Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

 – Moved by @Beshogur in diff1 and diff2 – 2804:F1...58:A5F8 (talk) 21:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user is WP:NOTHERE.

Some of his edits on Keraites:

• "Corrected" (removes 'Turkic')
• [1] (removes another text)
• [2] (reverting to this edit, claiming it need valid reason)
• "I need a source that would suggest that Khereids were Turkic" (article literally states It is unclear whether the Keraites should be classified as Turkic or Mongol in origin. The names and titles of early Keraite leaders suggest that they were speakers of Turkic languages,)
• "Still waiting for sources"

Bashkirs:

• [3] (adds a random spelling that doesn't even appear in the article)
• [4] (removes a source for census, and adds ^{[citation needed]})
• [5] (rv 1)
• [6] (rv 2 with no edit summary again)

Also similar edit warring on Kazakhs, see edit history. Beshogur (talk) 18:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for notifying me of the notice board discussion. You may not accuse me of WP:NOTHERE. Vofa (talk) 18:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We may accuse you of that, otherwise the concept wouldn't exist—the question is whether it is the case. Remsense ‥ 论 18:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also I am considering quitting Wikipedia because of pressure from other politically motivated editors and erasure of my contributions, I wonder what kind of pressure. Beshogur (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was mistaken, so I erased the said message. I was not politically targeted. To answer your claims, I have added the source for the Bashkurd spelling. You have also removed the assumed flag of Keraites (which you should not have done without editorial consensus) You have also labelled the last version of the Keraites page as “pre-edit war” which is not true. I have then reverted the page to the version before my first edit. You reverted it too. Vofa (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am editing this Keraites page, etc. for years,

this was added later by whom idk, and there is no single indication that this is a tamga of the Keraites, so there is no reason for a consensus. And the page initially had Turco-Mongol lead, which was changed later. Beshogur (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you prove that it was that way before?^[when?] You can see that the version before my edits was “Mongols|Mongol]] or Turkic” regarding their possible linguistic groups. Historians cannot tell which group they belonged to. You should not assume that they had a Turco-Mongol lead, which would not add up with the tradition itself, and would disagree with a set of historians and sources. As the Keraites arose in 10-11th centuries. You must back up the erasure of the supposed flag of the ethnic group. I need you to present sources for the assumption that Mongolic peoples had a tamga. You may be mistaking the unrelated Kerei clan in Kazakhstan with the Keraites. Vofa (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bashkurd (Beshgurd) is a historical ethnonym for the Bashkir/Bashkort people widely used in historical sources by a variety of European and Russian ethnologists up until today. I am here to make an encyclopaedia. I have provided a source for that spelling in English. It should stay up. Furthermore, I understood that edit-warring is not allowed on Wikipedia. I remember it was 3 reverts per user (not sure about specifics) I will not edit-war again and will talk to my mentor if I have any issues. Regarding Kazakhs, I have resolved the dispute. I believe the page should be protected. As for Keraites and Bashkirs I have recognised my mistakes and believe I have the right way of solving the dispute(s). I do recognise that the flag is attributed to a Kazakh tribe, not to Keraites. Vofa (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That’s called cherry picking and would mean that every editor involved in previous disputes on the topic may have wasted their time. I will wait for you to answer to this.

@Asilvering @Beshogur @Remsense Vofa (talk) 19:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, File:Kazakh_Tamga_Tortkara.svg was added by 宜蘭第一公民 on 6 June 2024. The file, which was created by 613 The Evil in 2017, is described as "Tortkara Tamga", with no other information provided. I see no indication of any sourcing for the image, which makes it eligible to be challenged and removed. Donald Albury 19:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Vofa (talk) 19:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to take any admin actions here, since Vofa contacted me ([7], [8]) before this AN thread was opened (I am not sure why this is here and not at ANI?), but it's my position that WP:NOTHERE is an absurd thing to say about this editor, who is making perfectly normal new-user edits and being reverted with unhelpful edit summaries like rv great improvement [9]. Vofa is clearly edit-warring (see the back-and-forths at Bashkirs and Keraites), but it takes at least two to edit war, and the only talk page discussion I've seen so far is Talk:Bashkirs#Bashkurd, which was opened by Vofa. There has been, as far as I can tell, no attempt by OP to resolve this in any way other than a template notice and then a post here almost immediately thereafter. Communication and assumptions of good faith are sorely, sorely lacking here. -- asilvering (talk) 20:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering: sorry, my mistake, I was going to place this to ANI.

I still don't get what am I supposed to discuss about "Bashkurd" spelling. There is literally 0 of this spelling variant in the article. I don't get his purpose here. We can put 100s of spellings for every ethnonym.

Also this user, after all this discussion, still removed "Turkic" stuff from the lead from Keraites article. Also same thing applies for Turkiishh (talk · contribs), but doing the opposite.

This user is not the first one to call me something like politically motivated editor so I have been dealing these for years. Can you please tell me how this edit shouldn't be reverted? The article literally states they're likely of Turkic origin. Most of his edits is this way. Beshogur (talk) 21:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also other edits:

Turkic languages:

• Minor,corrected chart name Other possible relations -> Controversial pseudo-scientific theories (calls a legit theory, pseudo-scientific)
• Edited out vandalism,pan-Turkism,deleted obtuse theories. To discuss,please open a discussion. (removes sources again)
• Edited pseudo-scientific sources out (disproven) and names of researchers without any credentials. Discuss on talk page (removes sources again)
• Unedited some misinformation without sources

Another article:

Not vandalism,you are getting banned. (threatening another user to getting banned)

So this user always removes some source or his edits are always correct, but according to him, we're supposed to discuss whether he adds/remove anything. Beshogur (talk) 21:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't get his purpose here, the most useful thing you can do is to give an explanatory edit summary when reverting, and recommend that the editor who made a confusing edit talk about it on the talk page. "rv great improvement" is not that. Regarding "politically motivated", it's extremely common for people to believe that wikipedians are engaged in some form of political censorship. That editors who are reverted without much discussion or rationale conclude that we're trying to hide some truth or whatever is pretty understandable, given the circumstances. As experienced wikipedians, it's our obligation to assume good faith when dealing with other editors who don't yet understand community norms - that means accepting that the editor made those edits in an attempt to improve the encyclopedia (whether they did improve it or not), and respond to them with that in mind. If you don't have the patience to deal with some particular incident, I recommend referring the newbie in question to WP:TEA, which is frequented by editors, including admins, who are used to dealing with confused newbies. -- asilvering (talk) 22:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[10] Quarantining this page until admins come. sorry but what? Beshogur (talk) 21:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Article is protected as you're both edit warring. Please use the Talk. Star Mississippi 02:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Star Mississippi:, I asked for a page protection myself 8.5 hours ago you wrote this. @Daniel Case:

  Also this is getting ridivulous. This user should stop complaining about me on administrators articles. Another example of his behavior. Beshogur (talk) 08:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  ...what? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I mean Vofa targeting me on administrator talk pages. Beshogur (talk) 11:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You are not being "targeted". You both got into an edit war, you dragged this to AN, and now the best thing you can do is drop it and discuss the changes you want to make. Take the advice asilvering gave you above. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  So I need consensus because this used adds something controversial and I revert disruptive editing?. I thought it was the opposite? Maybe check this users edit history before commenting like this. Beshogur (talk) 14:45, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If your reversions amount to participating in an edit war, which they did, yes, you both need to stop editing the article and discuss your changes instead. Please follow WP:BRD. If you give a substantial, helpful edit summary when you revert Vofa, and start a collegial talk page discussion in which you assume good faith, and Vofa ignores that and reinstates their edit, then you're on much firmer ground and it's more likely that Vofa will be blocked for edit warring. If you don't do anything like that and then you're rude to uninvolved editors at ANI, it doesn't look very good. -- asilvering (talk) 15:45, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• We have a non-extended-confirmed user who has been warned about contentious topics in April but is edit-warring in an article which is clearly on the contentious topic issue. For me, this is an invitation for a block or a topic ban.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  On top of this, he has now started mimicking the start of this discussion, and is casting accusations of WP:NOTHERE against other editors. [11][12] I would think that the response Beshogur received here should have made it clear for Vofa also that such accusations should not be made lightly. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 06:43, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, that was absolutely not the lesson that ought to have been learned from this. -- asilvering (talk) 09:13, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  May I ask why we won't get page protection to prevent these things happening at the first place? I asked to Keraites and Bashkirs for pp, didn't get single time despite his tendentious editing. Also this user has full of personal attacks and such edits in his edit history, feel free to check his profile. Beshogur (talk) 11:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  All too often, that's the lesson that experienced Wikipedians repeatedly teach to newbies though. For some reason, a different outcome is expected even though things haven't changed much in over 20 years. 2602:FE43:1:46DD:3035:98DD:80A2:C560 (talk) 23:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I do not have time to look into this further this weekend, but if you or any other uninvolved editor thinks sanctions are needed, feel free. I protected the page in lieu of blocking both for edit warring. Star Mississippi 13:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Star Mississippi: Reverting vandalism is not edit warring. I showed this user's attitude towards other users, and edits on other articles, yet you blame me. I asked twice page protection and it was not awarded. Beshogur (talk) 14:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Beshogur, what Vofa is doing is not vandalism. Vandalism is someone making changes with an intent to disrupt the encyclopedia. This is very clearly a user who believes the best version of wikipedia includes the information they keep trying to reinstate. They might be wrong and they're certainly struggling to gain consensus for their edits, but that doesn't make them a vandal. -- asilvering (talk) 17:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok fine, thanks. Beshogur (talk) 18:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am having a lot of trouble determining if Closed Limelike Curves (talk · contribs) is editing voting articles boldly or disruptively. For example, they rewrote Primary election so that it referred to partisan primary elections, and then moved the article in mid-September, changing primary election to a disambig page, which triggered a fair number of semi-automatic updates. After I moved it back to the original title a week ago, he held a short discussion involving two (I think) other editors and declared there was consensus to move it back to his preferred title.

Over at Instant-runoff voting, there was a similar problem. He tried to start a discussion at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, but there seemed to be broad agreement that there was not a content dispute, but rather a problem with CLC's editing methods.

CLC is not a newbie - they've been editing like this for some time. Their request for Page Mover in August was denied because of too many reversals.

So... any suggestions on the best way to get this obviously-good-faith editor back on track? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that they are editing in good faith, behave civilly, and respond well to criticism of specific edits, but then keep coming back again and again with different angles to push a non-neutral pov into our voting system articles. I'm not entirely sure of their pov but it seems to involve the promotion of range voting and putting down instant runoff voting as an alternative, focused on their application to parliamentary elections to the exclusion of the many other applications of voting systems. For the latest see Talk:Instant-runoff voting § cherry picked and politically-motivated source in lede regarding an incident where they added a neutral and factual statement but chose an unreliable and non-neutral source. See also the other incidents I linked to at dispute resolution: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mutual majority criterion (2nd nomination), Template:Did you know nominations/Highest averages method, Talk:Arrow's impossibility theorem/GA2, and a user talk page thread from last August.

Given the long-term disruption that this has involved, the time sink this has produced for multiple other editors, and the distortion of the neutrality of our voting articles, my suggestion would be to push them to edit some other topic that might be less fraught for them than voting. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CLC is not a newbie

Worth noting I've only been making substantial edits for under a year, so I'm still pretty new.

I don't see the issue with requesting a move for the primary page—in addition to only requesting it (rather than moving it myself), 4 editors expressed support for moving the page to partisan primary to avoid ambiguity with nonpartisan primary (@Philosopher Spock, @Toadspike, and @McYeee) and making the primary page into either a disambiguation or broad-concept article. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 01:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CLC also started a move discussion on Talk:Smith set, and when I told Lime that we needed sources for the name, not "it makes more sense", they answered Are we not allowed to include "this term makes more sense to normal people" as a consideration at all, when choosing between multiple similarly-notable names? That would certainly have changed my behavior with regard to most of the moves I've made, since generally that's the justification I've used—in all these situations, the page move was from one common name in the literature to another, similarly-common name that I think is more intuitive or memorable to the average person. On a new article, this would make sense, but after 13 years at a title, I think we need a bit more than that. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...huh. TIL there's a completely different policy for page moves than there is for edits. (In body text there's no presumption against changing things—"I think this phrasing is better" is a perfectly valid reason for an edit.) Sorry about that, then. I guess one more question:

Changing one controversial title to another without a discussion that leads to consensus is strongly discouraged.

When the policy says "controversial", does this mean something like "someone might like the old title better" (limiting undiscussed moves to stuff like fixing typos)? Or something closer to "the title is often the subject of dispute/disagreement"? – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "we're going to have to change the incoming links from several hundredthousand articles" is a decent indication of controversial. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then I'm back to being confused; doesn't the redirect left behind handle that automatically? – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 03:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't that problem caused by tagging the deleted article titled primary election as a disambiguation page and then people making semi-automated edits under the assumption that the tag was correct? Or is this a different incident? McYeee (talk) 04:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Involved editor here. Can you restore the deleted disambiguation to draftspace or userspace? I thought I remembered it having multiple editors, and that seems relevant to this thread. Regardless of how this thread goes, I'd also like to try to find those semi-automated edits again because they seemed to have a significant number of errors. McYeee (talk) 06:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance that this is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Soulspinr? Specifically the sock Ontario Teacher BFA BEd was very into electoral systems and prolific. The edits here and maybe [13][14] seem particularly striking. (This is not the result of a comprehensive check.) --JBL (talk) 00:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to run a sockcheck, but I don't think our interests overlap much. I think in the first edit we're expressing almost-opposite suggestions, though; I was thinking of using AMS as the name for what most people call MMPR, i.e. the New Zealand/devolved UK system, then expanding the scope of the MMPR article to discuss other kinds of mixed rules. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 17:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think CLC is a sock. Judging by the sockpuppet archive, Ontario Teacher BFA BEd and his socks seem to have focused considerably more on concrete political figures and Canadian politics, e.g. People's Party of Canada, Kevin O'Leary, and Justin Trudeau. Wotwotwoot (talk) 17:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some additional notes and corrections on this:

For example, they rewrote Primary election so that it referred to partisan primary elections and then moved the article in mid-September,

I didn't rewrite the article much, except for the minimum necessary to change the title. The article was already about partisan primaries. However, at the time the article was written, these were the only kind of primary elections, and so the article did not make a distinction. The title "partisan primary" is more explicit and less likely to cause confusion.

In this case, the move was a response to the semantic drift, with nonpartisan primary having become a common way to refer to the first round of a two-round system, after the states of California and Washington adopted this terminology. The consensus on the talk seems to agree that the majority of the article belongs at "partisan primary", with disagreement about whether the old title of "primary election" should be a disambig or an article (McYee and Toadspike supporting an article vs. PhilosopherSpock preferring a disambig).

changing primary election to a disambig page, which triggered a fair number of semi-automatic updates.

I believe someone else changed it to a disambiguation page, which is what caused the disruption. I left it as a redirect, which shouldn't have caused any issues. I'm a bit confused by this ANI since nobody seems to have raised any actual objections to the move, just questions about what to do with the redirect that got left behind. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 16:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

my view is that this editor is an intentional civil POV pusher with frequent diffs, additions, or wholesale rewrites to social choice related pages to make them 1. more focused specifically on political elections rather than objects of mathematical study and 2. to emphasize certain refrains common in the amateur election reform community, namely those around IRV and STV's ability to exhibit certain behaviors, and extended & out-of-place soapboaxing about cardinal utilities vs ordinal

When called out on specific technical concerns this editor is willing to play ball by Wikipedia's rules, but the pattern of behavior shows an extremely clear lack of objectivity and technical expertise. And it is quite the burden of work for other editors to keep up with correcting all the affected articles.

please see Talk:Instant-runoff voting#Lede once again has turned into a soapbox

and associated recent (enormous) diffs https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Instant-runoff_voting&diff=prev&oldid=1254146037 that had been actively being discussed on talk page without consensus Affinepplan (talk) 18:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One particular comment in the thread Affinepplan mentions above is where Lime claims The ANI thread is for the unrelated question of whether I made too many page moves. First, that's not an unrelated question, second, it's the quality of the moves, not the quantity, and third, it's not about if your moves are disruptive, but your editing in general. I'm focusing on the moves in this report because they can do the most damage, but they are hardly the only problem. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet or no, CLC's editing at Instant-runoff voting continues to be out of control. Today, after being reverted for an 11k-character addition to the lead (!) with the reverting edit summary being "30 references in the lede, skipping levels of header - please review WP:LAYOUT" their response was to reinstate even-longer versions of the same changes, twice. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, @SarekOfVulcan reverted some of my changes on the grounds that I'd accidentally skipped levels in headers (i.e. went straight from 4→6), as stated in the edit summary. As a result, I reinstated the changes after correcting the formatting errors. If Sarek has some other disagreement regarding the content of the page, he can undo my edit and explain why he still dislikes the new version in the edit summary. (By the way, I did it twice because a user complained about the length of the restore the first time. I self-reverted the page back to Sarek's version, then broke the edit into two chunks to create an easier-to-read diff.) – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 23:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

see also the re-addition here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Instant-runoff_voting&diff=prev&oldid=1254208089 of a reverted diff due to POV concerns without having reached consensus in an active topic on the talk page Affinepplan (talk) 00:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to suggest that Lime be restricted from moving any pages until they demonstrate that they understand when pages should and should not be moved. At Talk:Preferential voting, they just suggested moving the dab page to a (disambig) title and redirecting it to Ranked-choice voting, because TL;DR is that it looks like the majority of searches for PV are from Australia, which uses it to mean RCV. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a straightforward application of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I suggested the page instant-runoff voting/RCV is the primary topic, because "preferential voting" is overwhelmingly an Australian term used to mean RCV. I raised this issue on the talk page for discussion and did not move the page myself. How would that be disruptive? – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 16:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that proposing to move a page on a talk page should not be used as a basis for imposing a restriction on moving pages -- seeking consensus like this is what we should be encouraging. CapitalSasha ~ talk 16:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asking, or starting a move discussion, isn't what I'd consider disruptive. My concern is that Lime might go "ok, one person agreed with me, nobody else said anything, we're good" and moving a long-standing article title without any further input. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reasonable thing to comment on the talk page, to make sure it doesn't happen. On the other hand, restricting a user's move privileges because they hypothetically could have used them incorrectly, but didn't, seems bizarre; if anything, seeing an editor ask for consensus shows they're less likely to move pages incorrectly.

(And is "one person agreed with me" never enough to declare consensus, even for minor moves? At the extreme, I don't think correcting typos requires any discussion on talk. I'd like more clarity on exactly how much consensus is needed for different page moves, ideally with examples.) – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 17:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are about 80 thousand examples of move discussions if you search for "Requested move" but usually the easiest thing to do would be to start one and list it at WP:RM (well a bot does that for you, you just need to use the template).You get free examples that way, and only in pages that you're interested in, and as an added advantage if anyone gets dragged to ANI it would likely be someone else. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a very nice advantage for sure :) I'll keep it in mind. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 00:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m a fairly green editor and I find it very instructive to read and participate in open move discussions at WP:RMC and see how they are closed. You’ll see what’s controversial, the numerous policies and other considerations that support a title change/move, and how consensus is assessed. Typically if there is low participation or opinions are mixed a request is relisted or closed without moving. Moves are rather drastic changes and often arguments that might have been persuasive if we were deciding what to name a brand new article aren’t enough to change a stable title. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 03:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, thanks! – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 22:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Everytime I interact with this editor in talk pages, they are always throwing the WP:OWN card on me, when I have explained thoroughly in the talk page why their edits were reverted or removed. Then their usual response is bringing up "WP:OWN" rather than discussing the content posted in the article.[15][16][17] This editor was blocked last year for personal attacks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotwiki (talk • contribs) 18:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hotwiki has consistently shown patterns of WP:OWN behaviour at many articles, but specifically Kylie Minogue.

Regarding guidelines established in WP:OWNBEHAVIOUR, here's a list of diffs.

1. The editor might claim the right to review any changes before they can be added to the article: [18] [19] [20] "you are once again pushing for unnecessary changes"

3 & 4/ An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it unnecessary and without provoiding an edit summary that refers to relevant Wikipedia policies: [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] "No need to change the lead section, no need to mention"

5. An editor comments on other editors' talk pages with the purpose of discouraging them from making additional contributions. [29] [30]

6. An editor reverts any edit with a personal attack in the edit summary. [31] "nobody agreed in the first place. Let it go"

Additionally, WP:INTIM. "Just letting you know I've collected the links in which you used "Wp:own" card" [32] PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't I explain why those edits were reverted? Also you've added several incorrect information which I brought up in the talk page and I didn't resort to personal attacks.[33][34][35][36][37] I Can't link everything because there's too many changes that were contested, so I suggest read the talk page archive of that article. Hotwiki (talk) 18:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the administrators, I am bringing up this issue, because I want to find a way to continue to improve the article of Kylie Minogue, without being insulted by @PHShanghai: for the next time, they made another edit that I don't agree with or I find incorrect that I would need to remove or edit for the benefit of the article. The first time I interacted with this editor (last year), they changed the entire lead section. When I pointed out the first four albums of Kylie Minogue weren't teen pop albums, they responded to not having to listen to those albums in a long time.[38] Since then, they were too many edits from that editor that I didn't agree with. Hotwiki (talk) 19:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors have noted your WP:OWN behavior and passive-aggressive comments over this article before, dating as far back as July 2023. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 19:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You mean this discussion?[39] I was explaining myself. If I was owning the article, I wouldn't have removed a content I posted several years ago. Hotwiki (talk) 19:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement 6 from the WP:OWNBEHAVIOR guideline page is "I can see nothing wrong with the article and there is no need to change anything at all." Here are the diffs of your previous comments:

[40] "This seems like another unnecessary change to the opening paragraph, that doesn't improve the article."

[41] "Keep the lead section as it is."

[42] "I suggest you edit other articles, instead of drastically changing the lead section whenever you make an edit in this article."

[43] "If we look up at the history of this article, you've always find something to change in the lead article – which in my opinion, doesn't improve the article"

[44] "No need to point that out in the lead section"

This also falls under WP:SQS. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 19:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did explain in those links, why your changes were unnecessary. You did change the lead section several times, to the point I've noticed misinformation which I later removed then discussed in the talk page, so you would have understand why they were reverted/removed/edited. Hotwiki (talk) 19:25, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PHShanghai, @Hotwiki, there's two of you involved in a content dispute. My recommendation is that you try to solve this in small chunks at a time via WP:3O or perhaps try WP:DRN. I see that this is has been a FA since 2009. If you think it's in really bad shape, you may want to try going to WP:FAR with the issues. Both of you need to try to keep this focused on content, rather than on each other - remove the word "you" from your vocabulary if you have to. @Hotwiki, this does look at least superficially like WP:SQS; please try to revert other editors as little as possible. No comment on the content dispute - for all I know, you're correct - but try to give a little, where you can.

If this truly becomes impossible, come back here. But try these other things first. -- asilvering (talk) 22:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering:, noted. Thank you for the response. Hotwiki (talk) 23:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering: My final comment on this- I have gone to o DRN and follow their recommended guidelines before, to try and settle the content dispute. But ultimately the issue isn't a singular content dispute (like disagreeing on one part of the article) but having my (mostly minor) edits consistently suppressed, reverted and having passive-aggressive comments consistently thrown my way. If Hotwiki would stop the stonewalling for every single one of my edits and actually work together collaboratively maybe the article can actually start to be improved. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 03:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I didn't want to collaborate, I wouldn't have explained my edits directly in the talk page. If you look at the talk page of that article, there were several times, I pinged you to discuss the changes I've made. Look at how long and extensive the talk page is, just for me to get my points across and to prevent edit warring. You aren't being stonewalled, as you've made several changes in the article, that I didn't revert, I didn't challenge and still remain in the article – before you were reported here in ANI.[45][46] Hotwiki (talk) 13:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hotwiki, as gently as I can: those are really quite minor edits. Meanwhile, you have made over 1000 edits to the article. I recognize that you've been working on the article for nearly 20 years now and your edit count is likely to be high for that reason alone, but I'm finding it really difficult to see evidence of collaboration here. That doesn't mean neither of you have ever tried to collaborate, but it's clearly not working right now. Perhaps you both need to take a break from this one for a while and try again.

@PHShanghai, I should have mentioned this in my earlier comment when I told Hotwiki that this does at least superficially look like WP:SQS: it's clear that your edits to the lead of the article are the most contentious, so I would suggest avoiding any changes to the lead for now. I do think Hotwiki needs to give a little, but you're not making it easy for them. Start with the less-contentious parts and work up from there. -- asilvering (talk) 19:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

non-admin comment - @Hotwiki, I think it's time for you to chill away from this specific article. I really want to refrain from using medical terminology, as I am not a practising doctor, but this history you've got with this article brings to mind Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD). Over a thousand edits to the article; specifically working on this for some 20 years? Look, the average Joe or Jane would just lose interest in a given article over the span of a fraction of that time. Think there's also some perfectionism going on here, something that's clearly been a bit too consuming for you. It may be time to take the dog for a walk. BarntToust 16:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based from this, I made my first edit in the article in year 2005.[47] From 2005 to 2024, I have made 1,064 edits - which from my recollection, most of my edits (from that article) were published from 2023 to 2024, if I'm not mistaken. As I don't recall editing the article during the 2010s especially especially during "off-eras" - years when there was no new album. The reported editor - PHShanghai, made several incorrect information/unreferenced claims - which were all brought up in the talkpage. The reported editor also has a history of personal attacks based from reading their talkpage and I wasn't the only one they accused of WP:OWN. See this link [48] about their experience in a different Wikipedia article. There wouldn't have been an issue in the first place, if the editor I mentioned wasn't posting wrong information. This month - they claimed a live album was released in 2022, when it was originally released in 2021. They claimed that Kylie Minogue haven't toured in North America since 2011, when the artist had several shows in Las Vegas in 2024/23, also another concert in 2018. Not only they were false information, they were also unreferenced. Then there were several other false claims throughout the last 12 months. They claimed singles had a "significant noise" when those singles didn't chart in the top ten of her major markets and had no certifications. Hotwiki (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

well, looks like most of the work is recent, a la WP:WikiOgre. Fixing up false claims and buzz words like "significant noise" in its instances still does not warrant such an approach. Someone gets facts wrong? Approach it with civility, until such a time is clear that reason is impossible. BarntToust 20:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BarntToust: Do not even imply another editor has a mental disorder. It can lead to you being blocked. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I figured. Rather, the proper words would simply be "perhaps a bit too obsessed" with a given article, no? Duly noted, @Floquenbeam.

Otherwise, frankly, I think that this compilation of slight original research from the other editor and other general, non-overbearing content inaccuracies says zilch, until some diffs can be found. BarntToust 20:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In which part I was uncivil with PHShanghai? I reverted the "misinformation" they posted in the article. I did not call them names. I'm the one who is reporting that user for personal attacks. Hotwiki (talk) 20:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just make sure communication is prioritised. Your edit summaries could be a bit more detailed as to why you remove the content, and the value of "not needed" as an edit summary is about as informational and as much as an attempt to communicate on issues of content as PHShanghai's "WP:OWN" remarks. BarntToust 20:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Talk:Kylie Minogue. Plenty of issues were brought up in the talkpage and I just didn't explain things in edit summaries. I've made several talk page sections to explain certain things to PHShanghai. I've told them in that talkpage to discuss things first in the talkpage, before making dozens of changes, due to their history of making false information (that weren't backed uo by a reference) and to prevent edit warring and the cycle of reverting each other's edits. PHShanghai have also brought up their "lead section" to RFC twice, and their proposed changes weren't implemented due to lack of support. Hotwiki (talk) 20:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I agree, looking at PHShanghai's talk page, they're on a history of a few disputes November of last... year, so on, so forth. But the way to deal with editors who may introduce a problematic dynamic isn't to just shove 'em off to the side and dismiss them with a couple vague words, a direct approach is preferred. Clearly, you're right, Hotwiki, but you have to keep up with the right way of taking out the garbage. BarntToust 20:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BarntToust, please don't imply that another editor is "garbage". -- asilvering (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering, I'm referring to the uncited content and fallacies as garbage, not another editor. BarntToust 21:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sorry I did not make that clear enough. You can't "take out" another editor, but you can take out dubious content. BarntToust 21:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My final comments on this, just to make it very clear, as I went off-wiki for several days.

A: @BarntToust:, I am actually going to defend @Hotwiki: here. They may have a major edit history with this article, that has been acknowledged. But in real life I suffer from chronic health OCD (I am being treated currently) and your comment is very misrepresentative of OCD and the reality of it; I am just saying this to remind you, not in a way where I'm offended or take your comment as a personal attack. Hotwiki's editing and comments so far has not shown signs of emotional stress, and I doubt they have intrusive, disturbing violent thoughts about editing Wikipedia articles, as most people with OCD have. I think that they are just a perfectionist for this specific topic area. Next time I would be very careful with making those kinds of side comments randomly dropping names of disorders- some may see it as a violation of NPA. But I am only saying this to educate you and not to attack or belittle you.

B: @Asilvering:. I agree that the lead should be kept stable for now to avoid contention. I also mention that I do take a lot of breaks from editing contentious articles; the last lead disagreement in July got pretty hectic and I took time off and edited other things that describe my interests. I want to make editing the article as easy and smooth as possible. I don't think the Kylie article is that important to fight another editor on; I think that with time, the article itself will naturally improve in quality and I don't see it as a must-edit article everyday.

C: Hotwiki, regarding your comments. First of all, that editor that I called out for OWN behavior has been also accused of OWN and POVPUSH from other people before, and has had an edit recently criticized for including his own personal attacks against another female artist.

Second, I can point out several times you made me feel unwelcome in the Kylie Minogue editing space. You revert my edits instead of building onto them; for example, you remove text about her Tension Tour being her first all-arenas tour in NA for being "unreferenced" when we can work together to add a reference for that specific text. This is my answer to everything you've said demeaning me- the prose can be changed or modified upon, but you block my attempts to build onto the content with a usual edit reason of "No need to change this". I want to build onto the article collaboratively, but instead you have spammed unnnecessary templates on my talk page (which is usually seen as a sign of passive aggression) and looked into my previous disputes with other editors as a "Gotcha!" moment, which feels very uncivil and inappropriate. The only reason why I say WP:OWN consistently is because I don't have to talk to you in the talkpage first to make "dozens" of minor edits and have you approve every single one of them. This doesn't mean that I am permanently uninterested in talk page discussions- but as the admin notified you, my edits are not overtly drastic nor threaten the stability of the article.

This is what the policy of OWN is for. You consistently dispute every single edit I make instead of, like I said, building onto and improving the content. These are just my feelings and my point of view on the whole situation. Thank you. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 11:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, @PHShanghai, the off-colour remark about OCD was when I realised I probably wasn't thinking straight, and needed to write a joke article Wikipedia:No episcopal threats instead of saying some real dumb shit here for literally no reason. Humbly, I apologize for making an ass of myself. BarntToust 12:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"You revert my edits instead of building onto them" - this is simply not right, its not my responsibility to find references for your original research. You've been in Wikipedia long enough, to know you should post references. You have a history, in that article for posting misinformation. If you are being reverted, its not for personal reasons, it was merely for the benefit of the article. My experience in that article with you - you were the first one to throw insults and thats why you were reported here in Ani. Even here, you are calling me "passive aggressive", when I am just being a direct person. There are warning templates in Wikipedia that can be placed in user talk pages, it was posted in your talkpage for a reason and it wasn't to "spam" you. I brought up your disputes with other editors, because I noticed a pattern and it's not a good look. If you were already blocked for personal attacks, surely you wouldn't do it again. Rather discussing things in a civil way with me. You once again used the "OWN" card on me, which I find very insulting as it devalues my contributions.[49] By the way, that warning template was posted in their talkpage due to them posting misinformation, which was also discussed in the talk page of that article.[50] Hotwiki (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of interest, and setting aside the casual defamation, I will be trying to track the effects within the PIA topic area. These kinds of articles are not unusual, but this particular one is quite a nice sharp external signal. So, it may be possible to see the effects as the information impacts the topic area and editors. I have seen this and this so far. "already being discussed" is maybe the wrong way around. There is discussion about a possible PIA5 case. The discussions have included quite a lot of statistical evidence. Unless it is a coincidence, I assume the article was produced to provide external pressure on ArbCom to reduce the likelihood of them not taking the case. So far me, as someone interested in the complicated dynamics of the PIA topic area, it is quite an interesting development. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be appropriate for each of the editors involved in the ARCA discussion around PIA5 to be asked to confirm or deny whether they had any involvement in the Pirate Wires article? Onceinawhile (talk) 07:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so and I'm not sure what this would achieve or what the goal with this questioning would be. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody needs permission to ask questions in the PIA5 discussion and hope for open and honest answers. I have already asked BilledMammal since the article uses some of their data. If they have some background/context, they can share it openly, or they may know nothing about it and be surprised by the way their work has been used. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sean.hoyland, that seems reasonable. Do you know whether the second analysis in the Pirate Wires article - on co-editing - was also prepared by a user and discussed at ARCA? It is a nonsense analysis of course - it would look much the same if you cherry picked a similar number of editors who spend time in any topic area. But the interesting question is whether that analysis was prepared by Ashley Rindsberg (the write of the Pirate Wires article), or by someone else. And how did they know how to pull the underlying data? Onceinawhile (talk) 13:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Onceinawhile, Zero0000 asked something similar here so you can see my answer there. I hope the analysis wasn't done by anyone allowed to edit Wikipedia because it is horrifyingly dopey, the kind of thing that would get you immediately fired and escorted out of the building in my world. I don't know how the data was generated but the account list obviously comes from BilledMammal's list of accounts that have made 100 or more edits within the topic area since 2022. But the connection between the authors "amongst top 30 members of this group" statement and reality is not obvious to me e.g. why is Surtsicna there? They might be quite surprised to learn that they are pro-Hamas Wikipedia hijacker and might consider it defamatory and want the author to pay for them to buy a new nicer house or maybe a new car. It's easy enough for someone with access to generate page intersection counts for 30 accounts and produce a crosstab with code and share it as a google sheet, or maybe someone foolish did it manually using the Editor Interaction Analyzer tool. Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In February, an explicitly coordinated effort was launched when leaders on a group called Tech For Palestine (TFP) — launched in January by Paul Biggar, the Irish co-founder of software development platform CircleCI — opened a channel on their 8,000-strong Discord channel called “tfp-wikipedia-collaboration.” In the channel, two group leaders, Samira and Samer, coordinated with other members to mass edit a number of PIA articles. The effort included recruiting volunteers, processing them through formal orientation, troubleshooting issues, and holding remote office hours to problem solve and ideate. The channel’s welcome message posed a revealing question: “Why Wikipedia? It is a widely accessed resource, and its content influences public perception.”

Uh, I am not an Israel-Palestine DS/GS understander, but I seem to remember when GSoW, EEML, etc did this we responded with something other than "close the ANI thread within an hour and tag the journo's page with {{notability}}". Is this being addressed at the arb case?? jp×g🗯️ 16:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's because there is existing precedent for dealing with this in the PIA area. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, thanks. I agree enforcement is needed if there is an active lobbying group.

It may be that Samisawtak and BilledMammal can help with the investigation, as it seems they have previously been looking into this "tfp-wikipedia-collaboration". Per Samisawtak's edit page summarizing their 347 total edits, 159 were made at User:BilledMammal/tfp Wikipedia collaboration, 6 were made at User:BilledMammal/Samisawtak/tfp Wikipedia collaboration, and 1 was at User talk:Samisawtak/sandbox/tfp Wikipedia collaboration/Lily Greenberg Call.

Looking further All 17 editors who worked on User:BilledMammal/tfp Wikipedia collaboration may be able to help.

Onceinawhile (talk) 16:55, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samisawtak is one of the editors involved in running the group. As for the article itself, it misses the actual issues with the group:

1. It is affiliated with an actual EEML-style mailing list, to the extent of coordinators recruiting for the list on the channel
2. It is used by community-banned editors, who have since being blocked engaged in the off-wiki harassment and outing of Wikipedia editors, to request edits be made - requests that are acted upon
3. It instructs non-ECP editors to make edits in the topic area

BilledMammal (talk) 01:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BilledMammal, are you able to provide a list of the community-banned editors? I am always looking for test data from these kinds of actors. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure what I can provide without violating WP:OUTING, sorry. BilledMammal (talk) 07:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I forgot about the Wikipedia rule that even connecting 2 anonymized strings across the on-wiki/off-wiki boundary is treated as a form of outing, a rule so strange to me that I can't even remember it. Nevermind then. Thanks. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal: agree that is for a private investigation by the proper authorities. In the meantime, please could you explain why they were using your user subpages for their work? Onceinawhile (talk) 07:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They weren’t. They deleted those pages in an attempt to cover their tracks; I had them restored to my user space. BilledMammal (talk) 08:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JPxG, I would say, no, the Tech For Palestine group is not being addressed in the PIA5 discussions in any detail, although it has come up. Some information about the group has been available since last June I believe, or thereabouts. One thing that is interesting about the Discord screenshots for me is statements like "I have been levelling up on WP by doing quite a few simple edits". This is what a lot of people do of course to cross or tunnel through the ARBECR barrier, but I would like to know whether this kind of "levelling up" activity is being done inside or outside of the topic area and whether the accounts have EC privileges or not. Most of the topic area is not EC protected. Many edits by non-EC editors in the topic area are given a pass/not noticed because they are "simple edits" or look/are constructive. This is a backdoor that is probably being exploited by activists and ban evading sockpuppets every day. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I learned about this article and thread because WeatherWriter pinged me on my talk page. I'm sure there will be a proper investigation but just want to preemptively say that I have never heard of TFP, do not work in tech, and don't even have a Discord. Thanks. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 05:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have heard of TFP, and despite being one of the top 30 members of a powerful pro-Hamas group hijacking Wikipedia, and despite having okay tech skills, I did not even receive an invitation to join the group. This is the kind of thing people with feelings tell me can feel hurtful. I admire your optimistic 'I'm sure there will be a proper investigation' attitude, a view that I do not share. Sean.hoyland (talk) 06:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Say what? This seems extremely farfetched and far too convenient to be true.

Given that the vast majority of this world's population aware of the Israel-Hamas War statistically seem to be against the human rights violations that are happening to the Palestinians, and this is the international version of Wikipedia, isn't it far more likely and reasonable that a larger amount of Wikipedia editors would simply also share this viewpoint, whereas the editors who support the actions of the government of Israel would, without external backing, be considerably fewer in number, whereas the cited news article in question is a doctored, possibly Mossad-ordered, smear campaign in order to get almost all hindrances out of the way, so any sources that the Israeli government doesn't like can quickly be discredited and banned from any usage, especially Al Jazeera, and then remove virtually all public documentation of ongoing Israeli crimes against humanity from all Wikipedia pages related to the ongoing conflict? David A (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would not describe the hypothesis outlined here as likely, nor as reasonable. jp×g🗯️ 22:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This would assume that there are no editors willing to push back on what appears to be an active whitewashing/disinfo campaign, which doesn't pass the laugh test in the PIA area or on Wikipedia in general. Again, this has come up before. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 22:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like the kind of product produced by one or more fools for the sizable credulous fool market rather than by smart professionals in the IC. I assume the author's main objective could simply be engagement/chasing clicks, but the objective of anyone who helped them to produce the product, and that 'anyone' could be no one of course, is not obvious to me. It might become clearer over time. For example, it is already being used to undermine confidence in RfC closures and argue for relitigating RfCs, which is quite interesting. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that in my experience, play-acting being a part of the Israeli IC doing important collection work is quite a common feature of anti-Palestine/pro-Israel activists interested in Wikipedia, and it is a comedy goldmine. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there have been a few separate quite recent attempts to completely remove the English version of Al Jazeera as a reliable source in the past, as well as at least one attempt to remove +972 Magazine as well, so if this "journalist" succeeds in getting most of the editors who are against human rights abuses against Palestinians banned en masse, without any reliable evidence, that effort could easily be resumed by others and passed this time around. Then again, I have an overactive pattern-recognition. David A (talk) 06:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A difference, I think, is that the arguments made to challenge the reliability of sources like Al Jazeera here tend to resemble the product of rational actors, whether you find them persuasive or not, rather than someone off their meds with paranoid dreams of anti-editor pogroms. Where are the Fred Fishers? Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. My apologies if I went too far with the paranoia then. There has been quite a lot of agitation against Wikipedia from news and social media that support the Israeli government recently, and I have even been subjected to a few death threats here in Wikipedia because of it. David A (talk) 17:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not you David A, the author of the article. The lack of clarity in my comments, kindly brought to my attention by Zanahary, is apparently never going to improve. Yes, editing in the PIA topic area can include a free death threat package thanks to the generosity of the more extreme anti-Palestine/pro-Israel activists. This package deal appears to expire though as I don't receive them anymore. The attacks on Wikipedia and editors will no doubt continue, and probably escalate. My view is that being attacked personally, defamed or whatever is not interesting. Don't let it distract you from continuing to do things that interest you here. The topic area needs as many editors as possible with a diverse set of biases and source sampling strategies to avoid an article neutrality version of this problem when population size n is too small. Sean.hoyland (talk) 02:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sean.hoyland:

thanks to the generosity of the more extreme anti-Palestine/pro-Israel activists

FYI, this behavior goes in both directions. From what I've seen, the unacceptable behavior on the pro-Palestine/anti-Israel side is also more organized; for example, the covert canvassing on the pro-Israel side was organized by a single LTA spamming emails, while on the pro-Palestine side it is an organized group of editors. BilledMammal (talk) 02:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, no doubt there are attacks and all sorts of shenanigans from both ends of the spectrum. Sadly, I haven't been attacked by anti-Israel/pro-Palestine activists apart from the odd outlier, so from my perspective I must be doing something wrong. From my observations going back over a decade, it's just an objective fact that anti-Palestine/pro-Israel activism that targets Wikipedia and editors exists, has organized and lone-wolf components, has involved on-wiki and off-wiki individuals and multiple organizations (e.g. CAMERA and NGO Monitor) including multiple state sponsored influence operations. The pro-Palestine/anti-Israel activists will presumably learn from their opponent's mistakes and will probably have the capacity to dwarf pro-Israel activities if they choose that path. Visibility into these systems is obviously very limited, so it's hard to say anything sensible about the extent and effects, which may be small right now. Either way, Wikipedia is stuck in the middle and needs better countermeasures. Or maybe just let it go as it is an expensive problem Wikipedia does not have the tools to solve right now. I'm curious what would happen if part of the topic area was set aside for the activists and ban evading types to do whatever they want without ECR or sanctions with disclaimers added to the articles. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should add the caveat that I'm very skeptical about my ability to understand or say anything accurate anything about the topic area because it's too complicated, and that skepticism even includes being unsure whether promoting things like civility, collaboration, social harmony is the best approach to produce the best articles in the long run. The topic area is apparently more attractive to new editors that Wikipedia in general (assuming this is accurate) and they very often don't come here for social harmony. Maybe lots of randomness and conflict would work better in the long run. I have no idea. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that at least in my case it isn't about being a tribalist and anti-Israel. It is about being pro-human rights (and animal rights) in general, and that I both believe in matter of fact reliable information being publicly available, as well as "not in my name" and "never again for anyone", the latter meaning that I don't want any innocent blood on my hands, even indirectly by association. David A (talk) 09:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, for many people out there, including journalists and people with an apparent elevated susceptibility to misinformation and manipulation, just following Wikipedia's rules can be indistinguishable from being anti-this or pro-that. The way for people to improve Wikipedia is for people to make the effort to learn the ropes, become editors and follow the rules. But apparently that is not as fun as complaining, attacking people, coming up with conspiracy theories etc. People love that stuff. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• If admins want to investigate Tech for Palestine, I welcome it. Separately, we shouldn’t assume editors simply editing in ARBPIA are part of some coordinated campaign. Evidence is needed. I am neither involved in Tech for Palestine or a coordinated ARBPIA campaign. starship.paint (talk / cont) 02:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shahray (talk · contribs) was blocked on 13 October for 24 hours and again on 18 October for 1 week due to continued edit warring. In their unblock requests (none of which were accepted), they did not indicate any understanding for their block. For example, they wrote: I haven't got any explanation about why one small revert from me is considered "disruptive", "damaging" or "edit-warring" and requires a block.[51]

Despite this, there has been no improvement in their behavior (if anything, it has gone the other way) since the block expired on 25 October. They made edits to Kievan Rus', which I reverted with explanation before they restored this again, saying "You are confused". I reverted again and asked them to start a discussion on the talk page. Rather than starting a discussion on the talk page, they replied to me in a completely different discussion at Talk:History of Ukraine telling me: I won't create hundreds of talk pages just because you always disagree with me for precisely no reason.[52] I told them this was a misuse of the talk page. I also noted that they had already started a discussion about similar changes (as an IP) before and there was no consensus for this. The same IP had previously left me a message on my talk page asking why I reverted their edits (made by Shahray), before they self-reverted and wrote the same message as Shahray.[53] I continued the discussion there, but Shahray's response was This is not a discussion done by me and why should I care?.[54]

They also made an edit to Old East Slavic that I reverted because there was already plenty of discussion about this on the talk page with clear consensus against such edits, but they restored their edit saying in the edit summary that this was "unrelated".[55]

I also asked an admin for advice at User talk:Asilvering#Question (more diffs there) because I found it impossible to discuss edits with Shahray without them accusing me of editing in bad faith but they decided to reply there and they wrote that I should stop complaining to other editors like a child.[56] This was also after I told them that I did not wish to discuss with them further due to previous comments they made to me such as this, even though I clearly explained why I opposed their changes. Mellk (talk) 22:06, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They also made an edit to Old East Slavic that I reverted because there was already plenty of discussion about this on the talk page with clear consensus against such edits
I havent looked at other edits but this particular edit was legitimate. The discussion was opened on a talk page Talk:Old East Slavic#Old Ukrainian where you haven't responded but have proceed with removal, anyway. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is consensus against such edits (that you had previously made), as this was discussed at Talk:Old_East_Slavic/Archive_2#Old_Ukrainian_2024 and in previous discussions. You attempted to include this and there was consensus against this change. You decided to start a new discussion today without any new arguments. Mellk (talk) 22:43, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... where we see sourced opinions removed [57] because "I still think that a whole paragraph cited to one source is too much". That's not a valid argument for removal of an academic opinion in a field. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I already explained this at Talk:Old_East_Slavic/Archive_2#Old_Ukrainian_2024. You are trying to bring old content disputes into this. Mellk (talk) 23:06, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There you just rejected and undoed opinions sourced to academic researchers one after another without offering an improvement: Yes, except this is not an accurate summary of his findings. You are not telling where, in your opinion, it is not accurate, nor offering a better version.

This is not how collaboration is supposed to be. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:12, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"I still think that a whole paragraph cited to one source is too much" -- this is what another editor wrote. Multiple editor opposed your changes and you are still trying to make this discussion about this. Mellk (talk) 23:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should we take your approach and return edits, since there is also @Shahray now opposing your removal. Should we also remember that there were other editors in previous discussions supporting changes.

Probably not, because this would lead to the Tyranny of the majority. Instead, we should not be calling to "there is more of us therefore we are right", but base our arguments on reliable sources and Wikipedia rules. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This editor @Mellk was already formally warned by other administrator to not make unreasonable reverts and be responsive [58].

After a few responses on the talk page, they refused to give any further details and dropped out of conversation [59], considering my request to simply not waste time of other editors because of their own poor understanding of the subject as a personal insult (rather than maybe improving upon their knowledge), use what they wrote higher as an evidence I guess.

I tried to continue the conversation and asked about what they don't have concerns with for example [60], they haven't given me any response, and instead they moved to complain to other administrator.

Also, I have added changes in Old East Slavic page according to the sources, yet they reverted them with a summary "see talk page", where there's just only one completely unrelated topic. Other editor was confused about why they deleted my sourced edit as well [61]. Yet here they act as if their revert was justified, furthermore they made another revert [62], despite there being obvious concern from two editors, and didn't go to the talk page.

So as you can see they don't care about the attitude they've been warned about, they continue to make more unreasonable reverts and be unresponsive on the talk page.

From my side, I wasn't reverting them. Initial concerns behind my blocks was edit warring, and I wasn't reverting this user recently, so it's unclear about what "behaviour" are they talking about, or why did they make this report in first place. Shahray (talk) 22:47, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another recent revert from Mellk [63], with no summary they removed Principality of Moscow and replaced it with Russia, which is anachronistic term for that time period.

Another unreasonable revert from them, yet you can clearly see they think this behavior is justified. Shahray (talk) 06:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mellk once again makes unreasonable reverts [64]. First their summary of reverting me was "WP:GEOLINK". I solved the issue with removal of a reference in second word. But then they reverted me again with a summary "Not an improvement". What this supposed to mean is unknown. Furthermore instead of explaining what they did, they continue to concentrate on personal side as you can see below. I think this is just disruptive editing, they slow down the process of implementing changes with nonsensical summaries and personal assaults, expecting to block me. Shahray (talk) 09:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think User talk:El_C#Another controversy with Mellk says it all, really. Going to the admin who blocked you for a week for edit-warring to tell them that you are still edit-warring, expecting this to turn out in your favour, is such intense WP:IDHT that I don't know what else there is to say. -- asilvering (talk) 04:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And they are still edit warring now. The personal attacks were already a step too far, but this is getting ridiculous now. Mellk (talk) 06:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was not edit warring, I followed 1 revert rule everywhere respectively. I told the admin to look at Mellk's yet again unresponsive behaviour and unreasonable reverts, which they have been already formally warned about. I also addressed them how you told Mellk to go to a notice board with no evidence of my guilt [65] and then ignored my comment, telling to "use it as evidence" [66] (???).

I guess there are a few questions to you as well if this is an attempt to deliberately target me. Shahray (talk) 06:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that as always, reverting isn't a right so you can easily be unacceptably edit warring even if complying with 1RR or whatever. Also with highly contentious articles where it's likely something has been discussed before, it often makes sense to check out the talk page and archives and see if something has been discussed before. If it has, while WP:consensus can change, it would often be better to at least start a discussion before making edits rather than trying a WP:bold edit. This is especially the case if something has been discussed multiple times or had significant backing or support last time it was discussed. In fact in such cases it might even be best just to assume it's unlikely consensus has changed and so not start a new discussion let alone trying to make a change. And even if you do feel it's worth starting a new discussion, you should generally mention or even link to previous discussions and explain why you feel there should be a new consensus. Also while there's too much personalisation from all sides in the article talk page discussions to me, you do seem to be worse at it. Notably with your child comment which okay wasn't on an article talk page but was still a clear personal attack. I think all of you need to concentrate on the content issues in the article talk page. If you can't come to consensus by yourselves, use some form of WP:dispute resolution to try and get more people involved. Importantly, concentrate on what reliable sources say not your personal view or interpretation of history or whatever. Nil Einne (talk) 07:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think dispute resolution is going to help here, for WP:IDHT reasons. -- asilvering (talk) 07:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I was not reverting them more than once.

While "childish" might have been personal, I think that's how you can describe this behavior. I haven't made personal attacks on the talk page, Mellk dropped out of discussion, yet continues to persist on deleting my changes.

I tried to continue discussion and told them to just let my changes be viewed by other editors [67], yet they haven't answered at all.

Maybe you can suggest them if they don't want to discuss, then they should stop blocking my changes? Shahray (talk) 08:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Above they have continued the personal attacks and they are still making unsourced POV changes like this. The issue of POV editing was raised before. In addition, they are claiming that they are being "deliberately targeted". I don't think there is any clearer IDHT than this. Mellk (talk) 02:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Continued edit warring at Feudal fragmentation.[68][69][70] This is despite their false claim of adhering to 1RR. They are also edit warring at Second Bulgarian Empire with a false claim that there is consensus for their changes.[71][72] Mellk (talk) 05:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You were implementing changes that you didn't have consensus for, and I asked you to go to the talk page.

Please do not continue to implement changes without getting consensus. Shahray (talk) 05:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is false. Anyone can take a look at the history. I suggest an indefinite block for IDHT. Mellk (talk) 05:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Believing that you have a valid point does not confer the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told otherwise Shahray (talk) 05:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mellk just told me here [73] there's no consensus about the fact that "Russia" didn't exist during Middle ages.

They implemented a change without consensus once again [74], and in noticeboard they wrote "This is false".

Below you can see they are continuing personal assaults in my side instead of solving the dispute on the talk page. I remind you they were formally warned to be responsive. Shahray (talk) 05:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here they removed all references to Russians, including removing the sentence "Russians were also hired as mercenaries" despite this being sourced. So this also shows they are here for WP:RGW. Mellk (talk) 05:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is WP:ONUS. They once again insist on mentioning "Russia" in the middle ages, despite the clear consensus in historiography there was no "russia" at the time. What's worse is that they don't want to solve the disputes themselves and instead focus on personal assaults like getting me banned, use all their comments above as evidence. They were already formally warned for that disruptive behavior. Shahray (talk) 05:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here they removed all references to Russians, including removing the sentence "Russians were also hired as mercenaries" despite this being sourced
I checked the source and I can't find anything regarding "Russians were also hired as mercenaries" there. Please provide the quote. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 07:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The quote from the source is "Mercenaries were also recruited, including Russians." Mellk (talk) 07:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. But the timing is a mess, the book talks about The army of the Second Bulgarian Empire was not, of course solely Cuman. The new state controlled large areas held by pronoia cavalry and other troop. Mercenaries were alo recruited, including Russians, unlike the wiki article which says In the 1350s. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 07:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is unclear what is meant by "Russians" in 14th century. WP:ONUS, and I don't think anachronisms should be included, what do you think? It would be proper to move discussion to the talk page. Shahray (talk) 08:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should be resolved in talk. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 08:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Manyareasexpert, I created new topic there [75]. Shahray (talk) 08:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has been in the article since at least 2015. You also cannot overrule what the sources say and dictate to others on what is an anachronism when you were earlier writing about 'supreme Ukrainian rulers' of Kievan Rus.[76] The issue here is that your editing is purely disruptive. Mellk (talk) 08:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mellk interrupts the process of editing in the article Name of Rus' [77], they accused me that I "didn't address the issue", although I did as you can see in history of changes. I told them that other editor can easily revert me if they want, but they didn't listened and continue to revert me, and then wrote "edit war". It looks like WP:Hounding or provocation to be honest, can you do something about them already? Shahray (talk) 16:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor reverted you and you proceeded to make three reverts without bothering to start a discussion about this. This article is on my watchlist and I have made plenty of edits before, so this accusation of hounding is baseless. @Asilvering: given their admission of meatpuppetry below and the blatant edit warring now, is a block warranted now? Mellk (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then other editor can easily revert me again, or not if they won't see any issue.

Clearly other editors had issues with them as well like NLeeuw said, but now their behavior is just provocative. I don't have issues if I'm being reverted or proved wrong, I even self reverted in Kievan Rus' [78], but Mellk now just interrupts other editing when other user hasn't responded yet, instead they think they can respond from their side. Shahray (talk) 16:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shahray: You should have opened a discussion on the article talk page immediately instead of edit warring at the first place. By venturing to the talk page, you might also have noticed that the lead was discussed very recently and made to more closely conform to MOS:LEAD. This discussion involved Mellk, so your point about hounding is moot. The bit about Vikings which you used to justify your edit was added by an editor who is now banned, and is not a great example to follow. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for response. I will open discussion then on the talk page. Still it was weird to see Mellk interrupting when you can also revert me. Shahray (talk) 16:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't want to heave too readily onto the pile given they've only reverted once, but I can't discern a difference in behavior between that detailed here and that over at Christianization of Kievan Rus'. Maybe this is petty of me, but "I'm just sorting the list by alphabetical order" is one of the surest signs of tendentious editing I generally see—statistically speaking, you'll get to use the alphabet as a fig leaf for your otherwise-inexplicable sorting in roughly 50% of situations. Remsense ‥ 论 05:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Remsense interesting point, I never heard someone had issues with alphabetical order. Belarus, Russia, Ukraine are usually put in alphabetical order, like in the List of states of Bel, Russ, Ukr, there are no concerns about this. And what else is inexplicable there from my side? Shahray (talk) 06:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think this is petty. They are showing the same kind of behavior at Vladimir of Staritsa now. Mellk (talk) 08:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: Hi, I saw that this ANI was going on, and I'd like to point out that User:Shahray = 46.200.75.110. diff diff. Shahray addressed me as if we interacted before on my talk page, but the previous message under that heading was by 46.200.75.110. Not sure how helpful that is, but I think it contributes to the information above about this user's disruptive behaviour. As far as I know, Shahray is being very WP:POV-pushy and prone to edit-warring. Even as this ANI is taking place, Shahray is edit-warring at Kievan Rus' with multiple other editors over the past several days. Although there may be some legitimate content issues, Shahray was not providing constructive solutions (at least that I could see). I got tired of trying to reason with Shahray, and decided to stop the discussion and disengage, because it was getting nowhere. I'm not involved in the edit-war, as I don't think I could do anything to make Shahray stop and behave in accordance with our conduct and content policies & guidelines. Seems to me Shahray is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopaedia, but to push their own POV and to disrupt all sorts of processes and protocols in order to make their opinion stick in the mainspace. We can't keep that up forever if the situation does not improve.

A word of caution; I understand the frustations some other users have voiced here over Mellk; I've had my disagreements with him as well. I think Mellk should be reminded to be careful in observing our policies and guidelines, and prioritise discussing issues on talk pages and tagging the user whose edits he disagrees with, instead of reverting the other user's edits. This can often help prevent conflicts (especially in the Eastern Europe content area). On the other hand, I know that Mellk is acting in good faith, and I have worked with him before in solving several long-standing disputes, and that is valuable for our community. I would ask the other participants here to take these things into account. Hopefully this contributes to a solution. NLeeuw (talk) 22:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nederlandse Leeuw, okay, while I acknowledge that it could have been done from my account (by other person I may know), but it wasn't directly done by me. Regarding myself, I'm trying to be more constructive about the whole topic, I don't concern myself with fringe ideas.

So you can view my changes and note if anything is wrong with them instead, as I already done similar requests to other editors [79]. It would be much more helpful than just unrelated to me accuses. I don't think there is any legitimate content issues, but in some parts I've expanded the content for specification. I wasn't edit warring with other editors, I initially reverted Mellk once, then made compromise with Mellk's position [80] (as it seems they only opposed the mention of Rus' land in the talk page for some reason). If that doesn't helps, I can self-revert, no problem.

Mellk's summaries for their reverts are often pretty vague and lack explanation, and it's hardly any better on the talk page, as they quickly drop out of discussion. Shahray (talk) 23:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This message was posted the minute after the IP self-reverted. Are you suggesting now that someone else is editing on your behalf? Mellk (talk) 08:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mellk. I think that evidence is as good as any to confirm that Shahray = 46.200.75.110. I find Shahray's denials to be unconvincing. Shahray also doesn't seem to understand that with legitimate content issues, I might theoretically agree with some of the points they were making previously, if only expressed in a clear way while offering a constructive way forward. If Shahray now thinks I don't think there is any legitimate content issues, I am wondering whether I wasted my time in trying to understand the points they raised on the Kievan Rus' talk page in the first place.

It also shows Shahray's apparent obsession with the same topic, namely ethnonymy and toponymy in content areas of Kievan Rus', Ukraine, Russia etc. In other words, what we name people and territories is Shahray's only interest. Shahray seems to treat Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX for their POV of what we should call things, and to think it's okay to unilaterally and repeatedly change texts of how we name things without consensus. This is quite concerning, and frankly, frustrating and tiresome.

The first remarks made in this ANI illustrate this well: Shahray was blocked on 13 October for 24 hours and again on 18 October for 1 week due to continued edit warring. In their unblock requests (none of which were accepted), they did not indicate any understanding for their block. People who are either incapable or unwilling to understand the rules and to abide by them, and instead repeatedly disrupt the project, will eventually exhaust the chances the community is willing to give them to show that they have improved their conduct and have learnt from the sanctions imposed upon them for having failed to do so previously. I recommend an even longer block this time, and if the situation still does not improve, we may have to say goodbye to Shahray, as their activities are more unhelpful than helpful for the project so far. I'm trying to be fair and balanced; everyone deserves a second or even a third or fourth chance, depending on the circumstances. But eventually the chances run out. NLeeuw (talk) 16:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted for now [81] Shahray (talk) 00:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to dedicate time to find more solid sources. There are deficiencies in articles and over-representation of a traditional Russian POV, but a decent amount of work should be done to overcome it. See my user page for some info on where academic sources could be found. I suggest to concentrate on one subject first, for example on under-representation of Old Ukrainian in articles. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. NLeeuw (talk) 16:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Old Ukrainian, it depends on how often English-speaking scholars use this term, and I don't see that being the case.

@Nederlandse Leeuw, you can instead look at my edit and see if there's anything wrong with sources or wording, and point it out on the talk page, if you want to help. Now, in my opinion you're too concentrated on personal sides, I don't have any issues with getting reverted if there is objective reason, but I could have been too fast with reverting Mellk there. Shahray (talk) 17:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Shahray topic-banned. Shahray, please do feel free to appeal this (not sarcasm, I promise); I think this discussion has gone as far as it can go, here. Sorry to those involved that this took me so long - I was really reluctant to make a second block in the same case. AE admins can take it from here. Or they can come back and trout me, whatever works. -- asilvering (talk) 19:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a fair and balanced solution for now. Shahray gets the opportunity to make valuable contributions to other topic areas that they presumably do not have such a strong emotional investment in as to complicate cooperation with fellow editors. This may demonstrate that they are willing to build an encyclopaedia beyond a single issue. Kievan Rus' is already a highly contentious article / topic area as it is; every week or so there is another discussion about toponymy and ethnonymy (and the article title, of course, despite WP:KYIV/WP:KIEV and the big talk page banner we placed there). There is already a war on in real life; let's not have a virtual one here as well. ManyAreasExpert has given a good recommendation for the way forward. NLeeuw (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars by death toll (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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

Both users may have violated 3RR by making 5 reverts over the last 24 hours. This article's history is a bit of a mess, but this edit war started when Inherli restored an older version of the article. Inherli has never used a talk page before, and is now (after writing one edit summary) simply reverting EarthDude's reverts without even explaining their own reverts. EarthDude's edit summaries and messages at Inherli's talk page indicate that they believe they're reverting vandalism. I believe we need an admin to deal with this issue. Nythar (💬-🍀) 13:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting the page to a months old version, as Inherli did, disrupted countless recent edits by many editors to bring the article to meet Wikipedia's standards of quality, which it previously did not meet.

Furthermore, I tried to get Inherli to talk about the specific reasons for the edits they were making, and suggested a discussion to constructively try and improve the page, but they ignored it and continue reverting the page.

If this is not the definition of vandalism, I don't know what is. I've given them the series of escalating vandalism warnings that's supposed to be given, but Inherli nonetheless continue to ignore them and persist with their vandalism.

Me reverting vandalism isn't edit warring. What I'm doing follows WP:IAR EarthDude (talk) 14:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:Vandalism, vandalism is defined as editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge. (...) Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. (emphasis not mine) Inherli's edits seem to be disruptive at worst. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 19:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, he is doing it to other pages that I edited specifically reverting my edits without reason, I feel like he is gonna keep doing this and I don’t think a block on one page will do enough, he should be blocked from the site temporarily instead. Teotzin190 (talk) 10:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits were reverted because you are adding arbitrary casualty figures, and your account is new, you're not a credible editor and apparently don't even understand the concept of vandalism. The recent changes at List of wars by death toll are also arbitrary and lack consensus, but you probably don't even understand the concept of consensus either. Inherli (talk) 10:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through the edits which you reverted, and they're not arbitrary at all. They're backed by El siglo de la Integración, which is considered to be a reliable source. Your recent actions seem to stem from the fact that @Teotzin190 reverted the List of wars by death toll back to its stable and consensus built version, and since you've been blocked from meddling with the page further, you're angry. The reverts you made against @Teotzin190 this time were also not explained, against consensus, and hypocritically arbitrary. This kind of retaliatory behaviour gives reason to believe that your reverts are not in good faith. EarthDude (talk) 11:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with a siteblock. Their frequent reverts with minimal explanation/discussion beyond this forum are completely unhelpful, and I think it's fair to say that they have no intention of stopping. Enough is enough. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 13:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I cant even edit the pages without him reverting my edits even though my edits are supported by the source. Teotzin190 (talk) 13:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked @Inherli from the page for a week for edit-warring and a failure to communicate. @EarthDude's behavior has also been non-3RR-exempt edit-warring, but as they've been communicating here I am not going to block as it doesn't seem necessary to prevent disruption, so long as they do not revert again. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:03, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars by death toll (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Colombian conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Spanish conquest of the Inca Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Inherli, even after receiving multiple warnings and even getting blocked from the first page listed, continues to edit war and reverted a bunch of my edits to pages he could edit after I brought back a stable version of the List of wars by death toll. He removed a bunch of cited information by credible sources without providing an edit summary. He doesn't speak in any of the discussion pages either. Me and two other users agree that he should be blocked from editing site wide rather than just List of wars by death toll, and it doesnt seem like he will stop. Not only that, he tried to discredit my edits because I am a relatively new user compared to him and he made false accusations about the sources not being credible even though they are widely used and accepted. Teotzin190 (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the above comment after a separate discussion on same editor was opened while this discussion was opened. Schazjmd (talk) 16:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Singleton4321 (talk · contribs), who was blocked from editing Oliver James (psychologist) following a previous ANI report (see link), has engaged in WP:IDNHT fights on their talk page with other editors reeking of WP:TRUTH, WP:FRINGE and WP:NPA, not to mention the same behavior that got them banned there in the first place. The difference being they blame everyone but themselves for their predicament and prefers doing so despite advice by editors on how to appeal otherwise and believe that falsely and maliciously accusing editors they disagree with of engaging in a collaborative conspiracy does not count as WP:NPA. Borgenland (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent discussion at that talk page is lengthy. Can you please link diffs that support your accusations? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m on mobile so this may take a while. See this ridiculous WP:FRINGE rant: [82] Borgenland (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And then the repeated banging on other editors demanding explanations as to why their offending behavior was reverted. For example:

[83] despite this being explained already in [84] and in spite of a warning given to them for circumventing their ban [85], which is reinforced by these WP:IDNHT replies [86] and [87]. Borgenland (talk) 18:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Left a final warning on their talk page. Next step is a sitewide block with no talk page access if this continues. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked for 48 hours for TBAN violations. They can dispute their ban, but they can't continue to engage in disputes over the topic. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

or we could do that. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the crossed wires. We're in agreement about next steps if current behavior continues. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I get the impression a site ban will have little effect on this editor, as he's not really interested in editing any other topic but himself. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I still say this is an imposter bent on making the article subject look like an inept self-aggrandizer. The world-renowned, universally feted, incomparably accomplished expert and best-selling author he keeps telling us he is wouldn't act this way. EEng 05:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It would be very useful to know one way or the other. Is there no agreed administrative mechanism by which this could be accomplished? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  None which wouldn't violate WP:OUTING. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 07:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  So anyone's free to come along and impersonate an article subject just to make them look bad? In this case I guess it doesn't really matter, because they are now indef blocked anyway. But if the supposed "real" subject suddenly turned up, say after being tipped off by a friend, it seems surprising there's no way of dealing with that. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Now literally asking for a block at his Talk page. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  At this stage, either they are illiterate or they are just simply pretending to be blind. Borgenland (talk) 12:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is not the first time that WP:COMPETENCE has sprung to mind. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked indefinitely and TPA revoked. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Político World (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content to Adult Swim (Latin American TV channel), continued after final warning and hasn't responded to warnings. Examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4. Waxworker (talk) 06:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may get a faster response at WP:AIV. DonIago (talk) 06:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doniago: - I have previously been asked not to bring reports of unsourced content to AIV, as anything that isn't obvious vandalism or spam is out of AIV's scope. Waxworker (talk) 06:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the severity, persistent BLP violations or rapid widespread insertions are usually disruptive enough to be reported there. Getting back to this specific case, given the transparent gaming of AC and their failure to WP:COMMUNICATE, they should at the very least be blocked from mainspace until they engage with community concerns. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 06:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if username also violates WP:USERNAME. See Politico. Borgenland (talk) 08:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The network/kid's show space has a lot of these types of 'corporate name mix' vandals, so this has to be a sock of one of them, but which one I'm not sure just on a quick read. Nate • (chatter) 17:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the accent on the first "i", I'm thinking that it's a rather the word "politics" in one of the Romance languages. Español? It's obviously not affiliated with the webpaper Politico or anything. not an Admin BarntToust 21:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FromCzech (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - I am writing to formally complain about user FromCzech's recent actions, which appear to be retaliatory and disruptive, following my proposal to move Lokotrans Aréna under the title Mladá Boleslav Municipal Stadium and opening this topic for discussion. After initiating this move, FromCzech—a Czech editor with no previous interest in Polish stadiums—entered the last article I edited, Białystok Municipal Stadium, and unilaterally changed its title to Stadion Miejski (Białystok). Subsequently, they began editing it to reflect their preferred version, despite no prior engagement with Polish stadium topics. FromCzech has cited WP:RMUM as justification for the move. However, RMUM guidelines state: If you disagree with a prior bold move, and the new title has not been in place for a long time, you may revert the move yourself. If you cannot revert the move for technical reasons, then you may request a technical move. The current title has been in place since May 25, 2024—long enough to establish consistency and stability. This recent unilateral move and editing style appear to be in poor faith, seeming less about constructive editing and more about escalating conflict over naming conventions. Such conduct undermines collaborative principles and detracts from Wikipedia’s commitment to fair editorial practices. I request that action be taken to address this behavior and review the recent move for compliance with Wikipedia's standards on etiquette and editorial integrity. Paradygmaty (talk) 07:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to emphasize that my expectation is for an administrator to restore the article title to what it was as of this morning (Białystok Municipal Stadium). The previous title had been stable and well-established, and I believe reverting to it would reflect Wikipedia’s principles of consistency and proper editorial process. Paradygmaty (talk) 07:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Content disputes (including what an article should be titled) are out of scope on AN/I, and administrators can only use their tools to enforce an existing consensus, not force one. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 07:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Jéské Couriano; my concern here is less about the title itself and more about FromCzech’s retaliatory and disruptive behavior, which I believe warrants an administrative review. Paradygmaty (talk) 07:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the affected user feels that this is a personal attack, then I apologize, it was not intended that way. With his link in RM, the user drew attention to an article where the name change was achieved without a proper discussion in less than a year, so I restored the original name. I did not expect such an aggressive reaction, I hope that I have the right to edit articles from other countries than I come from and concerning other interests than my own. FromCzech (talk) 08:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The current title has been in place since May 25, 2024, and the previous title was there since the inception of the article in 2020 until your page move on May 25. WP:EDITCON does not really apply here on the new title as the number of edits between May 25 till now is limited. I would view the previous title as the last stable one. Please open an Requested Move discussion instead. – robertsky (talk) 11:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about WP:UE? Białystok Municipal Stadium goes for Stadion Miejski in Białystok. As a Polish editor, I believe I have a deeper understanding of the cultural and linguistic context surrounding Polish stadiums. For this reason, it’s important that any changes to established names involve input from those who regularly work on these topics. Paradygmaty (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paradygmaty, you can make that argument in a Requested Move discussion. Except for editing restrictions, editors can edit any article unless they are topic banned just like your edits aren't limited to articles on Polish subjects. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Recently blocked user is spamming their own talk page, despite warnings. —Bruce1ee^talk 10:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TPA revoked. – robertsky (talk) 10:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If his behaviour is bad enough to block, his domain should be blacklisted:

• searchmycolleges.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.searchmycolleges.com

Based on my past years of spam-fighting, this guy will be back with another account unless his domain is blacklisted. Blacklist any associated domains, too.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A. B., it would probably be best to report this at the appropriate page regarding the blacklist. I don't think any action will be taken regarding this proposal on ANI. I know that I don't know how to add URLs to the blacklist and I don't think most editors or admins do either. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done:

• MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#searchmycolleges.com ^([permalink)

Note that the username doesn't end in "s" but the domain name is plural: searchmycolleges.com. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Am I a bad person for being amused when someone misspells their spamdle? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You’ll be more amused than this person when they realize their site’s blacklisted.

I don’t know if Google still does this, but back in the day, Google reportedly consulted our blacklist when deciding whether to de-index a site for link-spamming. That would really, really hurt.

They’re lucky they only spammed our wiki (I checked). If they’d spammed just one other WMF site they’d be globally blacklisted at Meta. That’s 700+ WMF wikis plus most other non-WMF MediaWiki sites by default.

Don’t block spammers, just blacklist them (assuming they’ve gotten multiple warnings). If you block them they’ll just return with a different account; instead watch their account for other spam domains. Blacklisting is more effective and really gets attention.

I blacklisted 100s, maybe 1000s, of domains as an admin here and on Meta before my 9-year hiatus. I’d also block any other of their domains I could find. I usually gave 3-4 warnings before this. Blacklisting is potentially so consequential I didn’t do it cavalierly. It can be a lot of real money if other sites use what we've done when compiling their own blacklists.

Paid editing is a bigger problem now. After several warnings, I’d blacklist any of those domains, too, and monitor the paid editor’s future edits for more blacklisting.

I got some threats from some spammers so I’m protective of my real life identity.-—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_McEntee_(political_aide)&diff=prev&oldid=1232271409

Seems like an attempt at intimidation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magischzwei (talk • contribs) 11:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Magischzwei Done. Doug Weller talk 12:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This comment, the only edit by this IP editor, was made on July 2nd. I'm sure a block on October 29th will have no effect on them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Roberto221 has implicitly threatened to contact my employer.

On a number of occasions, he has uploaded non-free depictions of coats of arms of Roman Catholic bishops using, in my estimation, improper licensing - free versions may be made, and there are indeed thousands of them made by various Wikipedia heralds; moreover, he uploads them using {{Non-free seal}} which concerns government entities. I have, as such, requested speedy deletion on a number of these uploads that seems to be improperly licensed, most recently File:Coat of Arms of Kevin Thomas Kenney(Saint Paul and Minneapolis).jpg. In response to my most recent request, Roberto221 stated "Who is your bishop, I'd like to have a word with him.." (cf. revision). I am a Catholic priest and this implicit threat to contact my bishop, an attempt to disrupt my employment based on good-faith efforts, is very worrisome. I would like it addressed in whatever manner is deemed appropriate.

Thank you. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk/Contribs} 16:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree that Roberto221's implied threat to contact an employer was uncivil and unnecessarily escalatory, particularly given that it was over good-faith speedy tagging of likely copyvios. I think a simple warning to avoid similar comments is in order. Since no effort appears to have been made to release private information, I do not believe additional action beyond that is necessary. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good form for Roberto221 to retract the threat to contact a bishop. While not exactly the same as a legal threat, it has a lot in common with one in terms of its chilling effect on editing, and should be considered unwelcome for the same reasons. Certainly, it should be clear that any attempt to double down or act on this threat is grounds for an indefinite block: Wikipedia disputes are resolved on Wikipedia, not through threats of offline discipline. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we need a new policy, WP:No episcopal threats. EEng 20:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can pair that with WP:No threats of divine retribution _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly agree that this is completely unacceptable behavior clearly designed to intimidate. This is now how we resolve disputes, if Roberto221 can acknowledge that an maybe strike out the offending comment that would be great. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of the opinion that any threat to escalate to one's higher authority (an employer, police, or religious authorities) warrants a 4im warning at best and an indef more usually. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 21:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the comments here all day, no one had posted a warning to editor Roberto221's user talk page so I have done so. Discussion at ANI isn't effective if no action is taken to inform editors that behavior is unacceptable. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverend, Once again you have failed to grasp the concept of non-free. It was uploaded as a non-free file with its use limited to ONLY one page as any other non-free file. If you keep persisting on these attacks, then I will have no recourse but to bring this up with the editors/admins. Who is your bishop, I'd like to have a word with him..

Regardless of the situation with the coat of arms, this was a completely asinine and unnecessarily belligerent escalation, and should not be done under any circumstances. It is fine (and desirable) to escalate a dispute to other editors, or to a noticeboard such as this one; it is absolutely not permissable to escalate them irl. Editors here are free to speak the truth, and to edit without partiality, on the basis of pseudonymity -- this is an obvious threat to carry out WP:OUTING. On the basis that there may have been a simple lack of understanding of the seriousness of the policies involved here, I am giving them a single warning -- anything like this in the future will result in a block. jp×g🗯️ 00:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[88] Great Mercian: It's people like you that are only dragging out this already long discussion. [directed at another.]

[89] Rc2barrington: @Great Mercian is right. This endorsement is essentially the same as making the original comment themself.

[90] Great Mercian has since been made aware of WP:GSRUSUKR.

[91] Rc2barrington already CTOP aware of WP:CT/EE.

[92] [93] Requests to both editors on their individual TPs to strike their comments as uncivil/personal attack.

Since the request Great Mercian has continued to edit but has neither struck the comment nor otherwise responded.

[94] Rc2barrington responded at their TP: There has been some evidence-backed allegations made that other editors have ignored evidence and have engaged in disruptive editing, against Wikipedia rules. [emphasis in original]

[95] Rc2barrington was advised at their TP that the appropriate place to raise an issue was ANI. The initial request was repeated. They were also advised of WP:GSRUSUKR. Neither action has been taken by Rc2barrington.

Cinderella157 (talk) 04:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More recent:

[96] Rc2barrington: Don’t keep engaging in disruptive editing please. At another editor because they expressed a particular view. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cinderella157, so the personal attack is saying an editor(s) is dragging out a discussion? Were there other edits? Maybe it's the time I've spent on ANI over the years but that seems pretty mild. I'm not sure it warrants a visit to ANI. What resolution were you seeking here? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is an aspersion of bad faith editing made even more explicit by Rc2barrington in a CTOP/GS area where higher expectations of conduct are expected. There discussions involve many editors in respect to adding North Korea in the infobox and more specifically when we should do this. The pressure to do this now is being pushed by many non-ECP editors or editors that have limited experience. It comes down to what NEWSORG sources are actually saying v what some editors want/see them to say. Listing a nation as a belligerent is an exception claim and "supported by" is deprecated except where there is a strong affirmative consensus (RfC). It is like there is a competition to add NK and the issue is causing disruption. Editors are starting to see this as a them against us battle. The fall of Bakhmut created a similarly hostile editing environment. These are not the only two instances I could raise but others are generally by drive by IPs. They will likely get worse. An admin striking these with an appropriate comment that the page is being watched (and doing so) will have some positive effect. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be little doubt among reliable sources that North Korean troops are now in the Kursk region near Ukraine. I do not want to intervene directly in the content dispute but it seems to me that describing the North Koreans as "belligerents" at this time is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence. They could be there for mutual training or to poke the nose of Russia's many opponents. A geopolitical warning, as it were, and preparation for elite North Korean troops to operate outside their largely closed society. If reliable sources in days and weeks to come report that North Korean troops are actively attacking Ukraine, and inflicting and suffering casualties, then obviously all previous bets are off. Until then, I believe that policy requires a cautious and conservative description of North Korean involvement in that horrible and bloody war. Cullen328 (talk) 06:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328, you have effectively summarised the views of experienced editors but the TP (and at Russo-Ukraine War) is being bombarded to change this now. And the aspersions against those opposing a change now for the reasoning you give are starting too. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)But, Cullen328, do you think this complaint calls for admin action? It sounds like the whole talk page discussion is potentially divisive and that goes beyond two isolated comments by these two editors. If similar comments (or worse) are being made by other editors, I don't know that these two editors should be sanctioned. Maybe the talk page should be protected for a while if there are problematic drive-by comments. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, I am not recommending any use of the administrative toolkit at this moment in time. I will probably be awake for another hour or so and then will need seven to eight hours of sleep until my California morning. Maybe when I wake up, the North Koreans will be engaged in full scale combat in Ukraine. Maybe not, I hope. My goal at the moment is to discourage editors from getting "too far in front of their skis" about what reliable sources are saying at the particular time that I make this comment. Cullen328 (talk) 07:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that at the same talk page, a user is pushing for adding conspiracy theories to the article. May be someone with the knowledge of American conspiracy theorists and the sources they normally use might want to have a look. Ymblanter (talk) 09:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to address the ongoing discussion about adding North Korea to the infobox for the Russian Invasion of Ukraine. It’s clear from both the talk page and reliable sources that a strong consensus has emerged to list North Korea in the 'supported by' section. Numerous editors have provided evidence-based arguments in favor of this, backed by statements from multiple intelligence sources. Despite this, repeated reversions and resistance from a few editors have delayed progress and complicated what should be a straightforward update based on evidence.

I’d like to emphasize that ignoring well-supported information doesn’t align with Wikipedia’s commitment to accurate, up-to-date content. At this point, the continued pushback feels less about policy and more about individual resistance. I would appreciate a moderator’s help in ensuring that this evidence-based consensus is respected and that editors who aim to maintain Wikipedia’s accuracy are not unnecessarily stalled or undermined.

I actually attempted to open up a noticeboard discussion about this, but was prevented due to WP:GSRUSUKR and WP:CT/EE. Rc2barrington (talk) 01:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for scuba, I endorse him and his views on this topic. Rc2barrington (talk) 01:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note this earlier similar incident bought here that was resolved by admin intervention but without sanction. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was the editor who requested that earlier intervention. I was hoping to head-off such problems (ASP/PA) swiftly. I was in the process of writing a comment to Rc2barrington at the talk, but checking their talk page on a hunch discovered this.

Briefly, GreatMercian's [i]t's people like you ... is a comment on contributor regardless of what follows. In a fraught discussion it is inadvisable to start a comment with this. The evidence-backed – rather evidence-free accusations – of ignoring evidence and disruptive editing is Rc2barrington copying aspersions cast by Scu ba, the editor involved in the aforementioned earlier similar incident. These may appear mild, but this is a contentious topic area and the long-term editors there are regularly fielding drive-by accusations: of being propagandists, pushing Putin's or Zelenskyy's narrative, being overtly pro-Ukraine, hiding the truthTM, etc, etc. We tend to ignore or archive (rather delete as NOTFORUM) those comments.

Finally, as an aside, if only the majority of participants had as calm and cool-headed assessment as Cullen328, we'd have a better article and fewer debates. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made that comment because I was just so sick and tired of stuff like this. There are actual news reports of North Korean troops inside Ukraine now, but apparently we have to get a consensus now instead of just putting it on the article like we've been able to do with the timeline articles. I haven't been as active on the 2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine articles as I used to be (mainly because it's too depressing now) so this is kind of a shock. It baffles me as to how that discussion is still open. I won't be striking my comment as another user's argument (and quite frankly, I don't care to look up who) relies on it. It's 3am for me now so I'll be going. I don't really want any more to do with this. Great Mercian (talk) 03:06, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @Great Mercian. And yes, I endorse this comment. I have called multiple times for moderator intervention, but no, I won't mind if this is taken up and this page is protected to extended-confirmed, but this needs to be resolved, somehow. Rc2barrington (talk) 03:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, Great Mercian does seem to have a tendency to make personal attacks against other editors during discussions. While not in the same topic area, here's another hotbed (different CTOP) where they did so [97] [98]. Nil Einne (talk) 10:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And yes this is also related to the thread that is currently below (#Modifying a closed discussion to directly accuse another editor of bad faith and subthread #User: Rob Roilen, but I felt it better to bring up here since the problem of personal attacks by Great Mercian fits much better here than below IMO given the similar problems even if it's a different topic area. Nil Einne (talk) 10:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Having slept on it, I think frustrated would be a better word to describe how I feel. Great Mercian (talk) 11:59, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also see here, where they casted aspersions about my nomination of Comparisons between Donald Trump and fascism for deletion, but I'll honestly AGF on that comment, since it is a controversial topic. SMG _chat 13:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The editor @Trulyy has modified a closed discussion on Talk:Tony Hinchcliffe in order to directly accuse me of bad faith edits. This editor, and others, has taken issue with my cautioning of other editors to remain neutral in their point of view when writing content for the article. Rob Roilen (talk) 13:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Without going deeper into what is getting to be a fairly messy content dispute, this at least is accurate: Trulyy modified a hatted discussion by adding an extra edit that was unsigned that was a comment purely about Rob Roilen some nine hours after it was closed. They should knock it off.

What I am also concerned about is that Trulyy has apparently gotten in the habit of mislabeling substantial edits as "minor," frequently when it's in a heated conversation involving ongoing political topics. This was labeled minor, as was a substantial edit about Ken Paxton's edits in a capital punishment article [99], adding a sentence describing a murder as an example of missing white woman syndrome [100], adding new content discussing Rich Lowry's use of a racial slur [101], adding new content quoting a Jack Posobiec comment and describing it as a thread of violence [102], and so on. While it's not worth more than a trout the first time, I'd remind Trulyy that WP:MINOR is only to be used on superficial changes to spelling, grammar, or structure, or blatant vandalism (or the result of a rollback) that nobody could reasonably argue with. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for your contribution. I cleared up my reasoning for making the aforementioned comment a couple minutes ago. In regards to why it was purely about that user, it was because he was the dissenting user who did not understand what everyone else in the thread seemed to understand.

The article was, from all times I observed it, written from a neutral point of view, using objective language. Just because it was regarding negative actions, such as making jokes about racial stereotypes, does not mean it was edited in a negative tone. From what I gather you understand that, but I am letting you know just to clear up some of Rob's concerns. After reading the article, the reader was given the opportunity to make their own conclusions, not opinions given to them by the editor. As one user put it:

Buddy, you're trying to whitewash the article. NPOV doesn't mean "the comedian who was racist should have his page scrubbed clean, otherwise it's not neutral".

In regards to labeling substantial edits as minor, I apologize for doing so, I have not read up on all of wikipedia's rules in a while and was not completely familiar with what constituted a minor edit by wikipedia's standards, so thank you for informing me so I can do better. Trulyy (talk) 16:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I was just talking about the two issues (the one brought up and the one I saw). That whole talk page could definitely use a lower temperature, but I didn't mean to convey the idea that I thought that was your fault; it was simply meant as a general observation. If you will just leave hatted conversations be and be careful with that minor edit checkbox, that's certainly enough for me. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your concern. I am not used to editing talk pages, this is maybe the third time I've edited a talk page, and as the thread I was trying to reply to was at the bottom, I did not take the time to scroll to the top to see the discussion was locked. Furthermore, when trying to post my reply in the locked discussion, I got an unclear error rather than an explanation of why I couldn't post, so I assumed it would be fine for me to edit it directly.

I'm regards to 'accusing you of bad faith edits', I don't recall doing such a thing, but what I do know is you repeatedly tried to edit a withstanding edit because you didn't feel the source was reliable, when it is listed as one of wikipedia's reliable sources. You were presented by several users with references explaining that your opinion on what a reliable source was does not trump wikipedia's lasting standards, and if you disagree with that to bring it up in the appropriate area, not in an edit war on a random page. Nonetheless, you continued to delete other information because you thought the sources unreliable, even though they are approved and acclaimed sources.

No one took issue with your notices. Several times you tried to bring up completely irrelevant arguments such as argument from authority when nothing remotely resembled such a thing.

As for disrespect and assuming bad faith, you started, from the get-go, doing that as seen below:

"What's happening right now is an insult to encyclopedic writing. The page cannot be edited except by editors with special privileges, and the only edits being made are meant to portray Tony negatively? What a joke. All credibility lost. You should be ashamed of yourselves for actively contributing to the degradation of open information sharing. This is not unbiased, neutral, accurate, factual writing. And to make it so much worse, you are literally preventing anyone who isn't in the Special Club from editing what boils down to opinions portrayed as fact. What leverage do the unprivileged editors have here? Who are you held accountable to? Yourselves? You don't see how this is dangerous? You don't think this makes it fair game for others to do the same to you?"

Trulyy (talk) 15:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, your inability to assume good faith and engage in a civilized manner with other editors can be observed in the following thread:

(Non-administrator comment)That's not true. Administrators have no special authority other what is or isn't a reliable source. You should look to relevant policies and guidelines to judge if a source is reliable, and use dispute resolution if there is disagreement. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am unclear as to which part of the long response isn't true. My best assumption is that you are referring to Rob Roilen's disregard for reliable sources as outlined in the relavent policies and guidelines. As was a major aspect of the conversation, myself and other users explained multiple times. that removing other's content on the basis of sources should only be done if the source is not designated reliable by wikipedia

or if it has been resolved through another remedy.

To clear things up in brief, Rob Roilen thought that he had

personal liberty to remove standing content based on his personal opinion of sources rather than longstanding

wikipedia descions.

I told him he is free to edit without using sources he doesn't like, so long as he is using other credible sources.

As was demonstrated in his comments against established and credible sources, For example:

"mainstream sources Wikipedia deems as "reliable" regularly publish sensational, outright false information portrayed as fact, these sources are no longer reliable by definition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tal

k: Tony_Hinchcliffe#c-Rob_Roilen- 20241028171900-Cowboygilbert-

20241028171400

"You and other editors have continuously referred to outlets like The New York Times and Axios, for example, as "reliable sources""

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tony_Hinchcliffe#c-Rob_Roilen-20241028182600-Trulyy-20241028181200

Rather than resolve it in accordance with wikipedia's policies, he has decided to remove content with sources he doesn't like, and, when being told explicitly that is not how to judge sources, instead of acknowledging that fact, continuing to come after other editors. Trulyy (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify regarding bad faith edits as I am rereading the thread, I did not accuse you of making bad faith edits, I accused you of targeting other users accusing them of bad faith edits, which, please see your below quote:

"You should be ashamed of yourselves for actively contributing to the degradation of open information sharing. This is not unbiased, neutral, accurate, factual writing. And to make it so much worse, you are literally preventing anyone who isn't in the Special Club from editing what boils down to opinions portrayed as fact."

The above example is textbook assuming bad faith, and such behavior discourages well-intentioned users from editing the wiki and contributing to the platform. I did not accuse you of anything I have not proven with wikipedia's definitions. Trulyy (talk) 16:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Needless to say, for a new, well-intentioned editor trying to contribute to freedom of information to be attacked by an editor both insulting, belittling, shaming, and harrasing them for editing an article in a factual, unbiased manner that they didn't like will deter other editors and scare away current ones. Trulyy (talk) 17:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both Trulyy's and Rob Roilen's posts on that page are unhelpful. Trulyy blundered in modifying a closed discussion, but at least it was their only edit and they undid it as soon as it was brought up here. Rob, meanwhile, is a single-purpose account needlessly ratcheting up the WP:BATTLEGROUND vibe of that page (and continuing to add more heat than light by skipping anything like conversation and escalating to this noticeboard). FWIW. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I made every effort to civilly explain my and others intentions, but at no point were any of my points taken into consideration. I feel Rob is not interested in the benefit of the platform, rather trying to punish those whose edits he disagrees with. He had many better, quicker, and more efficient ways to resolve this, but instead chose to try and come after me more than he already has. Trulyy (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As credit to my assumption, his topic was not constructive whatsoever, especially not to the standard of others, and he devoted only one sentence to the actual issue he reported, thus showing he was picking something against the guidelines, which was an honest mistake, and using it as an opportunity to make the above post and try to come after me. He made no indication he wanted a resolution, an understanding, or anything. I have edited on Wikipedia for a year and have devoted dozens of hours to the platform. This is my only dispute that I have gotten into that has lasted more than three messages and wasn't resolved in a satisfactory manner. Trulyy (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Protip: this matter is visible to many eyeballs now. Best to let others handle it now, if there's any handling to be done. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a "single-purpose account" and I certainly attempted to converse with other editors before bringing this to the noticeboard.

I am genuinely troubled by the effort other editors are willing to put into discrediting my input. I'm not sure how to more clearly state my mission here; I am fully, 100%, without a doubt committed to maintaining Wikipedia's integrity and accuracy. That is explicitly why I have continuously cautioned other editors from A) injecting their own personal opinions into articles, B) allowing their own personal opinions to interfere with their objective assessment of a source's reliability, and C) simply claiming a source is reliable because "it's on the list of reliable sources" or "I've always trusted ____". In the context of writing an encyclopedia, these are completely inappropriate. Rob Roilen (talk) 21:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have not continuously cautioned other editors, as more than 50% of your edits are on that talk page alone.

As myself and other editors have told you many times, when it comes to editing wikipedia, claiming a source is reliable because it's on Wikipedia's list of reliable sources is the polar opposite of 'completely innapropriate'. Trulyy (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While there are many sources that Wikipedia may generally consider reliable, "reliable" should not mean "beyond scrutiny." "Reliability" should still be determined with care. Relying on a source just because it’s generally considered reputable can unintentionally skew neutrality, especially when sources on contentious topics may display implicit biases. Encouraging balanced assessments of sources is consistent with Wikipedia’s standards of neutrality and due weight. Rob Roilen (talk) 22:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you are coming from. In the context of that article, what are some sources you would consider reliable? Trulyy (talk) 22:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the "2024 Trump rally at Madison Square Garden" article, Rob Roilen has been relentlessly making changes to the article (including removing sources for reasons that from my understanding are not Wikipedia's rules for what makes a source valid). He also pushing for the article's removal due to bias. Broadly, his argument is that including reactions to the event that made comparisons to Hitler and Nazism is "sensationalizing", "biased", or invalid due to the outlet or sources having consistent past articles criticizing Trump (implying that a source that has consistent rhetoric is not valid). There are three main things in his arguments that make me believe this person is acting in bad faith.

1. Instead of using the rules of the site as a justification for edits and accusations of bias, Rob Roilen is using his own standards for what constitutes neutrality. After it was explained to him that a completely neutral tone is not possible when the content of the article is not neutral (aka, False Balance), he ignored this and continued to state that the article is not "neutral". I explained to him that the neutral tone he wants is not possible, in the same way that an unbiased tone isn't possible for an article covering a topic like slavery. The other side can not be portrayed as equal in validity.

2. As well, he consistently justifies his reasoning as being because "the page should be written as an encyclopedia", and his specific use of "an encyclopedia" is (in my opinion) a deliberate way of separating the discussion from Wikipedia's rules, and pushing for what he thinks is valid based on what he expects from an encyclopedia (these are his words). The only time he has said "Wikipedia" is when he is criticizing the rules and standards of the website itself.

3. The edits he is making (including removing the introduction section summarizing the issues and rhetoric Trump used, as well as the overall reaction) are fundamentally changing the purpose of the article and what warranted its creation, and I believe this is motivated by a desire to see the page removed. Articles on specific campaign events are not created unless it was notable, had a strong and widespread reaction, or directly caused a significant event, otherwise there is no real reason to create an article on a specific rally. By removing criticisms towards the event and continuously pushing a False Balance, Rob Roilen is misleading readers and trying to make the article less factual for the sake of being unbiased. 64.228.236.176 (talk) 02:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. We've been having frequent clashes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Trump rally at Madison Square Garden. Great Mercian (talk) 02:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

64.228.236.176, as it says on many places on this page, you have to inform an editor when you start a discussion on them on a noticeboard or mention them in a serious way. They should be encouraged to participate here. Please do this now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:59, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for informing me. I have invited him to join the discussion here. 64.228.236.176 (talk) 03:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, 64.228.236.176. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've stated my case in multiple threads now, including another ANI, so this is starting to feel like harassment from a handful of editors who would like to see my editing privileges limited, but just to have it here:

My standards for neutrality are Wikipedia's standards for neutrality. From Wikipedia:Neutral point of view:

"NPOV...means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." (emphasis added)

It also says:

"This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." (emphasis added)

I see on my talk page I've been accused by this IP user of being "manipulative" for posting these policy excerpts.

While there are many sources that Wikipedia may generally consider reliable, "reliable" should not mean "beyond scrutiny." "Reliability" should still be determined with care. Relying on a source just because it’s generally considered reputable can unintentionally skew neutrality, especially when sources on contentious topics may display implicit biases. Encouraging balanced assessments of sources is consistent with Wikipedia’s standards of neutrality and due weight.

I believe very strongly that Wikipedia's foundational principle of neutrality should take precedence over merely reflecting sources' biases. This principle isn’t about echoing a source’s viewpoint but rather about integrating diverse perspectives in a way that represents the topic fairly, accurately, and without leaning towards a single viewpoint.By reflecting all sources—both their strengths and inherent biases—with balanced skepticism, Wikipedia avoids taking implicit stances and maintains a neutral, trustworthy stance across contentious subjects. Rob Roilen (talk) 04:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this is also a good place to mention that the above user @Great Mercian recently said to me "The more I look into it, I'm more convinced you're either not real or just a troll" and even "I'm half convinced you're a Republican sleeper agent." Rob Roilen (talk) 04:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've yet to see you rebuke such claims @Rob Roilen: Great Mercian (talk) 12:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those are personal attacks and contrary to wikipedia policy. I would not stand by them so flagrantly. Just10A (talk) 13:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily think Rob Roilen is a Trump supporter or even Republican, though he could be (he has stated he is not Republican and I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt). I think the more likely reason is that the user is a fan of Tony Hitchcliffe's comedy and doesn't like that his page is connected to an event widely viewed negatively. That may be presumptive but based on how this began with the Tony article, I think it's likely that this is a motivator. Note: this is just an observation, I do not think this motivation is disqualifying, had Rob Roilen acted appropriatley his edits may have been acceptable. The user's own words and actions are the main thing that I think are worth scrutinizing, not his political views, which I am not comfortable assuming. 64.228.236.176 (talk) 14:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding personal attacks, refer to the lightest example, but most convinient for me, of what Rob said prior to a single interaction with any editors:

"What's happening right now is an insult to encyclopedic writing. The page cannot be edited except by editors with special privileges, and the only edits being made are meant to portray Tony negatively? What a joke. All credibility lost.

You should be ashamed of yourselves for actively contributing to the degradation of open information sharing. This is not unbiased, neutral, accurate, factual writing. And to make it so much worse, you are literally preventing anyone who isn't in the Special Club from editing what boils down to opinions portrayed as fact.

What leverage do the unprivileged editors have here? Who are you held accountable to? Yourselves? You don't see how this is dangerous? You don't think this makes it fair game for others to do the same to you?"

Source Trulyy (talk) 16:50, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that his behavior is incendiary and unacceptable. But there isn't a "but they did something wrong too!" exception to WP:PA, much less doubling down on them on the noticeboard. It's contrary to policy regardless. Just10A (talk) 17:06, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Roilen as you seem to have used original research to challenge the acceptability of reliable sources, and have cited WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS as an acceptable source, I suggest your arguments are better suited for noticeboards rather than within an article that you adamantly seek to delete. soibangla (talk) 04:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Might I recommend that any administrators observing this case refer to the extensive talk page of @Soibangla Rob Roilen (talk) 04:32, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Roilen I wholly recommend everyone deeply scrutinize my Talk page soibangla (talk) 04:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assume Rob Roilen is pointing to your temporary ban from editing one particular article focused on Trump's assassination attempt. I do not see how this is relevant here, since this is not a discussion on soibangla or this different article. 64.228.236.176 (talk) 04:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that will be done. Rob has been rebuked by dozens of editors within the last two days, has made personal attacks, been shown wikipedia policy and ignored it because he doesn't like it. Escalated issues needlessly instead of trying to get them resolved, and violated many of wikipedia's policies. Trulyy (talk) 16:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find it extraordinarily strange that I'm the one being accused of "ignoring Wikipedia policy" when there are multiple examples of me directly referencing and quoting said policy in an attempt to get other editors to actually follow it. You do understand that it's possible to be wrong about something even when you're in a room full of people who agree with you, right? Rob Roilen (talk) 19:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The manipulativeness was what you left out and what you emphasized. First, you emphasized "editorial bias" while completely ignoring "as far as possible", which is clearly an important point of nuance. You have not been able to prove that the article and sources used are properly sourced bias, which as I explained, is acceptable. What you have engaged in is editorial bias, by definition. Your interpretation is also manipulative:

"This principle isn’t about echoing a source’s viewpoint but rather about integrating diverse perspectives in a way that represents the topic fairly, accurately, and without leaning towards a single viewpoint." This is factually untrue. I have shown you repeated proof that this is not realistic in all scenarious, and the site's rules reflect this. For example, an article on evolution cannot be accurate if it doesn't lean towards the viewpoint that evolution is true. By this extreme logic, you would have to present the Creationist perspective equally. 64.228.236.176 (talk) 04:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: You have not been able to prove that the article and sources used are not properly sourced bias 64.228.236.176 (talk) 04:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I second this for the article Tony Hinchcliffe. He showed blatant disregard for wikipedia's guidelines, attacked other editors, and then reported me to the notice board, although everyone else in that thread and the talk page thread all sided with me. He has been downright nasty to myself and others. Trulyy (talk) 16:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to another editors opinion on a thread regarding my mistake that Rob escalated:

well now the problematic matter appears to be that Rob Roilen has cast aspersions on others who have disagreed with their adamance in deleting the articlc, including suggesting that an editor's Talk page be examined by administrators for some sort of suspected malfeasance soibangla (talk) 06:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trulyy (talk) 16:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a sec. An IP who's just joined the 'pedia about two days ago, participating only at the aforementioned page. Now making an ANI report??? GoodDay (talk) 05:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

is there something intrinsically improper about that? soibangla (talk) 05:14, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is. Who's the IP, that appeared suddenly? GoodDay (talk) 05:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay, I'm not sure why this surprises you, IP accounts file complaints at ANI all of the time. Most IP accounts have addresses that are dynamic and change regularly so this editor probably edited with other addresses in the past. I do not think they are an editor who is contributing logged out if that is what concerns you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely hope you're correct. GoodDay (talk) 05:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP editors are perfectly entitled to contribute as 64.228.236.176 has at length on the article Talk. allegations have been suggested by two editors that 64.228.236.176 was recently banned but no concrete evidence has been presented. incidentally, aspersions have also been cast upon me, which might be considered sanctionable. soibangla (talk) 05:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you maybe argue with the points being raised before going with an ad hom? Like most regular users of Wikipedia, I have simply not made edits or engaged in discussions, until this particular article's vote for deletion caught my attention. I disagree with this deletion, so here we are.

Rob Roilen has also only started being active the last couple days, roughly 99% of his edits are on this article and the one on Tony Hitchcliffe (apologies if the name is botched). This is not one of the reasons I am criticizing him, his longevity is not an important factor to me. I am criticizing his arguments, edits, and overall conduct in this situation. 64.228.236.176 (talk) 05:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And if this is not already clear, unlike Rob Roilen, I have not made any edits or deleted sources. I am strictly keeping this in discussion only. 64.228.236.176 (talk) 05:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned about who you are. But, I'll let others decide if there's a reason to be curious. GoodDay (talk) 05:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is my identity important? 64.228.236.176 (talk) 05:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If my identity is cause for concern, who are you implyng I am? 64.228.236.176 (talk) 05:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop feigning injury and asking questions you already know the answers to. Remsense ‥ 论 05:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the hostility, Remsense. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't understand the question, which put my hackles up: of course it's important for our purposes who the identity of editors are in the terms we have been discussing. Remsense ‥ 论 05:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was asking a question, how is that feigning injury? You appear to be implying I am a specific person, I am asking for validation on this. 64.228.236.176 (talk) 06:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

but you aren't letting others decide if they're curious. you have decided you are. soibangla (talk) 05:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

64.228.236.176, if you want a better response to your complaint, it is best to include "diffs" or links to specific edits that you find problematic and that concern you. Typically a report comes with 3-7 diffs so that editors reviewing it can see if there is a problem that needs to be addressed. Right now, this complaint is just editors bickering with each other. To take any action, you have to include evidence of misconduct that goes beyond a narrative complaint. I tell this to many editors new to filing complaints at ANI so this is not me taking a side, just informing you what is generally needed for any action to happen. There are situations where an admin will investigate a situation themselves but it helps the filer to point out what behavior they see as problematic. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

well now the problematic matter appears to be that Rob Roilen has cast aspersions on others who have disagreed with their adamance in deleting the articlc, including suggesting that an editor's Talk page be examined by administrators for some sort of suspected malfeasance soibangla (talk) 06:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the input. I may need some time to put all the citations together (and I am not super familiar with formatting so this will require more research) but that seems doable. I didn't think this discussion would take up this much of my time but I am invested at this point. 64.228.236.176 (talk) 07:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My comment remains the same. Without diffs/evidence, I doubt any action will be taken because it looks like a disagreement over content or just two editors who don't get along. You don't need a lot of diffs, like I said, a half dozen examples can be persuasive (or not, it depends on what you choose to highlight). I recommend that this doesn't devolve into bickering between editors or someone will just close this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've made this a subthread of the earlier one. While the earlier thread was started by Rob Roilen, as often happens with these sort of threads, Rob Roilen's own behaviour was also being discussed and it concerned the same set or articles and issues. Splitting the discussion is unlikely to be helpful. Nil Einne (talk) 09:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the general issue, I have to say from what I've seen that Rob Roilen is still fairly unfamiliar with and having trouble accepting our sourcing requirements and other fundamentals of editing here. While we were all new once, I'm not convinced these articles especially so close to the US election is a good place for them to be learning. They've already been given a recent American politics CTOP alert so IMO barring considerable improvement it's worth an admin considering if it might be productive to force them to learn the basics somewhere else or at least sometime after the election if they want to stay in recent American politics articles. Nil Einne (talk) 09:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is something of an issue with this over here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#CNN. Slatersteven (talk) 17:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is asking questions against Wikipedia policy? Rob Roilen (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, but continuing to ask it after it has been answered might be seen as wp:disruptive. Slatersteven (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irony Rob Roilen (talk) 17:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rob's primary objective at the Tony Hinchcliffe article seems to be removing the "racist" label on a "they're just jokes" basis. That he is arguing to exclude "mainstream media" underscores misunderstanding how Wikipedia works. Various examples of needless fighting and policy issues, all from Talk:Tony Hinchcliffe:

Oh I see, so we're just going to do that thing where we get stuck in a loop where you claim that mainstream media articles are "reliable"

Why is your sense of urgency suddenly gone? Someone was so eager to call Tony "racist" and lock down the editing of the page for a month, but when people push back we're just going to run out the clock?

It could even be argued that these statements about Tony are libelous.

Ah yes, step in to seriously limit who can freely edit information but then refuse to participate in the ongoing discussion. How diplomatic

None of it is helpful. Lest we think Rob is the only one, or that he's escalating in a vacuum, there are several users making wildly unhelpful comments on that talk page, so I sort of get Rob's strong response in places. The problem is none of his comments seem to move discussion forward, and it's an account focused on this topic. FWIW. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:21, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate if editors would stop implying that I'm only here to edit a single topic, since this appears to be an effort to discredit my input. Is my input only valid if I've edited a certain number of pages? What's the threshold?

To contextualize the quotes above, it should be noted that they are from when the Tony Hinchcliffe article was being aggressively edited to portray Tony in an objectively negative light directly after the Madison Square Garden rally. Saying that my comments did not move the discussion forward fails to take into account that the article is currently much more tonally neutral than it was before I happened to show up.

I also find it deeply troubling that other editors who have expressed personal disagreements with my tone are literally calling for me to be "forced" to follow the rules in a way they subjectively approve of. Please tell me I'm not the only person here who sees the very real issue with that. Rob Roilen (talk) 12:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The context for "single-purpose account" is WP:SPA FYI. fails to take into account that the article is currently much more tonally neutral - even if we say you were right on the content issues, being right doesn't discount the negative effect of a flurry of unnecessarily escalating comments with no basis in wikipolicy. I don't have anything else to add, though. If you don't want to be seen as an "SPA", find some good sources to summarize to improve a totally unrelated article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Roilen: To give an example of why your approach is harmful, consider this edit [103]. The edit itself was productive, AFAICT, neither source used in our article describes what Cardone said as misogynistic. Your edit summary was so unhelpful however that it would have been better to not use an edit summary. AFAICT, no one has argued the comment is inherently misogynistic on the talk page. But even if they had, it would be irrelevant. What matters is whether sources widely call what Cardone said as misogynistic not whether it's "inherently misogynistic" (whatever on earth that means) nor whether an editor feels it is or isn't misogynistic. I actually nearly reverted you because I thought it was more WP:OR from you but decided to check the sources just to make sure and found that you were in fact correctly reverting some other editor's OR but with an edit summary that made it seemed like you were the one doing the OR. It's easily possible barring the edit history being further annotated that some other editor might come to the same conclusion as me but not check the sources and so revert you. Working in a collaborative environment means it's incredibly unhelpful to make editors think your edit was improper by using an edit summary which suggest that. But further, it's extremely unclear that you even understand why your edit was productive. If you don't this means you could have easily made the mistake of removing something which was in fact widely supported by secondary sources based on your own interpretation/OR; or in other words the fact you happened to be right in that edit is a happy accident as much as anything. Nil Einne (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I have no idea how to more clearly explain that a handful of blatantly biased sources does not qualify as "widely reported", and how even if something is "widely reported", if it completely flies in the face of the basic definition of words, it is not accurate enough to use as source material in an encyclopedia. Rob Roilen (talk) 20:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFAICT, no one has every said 'a handful of blatantly biased sources' qualifies 'as "widely reported"'. But as for your second part well that's the problem. If you're not willing to accept the basics of how Wikipedia works then you shouldn't be editing here at all and you definitely shouldn't be editing a hot button CTOP article. Since multiple editors have tried to explain to you how Wikipedia works and you're still either not understanding it or not willing to accept it, it's getting to the point where there's no point trying further. Nil Einne (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So to clarify, you believe it is perfectly acceptable for Wikipedia to use blatantly impartial journalism as sources while simultaneously holding neutrality as a foundational principle? Rob Roilen (talk) 21:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

blatantly impartial journalism Why yes. That is neutral journalism by definition. EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean "partial", but either way it matters little.

Per BIASED (which is a guideline), "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. [...] Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering."

If you have a problem with sources considered reliable, rather than contentiously push changes based on your personal assessment that X or Y source is too "biased" to be usable, you should take it up at the RSN. Over there is where said assessment concerning the sources' bias will matter. You may even find that other editors agree with you; many sources, after all, have had their agreed-upon reliability debated, or even changed, during Wikipedia's history. During content discussion, however, your subjective opinion does not trump community consensus around the usability of sources.

There are processes for reassessing sources, or otherwise building consensus around questions like these. Use them. LaughingManiac (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did mean to say "blatantly partial journalism", thank you for the catch.

But again, I don't know why I need to clarify this, and this is not my personal opinion, but editors of an encyclopedia should be informed and intelligent enough to be able to determine themselves whether or not the sources available to them are appropriate for the given topic, especially when contentious, and regardless of whether or not Wikipedia has their name in green or red on the perennial sources list. A formal debate over the reliability of a source does not need to be opened every time an editor points out inappropriate bias in commentary from a source typically viewed as reliable.

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources even notes that "context matters tremendously, and some sources may or may not be suitable for certain uses depending on the situation." Rob Roilen (talk) 22:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"editors of an encyclopedia should be informed and intelligent enough to be able to determine themselves whether or not the sources available to them are appropriate for the given topic"

Editors are free to hold whatever subjective opinion they have on the appropriateness of sources. But the active use, or avoidance, of said sources is decided using consensus as opposed to that opinion.

"A formal debate over the reliability of a source does not need to be opened every time an editor points out inappropriate bias in commentary from a source typically viewed as reliable."

Perhaps not, but you specifically stated that these sources were "blatantly partial", with the basic contention that this makes them unusable for this topic. That's your opinion. It's a fine opinion to have, and one that you could well defend at RSN. It's also not something which trumps community consensus on the subject.

This will be my last message here, as I am uninterested in a debate, being uninvolved in the content dispute itself. I am merely reminding you of the policies in place at this encyclopedia. Of course, you are free to ignore this reminder, and keep BLUDGEONING that your personal opinion on what constitutes reliable sources trumps community consensus. LaughingManiac (talk) 23:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I won't lie, I'm edging towards some action being taken against Roilen, per everything above. Great Mercian (talk) 02:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you are entitled to your own opinion. But I've seen you have run-ins with this editor so to be persuasive, you'd have to present a diff or two of conduct that violates Wikipedia's policies and guidelines which I haven't seen yet. I see some worrisome commentary on their judging the reliability of sources but without evidence of improper actions, it's just talk. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will somebody please have a look at the accounts Aguahrz (u t c m l b p d) (oldest) and Ajohn77 (u t c m l b p d)? Socking or meat, Ajohn77 has repeatedly tried to move the page User:Aguahrz, a hoax about "UTEA officially United Territories of East Africa is a country located in Eastern Africa" (permalink) to draft space. They have remained unresponsive on their talk page. Sam Sailor 17:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also have observed this behavior but avoided touching it with a ten foot stick (other than warning) i saw really nothing but socking and attempts at exporting an unfinished mos violation riddled article and i think the person behind said account doesn’t really know how to use Wikipedia I don’t see much harm as of today i say just let them do it till something block worthy is done •Cyberwolf•talk? 19:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You could consider reporting them at SPI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have never reported a user to ANI before to so bear with me if I do anything silly or this is the wrong venue.

User:ElijahPepe is a proflific article creator who's quick creation of current event articles have been problematic. His userpage is littered with deletion notices and editors making similar arguments over their creation of articles. Just in the last few months, 2024 Houston helicopter crash was deleted through a PROD, 2024 Israel–Hezbollah war was speedy deleted (with an additional comment from User:sawyer777 about Elijah's creation of current event articles after this was deleted), 2024 Zamfara State boat accident (a two line article) was moved to draftspace, 2024 stock market decline was deleted at AFD (see these comments from User: Liz and User:Soni on Elijah's creation of current event articles after this was deleted [104] and [105]) and Response to the 2024 Venezuelan presidential election (a one line article) was moved to draftspace.

Elijah certainly has created articles that are notable, and I would be wrong to not mention that, but too many times they have been warned about their article creation, or their articles have been deleted, with no change in behavior. I think some sort of sanction might be useful in this case to prevent this from continuing to occur. Esolo5002 (talk) 20:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I recall a recent noticeboard thread on this same topic with this same user: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1154#User_needs_autopatrolled_revoked, which was closed with their autopatrol being revoked on account of doing this too much. jp×g🗯️ 01:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've also noticed this as well. It almost feels like he's creating them just to claim "First!" Here he made an article about retaliatory strikes against Iran that didn't even happen until nine days later. Procyon117 (talk) 13:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If Elijah was actually doing due diligence on articles (Confirm there isn't another article, check notability, actually add sufficient sourcing and content), we wouldn't be here. He does not, and nearly all of his articles are one sentence each, way less than anyone would expect. When repeated consistently, this shows a problem.

Note that I have past strong opinions on Elijah and saw this primarily thanks to the ping. I respect his mainspace contributions (as someone who has not contributed much there myself recently), but they are not supposed to be a substitute for due diligence. Soni (talk) 04:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the issue is also his lack of communication; he rarely uses edit summaries even for huge sweeping changes, and doesn't meaningfully respond to feedback from other editors. see also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1148#User:ElijahPepe continually makes persistent disruptive edits to New York Times against consensus & Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1154#ElijahPepe New York Times issues, and this interaction on his talk page User talk:ElijahPepe#Tesla Network. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 09:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I have nominated Sean Combs sexual misconduct allegations for deletion. It was also created by this user. Ratnahastin (talk) 10:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to hear what ElijahPepe has to say about this. Levivich (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the following is posted on behalf of 213.87.90.88 because it was disallowed by an edit filter but seemed like a good faith request. I have no opinion on the merits. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 2601:601:8780:6e70::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Very persistent unregistered vandal whose edits usually contain dubious or fake information, always unsourced: [107] [108] [109]. And it goes on for many years: similar edits from the "neighboring" /64-ranges can be traced back to the mid-2015. The vandal is also active in Ukrainian Wikipedia and Russian Wikipedia (already been blocked in Russian Wikipedia many times; as you can see, a recent one-year block wasn't enough there). I think it would be good to impose a global block (I suggest a 2-3-year term or even more), but I'm unable to properly file a global block request due to a semi-protection on the Steward requests page on Meta. Could you please block this range locally or make a global block request? 213.87.90.88 (talk) 02:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, @Ohnoitsjamie already blocked this IP range on the 26th (presumably when he saw the log or the report).

About the global block thing, IPs can request global (b)locks in the talk page of Steward requests (there's an edit request button in the edit notice).

I can't judge the global edits of the range, though they are a bit stale - I don't think there's anything more for admins to do here. – 2804:F1...9E:DCD8 (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guess I should've checked that before posting. I'd agree. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could we get a quick block of IP 186.57.6.100, repeatedly vandalizing the article on Daniel Chapo, which is currently featured on the main page? Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked them but don't see why this wasn't just reported at AIV as bog-standard vandalism.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not into counter-vandalism so I wasn't sure the exact place to make the report. I'll remember to go to AIV next time. Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AIV has a backlog right now, I think. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only three editor-generated reports that haven't been actioned, the rest have been reviewed. I'll take a look at the couple outstanding.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not 100% sure if this belongs here or at AIV, but: I was at RCP when I reverted an edit by User:Miyanky445 which was unsourced and seemed POV. I left a notice and then, when checking the user's contribution history, I noticed that it was made exclusively of reverted edits of the same kind and seems to be realted to an ethnic group. I left a custom messege on user's talk page to which has not been responded to but then noticed that the user was reverting my reverts. Rather than start an edit war I'm brining it here but user appears to be either POV or wp:NOTHERE. --Lenny Marks (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I reported the WP:3RR violation at the edit warring noticeboard.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Blocked x 72 hrs for disruptive editing. I came very close to indeffing them based on their history. If this resumes, I think that would be the next step. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turkiishh (talk · contribs) Persistent POV pushing and fringe theories edits. [110] See edit history, what else can I say. Also vast majority of his edits are reverts. Edit history Turkic peoples for example. Beshogur (talk) 22:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also you can't stop me from adding this on see also and help me instead of complaining. Beshogur (talk) 22:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Blocked x 48 hrs for disruptive editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:25, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a user on Wikipedia by the name of Dragon5556 who went on my personal page and vandalised it (Swearing and removing my personal content). They have also been vandalising Wikipedia by editing Rugby League pages with information which is not true. Is there anything that can be done about this?. Sully198787 (talk) 07:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I notified Dragon5556 (talk · contribs) about this discussion. They will need to provide a rather convincing explanation for recent edits to avoid being indefinitely blocked. Johnuniq (talk) 08:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This looks like a straightforward "I'm angry at you 'cause you reverted my edits" case. I think a simple explanation of why we shouldn't add speculation (i.e. predicting the future) to pages would be useful. Also, Sully isn't reverting you because they think you're "not good enough", they were protecting the page from info and content which could potentially be incorrect or misleading to readers. A^♭m ^(Ring!) _(Notes) 09:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked. Johnuniq's comment above was appropriate at the time, but now it's starting to look like Dragon5556 may have come down with ANI flu immediately after their edits to Sully198787's userpage. Surely Sully shouldn't have to wait for them to recover, or indeed have to open another report once this one has slid off into the archives. Therefore, I have blocked Dragon5556 for two weeks for harassment and personal attacks. If that block cures them, they can appeal the block in the usual way, or indeed, if this thread is still live, write comments and ask to have them moved here. Bishonen | tålk 19:59, 31 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]