Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:10, 15 May 2023

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

Arkenstrone: baseless accusations

Context

User:Arkenstrone has been POV-pushing since the beginning of April at articles Maria Valtorta and The Poem of the Man-God. I recently removed their POV-pushing. The user opposed this removal, so I reverted their revert and tried to explain to the user that random blogs and reading clubs' websites and the likes were not reliable and why information had to be removed along with refs, but the user WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and stated they wanted to create a FALSEBALANCE between what they deem "pro-Valtorta" and "anti-Valtorta" points.

Then, Arkenstrone's versions on both articles were revdeleted for copyright violation, part of which was due to me asking Diannaa to check them after their revdeletion at 'Maria Valtorta'. The user asked Diannaa for the revdeleted content, when Dianaa refused Arkenstrone stated: I am seeking other admins to give me access to the original material because you are unwilling, even though I've explained to you the unique circumstances of many valuable non-infringing edits being lost as a side-effect of your revision deletion. The user then went to ask 3 other admins to get an e-mail of the deleted versions (links to threads): Bbb23, Deepfriedokra, and DatGuy. The user has stated that all three were chosen because they had imposed sanctions upon me in the past (I have made those requests to these admins because you have been blocked by them at least 5 times previously for disruptive editing behaviour I contacted the admins that previously blocked you because they might recognize a pattern of questionable behaviour in your conduct and be more sympathetic to my request), a reason the user has double-down on (on Deepfriedokra's talk page, admin Anachronist characterised Arkenstrone's behaviour as a blatant demonstration of WP:Admin shopping). By the way, the admin shopping worked with the last admin.

Accusations

The user has portrayed my behaviour as disruption or vandalism without any basis, thus violating Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks ("Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links"). They have also consistently characterised my removal of their POV as "gutting" the articles. This is the the user's last remark to me that made me write this ANI, and I have updated the writing with DatGuy's recent acceptation of e-mailing the copyrighted material.

• The user gave me bogus warnings, also stating they reverted my reversion of my disruptive edits. I asked the user to stop their baseless accusations, otherwise I would go to ANI. To which they responded by giving me more bogus warnings. They have also attacked me on 3 admins' talk pages.

• At User talk:Diannaa#The Poem of the Man-God: This editor's approach by removing large portions of the article because he doesn't like the sources, is extremely disruptive; the other editor removed large portions of the article because he doesn't agree that the sources presenting important information are good sources. This is disruptive; this user disruptively gutted large portions of the article.

• At User talk:Bbb23#Assistance for Disruptive Edits: they state I have a long history of WP:3RR, WP:DISRUPT, and WP:VANDALIZE, and they ask that I be blocked for serial disruptive edits and vandalism: this is not true, I have never been blocked for vandalism and my removal is not disruptive nor vandalism.

• At User talk:DatGuy#Access to copy of deleted revision?: I didn't give the normal editing process a chance to function, me asking Diannaa to check for copyvio is a sort of gaming of the editing process, and I have been attempting to confuse, conflate, and game the editing process.

Sidenote unrelated to me: Arkenstrone has also characterised Diannaa's refusal of handing their revdeleted versions as well beyond your purview and veering dangerously close to a form of soft-censorship and micro-management of the editing process based on your own personal views and opinions. Veverve (talk) 17:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

The admins involved in this discussion already came to a resolution. User talk:DatGuy#Access to copy of deleted revision? Arkenstrone (talk) 17:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

This is a completely different issue, as DatGuy has told you at the very talk page you link. Veverve (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

If Arkenstrone had stuck to the subject of getting back their content, that would have been great. But they personalized the conflict with Veverve and specifically sought out admins who'd sanctioned Veverve in the past. Me included. I'll leave it to y'all to decide what to make of this. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:41, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

You are missing some important facts. Allow me to correct the record.

• Bbb23 was the first admin I contacted after Diannaa, asking him for 1) a copy of the deleted revision and 2) to assist, and possibly block Veverve since he was repeating past disruptive behaviour for which he was blocked multiple times previously (by gutting articles due to what he considered unreliable sources and edit warring). That's not how things are done. You bring it up on the talk page, and if a source is indeed low quality, then tag the sourced text with "citation needed" or similar, and give other editors a chance to provide better sources. That's good-faith.
• Bbb23 didn't want to have anything to do with it. So I respected his wish not to get involved and left it at that. Afterwards, I decided to focus on just getting access to the deleted revision and not confuse things with conduct issues. I made no mention of Veverve, on any other admin's talk page, including DatGuy's or yours.
• It was Veverve that decided to make his presence known on DatGuy's talk page. Only then did I respond to his confused and deflecting statements, and provided the facts of his past bad behaviour, which was happening once again. I wasn't going to mention his past behaviour in that thread, deciding instead to give the editing process a chance to function, and see what happens.
• Only after DatGuy recommended to introduce material from the deleted revision with copyvio corrections + source improvement (slowly), did Veverve choose to file this frivolous ANI. I would advise Veverve to consider WP:BOOMERANG. Arkenstrone (talk) 05:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Baseless accusations?

Patterns of questionable conduct: 1) gutting articles WP:VANDALIZE, 2) disruptive editing WP:DISRUPT, and 3) edit warring WP:3RR. At least 5 blocks have been levied and one Arbitration Enforcement Sanction. The facts speak for themselves (below). This editor doesn't seem to be getting the message. Before opening a frivolous ANI, perhaps he should consider WP:BOOMERANG.

1. Edit Warring: Block:

=> "You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Russian fascism (ideology)) for a period of 1 week for EDIT WARRING."

2. Edit Warring Block:

=> "You are currently edit-warring across a wide swath of liturgical calendar-related articles. You are fighting multiple editors who disagree with your unilateral decision to gut all of these articles of their usefulness. Could you please cease and desist the edit-wars, firstly, and secondly, consider that your decision goes against consensus and that you should permit others to hold contrary opinions about this?"

=> "You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring."

3. Edit Warring & Block:

=> "You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring in the same articles immediately after your previous block ended."

4. Block Extension:

=> "I have extended your block by two weeks and revoked your talk page access. Pinging other editors to argue with them and berate them while you are blocked is not acceptable. Please read WP:UTRS for your unblock options."

5. Edit Warring & Block:

=> "You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Heresy in the Catholic Church."

6. Arbitration Enforcement Sanction:

=> "The following sanction now applies to you: You are indefinitely topic banned from all subject that relate to "Russia", including discussion or any article that is related to Russia in any way, broadly construed. You have been sanctioned "

7. Disruptve Edits:

=> in progress Arkenstrone (talk) 06:22, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

You appear to have completely missed the point. And you double-down on calling my edits Disruptve Edits (using your own warnings as proofs), accusing me of having vandalised (which I never did, you do not appear to understand the meaning of this term on WP), and baselessly state that I was repeating past disruptive behaviour for which he was blocked multiple times previously (by gutting articles due to what he considered unreliable sources and edit warring). I never denied receiving blocks or being topic-banned. That none of the three admins to which you mentioned my behaviour were willing to sanction me should have made you realise your accusations were baseless.

That you decided to make it personnal and continued to baselessly accuse me once I intervened on DatGuy's talk page, or on whatever page, is not a defence at all: it only proves you have trouble working on a community project. And as I said, I had decided to start this ANI once you confirmed that you were clearly unwilling to give me the time of the day.

You admitted you decided to ask specific admins that sanctionned me in your admin shopping. Veverve (talk) 13:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

• (comment so that it does not get archived before an admin has fixed the problem) Veverve (talk) 13:14, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not an expert, but I would recommend an interaction ban between the two editors. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Muhsin97233

Muhsin97233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

WP:NOTHERE, user is on a nationalistic mission rather than improving Misplaced Pages. The vast majority of their (pov) edits (some direct examples ) have been reverted, as seen here . This has been going on since they first started editing, in February 2022.

Their talk page is also full of warnings I have warned them multiple times, which they only addressed once with this comment (there's more in the diff); "...Conclusion We all know the English Misplaced Pages, most of them are run by racist Persians who falsify the facts in favor of their Persian nation..." --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

HistoryofIran, I won't comment on this as I'm not well versed in the subject, except only to point out that it's pretty misleading of you to say that "Their talk page is full of warnings", when in fact all those warnings come from you yourself. To avoid creating the wrong impression, please use the active voice in such situations, such as "I have warned them many times". Bishonen | tålk 13:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC).

You're right, my bad. I have fixed it now. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this is classic extremely one-sided ethnic POV-pushing. Basically, everyone of any note is Arab, not Persian or Berber ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; . Don't say 'Persian', say 'Muslim' Even the cookbook is not Arabic (=language), but Arab (=ethnicity)! Any pushback against this must of course be racist . Muhsin97233's disruption is sparse but ongoing since July 2022, with little or nothing else in between (diffed above is almost every mainspace edit they made). I think a wp:nothere indef block would be helpful. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:07, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• I've reviewed the last several edits from this user, and it's a mixed bag; though nothing to me that says they need a block as yet. Maybe a topic ban at best. I mean, most of the edits are to talk pages, which we encourage, and is not really disrupting article text. Some of the edits, such as this one seem fine; the source doesn't seem to mention "Arabian" at all (at least, the little bit available online doesn't). Perhaps a topic ban on adding or removing ethnic or linguistic labels from article text would solve the problem? --Jayron32 17:40, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

  Only their most recent edits are to talk pages. In mainspace, it's been almost all disruptive (see the diffs in my comment above; the Camel urine edits are one of the few exceptions). That said, I've encountered this user during patrolling but did not report precisely because their most recent edits did not disrupt mainspace. If that is taken as a sign that they might be willing to reform, then yes, a topic ban on adding or removing ethnic or linguistic labels from article text would certainly also solve the problem. But there clearly is a problem, and I think that now that we're here it would be helpful to do something about it. I therefore also support a topic-ban as an alternative measure. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:11, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Muhsin97233 hasn't addressed this report yet, and I highly doubt they will. Per the diffs shown by me and Apaugasma, I think that Muhsin97233 should be indeffed, but I wouldn't oppose a topic-ban. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS violation by User:William Allen Simpson

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

This, this, this, this and this all violate the canvassing policy.

I understand that Mr. Simpson is upset to see an emerging consensus to do away with his cherished policy, but I played by the rules and so should he. If he can make a convincing argument in favor of his preferred position, fine. But lashing out and mass-posting and pinging biased notices is not the solution. I did not forum-shop, I simply opened a discussion in the most appropriate place, without regard to where previous discussions may have occurred. — Biruitorul 08:58, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I really wish we could stop obsessing about pigeonholing and labelling people by descent and ethnicity and get rid of these categories altogether, they cause nothing but edit wars and endless problems and presents the fiction who someone's parents or ancestors were is more important than who they are. Canterbury Tail talk 09:28, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I really wish we could address the substance of my complaint here. — Biruitorul 09:36, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail: Not that this is worth discussing here, but I would like to point out that this is not about the "pigeonholing" categories being especially cherished by me or by Biruitorul (though they do seem to have much support in the wikipedian community, and also do seem to have a purpose for at least some regions of the world); it is simply a fact that, if we are going to have them, we should at least have a consistent approach that is dictated by the sources, not an editorial decision guided by whims. You can either have all the categories mentioned by sources, or none at all; the current guideline is remarkably ludicrous in suggesting we should only have one. If there is any bias or preference on my part, it is one against whims, not for ethnic categories. Dahn (talk) 09:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

An editor who was not notified has appeared here. Meatpuppet? Sockpuppet?
William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:59, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Right, because every editor who’s ever commented here has done so only by notification. Let’s focus on your canvassing behavior, Mr. Simpson, and leave aside the diversions. — Biruitorul 10:12, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Well yes, I may be a meatpuppet or a sockpuppet (and a major creator of content when I'm not engaged by William Allen Simpson in absurd debates about his pet peeves, once they come to intersect with the content I create); then again, I may be a user who simply bothered to click on this rather public page and was drawn to comment here on a side topic brought up by Canterbury Tail. Dahn (talk) 10:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

See WP:ASPERSIONS. Strike your absurd comment. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:B195:BCE:2355:7AD9 (talk) 10:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Many editors visit ANI to keep track of disputes and weigh in on them. It is not unusual for unrelated individuals to chime in, and is in fact encouraged to get a broad consensus on the disputes in question. — The Hand That Feeds You: 16:41, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I could be mistaken, but I think User:William Allen Simpson's response was likely a sardonic one, commenting about the fact that the two accusing him of canvassing, apparently didn't like the comments of another editor who showed up here. And so was sardonically commenting that it "must" be another attempt by him at another sort of collusion. I'm not saying whether that was appropriate or not, but just that's my impression of their comments. - jc37 17:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Be that as it may, let’s also talk about the WikiProject notifications. They begin harmlessly enough, but then go on with a lengthy paragraph about how I’m forum-shopping. Hardly the neutral announcement required by policy, is it? — Biruitorul 17:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• @Jc37: Please note that I had never accused Mr Simpson of canvassing -- I noted that the accusation may have some merit, but did not endorse it myself, nor had anything to to with this ANI notification. I did read it, though, and I did comment on the side topic opened up by Canterbury Tail. I then proceeded to make a point about the egregious claim brought up against Biruitorul. Also do me the favor of noting that even in the categorization RfC that's being discussed here I expressed an opinion that is substantially different from what Biruitorul proposed, regarding what the standard of ethnic inclusion should be (which did not prevent one of the users invited in by William Allen Simpson from suggesting I am Biruitorul's sockpuppet). Anyway, I really do wish that both parties could stick to the point that's being discussed, here and anywhere else. Dahn (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Poe's Law is in full effect, so without an indicator, I really can't tell if someone is trying to be snarky anymore. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree and am sympathetic. If I had not seen more examples of his writing (he is a prolific CFD contributor, and has been for many years), I don't know that I could have guessed that either. - jc37 08:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

This was WP:FORUMSHOPPING by definition. It does not help develop consensus to try different forums in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want. Biruitorul's RfC was posted on a less frequently visited Talk page (nothing posted in 3 months) during a (currently active) discussion at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 April 17#Category:Romanian people by ethnic or national origin and occupation, where such matters are supposed to be decided. (See WP:RFCNOT.) This is one of a series of such discussions over a period of more than 4 months: (See Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 April 20#Category:British people by ethnicity and occupation.) Biruitorul failed to notify any of the current discussion participants nor any relevant projects. After belatedly discovering it serendipitously, I've notified the recent participants and other relevant Talk pages.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:28, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The complaint here is about you, Mr. Simpson. Your notifications were in no way in line with WP:CANVASS. Please stop diverting me discussion. — Biruitorul 09:36, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Please see WP:BOOMERANG. Your actions can be scrutinized here too. USS Cola!rado🇺🇸 (C⭐T) 10:47, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Scrutinize all you want. But while you scrutinize my actions, maybe also take a moment to scrutinize the actions of William Allen Simpson, if it isn’t asking too much. — Biruitorul 10:49, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• Anyone else feeling like handing out interaction bans and topic bans against both Biruitorul and William Allen Simpson and just being done with this nonsense? --Jayron32 11:52, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but what exactly am I guilty of here? I started an RfC, which I oversaw in the most civil, engaged manner possible. Then along comes William Allen Simpson who blasts me with some ridiculous charges, and canvasses his supporters. Sorry but I’m not the one in the wrong here. — Biruitorul 12:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

    Jayron32's solution sounds like an especially appealing one to me. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

    Again: what have I done wrong? — Biruitorul 12:43, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Nope Jayron32. What a horrible idea. The only thing it is going to gain is make you feel like you solved anything. How about either treating the topic at hand fully or not commenting at all? Sanctioning a more than a decade-long content writer out of laziness is not acceptable. This goes for WaltCip too. Super Ψ Dro 14:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Of course it's a bad idea, I came up with it. All bad ideas originate with me. I'm an asshole, of course. It shocks me that anyone listens to me at all. Sorry all. Carry on. --Jayron32 14:29, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• Biruitorul has only had a marginal involvement with this topic, unlike William Allen Simpson, whose edits largely revolve around this issue, and this interpretation of policy, in a manner and at a pace that very few could even keep up with. Biruitorul had requested for a comment not on Mr Simpson's behavior, but simply on whether the guideline makes sense -- it was raised in an appropriate venue, and was actually more valid than many of Mr Simpson's edits, precisely because it asked for input for editors who (like himself) have not been generally involved in this issue, and have no entrenched position either way. To which Mr Simpson invoked claims of forum shopping, all the while calling in people whom he knows share his exact position as !voters. So what is Biruitorul even accused of? Dahn (talk) 13:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

At a minimum, William Allen Simpson should be cautioned that notifications should be worded neutrally. Schazjmd (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• I am sorry, but I really don't understand how this blatant canvassing is going completely unnoticed. Super Ψ Dro 14:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  William Allen Simpson's lack of diffs when referring to CFD discussions made it challenging to identify where those pings came from. I think it was this one, and as there weren't any editors who disagreed with the proposed deletion, I'm assuming good faith that had there been, they would have been pinged too. Schazjmd (talk) 14:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Schazjmd: IMHO, it should be noted that the CfD mentioned by Mr Simpson has in fact very little to do with the guideline that Biruitorul has brought under scrutiny -- we were not discussing the merits of categorizing by ethnicity and occupation (to clarify: I myself am agnostic on this issue -- though I have created some such categories, to the measure where they seemed to be validated by a long-standing practice, I do not object to them ultimately being folded into the larger ones, if this reflects consensus), but the notion that we should only categorize by one ethnicity. I'm not entirely sure that/if Mr Simpson's bringing in other editors who happened to vote his way on that CfD should count as canvassing, but I myself would be interested to know: (a) what other similar CfDs those same users have supported, in the plethora of like-minded CfDs started by Mr Simpson (so many in fact that it has become simply impossible to keep up with them); (b) why Mr Simpson thought the CfDs and this issue would be connected enough for those particular users to be called in. Dahn (talk) 15:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

So what William Allen Simpson did was ping everyone from a CfD in which everyone supported them to an unrelated one? That is indeed canvassing. Though in the discussion that started this report some people that did not participate in the one you linked were pinged, so they must come from somewhere else. Super Ψ Dro 16:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Please do your homework: as noted above, that ping was to all participants of a series of related category discussions that week, both pro and con, who were not already notified. There was no need to ping any already present.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

The first diff could be canvassing depending on if the people ping'd were only supportive editors from a prior discussion. You've not provided any evidence of that. The last diffs all appear to be notices of the discussion you created: the wording is not ideal (not neutral in tone). WAS does raise a good point about the venue you chose to start that discussion at being the venue with least participation seemingly. Did you make an additional notifications when you started that RFC? —Locke Cole • t • c 18:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Answer (as there has been no other response yet): No, there were no notifications by the nominator to any of the related projects, nor to the village pump. They have admitted that they did no history search, and did not notify any prior contributors to the text (such as me). They have admitted relying on each others' contributions for WP:STEALTH coordination. WP:RFC#Publicizing an RfC was used as the basis for my notification choices.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:56, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

@William Allen Simpson, do you have a diff for admitting to off-wiki coordination (WP:STEALTH)? And you have not addressed the non-neutral language of your notifications. Schazjmd (talk) 13:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I did notify the appropriate village pump. Notifying and then, as Mr. Simpson did, adding a “by the way, this RfC constitutes forum-shopping” is hardly the neutral announcement required by policy. — Biruitorul 19:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring and personal attacks on a ITN featured article

I created the ITN fetured 2023 Manipur violence and on 7 May 2023 it was provided with semi-protection.
@Songangte in this edit added a new paragraph which couldnt be more non-constructive to the article. It was placed in the middle of another section. It used unsourced words like "Genocide" and also had copyright violations which are yet to be addressed by the folks at copyright problems.
I removed this paragraph and also suggested the user to take to the talk page instead which he reverted starting a WP:EDIT WAR.
I reverted again, explaining him that he is engaging in edit warring right now. After this warning, he hasn't engaging in any further edit warring but has instead started personally attacking me.
You clearly have a Hindutva interest, It look slike you have a hindutva agenda, Extorc is a hindu.
I couldnt help but mention that the 11th edit this account made was on the article of concern while this page was semi-protected.
Over the past 2 days, I have been trying meticulously to keep this page at the quality level of an ITN featured article and for now, this user is the biggest roadblock. >>> Extorc.talk 04:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd still wish there was a resolution for this. >>> Extorc.talk 20:13, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

@Extorc is correct in that the nytimes article didn't mention "genocide", hence, in agreement and deference, I removed it from the next edit. But that apparently wasn't satisfactory to you?

I move that we use the word "ethnic cleansing" instead. Would that be more satisfactory or accurate? BJP MLA calls it an ethnic cleansing Watch | Manipur Violence Is Ethnic Cleansing, Biren Singh Anti-Kuki, He Must Go: BJP MLA Paolienlal Haokip (thewire.in)

How am I the biggest roadblock @Extorc considering you have managed to silence any dissent from me and I have completely refrained from any further edits? Nothing wrong with being a Hindutva, to each his own, but bias needs to be called out because you are ruling on a contentious issue. All I asked is to remain unbiased and have a logical conversation. I didn't know being called a Hindu is regarded as a "personal attack", if that offended you, I apologize. I personally respect Hindutva, even if i don't personally agree with the ideology. I asked you to be grounded in reality is that tantamount to a personal attack? Songangte (talk) 20:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

@Songangte

This is not content dispute resolution. If you want to discuss content, we can do that on the talk page of the article.
"you have managed to silence any dissent from me" I haven't silenced any dissent. I warned you about WP:EDIT WARRING which barred you from making another revert otherwise, facing a ban.
"I didn't know being called a Hindu is regarded as a "personal attack" The way Misplaced Pages defines a personal attack is Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem. So saying that I am hardly unbiased and I have an agenda when you have no evidence just because I am open about being interested in Hindutva and a Hindu is ad-hominem and when ad-hominem committed with regards to political ideology is called a personal attack.
Please read WP:NO PERSONAL ATTACKS "Editors are allowed to have personal political POV, as long as it does not negatively affect their editing and discussions." >>> Extorc.talk 04:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

• Obviously WP:NOTHERE editor. Per WP:NONAZIS, he should be blocked alone for failure to address this comment "Extorc is a Hindu as per his wiki page" as if it is something appalling. Aman Kumar Goel 14:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  For some reason, this post has seen no admin attention. >>> Extorc.talk 15:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  "as if it is something appalling."

  @Extorc Why do you think it is appalling to be called a Hindu? Need I remind you that Hinduism is a religion of many, like Christianity, everyone is entitled to one and there is nothing appalling about it. Please do not be under the misapprehension that it is "something appalling". Songangte (talk) 17:11, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

@Songangte: I think what User:Aman.kumar.goel meant was, you said "Extorc is a Hindu" as if Extorc being a Hindu is bad. Why did you say it? CityOfSilver 17:30, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

The implication is bias in the context, which is an inappropriate bad faith aspersion. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

@CityOfSilver @Aman.kumar.goel thanks for your attention on this. I can clarify.

"Extorc is a Hindu" is certainly a claim that I made. It doesn't mean its a bad thing and was certainly not intended as bad, it is simply a call to attention on their potential bias in editing, since it concerns persecuted Tribals who happen to be mostly Christian.

Extorc proudly displays a badge on his personal page of Hinduism. I would have hoped that he would be happy to be called a Hindu. If he takes offence, then it is on him. I personally would be proud to be called a Hindu if I were a Hindu. It is not a bad thing to be Hindu, let me make that clear if it is not.

If you all think I have made transgressions on my quotes "Extorc is a Hindu" then you must prove that this is an offensive phrase, which I certainly do not think it is. Here is an analogy: Its like calling out Democrats about their biases as they moderate a Republican actions. Songangte (talk) 18:03, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

"It doesn't mean its a bad thing and was certainly not intended as bad" The entire premise of a personal attack is that the entire basis for your contention is that I am a Hindu and nothing else. Which means, this is a personal attack.
"since it concerns persecuted Tribals who happen to be mostly Christian" The RS, if you'd read, clearly indicate that religious markers are not worth more than a mention.
"If he takes offence, then it is on him." You fail to properly respond to the main point raised by CityOfSilver. If it was not meant to be offensive, why did you mention it, especially when the religious markers are not at all relevant in this case, the ethnic markers are. >>> Extorc.talk 18:19, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

@Extorc: Honestly, I think User:Songangte did respond to my point. "Extorc is a Hindu"...is simply a call to attention on their potential bias in editing. That's them telling other editors that your changes might be unfair not because you've exhibited bad behavior or because you're not a good editor but because you're a Hindu. And of course, Songangte saying that is plainly, outrageously racist so I'm glad they made clear that they can't be trusted to comply with the rule that says editors aren't allowed to insult others. CityOfSilver 18:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh Nice. I was trying to give them the benefit of doubt. But it seems, they are pretty blatant about it. >>> Extorc.talk 18:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

@CityOfSilver Thank you for your inputs.

I sincerely apologize for calling @Extorc a Hindu. I was not aware that was a racist term. Songangte (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I would like to direct your attention towards WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. >>> Extorc.talk 19:00, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

@Songangte: Calling someone Hindu is not racist. Saying someone might be biased because they're Hindu is racist. CityOfSilver 19:04, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

No, that statement is not entirely true. The reason being that Hinduism is a religion and not a race, and bias based on religion is generally referred to as religious discrimination rather than racism.

But, if the bias against someone is based on the assumption that all people who follow Hinduism share certain characteristics or beliefs, then that can be considered stereotyping, which is a form of prejudice. Stereotyping can lead to discrimination and unfair treatment of individuals based on their religious beliefs.

Therefore, an accusation of racism that has been leveled against me has hurt my sentiments greatly. I take it as a personal attack. Songangte (talk) 19:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

@Songangte: So I personally attacked you for calling you racist but if I'd said you were engaging in religious discrimination, you'd have been fine with that? CityOfSilver 19:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

@CityOfSilver So you admit to attacking me personally by calling me racist? I am very offended and hurt. Let that be on record. Songangte (talk) 19:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

@Songangte: I asked a question first. If you answer my question, I'll answer yours. CityOfSilver 19:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Clearly @CityOfSilver has lost credibility as he is engaging in personal attacks of racism. An accusation of racism is very serious and you cannot seem to grasp the correct phrase to use. I do not wish to be abused online like this, and would like to withdraw from this conversation, which I was hoping would remain civilized. Songangte (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

@Songangte: You already should have been blocked for repeatedly insisting that because another editor is Hindu, their edits might be unfair. Going forward, never do anything like that again. Comment on content, not on other editors.

And if you'd really like to report me for breaking the WP:NPA policy, let me know and I'll show you how to do it. You've violated it several times and I haven't personally attacked you at all. CityOfSilver 20:00, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

@CityOfSilver, this is way beyond the point where an admin should just grace this thread with their attention and indef. this account out of existance. >>> Extorc.talk 20:08, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

@Extorc: I don't know if that'll happen because they said "I shall refrain from commenting on another editor's background in any way going forward." Although it's not really my place to say because I'm not the editor they attacked, you are. This thread actually did get a brief contribution from an administrator, User:Black Kite, so maybe more administrative input is on the way. CityOfSilver 20:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I was really hoping that this editor, after a "sincere" apology is going to behave differently. This discussion here suggests differently to me. >>> Extorc.talk 20:27, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

@Extorc: They just quit. Nothing else to be done. CityOfSilver 20:46, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

@Songangte, you appear to still be missing the point. Commenting on another editor's background in any way (age, ethnic group, religion, etc.) to imply that their edits are biased and can't be trusted is unacceptable. Your wisest approach is to only comment on content, never about the editor. Schazjmd (talk) 19:04, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Fair point. I shall refrain from commenting on another editor's background in any way going forward.

I would like to thank the Misplaced Pages community for showing me healthy debate and logical discourse. This has been a humbling experience for me. Songangte (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

If you all think I have made transgressions on my quotes "Extorc is a Hindu" then you must prove that this is an offensive phrase

You've got it backwards. You've been told that your usage was a violation of WP:NPA, along with your unfounded accusations of bias. Knock it off. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

My original. quote:

"It looks like you have a Hindutva agenda, to each his own, but you need to learn to dethatch your personal beliefs when the news is not what you like. When people provide reliable sources such as NYtimes, you cannot just dismiss them as "incoherent". You need to be grounded in reality."

Why did i say that? read on:

@Extorc reverted an entire segment that I added as "completely incoherent" despite it being fully sourced from reliable sources. All I wanted was an explanation for his deleting/reverting my contribution. Simply saying "completely incoherent" is subjective. If you had explained to me the reason for reverting/deleting, logically instead of taking an unilateral decision, I would have gladly complied and added more sources etc, and hence my request for a healthy debate. I posted to the Talk page to resolve the dispute as you requested.

WP:BRD "When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed. Look at the article's history and its talk page to see if a discussion has begun. If not, you may begin one."

@Extorc did not adhere to this rule, and reverted it without discussion or improving or logical reasoning. Instead they simply said it is "incoherent". @CityOfSilver what about this transgression? This is what started the dispute. Songangte (talk) 18:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

"It looks like you have a Hindutva agenda, to each his own, but you need to learn to dethatch your personal beliefs when the news is not what you like." This is an incredibly racist thing to say. CityOfSilver 18:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I am absolutely appalled. >>> Extorc.talk 18:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Again, @Extorc I sincerely apologize for calling you Hindu and having Hindutva ideologies. If I knew that this was a racist statement, I certainly would not have said so. Mea culpa. Songangte (talk) 19:02, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

What about this is supposed to be racist? I don't see it. --JBL (talk) 23:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

• wikt:Nazi#Noun casualdejekyll 17:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, I am also unclear why User:Aman.kumar.goel's use of WP:NONAZIS is acceptable here. Whilst bringing someone's ethnicity or religion into it is not really a good thing if you are insinuating that they cannot edit neutrally, that is way, way over the line. Black Kite (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

It is appropriate because it tells "Racists (and other discriminatory groups) are inherently incompatible with Misplaced Pages." It has a section of its own which is relevant here.

By persisting with his strawman and whataboutery arguments above, Songangte has only proven that he is having a very hard to time understand how he is engaging in discrimination. Though he managed to get himself renamed from "Songangte" to "Retired user 78767", but these types of actions cannot be taken as anything more credible than Richard Nixon saying in 1962 that "You won't have Nixon to kick around any more," before running for yet another election. Aman Kumar Goel 21:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Hindu nationalism is a thing. People editing from a Hindu nationalist POV are a problem. Saying "I think you are editing from a Hindu nationalist POV" might or might not be accurate in any particular case but one doesn't get to magically wave it away by saying "that's racist". --JBL (talk) 00:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

@JayBeeEll: Hindu nationalism is a political ideology but that is not what Songangte targeted. He targeted the religious identity of OP as "Extorc is a Hindu as per his wiki page" to solidify his own position in a content dispute and that's how he was engaging in discrimination. Aman Kumar Goel 00:09, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree that that is not a sterling example of high-quality talk-page behavior, but it is very, very, very far from NONAZIS. --JBL (talk) 00:38, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

No you seem to be overlooking WP:NONAZIS#Other kinds of racists. Aman Kumar Goel 00:50, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

No; you seem to be overlooking that NONAZIS is not about people who make a single isolated comment that conflates Hinduism with Hindu nationalism (or the same with any other -ism substituted). That goes double when the person had already apologized hours before your strained and tenuous AGF-violating second attack. Congrats, you won, you chased someone away with these ridiculous attacks -- but it reflects very poorly on you. --JBL (talk) 21:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

It was not "a single isolated comment" since he endlessly defended it all over here. If he apologized as you say, then why he was casting aspersions as of 19:49, 12 May 2023 when he made his final comment here? That clearly settles the case against him. Aman Kumar Goel

Various complaints about WikiEditor1234567123

I would like to report suspicious activity coming from this account @WikiEditor1234567123:. This account has been engaged in very long edit wars edits on several pages such as the Nazran raid page, which is my first encounter with him. He misrepresents his sources and does original research. I have elaborated on this in the talk page. Before I continue I will note that his account on the Russian wikipedia was notorious for edit warring on the very same article I am talking about (Nazran raid) and he was warned multiple times. He eventually got banned entirely on the Russian wikipedia due to him misrepresenting sources, as shown here.

One of the largest issues following my own investigation is suspicious behaviour that can only remind me of tag-teaming/meat-puppeting which I suspect is outright sockpuppeting with notorious accounts that have been banned already such as @Targimhoï:, @Niyskho: @MrMalaga: and @Malhuyataza: all of which are either suspected socks (mrMalaga, Malhuytaza) or confirmed socks (Targimhoi, Niyskho) of Durdzuketi a banned account that has over 10 confirmed banned socks. Targimhoi and mrMalaga were also involved on the Nazran raid article where I got involved with them. They made much of the same edits and the accounts have been subsequently banned for sock-puppeting. This is the long list of over 10 accounts that have been confirmed as sockpuppets for Dzurdzuketi and banned, including user:Targimhoi. I’ve been checking the recent history of these accounts and there are several reasons for my suspicion of @WikiEditor1234567123: being involved in tag-teaming/meat-puppeting/sock-puppeting.

• Incredibly consecutive editing. At several points has Wikieditor along with Targimhoi made edits in a very short time difference from each other. Here are examples of edits between Wikieditor and Targimhoi on articles that barely get 1 view per day. Some of these edits are minutes within each other. Note that there is no mention or tagging of each other. Wikieditor edits something on a 1 view per day article and suddenly 5 minutes after Targimhoi takes over.
  • Ex1, 1 minute difference
  • Ex2, 1 hour
  • Ex3, 7 minute difference
  • Ex4, 25 minute difference

The examples above are all on the same lines as the previous editor which you can see on the revisions, and there’s no explanation for the edits that are being done. This reminds of a joint effort.

• Wikieditor and Targimhoi seems to have been involved in numerous disputes and are seen to be backing each other. In my case on the Nazran raid article, they make the same edits and argue for the same stuff, with Targimhoi backing up Wikieditor only an hour after I edited the first time. On the same day my dispute with them was going on, Wikieditor was involved in a noticeboard incident. Targimhoi then appears out of nowhere to express his support for Wikieditor without having been mentioned or pinged anywhere.
• Editing a sandbox draft for a confirmed sockpuppet @Malhuyataza: of @MrMalaga: that make the same disruptive edits. I have no idea of where he found this sandbox draft or what led him to it. mrMalaga is also suspected to be Dzurdzuketi
• Here Wikieditor is seen editing/expanding on a draft at the same time as user Malhuyataza (confirmed sock of mrMalaga, suspected to be dzurdzuketi) literally under a day after the draft was created. Two other accounts were also seen editing on this draft, @Blasusususu: and @Iask1:. Both accounts have been banned for sockpuppeting.
• What seems like very targeted mass edits on Fyappi article. Wikieditor is seen editing with niyskho(another confirmed sockpuppet in the dzurdzuketi list), later on targimhoi jumps in. Looks like a mass targeting of the same page. Again they are not explaining their edits to each other, which further makes me believe they are connected. Edit warring for at least like 2 months.

More:

• Very long edit wars on articles such as 2004 Nazran raid, Fyappiy, Orstkhoy etc.
• After checking his revision history I also noticed most of the time he doesn’t explain his edits. This is often done when editing along with accounts that have been banned for sockpuppeting.
• Original research/misrepresenting sources. He was banned for this very thing on the Russian wiki. Keeps doing it on the English one.
• Blatant POV-pushing/nationalistic edits, heavy bias. Seems to be insisted on having Ingush written everywhere, evident by the articles I have linked. Very much in style for the 10+ accounts that are socks of Dzurdzuketi

Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 00:05, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I had previously made a post about this on WP:AN, but the post was auto-archived. This is a revision of the following comments made by the subject WikiEditor1234567123 on WP:AN and my replies after. Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

• With respect to the socking accusation, on February 8, 2023, Wikieditor was alleged to be a sock at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Dzurdzuketi. Ivanvector made the following comment with respect to the allegation at the SPI: "I did not check WikiEditor1234567123 because I do not see sufficient evidence to warrant a check, but I can report that they did not show up in any of my checks."--Bbb23 (talk) 17:03, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for your input. Wikieditor has suspiciously close cooperation with Durdzuketi's socks. I believe enough evidence has been provided to at least warrant a new investigation, especially now that another close account to Wikieditor, Targimhoi (sock of dzurdzuketi) was recently banned. Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 17:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Can an admin please take a look at this sock/meatpuppeting case? @Materialscientist:, @Liz:, @Maile66: Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

This seems like it would be a better fit at WP:SPI. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Should I move it to SPI then? Even if it includes possible meatpuppeting too? Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 21:55, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, I don't think SPI deals with meatpuppets, so it could probably just stay here. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:58, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Multiple issues at Charles III/Talk:Charles III

After discussion with other invovled parties, and with their mild to strong support, I come here to request an intervention of sorts at Talk:Charles III.

A task force was formed with the goal of getting Charles III to GA status ahead of Charles' coronation (6 May 2023). Extensive work was done on the article over the ensuing couple of months along with, unsurprisingly, extensive discussion. Despite some friction, all points of confusion or disagreement were sorted out. That is, except for one: how to inform readers about where Charles is king of. This has dragged on for at least a month now and remains unresolved. WP:3O was tried (twice) and declined (twice). WP:DRN was tried and declined.

Some of us who are involved feel the root of the problem lies with a few editors (though, there's one stand-out) not following the WP:BRD process. I believe the best and fastest way to get an understanding of the situation as it's morphed over weeks is to simply skim through these talk sections: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 and the article's edit history, looking specifically for edits to the "Accession and coronation plans" section.

However, as the instructions at the top of this noticeboard require diffs, here's what's only still just a sample:

• not engaging in consensus building by

• insisting on keeping a current version (12345)

• repeating the same argument (123), despite edits taking the argument into account (1234 56)

• disregarding other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits (cmt., no resp. | cmt., resp. | cmt., no resp. | cmt., resp. | cmt., resp. | cmt., resp. | cmt., resp. | cmt., resp. | cmt., no resp. | cmt., resp. | cmt., resp. | cmt., cmt, resp. | cmt., resp.)

• deflecting to irrelevant discussions on different topics (123) despite explanations of the lack of connection (1234) and with non-sequitur (12)

• moving the goalposts (resp., cmt., resp. | resp., cmt., cmt., resp.)

• the sole clear and to-the-point response from the main antagonist amounting to "I don't like it" ()

• mischaracterizations of other editors' actions to make them seem unreasonable and improper (1234)

• cherry-picking only RfCs as valid (1234567891011), willfully ignoring the validity of BRD,

• trying to scuttle dispute resolution (123)

• continually insisting on waiting for other editors' input (123456) and on a need to convince other editors (1)

• edit warring by reverting (1234567) without engaging at talk beyond two comments to accuse editors of bad faith (12) and two non-sequiturs (linked above)

• misusing consensus (12) and misrepresenting the truth about reverts (123) to disguise it

• gaslighting (12345)

• and a and a personal attack, just to round things out.

I understand that my understanding of policy isn't perfect and that the above is my personal assessment of the situation. It seems to align with others' take on the problem; however, I realize this will nonetheless differ from how other others view the state of affairs. Additionally, I'm aware that not all, if any, of those involved, including myself, have been saints; I don't expect to be cannonized as St Mies of Misplaced Pages any time soon. I accept that, by posting this, I'm opening my own words and actions up for scrutiny and I accept whatever consequenses may come. A final resolution to the dispute is the primary objective above all others. Someone has volunteered to do a GA review of the article beginning at the end of the week (13 May) and we'd like to have the article meeting basics like WP:LEDE and WP:LEDEFOLLOWSBODY as soon as possible. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:43, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I note that 3O and DRN was declined, but what's the reason an RfC hasn't been requested if the discussion has reached an impasse? That seems like the most straightforward solution. Seraphimblade 00:17, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

There 'is' an RFC ongoing, concerning the "Accession and Coronation" sub-section lead :) GoodDay (talk) 00:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

*There is a fundamentally misleading RfC ongoing concerning the "Accession and coronation" section. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:59, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

We disagree, which is allowed on the 'pedia. GoodDay (talk) 01:01, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

That is a straw man; one that once again foundationally misunderstands the disagreement. I said nothing about what is and isn't allowed on "the 'pedia". I said the RfC you started fundamentally misrepresents the dispute over the "Accession and coronation" section of the article and is therefore pointless and a cause of confusion. But, you may well be starting to show here, in real time, what one of the main impediments to resolving the dispute has been. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:09, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

The RFC doesn't misrepresent the dispute-in-question. We're dealing with a content dispute & nothing more. Administrator @Tamzin: advised you about WP:CIVIL. I hope you'll follow Tamzin's advice. GoodDay (talk) 01:17, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

This is all that needs said about the RfC you opened: . As to the rest: consider carefully whether or not you really want to start making personal pot-shots by dragging up past interactions with admins. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:33, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

At Charles III's talkpage & your own talkpage, I've been attacked several times & other editors advised you (concerning your talkpage) to stop. Now, please let others give their input 'here'. GoodDay (talk) 01:41, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Everyone's free to look at my history and logs as they are to look at yours. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:03, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Including your G2bambino contribs & posts? That's good to know. GoodDay (talk) 02:07, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

It says right on my userpage that that's my old account; 15 years ago. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• @Miesianiacal: I sampled a dozen or so diffs in your report and don't see anything egregious, or necessarily matching your characterization of the edits. An RFC on the lede sentence is already ongoing; why not let it reach a conclusion? And maintaining the status quo is routine when a topic is under discussion; in this case the argument for doing so is particularly strong given that there is currently considerable support at the RFC for the existing language. I realize that lengthy discussions can be frustrating but in this case the frustration may have been worsened by the highly optimistic expectations (as Robert McClenon too observed) that all the disputes would be settled and GA review complete by the time of the coronation. Even the current goal of starting the GA review by the end of the week seems implausible since RFC often run for a month. I'd suggest just stepping back a bit and letting the arguments play out. Abecedare (talk) 00:23, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

To the diffs: As I noted, all above are still only a sample. More than a sample of a sample is likely necessary to get a solid understanding of what's gone on and what the problem/problems are. Wrapped up in that is confusion over the relevance of the RfC on the lede: the RfC is not at all relevant to the unresolved dispute. The RfC is on the article's opening sentence. The dispute is over an addition to the article body; specifically, the "Accession and coronation" section. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:36, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

At this very moment. There are two RFCs-in-progress at the Charles III page. Each were started by a different editor. RFCs are a better route to take, then having one or more editors ending up getting blocked for edit-warring. FWIW - WP:ANI, isn't the place to settle content disputes. GoodDay (talk) 00:29, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

The first RfC has no relevance to the dispute; that is outlined in the opening summary/evaluation of the dispute above. The second RfC was opened by GoodDay and is an added distraction in an already complicated mess, as it fundamentally misrepresents the dispute. If even only to avoid any more confusion, both RfCs should be immediately closed; the first one is all but over, anyway. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:59, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

The second RFC was opened, to avoid edit-warring & help bring stability to the page. Requesting the input of other editors is the best way to break any impasse. GoodDay (talk) 01:07, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

This is merely futher illustration of what I outlined in the OP: "repeating the same argument", "disregarding other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits", "continually insisting on waiting for other editors' input" after other editors have given their input, "cherry-picking only RfCs as valid, willfully ignoring the validity of BRD", and so on. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I must now 'request', that you stop with the personal attacks. As for BRD, the onus is on the editor who makes the bold changes. Bold changes, that are already made known to be contentious, aren't very helpful. But we 'two' have said more then enough. At least let the other pinged editors (let alone outsiders) have a chance to give their input. GoodDay (talk) 01:23, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• @GoodDay and Miesianiacal: Responding to the ping above, it's true that I warned Mies for personal attacks against GD back in July. That was about inappropriate speculation about GD's mental health, and I'm not seeing anything like that here, or really anything I'd call personal attacks—not to say that Mies' comments are brimming with civility and AGF. It looks here like we have two experienced editors who have become very frustrated with each other. I'd suggest you both step back from this thread and give it some breathing room for other editors to comment. -- Tamzin (she|they|xe) 02:09, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. (And, for the record, I was embarrassed when I recently looked back at that comment. I don't know what I was thinking when I made it; I wasn't in a great headspace myself around that time. But, still... I'd make no fulminations if it were permanently deleted for all time.) --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:28, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• Responding to the notification: I've dipped in and out of this at the article. FWIW, I'm surprised this has made it to ANI. Sure, there's some sub-optimal things going on (a surfeit of RfCs for one) and there's plenty of bickering and fractiousness, and very little WP:STICK being dropped. A few editors could do with stepping away from it all and calming down. But I would say it's rather a storm in a teacup. DeCausa (talk) 06:27, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
• I have been notified of this discussion, but I don't think that any of my own edits require any sort of response. This thread looks like forum shopping. The requests for comment will close with decisions that the opening party disagrees with. His complaint was rejected at third opinion; it was then rejected at the dispute resolution noticeboard; and so now he brings it to the administrators' noticeboard with a collection of edits that on the whole appear better than his own behaviour. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:56, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• I'd echo DeCausa here, bringing this content dispute to ANI, and casting aspersions against the other party in the dispute to boot, is not a good look. Suggest this thread be withdrawn and the parties concentrate on resolving the remaining issues. I was somewhat involved in this page a while back, as I objected to the attempt by the "task force" mentioned above to seize WP:OWNership of the page and enforce their wording tweaks, which were a mix of good, bad and neutral, bypassing consensus on the article talk page. By and large a lot of those issues have been amicably resolved now though, and the priority is to address the remaining ones rather than attempting to get opponents sanctioned.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:16, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

  That's a misrepresentation: there was no "WP:OWNERship" from the task force. You were invited to CIII on your own talkpage, and you were pinged twice. There was an RfC on the matter too - very far from CIII trying to "enforce" changes (changes which have improved the article) that were proposed there.Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:47, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• My concern here, after reading the talk page, is that the conversation is being dominated by only a few voices. My feeling is that there's probably too much contribution in general, and that their points on any putative changes to the article, in either direction, have already been made sufficiently. I'd like to see everyone who is dominating the conversation agree to voluntarily step back and let other voices get heard, and abide by what others have to contribute as well. I don't want admins to have to step in here, because the tools we have to do so (IBANS, TBANS, page blocks, etc.) seem much less desirable than people just doing the right thing. But when I see a talk page like this, and the same 3-4 names come up more than 4-5 dozen times, AND where those names are doing classic WP:BLUDGEON behavior, that's something that needs to be addressed. --Jayron32 14:09, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I take your point about too few voices; that's central to why I went to WP:3O (even though there was, at the time, four people involved, I thought the principle was the same: two sides locked in a stalemate) and to WP:DRN: they were calls for fresh input. (I believe I said as much in my requests.) Even one of, if not the, main motivations for coming here was to get a break in the logjam (without having to go through one or more RfCs just on how to word an RfC, since not everyone involved can even agree on that--see above). And, in that vein, I'm not in opposition to the suggestion that everyone so far involved step back. However, is the core problem not necessarily that everyone's made their points already (putting aside the matter of how they've made them), but, rather, that even after everyone's points have been made, listened to, and taken into account when composing edits (trying, over time, at least 123 45 variations), the result is never deemed good enough and reverted on sight? I think I summed up the situation in the first half of this comment I made (plus addendum) not long before coming here. While one "side" (which there shouldn't be; but, here we are) shows attentiveness and flexibility, the other just demands one thing and will accept nothing else unless it's forced on them by numbers alone. Is that take on the matter at hand an unrealistic one? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:52, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello, @Jayron32:. All are welcomed, to give their input in the RFC-in-question. More input there, means a stronger consensus, for what to put into the lead of the "Accession and coronation" sub-section :) GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Mies and GD: The problem is that once you've made your feelings heard on a topic, there's no inherent need to make them heard again. If someone has a different perspective, you don't need to restate your perspective after them every time; you also don't need to respond to or disagree with everyone that comes along who has a different perspective. That kind of domination of the talk page can be seen as disruptive when it reaches levels I am seeing here. Instead of doing that, just make your point once, and let other people chime in without arguing with them every time. Your point was already made, it doesn't need to be made 30 times. --Jayron32 12:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

All good and reasonable... If the reality were that both sides obstinately refused to listen to one another.

But, what really transpired was only one side a) made efforts to get the others to express their feelings, b) heard whatever feelings were expressed, and c) accomodated those feelings in edits to the article. The last try is just one proof. Only one side showed total disregard for the other's expressed feelings, blanket reverted every edit, and repeated themselves. The proof is all through the discussions and the article edit history.

I'm not the only one to have identified that as the real point where BRD kept completely breaking down and progress became impossible. Even the RfC on the "Accession and coronation" section asks the wrong question and the voiced objections were, of course, completely ignored and remain ignored up to this minute.

The proof of other people chiming in is also there, as is the proof of their expressed feelings being disregarded by the "status quo" side. The proof is there of attempts to get still more people to chime in. This is an attempt to get more people to chime in.

But, on that note, I'm going to leave this until we hear from those who suggested going to AN/I and/or with whom I discussed going to AN/I before starting this section, should they choose to contribute (or, in one case, contribute any further). They were all duly notifed. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

• The Original Poster filed a request at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard a week ago. As Abecedare notes, I declined the request because there was already an RFC open, and noted that In Misplaced Pages, there is no deadline, but that User:Miesianiacal seemed to be in a hurry, and was trying to rush things. I advised them that they should report disruption of the RFC at WP:ANI. This report does not seem to be about disruption of the RFC. It seems to be, again, about the filing party being in a hurry. This report refers to declining the DRN as attempting to scuttle dispute resolution, but dispute resolution was already proceeding via the RFC, and it is trying to bypass the RFC that is disruptive. The Original Poster still seems to be forum shopping to try to rush Good Article review.
  • Trout can be caught in British Isles waters. I think that one is in order for the Original Poster. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

As explained to you previously, the RfC has no relevance to the dispute for which dispute resolution was being sought. Further, I did not make any claim that your decline was a scuttling of dispute resolution. In fact, we discussed the decline quite civilly. Please check the diffs again. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:31, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• I don't see an issue here other than impatience from an editor. Nemov (talk) 19:33, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
• Ban Miesianiacal from Charles III/Talk:Charles III. There is something ironic about Miesianiacal composing long replies to Jayron32's request to take a break from the discussion. It demonstrates the real problem here which is Miesianiacal's tendentious editing and bludgeoning of any discussion. DrKay (talk) 05:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

• And yet a scan of Talk:Charles III reveals that Miesianical is only the third highest contributor to that page, so if we're talking bludgeoning then we need also to be looking at User:GoodDay and User:109.etc. Black Kite (talk) 06:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

• That other people also behave badly doesn't give a free pass here. --Jayron32 13:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

• Topic ban Miesianiacal from Charles III. As I implied above, he's exhausting everyone's patience by insisting on rehashing the same issues and discussion over and over. If his wording or arguments are rejected in one place, he immediately starts trying to put them somewhere else. I think the task force will find itself able to move forward far more easily without his input. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

• I can't help thinking that one smacks a little of WP:OWN, I'm afraid (also see my reply to DrKay above). Black Kite (talk) 09:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, I saw your reply, but it's not just a question of the amount of text added and the number of edits. It's also the forum shopping (this is the umpteenth discussion of the same issue), editing to promote a particular point of view (Canadian nationalist), and the tone of the contributions (he's been warned for civility at least 5 times by 5 different editors in the last year alone). Celia Homeford (talk) 10:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) - Not sure if I'm allowed to comment here: if not, an admin can remove this. I started the task force after a discussion on Charles's talkpage. There wasn't much friction on the TF itself; only some minor disagreements over content that we managed to settle. We then held an RfC on whether to proceed with the discussed changes: we made the changes, with little opposition (there was disagreement on how to proceed with the RfC, but that was a procedural issue rather than a content one). A while later, the RfC on the "Commonwealth realms" sentence started. Everyone presented their opinions, but this is where things started to fracture a bit, with some heated comments being made (not so much on Charles's talk, but on the "User talk" namespace). I'm not going to pretend like I was a model editor (because I'm not), but there might have been a bit of bludgeoning; however, I don't think the bludgeoning was as bad as some above are making it out to be. It's obviously a contentious area, but compared to other such areas on WP, there was very little actual edit warring. I disagreed with Miesianiacal and 109 on the matter of the first sentence, and I agreed with GoodDay that it should be left as it is, and said that we should compromise by giving a partial list in the "Accession and coronation" section instead. Even with that considered, I don't think that Mies or GoodDay (or 109, for that matter) should be at all TBANned from Charles III. I think instead that admins should simply advise involved parties to take a break from the article and the TP and to cool off without TBANs being applied; it would be a shame to have to apply the banhammer, when they have done a lot to improve the article. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

User TheruralGuy

User TheruralGuy has been making disruptive edits to various Misplaced Pages articles and when asked to stop doing so, they resort to making abusive comments in-response. User seems to have a bias against certain communities and deletes mention of them from articles.

Diffs are below.

Abusive comments: ,

Deletion of mention of the word 'Muslim' from an article (I reverted them and left a talkpage message explaining why and they did not reply conductively and ended-up deleting the word 'Muslim' from the article again: , ,

Overall, this user is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia nor work collaboratively with others. ThethPunjabi (talk) 15:51, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

ThethPunjabi, does the word "Muslim" appear in the cited sources? I cannot read them. If the word "Muslim" does not appear, then there is nothing improper about removing it. If it does appear and the editor is improperly trying to keep it out, then that is a problem. Cullen328 (talk) 04:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

The first reference mentions "Indians and Pakistanis, Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, and Muslims" but I cannot access the second. LizardJr8 (talk) 20:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the edits TheruralGuy made seem to suggest that he/she is on a crusade against Muslims. He/she is also misusing the minor edits check box in his/her edits - and his/her talk page shows that he was warned about this on 13 April 2023.

The relevant pages of both sources cited are available on Google Books: Intangible Heritage Embodied pages 50-51, Domestic Political Change and Grand Strategy page 188. Both sort of support the text they are cited for in the article, but not explicitly. It is clear that the Punjabiyat idea is about bringing Indians and Pakistanis, Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, and Muslim together, and that trying to exclude Muslims/Pakistanis/West Punjabis from this is unsupported. It would be an improvement if the article were modified to say something explicitly stated by the sources cited for it.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

No comment on the content of the edits but the language in the commentary certainly should use some addressing. Augend (drop a line) 06:06, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Sino-Soviet border conflict - Crows Yang behavior

User User:Crows Yang has recently started to edit the article Sino-Soviet border conflict. Their first edits were quite good and improved the article quality by expanding on the Chinese version of the events. We had a quite civil discussion on User_talk:Crows_Yang, however, later their edits started to show, in my opinion, explicit bias that is not acceptable by Misplaced Pages standard. We had a discussion on the Talk:Sino-Soviet border conflict#Neville Maxwell article citations and it didn't went... well. Their messages and edit descriptions started to became more and more hostile. By the end of discussion I almost have snapped. I understand that the article has multiple problems, I acknowledge that I have my opinions and preferences regarding the events discussed and I know that I still have a lot to learn before I'll become a proficient Wiki editor, however, user Crows Yang ignores my attempts at polite discussion of the article issues on the Talk:Sino-Soviet_border_conflict argumenting it by, as I understand it, that two wrongs are somehow making one right. Their latest response in Talk:Sino-Soviet_border_conflict#Result is

Screw u, like a said, I've provided reliable sources and you treat them as "unneutral" cuz they were against your personal preference. I'll keep an eye on the edition, don't even think about putting me out of the game with your silly actions. You changed it, I change it back... .

I find this unacceptable and I'm pretty sure this is a violation of Misplaced Pages rules. DestructibleTimes (talk) 10:44, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Ths editor with the ID name "DestructibleTimes" is very double standard and biased for the edition of the page-"Sino Soviet Border Conflict". DestructibleTimes and another editor "Editorkamran" have been overseeing the edition of this page by keeping eyes on other editors' editions. They judge other editor's editions, especially the reliability and neutrality of their sources. But the problem is, they are not even neutral or objective themselves.

We've found that the conclusions made by historians from the West, Soviet/Russia and China regarding to the result of the Sino-Soviet Conflict were highly disputed. There's no single one conclusion about this conflict, some sources claimed Soviet Victory, other sources claimed Chinese victory, and most other sources did not claim victory for each side. In this circumstances, DestructibleTimes insisted on putting "Soviet Victory" in the top infobox of this page as the result of the conflict. I tried to add another claim from another source to show the readers that the result of the conflict was in fact disputed, indecisive. We can't just mark one side's victory as the result. However, DestructibleTimes became extremely critical and picky about my edition by imposing false charges against them. He claimed my source's neutrality was disputed, while completely ignored the sources which claimed "Soviet Victory". The source I cited was published by University Press, which was very reliable and objective per Wiki's policy. In this case, DestructibleTimes has been conducting a "double standard" treating other editors' editions.

So that's why I'm seeking help from the Dear administrator, please check on this editor's editing history for any issues involved, thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crows Yang (talk • contribs) 11:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

But the problem is, they are not even neutral or objective themselves.

WP:NOOBJECTIVITY. And I haven't deleted anything because of perceived lack of neutrality, I merely stated my opinions about some of the sources you provided on talk page. In my opinion, the Result sections shouldn't contain anything but confirmed facts while you have consistently tried to put opinions disguised as facts there. Due to various reasons we really have not so much confirmed facts about the event and that's why we should avoid strong assertions based on single source. That's why I moved your statements to other places and rephrased them to make sure they do not violate WP:NPOV.

In this circumstances, DestructibleTimes insisted on putting "Soviet Victory" in the top infobox of this page as the result of the conflict.

Excuse me, but it is trivial to verify that this never happened by checking the page edit history. In fact, it was me who stated on the talk page that this is a questionable claim.

He claimed my source's neutrality was disputed, while completely ignored the sources which claimed "Soviet Victory".

1) The problem is not with the sources but with the statements - please re-read my opinion on the Talk:Sino-Soviet border conflict#China was able to deter the Soviet Union. Since you decided to ignore my concerns and tried to delete the template, I went ahead and attempted to fix the issue myself with this that you reverted still ignoring the discussion. 2) I can pick issues I want to work on, yes. If you want other issues to be fixed, you can do it yourself. Two wrongs don't make one right. DestructibleTimes (talk) 11:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

• This war was a Soviet victory. This should be handled in talk page, not here. Editorkamran (talk) 19:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  I do not have an opinion on who is correct, but this appears to be a simple content dispute, and should be handled on the talk page. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  All we get right now is only

  I'll wait and see what's going to happen, the article as well as the top infobox is not your private property, I won't let you two "Soviet Victory" believers rule over it.

  ,

  So anything you try to add in there, I have ways to "prove" them wrong....lol

  and

  By another way, neither Editorkamran nor you seem to be experienced in studying the history of war...lol

  .

  Does it sound like willingness to build a consensus? Judging by this and other statements (e.g. their beliefs about sources) I think @Crows Yang has absolutely zero idea at how all this Misplaced Pages thing works. Looks like they think we make articles by winning edit wars. DestructibleTimes (talk) 20:01, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  Dear administrator, please allow me to explain everything accused by User @DestructibleTimes aginst me. I'm sure you might have noticed what this user's saying like 【 In my opinion, the Result sections shouldn't contain anything but confirmed facts...】, 【please re-read my opinion on the Talk...】. That means, he listed the policies here, and insisted on stating "His Own Opinions", meaning his accusations against my edition were all based on his own opinion and interpretation of the policies. I've displayed my arguments by directly quoting what these policies say on the Talk page, there was nowhere saying the sources I used could not be cited as references just because they were someone's own opinion. I also argued that all the sources appearing on Wiki are in fact based on opinions. But User @DestructibleTimes kept charging my sources while ignoring the same issues in his own and User Editorkamran's sources just because mine are not in favor of their own preferences.

  User DestructibleTimes's accusation of 【while completely ignored the sources which claimed "Soviet Victory"】is a straight-up distortion of what's been going on here. I did not ignore the sources claiming Soviet Victory, but I do have sources that claimed Chinese victory, that's why I've found the result of this Sino-Soviet Conflict is too controversial to conclude. But user DestructibleTimes behaved extremely picky on my editions and threw false charges against them with his own opinion, this user and user Editorkamran insisted it was Soviet Victory by making "unneutral" charges against my sources sorely based on his own opinion and own interpretations of the policy. Yes, I might have deleted some templates by mistake, and User DestructibleTimes reverted the deletion, and I did not revert it back. I simply added sth with support from the sources I found, but user DestructibleTimes removed it to aftermath per its own opinion and decision. This was unacceptable.

  I must admit that I'm a newcomer of Wiki, I'm being doing all I can to get familair with the policies and our mission as editors here. But newcomers can't be viewed by someone as excuses to distort the fact and history events. I believe that our top mission on Wiki (especially the history articles) is to help our readers know the whole story of the historican events, let the readers see all the details hidden behind each event, not to judge the ownership of Victory.

  And, yes, for all the reasons above, I don't want any further discussion with this user DestructibleTimes, cuz the discussion will remain contested and become worthless to continue. So I'm here to seek help from you, Dear administrator, to uphold the justice. I will continue to work hard on the editions, and try to do better in the future. Please let me know if there are any flaws with my edition and I'll be happy to fix the flaws. Crows Yang (talk) 03:27, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  I don't want any further discussion with this user DestructibleTimes

  Yeah, that's exactly what is going on here. Crows Yangs doesn't want to discuss anything, they want... something, but neither state what exactly they want, nor they have tried to implement their own solution to the issue stated by them. I've asked them:

  We are still supposed to reach the consensus, though (WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS). You haven't offered anything resembling "The result might be an agreement that does not satisfy anyone completely, but that all recognize as a reasonable solution.", though it is you who strongly claim that there is a problem. You just talk about bias this, bias that. Please state your proposal at last!

  and guess what, got nothing except this attempt at 檢討 DestructibleTimes (talk) 09:27, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

• Crows Yang is frequently threatening in edit summaries to keep edit warring per his own statements, "I will keep changing it back if anyone attempts to add any nonsense to the edition!" "You can add whatever you want, but if you delete anything, I revert it back!". Editorkamran (talk) 04:47, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

• Now this is a clear WP:CIR issue. Editorkamran (talk) 05:55, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
• Comment - I think it should be considered whether WP:3RR is being, or has been, violated. Per my view it appears that the parties are very close to, if not having already exceeded, the qualitative considerations for edit warring. Virtually the entire edit log on the page from the past 4 days were from the same (very few) editors. Augend (drop a line) 06:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

This is a content dispute that has got out of hand, complete with battleground behaviour by more than one party. I have taken an interest in resolving the content dispute. Hopefully those involved will follow the norms of acceptable Wiki conduct and work collaboratively to improve this article. Edit warring today is IMHO sufficient to warrant at least one, if not both editors involved being blocked. However, an admonishment is hopefully sufficient remedy. Let's see how things go. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Non-communicative genre-warrior not listening to repeated warnings

Tom O'Meara (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Tom O'Meara came to my attention tonight making an edit to Frankie Muniz which went against an emerging talk page consensus. I went to their talk page to attempt to get them to join the discussion. However, the long list of repeated warnings, particularly for genre-warring and adding unsourced content concerned me. I am further concerned by their lack of ENGAGEment in talk discussions. They have zero edits to talkspace and two edits to user_talkspace in four-and-a-half years on the project. They have recently ignored a warning for genre-warning placed by @SnapSnap: on May 9, and genre-warred at Tarkan (singer) and Fiki without adding any sources in the same session as the edit to Frankie Muniz. Perhaps we need a pblock from mainspace to get them to communicate? ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  03:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

• The Pixie Lott edits are bizarre, to say the least. He supplies a reliable source, but that source describes Lott as "soul-pop" (which genre he removes). In the interview, Lott self-describes her music as soul (which genre he adds) but also as dance (which he removes). The Muniz edits are just disruptive. The uncommunicativeness may be due to WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU (although that's less likely these days) but there are very few edit-summaries either. I'd agree with a mainspace pblock to gain attention. Black Kite (talk) 07:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  He has made a post to my talk page attempting to explain the Frankie Muniz edit (which to clarify, is not at all why I'm here, that article is a separate issue which is nowhere near the level of admin intervention yet) but made another unsourced edit to a BLP, adding "...and stage actress" to the lead of Melody Thornton, which honestly is the same type of behaviour as the Muniz edit; adding something to the lead without regard for MOS:ROLEBIO and without any talk discussion. I've advised them in my reply to come here and that they should make posts like the one on my talk page more often, but before making these types of changes. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  15:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Could describing a professor as a "notoriously partisan source" in an edit comment or talk page constitute a WP:BLPVIO?

Interesting in administrators' views on whether describing a professor as a "notoriously partisan source" in an edit comment or talk page could constitute a WP:BLPVIO? Assuming of course that no WP:RS exist to support this claim.

This came up on a page recently, but I am not linking to it so as to avoid getting distracted with the specifics of that situation. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Diff? EEng 07:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Do I need to provide it? I was hoping to get a conceptual answer. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I think the conceptual answer would be "It depends". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLPTALK: BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Misplaced Pages, including talk pages, edit summaries ... Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate. In other words, "It depends". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Diff is here: USS Cola!rado🇺🇸 (C⭐T) 08:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that this is a BLP violation - certainly not an unambiguous one. Firstly, per the policy Hawkeye7 cited, the claim is explicitly related to making a content decision: the claim that the source is partisan is supporting the argument that the text should not be included in the lead. Secondly, it's not obviously a claim about a living person: at least from that edit summary, it is unclear to me whether the alleged notorious partisanship is on the part of the author, the publisher, or just that particular book. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Also, I have notified Tombah of this discussion, as it is their edit at issue Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Both lead authors for that source have been dead longer than five years Folly Mox (talk) 08:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

The source in question is that by Nur Masalha, so still alive unless there is some very recent news. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh gotcha I thought it was the one by Raban and Holum. Folly Mox (talk) 09:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Why is a book on archaeological research into a 2,000-year-old site being cited for a comment on the establishment of Israel in 1948? And why does this belong in the lede anyway? AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

It isn't anymore, so concerns allayed. But it was in connection to the site's alternative names. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I can see what it was being cited for. What I'd like to know though is why the book was being cited for something so clearly tangential to its actual topic. Though I suspect I know the answer already. Evidently no article that discusses anything remotely relating to the eastern end of the Mediterranean can ever be free of cherry-picking, point-scoring, and miscellaneous partisan off-topic-ramblings. Sad. Just sad... AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

If it was point-scoring, the point being scored was pretty subtle. More just matter-of-fact. But the dispute itself arose over the attempts to rip down a perfectly viable scholarly source over accusations of partisanship, which, well, applies to half the scholars in the arena. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, its a notoriously partisan topic area. Which rather suggest that the edit summary in question isn't something we should be overly concerned over. Scholars routinely say worse things about each other, and most are thick-skinned enough not to worry about passing comments in Misplaced Pages edit summaries. At least I assume so, because otherwise they aren't going to last long while engaging with such topics. Crying 'WP:BLP' in such circumstances would seem overblown, even if the discussion wasn't about content that quite possibly shouldn't have been there in the first place. Edit summaries are just that, and it isn't reasonable to expect a long treatise in justification for any negative commentary on an edit. Without establishing there was some sort of pattern, or unless something a lot more specific was being alleged, contributors should be permitted to use edit summaries for what they are intended for - which very often includes expressing an opinion on the merits of a source. Opinions informed by policy, but opinions nevertheless. Editorial judgement. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it's not unduly offensive, just needlessly and unfoundedly so. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd say, in the end, it's better to allow something like this on a talk page than to have people unable to, for example, say Andrew Wakefield or Alex Jones or Hulda Clark or (contemporaneously to the first Iraqi war, anyway) Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf is a notoriously unreliable source. Because dicussion of the partisianness and reliability of an author is a key part of writing an article. We can certainly say that, had that opinion been put in an article without some hefty citations, then it'd be a bad BLP violation, but BLP is not meant to keep us from criticising a source because of the creator just because the author is alive. Otherwise WP:FRINGE starts to break down.

If they're wrong, they're wrong. And people will tell them they are. But being wrong isn't a blockable offense ("Competence is required" issues aside) and the encyclopedia breaks down if we block people from discussing sources. Adam Cuerden _{Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600 FP!} 11:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

• Questioning the reliability of a source text should not be seen as a verboten BLP violation; otherwise people could add sources written by any living person, and no one could ever say anything bad about the source or raise any objections to its use. That's obviously silly. --Jayron32 12:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) This question belongs at WP:BLPN, not ANI. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
• Definitely not a BLP violation. The exception for related to making content choices is blanket and absolute; no talk page statement made in a good-faith effort to contribute to content choices can ever be a BLP violation, fullstop, even if a consensus eventually forms that you're wrong. This is important because if it was possible to get sanctioned simply for being wrong about eg. whether someone is a "notoriously partisan source", it would have a chilling effect on people bringing up potential flaws with sources; and we need people to be willing to state potential flaws clearly. Now, if someone is clearly not bringing something up in good faith, then that's different, but we do need to be able to eg. discuss potential BLP-violating things on talk in order to decide whether or how to cover them, which means that the exemption for discussions related to making content choices has to cover basically everything that is said in good faith towards that end. How could we ever resolve BLP disputes if the people who believe there's a BLP problem somewhere could immediately remove everything the people on the other side of the dispute say about the matter on talk? --Aquillion (talk) 05:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

User talk:103.176.140.112

They are troubling me again if you want you check my archive i have archived their message on talk page and they are saying i am sock but don't file a spi K-Pop Stan (✍️•📚) 12:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) For convenience, the behavior in question is preserved at User_talk:ArmyOnceBlinkMidzy/Archive_1#Hi. The required ANI notice has also been doled out. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:12, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I found from 103.176.140.0/23 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) that they made similar edits between November and December 2022, where they posted apologies and threats to WP:SPI toward ArmyOnceBlinkMidzy (talk · contribs). It's impossible to tell if the mainspace edits from this New Delhi IP range are coming from the same person, but most of these edits are also problematic.

List of known diffs:

1. , self-reverted at

There was also a Mumbai IPv6 range that is already blocked for other reasons; edits associated with this behavior include and . –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

A new comment on their talk page K-Pop Stan (✍️•📚) 14:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Relevant links . These are all definitely socks. The first and second links, of the IP initially reported and the one mentioned by LaundryPizza, share the same location, and the third one, located in New Delhi, not far from the other two, share the same description of a company. This is an editor that made personal attacks in the past of a similar description to the others. A WP:SPI is needed here to check for others. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 06:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

This editor has various ip address where they do this, I have been tired of this K-Pop Stan (✍️•📚) 03:07, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hello, I wanted to report an account that has been taking advantage of its reversal rights to reverse any referenced information in its favor. your name is BastianMAT. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.68.66.46 (talk) 01:45, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi there. Any time you discuss another user on this noticeboard, you have to go to their talk page to let them know. I notified them here but please do this part yourself in the future. Thanks. CityOfSilver 17:00, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Uh, @97.68.66.46, can you clarify? User:BastianMAT does not have any sort of "reversal rights" to take advantage of, and additionally, I don't have any clue what edits you're talking about. What page did this happen on? None of the edits from the IP address you're commenting as were reverted by that user casualdejekyll 17:11, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I don’t know what he is even talking about, but well let him do whatever he wants. The only thing being enforced is that sources to political pages need to have reliable sources and disputes needs to be resolved with consesus, but I guess this user is against that. BastianMAT (talk) 07:52, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Let me add this IP user is using a sockpuppet account named User:Holiptholipt, and reverted dozens of users when told that he can’t use WP:PRIMARY. Someone has to tell him, but as he has been refusing to discuss, and just using reverts and offensive language such as accusing me of being a vandalizer, I’ll let you guys decide what to do with this information. BastianMAT (talk) 07:55, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

BastianMAT - can you explain why you think the IP is Holiptholipt? I just checked the IP's contribs, and there doesn't appear to be any overlap with that account. Sure enough, there doesn't appear to be any overlap with yourself either, so it's obviously someone LOUTSOCKing, just wondered whether you could explain your thinking on the connection to that account. If you could also provide diffs of them reverting with offensive language, that would be helpful. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:16, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Hounding

It appears that User:M.O.X just made a couple dozen consecutive reversions of my most recent edits, pretty much all of which were obviously needed changes. Not sure how to address this, but it seems to be harassment stemming from a reversion he made earlier today concerning Catholic postnominals—which I rejected with an explanation. (He clearly retaliated by just undoing all of my recent edits, including unblanking my talk page before realizing what he did and reverting it.) natemup (talk) 03:09, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

The edit summary appears to be the same in all cases: "Unsourced edits". That doesn't apply for purely stylistic changes, for example or . This is a pretty obvious tell that they're reverting your edits without looking at them. Can you two hash this out on your talk pages? It doesn't seem intractable yet. Mackensen (talk) 03:23, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect, the OP shouldn’t need to reason with another user who is clearly hounding them due to a disagreement. The edits M.O.X. performed on the OP’s talk page are clearly way over the line. M.O.X. should have made an attempt to discuss the edits, instead they chose the route of childish vandalism. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:E8D6:4C9:936A:9B63 (talk) 11:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

This is problematic behavior. @Natemup made the right call by bringing it here. Nemov (talk) 12:37, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

@Mackensen, I have to agree that this appears to be retaliatory vandalism, pure and simple. I'm not sure it's the kind of thing anyone should be expected to try to deal with themselves?

@Natemup, for clarity can you give us the diff for a reversion he made earlier today concerning Catholic postnominals—which I rejected with an explanation? Valereee (talk) 13:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I made the suggestion purely on the basis that M.O.X. is a long-term editor and presumably knows better, though I don't recall encountering them before. Mackensen (talk) 13:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

This looks like a misuse of the rollback all script to me. And, quite frankly, grounds to consider removing rollback if someone is going to use a script enabled extension of that flag like this. Courcelles (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh, good catch, all made the same minute. Well, I guess on the plus side it was arguably a single instance of vandalism rather than a spree, but yeah, that makes it not just vandalism but abuse of the tool. Valereee (talk) 13:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:MobileDiff/1154382811

(In a separate edit, he also deleted the postnominals in the infobox, which were present from long before. I don't think I even put them there.) natemup (talk) 14:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

This certainty seems like abuse of rollback. Admins, would removing this user's rollback privileges be an appropriate response? QuicoleJR (talk) 18:19, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

@Mackensen: Would removing rollback privileges from M.O.X. be appropriate? QuicoleJR (talk) 18:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be justifiable, though M.O.X. hasn't edited since before this discussion opened and it would be good to hear from them. Mackensen (talk) 18:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, wait please. The "mass rollback" script has two options: "revert all" and "revert selected". But if you select a few problematic edits, then click "revert all" it will just ignore your selection and revert everything. This could be nothing more than a single misclick. M.O.X. hadn't edited for two months prior to this "incident"; perhaps they were a bit "rusty". That said; I haven't looked at many of their past edits; are there previous instances of clear hounding? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Adding: Apart from today they've only used rollback once since MediaWiki started tagging rollbacks circa 2017. . Only a handful of of uses of "undo". . They've barely edited in the past few years. In any case, I don't see a pattern of abuse, here. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

To add on, editing from a mobile has made me accidentally rollback and revert edits. The links are so close together that your phone has a mind of its own. Callmemirela 🍁 20:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

The combo of mobile + rollback would seem to be a particularly deadly one. EEng 09:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Maybe in a few generations' time humans will evolve slimmer fingers to cope with such things. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

And, after a considerably longer period, the overpaid do-nothings at Wikimedia might fix mobile to not be a laughingstock -- if the universe doesn't run cold first. EEng 18:21, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

If you look at M.O.C’s ediring history, you will see that their last 10 edits before this episode go back to October 2021 — so you’ll likely be waiting a very long time for a response. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:03, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Which is reason enough to remove rollback now imo. nableezy - 18:28, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes I agree, there seems to be very little down-side. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 01:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

@Natemup, I'm probably being really dense here, but what do you think the mass-rollback was in retaliation for? You've linked to Special:Diff/1154382811 above, but that was at 03:16, 12 May. The mass-rollback took place several hours earlier, at 23:45, 11 May. What interaction did you have with M.O.X before the mass-rollback? He doesn't seem to have edited Saint Boniface at all before you. Again, I've probably missed something obvious, but "retaliation" is a very serious claim (compared with sloppiness) and we need be to be sure to get the timeline right. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

This is the correct diff. He reverted what I presume he thought was an undue edit on my part, and then came the cascade. I don't recall any recent interactions before that. I've had other hounders, though. natemup (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

But that's M.O.X reverting you. Again, "retaliation" implies you reverted one of their edits first, and they decided to "get back" at you by blindly reverting all your edits. Seeing one (perceived) problematic edit from an editor, then going to their contribs, and reverting all the other (again, perceived) problematic edits is not retaliation. If he intended to revert all those other unrelated edits, then it is hounding, yes. But do we really know that was intentional? M.O.X should, when they return to editing, apologize, at least. But I don't see any malice here. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:50, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above (and the other diffs) makes clear the cascade had nothing to do with my edits being problematic. He blindly reverted everything—including my talk page—with the same edit summary that had nothing to do with the edits. He then undid the talk page edit alone, realizing his mistake, which implies that he intentionally made the other blanket reversions. natemup (talk) 10:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Blocking of user STVbastian

The user have not talking to me in a very nice tone. just because I told nicely that Hanoi is a state in Vietnam but the user try to correct me in a point like I don't even know that Hanoi is not a state in Vietnam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.74.63.217 (talk) 04:55, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

...What? -- Rockstone 05:05, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

219.74.63.217 - you are required to notify STVbastian of your post here. I have done it. Meanwhile, from what I can see, STVbastian had carefully and politely explained why they reverted your changes () and you had politely responded (). At no point was there any reason I can see for you to delete their message and come here calling for them to be blocked. Regardless, there are links at the top of this page which give advice on the best way forward. (Non-administrator comment) Dorsetonian (talk) 11:07, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

IP editor vandalizing articles by putting his real name in infoboxes

A user has been using two IP addresses, 2404:3C00:C04E:CE40:1C29:B6FA:CB4E:94CF and 2404:3C00:C04E:CE40:5C55:35E5:E21:FA38, to vandalize multiple political articles by putting his real full (searchable) name on the articles' infoboxes. The vandalism has since stopped but I'm wondering if this might have any implications due to the use of a person's full name in the multiple counts of vandalism involved. Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 19:58, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

You need to give notice to people who have been reported to AN/I, which you didn't do; I've done this for you. I highly doubt that "Christian Luigi A. Escamis", which both IPs have been adding information about even exists, as I cannot find anything that suggests this person exists. Sources that they have used are a random campaign ad to claim that this person supports Ron DeSantis and a Roblox YouTuber that hasn't been active in five years to claim that they support Marianne Williamson. If you look at their edit histories, they contradict themselves repeatedly.

I believe these IP ranges should be blocked for a month for spreading a blatant hoax. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 23:22, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

It’s not vandalism if the IP doesn’t know he’s making a mistake. Maybe some edits are intentionally malicious but several I spot checked looked iffy (officeholder changes) or undesirable (personal endorsements of candidates) but not obviously malicious.

This person may just be new.

For now, I don’t think he has gotten any talk page feedback.

For starters, I suggest you leave him a nice message (on each page)welcoming him to Misplaced Pages and pointing him to the WP:5PILLARS. Explain that he cannot make edits that involve a COI but he can leave a suggestion on an article’s talk page for others to consider.

Also, for those personnel changes in Philippine political parties, he needs to provide a reliable source per WP:RS. If he doesn’t know how to do an inline citation, he can just do a raw external link in brackets for now.

Thanks for your vigilance!

—23:08, 13 May 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:08, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Range blocked for a week. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Possible hoax

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

• Punial State (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ali Nizari (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Per comments at Commons , and at WP:BLPN there seem to be reasonable grounds to suspect that User:Ali Nizari has for some time been adding hoax (or at minimum, entirely unsourced) content regarding a supposed 'dynasty' to the Punial state article, including unsourced claims about a living individual being a 'Crown Prince'. After the BLPN comment, I reverted the article to an earlier version, without this content, and left a note on Ali Nizari's talk page. This seems to have had no effect however, as Ali Nizari restored the unsourced content. At minimum, I think this contributor needs to be page-blocked until we get proper communication, and some reliably-sourced evidence that this supposed 'Prince' exists. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:11, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I particularly admire that this grand dynasty waited until the modern era and the advent of Microsoft Paint before creating their official flag, File:The Imperial Coat Of Arms of the Punial State.jpg. Zaathras (talk) 21:17, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

•  Indeffed If they want to offer some explanation, they can post an unblock request. But their failure to respond to the BLPN discussion before restoring all their unsourced edits is enough for me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

USER:Longway22

1.He took the personal attack to me instead of the explain of his undo of my contribution as the Edit summary （making offensive edit summaries） at 15:08, 12 May 2023 (as the diff).He ignores the truth, that I have come up for a discussion to these points on the Talk-page for a week(as the diff).

2.He took the personal attack to me as the only reason to request for page protection at 06:18, 13 May 2023(as the revision of 06:19, 13 May 2023).

3.After the other editor has given some advices (as the diff), he still has not participated the disscusion but continued to make me up as a violator of the rules, like a WP:LTA(as the revision of 09:47, 13 May 2023)

4.He clearly refused to discuss about what he did(as the diff).

By the way, he has been blocked for mischaracterizing others' actions in zhwiki recently（as the Special:Diff）. He has lied many times on one dicussion. He has claimed, that the conclusion of the dicussion is "MINQI did original research and other participants identified his opinion", at least in two other discussions （1 2）. But the truth is totally opposite —— one other editor has found the provement of my opinion's correctness(as the diff). --MINQI (talk) 21:39, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

You wrote an equally harsh edit summary regarding Longway22. is there a reason we should view these edit summaries any differently from each other?

—A. B. 23:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

If you neglect his behavior as the baiting, I would to say there is no big difference but his edit on that page is really related to Misplaced Pages:Verifiability and Misplaced Pages:No original research, as I mentioned at 09:47, 11 May 2023. MINQI (talk) 00:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Neither of you have edited on this Misplaced Pages very much. Both of you are prolific contributors on the Chinese Misplaced Pages (zh.wikipedia):

• Longway22’s zh edit history
  • block log
• MINQI’s zh edit history
  • block log

As you note in one of your diffs above, Longway22 has been blocked recently on zh.Misplaced Pages. You yourself have been blocked many more times.

We usually only consider behavior on this Misplaced Pages. We have a language barrier and the many Wikimedia projects also respect each other’s autonomy. A. B. 00:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes,I have been bolcked many more times and if you want to know more about them you can watch this page.

Since you usually only consider behavior on this Misplaced Pages, I will stop talking about things on zhwiki. Let's just examine what happened between me and Longway22 on 12 May 2023 and 13 May 2023. MINQI (talk) 00:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

PS：For the 1st point, I want to add some words. I think he was belittling me and purposed to deliberately push me to the point of breaching civility(I have no choice but tit for tat in the Edit summary, as the diff). And he has done in the similar way in zhwiki, using inappropriate edit summary to undo other's contribution.--MINQI (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

• As I mentioned in this WP:RPPI archive, the two editors need to calmly discuss issues on article talk and try to get a WP:WIKIPROJECT involved. Do not talk about personal attacks and other waffle. Just talk about article content—what reliable sources should be used, and what text should be added or removed from an article and why. If neither of the editors are able to do that, both should be indefinitely blocked. Johnuniq (talk) 01:09, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Johnuniq and A. B.:I agree with "Just talk about article content—what reliable sources should be used, and what text should be added or removed from an article and why. If neither of the editors are able to do that, both should be indefinitely blocked. ". It's fair to both of us. I have made a discussion request on "Talk:Transnational authoritarianism" at 19:33, 4 May 2023 (UTC). And I have explained why I did that edit at 09:47, 11 May 2023(diff).

  I do not want to say it, but he has attacked personally (me and regarded those who not agrees with him in zh communities as not good fellows), talked about things from zhwiki and refused to discuss with me again, just as below.

  PS: I request RFC for the Edit's Problem. MINQI (talk) 08:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

@Johnuniq@A. B.I would agree for reasonable discussion based on reliable sources and more local editors to assist the issues.Just again as I reported in record,I pretty sure the case would 100% getting out of hand based on pattern of MINQI.All good fellows in zh communities would agree that,

You gays should know why I and other memmbers from zhwikipedia are all like keep no more talk with MINQI,because all the processes have been out of the line thanks for MINQI's great endless crusade against all the talking. I could say that MINQI would keep on editing with the idea of repression on anyone against its political agenda，and would not satisfy only if there wouldn't be writting arguments agaist its claim on articles and sources.

So if you guys just like ignore the going on question of the one-side endless propaganda,could you guys give official ban on Interaction between my account and MINQI? @WMLO have got one as the zhadmins now wouldn't deal with all the issues of MINQI,so I would like have one chance for same break from harassment and I could only tell good luck for you good fellows. Longway22 (talk) 08:06, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

All people here can see is two editors who disagree with each other. We see that all the time. If you want some attention, you will need to focus on article content: stop talking about other editors and start (on article talk) to specify text that you believe is wrong or otherwise inappropriate, and explain why. Johnuniq (talk) 09:20, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

@Johnuniq and A. B.:He did it again(diff).I have nothing to say. MINQI (talk) 10:53, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Civility and claims of harassment by User:Solaire the knight

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

As I'm repeatedly being accused of targeted harassment, protecting vandals, and having a conflict of interest (among other things) by User:Solaire the knight I thought to bring this here for resolution.

This started when I as an uninvolved editor noticed Solaire and an IP editor edit warring in a article and, after giving a warning , reported them both to the 3RR-noticeboard resulting in them both getting blocked for a short duration. After this Solaire's behavior became very WP:UNCIVIL with him claiming to everyone who would listen that I am harassing them , protecting vandals , and have a conflict of interest . I have tried asking them to stop , but this is becoming rather tiresome. Solaire fails to assume good faith, posts personal attacks and/or WP:ASPERSIONS, and is generally uncivil so some administrative action might be warranted. Thanks, CandyScythe (talk) 22:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

After looking through the evidence it is obvious that User:Solaire the knight needs to stop harassing you. Solaire has been blocked twice in the last 2 months for edit warring and needs to either engage in civil conduct or be blocked again. I'm going to give them one final warning to stop the harassment of CandyScythe or else they will be facing a longer-term block.--SouthernNights (talk) 00:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I think that such things need to be discussed with both sides before making any decisions. Not to mention that the 3 undo rule has nothing to do with forum rules. I even close my eyes to the fact that the user continues to harass me, interfering with my conflicts with other users and insistently demanding my blocking. I'm used to the rules here being applied arbitrarily. But I'm already tired of it. I have already explicitly written that I am going to ignore any user comments addressed to me and will insist that we are prohibited from commenting on each other's actions. What else do you need? Solaire the knight (talk) 04:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Solaire the knight, what is needed is for you to stop edit warring anywhere on Misplaced Pages, stop making false accusations of harassment and conflicts of interest, stop assuming bad faith of other editors, and start listening to the input of your colleagues instead of ignoring them. This is a collaborative project, after all. Cullen328 (talk) 04:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

This edit warning would simply not exist if the page were protected from anonymous edits, as I originally requested (and I'm not even talking about the last one, where a group of users just shared cancellations among themselves to get me banned). Moreover, it has already been protected in the past. But since everyone ignored this, we will close the topic. I have been on Misplaced Pages since 2008 and I know perfectly well what kind of project this is. But I am also a living person and I clearly do not like it when a completely outsider intervenes in a conflict that is not related to it in any way and, without any study of the situation, achieves my blocking. And then, with the most "innocent" look, he writes to me that "he understands why I'm upset." After that, having received an expectedly annoyed answer from me, he again begins to complain to the administrators. And doing it in a thread where I have a heated argument with another administrator because of the blocking caused by him (that is, getting into my next conflict and doing it actually right before my eyes). Even if the user does not have bad intentions and sincerely does not understand the reasons for my negative attitude towards him, this is just passive-aggressive. Especially when I am subsequently warned for a dispute without my participation, simply on the basis of his complaint. Collaboration project, huh (not to mention, the request to offer good faith seems rather ironic under the request where another user asks not to assume good faith from me)? In any case, I do not see any further reason to discuss this after my intentional refusal of any contact with the user. Solaire the knight (talk) 04:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Solaire the knight, violating the edit warring policy is never justified in any circumstance. You should know that very well because you have been blocked for edit warring. We do not semi-protect articles to prevent IPs from editing. There must be a much better reason. Do not call a fellow editor a "complete outsider" because this is the encyclopedia that anyone who follows policies and guidelines can edit. You have no right to exclude editors you believe are "outsiders" from editing. In conclusion, I am very concerned about your disruptive attitude. As you already know, 15 years of experience does not prevent you or any editor from being blocked. Cullen328 (talk) 05:15, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I broke this because I sincerely believed that I was rolling back the vandalism, since it was done by an anonymous user without any argument, just monotonously like a bot. And whose edits have been canceled in the article for several months. And you continue not to listen to me, not understanding what I want to say (for example, for some reason you perceive a reference to my experience as a defense against a block, and not an indication of familiarity with the rules for some reason). I'm not trying to prevent someone from editing or discussing the article. I didn't even say a word about it (I even created two threads to discuss this on the talk page, both of which were ignored by anonymous, like my warnings or the admin block). My complaint is primarily based on the fact that a user with whom I have not previously crossed paths and who did not participate in the discussion or writing of the controversial text suddenly literally bursts into my dispute with an anonymous person and begins to behave like, I'm sorry, an elephant in a china shop, even without bothering to study the history and context of the conflict. Will you be annoyed by this? Especially after they get you banned and then innocently saying "I understand why you're upset, but that's not the reason." A collective community that works together requires some kind of decency and ability to work together, otherwise we would not be here now and discuss my love story with a user. However, once again I see how people listen only to my opponents (because, as I see it, the English Misplaced Pages values ​​bureaucratic complaints more than trying to get your point across in long words), turning me into a scapegoat without even thinking about my position. Solaire the knight (talk) 05:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Solaire the knight, if you have any questions about whether something belongs in an article, you should bring it up either in the respective article Talkpage or the editor's Talkpage. Reverting should, in my opinion, only be used when the edit is clear and patent vandalism, for which there appears to be little encylopaedic value to retain. You will note that professional expertise is NOT a prerequisite for editing on Misplaced Pages, and that all claims, however controversial, as long as they have legitimate backing from secondary sources of encyclopaedic value in accordance with WP:RSPSS or similar, are, prima facie, eligible for inclusion. And all discussions on Talkpages are, by default, public. Hence, there is nothing wrong with another user providing their two cents where they deem reasonable. You can, of course, petition for an WP:IBAN if you truly believe this case has escalated to that point, but, in my personal opinion, simply providing commentary on an ongoing content controversy without having violated any interaction policies is a poor rationale for an interaction ban. Augend (drop a line) 06:23, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I easily built consensus with users who did not ignore the discussions and directly participated in the discussion instead of edit wars and complaining about me behind my back. But here I feel more and more like a character in the Kafikan Trial. About why I consider anonymous edits to be vandalism, I have already spoken many times and to different users. Each time it was in the nature of nonsensical excuses that were simply ignored with the generic "no, it's not vandalism" responses (which made me feel like people are either realizing they have nothing to say or just avoiding an uncomfortable argument). I just feel stuck. As I said above, I opened two topics there. One during the original partition addition and one after a fight with the admin who blocked me. Anonymous ignored both, the user who complained about me checked in there only after the ban. Moreover, he unequivocally supported the edits of the anonymous person, because of which I decided that he complained about me because of a conflict of interest. Before that, we did not intersect in any way, despite the fact that the user stubbornly continues to interfere in my disputes and beg for my blocking in various ways. I don't know how to solve this any other way than by ignoring his actions or banning our interactions. Otherwise, the user will continue to deliberately or unintentionally provoke me, and then destroy my participation in the project with the help of bureaucratic complaints and the expected trigger of my negative reaction to him. Solaire the knight (talk) 06:35, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Solaire the knight, Misplaced Pages welcomes anonymous editing. We would not have the edit function had it not been for the fact that Misplaced Pages, broadly, considers IP editing to be valuable. Nobody has claimed that anyone else is free of blame. But from what I've read, you are not in the clear either, and have had a chunk of the responsibility behind the conflict that has been caused. Quite frankly, it boils down to this: do not break the 3RR. Create consensus at the relevant article talkpage if content is contentious, and then WP:BOLDly make your edits. But there is no such thing as IP addresses being vandalism nor any suggestion that a third party intervening in a conflict is against the rules. You should know that.Augend (drop a line) 06:42, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

You keep talking to me like it's my first day on wikipedia and inexplicably grossly distorting my words, turning "I thought anonymous edits were vandalism" into "any anonymous edits should be banned". Please tell me how can I not feel cornered after this? I'm trying to explain the real context of the situation so I don't get another ban after a superficial one-sided examination of bureaucratic complaints, but instead you start explaining to me that water is wet and fire is hot. People here don't seem to even try to listen to me, either answering with dry learned rules or lecturing me on the basis of my words inexplicably distorted. Nowhere did I demand that any anonymous edits be considered vandalism, nor did I suggest that they be considered as such because they are anonymous. I have clearly explained my position several times. Why don't you listen to me? Or don't want to listen? Solaire the knight (talk) 06:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment (as Uninvolved user)

1) For users like me not having background of the topic are discussions seemed bit WP:TLDR so did not go through all of them. But still some observations after brief visit to discussions and article talk page along with archive of talk page.

2) Direction of Talk:Mobile Suit Gundam: The Witch from Mercury discussions suggest that primarily to be Content dispute.

3) More than one parties likely to push their own version. WP:OWN attitude also seem visible in discussions. Without following further steps of WP:DR process.

4) Locking article for some weeks and some form of interaction bans may be required.

5) More uninvolved users adding article to their watch list may help in long run.

Bookku (talk) 06:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

The page has already been protected several times. Both edit wars and random anonymous edits. This is what I was guided by when I asked to protect her once again. But my request was ignored, instead, a user who had not previously participated in any discussions and edits first accused me of an edit war, and then complained about me to the administrators behind my back. What made it all the final mess. And I'm really worried about persistent attempts to accuse me of trying to restrict other users from editing the article, although other users have repeatedly reverted my edits and I admitted that I was wrong. Including the original author of this section. Solaire the knight (talk) 06:55, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Why further steps of WP:DR process are not being followed. Is responsibility of following WP:DR processes always on the other side? If every side decides not to initiate WP:DR steps then how any content disputes would get resolved?

I am not blaming any single side but if every one specially experienced users become proactive in implementing WP:DR steps instead of focus on personalisation of disputes that would help the project better, what do you think? Bookku (talk) 07:09, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

In this particular case, the discussion simply died out due to the fact that I passively took the side of the original author of the section after a series of reversals of my edits, and other users simply expressed an opinion, but did not correct the article. Things have only become more complicated due to another awakening of the anti-woke anonymous and subsequent complaints from the OP, who for some reason preferred to create an actual conflict with the administrators out of this instead of any attempt to participate in the discussion or editing the article. It was this that pissed me off the most, because the user actually did not even try to make any contribution to resolving the dispute other than complaining about violations of the rules and asking for blocking me and formally anonymous (they even made me the initiator of the conflict, although the anonymous was the first to start the edit war and was the first to break the three-reversal rule). If you look at the talk page, his first formal comment was made after my blocking, and the second after I accused him of a conflict of interest and worsening the situation. In general, I am even fully prepared to leave the issue of this section to the discretion of the administrators. I literally created already two sections about its fate. This is not a question of truth. I was just extremely pissed off at how I was being made the scapegoat in an artificial attempt to ignite a conflict that could have been resolved in the bud. And the apparent bureaucratic indifference of the administrators and the culprit of the conflict to my attempts to explain the situation. Solaire the knight (talk) 07:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

@ Solaire the knight

• If you doubt any signed in User tag teaming with any IP only way Email through SPI. I have not got into those details- personally, for want of time so I can't comment more, but in this case I doubt unproved COI comment would help much.
• Understand this OP or any other uninvolved user/ admin not having background topic is much likely to follow similar bureaucratic steps. One problem is consensus is not formed and consensus is on which side is difficult to deduce for any uninvolved user/ admin.
• 'discussion died down and 'The page has already been protected several times.' do not seem to add up. If you say 'The page has already been protected several times.' are not all those are missed opportunities of initiating discussions and consensus building?
• IMO RfCs benefit in two ways help form consensus and attract new users to support the article. Here only few users are trying to control, if more users are there every time you or any single user does not need to control the article. Then there are more content resolution notice boards are there. If NPOV concern Option of tagging article for NPOV along with talk page discussion can be considered. Meaning there by there are more options in content dispute resolution.

Bookku (talk) 08:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, formally nothing forbids a third party to go and complain to the administrators without any real attempt to resolve the conflict in more peaceful ways. But it is also completely destructive in its essence, since it does not help to resolve the conflict at all, but only sharply worsens it, both in terms of unnecessary disputes and blocks instead of working on the article, and from a purely moral side, provoking hostility and resentment among users. I don't think the article was defended for other reasons. Although, as far as I remember, once she was protected from anonymous people due to a number of non-consensual edits and vandalism from anonymous addresses, you need to study the block log in more detail. On the other hand, the bureaucratic and cold reaction of administrators only complicates matters, as some administrators seem to think only in terms of rules, ignoring the discussion of the conflict at its core. Which, as far as I remember, grossly violates the principle of the dominance of the spirit of the rules over their letter. Anyway, imagine if in my place there was literally a person with zero wiki experience? They would literally be pulverized by all this bureaucracy and impersonal attitude. Solaire the knight (talk) 08:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

A truly bizarre aspect of all this long winded arguing is that it is about Mobile Suit Gundam: The Witch from Mercury, a Japanese cartoon show. Really? Cullen328 (talk) 08:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Huh? This conflict is an absolute drop in the vast ocean of conflicts and feuds that you can see in anime controversy, not to mention pop culture in general. It even happens that people send you insults and death threats just because of different opinions on how to enjoy a show. Solaire the knight (talk) 08:50, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Time for certain people to grow up, I guess. Maybe we should just block all the disruptive editors who work on cartoon show articles, Japanese or otherwise. I have blocked 8334 disruptive editors to date. Perhaps I need to increase that number significantly by delving into the cesspool you describe, Solaire the knight. Cullen328 (talk) 09:35, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what you're implying, but you might as well have to block everyone who writes about pop culture in general, not to mention that even the hottest cases of this do not equal the typical political or ideological conflict. On the wiki or on any other forums or sites on the Internet. Solaire the knight (talk) 09:42, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

No, I will not be blocking everyone, only those who continue with disruption after being warned. Consider yourself warned, Solaire the knight. Cullen328 (talk) 09:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

That is, you literally reproach me for trying to defend myself after the question of my action was taken unilaterally without my participation? And after trying to reproach me for hostility, the user below literally defiantly distorts my words and openly admits to being hostile to me? (I didn't specify what kind of disputes I are talking about, so the phrase "when they agree with you" is not only rude, but also a speculation about my intentions) Solaire the knight (talk) 09:53, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

• Having looked at the links (and Solaire's reports at AN3 including this one,) I don't see that anything more than what SouthernNights said at the top is needed. Solaire doesn't seem to know what vandalism is, believes that it is the fault of the reporter if he gets blocked for his "justified" edit-warring, IPs don't count, and he "easily builds consensus" provided people agree with him. The only surprise is that he's been here that long without being indeffed. DeCausa (talk) 09:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

You do understand that the phrase "easy to reach consensus when people agree with him" is rather rude, as well as trying to conclude that I don't know what vandalism is based on one dispute over the definition of edits? You have not responded to any of my arguments, but have simply formulated rough conclusions about me and my intentions. If I was in some way wrong about the assessment of the actions of the OP, then your words directly are unambiguously hostile. Solaire the knight (talk) 09:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. I haven't responded to your arguments. I've formed a view of you and expressed it. That's what happens at ANI when someone makes a complaint about you (which in my opinion is entirely justified). DeCausa (talk) 09:46, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

That is, if I understood you correctly, you are now openly defending a hostile comment addressed to me and even directly flaunting that its ignores my explanations about the situation? A very strange way to reproach someone with hostility, to put it mildly. Solaire the knight (talk) 09:53, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm wondering if you understand what's happening here. Editors are giving their opinions on whether you should be sanctioned and 2 admins have given you a final warning. Yes, you can expect some "hostility" to your behaviour. DeCausa (talk) 10:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Do you seriously not see the difference between a critical assessment of someone's actions and outright hostility, including gross distortions of other people's words? I don’t presume to judge your intentions (it seems that only my opponents are allowed here), but what you are doing now only adds coal to this already protracted conflict, provoking me to further emotional responses. If you are so hostile to me and are not going to non-ironically provoke me into getting a ban, please refrain from commenting further. You've already said everything you wanted to say and more than that. Solaire the knight (talk) 10:23, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

You need to stop defending yourself, to read and absorb the very clear warnings you have already been given, and to demonstrate that you understand them and will change your behavior. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:53, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

• This missing the point, misstating others opinions, and bludgeoning seems to be a common feature whenever Solaire’s conduct is brought to a noticeboard. ANI from last year, and their first block for edit warring, where after a short partial block they attacked other users ethnicity on the ANEW report necessitating it becoming a sitewide block. This is a user whose discussion style does them no favours, and is pretty disruptive the way they flood discussions. Courcelles (talk) 11:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  This flood literally exists due to the fact that any of my attempts to explain my actions or how to defend myself are met with incessant accusations, as if I were on the board of shame (and of course, in the case of pointing to that block, you didn’t care at all about the situation, not its context, because I’m the only one who is always and in everything to blame. Especially with you). I am literally accused of trying to defend myself, and not blindly accepting the accusations, moreover, accepted even without my participation. But I just don't care anymore. Everything that I say in my defense is either ignored in favor of dry references to the book of rules, or grossly distorted and interpreted as my own fault. Even when someone is openly hostile to me, violating the very rules of which I am accused of breaking, I myself am to blame. I'm just tired of being the scapegoat, do what you want. I won't cancel vandalism anymore because I don't want to go through all that toxicity and passive aggressiveness again. Thanks for the dialogue. Solaire the knight (talk) 12:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  You need to stop defending yourself and instead to demonstrate an understanding of the warnings you have already been given. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for the quick response SouthernNights. Sad to see Solaire hanging themselves when this thread really should have ended there. --CandyScythe (talk) 13:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
• Wow! I go to bed after posting my warning and woke up to a loquacious flood. But after looking through all of Solaire the knight's comments since yesterday I see nothing to change my initial assessment and the warning I gave stands. Solaire, you need to stop harassing users or you will be blocked. It's as simple as that.--SouthernNights (talk) 13:53, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  I stopped all communication with this user yesterday. And even closed the topic in the discussion of the article. But it still goes in a vicious circle where people make accusations, and my response to them gets new accusations in a vicious circle. Even after I directly wrote that I cease to justify myself in any way if I am called guilty in any case. I even asked another admin to close the thread to stop this. Maybe you will already do it? Solaire the knight (talk) 14:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I know you did all that, which is why I didn't block you already. As for closing this thread, I'll leave that to another uninvolved admin to decide on. But the easiest way to have this thread closed is for you to stop replying to everyone. --SouthernNights (talk) 14:09, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I did this a few hours ago, when I realized that it was simply pointless and no one was listening to me anyway. I hope that my current answer to you will not be regarded as some kind of my new fault. Solaire the knight (talk) 14:13, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

CoI editing by Ytrezq

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

Ytrezq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Tornado Cash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

See Talk:Ytrezq, where the contributor (or contributors, there seems to be so,e suggestion that multiple people are using the account) makes it clear that they have a CoI regarding 'Tornado Cash' a 'cryptocurrency tumbler'. Having failed to get the article revised to suit their CoI interests, due to a lack of any independent RS, they have now been arguing at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#Add public on‑chain activity to WP:RS that we should change core policy regarding the permissibility of otherwise-unsourced primary-source blockchain data (in their own words "logged events ; transactions ; and/or addresses"). And while arguing for a change in policy while having a CoI isn't in of itself a violation of policy, they have repeatedly, despite being told not to several times, posted while logged out (clearly inappropriate while having a CoI). Given that it was obvious that the discussion wasn't going anywhere, and that they were spamming the discussion with unnecessary and confusing details about the minutiae of the data they were trying to include, I boldly hatted it. Ytrezq has now reverted my hatting, with an edit summary which (if it makes sense at all) seems to be trying to justify the logged-out posting on the basis that "I don’t scrunity from them because I robbed them in 2021". I can only conclude that a WP:NOTHERE block would be appropriate, on the basis that Misplaced Pages is neither a platform for confessing to crimes, nor for trying to cover them up... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Indeffed and logged. Yet another long dormant account come out of the woodwork to make a mess on crypto stuff. Courcelles (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Persistent addition of promotional content - GEHSC/Globe Elections UN (again)

For more context, this is a continuation of the following discussions:

• December 2019: Talk:2019 United Kingdom general_election/Archive 5#GEUN_Spam
• January 2020: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1029#Persistent addition of promotional content - Globe Elections UN & Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Spam/2020 Archive Jan 4#Globe Elections UN spam
• February 2020: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Spam/2020 Archive Feb 4#Globe Elections UN (again)
• March 2020: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Spam/2020 Archive Mar 6#GlobeElections UN, apparently continued

Three years later, this person has been persistently attempting to promote this content in Misplaced Pages over and over again, in a clear violation of WP:SOAPBOX, WP:USERG and WP:SELFPUBLISH. Today I just removed a number of such links placed in Opinion polling for the 2023 Turkish presidential election, 2023 Czech presidential election, 2023 Paraguayan general election, Opinion polling for the 2022 South Korean presidential election, Opinion polling for the 2022 Brazilian presidential election, 2022 South Korean local elections and Opinion polling for the 2019 Guatemalan general election, though I have occasionally encountered some of these in the last years. Obviously this is a problem in that it is difficult to quickly notice where and when are these links being added to articles (though ongoing & South Korean elections seem to be one their primary preference).

Involved IP accounts in the addition of this content recently are the following (though there can be many more, since they keep changing it):

• 2002:b763:a37::b763:a37 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2002:799d:cc39::799d:cc39 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2002:3b0c:deb9::3b0c:deb9 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2001:2d8:eb00:13aa:fd29:c2b4:e360:e122 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2002:799d:cc39::799d:cc39 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2002:799d:ccb2::799d:ccb2 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 222.117.248.44 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 59.11.55.12 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (blocked already in 2020 for spamming the same blog in Wiki articles)
• 210.96.56.162 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 125.132.247.54 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (possible)

I post this here since I'm not sure if there is any way to properly handle this, since this user keeps evading their blocks, reinserting their links and findind a way to keep spamming this even when reverted or blacklisted. Impru20 16:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

• 210.96.56.162 keeps spamming this content into Opinion polling for the 2023 Turkish presidential election, despite acknowledging themselves that they have been reverted by multiple users. Impru20 08:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Serial Number 54129 casting aspersions

User:Serial Number 54129 made a false accusation about me, referring to a years-old discussion, off-topic in a discussion that they didn’t otherwise participate in. I challenged it and they “apologized” with another false accusation (yes, things were said in the old, closed discussion, but not what Serial Number 54129 asserted). They also tried to canvas an editor they thought might help pile on.

I also directly asked them to strike, but they ignored and archived my comment.

Although two uninvolved editors did criticize the inappropriate comm ents, I consider the false accusations to be misleading and WP:ASPERSIONS, and believe it’s reasonable to ask for the entire comment to be stricken or deleted, either by Serial Number 54129 or by an uninvolved admin.

Thanks.  —Michael Z. 17:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

User notified of this request.  —Michael Z. 17:46, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oh for fuck sake, you're taking this to ANI? Move on. EEng 20:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  EEng, there are nicer ways to say that. —A. B. 21:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  But it's warranted. This filing is ridiculous EvergreenFir (talk) 00:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  So editors can just ignore WP:CIVIL, post any shit they want, go about their way, and their targets deserve to get some more profane abuse from administrators? Looking forward to talk pages of the future. Not what one expects, but good to know. Thank you, for fuck’s sake. —Michael Z. 00:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I looked through the linked discussion; not familiar with all of the dramatis personae here, so I am sure there are all kinds of illustrious explanations for why this was actually an extremely cool and normal thing to say, but it seems somewhat unwarranted and uncollegial to me. jp×g 09:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

The Shahmaran page is constantly being disrupted by the user HistoryofIran

• Shahmaran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Rojin416 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• HistoryofIran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There are constant citation mistakes, anytime I fix them the user HistoryofIran undos all my work. The book itself states it's from Kurdistan. Since this person has been on Misplaced Pages for along time, they're getting away with blatantly hoarding Kurdish pages and changed history. We tried to talk with this user on Talk multiple times, but they keep gaslighting and ignoring all our citations and books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rojin416 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Whether the info is right or not isn't the point here, it's the fact that you you asked for help off-wiki, which is a blatant violation of the canvassing guideline. LilianaUwU 19:28, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh I didn't know that wasn't allowed. My bad. Rojin416 (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I guess you didn't know that removing/altering sourced info, using non-WP:RS, and casting WP:ASPERSIONS isn't allowed either? --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I was using reliable sources. Infact, I was even using the approved citations and reliables sources, that clearly state it was Yazidi's and Kurds from Kurdistan. Maybe if you took the time to actually read the citated resources, you wouldn't keep undoing "A Story from the Mountains of Kurdistan." to "A Story from the Mountains of Turkey."

The citation is right there. Infront of you. Maybe learn how to read and get rid of that vendetta you have against Kurds. Rojin416 (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I have fixed the name of the title, that being the only constructive edit done by OP. I suggest that OP gets indeffed for WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:NPA, WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:TENDENTIOUS, off-wiki coordination, and so on. This screams WP:NOTHERE. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Rojin416 (talk) 20:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

But there's still over 4 mistakes with that page. Rojin416 (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Hold on, who is we? Is this account controlled by more than one person? QuicoleJR (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Reddit off-wiki coordination at Shahmaran

Rojin416 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Well, Rojin416 beat me to it. Shahmaran is currently being targeted by brand new users and IPs. One of them, Rojin416 was reverted a few times by me and Aintabli , which led him to ask for help at Reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/kurdistan/comments/13h03b2/i_need_help_with_wikipedia/). Two weeks ago, a similar thread about the same article was created . --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

According to Reddit, this person has a vendetta against Kurds and is constantly censoring anything related to Kurdistan. The citations itself clearly say "Yazidi kurds", or "from Kurdistan", yet this person constantly undos everything. Rojin416 (talk) 19:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Please, at least be creative with your WP:ASPERSIONS. This users activities here and comment on Reddit clearly demonstrates serious WP:BATTLEGROUND issues. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not attacking you. You have a very clear political vendetta. It's very evident from your history regarding Kurds. Rojin416 (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I rest my case. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

According to Reddit? Are you kidding me? Reddit is most certainly not a reliable source, and accusations should be made with hard evidence, such as diffs. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

As a redditor myself, I gotta say: redditors love talking out of their asses. LilianaUwU 00:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• Is it time for general sanctions on accounts with fewer than 100 edits that bring HistoryofIran to ANI? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:07, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  ...you're telling me this a thing that keeps happening? LilianaUwU 20:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  I've lost count on how many times I've seen ANI reports on HistoryofIran on my watchlist. Callmemirela 🍁 20:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  In the past 12 months? At least 15 times, and that's just a quick look at the archives. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  ”Clippy” appears. ‘It looks like you’re a new user trying to report HistoryofIran. Would you like me to help by closing your browser?’ — Trey Maturin™ 20:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  And it's always some niche thing that few people are familiar with, so it languishes until three days before the next thread starts. Maybe a general sanction to just partial block any account with fewer than 100 edits that brings HistoryofIran to ANI from any page they're in conflict? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  Not gonna lie, that would make things way more simple. LilianaUwU 20:53, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  Can we vote on this? I agree that HistoryofIran has continuously been the target of many disruptive and libeling newcomers. Aintabli (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  It is rather wearying, isn't it? Actually, it would actually be quite a trivial edit filter to stop any new editor from starting a thread here that contained the string "HistoryofIran" ... Black Kite (talk) 20:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yup, sounds good. I'm new to ANI and this already isn't the first HistoryofIran report I've seen. As for this specific report, I think this could safely be closed as a WP:BOOMERANG against the plaintiff, probably by indeffing them. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:26, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  So let me get this straight. You people aren't alarmed by the fact that HistoryOfIran gets reported constantly, but because he's been here a long time, you're all going to give him god level status and going forth ignore every report about him? He has issues with allowing edits, and continues to undo anything related to Kurds or Kurdistan. This isn't my cited source, it's a source that he keeps REVERTING TO. Which he accepts as a cited source:

  ^Nicolaus, Peter (2011). “The Serpent Symbolism in the Yezidi Religious Tradition and the Snake in Yerevan” Iran & Caucasus. 15 (1/2): 59. JSTOR 41430888. “Furthermore, the serpent

  Was, and still is considered a symbol of good fortune and power among Kurdish people and the “image of Shahmaran (the queen of serpents) is depicted on glass or metal work, seen hung on walls even today”.”Accessed 14 May 2023

  However, for some reason, he won't allow me to write "Kurds" nor "Kurdistan" on the page, even though it's our mythology. I'm not here writing war stories, writing a biography, nor essays, I'm just trying to edit the page to reflect my culture and heritage which is being suppressed by HistoryOfIran. Even using THEE cited source that he himself refuses to accept anything but.

  This is ridiculous. It's evident this user has constantly been complained about in the past, but everyone's solution is just to make it so he never gets reported again? Rojin416 (talk) 00:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  He always gets reported by new editors that end up indeffed for severe WP:NPOV violations, so stopping those reports would save time for everyone involved. As for this dispute, the Reddit stuff and allegations of bias do not reflect well on you. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

What's ridiculous is that Rojin416 is still trying to justify their disruptive editing. That source doesn't say that the Shahmaran is of Kurdish origin, it just says that the Kurds believe in it too. And that's fine, the source is WP:RS (unlike some other ones.. ), it can obviously be used, and no one is denying that Kurds believe in the Shahmaran too; it's even mentioned in the article. But how did you use that source? Hmm.. let me see (note: the Nicolaus citation was wrongly used on the Indo-Iranian bit instead of Sartori. Nicolaus should be used somewhere else, which is what Rojin416 should have done; I have fixed it now ) - you removed sourced mention of its Armenian, Turkic and Indo-Iranian connections, replacing all of it with "insert something Kurdish here". And thus you got reverted. And I'm not even gonna entertain the rest of stuff you wrote. I do think the Shahmaran article is in a state of mess based on some of the questionable citations, info not even supported by some of the citations, etc, but you did not improve its state. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

We've already talked about this in Talk section.

"That source doesn't say that the Shahmaran is of Kurdish origin, it just says that the Kurds believe in it too."

AND YET KURDS/YAZIDI/AND KURDISTAN IS STILL MISSING!

Why are we constantly going in circles? Look at your Armenian citation. It literally states it's the Yazidis that celebrate it.

"note: the Nicolaus citation was wrongly used on the Indo-Iranian bit instead of Sartori. Nicolaus should be used somewhere else, which is what Rojin416 should have done; I have fixed it now"

And the citation that you deleted, literally stated Kurdistan and Kurdish in it. Instead of updating Kurdistan and Kurdish, you delete it. AGAIN, for the millionth time, why you and another user are accused of vandalizing the page and denying Kurds and Kurdistan. Rojin416 (talk) 01:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

https://eprints.soas.ac.uk/29354/1/10731449.pdf

Here read for yourself. It constantly mentions Kurdistan and the Yazidi's. It does not state it originated from Armenia. Rojin416 (talk) 01:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

This thread isn't for content disputes. That's the whole point of a talk page and other venues if no consensus is reached. This is about your behaviour. You can't spit out the word vandalism when a discussion doesn't steer your way. This is about your behaviour. Per WP:BRD, the next step would have been having a civil discussion and potentially reaching consensus. Callmemirela 🍁 03:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by BoeingEngineer on JL-3

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

• JL-3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• BoeingEngineer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On May 5, 130.76.24.26 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (according to WHOIS, registered to the Boeing Company) made the following edit (); it was reverted by another user (Special:Diff/1153375377), restored by BoeingEngineer (Special:Diff/1153607485), and reverted again by me because the edit did have a number of problems (Special:Diff/1153616753.) Right after that (on May 7), I undertook a revision of the article that, among other things, incorporated elements of the reverted edits where I thought it would be appropriate (.)

Starting on May 7, BoeingEngineer (plus IPs in the same geographical area) began making this edit () to the infobox, and since that time we've been reverting and restoring that edit daily. I gave a more comprehensive reasoning for the revert in an edit comment on May 8 (Special:Diff/1153776647.) I then tried to start a discussion on the talk page on May 12 () followed by an explicit notification on BoeingEngineer's talk page on May 13 (Special:Diff/1154661507.) BoeingEngineer has ignored the invitation, and in general failed to address any of the points I have raised.

BoeingEngineer seems wedded to the idea that just because a source is available it can be used regardless of reliability or utility (in the original May 5 edit, both were an issue; after that mainly the latter.) They also do not understand the difference between vandalism and content disputes (Special:Diff/1153775132, Special:Diff/1154244664.) These qualities do not give me confidence that a resolution through discussion is feasible. (This is reinforced by my strong suspicion that BoeingEngineer is an WP:EVADEr based on behaviour like the above; at this point I am still willing to humor them.) - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 20:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Admin.

RovingPersonalityConstruct keeps removing sourced materials and his reason was that the source was not reliable. Yet he failed to come up with any new and reliable sources himself.

The source I provided is highly reliable and up to date.

Please stop his disputative edit on the JL-3 page. BoeingEngineer (talk) 21:50, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

• I've indefinitely blocked BoeingEngineer and blocked Special:contributions/130.76.24.16/28 for one month.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  Then shouldn't this discussion be closed? Looks like it's over. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Link to personal blog of notorious pedophile Tom O'Carroll

I wasn't sure where to ask about this, so I will try here. 22spears has added a link to the article Tom O'Carroll. The link goes to O'Carroll's personal blog. O'Carroll is a notorious pedophile who has been jailed multiple times and continues to advocate pedophilic relationships. Old conversations on Talk:Tom O'Carroll show that a different O'Carroll site was removed in the past.

Is this link is allowed on Misplaced Pages? MrPinkingShears (talk) 22:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

MrPinkingShears This is an article content issue that should be discussed on the article talk page. Misplaced Pages is not censored, but there needs to be an encyclopedic purpose for an external link. I'm not entirely clear on what link is problematic, but the only links I see seem to be used as citations. 331dot (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

• I've indefffed the OP, an unusual new editor, for repeated personal attacks at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Minor-attracted person (2nd nomination). The OP also failed to notify 22spears.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  You can call them personal attacks, but there also some pretty serious accusations that should be addressed. We have an editor adding in an encyclopedia article a blog by a convicted pedophile and relaying this person's view that an 11 year old is "hot". If what the OP wrote is true this is not the block that was needed here. nableezy - 23:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  I am beginning to believe the wrong new editor might have been indeffed here…. Someone (maybe me, tomorrow when I have my laptop out) needs to take a longer, critical look at 22spears editing. Courcelles (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  And their user page. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:56, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry, but what's wrong with their userpage? GIF of dancing anime-girl? Or quote with d-word? USS Cola!rado🇺🇸 (C⭐T) 06:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  About that addition on Tom O'Carroll's article, nableezy, I added it primarily due to my notion surrounding the WP:UNCENSORED policy. I am aware that his comments regarding children were icky, but in my understanding they did merit being added in the article due to the fact that he was once reported on news outlets and social media accounts for making sexualized comments regarding a drag kid in his wordpress blog before it was banned. And if it is true that I added a link to his blog in the WP article, as the OP was saying, I'm almost sure that I did it to source the claims that O'Carroll's did indeed make those comments (this is a BLP after all, so sourcing in those articles is never too much, especially when it comes to potentially criminal/sexual harrassment accusations). 🔥 22spears 🔥 00:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  Uncensored does not mean include the personal blog of a pedophile as though that were a usable source. The only source in the Drag kids section you added is O'Carroll's personal blog. We do not advertise a pedophile's views on how hot an eleven year old is sourced to his blog in the name of "NOTCENSORED". I find that justification incredibly weak to the point of questioning why it was even made. And there is no if about it, the internet famously being written in ink and Misplaced Pages having this nifty diff feature shows that you indeed did add that blog and that sentence. nableezy - 00:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  Nableezy is 100% right. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  Obviously. Our article was discovered by "pro-MAPs" within days of its creation, and that was followed by signs of canvassing at the AfD. According this academic book: several pro-pedophilia online groups want to make Misplaced Pages "more neutral" (in their favour), and to push traffic to their sites, which makes the O'Carroll edit look awful, as well as this edit by another SPA involved in the "MAP" article.

  There are also these personal attacks , and this BLPvio through an MREL source (see the new section at the end, and contrast with comment below about BLPCRIME). Different diff from GhostofDanGurney. DFlhb (talk) 03:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  Then I was on the wrong there, and the reverd by gnu was right. Again, I'm new on Misplaced Pages, nableezy, be patient with me. Looking up this incident right now, I found this and this souces from online outlets, both of which technically tell the truth but are generally unreliable. This is were I was coming from with those edits, but the decision to source it with a blog post was clearly wrong and was probably made when I wasn't aware of WP's policies regarding reliable sources. 🔥 22spears 🔥 01:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  Can't WP:ABOUTSELF be reasonably applied in an "Opinions" section, even for someone we consider despicable? small jars tc 01:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  Possibly, but there is also the WP:BLPCRIME policy that should be considered, which says "editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured". It is possible that in some jurisdictions what O'Carroll did could be considered sexual harrassment, so it's better to not include anything about that anyway. 🔥 22spears 🔥 01:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  You think the reason not to include this is to protect O'Carrroll? nableezy - 05:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  Please read point #2 of ABOUTSELF. Or the bolded part. DFlhb (talk) 03:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  In WP:ABOUTSELF, after the bolded part, is "so long as: (1) the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;" see the last inclusion entry in WP:EXTRAORDINARY: "Claims contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions...". I presume calling ten-year-olds "hot" is 'contradicted by the prevailing view', otherwise we wouldn't set the legal age of consent higher than that. – .Raven  05:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  Is it against mainstream opinions that a known pedophile would have the personal opinion that a ten year old is "hot”? 22spears' additions to the section did not at all take O'Carrroll's claims at face value, but only made claims about claims. (And not claims I imagine that any pro-pedophile POV pusher would like to see kept on the article!) I can appreciate that the child protection element seriously complicates things, but still feel that 22spears was acting roughly in line with normal interpretation of policy in these edits, though maybe the juxtaposition of the two contradictory claims in O'Carrroll's blog post, without secondary coverage of this contradiction bordered on WP:SYNTH, and the whole section seems dubiously WP:DUE. small jars tc 10:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  As I parse the texts at the two WP pages I cited above, "the material" at O'Carroll's blog was making that "exceptional claim" (="contradicted by the prevailing view") that a ten-year-old was "hot"; thus should not have been linked. But I may have mis-read, mis-parsed, or mis-interpreted those texts, or perhaps missed seeing other text that would result in a different conclusion. This is one reason to seek consensus: more eyes looking into a topic miss fewer things. – .Raven  10:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  WP:BLP also applies to the child here - we need to consider their privacy and wellbeing in this situation as well. WP:AVOIDVICTIM seems particularly relevant - if a child is being creeped on by a 70 year old is it really appropriate for Misplaced Pages to continue to spread the creepy and inappropriate comments around, based on a citation to a blog run by the person who said the creepy stuff in the first place? 192.76.8.85 (talk) 11:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  I strongly agree that the content should not be in the article from this standpoint, as opposed to a WP:V-based argument, but which of the reasons we see as relevant has repercussions on our assessment of 22spears' overall conduct, which I would summarise as “insensitive” rather than “POV-pushing”. small jars tc 11:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support block of 22spears. I share MrPinkingShears's concerns about 22spears's editing in the paedophilia topic area. 22spears added a "drag kids" section sourced only to O'Carroll's personal blog; I have removed it. gnu57 00:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• Regardless of whether 22spears deserves to be blocked, the "comments" made by MPS are unacceptable. Here are some (without diffs):

"If you actually take the time to go through their contributions, it is clear that this user has been pushing a not very subtle pro-pedophile POV."

"This suggests to me that 22spears personally knows O'Carroll..."

"22spears Your use of someone's first name in your edits gave me the impression that you either know notorious pedophile Tom O'Carroll personally or are very familiar with them. That would explain why you refer to them by their first name, so familiarly. I didn't see you call Allyn Walker "Allyn" or James Cantor "James". It wasn't meant to be an accusation of wrongdoing. Since you seem very open to questions - do you know notorious pedophile Tom O'Carroll?"

---Bbb23 (talk) 00:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Bbb23 that these comments were casting aspersions and in effect personal attacks, even if I do have misgivings about 22spears' edits The swarm of SPAs surrounding this topic area more generally (especially at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Minor-attracted person (2nd nomination) suggests that there may be some off-wiki activity (which maybe includes joe-jobbing). Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Why did you change the OP’s signature in your previous edit? 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:79A5:1681:C818:558E (talk) 02:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I would assume Hemiauchenia was on autopilot or something, considering their editing history on Opilioacaridae. LilianaUwU 02:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that was a bizarre error. I have no idea it occurred and it was obviously unintentional. My apologies. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

It’s ok, it wasn’t my intent to accuse you of wrongdoing. Just couldn’t figure out what happened. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:79A5:1681:C818:558E (talk) 02:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Apparenrly MrPinkingShears recently showed up here again as this IP, though his reply was erased. 🔥 22spears 🔥 01:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Spears22, regarding those diffs you just cited (attacks on Bbb23 calling for de-admining) -- those have been coming from new users and Virginia-based IPs (range: 2601:5c2:200:21bd::/64) for several months - well before any of the controversies here and before you (Spears22) or MrPinkingShears started editing. I don't think that's MrPinkingShears making those edits you just cited. --A. B. 05:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Depending on the nature of that blog, there may be Misplaced Pages:Child protection considerations if the potential exists for an interaction between a young reader and the blog owner as a result of this link. I’d skip the link if in doubt. —A. B. 01:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

A little creepy that 22spears’ edit refers to “Tom”, not “O’Carroll”. —A. B. 02:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I was waiting for this comment. Callmemirela 🍁 02:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Now, to be fair, it was brought up by MrPinkingShears earlier. LilianaUwU 02:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Even creepier that it's not even "Tom", but "Thomas" in the edit summary. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  03:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I often refer to the people of the biographies I edit by their first name. You can navigate my edits relating to Allyn Walker (who I even referred as Allyson, which is their full (dead)name), and maybe even Tim Ballard if you want to confirm. I don't see how the fact that I refer to them by their first names means that I have a personal connection with them, at least in my mother language that is a common thing to do, even if the person we are talking about is a stranger (admins in this thread can see where I am from by looking at my IP's geolocation, but don't expose where I live). 🔥 22spears 🔥 03:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Using a first name like that is not our style on the English Misplaced Pages. Also, admins can't see your IP address; only check-users can (for sock puppetry) and they have to show justification. I suppose IP records may be accessible for legal proceedings but that's at the level of the Misplaced Pages Foundation, not Misplaced Pages editors. --A. B. 03:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support block The creepy userpage. The creation of "minor-attracted person" over a redirect to Wiktionary and Stigma of pedophilia. The other points raised here by A. B. and Genericusername57 are just too many dots for me. The icing on the cake here for me is that their first edit (made less than two months ago) included BLP-violating wording about the founder of an anti-pedophilia group. This "unusual new editor" does not seem capable of editing from a NPOV in this topic area (which I would believe falls under the GENSEX CTOP). ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  03:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I checked out the blog post that started this argument. The content certainly fits within our WP:NOTCENSORED policy. However, per Misplaced Pages:Child protection, I am concerned about the opportunity for interaction between an underaged reader and one of the many people commenting on the blog post (there are 175 comments). I don't think it's worth the risk to underage readers. Besides, that link is the reference for a comment by O'Carroll that's of minor import - just how important is it that we include his opinion of child drag performer Desmond is Amazing? I say delete the Desmond is Amazing opinion and the blog link together. Dilemma resolved. --A. B. 03:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Clarifying since there are discussions on two different editors going on in here, that this is support of a block for 22spears. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  04:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support block of 22spears per my reply above, and per my AfD arguments that Minor attracted person is a POV fork and unacceptably normalizes pedophilia (per Zaathras is right). DFlhb (talk) 03:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  Attraction to minors includes more than just pedophilia, so Minor-attracted person cannot possibly be a POV fork of Pedophilia. Casdmo (talk) 04:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  This is the main counterargument to POVFORK, yet it's a technicality.

  This paper, highly-cited (380 citations), says For the sake of simplicity and convention, we refer to both hebephilic and pedophilic men as “pedophilic.” That's common even in scholarship. When papers treat them as interchangeable, it's not vandalism to do so. DFlhb (talk) 04:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  In this case "common" conflicts with "precision", an event also found in "Hindu terrorism" vs "Hindutva terrorism", "Islamic terrorism" vs "Islamist terrorism", "Christian terrorism" vs "Christian nationalist terrorism", etc. At a certain point, I think precision should win, otherwise we're helping perpetuate mistakes because they're "common" mistakes. – .Raven  05:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  I deny the implicit premise that the topic of a POV-fork must be precisely coterminous with the topic of the forked article. The topic minor-attracted person might indeed be a strict superset of the topic pedophilia (though I do not grant this), yet nonetheless the former may still be a POV-fork of the latter. WP:POVFORK itself gives an example of a POV-fork that does not cover the precise topic area of any existing article. Shells-shells (talk) 05:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  To be more precise, minor-attracted person is a subset of the Chronophilia subject (because it emcompasses some chronophilias, such as pedophilia and hebephilia, but not others such as mesophilia and gerontophilia). The reason why I created that page was not for it to be a POV-fork, it was because of the of the recent controversies relating to the usage of this term by public figures and organizations (Project Horizon, Mermaids, etc; you can read about them in the MAP article, if it's still there). Since that term was covered by RS, I believed it would be fine to create a separate article just to address it. I had actually made some edits on the Chronophilia page just to address this term, but it felt a little off-topic, which motivated me to start a draft of an article dedicated just to that word in my userspace, which I then published in the mainspace in the beggining of this month. That article was sort of a WP:SPLIT from the Chronophilia and Allyn Walker ones. 🔥 22spears 🔥 06:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  I would like to make it clear that @DFlhb has had a personal beef with me for days ever since I made a revert of his edit in the MAP article (I called it a "POV-push", and 2 minutes later he showed up to oppose me in the AfD and then called me uncivil in the talk page), so therefore any claim that he makes about me or I make about him is not coming from an unbiased party. About that edit, DFlhb, I wasn't trying to offend you, I was just being blunt. I understand that it feels shitty when someone dismisses your contribution as bad, especially in a revert, but calling for me to be blocked two days after that happened is in a level of bitterness that I have never had against anyone on WP. Actually, I almost invited you to discuss on the talk page of that article about the edit that you had made, but I felt like I didn't have to because I thought you would already knew how WP:Dispute resolutions usually work on WP. You're not the first person I disagreed with in the article, I have also called Sedan's edit SYNTH in the past and we were able to discuss the issue civilly in the talk page just fine. 🔥 22spears 🔥 06:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  The user is now blocked, but for the record, I started typing my AfD reply before that revert ever happened; it had no impact on my vote. DFlhb (talk) 09:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose block of 22spears. The only misstep 22spears has made was the aforementioned citation of O'Carroll. 22spears has admitted fault (see above) regarding the citation. The other stated reasons for supporting a block of 22spears pertain to personal discomfort (such as one editor's use of the word creepy above), which is too subjective to warrant a block. Casdmo (talk) 03:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  Since you directly reference my support of a block, I will clarify that my support comes from the totality of reasons I stated, including their first version of Predator Poachers containing BLP-violating material about the founders political views, not just their interpretation of WP:UPYES to include a particular lyric placed beside a particular image. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  04:34, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose MrPinkingShears block - I disagree with indefinitely blocking MrPinkingShears. His comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Minor-attracted person (2nd nomination) crossed a line but nobody really warned him of our policies before dropping an indefinite block. I suggest trimming the block. I will also note that he has made some good comments about content. He just needs to understand we argue over content not other editors' intentions. I think a 24-hour block would serve that purpose just as well. --A. B. 03:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  What "line" did MPS cross? From what I just read, the only aspersion he cast was to accuse 22spears of pushing a pro-pedophilia POV. That's pretty harsh, sure, but a number of editors in this thread have made the exact same accusation. Ravenswing 08:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• I think it's pretty obvious what's going on here. You're never going to find a smoking gun on this kind of thing, but there really isn't any good-faith justification for the pattern of edits 22spears has made. A well-meaning neutral party with an interest in paraphilias might fall into some of the mistakes observed at the MAP article, but that wouldn't explain the other edits discussed here, which are much more decidedly "pedophile culture war"-y, nor would it explain the insistence on avoiding the word "pedophile". I would indef as NOTHERE, but I happen to have created the original redirect, which isn't actually involvement in this dispute but I suppose could be taken that way, so I'll just leave this as a strong suggestion that some other admin do that. -- Tamzin (she|they|xe) 04:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  I didn't use the word "pedophile" in the MAP article because reliable sources that cover this term did not do so. They all say pedophilia is a subset of the minor-attracted person umbrella. You can read them yourself. 90% of what I did in that article was put "minor-attracted person" on google and google scholar and transcribe what reliable sources said about the topic to the article. Just to illustrate it, this generally reliable source states that "The concept of Minor-Attracted Persons (MAPs), which is perceived by some as part of the attempt to normalize pedophilia, is an umbrella term used by organizations such as B4U-ACT or The Global Prevention Project, an organization that addresses “risky sexual thoughts, fantasies, and non-contact problematic sexual behavior in adult men and women,” in order to prevent child sexual abuse, as well as some researchers, to define a variety of people attracted to minors. These include nepiophiles (attracted to babies and toddlers), pedophiles (attracted to prepubescent children), hebephiles (attracted to pubescent children and early adolescents), and ephebophiles (attracted to late adolescents)." All other RS's that you find on Google will tell you the same thing. 🔥 22spears 🔥 06:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• Indef 22Spears and Unblock MrPinkingShears but give a final warning. Per GhostofDan Gurney, A.B. and Tamzin. The current situation - with the one account blocked and the other not - is really disturbing. DeCausa (talk) 06:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
• I have indefinitely blocked 22Spears for what appears to be an uncomfortable pattern of pro-pedophilia POV pushing. I realize that these discussions are typically left open for 24 hours, but frankly with this kind of concern, I think we should err on the side of caution. I have deliberately not closed or hatted this discussion; if consensus turns against this block then so be it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  07:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  I came to the same conclusion as PMC and Tamzin before seeing this thread, but PMC beat me to the block. It's blinding obvious what 22spears is up to here and I'm astonished that Bbb23's response was to block MrPinkingShears for pointing that out. Anyway, I've started Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Stigma of pedophilia and I think we need eyes on the rest of 22spears' remaining creations: Predator Poachers, Allyn Walker, primary prevention of child sexual abuse and User:22spears/Todd Nickerson. – Joe (talk) 07:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm convinced that Allyn Walker passes WP:GNG and is a notable topic. The article doesn't seem to have any major POV issues as far as I can tell. No strong opinions on the others. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• Good block of 22spears, but I add my voice to those calling for MrPinkingShears to be unblocked. BilledMammal (talk) 07:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• Good block. Enough said. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
• It is a Good block (maybe it should be a CBAN). But what abour MrPinkingSheers who got blocked for pointing it out? DeCausa (talk) 07:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
• Good block, and the block of MrPinkingShears was a bad one. I'm seeing a consensus forming for unblocking the latter. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
• Reverse block on MrPinkingShears: Having just looked over the discussion in question, unless there are revdel'd comments I couldn't see, MrPinkingShears was indeffed for accusing 22spears of nothing more than several other editors have done in endorsing his block. Seriously? If all the personal attack MPS issued was "this guy is pushing a pro-pedophilia POV," there ought to be multiple indefs handed out to participants in this discussion. Ravenswing 08:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Non-admin: this user has been pushing a not very subtle pro-pedophile POV -blocked for aspersions!

Admin: I have indefinitely blocked 22Spears for what appears to be an uncomfortable pattern of pro-pedophilia POV pushing. - not blocked for aspersions!

I'd put a laughing emoji here usually, except this isn't really very funny...  Tewdar  09:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• Reverse block of MrPinkingShears – WP:AGF? Those are comments that could certainly be good faith, and they're not clear personal attacks. A warning is probably justified here, as the questions about knowing the pedophile personally are over the line, but a block is excessive.

As for 22spears' block, I'm neutral on it. I haven't done a deep dive into their contributions, but they did seem to be POV-pushing, and they were a single-purpose account over 1100 edits in 2 months – still, I'm not sure this is necessarily grounds for a block over a TBAN, when they have expressed a desire to edit Ancient Greek and Lusophone-related articles in the future. However, I might be taking AGF too far here, and I'm certainly not a regular around here, so I'm not too familiar with the ropes of this area. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 09:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

See WP:CHILDPRO re blocking the 22spears account as a matter of policy. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

The MAP AFD is chock full of SPAs that need some attention. Courcelles (talk) 10:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

@Euryalus: I'd say WP:CHILDPRO justifies MrPinkingShears' ban more so than 22spears'. The idea of 22spears supposedly advocating anything is clearly subjective, but MrPinkingShears without a doubt did publish allegations against 22spears on-site rather than via email as the policy requires. --Pokelova (talk) 10:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for the ping. I don't believe the 22spears block is subjective. I haven't reviewed MrPinkingShears' block, sorry. Plenty of others have in this thread, so I'm confident it's getting appropriate attention. -- 11:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Euryalus (talk • contribs)

a desire to edit Ancient Greek and Lusophone-related articles in the future Without comment on anything else about the justification for either block, an apparent SPA with a history of POV-pushing on paedophilia-related topics wanting to edit on Ancient Greek history is not necessarily reassuring. Homosexuality in ancient Greece, pederasty in ancient Greece and related topics are a known ideological battleground for people with an axe to grind related to paedophilia. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Looks like 86Sedan was just banned too as an AE action, which I support. See the edits apparently whitewashing an org that argues that if a child is "willing", no harm is caused. This edit summary is misleading: "minimize harm" is not an opinion but straight from the cited source, and there's no "controversy" about what the clinical data say, per the sources we cite. See also the insertion the self-description of a controversial group (a group which refuses to take sides pro/contra molestation). And just for fun, peep this other misleading edit summary. DFlhb (talk) 11:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Unblocked I have accepted MrPinkingShears' unblock request as I see multiple admins calling for it, and no objections. Ritchie333 11:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Sockpuppet harassment

I’m here to request the immediate indeff of 2605:59C8:60C8:C10:4D:87A1:31A8:7C7, it seems that this IP hopping user has been harassing @Wes sideman for awhile, and has turned to also harass me after I left him a message of support. I think all the needed evidence can be seen in this . Googleguy007 (talk) 04:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

@Googleguy007 IPs aren't usually indeffed, but a longish range block might do it. Not an admin, though, so I can't say. LilianaUwU 04:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I gave this /64 a week; the previous /64 is already blocked. If they pop up again elsewhere on that /38, let me know and I'll give the wider range at least a few days. -- Tamzin (she|they|xe) 04:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Blocked user spamming their own talk page

• Yoganidhi Dr Lathashekhar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Blocked user is spamming their own talk page, despite warnings. —Bruce1ee 09:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I have revoked talk-page access. Lectonar (talk) 09:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards