectively choosing from the subject's prior media experience, why is that experience not chronological and why does the last 11 months of that experience take up three quarters of the article? Avica1998 (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Avica1998: You’ve continued to add back your edits despite several users asking you to take the issues to the talk page first for consensus and despite the ongoing discussion here on ANI. Please refrain from editing the Taylor Lorenz article until these discussions have concluded. X-Editor (talk) 22:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

there will never be a consensus on this page as long as there is selective editing taking place butadmin convo is concluded Avica1998 (talk) 22:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I will refrain until convo is concluded. There will never be a consensus on that article due to the history. See talk page and view history. requires admin eyes on. Avica1998 (talk) 22:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Why are the editors selectively choosing from the subject's prior media experience, why is that experience not chronological and why does the last 11 months of that experience take up three quarters of the article? Avica1998 (talk) 20:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

On the talk page this editor is claiming that because certain sources require a subscription to access the contents of the article are unverifiable. I explained WP:SOURCEACCESS to them, in response they stated that the subscription login page does not contain the quote from the source, so the quote is therefore unverifiable. As I see it there are two possibilities here:

1. Avica1998 is deliberately timewasting with ridiculous arguments to try to get their way, and accordingly need a block for disruptive editing.
2. Avica1998 is legitimately unable to understand "you need to pay for and login to this website to access it", in which case they need a block for Lacking the competence to edit here.

In either case I do not think it a good use of the communities time to allow them to continue editing. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Example from the article's talk page:

@Avica1998 tags citations behind paywall precluding verification of peacock prose used in quote

@192.76.8.85 gets abusive, cites WP:SOURCEACCESS

@Sideswipe9th agrees w/ @192.76.8.85 re WP:SOURCEACCESS but demonstrates solution to precluding verification

someone edits the quote to fix the problem

still does not address the concerns shared by 128.235.13.0 talk at 20:45, 27 June 2022‎‎ Avica1998 (talk) 02:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Taylor_Lorenz#Use_of_Primary_Sources as illustrative of the scope of the problem Avica1998 (talk) 02:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

In addition to persistent CIR problems around tagging, some of the preceding comment is untrue. IP 192 was not abusive in explaining SOURCEACCESS (tho gave a sharp warning when the explanation was ignored) and no one changed the quote—the sentence remains the same as it was before Avica began making hundreds of edits to this entry on June 21: "Fortune stated that she has "cemented herself as a peerless authority" whose name became "synonymous with youth culture online" during her time with The Daily Beast and The Atlantic.” (June 20 rev.) I am concerned for the level of disruption whatever the reason for it. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Avica1998 has edited problematically on Tim Pool as well. In this series of edits, they added enough promotional material in favor of Pool and enough negative material about his critics that another editor reverted it on suspicion of paid editing. The edits included an untrue and unsourced description of the Election Integrity Partnership as partisan and addition of negative material about Taylor Lorenz cited to sources which don't mention Pool at all. And one of the sources was an opinion piece, making these edits hypocritical, as they add an opinion tag to a straight news piece from The Independent, along with some fake failed verification tags. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Examine for bias (from the article talk page, references removed):

Lorenz worked for the Daily Mail from 2011-2014. After a short stint writing for the The Daily Dot in 2014,she was a technology reporter for Business Insider from 2014-2017. In 2017 she wrote briefly for The Hill’s blog section, and was assaulted by a counter-protesterin Charlottesville, Virginia. From 2019-2022 she was a technology reporter for the The New York Times, during which time she was made a Visiting Fellow at Harvard University’s Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society by the Nieman Foundation for Journalism. She likewise signed a contract with publisher Simon & Schuster for a book titled Extremely Online: Gen Z, the Rise of Influencers, and the Creation of a New American Dream and was sued for defamation resultant from one of her articles. The book has yet to be published and the lawsuit is ongoing. Avica1998 (talk) 03:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Avica1998:: this is not the place for content discussion/disputes. If you think there is bias, bring it up on the relevant talk page. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Avica1998: I'm confused by you response. Can you clarify you now understand that you should not tag content as failed verification just because the reliable source is behind and paywall and you do not have access; and you should also generally not remove it either? If you wish to verify content behind a paywall yourself, there are various ways you can try and obtained access as outlined to you, and if for some reason you have strong reasons to doubt something and you cannot view the source, it's generally acceptable to tag it with {{verificationneeded}}. But I can't see any situation where it makes sense to tag something as {{failedverification}} if the problem is that you were not able to obtain access because the source is behind a paywall. To be clear, whatever other problems may or may not have existed with the content in question, this does not make it okay for you to have tagged something as failed verification because you the source was behind a paywall. Nil Einne (talk) 15:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

• I took Taylor Lorenz off my watchlist because Avica1998 was too frustrating to deal with. Steamrolling an entire article when you're too new to Wikipedia to understand how everything works, Wikipedia's policies and guidelines etc., is bad enough on its own, but just reverting the article back to your preferred versions whenever multiple other editors take issues with your edits is incredibly, incredibly disruptive. I don't really have the patience to continue dealing with this time sink, so I'll leave my comments at that. Endwise (talk) 06:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

• Their continued refusal to engage in any meaningful discussion is increasingly frustrating. Latest at Talk:Taylor_Lorenz#Selective_biography. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

• There is, and has been since this section was created, ample evidence for the inevitable outcome of this. Why do we keep getting into such long discussions with trolls rather than blocking them as soon as it is clear that they are trolls? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Southwestmetal

User:Southwestmetal has been edit warring on Sonic Frontiers and the accompanying image ([236] [237] [238] [239] [240]; see also image history). User has not provided any reason to change the image, has already been warned, and has refused to engage with other users (even when I started a talk page discussion myself). -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I've placed a final warning on their talk page. Also, @Cyberlink420: you engaged in substantial edit warring on File:Sonic Frontiers gameplay screenshot.png, a mess I had to clean up by deleting a dozen previous versions of the image. This should have gone to WP:AN/EW long before this. In the future, if you find yourself in this situation, please do so. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for that. Will make sure to be more careful going forward. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 01:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

A minute after I placed the final warning on their talk page, they continued the edit war. I've blocked them for 31 hours. They're appealing their block, but given their unwilling to recognize their error, it's not likely the block appeal will succeed. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay. If the ban expires and they immediately get back to it, I'll take things straight to AN/EW next time. Thanks much for your help, and apologies for the trouble. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 02:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Once the block expires, if they continue the edit war I will block them for a considerably longer period of time. If they do, please do not continue to revert them. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Earlier I noticed that this user installed Twinkle on their very first edit, uses the wrong name in their signature, and tried to game 3RR 30 edits into their career, which seemed rather precocious to me. I was going to ask if anyone wanted to play "guess the sockmaster" but apparently there's this now. —{Canucklehead} 05:56, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I've just blocked User:Metallic Lord as a suspected sockpuppet of Southwestmetal. WP:QUACK. --Hammersoft (talk) 11:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Given the CU findings and the actions of Metallic Lord since their indef, I've opened an SPI case for all of these accounts. —{Canucklehead} 22:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

"No Lamb Chop Society" comment

[241]

Links

• Talk thread — justices have no party

• • Article — United States

• Project talk thread — Question

96.74.77.193 (talk) 07:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

ANI notice unable to be left at User:Chipmunkdavis talk page 96.74.77.193 (talk) 07:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

It appears that this is an experienced editor IP hopping (Mrbeastmodeallday?) disputing over a (somewhat nonsensical) comment left by Moxy. Regardless, attempting to remove another user's comment with the rationale that the comment is WP:NOTHERE (which doesn't appear to apply to single comments left by longstanding users) is clearly against WP:TPO. Perhaps a WP:BOOMERANG may be applied to the reporter? Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 08:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Hard to boomerang someone already blocked. If someone wants to block this proxy IP they can, but otherwise there's not much to do here. CMD (talk) 08:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I've had to semiprotect Talk:United States because of abuse. If we can figure out the proxy network they're using to hop IPs, that could mitigate future damage. —C.Fred (talk) 13:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

• I thought it said "No Lamb Chop Suey". Not sure which makes more or less sense. EEng 14:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

  I’m pretty sure it’s a reference to Lamb Chop (puppet). Bgsu98 (talk) 05:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

There is now an account Mayson.Jones, which feels like another odd socking instance like the IP above, directly imitating Mason.Jones. CMD (talk) 10:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Investigating... Please stand by... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:47, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Mayson.Jones is  Confirmed to Mrbeastmodeallday (as well as other accounts that I found). The SPI report that I filed retro-actively can be found here. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Pro-Kremlin talking points by IP

I'll start by saying I'm not actually sure if I'm justified in opening this report as no rules have been explicitly broken.

24.42.166.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is an WP:SPA, almost all of whose contributions have been promoting pro-Kremlin propaganda at Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War and Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. They seem to have a clear agenda and I don't find that any of their contributions have been constructive or even made in good faith. The IP has suggested renaming the Russo-Ukranian war "USA's proxy war with Russia"[242] or "US/NATO Proxy war with Russia", [243] they've said that it's "false" to say "Russia launched a full-scale invasion",[244] and they've made a series of posts talking about "Western propaganda" that I can't link to as they were RevDel'd. Almost every one of their contributions can be described as tendentious.

Again, I was hesitant to open this report as there is no strict rule-breaking. At the same time, we're not dumb and it seems very clear this user isn't here to construct a neutral encyclopedia and instead wants to troll talk pages with ridiculous pro-Russian propaganda. Other users have also expressed frustration with this IP, including @Slatersteven,[245] @Acroterion,[246] and @Lute88.[247] As full disclosure I'll say I've removed one of the IP's comments (which they reverted) and hatted a bad-faith discussion. — Czello 13:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I would rather have waited as they are a new account, but right now I am getting strong wp:nothere vibes. Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

It is likely a user that has already been blocked. Good riddance.--Aristophile (talk) 14:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I recognize this person from Wikiquote (style, IP range, etc.) where his IP and sockpuppet army (example) have been banned for exactly this behavior. I strongly recommend shutting him down every time you see him. Everything this person does is tendentious, and pushes the idea that the US is behind everything evil that is happening in the world, etc. etc. Absolutely WP:NOTHERE and a colossal waste of time. Antandrus (talk) 14:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

With that, block em. Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I had no idea this user was active on Wikiquote. Thank you. — Czello 14:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

That explains why they sought to transplant quotefarms into WP, which I had to revdel as copyvios. Probably worth looking for other cross-wiki abuse.Acroterion (talk) 14:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Oooh boy. Yes. Have a look at this WQ noticeboard section about the problem. We never did finish that cleanup, but it would be good to obliterate any copyvios here, of course. Antandrus (talk) 15:00, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Antandrus There are a some unblocked accounts on this wiki, including Will-SeymoreIII which has edited recently. Perhaps they should also be blocked? Girth Summit _(blether) 15:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Wow. This person has been mighty active. Where are we policy-wise on this? I've just issued a 3-month block on the IP. It's absolutely certain that is the same person. What do you all think? Will look for other socks presently (a CU wouldn't hurt, if any are watching). Antandrus (talk) 15:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I've found three so far:

• GaneshaSis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Libraryclerk0191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• WeNotMeC020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm going to shut them down as abusing multiple accounts. Antandrus (talk) 15:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Range block in order? Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I've seen three ranges on WQ so far - will have to dig a bit to find them. Any CUs watching? Antandrus (talk) 15:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm a CU. I have taken a look, but am limited by policy in what I can say with regards to making connections between accounts and CUs. The Will-SeymoreIII account was editing out of an IP that did a lot of logged out editing; there weren't any other accounts on that IP. WeNotMeC020 edited out of a completely different IP, which does have an unused account on it (possibly a sleeper), but I'm not confident enough to block without more evidence. There's no other activity on that IP. The other accounts mentioned are long-since stale. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok -- no worries -- I will try to dig them out using non-CU methods. I have some offline-life kinds of things going on so may not be right away. Antandrus (talk) 16:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Found one more - Om777om (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - and also found one IP (131.) which has no edits here. I remember another but can't seem to find it at the moment. Antandrus (talk) 16:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Found the third one - (24.214.) no edits on enwiki. Antandrus (talk) 16:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

User JamesJohn82 has resumed self-promotion after one week block

User:JamesJohn82 was blocked by User:RegentsPark for self-promotion for promoting jagatgururampalji.org. He apologised but has since returned to adding references to that website. The discussion was carried out on this page but unfortunetly, I can't figure out how to restore it properly. Kenm v2 (talk) 14:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1101 § User:JamesJohn82 giving me warnings for fixing his edits - 174.21.23.32 (talk) 14:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) with the IP above. Thank you, IP. This discussion? It doesn't have to be restored; readers are encouraged to just follow the link. Note my own comment right at the end, saying that if JamesJohn82 continues their egregious sourcing errors after RegentsPark's block expires, an indefinite block might be appropriate. It may be a little too soon for that right now, however, since I can only see one reference JJ82 has made to their own site after the block and the apology, here. It's one too many, though. I have blocked for two weeks. Bishonen | tålk 14:32, 3 July 2022 (UTC).

Esetok

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

Can someone explain to Esetok that we don't make personal attacks and aspersions towards other users just because they don't agree with us?

dear false historian of Iran, I've deleted false information without sources

You are false "historian", reverting edits and adding fake information in articles.

This is nothing new, back in January 2021 he was already unpleasant to discuss with [248]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

• User HistoryofIran adding false information to articles (fake names, ignoring all sources - Iranica/Encyclopaedia of Islam/etc.) and reverting edits. Just read talk pages: Talk:Bindu of Bukhara, Talk:Rashid al-Din Vatvat. Nothing to say more. --Esetok (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Esetok: So, you concede that your conduct is unacceptable? And you understand that if you do it again, you are likely to be blocked? —C.Fred (talk) 15:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Dear C.Fred, if the English Wikipedia continues to contain false information and no one is allowed to remove it without the permission of this person (HistoryofIran), then please block me for as long as you see fit. I will find it more useful to contribute to those Wikipedias where it is allowed to remove fake information from hoaxers (I have already explained why this information is unreliable and provided links to sources). Thanks. --Esetok (talk) 15:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

• I would have to agree with C. Fred. Any more personal attacks or accusations(like the one above) from Esetok, should result in them receiving a block.--Kansas Bear (talk) 15:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Esetok, the issue here is not the content dispute. Rather, it is your pattern of insulting other editors. If you stop that misbehavior, it then becomes possible to discuss the content in a collaborative way. So, will you stop the insults? Cullen328 (talk) 15:56, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Now indefinitely blocked by Bbb23. Cullen328 (talk) 15:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

GBFEE's aspersion casting and likely sockpuppetry

1. Aspersion casting

GBFEE has been inapproriately using an article talk page to sling mud against Sideswipe9th. Although, out of one side of their mouth, GBFEE claims they are not accusing [Sideswipe9th] of anything, out of the other, they cast WP:ASPERSIONS by:

• Accusing Sideswipe9th of Wikihounding another editor.[249][250] This accusation is, to quote the WP:ASPERSIONS page, without evidence, and was not posted to an appropriate [forum].
• Bringing up an evidence-free (and, needless to say, false) accusation from an IP troll that Sideswipe9th is my sockpuppet.[251] While pretending to bring this up in a neutral way, I believe GBFEE does so in order to besmirch [Sideswipe9th's] reputation.
• Implying that Sideswipe9th is a liar,[252] in order to further besmirch [Sideswipe9th's] reputation.
• Writing snide comments about Sideswipe9th showing up to the page – Unremarkably (and unsurprisingly to me), Sideswipe9th jumped in[253], There you are[254] – to imply that she was there for illegitmate reasons.

These strange and baseless WP:personal attacks aren't just unfair to Sideswipe9th, but also to uninvolved editors who should be able to help improve the article without wading through GBFEE's drama-mongering.

This article falls under the Gender and sexuality discretionary sanctions, which GBFEE has been alerted to.[255]

2. Sockpuppetry

It is obvious that GBFEE is the trolling IPsock 5.184.76.71, who baselessly attacked both Sideswipe[256] and me.[257] The IP is from Poland,[258] and GBFEE once linked to the Polish version of Google Books,[259] indicating that GBFEE also uses a Polish IP. Additional evidence is here.

WanderingWanda🐮👑 (talk) 17:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

• This should probably go to WP:AE. However, I absolutely fail to believe that a new editor would register, and in the first 24h spend four edits asking people for a "welcome" template, and then produce this for their first edit... Black Kite (talk) 18:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't really have too much to add that WanderingWanda hasn't already covered. To my knowledge, yesterday was the first time I had directly interacted with GBFEE. When I tried to clarify, I was directed first to two user talk page sections about an issue GBFEE had shortly after they became active, before an oblique reference to a comment by the IP editor mentioned above on my talk page. While I have now read in full the two user talk sections that GBFEE linked, and the brief accusation by the IP editor, I still cannot think of any good faith reason why GBFEE brought this up, both in an edit summary, and shortly thereafter in the talk page section. I'd also add that GBFEE's aggressive accusations have resulted in another editor commenting that we are not socks of each other.

Aside from this, GBFEE's comments on the content dispute are also quite aggressive and pointed. GBFEE repeatedly made reference to a discussion on another article's talk page [260], [261], [262], in a way that I can only describe as poisoning the well towards the other editor's reasoning for editing. As I said last night, while I had read the discussion at Talk:Stroke volume, because GBFEE mentioned it in their initial edit summary, I did not see how it applied to the discussion at Talk:Sex differences in human physiology. I was judging the edits at the sex differences article based solely on the merits as to whether or not they improved that article. The underlying motivation for the edits was not relevant to me, as the No Personal Attacks policy makes clear that we should comment on content and not the contributor. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment from GBFEE: First, I would like to say that the editor WanderingWanda's assertion that I accused Sideswipe9th of those things is entirely baseless and requires a reading that it seems only the editor WanderingWanda could put forth.

Second, the editor WanderingWanda has been engaged in off-wiki harassment of me for months now. I would point to the thread, but I know that I must consider the WP:OUTING policy. Editors who are aware of this are Johnuniq, SMcCandlish, and Crossroads, and the first two have recently expressed exasperation with it all.[263] And understandably so. I'm also exasperated with it. After the trolling IP made their comment, WanderingWanda proceeded to throw the sex/gender standard notice on my talk page. I went to look into why they'd given me this notice, as the notice was completely abrupt, I wasn't in dispute with anyone, wasn't editing gender topics outside of sex differences articles, and WanderingWanda wasn't actively editing much of anything. I saw that they gave me this notification after the IP address accused them of additional accounts a few days earlier. So I knew then that WanderingWanda was implying that I was that IP. I was accused early on of being a deceased editor. Around that time, I had the chance to review the history between the deceased editor and WanderingWanda. At the time WanderingWanda supposedly welcomed me, they were welcoming users they suspected of being the deceased editor. They then took to using the sex/gender standard notice to "mark" suspected accounts if they saw that one of the editors they suspected had already been welcomed. This recently occurred again during their interaction with the editor Enlightenedstranger0.[264] I was so concerned about WanderingWanda's harassment that I took the issue to a then-Arb's talk page.[265] The then-Arb didn't think much of my observation that WanderingWanda was using welcome and standard notice templates as a harassment method at the time. But, again, WanderingWanda also did this recently to Enlightenedstranger0 after trying to get them blocked and then using a forum to harass them offline. Because of everything that was being said, I was understandably suspicious of Sideswipe9th, who'd been accused of being WanderingWanda. Sideswipe9th wanted to know how I knew of them, and I briefly explained.

Third, I'm not the trolling IP and I certainly was not in Poland at the time the trolling IP made that post to WanderingWanda's talk page. In fact, I was in the Isle of Man, which is why I took an interest in editing Healthcare in the Isle of Man. As I've been under suspicion since I began editing, I was probably CheckUsered after that IP posted that. I wasn't blocked when I went to complain on a high-profile talk page because I'm not that IP. Also, when I browse the Internet, I use my VPN. So this means that when I am using the VPN for a certain country when I visit Google Books, it will go to the Google Books for that country. WanderingWanda points out that one of the sources I listed at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard had a Poland URL, but then they fail to mention that I also listed one that has a Netherlands URL.[266] In this[267] section at User talk:Citation bot, I say, "Why does the bot do this[268] when 'co.uk' is in the resources? I have to remember to take it out." I don't use a VPN on Wikipedia. And I am no longer in Isle of Man because I moved during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. I have been in the same country for a few months now. Moving is why I took a three-day break from Wikipedia after making this[269] edit at the perception article. I didn't edit again until making this[270] edit to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Like some other editors, I was familiar with Wikipedia before creating an account, which gave me some experience about what to do here. But I still had to figure out some things, like different reference formatting.[271]

Lastly, Sideswipe9th characterizes me as aggressive, but they've also recently accused Crossroads, who has felt hounded by Sideswipe9th,[272] of this.[273] So it appears Sideswipe9th will call those who disagree with them aggressive. They also talk about personal attacks, but saying that I have an "obsession with intersex"[274] because I mentioned that an editor's edits are intersex-focused is definitely a personal attack. I don't get into many arguments on Wikipedia. I mostly stick to myself and improve articles. But when I feel like I'm being hounded and I know there to be off-wiki harassment of me, I'm going to speak up. I apologize for any unnecessary offenses I've made. GBFEE (talk) 21:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Clarify: You've been on Wikipedia for less then a week. How could someone be harassing you off Wikipedia for months? GoodDay (talk) 21:41, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Because I haven't been on Wikipedia for less then a week. GBFEE (talk) 21:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I misread your contribs. My apologies. GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay. And just so it's a clear thing, I wasn't saying that I was in Russia or Ukraine. GBFEE (talk) 17:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi GBFEE, hope you're well.

1. Could you quote which specific part of the off-Wiki harassment policy you think I've violated? Surely you're not accusing me of trying to contact you off-Wiki?

2. I'm also confused by your claim that I've engaged in on-Wiki harassment. You think I've harassed you, even though I've barely interacted with you? Even though, by your own admission, I've been polite[275] towards you, you don't have a history with me, and we haven't edited the same articles?[276] It's true that I put the DS notice on your page because there were things about your account I found concerning, however, I imagine that's true most of the time someone puts a DS notice on someone's talk page. The fact that you went on to behave so inappropriately at the Sex differences in human physiology page makes it clear that giving you that notice was a good thing.

WanderingWanda🐮👑 (talk) 22:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

You know what that off-Wiki harassment thread is. Editors can look into Enlightenedstranger0's talk page for a link to it. In that thread, you call me a deceased editor, asserting that I'm a sock of that editor. That is off-wiki harassment. The thing you say about me and other editors here you've so deemed to be a deceased editor is harassment. It's bled into Wikipedia, as seen on Enlightenedstranger0's talk page. On that talk page, Johnuniq told an editor "Do not provide links to what would be regarded as off-wiki harassment." Your view that it's not off-wiki harassment is not supportable. You're not going to get me to link to it. And being sarcastic when saying you "asked so politely" isn't the same as saying you've been polite to me. There isn't anything polite about all of your recent (as recent as can be for your limited editing) welcome and sex/gender templates being posted to the talk pages of editors either you or others have accused of being a deceased editor. You can't say you were just doing a standard act without sounding disingenuous. I disagree with your characterization of my behavior at the sex differences in human physiology article and its talk page, but you know that. GBFEE (talk) 22:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Apparently you're not able to quote any portion of the off-Wiki harassment policy I've violated, so let's get back on topic.

Do you have specific objections to my characterization of your behavior? For example, I said you accused Sideswipe9th of Wikihounding another editor, without evidence, in an inappropriate venue, in violation of the prohibition against casting WP:ASPERSIONS. Do you disagree? I can quote what you wrote: I'm aware of you, your interactions with Crossroads, and that you appear at articles he edits when you've never edited them before.[277] Is this or is this not an accusation of WP:HOUNDING, which is a form of WP:HARASSMENT? Do you think accusing another editor of harassment is something that should be done lightly? Do you think an article talk page is the appropriate [forum][278] for this kind of accusation? Did you provide any evidence,[279] that is to say, diffs, to back up your accusation? WanderingWanda🐮👑 (talk) 23:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I can quote a portion of the off-wiki harassment policy you've violated. I thought you were asking for a link to the off-wiki harassment thread, which I wasn't going to directly provide. The off-wiki harassment policy says, "Inappropriate or unwanted public or private communication, following, or any form of stalking, when directed at another editor, violates the harassment policy. Off-wiki harassment, including through the use of external links, will be regarded as an aggravating factor by administrators and is admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including Arbitration cases." The Wikipedia:No personal attacks#Off-wiki attacks section it links to says, "Posting personal attacks or defamation off-Wikipedia is harmful to the community and to an editor's relationship with it." Do you think that accusing me and other editors of being a deceased editor you had an acrimonious relationship with in an off-wiki harassment thread and making the other derogatory comments you've made in that thread, which pulled in all sorts of on-wiki harassment against Enlightenedstranger0, isn't harassment? Even after what a then-member of ArbCom said about defaming a deceased editor?[280] It's okay as long as you do it off-wiki? In that off-wiki harassment thread, you claimed the deceased editor was trying to have it both ways because I cited what the then-member of ArbCom said. I cited what they said because of your acrimonious history with that editor and how you've interacted with me and others you've "marked" as the deceased. Saying that others are that editor makes it about the others. Not just the deceased. GBFEE (talk) 00:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I recognize that you're engaging in deflection, so perhaps I shouldn't respond, but... you're suggesting that I engaged in unwanted "private communication" with you? Or that I "follow[ed] you"? Or engaged in "stalking"? 🤔 I certainly didn't defame anyone, since that would mean maliciously lying about someone, or at the very least speaking with no regard for the truth, and I'm a scrupulously honest person. WanderingWanda🐮👑 (talk) 01:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

First, I would like to say that the editor WanderingWanda's assertion that I accused Sideswipe9th of those things is entirely baseless and requires a reading that it seems only the editor WanderingWanda could put forth. Firstly, it's not baseless, because diffs are provided. Secondly, I agree with everything Wanda said. Thirdly, @CrafterNova: also agreed that you were accusing someone of being a sock puppet last night, resulting in a reply about it this afternoon. So at least one other editor independently agrees with some of what Wanda has said, several hours before this thread was posted.

Sideswipe9th characterizes me as aggressive Yes, and I believe that between the diffs both Wanda and I have provided there is evidence of this. I would also characterise this contribution made after this section was opened as needlessly aggressive to both myself and CrafterNova. I'm fairly certain I won't be the only editor concerned about taking drama from an ongoing thread about your conduct back to the article talk page where this issue first arose.

So it appears Sideswipe9th will call those who disagree with them aggressive. No. I have had many civil disagreements about article content on wiki, on balance I believe significantly more civil than uncivil. I'm aware Crossroads accused me of hounding without any evidence, a pattern I remarked on at the time and again last night.

but saying that I have an "obsession with intersex" because I mentioned that an editor's edits are intersex-focused is definitely a personal attack At the time I said I'm not sure what your obsession is with intersex nor how it relates to my contributions to this article you had used the word intersex in 4 out of 5 occurrences, including the initial edit summary. Immediately prior to CrafterNova's comment, that had risen to 8 of 10 occurrences. I am still unclear as to why it has been mentioned so many times, in response to an edit that does not involve any intersex related content. Even in your most recent reply at the article talk, you seem to be objecting more about the content because of who proposed the initial edit based upon contributions made by CrafterNova at another talk page, than whether or not it actually improves the sex differences article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

You've said I was needlessly aggressive to CrafterNova for saying "there isn't a need to hereby assert that, because I didn't say you're a sockpuppet of Sideswipe9th or vice-versa". That says everything about how loosely you use "aggressive" when interacting with editors. CrafterNova's confusion about a sockpuppetry accusation doesn't support the claim that I called you a sockpuppet. Stringing together quotes I made to explain why I was uneasy about your appearance (after being one of slighted in an off-wiki harassment thread and you being accused of being one of the harassers with an alternate account) and responding to your comment that it was "the first time we've ever directly interacted" also doesn't mean that I personally accused you of sockpuppetry. For the record, I don't think we indirectly interacted either. I recognize that I shouldn't have brought up the subject on the article talk page. And I apologize for doing that. As for intersex, I explained that "if CrafterNova changed 'between males and females' to 'between sexes' because of their belief in a third sex (as appears to be what happened), that is relevant to the substance of that one edit, since short descriptions briefly describe the article's scope and CrafterNova has expressed a desire for Wikipedia's sex differences articles to somehow expand their scope beyond male and female. It seems CrafterNova made that edit as a starting point." And CrafterNova's latest response[281] shows that my statement about their short description edit is relevant to the article's talk page. So does Crossroads's response[282] to CrafterNova there. My objection to the short description is about whether it improves the sex differences article, but that is a discussion for the article's talk page. GBFEE (talk) 00:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

You've said I was needlessly aggressive to CrafterNova for saying...[snip] That is a very selective quotation from a very broad diff, though I recognise I could have been more clear in what I was referring to as aggressive. It was the three paragraphs in response to my comment that was aggressive. They are pointed statements, unnecessarily bringing drama back to that article talk page despite this section still being open, and spend significantly more words on commenting on both myself and CrafterNova than they do commenting on the article content. Per WP:NPA Comment on content, not on the contributor.

CrafterNova's confusion about a sockpuppetry accusation doesn't support the claim that I called you a sockpuppet. Then why did all three of us; CrafterNova, WanderingWanda, and myself, independently say that you appeared to be making a sock puppet accusation?

Stringing together quotes I made to explain why I was uneasy about your appearance (after being one of slighted in an off-wiki harassment thread and you being accused of being one of the harassers with an alternate account) and responding to your comment that it was "the first time we've ever directly interacted" also doesn't mean that I personally accused you of sockpuppetry. And yet three editors have directly said this appeared to be you making a sock puppet accusation.

I recognize that I shouldn't have brought up the subject on the article talk page. And I apologize for doing that. I'm glad that you now recognise this, even if you still don't recognise doing it in the edit summary. Though as you have still recently brought that dispute back to the article talk page where it does not belong, I hope you understand that I will not accept that apology at this time.

As for intersex...[snip] Again, you're spending far more words commenting on the motivations behind CrafterNova's edit, than on the merits of the edit itself. I don't care about why CrafterNova made that edit because it is not relevant to the substance of the edit. Your assertion seems to be that it appears to be a slippery slope fallacy. If CrafterNova did make edits to the content, for example replacing some or all language with gender neutral versions, then I would care. But for the edit that we were discussing, it had done no such thing. Just as how a bad edit can come from good reasoning, a good edit can come from bad reasoning. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

We'll continue to see this differently. And I can't speak for CrafterNova, but maybe they didn't read everything and what they focused on was that you said I accused you of being a sock? GBFEE (talk) 17:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

To comment only on GBFEE (rather than all the off-wiki harassment stuff and "detective work" about a purported pseudocide), I don't think their behaviour has been particularly problematic.

• The hounding accusation appears to be based on Crossroads' comments ("Please do not follow me around to articles you have never edited just to contradict me."), and observations made by GBFEE ("I've seen you appear at articles Crossroads edits when you've never edited them before"). I don't think you need a 20 diff-long spreadsheet of evidence to say "I think you are hounding this user" without running afoul of Wikipedia's rules. It did seem to be brought up in the wrong place, which GBFEE acknowledged ("Bringing it up here doesn't help this discussion. So I understand you on that.), and these kinds of "appropriate forum" issues in general seem incredibly minor and common across Wikipedia.
• If the mere mention of another user's sockpuppetry accusation ("because an IP named you as an alternate account of another editor") is casting aspersions, I don't see how accusing a user yourself of being a sockpuppet based on them sharing a country-specific google books link of the same country a IP resolves to wouldn't be. The reality is that neither of these things are casting aspersions; GBFEE wasn't even accusing Sideswipe9th of sockpuppetry.
• Coming off as a bit incredulous when someone references reading an off-wiki thread ("I have indeed been reading that forum") and then later states that they don't have knowledge about the contents of the thread is hardly an egregious violation of WP:AGF. You will see about 5 to 10 worse instances of "not assuming good faith" reading the talk page of any American politics article.
• This is the same thing as the hounding accusation, I'm not sure why this was a separate dot point.

The TLDR of the only actionable part of this is that, in two diffs in a thread on Talk:Sex differences in human physiology, GBFEE accused Sideswipe9th of hounding Crossroads, and was a bit snarky about it. GBFEE should've dealt with that on Sideswipe9th's talk page (or somewhere else) in a less snarky way. Good for us to acknowledge that, but I don't think there's anything more to do than acknowledge it. Again, off-wiki harassment and detective work aside. Endwise (talk) 02:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Endwise, I understand now that saying "I've seen you appear at articles Crossroads edits when you've never edited them before" can be considered "GBFEE accused Sideswipe9th of hounding Crossroads". I didn't mean that it was necessarily a WP:HOUND situation, as WP:HOUND says, "Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done with care, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight." But I did mean that Crossroads saw it as a WP:HOUND situation, while I observed that Sideswipe9th was appearing at pages he edits. Sideswipe9th gave an explanation for the appearances, and I should have left it at that. GBFEE (talk) 17:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with GBFEE about the harassment. On May 3 of this year, I opened Wikipedia and found that I was the topic of an SPI investigation. Because of this investigation and the forum that WanderingWanda (whom I'd never interacted with until then) participated in, I was subjected to treats such as 1, 2, 3, and 4. If you believe the statements in that forum, then I made those posts. I'm sure CUs saw that this isn't even remotely true. Further untruths include WanderingWanda's claims in the SPI. They used "American spelling" as evidence and said that CUs "may want to look for signs that this editor is an American who is masking their identity with non-American IPs." As I said then, I've only used the same Internet service since joining Wikipedia and I'm confident there are no signs that I'm "an American who is masking their identity with non-American IPs." This editor has now made the same claim about GBFEE.

After commenting in the SPI and editing only a little bit after that, I decided to take a break from the website and reevaluate if I wanted to continue to contribute here. Once the harassment spilled onto my talk page, I extended that break. The harassment led to stress and a decrease in joy, and I just didn't think it was worth it to edit Wikipedia anymore. My comment here is my first edit in about two months.

If openly targeting editors in an off-Wikipedia forum and letting people know in that forum that you're going after them, and then following that up with spurious accusations on Wikipedia, isn't harassment, I don't know what is. I think it's apparent that when the aforementioned Arbitrator made the above linked-to comment that "Those who persist in inappropriate speculation in order to defame another editor (or the memory of an editor) are in violation of our anti-harassment policies and should be dealt with accordingly.", even giving emphasis to "memory of an editor", he didn't only mean "on Wikipedia." The Wikipedia harassment policy applies to behavior on and off Wikipedia. So I support some sort of action being taken against WanderingWanda, as I've discovered that they have been at this for some time now. They were warned in direct and indirect ways at 1, 2, 3, and 4, have indicated in the offsite forum that they won't stop, and that administrator Johnuniq can't get in their way for what they interpret as their mission for justice. Above, they treat GBFEE's harassment concern with humor. This should stop. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 09:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@RoySmith: sorry to bug you but considering your posting-closing note [283], wondering if you feel the above post [284] from Enlightenedstranger0 is enough to reconsider a block. OTOH it's only a single post at ANI. OTOH, it's a single long post in an area that's already such a mess that I'm not sure we should allow nonsense from socks making it worse. So if Enlightenedstranger0 is a sock, I personally feel a block is justified to ensure it happens no more. Nil Einne (talk) 11:13, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Nil Einne - quite apart from the DUCK test, given their last 6 edits here (read them from bottom to top), I'm unsure why they haven't been been blocked already. Black Kite (talk) 15:28, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm unrelated to Enlightenedstranger0, who did answer for their early 2021 edits in their SPI. But I pinged them above. If Enlightenedstranger0 has email notification on, like I do, then they would have received an email about my ping. GBFEE (talk) 17:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that they "answered" to it, however that answer was total and complete bullshit. Enlightenedstranger0 is a sock. Do we need to go further, or are Arbcom going to pull their fingers out here? Black Kite (talk) 18:54, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, GBFEE. I was notified by Wikipedia via email. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 23:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Enlightenedstranger0, I saw one of the deleted contributions at the Daner's Creek SPI last month. I won't say what was in them, but I will say that those deleted diffs do not vindicate you. I would advise any administrator reading this comment to check the Daner's Creek SPI to see what I mean. Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

GBFEE also falsely accused me of harassment. In April I noticed a new lead image discussion at Adolescence on my watchlist, and I quickly added my opinion to prevent an undesirable consensus from coalescing.[285] I have also worked on the lead images at Woman, Man, Girl, Boy, Child, Human, etc. I had not engaged with GBFEE since I filed an SPI against them in August 2021. My accusation of sockpuppetry had merit; Tamzin said, "there is a 0% chance that it isn't someone already well-known in the GENSEX topic area."[286]

As for the Polish IP who accused Sideswipe9th of being WanderingWanda,[287] notice that GBFEE appears to have begun editing with a Polish IP.[288] The IP commented[289] about the same sex differences articles and User:MordvinEvgenwhich which GBFEE was involved with shortly after.[290]

Lastly, this pattern of socks using Flyer22 as a cudgel to silence people must stop. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, I had to look up what "GENSEX topic area" meant at that time, and you know everything that was said by different people and what I said. I was never an established editor until I created this account. I won't repeat what I said then or about not being whatever IP. But I will say that your history of having harassed that editor is on record. You included me in the list of socks for that editor and then there was a big discussion about everything here at ANI[291] and at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard.[292] You were given multiple warnings then to stop. Multiple admins said they would block you. This led to your final warning by Johnuniq.[293] But even then, you carried on, but without mentioning the editor's name outside of a link to a statement by ArbCom that includes it.[294][295] And now you're doing it again, making this thread about an SPI for that editor, except this time you've used the editor's name. So with all those things, I don't know what else you think I'm supposed to think of you when you drop in like you did at the adolescence talk page. Do you think it's easy to assume good faith of your involvement with anything I do here? GBFEE (talk) 19:47, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

And now you're doing it again, making this thread about an SPI for that editor, except this time you've used the editor's name.

Hmm? Is saying Flyer22 Frozen's name forbidden? And surely you recognize that you were the first person to bring up the deceased editor. If you didn't want the conversation to be about her, you didn't have to bring her up. Instead, you could have just said something like: "WanderingWanda is right, I lost my cool and was gatekeeping an article by being inappropriately hostile and disrespectful to good faith editors. I sincerely apologize to them and it won't happen again, and I appreciate WanderingWanda keeping me in check." WanderingWanda🐮👑 (talk) 21:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

• OK, this is ridiculous now. @Barkeep49, BDD, Beeblebrox, Cabayi, CaptainEek, Donald Albury, Enterprisey, Izno, L235, Opabinia regalis, Primefac, Worm That Turned, and Wugapodes:, are you going to sort out the problem that the last announcement didn't (I'm not going to link it), because I strongly suspect that this may now get quite unpleasant. Black Kite (talk) 22:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not sure what is you want us to sort out. This question seems deliberately vague. I'll take a stab at it anyway, but this is just me talking and not an official statement from the committee. An extensive checkuser/behavioral investigation did find that there was some sort of connection between the accounts listed at the Daner's Creek SPI and Flyer. Exactly what that relationship is or was cannot be stated with any degree of certainty. Some of those accounts did appeal to the committee and when doing so, indicated that they were deliberately trying to "carry on Flyer's work." (I'd also note that it is currently a major holiday in the US so many arbs may be off watching fireworks and eating hot dogs.) Beeblebrox (talk) 03:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

  I think Tamzin (below) has answered the question, really, but my point was that we're sort of stuck in a loop. If I indef Enlightenedstranger0 (which would be completely reasonable, because they're obviously a sock), a rationale of "obviously a sock" is a little weak for a block that would no doubt be considered controversial. And then there's the fact that some of the accounts involved are very good at evading CU. For example, there's obviously a link between Enlightenedstranger0 and GBFEE (which some people may have noticed; I can email to ArbCom if they want, but I'm guessing they're aware already) but I'm 99.9% sure that an SPI between the two would produce precisely zip. Black Kite (talk) 07:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Black Kite, and indeed everyone involved. I don't believe there is anything that the Arbitration Committee can conclusively say that will change the situation, nor do I believe we should. Tamzin has it correct, and I do thank for for her rationale analysis of the situation - whatever the link back to Flyer, it doesn't matter at this point. We have an SPI and Sockmaster to link new accounts to - Daner's Creek. If there is trolling going on, we know how to deal with it. If there is sockpuppetry going on, we know how to deal with it. That's where our focus should lie. Worm^TT(talk) 08:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

  I've now linked this to the Daner's Creek SPI.[296] Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:43, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

• So, to answered the implied question in Kolya's ping above, yes, I'm pretty sure that GBFEE is Daner's Creek, and near-certain that they're someone. That's just based on my sense for sox in this topic area. I've just yet to see a smoking gun... There may well be one, but Daner's Creek SPIs have often been light on the hard evidence needed, which is an unfortunate thing to have in the face of an adept sockmaster.
  On that note, I fear we've run into a false dichotomy here. Either Flyer's name is mentioned in the context of unpleasant speculation about her death, or it's seen as taboo to mention at all. It is not in serious dispute, as far as I know, that Daner's Creek acts a lot like Flyer22. That means one of two things: either that unpleasant speculation is true, or someone is sickly impersonating a valued contributor taken before her time. Out of some cousin to WP:AGF ("assume the less horrible bad faith"?), I land on the latter answer. We should be taking this very seriously. Impersonating a dead Wikipedian is one of the most disgusting things someone can do. Editors who knew Flyer well should be the most outraged here. The "Catch Me If You Can" diffs from Enlightenedstranger0 that Black Kite linked above make clear the multi-level trolling: To innocent editors in the GENSEX topic area, a relentless tendentious editor; to those familiar with behavioral analysis, a frequent evocation of Flyer's interests, positions, and rhetorical styles, with the intent of trolling that group on a much deeper level. And in doing this Daner's Creek, more than anyone else, drags Flyer's name through the mud.
  We need to call a spade a spade: If an account shows up and is editing a lot like Flyer22, that is a reasonable thing to point out in an SPI or AN/I post. Not because they are her, but because if Daner's Creek is deliberately mimicking Flyer, behavioral comparisons to her are worthwhile. Just like if someone were impersonating me, it would be reasonable to assess sockiness by "how Tamzin-y do those edits seem?", without the implication that I'm the one socking. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

  "Impersonating a dead Wikipedian is one of the most disgusting things someone can do." Well it would be, except the editor behind the original Flyer22 account is not dead. As Beeblebrox and the committee well know, but are not being drawn on commenting on, because its not necessary to deal with sockpuppetry accusations. There is quite definitive off-wiki evidence that the real person behind the Flyer account is alive (keep in mind that the editor who was behind the Flyer22 account is known and identified and deaths are reportable and recorded in most native English-speaking countries in quite some detail. Anyone who has to regularly deal with public records knows how to access them). Now is the person who was behind the flyer account the same person who is behind all the continuous socking since? Does it matter? Someone with access to the various accounts has been socking. Deal with them as any other sock. Ultimately it doesnt make a difference who the person is, only what they are doing. And in this case its continuous and long-standing puppetry on a level with punch and judy. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Single-purpose account IP 91.237.86.201

IP 91.237.86.201 keeps engaging in disruptive editing and a prolonged edit war on the FB MSBS Grot article. On the surface the behaviour would simply appear to be nothing more than a grinding and tedious content dispute on a very low traffic page, however overtime (dispute first arose in January of 2021) IP's edits along with those of a couple other accounts appear to be rather suspicious for the following reasons: single-purpose accounts (accounts appear to edit a narrow subject area and overlapping articles), lurkers (user Military Galaxy Brain was dormant for 3 years from 2018 to 2021 and user Rzęsor for 10 years form 2012 to 2022), stylometry (all the listed users accused other editors who reverted them of "vandalism"[297] [298] [299][300]), chronology of edits (re-adding the exact same text first added by IP [301], then following revert same text re-added by users Military Galaxy Brain, Rzęsor, 2a00:f41:2883:368e:d7c:edad:fb4e:2d45 and 2A00:F41:2808:D4CE:852B:D481:89AA:A665. What's makes this unusual is that these accounts would enter the dispute month apart and re-add the exact same text first added by IP, and then the IP would jump in and again re-add the text in support of these accounts, kicking-off an edit war, when they were reverted [302]). I think that by themselves none of the listed items would add up to anything suspicious, but when looked at in full context they do appear that rather questionable. E-960 (talk) 18:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

• Also, I would like to note that the article was locked several times by Mifter, Deepfriedokra and El C due to disruptive editing by the above listed users. --E-960 (talk) 18:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

LuciferAhriman

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

I need help dealing with this Chinese or pro-Chinese editor, with weak English, poor understaning of sourcing and practically no understanding of Wikipedia policies. I have had to revert to practically every edit they made today [303] but they show no intention of stopping or slowing down.

As an example, supposedly this section merits a POV template because locations are "wrong". No information about how they are supposed to be "wrong". They also tagged every sentence of that section with a {{vc}}.

Now supposedly, the other name of Hot Springs, Chang Chenmo Valley is "India-China border". They reinstated that edit. No sources provided ever.

This is becoming disruption on steroids. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Support an indef. There might be some bones to pick with the ORF source but this is sheer disruption at display, probably accentuated by linguistic divide. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

"Kongka Pass" is a "border pass". this sentence is wrong,

"Kongka Pass" belong "border pass", not my definition.

Actually, "Kongka Pass" not locate on LAC, but near LAC.

Hot_Springs - India–China LAC - Kongka Pass

like

Gogra - India–China LAC - "Chinese: 温泉哨所_(阿克赛钦)"

like

Daulat Beg Oldi - India–China LAC - Tianwendian

understand?

Kongka Pass I write "location = Xinjiang, China
(claimed by lndia),
India–China border"

Kautilya3 always reverted "location = India–China border"

Actually, Kongka Pass now in China Control.

I never wanted to say the following:

undeniable, I think the person who modified my content is pro-India stance.

LuciferAhriman (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

The level of English in this post speaks for itself. Let me point out that there are still no sources forthcoming. To claim that a border pass belongs to one side and not the other is a new kind of strange logic. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:06, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

• At Special:PageHistory/Kongka Pass I'm seeing at least some progress toward responding to others' concerns. @LuciferAhriman: Do you understand the importance of citing sources for claims you add? Do you understand that this is especially important in a discretionary sanctions area like India? And do you understand that there is a difference between a country controlling some land and it being acceptable say, in the encyclopedia's voice, that that land is in that country? (If you don't understand that, please see cases like the Golan Heights and Crimea.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

NebulaOblongata

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

---

NebulaOblongata wishes to keep their rant on an article talk (2nd restore), in spite of me pointing them to WP:TALKNO. Is that a violation or not? Hemantha (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I suspect that TB refers to me and DW to Doug Weller? Their conduct has been concerning since long and I will file a request at AE. You might or might not choose to close this. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like another one of those attempts. Please inform me when you file a request at AE. Thanks, NebulaOblongata (talk) 20:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Admin, please note that the references to other users were removed by me after careful consideration. I realize that calling out other users was unnecessary. NebulaOblongata (talk) 19:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

NO has had multiple warnings about bad faith. And when User:Kautilya3 have then a DS alert it was reverted (not a problem and NO removes almost everything without archiving, making it hard to see their interactions with others) with the edit summary “wikilawyering much?” It’s only been an hour or so since I pointed out that their sarcastic reply to me on a talk page wasn’t conducive to collaborative editing. Doug Weller talk 20:16, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I am allowed to remove templates and warnings from my talk page that I don't appreciate. I like to keep my talk page clean. You are free to go through the talk page history. Quoting your talk page, "If I choose not to answer, that's my right." NebulaOblongata (talk) 20:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, as I said it’s not a problem other than making it hard for people to see, for instance, what warnings you’ve had so if they want to warn you they know what level warnings you’ve already been given. I and many others archive for transparency. Doug Weller talk 20:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Appreciate your response. NebulaOblongata (talk) 11:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - Hemantha, you are not expected to remove talk page posts even if they are "rants". If there are clear personal attacks, they can be warned on their user talk. That is as far as you can go. (There appears to be a new policy allowing WP:NOTAFORUM posts to be removed, but even this would have been considered impolite a couple of years ago.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:32, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

  Just as a point of order WP:NOTFORUM has been around since at least 2008. It’s not new. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

  In addition, WP:TPO is the guideline that ultimately deals with this. The current version also straight removal for cases of "harmful posts" which includes personal attacks, albeit noting this doesn't apply to merely uncivil posts and it can be controversial in cases of simple invective linking to WP:RPA for discussion on this. TPO also allows collapsing, moving or yes deleting/removing off-topic posts depending on the circumstances. I'm not going to go through all the history, but we can see in June 2007, an editor added mention of the controversial practice of removing personal attacks [304]. By 2010 we arrived at something akin to our current wording [305]. On the off-topic side, in August 2007 an editor added mention of deleting material "not relevant to improving the article" [306]. In 2010, this was changed to significantly limit straight removal/deletion, instead saying offtopic posts should normally be archived [307] but still allowing deletion in some cases with wording not that different from what we currently say although not mentioning collapsing. The collapsing bit was first added in some form in 2012 [308]. In other words, the idea that article talk page posts can never be removed or is always controversial is not supported by either the history or I'll add my experience which is significantly more than 2 years. Note this doesn't mean it's never controversial, as the TPG make clear, it can be. It really depends on the specific post and also the specific talk page. The more nonsense a page gets, generally the less tolerant we are of nonsense posts and so these will generally be more rapidly archived or yes straight removed, again depending on the specific post but also the editor dealing with it, mostly without any controversy. Note I make no specific commentary about the removal of that post. Nil Einne (talk) 04:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you Nil Einne for an excellent summary. I didn't know there was so much consideration given to this. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:59, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks, but your own diffs from as far back as far back as 2015, make me cautious about taking your comments about both TALKNO and NOTFORUM at face value. Hemantha (talk) 04:25, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

  Please don't go diff-hunting because there would be context around it which won't be clear unless you are an involved editor. Note also that the second diff invited the editor to repost after cleaning up their original post. The main reason for doing this is to ensure a productive discussion, not to punish an editor for a "rant". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:59, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

  Surely the same argument - of context and the need to ensure productive discussion - applies to talks not involving you as well? Or is that the prerogative of "experienced editors" only? Hemantha (talk) 12:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

  Aren't you an "experienced" editor yourself? I see you've been editing Wikipedia for nearly 10 years. NebulaOblongata (talk) 13:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

  Well, apparently that (not 10 years though) counts for nothing since I only have a normal brain, not a galaxy brain. Hemantha (talk) 13:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Continued BLP violations

After a BLP DS alert and me pointing them to WP:BLPCRIME, NebulaOblongata has now created another article, which labeled some suspects as perpetrators, based on a developing news article. Hemantha (talk) 05:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. Also, I appreciate your edits - those men are indeed accused and not yet convicted. But why did you delete the entire section? Also, why are you using this forum for resolving content disputes?

Note: Hemantha has a habit of hand-waving WP policy links without demonstrating how those policies are being violated. See (1) and (2).

Thanks! NebulaOblongata (talk) 09:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLPCRIME. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I have read the policy. It's quite well-written. I agree that "accused" is appropriate wording. I don't agree with section blanking, though. I am happy to hear your arguments. NebulaOblongata (talk) 11:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

So you restored BLP vios, but self-reverted after an admin comment? Good to know that to get you to understand policy, an admin needs to link it. Hemantha (talk) 13:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely. I decided to err on the side of caution and removed the names of the accused, even though they have been widely published across multiple news sources. Note: India has no law on the right to privacy. Nevertheless, in the broader scheme of things, it didn't seem to me like a hill not worth dying on. NebulaOblongata (talk) 13:13, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment

The talk page comment was discussing the edit pattern of a particular user. I didn't use ad hominems or personal attacks. The text where I pointed to other uninvolved users was removed by me after Hemantha deleted my comment. Please take an unbiased look at the talk page comment and evaluate if any policy has been violated. I would request the admin looking into this matter to please also have a look at the ongoing content dispute that I have been having with Hemantha, where they have been blanking entire sections of articles under the guise of BLP violations. I see this as an attempt to take punitive action against me for reverting their edits. Note: Hemantha has still not been able to point out what part of WP:TALKNO was violated by my comment. I would be interested in seeing what they think was violated. NebulaOblongata (talk) 09:54, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

See also the talk page comments here:Talk:Criticism of Muhammad#Mention of accusations of pedophilia in lead responding to me and User:WikiLinuz. Doug Weller talk 11:12, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

What about them? NebulaOblongata (talk) 11:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh, it's (link) not just at BLPN (link), but also here. That makes sense. El_C 12:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Banned and COI

I see that this user is now banned by Bbb23. In case of a request for unblock, I did want to note that I've been able to pin him down as another EXMNA sockpuppet. At least two different EXMNA employees have previously made three major attempts to revise the WikiIslam article in violation of WP:COI. NebulaOblongata is the same employee behind 2600:1700:20C0:F600:3DAD:50EE:2F11:EE01 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) as well as other IP addresses identified on the article's talk page on the same subnet editing the article and Editor atlas (talk · contribs). I have not had time to write a detailed memo and submit it to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org, as I did for users Underthemayofan and RubiconForder. However, interested administrators may ask me for the evidence I've compiled or ask me to submit it to the paid-en-wp queue—I can't post my findings due to WP:OUTING. Snuish (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Noting that Hemantha is blocked for sockpuppetry, appealable only to ArbCom. This does NOT mean the decision was in error, but it should be mentioned. Doug Weller talk 07:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Field's mall shooting

Page protection and possible rev deletion needed at Field's mall shooting. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Page protection put in place by Sdrqaz. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Repeated addition of fictitious entry on 2022 in archosaur paleontology with unreliable source.

• CuddleKing1993 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 69.40.207.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 98.16.29.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A few weeks ago, CuddleKing1993 added a fake pterosaur taxon to the 2022 in archosaur paleontology page, supported by a source that does not mention the name they added. After I reverted them, they approached me on my talk page, implying that they added it because they wanted to see more of a certain type of pterosaur. I told them to wait for an actual scientific paper, but two other IP's continued to add the fake taxon. Given the "MOAR KEM KEM DINOSAURS!" on the CuddleKing's user page, which perfectly describes the agenda of the last user I reported here, I believe these IP's are all connected.

On a tangentially-related note, CuddleKing also has a fair share of problematic behaviors, such as changing the dates dinosaurs lived because they personally don't believe it, calling it "false hope", "r*pe", "heresy", and "blasphemy". The latter comment implies they do this because they want the dates to support their fan remake of Walking with Dinosaurs, which raises doubts about their true reason for being on this encyclopedia.

Atlantis536 (talk) 00:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Atlantis536, this is from April, so it is now Stale. While I'd have blocked indef for that truly unhinged attack (which I WP:REVDEL'd), another admin did warn them about it, so I'm not sure there's much to do there. El_C 12:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

IP - Racist Edit Summaries at Jeffrey Sachs

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

IP has made two edits at Jeffrey Sachs with racist/problematic edit summaries [309] [310]. This is on the back of similar edits from another IP yesterday (175.203.204.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). Might need temporary protection of that page. Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP, and revdelled one of the edit summaries; not sure the second one warrants it, no objection to someone else revdelling it if they see fit. I've also protected the page for a couple of days. Best Girth Summit _(blether) 07:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Anyone know how this IP is able to edit so quickly?

2A02:C7D:F01A:2400:1567:8923:5076:6600 (talk · contribs) Doug Weller talk 11:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I've done that before a number of times and I've never used any tools for anything, ever. I just set up all the tabs then click submit from one to the next really fast. (Note: /64) El_C 12:10, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

3-4 edits per minute of the same type? I see nothing untoward about that, unless I'm missing something. Mackensen (talk) 13:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks folks. I guess that's sufficient. Doug Weller talk 13:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Adderall helps too. :) NebulaOblongata (talk) 13:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Edit summary need redaction (RD2, RD3)

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

---

An admin needs to redact the edits of the last two IPs on Yazidism.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yazidism&action=history] Thanks. Semsûrî (talk) 13:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

There's also some vulgar comments here[311]. Semsûrî (talk) 13:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Series of personal attacks by "new" IP-editor at Talk:GrapheneOS

Skimming today's additions should be clear enough.[312] Looking at WP:NPA responding guidance, IP User Talk page or article Talk page discussion does not seem appropriate or likely to be fruitful. I would like to see the comments removed. If something could be done to reduce SPA, IP and Puppet accounts at GrapheneOS and Talk:GrapheneOS, that would be great too. Latest IP Geolocation is Toronto Canada, home of GrapheneOS, unless it has changed since the days of CopperheadOS. Note related open SPI investigation, and admission there of editing with multiple accounts by Anonymous526, Anonymous874.[313]. Will follow by notifying IP. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) OP was banned for WP:3RR violations a 3RR violation less than two weeks ago, and seems to have continued disruptive editing in this topic after their partial block ended; I've also warned OP with {{Uw-disruptive2}} (Special:Diff/1096455200). There is definitely a surge of new SPAs in the article and its talk page, including the IP mentioned in OP. The comments by IP seem to reflect to OP's previously sanctioned behavior, which may be continuing. I'm concerned said IP editor may also have conflict of interest in the subject, and also isn't referencing their claims to any sources, so I understand 142.'s behavior to be troubling. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 16:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC); edited 16:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Please review 84.250.14.116 recent actions as well. Obviously, I do not need to notify them of being added to this. After "apologizing" and saying they were "disengaging",[314] and after I said my "goodbye",[315] they continue to "engage" at my Talk page.[316] Please stop it. In conjunction with recent tweets linking to my talk page, in my view, it has become WP:HOUNDING. I would like it to stop, and I wish for no more messages from 84.x at my User Talk. They can take any constructive discussions related to articles to article Talk or noticeboards, etc. I am doing my best to "slow my roll" and avoid 3RR again. Of course numerous single purpose accounts and IPs are not helping. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Consider your request acknowledged from now on. I came here, because I saw 142.'s edits at the article talk and was about to leave a message about their behavior, but found out this AN/I case had already been opened. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 17:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC); edited 17:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

The "recent tweets" claim seems to be baseless or unsourced, somehow used in conjunction with a claim against me. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 18:08, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Nevermind, I've found tweets from Micay that seem to be referred to. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 18:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive new user

Омарова Гулпият Рабадановна (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Гулпият Мадина Омарова (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
176.98.158.31 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
45.132.253.56 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

These Russian IPs and this account who are obviously the same person have been engaging in a significant amount of screwing around in behind the scenes areas over the last few weeks and are making an enormous amount of mess in the process. They do not appear to be here to build an encyclopaedia. I do not think that many, if any, of the edits they have made outside of article space have actually been productive.

They have wasted a load of time with ridiculous deletion nominations, which consist of them just copying and pasting a closing statement from some other discussion and used it as a nomination statement [317] [318] [319] [320] [321].

They have tagged a load of pages for speedy deletion under criteria that blatantly do not apply [322] [323] [324]

They have made a mess adding pages to inappropriate categories, e.g. adding category pages to the category for files nominated for deletion [325] [326] [327]

They have made a mess trying to get rid of category redirects, replacing them with plain redirects [328] [329] [330]

As an account they are now mucking around making a load of ridiculous and useless templates, like {{Deleteslow}} {{Article for move}} and {{Article for protection}}

Some kind of intervention is needed here. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 17:10, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Also User:Гулпият Мадина Омарова, and I filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Омарова Гулпият Рабадановна before seeing this. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:28, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I also edit conflicted with you adding that account to this report. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 17:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

• Both blocked by Bbb23. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Addition of copied content to multiple articles

By Markpravda1 (talk · contribs). In most instances it's a sentence or two, lifted pretty much verbatim from sources. Seems right to let an admin decide whether these merit rev/deletion. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3AA4 (talk) 17:59, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Wrong number vandal from Pittsburgh

• 2601:280:C281:70C0:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Someone from Pittsburgh using the IP range Special:Contributions/2601:280:C281:70C0:0:0:0:0/64 has been vandalizing multiple articles by slightly changing dates and numbers.[331][332] Everything they have ever done has been reverted. Can we put a stop to the disruption? Binksternet (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikihounding - SPECIFICO

Hello Administrators!

I perceive that I have been wikihounded by the user SPECIFICO for quite some time by now.

I have really appreciated some of the users edits, so it is a bit sad to have to do this. But I really think this has gone war too far since it has been going on for months by now.

You can see a overview here. But there is also specific examples down below of when I edit a page which SPECIFICO previously has not paid any attention too, and then just happens to show up. https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py?users=Pauloroboto&users=SPECIFICO&users=&startdate=19950502&enddate=20220621&ns=&server=enwiki

Please see the green spoiler down below for a couple of links to individual cases. Please note that Specifico has never edited any of these pages before me. So it is either one really unlikely coincidence, or a clear case or wikihounding.

The user also have engaged in a similar pattern with another user by the name of @NadVolum. As as pointed out by the user @192.76.8.89 See link below: https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py?users=SPECIFICO&users=NadVolum&users=&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki

(I have have however not had enough time to investigate if this is the case with even more users.)

I would like to thank @FormalDude for encouraging me to take this to ANI when I asked for help in the IRC-channel.

Kind regards, Pauloroboto

Pauloroboto (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

OP is a single purpose account that is inserting UNDUE Marxian narratives in various articles where they either need to be attributed as such or where they are FRINGE or UNDUE. Several editors have asked them to slow down, use talk, refreain from reinserting disputed content, etc. Correcting OP's ping of @FormalDude: above. SPECIFICO talk 19:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi!

Since we have talked about this on numerous occasions by now, I am going to be brief in my reply to save both you and the Admins time.

Regarding the single purpose accusation:

It is easy enough to establish that this claim of yours is false. I edit on numerous topics which anyone, including you, can clearly see in my history. Much of your editing could probably be grouped in a category such as "conservatism in the united states" or "the far right", with large numbers of edits on sites such as: Donald Trump, Stefan Molyneux, Murray Rothbard, Austrian School, Mises Institute, Racial views of Donald Trump, but that does not at least in my understanding of it make you a single purpose account. You merely edit a lot on topics which you seem interested in, and that's probably good in the big picture since it drives the pages you edit forward due to others disagreeing. But if you beg to differ I would be glad to hear you out on that.

Regarding your accusation regarding that I write marxian narratives:

I do not really care much about politics. I care about spreading knowledge. (I wish you were there the times I have debated marxists. They usually are not very fond of me to say the least.)

Regarding your claim that other authors think I edit too fast etc: Several authors have worked alongside and together with me, and I at least perceive that we have had fruitful exchanges. Typically they have been more experienced and constructively suggested what I should do to improve articles. So I do really think I have any particular issues with other editors. You are the only editor that have been engaging with me for months on end and are seemingly following my every step. Thanks for correcting the Ping. Kind regards // Pauloroboto Pauloroboto (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

The accusation that SPECIFICO hounded NadVolum is pretty nonsensical and appears to be a very transparent excuse for canvassing (NadVolum has previously disagreed with SPECIFICO). I don't know why Pauloroboto links the editor interaction analyser, which clearly shows that SPECIFICO was the first to edit almost all pages listed. 129.67.119.80 (talk) 20:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi! I would like to clarify that I merely included NadVolums case since another editor thought is was a similar disruptive behavior, which I thought could help clear this situation up. Sorry if it did more bad than good //Pauloroboto Pauloroboto (talk) 20:44, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Hounding says, "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." It only crosses the line if it is done "to cause distress." If SPECIFICO's statement is correct, then it was appropriate. You need to provide differences to show that this was inappropriate. TFD (talk) 20:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for your reply TFD. You are very welcome to check the links I have provided to the individual cases. You can for example see the most recent case: https://sigma.toolforge.org/timeline.py?users=Pauloroboto&users=SPECIFICO&users=&page=Situationist+International&startdate=19950502&enddate=20220704&server=enwiki which is a edit I clearly think is unreasonable. The situationists were clearly in this tradition of thought. One does not have to know many quotes from Guy Debord on the top of your head to know this. This is causing distress since is does not exactly help in building a encyclopedia. I perceive that I am being stopped from inserting content that SPECIFICO does not agree should be on Wikipedia. But not due to that it is not noteworthy or otherwise. But merely because she seems to unlike the content. Even when it does not in fact seem to interfere with any policy, hence the edits and their motivations seems to be published in a perfunctory manner. Requests regarding what I can do to improve the situation also seldom seem to lead to anything constructive. //Pauloroboto Pauloroboto (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I do not see that the sidebar you added (Critique of work) to Situationist International meets the criteria required. The Critique article has a section on Guy Debord, who was a founder of the Situationist International, while the International article does not mention the Critique of work. Incidentally, Debord is included in the sidebar for Critique of work. TFD (talk) 00:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

• Pauloroboto, SPECIFICO is an extremely experienced editor, and you'd be advised, per the important guideline WP:BRD, to start a discussion on the talkpage of every article where you have been reverted by him, and attempt to create consensus for your views/edits (a practice he has already advised you to undertake), rather than reporting him to a noticeboard. Until you can demonstrate that you have done so in good faith in each instance, and abided by WP:CONSENSUS and other Wikipedia policies and guidelines, this report is going nowhere. I would like to also mention that a cursory glance at your editing history does seem to confirm, generally speaking, his identifying you as a Marxist SPA. Softlavender (talk) 04:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

  Hi! Thanks for your response. I think the BRD is a healthy process, and it usually solves issues. But not with SPECIFICO. I find it strange that I seem to be able to work constructively with other users. I have on multiple occasions tried to engage with SPECIFICO in a constructive matter, something which SPECIFICO does not always seem to be very keen on.

  For example see the page: August Strindberg's Little Catechism for the Underclass. The claims regarding that the content was unsourced was simply false. Which anyone who reads the page I published can see. One does not even have to pick up a copy since it is available online. (Yes the first draft was mostly from a first hand source, but I since added secondary sources.) I would be happy to make the page more encyclopedic, but it becomes significantly harder to do that if the content is removed. And if I do a edit with major changes to it, to to improve the situation, that does most often not seem to be very appreciated either. I understand your perspective regarding the wp:consensus policy, but this is what it has come to since the conversation has broken down over time. To the point where I really have to force myself to take the stuff that's written seriously sometimes.

  For example: (The context here is regarding if the page economics should have a page on criticism of the field, their assumptions and practices etc.)

  "We could just as well have a page called Criticism of the human elbow or at least a section in Elbow. - "The elbow has been the subject of criticism throughout history, including that it suffers from tennis elbow, arthritis, and ugly-looking wrinkled skin on the back..." This kind of false equivocations really leaves one thinking; but does not really contribute much to a reasonable discussion. I have also stated my opinion on the accusation regarding that I supposedly merely care about a political theory that more or less has been dead since the 90's above. You may read it in the response to SPECIFICO. Kind regards // Pauloroboto Pauloroboto (talk) 14:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Worldoffacts101

Worldoffacts101 is clearly not here to build an encyclopaedia; all of their edits ([333], [334], [335], [336], [337], [338], [339]) are unsourced additions to the biographies of Sebastian Croft and Kit Connor, two actors in the Heartstopper series on Netflix. —QueenofBithynia (talk) 20:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@QueenofBithynia: User has been blocked. Nythar (talk) 20:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive IP range

Every edit from 41.150.243.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for the last week or so has been deleting all the links and citations from various articles. A range block might be warranted. MrOllie (talk) 20:47, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Persistent disruption by User:CreecregofLife

CreecregofLife (talk · contribs) is currently engaged in several edit wars on multiple articles, including Washington Commanders (where they have now as I write this just violated WP:3RR after deleting the warning notice on their talk page). Also at Lightyear (film) and reverting moves at Channel 3 (Thailand). They do not understand policy, and do not listen when it is explained to them. There are many many edit warring notices and other warnings about disruptive editing on their talk page. They have been reported to ANI three times this year with the most recent in May closed due to a technicality. This user appears to be WP:NOTHERE. They are WP:BLUDGEONING discussions at Talk:Lightyear (film) and Talk:Channel 3 (Thailand), against current local consensus. Pinging users who may be able to provide better insight into this disruptive behaviour: @Anon0098, BD2412, BrownHairedGirl, Magitroopa, and Floquenbeam:. Best wishes Polyamorph (talk) 05:51, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Just because I disagree with you doesn’t mean I’m not here to contribute. I am not currently in any edit wars just because you claim me to be. I have every right to remove your warning from my talkpage whether you think it’s warranted or not. It is very clear at this point that I am being held to an impossibly high behavioral standards where everyone is allowed to flippantly label my behavior as out of line so they can ping everyone else who has ever flippantly labeled me. Where is it in policy that you are allowed to frame what’s going on exactly as you have. Why is it that whenever there’s an edit war, it’s never been those who disagree with me, but it’s always me, regardless of what actually happened? How am I supposed to contribute to this wiki if I’m going to automatically be labeled an edit warrer regardless of whether I actually did it or not? How am I supposed to talk it out on the talk page if I’m going to be accused of bludgeoning when everyone else is allowed to reinforce the same points without labeling? This is an obvious ploy to sweep me out as opposition CreecregofLife (talk) 06:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd just like to comment on the "obvious ploy to sweep me out as opposition" remark. I have very little interest in media or sports articles, the user only came to my notice after an admin posted on Talk:RM that they were having trouble with the user reverting their page move in violation of WP:RMCM. Since then the user continued to defy the calm logic and reasoning of experienced editors and administrators regarding policy. When this happens where else to take it but ANI? Polyamorph (talk) 06:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

• I've blocked for 24 hours for the willful 3RR violation at Washington Commanders. I must say I'm rather concerned about the above comment; it seems to represent a deep misunderstanding of the edit warring policy (implying that one is only edit warring if one is wrong). I don't like the idea of blocking someone from an AN/I thread that's just been started about them, so I've limited the block to one from mainspace and talkspace, but instructed CreecregofLife to treat it as a block from all pages except this one and their talk. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
  • ... and this inspires even less confidence. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

  Then please explain how an edit war doesn’t leave both blocked. Why is only one side blocked in an edit war. How is it chosen who’s exempt from getting blocked for edit warring when there is clear edit warring CreecregofLife (talk) 06:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

  Surely, after 14,000 edits, you have heard of the three-revert rule? If you'd like to make a case that any of the three users who reverted you were edit-warring, you may do so, but 3RR is a bright-line rule. Deliberately crossing it (such as by making the fourth revert right after removing an edit-warring warning) leads to a block. It's been that way since 2005 or so. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

  1) One doesn’t need 3RR to be edit warring

  2) Charles reverted me twice, making non-constructive edits and did not make any edit-warring deterring moves, just reverts

  3) I cited guidelines as my third revert, and was called edit warring right then and there before I violated anything. It is clear that Polyamorph, the user who brought me here with dirty laundry, was trigger-happy and motivated by previous experience

  I am sick and tired of constant personal attacks against me going unchecked, in fact being encouraged in this very venue. Constant incivility against me while I try to keep my cool. I refuse to let this case go forward, as this is clear hounding and ganging up, painting me as some monster who isn’t even allowed to acknowledge the painting is being done. I am not a recurrent edit warrer and it is in no way frequent or valid enough for that language to continue to be used. I have had to stay up into the latest hours of the night defending myself here because I can’t get a goddamn break. I want to continue editing here, and there is absolutely no reason why I shouldn’t be allowed to CreecregofLife (talk) 06:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

• I have been planning to make an ANI post for a few days and quite frankly I'm not surprised someone beat me to it. CreecregofLife has been engaged in an edit war for the past week at Lightyear (film), and blatantly violates WP:BRD. Many users have attempted to compromise with CreecregofLife, but have been reverted or stonewalled/bludgeoned through nonsensical arguments in Talk:Lightyear (film) and two back-to-back instances of page protection requests. Instances of compromise such as [[340]] (the word disappointment had previously recieved full consensus) have been met with immediate reverts such as [[341]] with nonsensical edit summaries. Again, this has been a constant issue for about a week now. Additionally, I have been made aware by another user of instances of similar behavior on Talk:Star Trek: Discovery, Talk:Star Trek: Picard, and Draft talk:Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse, although I did not participate in those discussions.

As Polyamorph aluded to, CreecregofLife has a vibrant history [[342]] on ANI. The most recent ruling reads By my review, both editors did not violate WP:3RR, and both did violate WP:EW. Because a compromise has now been reached, which supports neither version the editors were edit warring about, blocks would no longer be preventative. But to be clear, if either User:CreecregofLife or User:U-Mos edit war again, here or some other page, it will likely be resolved with blocks. Hopefully this warning is "preventative" enough. A warning before a block during each episode of edit warring is most certainly not required, and should not be counted on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:34, 10 May 2022. Clearly this was not preventative enough. CreecregofLife has a long history of edit wars and bludgeoning without any compromising, has recently engaged in this across multiple pages, and I highly suspect will continue to regardless of any warnings or temporary blocks given here. Thanks for your time, Anon0098 (talk) 06:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

That whole first paragraph is a bunch of lies. You didn’t have consensus, you didn’t attempt to compromise, you just kept putting back the original stuff, which means to you, the entire discussion didn’t matter. Which means you were putting the page back the way you wanted. The discussion was very much ongoing yet you ignored everything about it. The reverts were completely justified, and thus the page protection had to be put in. If you actually look at the two Star Trek discussions, it shows that I am here to contribute through civil discussions. The thing is, the person who Anon was contacted by is a participant in the discussion, an anonymous IP who has openly stated they want to destroy my presence here just because they didn’t get their way in the discussion. You can see it in each of their contributions. I suspect IP71 approached them through email. This isn’t a fair assessment of my behavior at all CreecregofLife (talk) 06:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

My assertions are sourced. But one note just to clarify for the admins, the use of the term "box office bomb" is supported by the majority of editors, as shown in a subsequent discussion in Talk:Lightyear (film)#Consensus on "box office bomb". I was still willing to compromise by using language propositioned by others which everyone agreed with (disappointment) in Talk:Lightyear (film)#Box-office bomb?, and which CreecregofLife did not object to at the time, but it was still reverted, which is what leads me to believe they are WP:NOTHERE. Anon0098 (talk) 06:58, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) CreecregofLife appears to be referring to your edits and reverts on June 27th, where you were reverted by both Indagate and InfiniteNexus, prior to being reverted by CreecregofLife. After that, you then created the discussion on the talk page where you both seemed to misunderstand the other.

However, I am no longer sure that half of the misunderstanding was an accident given what CreecregofLife said above. The thing is, the person who Anon was contacted by is a participant in the discussion, an anonymous IP who has openly stated they want to destroy my presence here just because they didn’t get their way in the discussion. That does sound like a farfetched claim to make. Only, there is evidence to CreecregofLife's claim. C.Fred has already warned that IP address three times to leave CreecregofLife alone or risk getting banned. Said IP then went on a rant against CreecregofLife where they said, Well, if you want, I can REALLY harass him and I can do it from multiple IPs since you appear to think it's such a big deal. (Emphasis mine.)

If you are wondering why I am bothering to go over this, it is because you have been interacting with said IP in a very interesting manner. You are also hiding messages for them to read, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Persistent disruption by User:CreecregofLife was created today. Feel free to share your experiences if you want' <!--Or just get the popcorn--> (Again, emphasis mine.) Do you have any response to this, Anon0098? --Super Goku V (talk) 14:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Not surprised that here we are yet again. This user, the one being reported, needs to be indefinitely blocked sitewide already. It's clear they are WP:NOTHERE. And all they keep doing is making pathetic excuses for their behavior and never once accepting responsbility. Amaury • 06:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. CreecregofLife is basically one of those editors who "is always right, and everyone else is wrong", and all these "wrong" people are "bad". This is now, what? at least the fourth ANI report filed against them them in the last few months?! (which doesn't include the bogus report they filed against me) – just check the ANI archives if you don't believe me. There comes a point where it's clear that some editors are just WP:NOTHERE to edit collaboratively – they are either unwilling or unable. A 24 hour block is not going to solve this problem. It's likely time for a WP:Standard offer. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

How many times do I have to accept responsibility? How many times does it have to be that nobody else’s actions are considered? I can’t control who calls me an edit warrer, I can’t control that people don’t leave my past alone, and when they don’t leave my past alone, cherry-pick only the bad stuff so they can claim I’ve only ever been bad. How can you continually say I’m not here to build an encyclopedia after 14,000 edits of building an encyclopedia?. One of the people here has already been compromised by someone who sought to have me harassed and destroyed, someone who filed a bogus ANI report a month after the fact as part of their escalations. I do not deserve to be treated like this. My block should not extend past 24 hours. CreecregofLife (talk) 07:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I said you are "WP:NOTHERE to edit collaboratively" – an incredibly important distinction. I don't think anyone is accusing you of not trying to improve the encyclopedia. But if you can't do that in a collaborate manner, and one in which you actually understand and follow guidelines and policies (e.g. WP:3RR), then you are actually not helpful to the process of encyclopedia building. Based on your trackrecord, it does not appear that you can, and you have shown no ability to learn from your mistakes and improve your behavior. There comes a time when certain editors just need to take a break from this, and rethink their approach to editing – I think many of us now think you have reached that point. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

You’re not reading my actual track record then. I’ve learned from my mistakes, that doesn’t mean the mistakes can’t be repeated. I’m sorry they have, but that doesn’t make your assessment of me correct CreecregofLife (talk) 07:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

How have you learnt from your mistakes? You have just been blocked for edit warring. This ANI thread was opened regarding your current disruptive conduct across multiple articles and talk pages. I'm very open to giving you the chance to redeem yourself, but first you must accept responsibility for your edit warring and accepting or local consensus (or even if you don't accept it learn to walk away). Polyamorph (talk) 07:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC) Striking this after reading the serious allegations below, I do not believe this user is capable of redemption at this time. Polyamorph (talk) 12:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You complain about an alleged bogus report being filed against you, yet you filed a bogus report against IJBall. So that's an invalid argument. If it were one user raising concerns about you, I could maybe understand. But there have been several different users now bringing up your disruptive behavior, either by creating an ANI discussion or by participating in an ANI discussion. It is clear you are the problem here. Amaury • 07:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Disagreeing with me doesn’t make me a problem. Not every encounter even listed was disruptive. You tell me to use the talkpage, I get accused of not being collaborative enough, it that I’m bludgeoning. You allege that I made a bogus ANI report against IJBall but the only time I ever made an ANI against them was when they were edit warring and you scolded me for pointing it out. Why the hell am I being brought here in the wee hours of the night in a hot apartment that I can’t turn the air on for because I should be sleeping but I can’t because a bunch of people decided it was time to muddling again, seeking to put my account in danger to the highest degree? You have dug me in an impossible hole. It’s not based on my behavior, it’s based on your perception of my behavior, carved out in a way that means I can never change said perception. CreecregofLife (talk) 07:30, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

If CreecregofLife is already admitting they probably should be blocked then I doubt a 24 hour block would do anything to change this pattern of behavior which has been raised by numerous editors over the span of several months. I agree it's likely time for a WP:Standard offer Anon0098 (talk) 07:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Where the hell did I admit that? CreecregofLife (talk) 07:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

My block should not extend past 24 hours.Anon0098 (talk) 07:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

That’s not an admission that I should be blocked, it’s me acknowledging that there is a 24-hour block from article and talk pages already in place. By god, please stop making false realities CreecregofLife (talk) 07:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Then I was mistaken, but your attitute is further proof of your incapability to WP:AGF. Please be civil here. Anon0098 (talk) 07:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Since you bring me into this conversation, don’t blame me for your behavior. Your interactions with others are what is the topic here and it is evident you repeatedly are having the same issues with others even though you’ve received a number of warnings in that regard. Being passionate about something is one thing but WP:BLUD is unwelcome and contradicts WP:AGF. In my interactions with you, you felt no hesitancy in calling myself and the other editor racist and sexist because we did not share your viewpoint. Even if I want to acknowledge some validity in your arguments, your response makes it impossible to interact with you and the same tenor is evident in your comments here. I don’t consider myself as having any kind of ‘status’ being an IP user but your behavior is abusive and in opposition with the spirit of the project. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 12:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @71.190.233.44: This is a very interesting reply given that you have been warned before to leave CreecregofLife alone or risk getting banned. To which, you replied, Well, if you want, I can REALLY harass him and I can do it from multiple IPs since you appear to think it's such a big deal. Additionally, you have said that you ...would best be described as someone among the untouchables... when you replied to another user, accusing them of being part of a group working together. (Again, emphasis mine.) Which is interesting, given the secret messages you sent to another user that you later insisted be deleted. Given that the secret message is a discussion about CreecregofLife, I believe it is very clear why you would want that removed, given C.Fred's warning. It is hardly surprising that CreecregofLife is struggling here given this. Do you have anything you would like to say to this, 71.190.233.44? --Super Goku V (talk) 15:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

With all that I've mentioned at previous ANIs regarding this user, including most of their history of past edit warring on Wikipedia, I'm not quite sure what more needs to/should be said (Also the fact that it's 5am for me and I'm not reading through all of this right now... maybe later tomorrow/today). I've completely lost count. The only good(?) thing I'd mention is that this is possibly their first ANI since either April or May (not even 100% sure about that)... but the fact that we're here discussing this right now shows that they've not learned from the past... six? seven? eight? more? ANI threads within the past 7 months.

The only rest I'll say right now is:

1) Things such as this and this seem to show that even after the 24 hour block expires, the same behavior is likely continue (just like in the previous ANIs regarding this user).

2) Back in a December 2021 3RR report, an administrator said that the phrase 'needlessly combative' applies to Creecreg (as well as to the other user involved in that edit warring instance)- clearly nothing has changed in the months since then.

3) A separate administrator in a previous ANI closed it due to socking, also saying, "...it is entirely possible you've escaped trouble on a technicality."- Creecreg didn't/doesn't think so.

Any amount of evidence regarding that never-changing combative behavior here is just shown in response with, "You're all just attacking me!" and even the above, "Disagreeing with me doesn’t make me a problem"- I wouldn't be surprised if an WP:IDHT behavior like this extends the block further than the current 24 hour block. Magitroopa (talk) 09:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

• I'm from the Lightyear page and I can corroborate the testimony presented above by Anon0098. CreecregofLife has been involved in various revert conflicts with at least three users from that page. Other times CreecregofLife would simply remove content and offer no edit summary at all, which seemed to me quite irresponsible. I had no idea this was a persistent behavior site-wide but frankly, I'm not surprised. The reverts got the page blocked for three days by an admin who named Edit warring/content dispute as the reason. In those three days, we had reached the consensus in the talk page that "box-office bomb" was an accurate label for the film yet CreecregofLife kept aggressively insisting otherwise. Some users in the discussion, including me, had proposed the term "box-office disappointment" as a compromise (to which CreecregofLife didn't object).

Now the page has been blocked again: Despite being told that his revert edit was unjustified because a consensus had been reached in the talk page [343], CreecregofLife reverted the edit anyway [344], which got the page blocked (protected) for five days (same reason as before: Edit warring). A follow up discussion confirmed again what we already knew: the majority supports the term being included in the article. Honestly, I'm reading what others here have said and this behavior does not seem to be an isolated incident nor a coincidence but a pattern in this user. CreecregofLife exhibits a general pattern of disruptive behavior (as per WP:CNH) and I share the concern with the other editors above when I say that a 24-hour block will not be sufficient to fix this. DemianStratford (talk) 9:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@Mifter: Courtesy ping to page protection admin. Polyamorph (talk) 10:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks for the ping, @Polyamorph:. My recente ecounter with CreecregofLife was utterly horrible. CreecregofLife demontrated persistently low comprehension skills, assumptions of bad faith, and topped it all off with a very nasty accusation.

It began with CreecregofLife serially reverting my AWB edits, without comment: contrary to WP:REVEXP, there was no note on my talk, no explanation in edit summaries. See e.g. these reverts: [345], [346], [347].

So I went to CreecregofLife 's user talk to open a discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CreecregofLife&oldid=1093968298#Reverts

It was an extremely difficult and unpleasant discusion. My AWB run was the culination of several days work of expanding shortcut refs to archive.today archive links: I had first scanned thousands of articles for the exiting refs, then run a Perl script for 3 days to get the full URLs (at low speed, to avoid hammering archive.today's servers), and the final stage was this run of AWB edits to deploy the long URLs.

Note that in every case, my edit summaries explained what I was doing and why. See e.g. this batch of 50 edits, or this example which was the one I raised on CreecregofLife's talk: [348], where the edit summary was replaced 5 archive.today URL(s) with more transparent URL from <link rel="bookmark".

That edit summary explains as best as could be done within editsummary length limts:

1. What: Replacing the short form URL with a longer one
2. Why: more transparent
3. Source: the arichive page's <link rel="bookmark" tag

But CreecregofLife did not comprehend that "more transparent" was the reason for the edits, and the discusison got ugly. I then tried to explain that @InternetArchiveBot does the same task when invoked, but CreecregofLife assumed that InternetArchiveBot was in fact an edit by me rather than an edit in my name my a bot, and reacted with hostility to my attempts to explain, accusing me[349] of more condescenesion.

Then @BD2412 added a brief note of support for my position,[350] which CreecregofLife rejected.[351]

At that point, I decided that further discussion was futile: my explanations were dismissed and labelled as condescension, and the usolicited third opinion from BD2412 had been rejected. So I posted a note to that effect.[352]:

CreecregofLife then posted a hostile response,[353] which falsely accused me of not taking ownership of my edits, and concluded There is no third opinion.

My reply[354] linking BD2412' post was removed[355] by CreecregofLife.

BD2412 then posted again in my support,[356], but that too was ignored.

Then an hour later I got a ping to the WP:TEAHOUSE, to thread now archived at WP:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1156#Informal_ban_on_Archive.today_shortlinks. CreecregofLife had decided to raise a complaint about me, without notifying me, and in an entirely inapproriate venue. Only a ping[357] by @CodeTalker alerted me to the discussion, but CreecregofLife replied[358] by accusing me of DARVO (see the article DARVO, which describes it as a tactic of particularly sexual offenders) and dismissed the ping as being like calling someone’s abuser when the confiding person is trying to get away from the abuser.

So my reward for trying to explain my work to CreecregofLife was a barrage of hostility culminating in explicitly likening me to a sexual offender.

I was very upset, and could not sleep that night. It took me three days to regain my equilibrium.

I have seen appalling conduct on Wiki before, but I have never before encountered an editor with such a toxic combination of low comprehension, ABF, hostility, and vicious pinning of a deeply defamatory label on me. CreecregofLife should have no place on Wikipedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

PS I think that the suggestions above of WP:Standard offer are misplaced.

It is theoretically possible that CreecregofLife may decide to be less combative, although personally I think that labelling another editor as a sexual offender should be treated as grounds for a permaban.

However, the persistent problem of CreecregofLife's low comprehension skills will not change in six months. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I will call for CreecregofLife to be indef blocked based on this information coming to light. Completely incapable of functioning collaboratively. WaltCip-(talk) 13:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

FYI- "I don’t want to wait months to edit again just because of grudges" Nothing was learned from all the previous ANI threads, and that recent comment from Creecreg seems to show that they've learned nothing from the ongoing 24-hour block. In conjunction with the above comments from BHG, it is quite clear that they are (at least, at the current time) incapable of collaboratively editing on Wikipedia. Personally, I would suggest an indef block with the standard offer after a minimum amount of time (6 months?) since that recent comment seems to indicate they (once again) do not see anything they've done wrong whatsoever and will likely take any means necessary to return to editing ASAP.

I've seen most of the things people have mentioned here, but some of the new stuff to me (such as BHG's comments) are truly disgusting to read about. Even putting all the many edit wars they've been involved in aside, they should likely be indeffed for this alone, as there should be no tolerance for this kind of behavior here. Magitroopa (talk) 14:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

IP vandal making racist attacks

User 211.168.108.125 is making racist attacks on pages African Americans in California and African-American neighborhood: [359] and [360] are the two diffs. GTNO6 (talk) 07:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

And taken care of with a 31h block by Materialscientist. Just a note for next time, Wikipedia:AIV is much better suited for vandalism by IPs. MiasmaEternal☎ 09:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Zubryckiy and personal attacks

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

The user have not made a single good edit recently on the English Wikipedia, they are only engaged in the pro-Ukrainian POV pushing. I have blocked them previously, but they continued the pushing. Now, when I warned them, they started attacking me in Ukrainian (they clearly assume that I am Russian though my user page says I am Dutch). Every time anybody personally attacks me in Ukrainian, which I do not speak, I always answer in Dutch. I did the same here, replying that I am not Russian, and they replied with trolling in Ukrainian. Given zero useful contribution and a previous block could we please block them long-term or indefinite. Ymblanter (talk) 10:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that their only purpose is to POV push on Ukrainian naming regardless of any sourcing or policy or guideline. I do not see any hope that this will change. -- ferret (talk) 11:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Revdel request

I have left a message on the IP's Talk page, but I'm thinking that this and this, being stark violations of WP:NOTFB, should be revdeled before things get out of hand. Thanks. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)