Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

After two attempts at subtle POV pushing on Talk:Libs of TikTok [1][2] they dropped all pretense of editing in good faith or respecting NPOV and posted this:

I have given up on this article. The discussion archived above has amply shown that the cognitive divide has reached such an extent that we seem to live in different universes. Apparently there exists a sizeable minority or even majority here who is complete unable to concede that the term "gender affirming care" (which includes not only primary sex surgery but also things like mastectomies and chemical castration (aka puberty Blockers) is an ugly euphemism for mutilation of children (which by definition is always involuntary since children can not possibly give informed consent to something destructive and far reaching like that). So while folks like me, who are disgusted and revolted by what these hospitals do to children, see LOT as a courageous whistleblower and critic, the above mentioned group sees her as a hatemonger and is motivated to paint her in the worst light possible. There is no middle ground here - "gender affirming care" is the new lobotomy craze, and its practitioners are the Mengeles of our time. You either get that or refuse to.

In such a situation, especially with the "paint in worst light" part, Wikipedia's policies just do not work. The admin-supported left wing rules by majority, even though there is no policy allowing such, NPOV on this particular topic is even hard to define, let alone implement, in such spirit, and this part of Wikipedia has essentially been captured as the left's propaganda arm. I came here with a good faith suggestion to make this article more NPOV, and that was roundly rejected. Now, given there is no consensus, I would have as much right to be bold and just change things as all the left wing "owners" of this article who do this all the time, but the practice is different. While non-consensus changes by me would, given enough persistence on my part, result in me getting banned, the exactly same actions by the lw majority would and constantly do have no such consequences. The mostly lefty administrators and the various informal councils make sure of that.

And that is that. We as Wikipedians collectively get the Encyclopedia we collectively deserve, and right now, that picture is less than pretty. All I can say on this point is good luck with this article. Wefa (talk) 14:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Which to me says that they're not just done editing that talk page but its time for them to say goodby to the project as a whole, I guess I would accept a topic ban from anything related to sexuality, gender, or politics but they appear to intend to disrupt more than just those topic areas. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a DS notice for WP:ARBGSDS. Not looked into the comment much more than to see it was under the scope of that DS. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This person hasn't disrupted anything, and they're arguing for NPOV, so I don't see any reason to ban them from anything. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is not an argument for NPOV. In fact, it's the opposite, a call to slant the article towards the conspiracy theory. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is hardly evidence of anything. In my personal experience, no person who ever tried to go against NPOV in any serious capacity (i.e. not straight up vandalising) did so by openly stating that they have an axe to grind. Ostalgia (talk) 20:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a poor look, IMHO, to hand someone a topic ban (or worse, an indef) for no other cause than that he's expressed sentiments on the talk page that you don't like. The best way to refute Wefa's belief that the Thought Police are running Wikipedia -- and seeking to suppress opinions they don't want anyone to hear -- is not to prove him right. Ravenswing 00:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fair point, and I am not sure I favor a ban, but when you start accusing your interlocutors of being in league with "Mengeles," to my mind it is something more than expressing a sentiment that people don't like. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unless they set off carving a path of distuption across the encyclopedia, there doesn't seem to be any point blocking, and while they have been playing at the edge of stuff that can get users banned, they haven't gone there yet. Based on what they've said, they might have been NOTHERE (on that page anyway), but they apparently aren't there anymore anyway (i.e. they left). Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 06:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That was yesterday and they didn't leave, they were removed[3]. Note User talk:Shibbolethink#you hid my talk page text on Libs of Tiktok where Wefa castigates @Shibbolethink: for removing their rant from the talk page. Also note they're now disrupting their own talk page, how is this not carving a path of disruption across the encyclopedia? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Treating them preferentially because they've invoked baseless conspiracy theories is a bad look, its effectively a get out of sanctions free card. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't commenting here but they don't seem all that worried about our enforcement action... From their talk page (emphasis added):

You are basically making my point. That article is constantly changed without consent, against the objections of a the conservative editors present, and no editor nor admin saw need to call out, let alone threaten, the editors doing that. AGF was immediately violated by other editors who called my position transphobic; "transphobic" itself is a left wing fighting term trying to pathologize dissent. There is no such phobia, conservatives simply recognize that there are men and women, and, if we ignore the extremely rare cases of biological nonbinaries, nothing else.

But as soon as I point out the discrepancy, as well as the fundamental problem with editing Wikipedia under such circumstances, several people jump at me, you with all your administrators might threaten me on my own talk page. Where was such threats/warnings for those who called all conservatives "transphobic"?

Yep. Thanks for making my point. Wefa (talk) 18:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Fringe editors who can't set aside their fringe beliefs have no business editing the encyclopedia because they are incapable of consensus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to this user's apparent belief that people with XY chromosomes are men and people with XX chromosomes are women, I don't think that can be called fringe for any standard definition of "fringe". Korny O'Near (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Generally wikipedia's definition of WP:FRINGE is things which aren't accepted by mainstream medicine, science, and/or academia. Such as the opinions you just elucidated. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wew, you're just going for every checkbox on the "how do I get banned" bingo, aren't you? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:48, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, I agree with editors here that Wefa's conduct is disruptive and pretty clearly not here to build consensus. It amounts to the my way or the highway style of argument. But I also agree that the best way to deal with this editor is to stop giving them what they want. This user engages in long drawn out time-wasting culture war arguments. So why don't we all stop engaging? Either they will run out of steam, or they'll edit article space against consensus or in a disruptive manner, thereby justifying their own WP:NOTHERE block. If they, instead, decide to edit more productive and less vitriolic areas of the encyclopedia, it's a win for everybody. To summarize: WP:DFTT. Honestly I would apply this same logic to several other users in the space as well. If they bludgeon, edit against consensus, or otherwise break rules, then that should be dealt with appropriately. If all they’re doing is spouting out loud culture war arguments in support of their conspiracy theory, then collapse, delete, or ignore.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:44, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

you would be wrong in your assumption. My note on that talk page was to explain why I would refrain from further editing the article, and was prompted by someone else's comment on the talk page asking for my input. Unfortunately someone had deleted my comment from the talk page near instantly, so the majority of editors there probably did not even see it. Wefa (talk) 16:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that the best course of action is to just let it go. I'm not seeing anything particularly actionable. I just see an editor who is tired of being contested, which is fairly understandable. When you get into the weeds of controversial or political topics on WP it's hard to internalize that we aren't here to preach the truth, we're here to aggregate information from public sources. I think just letting them storm off is best for everyone. GabberFlasted (talk) 17:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Wefa: It's best to just not make such editorializing comments on talk pages. Just state your opinion about the content dispute and move on. That's all you can do. If you continue to make such comments you will likely be topic banned rather soon. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 01:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• that is basically clear to me, too. I just underestimated how fast the Wikipedia landscape on that matter had changed. Only a few years ago there was a consensus that mutilating children was completely out of question and unacceptable for the Trans community, but on the progressive side of things that seems to have changed 180 degrees. I explained here - clearly I think - why in the context of Wikipedia, its rules, and the people currently interpreting and enforcing those rules, editing under such circumstances leads nowhere. I originally came there to make a suggestion to improve NPOV, but went down in flames quickly.

BTW - thanks for the ping - I had missed this debate here completely. Wefa (talk) 16:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's unfair to claim that Wefa is NOTHERE. They've done good work on a wide range of articles through the years. That doesn't mean that they aren't about one poorly-worded comment from a long-term DS block, though. Stop comparing other people to Nazis, take a break, edit articles that aren't going to raise your (and everyone else's) blood pressure, and keep being a valued member of the community. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:29, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"There is no middle ground here - "gender affirming care" is the new lobotomy craze, and its practitioners are the Mengeles of our time. You either get that or refuse to."

That is one of many such comments, and though you do not say it explicitly, I would caution against seeing this as weighing their other "good work" to this disruption. The net positive fallacy is pervasive, and is unhelpful.

The comment, and others, aren't even an attempt to discuss what's supported by reliable sources, it's pure culture war soapboxing. It should be considered in the context of the harm caused, not in the context of their other work.

It's one thing to disagree on how we include reliable sources, it's another for Wefa to compare people to Nazis when they disagree with him. Accusing other editors of being part of "the left's propaganda arm" when consensus is against them, is also not constructive, nor are the many other implicit and explicit accusations of bad faith.

The trend here, i.e. Wefa's insistence that people either agree with him or are acting in bad faith, is not indicative of intent to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 17:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I don't weigh the other good work against the disruption. I just say that the other good work tends to invalidate the NOTHERE accusation. You can be HERE and disruptive at the same time. Wefa has been very thoroughly warned of the community expectations at this point: it's their choice if they're going to listen or if they need to be separated from the community for a time for the good of the encyclopedia. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thats fair but someone can also be NOTHERE and have made productive contributions to the project. This isn't exactly new behavior though, two years ago they were at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard with a very similar rant about "The current debate climate is not conductive for a solution. For the time being we have to live with Wikipedia's erosion of NPOV, and see it slowly become Leftopedia on political matters. And that includes the constant low key disparaging of conservatives in their respective BLPs."[4] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2018 at Talk:Rape in Islamic law "the article goes to great lengths to 'not' spell out what Islamic Law thinks about the rape of slaves, even though we can guess it from peripheral parts. This is unencyclopedic"[5]. From what I'm seeing in their edit history the vast majority of their edits are not constructive at least from 2018 to the present. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:40, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support WP:NOTFORUM/WP:NOTSOAPBOX warning. Levivich (talk) 20:28, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Considering the message posted by Horse Eye's Back, and their decision to continue that kind of narrative here, a topic ban from gender and sexuality seems more appropriate. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 20:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed. I’m in support of a topic ban from gensex with a warning for wider soapbox issues. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 21:32, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• We have lots of editors in the GENSEX topic area, of all manner of POVs, who are good at separating strong private feelings from their encyclopedia editing. This does not strike me as such an editor, and an indef GENSEX TBAN under DS seems reasonable. I've been minimally involved (viz. I made two "gain consensus first" reverts) in a dispute over whether puberty blockers are chemical castration, so probably shouldn't be the one to impose that sanction, if only to avoid an appearance of impropriety; but if another admin wishes to do so, I think that would be in keeping with recent "jurisprudence" in the GENSEX area [6] [7]. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:11, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Whilst I did suggest that a siteban or siteblock wouldn't be helpful, a TBAN most certainly should be on the cards. If they aren't going to voluntarily keep out of a contentious area which they have obvious issues with editing in accordance with policy on (including soapboxing on article talkpages and their own talkpage), they need a TBAN. I'd say that, in WP:ARBGSDS, they show signs of not being there to build an encyclopedia, but in others, they are definitely constructive. By stopping the distracting stuff, hopefully they will be more helpful in the areas where they are HERE. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 07:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm really struggling to find helpful edits in any area post 2018, it almost looks like two completely different editors. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Most of 2021 looks fairly reasonable. What am I missing?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That there are only 19 edits in all of 2021 perhaps? Their very first edit in 2022 was POV pushing at Soy Boy[8]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I think a GENSEX TBAN is a bit tough at this point. At least give them another chance. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 00:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I actually don't think it's a bit tough. I just really want to give them a chance to fix things themselves. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GENSEX TBAN: Wefa

I feel like it's 6 of one, half a dozen of the other whether to move this to WP:AE or make it a community sanction, but since we already have multiple opinions expressed above, I'll go with the latter (although I do think it would still be acceptable for any uninvolved admin to issue a DS TBAN). Proposed: For repeated comments in the topic area not oriented toward building an encyclopedia, Wefa is indefinitely topic-banned from gender-related disputes and controversies and associated people.

Already expressing opinions above: Ravenswing (generally against), Vermont (for), Mako001 (not against), Iamreallygoodatcheckers (against), SarekOfVulcan (not against). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as proposer. I'll reïterate my comment above that we've already had two DS TBANs this year for similar conduct. [9] [10] -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Wefa has acknowledged the issue and have been adequately warned. I have no reason to believe more restriction is needed to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. Give them a second chance. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 22:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  How is Wefa coming to ANI to say "Only a few years ago there was a consensus that mutilating children was completely out of question and unacceptable for the Trans community, but on the progressive side of things that seems to have changed 180 degrees." at all describable as having "acknowledged the issue"? Or this comment, the other response to this ANI thread. It's the exact behavior that resulted in Wefa being brought here and it's this singular interest in discussion over ideology rather than sources which necessitates a TBAN. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 00:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The editor made a couple soapbox edits on one talk page. When he was confronted about it here he said that it's "basically clear" to him that he needs to stop. The quote you mentioned is Wefa explaining how they view Wikipedia and the topic have changed recently; he hasn't been editing much in the last few years. It's reasonable that he might be a little rusty and ignorant to Wikipedia standards today. There's no evidence of sustained disruption in the GENSEX area by this user. Therefore, a topic ban would be more punitive than preventative. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 03:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  So, he doesn't understand what is acceptable in a GENSEX discussion, and he has come to AN/I to continue to show that he doesn't understand what is acceptable in a GENSEX discussion, but no disruption would be prevented by banning him from GENSEX discussions? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  "he has come to AN/I to continue to show" isn't accurate; he was brought here, he didn't come here to continue to show anything. It'd be different if he had inserted himself into a dispute that didn't involve him. Levivich (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I've read through the proceeding discussion, and some of Wefa's other contributions. I think a topic ban from GENSEX content is the right call here. To editors who believe we should not topic ban for just talk page contributions, I'd point out that actually in practice we do. To quote/paraphrase from another AE case (comments by admin Joe) where an editor was topic banned because of their talk page contributions; it is abundantly clear from the initial diffs that we have an editor who a) has a strongly held, minority view on gender; b) has proved themselves incapable of putting that aside and contributing to the topic area without causing disruption; and c) made several comments that disparage trans people (conflating gender affirming care as mutilation of children, likening health care professionals with Josef Mengele, asserting that transphobia does not exist, denying that trans and non-binary people are who they say they are) in a way that is contrary to the UCOC and the civility policy. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Wefa lacks the sensitivity and tact required to edit in this topic area productively and collaboratively. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:59, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: I'm not seeing where -- and there haven't been any diffs to demonstrate -- (a) Wefa has made ban-worthy objectionable edits to articlespace, or (b) where he's continued to make objectionable and explosive comments to article talk pages in this line. I'll reiterate my statement from above: the best way to refute Wefa's belief that the Thought Police are running Wikipedia -- and seeking to suppress opinions they don't want anyone to hear -- is not to prove him right. Ravenswing 10:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The thing is, we are discussing a topic ban, not a site ban. It is clear from Wefa's talk comment quoted above that they disagree profoundly with both the enwiki community consensus and the consensus of reliable sources on key questions in the GENSEX topic area, to the extent that they are willing at least to make a public thought experiment about crusading against consensus reality. In this context, what purpose is served by allowing an editor to contribute to a topic area within which any contribution they make is bound to be counter to policy, and therefore disruptive? The whole point of sanctions is to prevent future disruption, is it not? This isn't about "thought crime", it is about contributing to a collaborative project. Wefa's comment - conservatives simply recognize that there are men and women, and, if we ignore the extremely rare cases of biological nonbinaries, nothing else - is essentially an assertion, against all the sources on the topic, that transgender identity does not exist. Editors can believe what they like, but bringing their pastafarian or flat earth beliefs into the determination of article content in this way is inherently disruptive. Newimpartial (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Meh, Wefa had made all of 20 edits in 2022 before this. AFAICT, ~1,500 edits over 18 years and there apparently has never been a problem before, until Sep 19, 2022, when Wefa made one offensive forum/soapbox-y article talk page comment and a second, similar user talk page comment; the sentiments were repeated a third time in this ANI thread above. Wefa hasn't edited in the past week. I don't think going straight to a TBAN for two disruptive edits (not counting ANI) is merited, particularly for an editor who barely edits. What are we preventing? I see no reason to think this problem will be repeated, and if it is, the proper mode of action is a full NOTHERE site ban (or block), not a TBAN. But for context, here's a perfectly fine comment from earlier on Sep 19, and another from Sep 11, I do not see any kind of ongoing pattern outside of two edits on Sep 19. They barely edit; most of their edits are fine; the disruption is limited to two comments posted on one day; I continue to support closing with a warning but a TBAN is too much paperwork for this. Levivich (talk) 15:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support are we seriously just going to give this user a slap on the wrist in this topic for comparing transgender care to Josef Mengele? There is no way Wefa can edit this area in a civil or reasonable manner. Dronebogus (talk) 04:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• It's bizarre to see opposes based on "too much paperwork" and what amounts to WP:DENY. Not only does Wefa compares their fellow editors to a Nazi figure and denies the existence of trans people, they clearly refuse to work within our policies and guidelines and sources go against their point of view, which can be seen on this report and on this earlier discussion on a topic in the same DS area. They are clearly a net negative on this area. Isabelle ^{🏴‍☠️} 10:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It might be bizarre if any opposes were based on the premise of "too much paperwork." Would you care to point any out? Ravenswing 19:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I guess she's quoting me, but I don't really oppose a TBAN, so much as I just think a warning would be better than a TBAN ("too much paperwork" == "not worth the editor time to administer"). (What I really oppose is no action.) Levivich (talk) 15:22, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Warn per Levivich, although further disruption would merit a topic ban. starship.paint (exalt) 10:18, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Tamzin. —VersaceSpace 🌃 16:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Wefa has shown they do not have the neutrality necessary to participate in this sensitive area. Should they develop that sensitivity at a later date, they the community can always re-evaluate, but for now- they are not a net positive contribution in this area and I am not convinced they have realized what the problem even is. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Let me make it clear that I think a topic ban is completely appropriate…if we had an active editor here. The lack of activity on a long term account suggests that this isn’t going to prevent that much disruption. With all that said, I don’t think Wefa would be able to edit collaboratively on that topic should they become more active, so I’m supporting the ban. I also want to make it clear that it’s okay to have opposing views regarding stuff like this, and a TBAN simply for different views would be invalid. However, when you express those views in a soapbox post on an article and user talk it is no longer appropriate, just like it wouldn’t be if someone made the opposite argument in a soapbox comment on a talk page. Talk pages are to discuss improving the Wiki, the comparison to Mengle is nowhere near that. FrederalBacon (talk) 22:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above, and the fact this thread is still going with no resolution — haven't we sunk enough time into this? — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 22:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per the above. AKK700 02:46, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose after seeing an editor above repeating "he doesn't understand what is acceptable in a GENSEX discussion" a couple of times. Since when is only one opinion acceptable in a discussion? A discussion requires people from both sides of the aisle, so to speak, being allowed to express their opinions, not just one side humming in unison. TBANning someone for daring to express an opinion that is very far from being fringe, and shared by a very large number of people violates the principle of freedom of speach, and Wikipedia is supposed to be free, and not censored. And please don't call me transphobic or anything like that for daring to oppose a TBAN based on the principle of freedom of speach, because you have no idea where I stand on GENSEX matters. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:13, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  One opinion is not acceptable in a GENSEX discussion, but more than one opinion is also not acceptable in a GENSEX discussion, because WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTSOAPBOX means that nobody should be giving their opinion about GENSEX issues in a GENSEX discussion. The only acceptable GENSEX discussion is one about RSes. The posts at issue here were straight-up preaching a political viewpoint. Wikipedia is free and not censored -- that's the mainspace articles -- but talk pages are not free, and they are censored, e.g. by WP:NOT policy and the WP:TALK guideline. There is no freedom of speech on talk pages. The reason I support a warning (and oppose no action) is because it is not OK for an editor to express their political opinions on article talk pages. (The reason I prefer a warning over a TBAN is because it's a first offense and hasn't been repeated since.) Levivich (talk) 15:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Thomas.W: are you saying that a very large number of people believe that doctors who provide healthcare to transgender people are the equivalent of Josef Mengele? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:24, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I hate to say it HEB, but that's probably true. First, trans people aren't exactly widely accepted in the US or in the West--in some parts, sure, but a majority? Not sure. Second, think of the rest of the world. A majority of the world still doesn't accept homosexuality; I doubt a majority accepts even the concept of gender identity (as distinct from biological sex). Heck, I doubt a majority of the world even accepts interracial, interreligious, or interethnic marriage. Sad but probably true. Levivich (talk) 15:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Theres a difference between not accepting it and thinking that contemporary doctors are in general comparable to the absolute worst that industrialized, putatively civilized, man is capable of. I will desist because dwelling on it puts me in a dark mood. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:46, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  We don’t pander to cultural relativism on Wikimedia. There was one admin on Amharic WP that was extremely homophobic, as is typical in Ethiopia (where Amharic is principally spoken) and he was still banned from WM. If you’re a vocal bigot, you’re out. Dronebogus (talk) 11:35, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  lol, "pander to cultural relativism" is a funny way of saying "tolerate other people's cultures". I guess it's just your culture we should tolerate? This is why I (and others) don't support promoting NONAZIs beyond an essay. Sure we can all agree about being tolerant of people regardless of their gender identity (or sexual orientation or ethnicity), but what about... [insert list of divisive cultural issues]? This is a slippery slope. That's why our "rule" isn't "you must agree with Western values," it's WP:NOTFORUM/WP:NOTSOAPBOX, as Tamzin explains below. "Bigot", like beauty, is too often in the eye of the beholder. Levivich (talk) 14:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don’t see why I’m supposed to take seriously someone whose first word in their response is “lol” Dronebogus (talk) 08:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, it's a good thing then that transgender existence and transgender health, like evolutionary biology and vaccines, are topics where WP's content is to be based on reliable sources and not on opinion polling. Newimpartial (talk) 18:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  To be clear, this isn't about TBANning someone for having the wrong opinion. Plenty of people edit constructively in the GENSEX area—as all areas—despite having strongly-held controversial views. It's not even per se about admitting to having that opinion in a talkpage discussion. I don't think we'd be here if he'd said, in passing in a discussion, "Personally I think all of this should be illegal"; that would go against NOTFORUM, but not in a way that usually leads to sanctions. No, this is about someone using talkpages to rant about their political views. The fact that those views are divisive makes it worse; it is immaterial whether they are right or wrong. If someone were saying "All people who oppose puberty blockers for transgender youth are doing so purely out of a desire to drive them to their deaths", and then doubling down as Wefa has here, I would support sanctions there too. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with you Tamzin but if you read DB's comment above, it isn't at all clear that this isn't about TBANing someone for having the wrong opinion. DB is expressly saying the opposite. Levivich (talk) 14:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  No, I was refuting that your apparent appeal to the majority and appeal to cultural relativism to excuse (but not endorse) an egregious statement (that transgender care is morally equivalent to Nazi human experimentation). I might’ve been wrong to say “bigot” instead of “bigotry” (since it’s the offensive, extreme statement itself which is the problem here, not what the user and their opinions) Dronebogus (talk) 08:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I would’ve let this slide if Wefa hadn’t brought godwin’s law into this mess; personally I find their general subject commentary grating and inappropriate but not ban worthy. Dronebogus (talk) 08:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I haven't excused anything and don't try to turn this on me because I disagree with you. Levivich (talk) 14:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support due to their comments here. Gusfriend (talk) 11:52, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - I find it ridiculous to consider banning a user for making a single talk page post that, as far as I can tell, does not violate any policies. I'll grant that Wefa's language is somewhat hyperbolic, but their basic view - that performing surgery or hormone injections on children under 18 in order for them to look more like the opposite sex is immoral - is a significant mainstream view, and probably even the majority view around the world. Not that I'm a fan of banning people for their views in any context, but to ban someone for holding this particular view makes no sense. And no, I don't think they disrupted anything. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  An editor who trivializes and ridicules gender-affirming surgery ("getting surgery is a choice, just like running for president") should probably not be offering their opinion about what forms of POV advocacy are or aren't disruptive, and it is questionable whether such an editor ought to be participating in GENSEX TBAN discussions, at least not by !voting. Newimpartial (talk) 18:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure you know what "ridicule" means. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd go with the act of making fun of someone or something in a cruel or harsh way. Comparing access to gender-affirming surgery to being eligible to run for POTUS strikes me as both cruel and harsh. Newimpartial (talk) 21:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that comment reasonably disqualifies their opinion in this matter, not that their argument (based on opinions on the perceived reasonableness of Wefa’s views on transgender care, ignoring the fact that they’re delivering them in a WP:BATTLEGROUNDy way) was all that great. Dronebogus (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. IMHO, just the idea to put transgender care and Josef Mengele in the same sentence would justify a TBAN from all gender-related materials. —Sundostund (talk) 00:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Oppose no serious violation, he expressed himself, let's move on instead of targeting him for his opinion.Lmharding (talk) 08:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia is not a free speech forum. Dronebogus (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - the statement Apparently there exists a sizeable minority or even majority here who is complete unable to concede that the term "gender affirming care" (which includes not only primary sex surgery but also things like mastectomies and chemical castration (aka puberty Blockers) is an ugly euphemism for mutilation of children is essentially a statement that Wefa's feelings about the topic take precedence over what reliable sources actually say about the topic, and that because editors are unable to concede that the sky is actually puce, that this is a problem with the Wikipedia community. Elaborating such solipsistic views on WP Talk pages is inherently disruptive, and people who are unable to concede that their personal reality has diverged from the reality documented in reliable sources are not qualitied to participate in WP in areas where they are unable to restrain themselves in expressing their, umm, idiosyncratic POV.
• I would ask those placing "Oppose" !votes why they think the TBAN is a bad idea - do they want to see Wefa make more such comments so that we come back here again? There is no suggestion that they are likely to comport themselves any differently on this topic in future... Newimpartial (talk) 15:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  As one of the "Opposers" - I see no problem with the way they have comported themselves, either in talk pages or in articles. We accept people with all different political opinions here, as long as they make reasonable edits, and that seems to be the case with this user. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It probably doesn't hurt that you share their opinion about the immorality of trans healthcare. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The admin-supported left wing rules by majority, even though there is no policy allowing such, NPOV on this particular topic is even hard to define, let alone implement, in such spirit, and this part of Wikipedia has essentially been captured as the left's propaganda arm. I came here with a good faith suggestion to make this article more NPOV, and that was roundly rejected. Now, given there is no consensus, I would have as much right to be bold and just change things as all the left wing "owners" of this article who do this all the time, but the practice is different. While non-consensus changes by me would, given enough persistence on my part, result in me getting banned, the exactly same actions by the lw majority would and constantly do have no such consequences.

  This is not a reasonable edit - it expresses the editor's opinion that their personal intuitions, rather than a discussion of sources based on WP policy, ought to determine what NPOV means in a specific (ACDS) domain, and that because the editor is right about this, they would be justified in edit warring against consensus reality even though it could result in a community ban. (Even the editor's opinion that their individual dissent is sufficient to deny consensus to article text already represents a degree of solipsism.) This is not a reasonable edit by an editor who is able to contribute to a collaborative project, at least not in this domain. Newimpartial (talk) 16:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The user was clearly making a rhetorical point about double standards, not actually threatening to engage in an edit war. Ironically, by calling for banning them, I think you're making Wefa's point even better than they could themselves: people on the other side of the argument (about Libs of TikTok, etc.) do routinely revert changes without consensus, but this user risks being banned for just talking about doing the same thing. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You are nicely sidestepping the question, "what is the consensus among the reliable sources on this topic?", which is where the "two sides" WP:FALSEBALANCE civil POV argument goes to die. Newimpartial (talk) 16:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Depends on the topic, of course. Given that this user doesn't seem to have made any bad edits to any articles, this seems like a strictly theoretical discussion. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There is no reason to excuse disruptive POV rants on Talk just because an editor doesn't follow through in article space. Newimpartial (talk) 17:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: I tend to agree with Ravenswing's view here. I would warn them per Levivich but removing them the first time they screw up in expressing their views isn't going to result in articles written from a wide ranges of edits. If they haven't been taken to ANI in the past them give them some leeway and help them learn what is/isn't OK. Springee (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Their statements are simply explanatory toward them not being able to properly edit in this topic area. Also, what I've gathering from the comments above is that we have a significant amount of editors (at least in this discussion) that are openly bigoted toward the LGBT community. A lot of this is very mask off in showing said editors' true colors. Silverseren^C 22:57, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. It's clear from their comments here that this is not an area in which they are capable of constructive collaboration, and I think some gentle guidance towards topics they are more suited for would be helpful. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Warn This is complex and I have a lot of sympathy for the arguments from the support side. Beyond the hate speech, I read Wefa's words more in terms of "resignation", someone who considers themselves defeated, but will remain unbent no matter what...one great big middle finger at consensus...but that appears to be it...I'm struck that to date, we've not been presented with evidence of disruptive activity in the realm of content creation or content discussion (please correct me if I'm wrong). So, what is the consequence? We are asked to support this on the basis of preventative action, but we have no evidence of acts ... we are asked to infer that these statements are strong indications of a willingness to act (whereas the words, on face value, reflect the opposite). I'd argue the subtext to Wefa's outburst is to seek to prove that no dialogue (by their definition) is possible - by being "censured" they are confirmed in their point of view. They more or less consciously recognise they cannot meaningfully dispute scholarly consensus on the issue and they are unable to dispute community consensus. So this gesture. I would support a TBAN if there was evidence of them being shown to impede content creation or content discussion. I'd note that the London Review of Books last month published a letter in the most prominent position of the letters' page from a transphobe with a cogent, critical reply. It's a fine line, but talk pages and ANI are not a school, a public library, a newspaper, a university, or a board room ... it's the engine room (or maybe ANI is the janitor's closet). We should place this in the context of the consequence of the action, not our own perceptions of the somewhat nebulous possibility of where this might lead. Yes to admonish and warn, at this point, but refrain from stepping beyond our own frameworks to provide this editor with that they seek: proof of their righteousness. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose or Warning, at the most. I agree with Ravenswing and Levivic. I don't see any disruptive behaviour - they didn't touch the article namespace, they just expressed their views on the talk page. Reminding them about WP:SOAPBOX would be enough as really there's nothing sanctionable here. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:48, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will appreciate your insight here on the article Parga. Despite expressing my opposition to the use of extremist source, Xhufi, an extremist far-right Albanian politician known for his extreme bias against foreign countries and nations and for his nationalist propaganda, editors keep edit warring to have that scholar used regardless of whether other editors have expressed their legitimate concerns about that particular source. Furthermore, they haven't waited for consensus on the talk page, and are quick into reinstating the disputed source to the article even though they were supposed to discuss, not brute-force their new source to the article. - ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 23:19, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SilentResident. This is obviously a content dispute that is currently being discussed on the article talk page, as you know. ANI does not adjudicate content disputes. If edit warring is going on, file a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. If you believe that a work by Pëllumb Xhufi is not a reliable source, make your case at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. You also have various forms of Dispute resolution available to you. Cullen328 (talk) 00:41, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: as an uninvolved admin, can you please tell SilentResident to stop calling Xhufi a "extremist far-right Albanian politician"? I am not involved in that content dispute and I would not prefer using Xhufi as a source, but calling a living notable person on Wikipedia that way is a breach of WP:BLP IMO. That part of the comment should probably be deleted. Xhufi does not belong to the far right and is not an "extremist" at all, whatever that term is supposed to mean here. Ktrimi991 (talk) 09:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• SilentResident, weren't you going to do a report to determine that Xhufi is not a reliable author? Why do you expect users to be okay with the removal of his works when the report hasn't been made? Super Ψ Dro 12:03, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Third party academic scholars informed me that they are preparing a detailed analysis on Pëllumb Xhufi's reliability. That's why I am not rushing right away for the RSN because more material on the politician, can prove always helpful for Wikipedia to understand whether this person is reliable as a source. Not that the content and evidence found already thus far, isn't sufficing for the RSN to determine.

You stated "Why do you expect users to be okay with the removal of his works when the report hasn't been made?" but you are reminded that a growing number of WP:RS already disputed and challenged Xhufi's credibility but the users chose to ignore this, insisting -without presenting proof to Wikipedia- that Xhufi is reliable. How is Xhufi reliable when editors havent provided any WP:RS supporting Xhufi in face of the WP:RS that have discredited Xhufi's objectivity as a scholar? This is not okay I am afraid. Until the RSN concludes on Xhufi, the legitimate concerns over Xhufi's reliability may not be ignored and the legitimate concerns of editors are not less legitimate. There is no such guideline stating such a thing. In our case here the users wanting to use Xhufi's work, are fully aware about the WP:RS disputing Xhufi as a WP:RS and have two options: 1) to either provide WP:RS defending Xhufi as a reliale author, or 2) provide WP:RS debunking the other RSs discrediting Xhufi's reliability as an author. The users have done nothing of that. Instead, they chose editwarring to add Xhufi without wp:consensus to the articles and by ignoring the concerns of verification. The editors are reminded that WP:VERIFY is a core content policy in Wikipedia and when there is no consensus for using a particular source, then the editors are asked to provide independent third-party sources verifying that information provided by the extremist politician. This helps addressing any editorial concerns adequately IMO.

If it is wrong to have legitimate concerns over an author (whose credibility is questioned by other scholars) and to ask just for any third party independent RS, then please correct me because I have read again and again the Wikipedia's guidelines on WP:VERIFIABILITY and there is no such a thing as a guideline recommending that this Core Content Policy can be superseded by personal editorial POV(!) which can ignore the WP:RS(!) discrediting an extremist politician. This is just the pure definition of "not okay", if you ask me.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 12:51, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: this is exactly what I am talking about when I say that this whole thing is worrisome: just now, at Parga, another Albanian account came from nowhere, from a different topic area and reinstated the new additions to the article they have never edited previously in their life, all this just to add Pëllumb Xhufi back to the article [11] through brute-forcing and without participating in the talk page nor providing any third-party reliable WP:RS. The fact that too many Albanian accounts are working together persistently to brute-force content while disregarding Wikipedia's WP:VERIFIABILITY and not working through WP:CONSENSUS-building at the talk page is exactly part of the broader issue of Albanian WP:TAGTEAM to which User:Coldtrack has pointed out recently [12] at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 15:52, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of talking about "tagteaming" and "Albanian accounts" here, try one of the dispute resolution ways. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute resolution is supposed to be followed by all editors, not edit war to brute force your unreliable sources instead of waiting for dispute resolution like how you did now. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 16:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What? I am not involved in that content dispute and I did not revert you. It seems that you are very confused at this point. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:47, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are. Sorry. Lack of direct editing on the specific article doesn't exactly make you any less involved. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 17:07, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You must be kidding. I hope you are not blaming an "Albanian account" for the actions of another "Albanian account". In any case, it is not clear what you are trying to say and what do you seek here at ANI/I, and it is clear nobody will solve your content dispute here. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:11, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per the points raised here by SilentResident, I remind all editors who wish to include material originating from Xhufi that per WP:ONUS, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content". It doesn't say force it on until a consensus disapprove of it. --Coldtrack (talk) 18:14, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS. As regards the denialism that Xhufi represents far-right extremist viewpoints, perhaps objectors could enlighten the community by distinguishing the views of far-right Albanians from the views of Xhufi, and where they are on record as opposing his works. --Coldtrack (talk) 18:16, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SilentResident, perhaps you are correct and works by Pëllumb Xhufi should not be considered reliable. I do not know. But the place to make that determination is at WP:RSN as you know. Asserting over and over that he is unreliable without going to that noticeboard is not acceptable. So, either go to RSN or drop the subject. It is also not acceptable to belittle other editors for being Albanians. Do not ever imply that another editor should be disregarded simply because of their ethnicity. That is unseemly and disruptive. Cullen328 (talk) 18:28, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P. Xhufi is quite active in local national rhetoric (in TV shows etc.). Statements such as this [[13]] show clearly that he is personally involved in promoting a national agenda: he does not hesitate to accuse the Greek government (since the creation of the Greek state) of anti-Albanian activity. Definitely this isn't the kind of neutral scholarship.Alexikoua (talk) 18:54, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered posting a RSN? Cullen literally said "the place to make that determination is at WP:RSN". Alltan (talk) 19:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328 Without prejudice over anybody's national identity, I have read every comment on this thread including the all-important original post. I infer that SilentResident was basically using this noticeboard to say, "the behaviour of numerous editors is unacceptable" and may have hoped that admins take a deeper look into who is doing what. Although conventionally it seems that this project page is normally focused on one accused person. This time he was saying that a team of about three are slithering their way across multiple articles and posting dubious material. To that end it is not an ANEW matter in the strictest sense, and with regards RS debate, it is definitely the case that no less than one person is violating ONUS as I stated above. So in SilentResident's situation, I'm not sure myself where to have gone to raise complaints about one cabal operating widely. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:07, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328 and Coldtrack:Thank you both very much. Now if you allow me, just for clarity: as soon as I get my hands on the new Autumn 2022 reports on Xhufi by Western scholars who view that politican as unreliable scholar, you have my word that I will make haste for the RSN. Just like how you said, there is no Wikipedia guideline suggesting that consensus is not necessary until the RSN. And to clarify that when I say "Albanian accounts": I am specifically talking about accounts focusing specifically on the two Albanian Topic Areas: Albania and Kosovo; It is important to make a clear distinction on what the term Albanian refers there. All the accounts involved into brute-forcing Xhufi into Wikipedia, share a common characteristic in the sense that they are mainly editing the 2 Albanian topic areas. Its important to make this clear because - my mistake- I assumed everybody would understand that, since obviously it makes no sense to refer to them as "Albanian accounts" in an ethnic sense - that makes no sense, since I can't verify the nationality of editors nor it matters for Wikipedia, nor I know anyone here caring at all about Ethnicities. But I am referring to these accounts in an Topic-Area context: it is a common characteristic of the WP:Balkans that accounts from one topic area, often share views and cooperate to this end, which, at first glance, is not harmful to Wikipedia, yes, but when a great deal of it involves ignoring WP:ONUS and WP:RELIABILITY, then it is worrisome and goes against the Wikipedia project's goal which is to steer away from nationalist authors and dubious sources. Next time I will use the term "Topic Area" to avoid any potential misunderstandings again, and will mention this again only if from a technical perspective (i.e. whether it is important for Admins to understand what is going on there). Good day.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 19:09, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Coldtrack: There is large scale tendency to promote sources such as Xhufi, while on the other hand removing multiple academic publications that don't fit with Xhufi's POV. One example is the removal of published works by A. Spiro (linguist of the University of Tirana) with the excuse that he doesn't agree with the national POV as Ktrimi explained [[14]]. Removals&reverts are performed in wp:TAGTEAMING fashion, as shown here: [[15]]. Also several wp:RS have been removed due to the same as part of the same fashion (to name a view scholars: Skendi, Vakalopoulos, Hasiotis, Tsiknakis, Kofos) in favor to POV narratives by Xhufi. Those editors that insist on the removal of those authors never filled an RSN they just resort in TAGTEAMING.Alexikoua (talk) 00:52, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peloponnese

@Cullen328 and Coldtrack: I think it is getting out of control and spilling over even more articles: the accounts from the Albania Topic Area are again brute-forcing their new additions to more articles, such as Peloponnese today, and that's only one day after the similar incidents at Parga, where, once again, they disregarded any need for achieving WP:CONSENSUS on the talk page, having ignored what WP:ONUS says. Even if I agreed/disagreed with the new additions and intervening the one way or the other, I have no faith that my voice matters anymore in Wikipedia in front of this large WP:TAGTEAM of editors who always get things done their preferred way through edit-warring instead of WP:BRD and following the guidelines by seeking WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DISPUTERESOLUTION at the relevant talk pages. IMO, the whole editiorial behavior of disregarding Wikipedia's rules, is in my opinion really worrisome, since it is extremely disruptive and shows that the one side with numerical superiority has become unstoppable and is acting as if it WP:OWN Wikipedia, and can do whatever it wants, disrupting the normal editorial progress. And of course, I can't think of where myself to go complain about that new incident! Technically, they didn't violate 3RR, so the 3RR Noticeboard is not really an option here, so Coldtrack's words: "I'm not sure myself where to have gone to raise complaints about one cabal operating widely." echoe now louder than ever. I am posting here for one last time, because WP:DISPUTERESOLUTION, the policy in Wikipedia for such behaviors in disputes, states that: "Issues of conduct may be addressed at the incidents noticeboard, and may be taken to the arbitration committee for more complex disputes.". Any help from the Admins will be really appreciated. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 19:37, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SilentResident, please name the members of this "cabal" or "tag team", provide diffs of the most problematic edits, and inform those editors of this discussion. Cullen328 (talk) 19:44, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328 Sorry to bother you but may I ask if the diffs have to be from a specific article only? Because the issue spans multiple articles such as Parga before Peloponnese, and even Greek War of Independence before that, and more. I'm mentioning these 3 articles here for now because they are fresh in my memory and happen to be the most recent cases, all of them occuring during the current month, September 2022). If any clarity is provided on the criteria for the diffs you seek as to determine the range of diffs allowed to present here, that will be appreciated and I will try to do my best. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 20:01, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SilentResident, no, the diffs do not need to be limited to one article, but they should clearly show the problematic behavior. Cullen328 (talk) 20:12, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are disputes where many editors from Greece and Albania find an interest to edit. SR will only show some diffs of "Albanian accounts" reverting "Greek accounts". @Cullen328: why do not you ask SR why they see a "cabal" or "tag teaming" only among "Albanian accounts" and not among "Greek accounts" too? I am not saying there is "tag teaming" among "Greek accounts", there is no evidence for any kind of "tag teaming". I just think that these "tag teaming" accusations are personal attacks against perceived opponents. As such, without clear evidence of a "cabal", they should result in a block for personal attacks or at least a warning. These "tag teaming" accusations have become common among some Balkan editors. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:38, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ktrimi991, that is why I am asking for evidence. Cullen328 (talk) 20:43, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ktrimi991, if you are aware of any issues of editorial misconduct, then it will be appreciated if you bring them to the admin's attention.

Now, if you allow me, I can't help but express my concerns about your reply's tone suggesting a culture of collective responsibility by pointing that "other sides did that too". You are reminded that no side has immunity from the project's rules - everybody here is to be scrutinized for their actions, including me (per WP:BOOMERANG) and that's a fact.

In case you missed what my concerns here are: is the fact accounts appearing collectively in certain articles the Greece topic area on articles which most of these accounts never edited before (since their focus is mainly the Albania topic area), yet are quick to edit war instead of discussing and seeking a compromise, at the expense of Wikipedia's guidelines, consensus and dispute resolution procedures. Resulting in all these articles in the Greece topic area having currently a revision not reflecting a talk page consensus, and the newly-added content to them isn't the result of compromises between the sides, is rather a revision imposed. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 21:28, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of such walls of text, post what you think is evidence of "tag teaming". Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328 I am working on it, and will have something to present very shortly. It is a fair amount of work, so please bear with me. Khirurg (talk) 04:18, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This report has been open for 2-1/2 days, and so far, we have:

• no lists of alleged "cabal" or "tag team" members, and
• no required notifications to the accused, and
• no reports to the reliable sources noticeboard, and
• no reports to the edit warring noticeboard, and
• no set of diffs showing a pattern of disruptive editing.

Instead, we have unsupported assertions that an Albanian academic is unreliable (maybe he is and maybe he isn't) and unsubstantiated accusations that unnamed editors who work on Albanian topics are misbehaving. To say that I am unimpressed at this point is an understatement. Maybe I will wake up tomorrow morning to find ample evidence. But so far, nothing. Cullen328 (talk) 06:23, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have my sincere apologies for making you wait. It is not intentional, just I am back from my work in real life and I do not have access to my PC from work. Since you clarified to me that the report doesn't have to be limited to a select few articles, and since the issue spans more articles than the fingers of our hands, its obvious that I will need some time to prepare the large report. In this context, I was hopeful that the ANI can give me the required time to work on the reports on an issue that has been spanning in time range not a single month but whole years? If the ANI is eager to close the current discussion, thats fine, I can open a new one once I have it ready. I speak only for myself though, I cant speak for editors Khirurg and Ktrimi991, though, whether they got their/any reports to submit and if they can do that even faster than me, then maybe the ANI can give them a chance.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 07:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not willing to make "tag teaming" accusations here; after all those are controversial Balkan topics that can easily attract attention from editors. Editing an article is not illegal. In any case, I am waiting for the evidence you and Khirurg will provide. If admins judge it is of value, I can enrich it with more evidence. There are many cases to be discussed in that case, not only among "Albanian accounts". But I really doubt admins will find your evidence of value; as I said, articles are open for editing to every editor. Just editing an article does not make you part of a "tag team". And even if one does see "tag teaming", proving it is extremely difficult. Cullen328, for the record, last November Khirurg was warned and then blocked by User:Bbb23 after making accusations including "tag teaming" accusations. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the slow reply. I don't know what happened between you and Khirurg last November, but I have my serious concerns and I am not alone here; such concerns are shared on the ANI by least 2 other editors too, which itself is more than enough to require ANI attention this time. If indeed there is no tag-teaming as you claim, then there is nothing the other editors may be afraid of. The report will be submitted and left upon the Admins to evaluate. If the Admins deem these incidents to not be a case of Tag-teaming and conclude that there is no such behavioral pattern, then the filler ought to trust and accept their judgement and offer a honest apology to the other editors for which these concerns are about. In mean time, it is recommended that all editors familiarize and abide by the Wikipedia's guidelines, because even if the Admins do not deem these incidents or what happened at Peloponnese to be a case of tag-teaming, still is a serious disruption violating Wikipedia's guidelines regarding dispute resolutions and consensus-building, not a mere "Just editing an article" as you might think here. Now if you excuse me, expect no more responses before the report's submission. It is just "walls of text" as you said. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 16:07, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Its not the first time you make such accusations and like I said sometime ago, this is just WP:WITCHHUNT! I hope this time ends once and for all because I am sick of it. Taking part in those hot Balkan topics is normal for anyone. All of you do the same even in Albanian related topics from the north to the south and no one has accused any of you of Team Tagging. Some of you has taken part in discussions about the name of some unknown towns in Kosovo, which to me is quite bizarre to say the least, but no one has ever accused you of something. Now you are accusing "Albanian accounts" why the take part in Albanian related topics? Several Admins has intervened in lot of those discussions and for the most part, changes were confirmed and the articles were improved. Have a good day! -- Bes-ARTTalk 16:42, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

OK, here we go. There is a group of editors who all share a similar background, as can be seen by their contribs, that behaves in a matter best described as WP:TAGTEAM on Balkan articles. The main purpose is to circumvent 3RR so as to prevent insertion of undesired material, and insert disputed material by brute force. It has been going on for a long time (off the top of my head I would say it started in early 2020), but it has been getting steadily worse in that past few months, when Çerçok (talk · contribs) returned from a 3 month break, and has reached an absolute crescendo in recent days (the first six examples are from the past few days alone). Now, while it is very common for editors who share interests to participate in the same disputes, as the evidence below will show, the nature of the behavior in question is of markedly different intensity and quantity. Particularly noticeable are instances of editors who have never shown the slightest interest in an article showing up to revert within minutes or even seconds, suggesting some form of coordination, possibly via live chat. Also of note is the fact that some of these articles are absolutely peripheral to the Albania topic area, yet the intensity of the behavior is the same as if they were core articles. The evidence below is arranged roughly chronologically. I am aware it is very long, but just to give you an idea of the intensity of the disruption, this is what I was able to gather quickly going off my memory, and even then this list is not exhaustive. As this evidence was gathered somewhat hastily, if you see any mistakes please point them out and I'd be happy to correct them. If the below evidence is too much and you just want to focus on the most egregious examples, I'd say those are International Recognition of Kosovo, Greek War of Independence, Himara, List of Albanians in Greece, and Messapic language. Update: Since I filed this report, my watchlist has been extremely quiet. I don't think it's a coincidence. Cullen328, Coldtrack, I was wondering if you had a chance to view the evidence and had any feedback, in particular as to what might contribute an appropriate venue for it (ANI does not appear to be the right venue).

• 1. International Recognition of Kosovo, 7 reverts in ~48 hours by 5 different users. Article history: Initial, non-revert edit by Uniacademic [16], revert by Ktrimi991 [17], Maleschreiber [18], S.G ReDark [19] (a relatively new user who had never edited the article before), Ktrimi again [20], Ahmet Q. [21], Ahmet Q. again [22], followed within minutes by Durazz0 [23], who prior to that hadn't edited in weeks. Durazz0 in particular is not very active lately [24], but always shows up at just the right time to revert [25] [26], !vote [27], or complain to an admin on behalf of another user [28] [29]. Attempt at dispute resolution in the talkpage was initiated by the other party [30]/

• 2. Greek War of Independence, 12 reverts by 5 different users in a 4 day period (not including 3 days of page protection). Article history: Cercok [31], Excine who had never edited the article before, Ktrimi991 [32], Ktrimi991 [33], Cercok [34] (as soon as the page protection expired, Alltan [35], Alltan [36], Ahmet Q. [37], Ahmet Q. [38], Ktrimi991 [39], Ktrimi991 [40], Ahmet Q. [41].

• 3. Amantia, 2 reverts by 2 users who had never edited the article before, within 12 hours. Article history: Ahmet Q. [42] (never edited the article before), Lezhjani1444 who had never edited the article before, within minutes.

• 4. Parga, 5 reverts within ~24 hours by three different users, one of whom had never edited the article before. Article history: Cercok [43], followed by Alltan [44], Alltan [45], Uniacademic who has never edited the article before, Cercok [46].

• 5. Himara [47]: Maleschreiber [48], Maleschreiber [49], Ktrimi [50], Cercok [51], Cercok [52], Lezhjani1444 who has never edited the article before, Alltan [53], Botushali who has never edited the article before, then very interestingly Alltan shows up a few seconds later with a nearly identical edit-summary, then Cercok [54], then Cercok again [55]. The use of an identical edit summary by Alltan and Botushali seems to sugges that they had agreed upon this edit-summary off-wiki (e.g. via live chat) and Botushali beat Alltan to it by a few second. Something similar happened back in June at Kosovo between Uniacademic and Truthseeker2006 [56].

• 6. Peloponnese, 6 reverts by 3 users in 3 hours. Article history: Ahmet Q. [57], Ahmet Q. [58], Maleschreiber [59], Alltan within three minutes even though he has never edited the article before, Alltan again [60]. Attempt at dispute resolution initiated by me.

• 7. Arvanites [61]: Ahmet [62], Ahmet [63], Botushali [64].

• 8. Epirus revolt of 1611 [65]: Cercok [66], Alltan who had never edited the article before, Cercok [67], Alltan [68], Cercok [69]. Then again several days later: Maleschreiber [70], Alltan [71], Ahmet Q. [72], Cercok [73].

• 9. Dropull [74]: Lezhjani1444 [75], Lezhjani1444 [76], Lezhjani1444 [77], Alltan [78], Alltan [79], Ktrimi991 [80].

• 10. List of Albanians in Greece [81]: Ahmet [82], Ahmet [83], Maleschreiber who had never edited the article before, Ahmet [84], Maleschreiber [85], Durazz0 who had never edited the article before, within minutes, Ahmet [86]

• 11. Template:Greeks in Albania [87]: Ahmet [88], Alltan [89], Ahmet [90], Alltan [91], Ahmet [92].

• 12. Struga [93]: Alltan [94], Durazz0 [95], Durazz0 [96], Durazz0 [97], Botushali [98], Botushali [99].

• 13. Bratonozici [100]: Botushali [101], Botushali [102], Alltan [103], Alltan [104], Botushali [105], Durazz0 who had never edited the article before.

• 14. Piperi (tribe) [106]: Botushali [107], Alltan [108], Botushali [109], Durraz0 [110].

• 15. Kuči (tribe) [111]: Maleschreiber [112], Ahmet [113], Alltan [114].

• 16. Bjelopavlici [115]: Botushali [116], Alltan [117], Alltan [118], Botushali [119], Durazz0 [120].

• 17. Pristina [121]: Maleschreiber [122], Ktrimi [123], Ktrimi [124], Alltan [125].

• 18. Messapic language [126]: [127] (note the source falsification about "dialect"), Βατο [128], Βατο [129], Durazz0 who had never edited the article before, Ktrimi991 [130], [131]. In this instance, they ganged up on the hapless 3knolls, who had not idea what he was dealing with.

• 19. Bar, Montenegro [132]: Ktrimi991 [133], Ktrimi991 [134], Maleschreiber [135], Durazz0 who had never edited the article before, Maleschreiber [136], Ahmet [137].

• 20. Illyrian Emperors [138]: Ahmet [139], Βατο who had never edited the article before, Maleschreiber who had never edited the article before.

Of note is that Ahmet Q. (talk · contribs) has on several occasions asked users to activate their wikipedia email, ostensibly so as to "share sources" [140], but soon after this was done, the user Ahmet Q. instructed to activate emails starts showing to !vote [141] at RfCs and RMs that Ahmet Q. had just !voted, sometimes within minutes [142], despite these articles being relatively obscure. Ahmet Q. also did the same thing on Wikimedia Commons [143] with user Cercok on August 25. It could be a coincidence, but it is my impression that the intensity of the tag-teaming has been especially strong since then.

Also of note is that as a result of the tag-teaming on the Montenegrin tribes articles (Piperi, Bratonozici, Bjelopavlici etc.), Boki (talk · contribs) eventually became discouraged and gave up [144]. While a bit rash and inexperienced, this user seemed competent and promising, and this is a good example of the kind of result that tag-teaming can result in.

In closing, I'd like to point out that while I fully expect the accused parties to come out guns blazing and counter-accuse, there is a fundamental asymmetry here: Articles such as Greek War of Independence and Peloponnese are central to the Greece topic area, but peripheral to the Albania topic area - in 15 years of editing wikipedia, I have not seen editors from the Albania topic area edit these articles, until now, that is. So while it is to be expected that any perceived POV-push in these articles will result in a response from Greek topic area editors, given that many will have these articles watchlisted, it is highly unusual to see an even more intense response from Albania topic editors. Individually, it could be that some of the instances of apparent tag-teaming I have described could just be coincidences with a perfectly sound explanation, or just garden-variety edit-warring, but when the evidence is viewed in its totality, I strongly believe something is going on here. Whether it is off-wiki messaging (as I think is the case with at least some participants), email, or just contribs-following and a tacit agreement to back each other, I cannot say, but clearly something's up here, this isn't normal. I've been editing for 15 years, and I've never seen anything this intense, this massive, and this coordinated for so long. Khirurg (talk) 20:48, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As an editor not mentioned, but who very well could be, and someone who 90% of those articles mentioned above have it in his watchlist and followed all the discussions in question (mostly not intervening at all) I can say without a doubt that in absolutely most of the cases the editors were invited in the talk page to discuss the reverts or the changes. And many of them were resolved there with consensus by the editors in question. See for example Struga, Himara, and others' talk pages. What you have forgotten to put here are articles that you have taken part in yourself and resulted in you getting blocked or being warned about it because of your language used against the same editors in TP discussions. All you do whenever you don't like a change or sources like Xhufi is open discussion like this one, remove it at all costs, get the editors blocked, and restore the versions you like. And when no admin supports you, you just start another conspiracy against "Albanian accounts". -- Bes-ARTTalk 22:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Khirurg:, do not forget to notify the editors you are mentioning in your report. They will want to know. Add the following code to their talk pages please: {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ Thank you. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 23:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Khirurg: when you post accusations, you should at the very least notify said accused users, (an admin asked both you and SilentResident to do so many times already). Now, all the articles which Khirurg mentioned are under the scope of WikiProject Albania, and some of them are of top importance. I dare to consider myself one of the "veteran" users (been here for about 2 years) and I don't see what exactly the problem is that Khirurg is supposedly so concerned about. Articles which are under the scope of a small WikiProject will, at one point or another, inevitably concern most active users which are interested in such subjects. There are in total maybe 15-20 or so active “Albanian users”, so it's all too normal that they'll end up editing the same articles eventually. This is being made by Khirurg to sound as if the cases where they tend to agree show that they always agree with each or that they all support the same edits, but this is simply a misrepresentation by Khirurg. There are countless cases where some editors who agree on one thing, disagree on another or don't even edit similar articles. Even Khirurg's examples show such a thing because he has just cherry picked cases where some users will agree on a small issue, but there's still no overall agreement across all articles. What he has decided to leave out includes all the other cases where the same users who agree one thing, disagree with each other as is normal for all humans who don't cooperate. For myself I'll note that in Aliko, one of the articles which belong to the same subject as the articles listed by Khirurg, an edit I made [145][146] was reverted by Maleschreiber[147]. Other recent examples of Maleschreiber reverting me which come to mind include [148] and [149], this being one of the articles used as “evidence” by Khirurg. I also recall a case of me being reverted by Botushali, which happened just this July [150]. So when Khirurg then brings up an edit summary which I copied from Botushali's previous edit during an edit conflict, it's a distortion of reality which ignores that I both have disagreed and agreed with him and have been reverted by Botushali. Is this what people who are tag-teaming do, or is it what people who share similar interests but both agree and disagree occasionally do? It’s more likely the latter and not the former. Most of these subjects are very closely related, so when Khirurg claims that an edit of mine is the "first" I've ever done in the article Peloponnese(region of Greece), he somehow leaves out that I have hundreds of edits in articles which involve Albanians in Greece. Since August all 6 new articles I've created are about the history of Albanians in Greece [151]. This is a subject which I'm very passionate and interested about, but Khirurg presents my edits as if I just learned about the subject a minute before I made the edit. Another thing which Khirurg omits is what the disputes are about. In most of the cases, they exist because a couple of users (which in 9/10 cases include Khirurg) want to remove WP:RS from articles. Now, these reliable sources don't come just from Albanian historians, but are in fact most of the times works by ‘’Greek’’ historians whom some users are always trying to remove. My edit in Peloponnese exists solely because the same users who are always doing such things tried to remove Georgios Liakopoulos, a respected Greek historian from the Max Planck institute from the article: [152][153][154]. What exactly is illegitimate about my edit? Is Khirurg saying that some users can remove reliable sources, but users who have spent hundreds of hours writing about these subjects can't even edit related articles? This isn't even the first report by Khirurg where he tries to invoke interests in common subjects by people who have the same cultural background as a reason to ask for someone to get sanctioned. In an SPI against Ktrimi991 [155] Khirurg claimed that he is a sock of a banned user, essentially because both are Albanians and are interested in Albanian history.

So what is Khirurg's evidence? A series of edits which show that sometimes user’s who have similar interests, will agree with each other. In the same articles in which Khirurg finds agreement between some users, he should note all instances where all those who agree with each other either don't get involved in an article or actively disagree. In addition, he should note all instances where we find agreement on the "opposite" side of the aisle between users from WikiProject Greece and in fact in all instances (like the Peloponnese article) two or more users from WP Greece will do the same exact edit/revert (including Khirurg). This isn't "tag teaming" or disruptive when done by Khirurg, yet when other users have partially similar interests do it, it can only be disruptive and can never mean just a genuine interest in a subject.

In conclusion, I see one more content dispute which involves Khirurg and other long time users devolving into accusations by Khirurg that they are tag teaming just because they disagree with Khirurg about subjects which (as far as I remember) many of the mentioned editors always disagreed with him. Khirurg has repeated the same accusation in the past when he was blocked and this is the reply he got by admin Bbb23: "Second, you have accused other editors, some who have been around here for a long time (as have you), of tag teaming just because they disagree with you. That constitutes a personal attack. I strongly urge you to amend your behavior, or you will find yourself blocked." [156]

So yes Khirurg, this is indeed yet another outrageous case of editors who are interested in Albanian-related subjects editing articles related to Albanian subjects. A troubling development indeed.Alltan (talk) 00:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This way tl;dr, but just to note that of the 20 articles I've listed, only half are within WikiProject Albania. And that anyway does not explain the lightning quick reverts to articles you have never edited before, like Peloponnese (within three minutes). Khirurg (talk) 03:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Khirurg has listed twenty articles, out of which I (accused of tag-teaming) have edited only four. 4 out of 20... And I am often in disagreement with the people Khirurg accuses me of being in league with, see:

- with Ktrimi here: [157]

- with Maleschrieber here: [158]

- with AlexBachmann here:[159]

I contribute to Wikipedia as I know best, following wiki guidelines and adding RS content. I do not coordinate with anyone. I agree or disagree with each editor based on the merit/reliability of their edits. I am sure I am not an exception. Khirurg seems to have misportrayed the contributions of other editors here just like he has mine. These accusations are simply ridiculous. Çerçok (talk) 13:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The wp:TAGTEAM pattern is way too obvious but what surprised me personally was a strategy of full coordination as in the case of Himara Revolt of 1596: taking turns in the TAGTEAM process. So the revert sequence here is:

• [[160]] Cercok,
• [[161]] Alltan,
• [[162]] Ktrimi (who never participated before and without trace at talkpage), and then again
• [[163]] Alltan
• [[164]] Ktrimi
• [[165]] Alltan

After his 2nd revert Ktrimi991 immediately filled a report against me in order to block me for 3rr, but no wonder this disruptive pattern has been immediately noticed by uninvolved editor @Coldtrack: [[166]] [[167]]

Ktrimi also provides support to the more hesitant (revert)-editors of this team by removing warning messages in their talkpages: Here [[[168]], after Uniacademic performed a rv although he never showed any trace in article and tp before [[ [[169]]]] (as Khirurg noted above). The same support is also provided by Alltan [[170]]) obviously to encourage a more massive and coordinated campaign of this kind.

It is crystal clear that their main purpose is to increase their revert-warring fire power in order to promote a certain national POV and at the same time discouraging multiple editors from productive editing.Alexikoua (talk) 00:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: First of all, if my name is going to be brought up, I’d greatly appreciate being notified. Now, in regard to this report, I am actually offended that I am even being mentioned as a part of such a thing. The diffs of me on pages about Montenegrin tribes of Albanian origin are particularly annoying; if you bothered to check those diffs, you will find I was actually the first account to initiate the change on the article that there was a subsequent edit war over which was resolved in the TP. In fact, if you check my edit history, you will notice a lot of my work focuses on Albanian tribes. I have created multiple pages based on this topic and revamped or worked on several other pages also in this topic. Regarding Struga, I really do not see what is wrong. I participate heavily in Albanian-related topics in North Macedonia, which is why there is overlap between me and Alltan, who also seems to participate heavily in such topics. If you check the edit history there, it becomes extremely clear that I have contributed a lot to the page over time, not just for those diffs.

Arvanites is obviously extremely related to the Albanian topic area considering it literally is an article on the historic Albanians of Greece – my contributions to the Souliotes (another tribal-like Albanian community in Greece) page should clearly indicate that I am already involved in such matters. Himara is also of interest, I have monitored that article for a while and have been looking for sources on a particular matter; nonetheless, it is a site that seems to have played a role for Albanians in the Middle Ages, which is something I have also done much work on.

To conclude, the accusations made against me here are baseless, illogical and outright wrong. Furthermore, this accusation of multiple editors in the Albanian topic area working in collusion I find to be a clear application of double standards; multiple Greek topic area editors seem to collude and combine their efforts on small villages and the like in Greece and southern Albania, not that I am accusing them of tag teaming, but it is the same principle. However, what I find revealing is the collaboration of editors who focus on Greek topic areas when it comes to articles in Kosovo, or better yet, Serbia. When regarding the city of Niš in Serbia, which I have added to, Khirurg somehow randomly began to participate in the discussion – despite not being involved in the slightest in the Serbian topic area – petitioning for the removal of sources that discuss the existence of Proto-Albanians in the region [[171]].

Now, there have been many Kosovo RM’s, most of which I have played a role in, in recent years. Khirurg and other Greek editors have shown up together to vote !oppose and have never shown any interest to improve said articles, let alone participate in the general topic area of Kosovo. What should I do in my case? Complain that Khirurg and these other editors are tag-teaming against RMs? Khirurg's post boils down to the fact that there are many editors who are interested in the same subjects in the Balkans and the large majority do not agree with Khirurg regardless of their background. This isn't a problem of wikipedia and it's certainly not a reason to report anyone, but it is particularly interesting to see these editors in the Kosovo topic area. When I was looking at previous RM’s in preparation for my own requests, I noticed editors from the Greek topic area involving themselves in these RM’s which I found extremely strange:

• RM of Peja [[172]], users of note who voted !oppose in this discussion were Khirurg, Alexikoua, and SilentResident.
• RM of Lipjan (initiated by me) [[173]], Khirurg and SilentResident voted !oppose
• RM of Vushtrri (initiated by me) [[174]], surprise surprise, Khirurg and SilentResident voted !oppose here too.
• RM of Malisheva (2020, not initiated by me) [[175]], users who voted !oppose were Khirurg and Alexikoua
• RM of Malisheva (2021, not initiated by me) [[176]], users who voted !oppose were Khirurg and Alexikoua

For such small, unknown towns to receive convenient attention from the Greek topic area editors during RM requests seems awfully intriguing. Nonetheless, just wanted to get this out there so that all admins may observe the double standard here and perhaps something else at play. Botushali (talk) 01:19, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Botushali: you provided very few and sporadic edits that go back more than two years ago, nevertheless Khirurg provided solid clear evidence and this concerns quite recent activity. It's easy to conclude that your reply is too weak to oppose the huge amount of evidence provided above (not simply on voting but on revert warring). Most important this TAGTEAM pattern is massive and quite active as uninvolved editors have immediately noticed.Alexikoua (talk) 01:36, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alexikoua, just as you have the right to edit, revert, remove content so do others and I'm one of the people who has written the most content about these topics, so what's the accusation? I'm editing what I always edit or is the accusation that in this article Cercok and I agree, even though we disagree other times? If that's the accusation, then why you don't you mention all the (daily) articles where you are in disagreement with someone active in WikiProject Albania but nobody else joins the dispute? Where was a tag-team to support Ktrimi when you had a dispute with him in Lefter Talo just two days ago? While we're on this topic why don't you add all the diffs where you and Khirurg monthly do the same reverts? Parga: Alexikoua [177] Khirurg [178] Vuno: Alexikoua [179] Khirurg [180] Albanians in Greece: Alexikoua [181] Khirurg [182] Why doesn't tag-team apply to the two of you but applies to everyone else who you disagree with? Don't all others have the right to agree with each other in some topics or are you and Khirurg the only users who have the right to agree with each other?:Alltan (talk) 01:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alltan, Khirurg filled a detailed report that concerns wp:TAGTEAM, a disruptive pattern that was also noticed by uninvolved editors at the Himara Revolt of 1596. This is obviously not just about edit, revert or remove content, but reverting in wp:NINJA fashion without trace of participation at any discussion as part of wp:TAGTEAM & BRD breaching while even encouraging such a disruptive activity (i.e. removing warning messages from the talkpages) among more hesitant members of the (TAG)TEAM is a serious accusation.Alexikoua (talk) 02:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alexikoua, I already mentioned once that decorating your comments with Wikipedia policies and with strong wording such as "crystal clear" do not make your arguments stronger. In your latest comment above this one, you said nothing of importance to attempt and refute Alltan's comment. If you will not engage in real debating, I ask you to desist from writing these comments; what you're doing is called WP:BLUDGEON. This report is already large enough. Super Ψ Dro 20:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alexikoua, saying that something is ”solid, clear evidence” does not make it so. In fact, this whole report is a besmirchment of many solid editors included myself, and I expect Khirurg to apologise for even mentioning me in such a way when I devote so much of my time to Wikipedia as a volunteer. Besides the fact that certain editors from the Greek topic area, including yourself, randomly collude at convenient times in completely unrelated RM’s of relatively unknown towns in Kosovo to vote against name changes to the Albanian form (interesting, right?), I also have below a list of recent cross-editing which you would call “tag-teaming” when it doesn’t concern you (again, double standards):

• 18th August 2022, Dropull article: Khirurg [183], Khirurg [184], Alexikoua [185], all in the space of 2 hours
• 13th September 2022, Himariote dialect article: Alexikoua [186], Khirurg [187]
• 25th-27th August 2022, Epirus Revolt of 1611 article: Khirurg reverts changes by Alltan made to an addition initially added by Alexikoua [188], Khirurg [189], Alexikoua [190], Khirurg again [191]
• 16th-18th August 2022, Chameria article: Alexikoua [192], Khirurg [193]
• 22nd September 2022, Himara article: Khirurg [194], Alexikoua [195], Khirurg [196]
• 15th September 2022, Himara article: Alexikoua [197], Khirurg [198]
• 6th September 2022, Souliotes article: Alexikoua [199], Alexikoua [200], Alexikoua almost violating 3RR rule [201], Khirurg [202]

Now, is this evidence of tag-teaming, or is it only tag-teaming when it is not involving Alexikoua and Khirurg? As far as I am concerned, this is exactly what I have been supposedly called out for, but I am not “tag-teaming”. I am editing topics that are relevant to WikiProject Albania, as I have always done, and nothing more. I am awaiting Khirurg’s apology for slandering my name and completely disrespecting the time and effort I put into Wikipedia – such accusations should not be taken lightly. I’ve noticed that he has already been in trouble for this behaviour prior to this report. Hopefully an admin can take control of the situation and stop this once and for all. Perhaps a block or even topic ban would be in order so that Khirurg may finally halt these behaviours that completely disrespect and devalue other editors here on Wikipedia. Alexikoua, baseless statements like “It's easy to conclude that your reply is too weak to oppose the huge amount of evidence provided above” do not prove anything – above I have provided reverts as well, but is it still too weak simply because it mentions your name? If you are going to accuse me of tag-teaming, I will be disappointed and will expect an apology from you too should an admin clear my name. Using strong wording doesn’t make your opinions or comments superior to anyone else’s, and you cannot simply dismiss things with no valid reasoning. The reverts may not be so bad – but the voting is extremely suspicious and I urge an admin to look into it. Botushali (talk) 02:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm actually there was no 3rr breach on Souliotes if you mean that. You also ignore to state that the above edits were always accompanied by tp participation: in most cases you point there was no more than 1rv per 24h and strictly following wp:BRD, no drive-by reverts or accounts that came from nowhere and simply wanted to support a supposed common national campaign as in the case of Khirurg's extensive report.Alexikoua (talk) 02:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Support a supposed common national campaign..." do you know how ridiculous that sounds? What exactly are you trying to implicate? Even then, most reverts I make I involve myself in the TP discussions for, unless it's not necessary. If you're innocent according to what you wrote above, then so am I. Very flawed report, very flawed comments and very flawed rebuttal of what I have put above. You RV'ed the same change three times (so correction on my part, almost* violating 3RR), and to prevent you from going to four, Khirurg came in to do the RV. If that's the case, I do not know, but had it been me or any other accused editor here, you would consider it evidence of "tag-teaming" due to the double standards you have quite clearly shown during the course of this report. Furthermore, I see that there was no comment in regards to the voting? You know the votes that uninvolved editors from the Greece topic area - who do not edit, comment or patrol pages in WikiProject Kosovo and have never done so - somehow randomly casted (same vote every time by the way, always !oppose) whenever an RM request was made to move a page to its common, official Albanian name? Very strange phenomenon, isn't it? Botushali (talk) 03:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What I don't see in the above walls of text is an explanation for how come you reverted at Himara within 14 minutes, even though you had never edited that article before, and how come literally seconds later Alltan showed up with an identical summary (but the edit was blank because you had already reverted). Khirurg (talk) 03:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even sure why you're asking me. I've edited many other articles like Himara and I have it on my watchlist - as I said above I've been monitoring it for a while. Why shouldn't I revert there if I disagree with an edit? Why Alltan copied my edit summary is something which he should reply about but he already has done so as I can see above ("So when Khirurg then brings up an edit summary which I copied from Botushali's previous edit during an edit conflict, it's a distortion of reality which ignores that I both have disagreed and agreed with him and have been reverted by Botushali"). What's the accusation? Unlike you and Alexikoua who always have the exact same reverts, I have been in actual content disputes and disagreements with Alltan and I have reverted him. [203] just a few months ago. Botushali (talk) 04:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited many other articles like Himara doesn't explain how you showed up to revert within minutes at that article, despite never having shown any interest before. Your claim that you had been monitoring it for a whileis not verifiable. Your revert of Alltan occurred after first reverting me and insulting me Example text and the matter was referred to ANI [204]. So much more likely that was the reason, than any purported "disagreement". Khirurg (talk) 02:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have the article in my watchlist, bud. I've shown interest many times before in articles in which Albania and Greece overlap. Perhaps me monitoring it cannot be verified, but neither can me not monitoring it. The revert - if you look at the source, it did not even indicate what was said, so that's why I reverted Alltan. ANI didn't even do anything about what I said to you because it really wasn't that bad - especially in comparison to you and your track record of disrespect that you have littered throughout TP's and edit summaries towards your fellow editors. This whole report disregards the hard work of the editors you are accusing, including myself. I also would like to point out that you are yet to explain why you and other editors here have voted !oppose on articles that have nothing to do with the Greek topic area - rather, it is a topic area you have never attempted to improve, work on or add to, but conveniently you decide to vote !oppose when RM's are made attempting to move said articles to their rightful Albanian title. All in all, your unfounded conspiracy theories are getting boring and simply tiring - what's next? Tin foil hats? Botushali (talk) 02:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Be sarcastic all you want, but rest assured this is just starting, and there will be admin feedback, no matter what. By the way my watchlist has been extremely quiet literally since I filed this report. I wonder why. Khirurg (talk) 03:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good, I hope there's admin feedback, and I hope the admin tells you to quit this nonsense. That last line is exactly what I am talking about, not everything is a big conspiracy against you. It's just becoming a joke at this point... Botushali (talk) 03:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I do not think that the aforementioned articles and diffs constitute "evidence of tagteaming". Someone might do a reasonable assumption that there is tagteaming going on, but the most profound explanation (Occam's razor) is that the users accused are watchlisting the pages. Albanian and Greek history intermingle too much and areas of debate (either mostly Greek or mostly Albanian) attract the attention of both Albanians and Greeks that are interested in history. Cinadon36 10:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The major problem with the report is that it is invoking WP:TAGTEAM which is neither a policy, nor even a well-defined concept. This is made clear in the first sentence of WP:FACTION: Tag teaming (sometimes also called an editorial camp or gang, factionalism, or a travelling circus) is a controversial[note 1] form of meatpuppetry in which editors coordinate their actions to circumvent the normal process of consensus. note 1: Controversial as there is no consensus regarding the merits of this essay in namespace. Editors have voiced a concern that the "characteristics" of tag teams can easily be applied to editors who share a common practice of editing in accordance with policy, and that the essay can be used as a weapon against editors who are acting in accordance with Wikipedia's editing policies to cast aspersions on their good work In this context, there's nothing to discuss in terms of policy because there is no policy to debate about. We can still use the discussion to define it in better ways so that it's not invoked as in the report. I think that for WP:TAGTEAM to exist it has be shown that a group of editors a)have a consensus which they push around by b)circumventing official channels of consensus-building. Point b) cannot be shown in this report because there are many discussions at all talkpages about finding a consensus and one is usually found eventually. The problem which Khirurg seems to have is that there are many more editors who support specific revisions and few who support specific other revisions. This isn't a problem of policy. Consensus tends to reflect the desire of the majority of editors to the extent that they can back it back up with sources and policies. There will never be a case where consensus will reflect what just 2 editors want (e.g. Khirurg and Alexikoua) but not what 20 others want to the extent that it can be backed with sources and policies(WP:NOTDEMOCRACY). There are many editors active in articles under the scope of WikiProject Albania and they don't coordinate and they certainly don't agree with each other on many subjects, but it's natural that to a degree a common cultural background will translate to a similar understanding of some subjects. This partial commonality is what Khirurg's diffs reflect in the same way that diffs which show Alexikoua's and Khirurg's common reverts highlight another partial commonality in reasoning. Point a) is where major flaws can be found because there is no consensus which these editors share. Others highlighted instances where they revert or disagree with each other. It can't be shown that a "WP:TAGTEAM" - even in a colloquial, non-policy manner - exists if the "members" of the team don't share the same consensus. Khirurg has created a narrative which I'm certain that he himself knows that it can't stand upon scrutiny. I'll highlight some instances which mention me in a very inaccurate way:
  • Illyrian emperors - according to a Khirurg I placed a revert in this article even though I had no prior edits. This makes it seem as if my only purpose for reverting was to support other reverts. In fact, for the past 2 years I have been re-writing parts of articles about individual Illyrian emperors[205][206], so me placing a revert at the list article about them is quite ordinary.
  • Kuči (tribe) is one of the main articles related to Albanian tribes and all editors involved in improving relevant articles have engaged with it. I have written close to 40% of that article and Alltan 14.5%.
  • Bar, Montenegro: Some were reverts were listed, but there was a discussion at RfC about these changes and the majority of editors supported them. There was disagreement and consensus-building which produced results(Talk:Bar, Montenegro#RfC). Consensus-building wasn't circumvented or ignored.
  • Epirus revolt of 1611: Khirurg leaves out the fact that I disagreed with Cercok too [207][208] and changed his edits as well. I've written 28% of the article. How is it possible that two users are acting as WP:FACTION if they disagree and change the edits of each other? A key problem when we perceive any situation in us vs them terms is that we often fail to see that the Others are separate individuals. That 2 editors disagree with a third editor doesn't mean that they agree with each other. This discussion absorbed much time from several editors for no reason and it should at least with a warning that if someone has an issue with a specific editor they should report just that editor to AE where the activity of both can be scrutinized instead of dragging in many other irrelevant editors. Long discussions shouldn't be repeated at ANI without a clear context based in policy. There's always a huge backlog at all boards because of such discussions.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  At Illyrian Emperors, you had zero edits to the article prior to reverting, and yet you reverted within minutes. Your explication that you have been re-writing parts of the articles about individual Illyrian emperors does not cut it. At Kuci, it doesn't matter what % of the article you have written: What matters is that we see the same pattern as all the other articles, namely, you and the others reverting round-robin fashion to prevent changes you do not want. It's the same pattern in all the articles. As for your disagreements with Cercok, those are trivial. Anyone can have disagreements like that. But none of that changes the central finding of this report. That you and a group of editors with similar views have engaged in round-robin reverting to either ram through changes by brute force, or to prevent undesirable additions. And in all these cases, neither you nor the other editors initiated attempts as dispute resolution (talkpage discussion, RfC, DRN, etc.). It was always the other party. Khirurg (talk) 02:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I have Illyrian Emperors in my watchlist as I've worked on most articles under that list. What is abnormal about me reverting when I was online about a subject I'm heavily involved in? Articles about Albanian tribes like Kuçi are some of the most high traffic articles under WikiProject Albania. I don't know what makes you think that this article could only get attention because of WP:TAGTEAM. It's interesting - from an anthropological perspective - that you consider "trivial", disagreements and reverts between two other editors but when you're reverted, that's when you consider it important. You spent too much time which you could have spent in better ways to write a long post about something which isn't a policy and you couldn't evidentiate even in the colloquial sense. The problem stems from your perception of "us vs. them". You just have to accept that everybody agrees and disagrees with everybody over a long period time. When they disagree with you, it isn't qualitatively more important as to be linked to something more than a disagreement.--Maleschreiber (talk) 14:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I have Illyrian Emperors in my watchlist - I'm sure you do now, but it strains the imagination that you had back then, and there is no way you can prove that, so it's easy to claim. But it's not just one article, it's a whole bunch of articles, and the pattern is always the same. The problem stems from a group of highly motivated and organized users that see everything as "us vs. them", and the diffs clearly show this. And not coincidentally, all this madness started in early 2020. Btw, Botushali only reverted Alltan because I brought the issue to ANI and he was afraid he'd get blocked. The rest of your post is the perfect example of what is known as gaslighting. Khirurg (talk) 03:37, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you stop acting like you know everything? I reverted Alltan because he misused a source, which is something I discovered upon closer inspection. You didn’t bring the issue to ANI - ElderZamzam did, but it is interesting that you immediately got involved there, and that Elder recently brought up the Xhufi discussion in a completely unrelated article despite me not being involved in the slightest with the Xhufi discussion. Are you trying to admit something here? I wonder why you implicate yourself as the person who brought the issue to ANI. Additionally, another extremely curious thing to note is that you have not discussed why you and other editors from the Greek topic area have showed up in waves on completely unrelated RM requests in WikiProject Kosovo to vote !oppose against an Albanian-titled article - keep in mind, you nor these other editors have ever shown interest in improving pages regarding Kosovo, you haven’t edited, added to or created articles in the scope of this project but somehow still manage to show up in a group to conveniently vote !oppose when an RM to an Albanian toponym is being voted on. Stop dodging the question and answer truthfully about what is going on there. If it’s plausible, although I strongly doubt it will be, fair enough - I won’t do what you do and act like I know everything whilst dismissing every ounce of reasoning as some big conspiracy towards me, gaslighting (funny that you brought it up) other people in this thread and utterly disrespecting my fellow editors. Like I said, once my name is cleared, you owe me a big apology for wasting my time on your conspiracy theories and shunning my name and reputation here. Botushali (talk) 04:21, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah sure, it must be a coincidence that you reverted me with an insulting edit-summary, then as soon as ElderZamZam reported you to ANI, you "discovered something upon closer inspection" and reverted Alltan. Yes, must be a total coincidence. Then there's the extremely interesting coincidence that you and Alltan used the same edit summary within seconds of each other The almost 40 years old source is refuted by 21st century sources and archival records present on the talk page. The almost 40 years old source is refuted by 21th century sources and archival records present on the talk page.. Come on, what's going on here? As for your accusations, I can assure you that me and ElderZamZam are not the same person (you can file an SPI if you think so), and that contribs logs are public. Khirurg (talk) 17:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I’ve already explained to you that this question can only be answered by Alltan, and as I’ve mentioned previously, he seems to have discussed it in his comment - genuine question, are you senile that you have to keep bringing it up when Alltan has already discussed it AND I’ve already told you that you should be asking him that question? Truly a genuine question and not a personal attack, because you seem to be running circles here with no real argument and just baseless conspiracies. Also, the first part - that ANI report was complete bogus which is why no admin did anything about it, bringing it up is just embarrassing because it didn’t affect me in the slightest. It’s not a coincidence that I make sourced edits and reverts/removals on false information - check my edit contributions. Again, you failed to answer the whole voting in Kosovo RM’s spontaneously in groups thing, must be because you have no response that you can plausibly falsify - we both know something is up there, stop dancing around in circles and answer me now for the fifth time (maybe more), why have you and other editors here (who seem to show up in all articles together with the same exact viewpoints) voted in Kosovo RM’s despite not being interested in the topic, nor having edited or created articles under said topic? Is it only to vote in spite of what you deem to be “Albanian editors” or is it only to vote against the common name simply because it’s in the Albanian language? And better yet, why is it more than just 1 of you consistently showing up for these spontaneous votes? Botushali (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Nah, the only explanation for the fact that you guys used the same summary within seconds of each other is that you shared it offline (Discord? Whatsapp? Signal? Doesn't matter I guess). But youbeat Alltan to the revert, which is why his edit was blank. This is what's called a "smoking gun". Don't be smug that the report hasn't been actioned yet. That's only because it's too long and complex for ANI. But rest assured there are appropriate venues for it, and that's where it will go, and it will be actioned. Hurling insults ("senile") is not going to help you, and in fact is only making things worse for yourself. Same goes for your counteraccusations, especially considering that are years old. You really need some fresh material, but you got nothing, so that's why you are engaging in "diff archeology". Khirurg (talk) 00:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  These responses get more and more absurd as time goes on - off-wiki collaboration? Really? Way I've read Alltan's explanation is that they copied my summary, but you seem far too stubborn to accept that not everyone is out to conspire against you. I am not smug about this report not being actioned - I was referring to the report against me specfically - as I do truly hope this report gets actioned so that the admins may tell you off for your behaviours and these foul accusations you keep throwing. If anything, the votes on Kosovo RM's that date from 2020-2021 show consistent collaborative meddling on pages that you have never been involved on and have never had an interest in improving - they are not "years old", and I do not need "fresh material" when you are simply refusing to explain and account for your suspicious actions on said RM's. I also hope the admins read this and see how much you dodge the topic, continuously reverting to things I or others have already explained. Botushali (talk) 00:55, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Why copy an edit summary for a null edit? No, it's because he went to revert with the agreed upon edit summary. But your revert had already gone through a few seconds earlier, so there was nothing to revert, hence the null edit. As for "meddling" and "no interest in imporving", that applies to your edits in the Greek topic area, where it seems all you're interested in doing is "flag planting" and other petty POV-pushing. Khirurg (talk) 03:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  How about you actually ask Alltan since they made the edit? They might've just wanted to add the little ending on the end my edit summary, you'd have to ask them. Brave claims to say I push POV and the like in Greek articles, also very hypocritical coming from you. I've worked on multiple articles in the project, unlike you in the project for Kosovo, where you have done nothing. Again you avoided the question, must be guilty of something. Botushali (talk) 03:26, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Report

Page:
Anti-Ottoman revolts of 1565–1572 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Comment:
Editor Çerçok added on 31 August an unreliable source (Pëllumb Xhufi) to the article (back then, it was titled Greek revolt of 1567–1572) but the edit was reverted as other editors with a long standing, 15+ year-long experience in the Greece topic area, who are fully aware that Xhufi is an extremist^{(the admins who cannot wait for the RSN report, may simply assess what for example the Austrian Scientific Academy does sat on Xhufi: [[[209]]: In contrast to the differentiated opinions in Greek history, institutionalized Albanian research on the Epirus question has a defensive (Beqir Meta), but often aggressively nationalistic tone (Pëllumb Xhufi). Close connections between science and politics, which are particularly evident in the person of Xhufi, hardly contribute to an objectification of the discussion. In recent years, Xhufi has specialized in anti-Greek or anti-Orthodox rhetoric. Xhufi also published material-rich, but unfortunately nationally one-sided scientific essays such as Manipulimi i historisë: rasti i Epiriti This is published by the Austrian Scientific Academy at 2015])} politician and objected to him being added as a reliable source in Wikipedia: [210]. Despite reverting as there being no consensus for using Xhufi,[211] Cercok attempted to reinstate the scholar back to the article without consensus [212]. When Xhufi was removed again, editor Alltan intervened to help Cercok in re-adding Xhufi again back to the article [213] despite the other editors at talk page opposing this. Xhufi was removed -again!- and then reinstated -again- [214]. The cycle goes on and after some days of no fruitful results at the talk page in reaching an agreement about Xhufi, I have attempted to remove the disputed author and have the article reflect only on consensus, [215] but another editor, Ahmet Q. from the Albania topic area stepped in to help Cercok and Alltan: [216]. Result? As of today, and in violation of any Wikipedia's rules on WP:ONUS and WP:VER and WP:CONSENSUS, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV, Xhufi is still on the article: [217]. The editors from the Albania topic area disregarded any legitimate concerns the opposite side has expressed in the dispute, ignored what wp:onus states that they should be doing, and brute-forcibly added the dubious scholar to the article where he remains to this day today without wp:consensus.

My own reports also included the following articles: Greek War of Independence, Parga and Peloponnese, all occurring on September month as well, as well as the other articles where similar incidents occured in the past months such as Epirus revolt of 1611 (August) and so on. Since they are now covered by editor Khirurg above who beat me in the race, I am dropping them. However, the purpose of my report remains unchanged nevertheless: which is to highlight my serious concerns that on month September -alone-, Wikipedia witnessed such large scale disruption across multiple articles of the Greece topic area with editors from the Albania topic area coming there and disregarding & ignoring our legitimate concerns, not following the normal dispute resolution procedures and wp:ONUS, and brute-forcing their changes to the articles without consensus. This has heightening my fears that this might be something the Admins may have to look after and is the reason I came here for. Sure, the other editors may be right and I am not experienced in identifying accurately whether this kind of disruption is with certainty a case of tag-teaming, but that's why there are these procedures for. For this reason, I will really appreciate the Admin's attention in evaluating, as a third party, whether this is really the case as suspected. Certain editors here counter-argued that this behavior is not Tag-teaming because it is a usual WP:BALKANS behavior; however We are not exactly experiencing everyday such a surge (if I may describe it as such) of activity by editors that aren't naturally editing this topic area, yet are going to great extend to edit-war their way to the preferred version of articles in spite of consensus and Wikipedia's other core content policy guidelines. If the admin feels that there is no such kind of disruption and that my concerns are inflated, illegitimate, or I am just seeing things where there aren't supposed to be, then I am willing to apologize to the editors for that, and also to the Wikipedia's community for wasting their valuable time. In this case, I will have no other option but refrain from raising similar concerns in the future and/or listen to any suggestions/advice on what to do if I feel there is such a pattern arising again in the future. Also, if the admin deems that my concerns were disruptive to the Wikipedia community and/or I have violated the guidelines, then I am willing to face the consequences. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 23:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added content from at least four sources, one of which was Dr.Xhufi's book. Most of the content was from Malcolm. Dr.Xhufi has been twice unsuccessfully reported by editors who disagree with the historical facts found in his verbatim representation of primary archival sources. Dr. Xhufi's book is an academic publication that has gone through peer review and has been cited countless times in top journals.

I wish added content could be discussed based on its reliability per wikipedia guidelines, not on personal like/dislike of it. Çerçok (talk) 00:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are two RSNs about Xhufi which didn't conclude that the source is unreliable, as I have explained to SR already in previous discussions. [218][219] Xhufi is a medievalist who is a member of the Academy of Sciences of Albania. Arbërit e Jonit was published by Onufri, a leading academic publishing house which has received many excellence awards and it has been positively reviewed in Studime Historike, Albania's leading historical journal by medievalist Ardian Muhaj. It checks all boxes for RS. We can't just cherry-pick one opinion to disregard someone's work. The quote which SilentResident picked is by an author who has even contributed to the same anthology with Xhufi [220]. The source which constantly and without stop SilentResident has been trying to remove from all articles is a respected living academic and comments such as "racist, "nationalist", "ultranationalist", "extremist", ([221][222] [223][224][225][226]) which have been written about him by SilentResident are a violation of BLP for which SilentResident has been warned to stop by admins and open a RSN (Drmies[227], Cullen328[228]) and they even have redacted her comments [229][230]. Alltan (talk) 01:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SilentResident has provided the necessary scholarship that mentions Xhufi's work as being: "aggressively nationalist". There is no BLP violation on providing this information. However, an RSN needs to filled in order to have a clear image on this but there is too much extremist speech on TV shows etc. and scholarship doesn't hesitate to reject his claims (Arbërit e Jonit has been also considered non-RS even inside Albania).Alexikoua (talk) 01:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A longtime Wikipedia user calling a living academic racist, extremist, nationalist, tendentious, ultranationalist etc. (see diffs above) and doing this multiple times over a protracted period of time even after being warned is in fact a severe BLP violation.

Xhufi's work has received excellent reviews in Albania and abroad. It's listed as a main source for a Cambridge University Press source as of 2022[231] SilentResident can't pick a random quote from someone who has even written an article in the same anthology as Xhufi who hasn't been "rejected" anywhere. Falsely claiming that a living academic is promoting "extremist speech on TV shows" is in and of itself a BLP violation. You can't go around and call anything "extremist speech" without evidence or a source which calls such speech extremist. Admins need to know that in the previous RSN there was an attempt to distort a historical comment by Xhufi and make into the opposite of what it said [232]. There is a clear targeting of this author by several users who have to stop using wikipedia as public space to attack living authors Alltan (talk) 01:36, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Being cited in sporadic occasions doesn't make RS his work, in fact this means nothing about the author and his work in general. I have seen several nationalistic works that have been cited for various reasons in serious scholarship. Please don't mix up those two. SilentResident mentioned the conclusion of high quality scholarship about works on the topic Xhufi is specialized (Albanian history and Greek-Albanian relations) and definitely Xhufi's work should be treated with heavy precaution. [[233]] Himara has always been Albanian, Greek government launched a 200-year old Anti Albanian agenda and several other motos of this fashion can't meet RS.Alexikoua (talk) 03:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened an RfC on Xhufi at RSN [234]. This thread should be about the alleged tag-teaming, and nothing more. Khirurg (talk) 04:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SilentResident, please consider this a firm warning that you are at immiment risk of a long term block if you keep engaging in WP:BLP policy violations regarding Pëllumb Xhufi. If you do not stop attacking and besmirching this academic without filing a report at WP:RSN as you have been repeatedly been asked to do, then a block will be the inevitable result. The idiom is "put up or shut up". I truly hope that you understand, and will conduct yourself in accordance with policy going forward. Cullen328 (talk) 04:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: I am heeling to your warning. And not just that, but also I am trying to understand the line between WP:UNRELIABLE and WP:BLP to make sure that when describing an unreliable source for the nature of their unreliability (i.e. unreliable due to their extremist views), doesn't result into WP:BLP violations. For decades, I had the impression that sources can be subject to scrutiny and criticism in Wikipedia, provided that it is based on WP:RS. But apparently this isn't the case and this is what I am trying to understand. Understanding a policy's principle, helps a lot not just to avoid repeating the policy's violations in the future but also the approach to questionable sources. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 15:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328, adding to my confusion expressed on my comment just above, regarding the precise line between WP:UNRELIABLE and WP:BLP, another Admin just intervened at the RSN stating that editor Alltan is doing an inaccurate invocation of WP:BLP regarding the criticism against Xhufi. The RfC at RSN also has non-neutral wording, and is advisd to be closed and moved to Dispute Resolution Noticeboard instead,[235] an advise the filler stated that they will follow. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 17:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:SilentResident, it is inaccurate invocation of WP:BLP to say the criticism of Xhufi in academic books is a breach of WP:BLP. But calling him an extremist or things like that is indeed a violation of WP:BLP. In other words, you can quote academcs who criticize Xhufi, but you can't call him an extremist, far right politican (he does not belong to the far-right) etc. Xhufi for some edits can be unreliable, for others can be reliable. It is a bit hard I know, but what can else we do? Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thank you! --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 18:32, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: Not only is Khirurg accusing me of "tag teaming" (last time he accused me of "tag teaming" was in November 2021 and he was warned for that and then blocked) but he is using the inflammatory term "gang up". It is very insulting: I am a Wikipedia volunteer, not a street gang trying to bully people. Even worse, there have been cases where I have supported Khirurg's position againt editors I am supposely "tag teaming" with. For instance, Khirurg accuses me of "ganging up" with Çerçok, but just 6 days ago I supported Khirurg's position in a content dispute with Çerçok [236]. I can cite other such examples where I disagree with editors cited as part of the "tag team". I urge you to intervene to make sure Khirurg never makes such false accusations against me again. Btw, Khirurg noted that Ahmet Q asked editors to exchange emails; well Khirurg too has asked several editors to exchange emails. Even writing those requests for email exchange in Greek though here editors are supposed to write only in English. I frankly do not see any issue with asking someone to exchange emails, Idk if there is a policy against it. Ktrimi991 (talk) 08:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since you deem it inflammatory, I've struck the term (it's unnecessary anyway). Now, can you try and address the topic of the report at hand? Btw, is this you calling a veteran editor an "edit-warrior" in an edit-summary [237]? Not only is this a clear WP:NPA violation, but also a violation of WP:SUMMARYNO, which explicitly states Avoid incivility. Snide comments, personal remarks about editors, and other aggressive edit summaries are explicit edit-summary "don'ts" of the Wikipedia Civility policy. Attacking editors in edit-summaries is especially bad because they cannot be edited. As a sign of good faith, would you be willing to ask the edit-summary be redacted by WP:OVERSIGHT? Thanks. Khirurg (talk) 14:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warrior is someone who is edit warring. If I keep edit warring, I am an edit warrior. The editor breached the 3RR three times within a month. I reported him and he got warned by an admin. Then he kept reverting and placed a warning template that is used for disruptive IPs and newbies on my tp just because I reverted him twice. In the edit summary he claimed that I was not participating on the tp, but the history of the tp shows that is not true. Will you ask him to get his edit summary deleted? Anyways, some admins who use the term "edit warrior" in edit summaries for example [238] [239][240]. Even the WP:EW page uses the term "edit warrior". Do not expect any more responses by me here. I waited for the evidence of "tag teaming" but you just posted some random reverts of "Albanian accounts". Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ktrimi991, indeed there is no trace of you in the talkpage [[241]] although you kept reverting. By the way the result of your report was "user(s) warned" since your disruptive editing was noticed by uninvolved editors there. As such you owe a sincere apology for this pattern. Indeed you are reverting without talkpage participation in a wide variety of articles considered that you support editors that agree on your national agenda (another recent example of reverting sourced information [[242]] and no trace in tp [[243]], same situation in Pecë [[244]][[245]] and nothing in tp [[246]] apart from my comments).Alexikoua (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Salviogiuliano, the admin who warned Alexikoua (for breaching 3RR thrice in a month) [247] made it absolutely clear you were the only user edit warring and the only one warned. [248]Yes, I only warned him, but the template automatically closes the report as "warned user(s)". As I said during the discussion, Alex was edit warring and Alex was warned. Ktrimi991 explained this to you already in a discussion [249]. So why are you, being aware that this is not true, still asserting this? Alltan (talk) 20:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The full report is found here [[250]] and no wonder an uninvolved editor noticed immediately Ktrimi's disruptive pattern. After the first comment by Coldtrack Ktrimi desperately responded to wp:ADMINSHOP tactics: [[251]] and [[252]].Alexikoua (talk) 02:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moderated Discussion

A thread was opened at RSN concerning whether Pellumb Xhufi should be considered a reliable source. An RFC was briefly started, but it was then stopped by User:Rosguill, who advised that the issue be taken to DRN for moderated discussion to focus the discussion better. I have created a subpage for the discussion, which will take place at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Pellumb Xhufi. If there is agreement that this is a dispute about the reliability of a source, which is a content dispute, then this thread can be closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:35, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question: will anyone actually read this monster of a thread? Minkai (talk-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 18:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:JulieMinkai - What monster of a thread? This thread in WP:ANI? This thread in WP:ANI is a specimen of a species of monsters, ANI threads that become monsters. That isn't required. The editors are being asked to comment at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Pellumb Xhufi, and I have started by asking them to state what the source reliability issue is. When I conduct mediation on an article content issue, I start over, rather than rehashing tens of page of article talk page discussion, and I am starting this reliability discussion over rather than rehashing the WP:ANI discussion. I am not asking that they read the monster thread. You do have a point, which is that I am not getting responses to my invitation to discussion. If the editors who are quarreling about the reliability of Pellumb Xhufi just go away at this point, then the problem will have gone away. If the quarreling then breaks out somewhere else, an admin can tell them that they missed their chance at moderated discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:19, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of questions: What happens if one side of the dispute does not show up at the DRN, as appears as of this writing to be the case? The main issue of this thread is not Pellumb Xhufi, but the evidence I have presented that a group of users appears to be tag-teaming in edit-wars across Balkan articles. IT could be that ANI is not the right venue for this due to complexity, so what I would like to know is what would be a good venue for something like that? Thanks. Khirurg (talk) 02:30, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Khirurg - The two admins whom I know have looked at this dispute are User:Rosguill, who asked to take the dispute to DRN, and User:Cullen328. Maybe one of them can provide guidance. In the meantime, I am waiting for any other editors to reply, and for the editors who have replied, including yourself, to answer my question. What can be done if only the critics of Xhufi show up is to better formulate the question of whether he is an unreliable source. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am responding here because I have been pinged. I have no opinion one way or another about whether or not sources by Pellumb Xhufi should be considered reliable. I will point out that there is no requirement that reliable sources must be neutral and unbiased. We deal with the bias of sources by summarizing and citing the full range of reliable sources. So, if Pellumb Xhufi is part of reasonable academic discussion and debate on these matters, then his perspective should be included and summarized. If, on the other hand, the vast majority of other academic sources denounce and repudiate his academic work as spurious, then he should be treated as a fringe source. I am speaking in hypothetical terms because I lack the topic specific expertise and language skills to do that analysis myself. Cullen328 (talk) 05:29, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Khirurg's question about tag-teaming in edit-wars across Balkan articles, that would be a case for WP:ANI or WP:AE since at that point we're talking about conduct, not content. In the absence of a clear consensus on Xhufi's usability, however, you would need some very strong evidence of clear-cut edit warring, canvassing, or other inappropriate forms of collusion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon, I will respond to your question at the DRN within 24 hours. The issue of tag-teaming is largely separate from the issue of Xhufi though - it predates it and is much larger in scope. I've presented evidence of this behavior across twenty articles (and could find more if needed) in the "Evidence" section above. The problem with AE for this is that the 20 diff and 500 word limit. That's why I have brought it here at ANI. Khirurg (talk) 04:55, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Locke Cole is edit warring against consensus on multiple templates Template:Bit and byte prefixes Template:Quantities of bits Template:Quantities of bytes (including a possible 3RR violation [253] [254] [255]), disrupting talk pages (here’s one example [256]) and carrying out personal attacks [257] [258]. Some editors are trying to hold a discussion at Template_talk:Quantities_of_bits, but the discussion is continually disrupted by Locke Cole's edits. Can someone take a look? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 22:53, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dondervogel 2: You have failed to notify Locke Cole of this ANI filing, as the red notice on top of this page and when editing clearly require. I have done so for you this time. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 00:15, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDragonFire300 He did notify Locke here, but was reverted here. ~~~~ ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 00:21, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to apologise, in that case. I was going to check shortly after I made the comment and notice, but forgot to. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 01:35, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Without commenting on the possible edit warring and general discussions I find it odd that the discussion for Template:Quantities of bytes is being held at Template_talk:Quantities_of_bits#New_proposal:_Legacy as part of a proposal that appears to have gained consensus and been implemented in November 2021. The only reason that I was able to figure out to go there was the fact that there was a November 2021 message on the Quantities of bytes template Talk with a link. The same goes for Template_talk:Quantities_of_bytes (where the previous talk items date to 2015). This discussion appears to have been going on for multiple years in different forms both on individual pages and collectively. I also note that the templates link to Kilobyte and other pages where the nomenclature should align with what is in the templates otherwise it is going to get even messier and the discussion will migrate there or the Template discussion will be used to support viewpoints elsewhere.

With all of this I suggest that a formal proposal be started at the Wikipedia:Village pump with messages left on the template talk pages alerting people and whilst the discussion is being undertaken the templates should be left in a stable form. Apart from anything else:

1. That will gain a wider viewership and input than on a single page.
2. Changes based on consensus at the Village Pump are easier to support and require an equivalent level of consensus to change to something else.

Gusfriend (talk) 00:53, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, this should have been held at WT:MOSNUM, as one of the templates under discussion (Template:Bit and byte prefixes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)) is transcluded at WP:COMPUNITS (part of WP:MOSNUM; thus making it a MOS change, not simply a template change). As to the November 2021 "consensus", the TL;dr version is, Dondervogel 2 drags out discussions, waits a month or longer to reply, apparently in an attempt to force their POV. It worked this time because I and other editors who would oppose it did not notice the "new" discussion (you can see I was heavily involved in other discussions in that main section; the proposal they made nearly two months after the last meaningful discussion in that sub-thread was quickly closed in only six days when they got what they wanted (with no attempt to ping or reach out to other editors they knew were heavily invested in the discussion)).

It is my intention to collect evidence of this disruptive behavior by Dondervogel 2 (back to when they edited as Thunderbird2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which goes back literally over a decade, present it here, and suggest a WP:BOOMERANG wherein Dondervogel is restricted from editing pages in any namespace that have any relation with units of measure that involve computers or technology. If you want just one taste of how they treat this topic as a WP:BATTLEGROUND, look at the full edit history of User:Thunderbird2/The case against deprecation of IEC prefixes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) which they have religiously updated for fourteen years. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:12, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment)If I'm reading correctly, a header at WT:MOSNUM indicates that this is under ArbCom discretionary sanctions, so any editors involved in a dispute about this topic should beware and tread lightly, yes? Elizium23 (talk) 06:27, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice the failure of Locke Cole to assume good faith in his post of 25 September, justifying the comments by Quondum and Zac67. Further examples can be found by following the link provided by Quondum. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 23:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to Locke Cole's editing against consensus, disrupting the discussion chronology and edit warring, I'd like to direct attention to his severe lack of WP:AGF, frequent allegations of lying and generally rude tone at least bordering on harassment. A productive discussion is impossible. I'd seriously appreciate an admin calling him to order officially. --Zac67 (talk) 06:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note the recent, open edit warring on NTFS.[259][260][261][262] Locke Cole's edits were reverted for the sole reason of introducing ambiguity and not following WP:MOSNUM. --Zac67 (talk) 18:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This ANI thread is about disruptive behaviour by Locke Cole, and as I see it, any comments relating to the merits of the debate and forum (for example by Gusfriend above) will only distract from the purpose here. I confirm Zac67's observation above: there is a long history on this topic, including (section 'Should it be there at all?') accusations of lying, failure to assume good faith on the part of other editors, and generally being unpleasant to interact with. Included are accusations such as the one above against Dondervogel 2. This unpleasantness by Locke Cole and the failure of the community to censure him caused me (about a year ago) to decide to leave WP. I will no doubt leave again, but for now, I'll see whether the WP community can restore a little my faith in managing this disruptive behaviour. What is needed to deal with this? —Quondum 15:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you knew anything, anything at all, about technology it would be amazing. Instead you're going against our sources AND WP:COMPUNITS by reverting changes to bring our articles into reality. Truly amazing to see you all feel like victims when you're the belligerents here. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Too much drama. This is a long-running dispute between essentially two warring parties. Claims of “editing against consensus” should be looked upon with critical scrutiny as they can often be a tactical move that is the Wikipedia equivalent of leaving Novichok on a doorknob to remove inconvenient obstacles. On this long-running war (over whether Wikipedia should adopt terminology like “gibibits” instead of "gigabits”) “consensuses” tend to actually comprise just one complainant and a fatigued friend extracted from the woodwork who barely cares. Were someone to induce just one or two more people to somehow care and join these discussions, purported consensuses simply swing the other way.

This dispute truly had a consensus many years ago with very many editors weighing in and a consensus discerned and declared with an admin supervising. At that time, Dondervogel 2 (then known as Thunderbird, if I recall correctly) didn’t accept that consensus and doesn't agree today with the current policy that sprang from that consensus. Nothing has since changed other than drama persists. Greg L (talk) 01:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quondum said above that there is a long history on this topic and Greg L says that it is a long-running war. As I mentioned above, the way to solve the underlying root cause, the best way of getting more involvement in the discussion and stop having this pop up again in a few months and a few months after that is a formal RfC at the WP:Village Pump which then becomes a formal consensus at WP:MOSNUM. Once it is there it applies everywhere in the project, people can be referred to the MOS in correcting their edits and sanctions can be applied to those who continue to act against consensus. Gusfriend (talk) 08:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gusfriend: I wish to add canvassing to the list of Locke Cole's disruptive activities. He has summoned Greg_L at least twice [263] [264], knowing that Greg_L would support his position. Except when summoned by canvassing, Greg_L was not involved in the discussion on any of the templates since [2008], when he supported the disruptive activities of the socks Fnagaton and Glider87. With this in mind, you might wish to ask Greg_L how he became aware of this ANI thread. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 23:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dondervogel 2: He has summoned Greg_L at least twice 2021-06-21T19:06:37 2022-09-28T21:50:37, knowing that Greg_L would support his position. (original edited to add dates to diff links) As to the first linked diff, that comment was posted over a month after Greg L had already participated in the same discussion: 2021-05-07T23:27:25. As to the second diff, I provided Dondervogel 2 with an explanatory diff (2021-06-23T01:45:08, where Greg L had participated in a discussion at Quantities of bytes regarding header titles), and instead of dropping the stick and stepping away, they doubled down by casting aspersions (see Special:Diff/1113072411). As Greg L was involved in the discussion at the Quantities of bytes template, you made his involvement important when you used a separate talk page as justification for making changes he had previously opposed: Special:Diff/1056250211. With this in mind, you might wish to ask Greg_L how he became aware of this ANI thread. Sort of like how Quondum just showed up randomly here I presume.

Now that we've settled Dondervogel 2's latest attempts take issue with my behavior, can we please address their behavior in so far as WP:FORUMSHOP, WP:CANVASS (for the Quondum canvassing) and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT goes? I'm still preparing my WP:BOOMERANG proposal, but clearly if they're going to escalate to casting aspersions about me, this needs to be stopped now.

@Dondervogel 2: I see you can spend time here making more aspersions against me that are unfounded, can you spare a moment to reply to my question on your talk page? —Locke Cole • t • c 00:05, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it’s time for a reality check and history lesson since this tendentious behavior by Dondervogel 2 isn’t going away and occurred so long ago, almost no one currently on Wikipedia remembers.

First off, I’m a senior mechanical engineer at a major electronic manufacturer, where I help establish engineering standards for the company. Although I’m close to retirement, I’m not yet retired and have better things to do with my life that spend time here dealing with tendentiousness that makes Wikipedia’s articles look foolish.

Secondly, no one “summons” me. I seldom visit Wikipedia anymore to edit and happened to notice an “1” badge on my alert bell because my name had been mentioned on that template page.

An objective look at the most recent 100 of Dodgervogel 2’s edits shows him to be a near-single-purpose account user with an apparent obsession over how Wikipedia should be using terminology like “kibibytes” and “mebibits.”

The consensus hammered out years ago, which resulted in the current MOSNUM policy was one that Dondervogel 2 (then known as “Thunderbird2” or something like that) vehemently disagreed with. Sometime after the consensus went against his position, Thunderbird 2 dropped off the radar… I don’t remember when and the circumstances, just that there was no disruption for a while.

Now, newly reincarnated as Dondervogel 2, he spends an unusual amount of time on Template:Quantities_of_bits, which links to an uncanny amount articles, and where Dondervogel 2 seems to always have a presence.

Wikipedia doesn’t need those tables featuring the “gibibit” terms if the price is continual disruption. Those units are largely ignored by the mainstream computer world and the computer press; Dell doesn’t use them in their literature or packaging. Same for Apple. ‘PC World’ and ‘MacWorld’ don’t use them… unless perhaps it is an article of a proposed standard that never took off. Spell checkers from Apple—a tech company—don’t even have those terms in the dictionary… when I try to type “gibibits,” my spell checker tries to auto-correct it to giblets.

If Dondervogel 2’s contribution was to just produce a nice table and let the community use it as the MOSNUM-memorialized consensus intended, that would be fine. But instead his tendentiousness expresses itself as doing his best to put that table in articles where the units aren’t used… as if “keeping the units front and center amounts to keeping the dream alive” that the computer world will one-day follow Wikipedia’s lead.

Finally, as for me somehow being in Locke Cole’s hip pocket, there’s zero truth to that. Locke and I were on opposite ends of a different disagreement (linking dates) around the same timeframe and it was a bitter ending for Locke when the consensus went against his wishes. Though Locke didn’t like it, he accepted the consensus and didn’t edit against it… or at least didn't edit against it much as I recall. Greg L (talk) 06:01, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption at NTFS

In case it helps, here's another example of edit warring by Locke Cole, this time at NTFS: One revert on at 05:50 on 4 Oct and then three reverts on 5 Oct, at 15:57, 16:02, and 16:36. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 21:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dondervogel 2 casting aspersions

It is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause. Legitimate concerns of fellow editors' conduct should be raised either directly with the editor in question, in a civil fashion, or if necessary on an appropriate noticeboard or dispute-resolution page. Although broad leeway is granted to allow editors to express themselves in their interactions with one another, particularly in dispute resolution, a consistent pattern of making objectively unsupported or exaggerated claims of misconduct can necessitate sanctions or restrictions even if the editor subjectively believes that they are true.

Passed 10 to 0 at 04:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)^[1]

Evidence and Discussion

During discussion at Template talk:Quantities of bits I had advised Dondervogel 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that they need to inform other editors who had expressed concern over the topic under discussion of the new discussion at this new talk page. They seemed to largely ignore that, ultimately pinging Quondum instead. Noticing that Greg L (who had previously participated in discussions at Template talk:Quantities of bytes) had been conspicuously absent from the other ping's, I finally did what Dondervogel 2 appeared incapable of doing: ping of Greg L. To which Dondervogel 2 replied (with an edit summary of why?) What is the reason for wanting to involve Greg L? I answered with a diff of Greg's previous participation, asking I wonder perhaps if you could explain why you'd exclude him? And instead of recognizing their error, they elected to cast aspersions about why he was pinged: You seem to imply you invited him to the discussion because you are confident he will support your position. Is that a good criterion for involving a new editor? I replied Where did I imply this? I expect an answer to this Dondervogel 2.

No reading of what I wrote could possibly be taken as inviting him because he would support my position, nor the logical fallacy that follows. After receiving no answer but witnessing Dondervogel 2 continuing to edit elsewhere, I took the behavioral issue directly to their talk page: With this edit you commented in a reply to me the following: You seem to imply you invited him to the discussion because you are confident he will support your position. I had replied, asking Where did I imply this?. Can you explain your comment as I've already asked? To which they replied, adding conditions to any answer (clearly now meeting WP:ASPERSIONS as they are unable to substantiate their false claims about me): I will consider responding to your questions once they are expressed as questions (or requests, but not demands) and when you learn to assume good faith. Further replies on their talk page yielded no answer, just further demands to meet conditions even after explaining that such conditions are inappropriate (especially in dispute resolution).

Request

My goal from the beginning of that line of discussion was to ensure that any concerned parties on other talk pages were informed of the discussion now taking place at this alternate venue. Dondervogel 2 appears to be both WP:FORUMSHOPping and engaging in WP:CANVASSing by being selective in who they ping and when. As they refuse to answer my WP:ASPERSIONS concerns (I suspect because they can't, but they also refused to withdraw them as well), I am asking for an administrator to either directly ask them to answer for their claims against me, or block them indefinitely until such time as they do. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikaviani is not taking 'No Personal Attacks' seriously. He makes harassing and uncivil comments during the discussions, specially when it comes to challenging issues, which makes consensus building nearly impossible. Here he makes attacks by saying "Stop wasting our time with your WP:FORUM-like posts to push your pro-Mullahs POV". In response, I politely asked him to avoid casting aspersions against me. At the time he made more attacks, like this.

Now, when he is told by another user to avoid making personal attacks he made here, instead of avoiding personal attack, he responds: "calling a cat a cat is not a "personal attack". --Mhhossein ^talk 11:12, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a look at the conversation. I think there's a case for WP:BOOMERANG here.

First and foremost, you're quoting him out of context. He said, "Stop wasting our time with your WP:FORUM-like posts to push your pro-Mullahs POV without providing any reliable source." Emphasis mine. Please don't misrepresent words by selectively quoting them.

It's not a personal attack; it's an observation about behavior. He feels that the content you've proposed is biased towards the Iranian government, that your posts treat the talk page like a WP:FORUM, and that the sources you've provided aren't reliable.

You also linked to a diff that showed a comment Wikiaviani made and called it an attack. It's not. He's saying that you have a battleground mentality; that you're edit warring; and that you're distorting Wikipedia's guidelines.

You, yourself, previously accused him of having a battleground mentality and edit warring. You're claiming that such statements now count as a personal attack. When you said those things, did they also count as personal attacks?

Here's some feedback for you: if you suspect someone is some sort of sockpuppet, raise it in WP:SPI. Don't try to discredit other participants in a discussion by airing such a suspicion in the middle of a content dispute. Quandarie 12:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BOOMERANG. This is not a personal attack, and Wikaviani is in fact not the first person to make this observation; I did it as well back in 2019, in a WP:AN thread where other users made similar concerns [265]. If you assemble all the cases, there is a good amount of evidence to back this. For example, back in April 2020, Mhhossein was partially blocked for "tendentious commentary and original research" [266] which he made in this thread regarding Khomeini (taking a pro IRI stance) [267], the founder of the IRI. A pro IRI stance was also taken here (2019 June) (September 2021). Heck, take a look at even his most recent case regarding the death of a poor woman by IRI Guidance Patrol for showing some hair. Do I need say more? (September 2022). They have also been warned "against a battleground mentality and further incivility" in relation to articles about Iranian politics. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:43, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing the comments down below, I should have perhaps clarified better. This pro-IRI behaviour all violated at least one of our guidelines in each of these threads. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Quandarie: I really don't think [268] and [269] are appropriate ways of communicating with others in such a calm a discussion. --Mhhossein ^talk 09:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, while edit warring, misrepresenting what reliable sources say by cherry picking only the parts you like, using unreliable IRI sources repeatedly while you have been told not to do so are appropriate ways to edit this encyclopedia ? By the way, two editors are still waiting for your explanations at Talk:Mahsa Amini protests, it would be an appropriate way to communicate to answer them, don't you think so ?---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein, thanks for the diffs. Mhhossein is right; it is an unacceptable personal attack. Quandarie 16:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Quandarie: ; Don't get me wrong,

• Given Mhhossein's profile as an editor, I disagree, when an editor systematically misrepresents what sources say to push a pro IRI POV during unrest in Iran, it's not surprising to see him do it again now.
• Again, calling a cat a cat is not a personal attack towards said cat.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Personal attacks again: I thought the insight by two third parties (Vice Regent, Quandarie) would make it clear enough to you that your comments had been personal attacks and that you should not comment on the editors. Among other things, you are making ad hominem comments which WP:WIAPA says are "never acceptable". --Mhhossein ^talk 03:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Vice Regent did not respond to my answer as to why it was not an attack, neither did Quandarie. Oddly, you keep cherry picking comments that favour you, omitting what HistoryofIran and Quandarie said about you deserving a topic ban ...---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• That they did not respond is irrelevant to the fact that you did perform Personal Attack against me. You need to avoid commenting on the editors. Also, Quandarie's comment on topic ban was probably when he had not noticed your attacks. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The fact that they are not responding may mean that they are running out of arguments (and Quandarie doesn't know your editing profile as well as I do...). I'm not going to waste my time arguing with an editor like you, who has an agenda, even the user who closed the topic ban proposal was in favour of the topic ban. Keep pushing your POV with unreliable sources or misrepresenting what reliable sources say and we will meet here again and this time, maybe the community will finally realise how disruptive you are and make the right decisions. Also, instead of repeatedly posting messages here accusing me of "personal attacks", maybe you could answer to the editors who are waiting for your explanations about the blatant cherry picking and misrepresentation of a reliable source at Talk:Mahsa Amini protests. Done here with you for now.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Please remember that Wikipedia is not a battleground. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Said the guy who has been blocked 30 days for Tendentious behavior and original research from Khomeini's page, topic banned from MEK, recognized as a POV pusher, warned against a battleground mentality and further incivility, and so on ...---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : I could hardly do a better job of gathering evidences than what has been done above by two other editors (also see here). I think Mhhossein is quite a knowledgeable editor on Islam related topics, as evidenced by the articles he has brought to the good or featured level, but when it comes to topics related to the Islamic Republic of Iran, he is almost systematically biased.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:18, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban proposal: Mhhossein

• Bored Ape (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Guydebordgame (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Guydebordgame has been adding false negative information to Bored Ape, and edit-warring over these additions, since September 17. He has ignored or disparaged several attempts on the talkpage (beginning September 18) to get him to abide by Wikipedia policies (WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP, WP:V), gain consensus, and make sure his edits are verified in citations [280].

Because the article is under Community Sanctions and restricted to 1RR, and the user is edit-warring and doubling down instead of listening, I am bringing the issue here.

Negative inaccurate edits and BLP vios on Bored Ape:

• [281] "Crack cocaine addict" (the citation instead says this co-founder had addictions for a couple of years in his early teens and they ended when he was 15)
• [282] (reverted removal) re-added "Crack cocaine addict"
• [283] re-added "crack cocaine addict", in a new sentence; still inaccurate, still undue, cherry-picked, and a BLP violation. (The citation instead says that before co-founding Bored Ape, Aronow was [planning to get an MFA but fell ill and became] a cryptocurrency trader.)
• [284] "The ADL has stated that several of the traits in the collection are problematic and racist towards black people and Japanese people." (Instead, the citation refers to two senior research fellows at ADL [Pitcavage and Hill], both of whom refute Ripps' claims of racism, although they note that, out of context, 2 of the 10,000 ape images are problematic and that "a very small subset" is "clearly offensive" taken out of context.)
• [285] "banned in many countries for being child pornography" (The citation does not mention Bored Ape, and does not mention child pornography or the film being banned anywhere.)
• [286] (reverted removal) re-added "itself named after the 1971 film, banned in many countries for being child pornography." (Again, the citation does not mention Bored Ape, and does not mention child pornography or the film being banned anywhere.)
• [287] "where users commonly 'draw dicks,' according to the founder." (Not at all what the citation says; not even an accurate quote even though it's in quotation marks. The citation mentions a concept of an unnamed shared blank digital canvas that was apparently abandoned because the founders didn't want people drawing problematical stuff.)
• [288] (reverted removal) re-re-added "itself named after the 1971 film, banned in many countries for being child pornography." (Again, the existing citation does not mention Bored Ape, and does not mention child pornography or the film being banned anywhere. Guydebordgame added to that an unreliable citation which falsely implies that the pseudonym refers to the film rather than the album and which links to an unrelated 2015 Canadian court filing which does not mention Bored Ape or the album the pseudonym is named for, and although the court filing mentions the film and says that a police officer had said that based on description one or two scenes in the film were "bordeline child pornography", the court filing says nothing about the film being "banned in many countries".)
• [289] (reverted removal) re-re-re-added "itself named after the 1971 film, banned in many countries for being child pornography." (see above for detailed explanation).

Again, since the article is under sanctions and the user is edit-warring every time his false negative material is reverted, even with clear explanations in the edit summary and on the talkpage, I'm bringing this here. 64.64.172.66 (talk) 06:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC); diffs added to 00:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added another diff as Guydebordgame is contimuing to edit war on this 1RR article over his false information and is refusing to gain consensus. 64.64.172.66 (talk) 00:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Isabelle Belato and ASpacemanFalls, who have been editing the article somewhat regurlarly recently, to see if they have any comments. Also Hesperian Nguyen, who apparently has considerable experience with this editor (but may be currently off wiki and not see this). 64.64.172.66 (talk) 23:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. I'm not sure this is an urgent issue at the moment, but from checking the article's history, it does seem like Guydebordgame is involved in a slow edit war to add that one information about the movie. Their interaction with other users in the talk page, which I've warned them about, also makes me think they want to right some wrongs. I hope a stern warning will course-correct them. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 01:17, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, after my posting here Guydebordgame again added information to the article that had been disputed before, here. If this behavior continues and the user fails to take this thread's warning to heart, then a page block might be for the best. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 12:37, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pinging. I'd also agree that a warning is sufficient for now. In regards to the movie, it seems that tidbit about the ban is taken from its own Wikipedia page, which only sources that with a PDF filing, which only concerns Canada. So it might also be helpful to get rid of that claim on the film's own page or, at least, amend it to reflect that one country considers it "objectionable". ASpacemanFalls (talk) 08:39, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Guydebordgame has now breached 1RR on this sanctioned article and has been reported at ANEW: [290]. 64.64.172.66 (talk) 00:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

are there any wiki mods here? please somebody check this user 64.64.172.66 and their obsessive desire to remove well documetented facts about child pornography in the film emperor tomato ketchup — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guydebordgame (talk • contribs) 02:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guydebordgame blocked indef for personal attacks, as explained here. There's been parallel edit-warring at Emperor Tomato Ketchup (film). Someone might want to take a look at whether sources verify the current content of that article. The Reddit source doesn't look very promising... -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked all of those citations and they do not verify or confirm, so I will revert that on the film article. 64.64.172.66 (talk) 03:47, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tamzin, Guydebordgame appears to have created a very obvious sockpuppet within 24 hours of being blocked, and is restoring his claims on that Emperor Tomato Ketchup (film) article. What should be done? 64.64.172.66 (talk) 00:38, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We do have some LTAs that like to joe-job people in cases like this, so I'm not 100% sure they're a sock, but either way, indeffed and reverted. If any further potential sox spring up, I'll request a check. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:19, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I recently saw that User:Moondragon21 created some problematic articles, noted this at User talk:Moondragon21#Issues with your creations, and pinged User:Joe Roe as they had given them the autopatrolled right, which I thought should be revoked. Things went downhill from there, with Joe Roe completely missing the point and making false claims for rather unclear reasons. Today they warned me that "regardless of what you think of the quality of their edits, I think we both know that you systematically combing through another editor's creations does not lead to a good place." (the editor created unattributed, machine translated versions of articles from other wikis: no idea how to find this and see if e.g. a CCI is necessary without going through their edits). Joe Roe also reverted a draftifying I made of an article by Moondragon without bothering to solve the issues that lead to the draftifying in the first place, and then blocked me from that page when I redraftified it, which seems like a clear WP:INVOLVED issue. They also history merged another Moondragon21 article I had draftified (Murder of Natalia Melmann, a problematic unattributed translation), without bothering to indicate that they put an unattributed translation back into the mainspace in this way.

Can someone please tell Joe Roe that such WP:INVOLVED blocks are a big no-no, and that making false claims to protect his granting of autopatrolled isn't very good either? Fram (talk) 08:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think I "missed the point" that Fram was trying to make with regards to Moondragon21's edits (he was not aware that we're supposed to attribute translated articles, now he is). I just disagreed that it justified revoking autopatrolled from his account. Fram is of course welcome to ask another admin to review that decision. Afterwards, Moondragon21 pinged me asking for help resolving a split page history after Fram moved one of his creations to draft while he was editing it. I did so, then noticed that Fram had moved another of his creations (Gonca Türkeli-Dehnert) to draft multiple times, which is contrary to WP:DRAFTOBJECT and WP:MOVEWAR. I undid this, then reminded Fram of that policy, noting that Liz had just done the same thing a few weeks before (User_talk:Fram#Draftifying_articles). Fram immediately reversed that move, so I issued a partial block to prevent further move warring. All of my interactions with Moondragon21 and Fram have been in an administrative capacity, and the only reason I saw any of this was because Fram pinged me to ask me to take an administrative action, so I don't see how I have crossed WP:INVOLVED. I'm happy to hear others comments on whether any part of this sequence was in error. – Joe (talk) 08:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for showing that you indeed missed the point. The issues I raised about Moondragon were unattributed translations, very poor machine translations, and "fake" referencing (taking the first source from the original article, and putting it at random somewhere in their translation, thereby e.g. using a 2018 source to reference a 2022 fact). "he was not aware that we're supposed to attribute translated articles, now he is" He has since edited a lot, and has not tagged even one of his creations as an unattributed translation, despite requests to do so from me and from Joe Roe. "All of my interactions with Moondragon21 and Fram have been in an administrative capacity": I criticized your repeated failures to actually see the issues, and the false claims (e.g. "The notices about articles nominated for deletion or moved to draft were there before I granted autopatrolled") you made to defend your lack of action. To then go and revert a problematic article back into mainspace and then block your critic is clear WP:INVOLVED admin tools abuse. Fram (talk) 08:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, you are criticising my administrative actions. That's fine, happens all the time, but it does not disqualify me from taking further administrative actions involving you. We'd be rather stuck if that were what WP:INVOLVED means, because someone could just declare that they think all admins are idiots and become unblockable. – Joe (talk) 09:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • No, I am discussing your competence and your false claims in defending your lack of action. About the edits of one editor, with a few articles as examples: and you just happen to then block me from one of these articles, and claim you are not involved. Comparing this with an extreme example of slippery slope is a very weak attempt at defense. Fram (talk) 09:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      Oh, and your attempt to stop me from looking through the creations of someone who produces poor, unattributed machine translations. You seem to have your priorities here absolutely wrong. Fram (talk) 09:36, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Both the Fram block and this ANI thread popped up on my watchlist at the exact same time, so I took a look at Gonca Türkeli-Dehnert. I have no dog in this fight, and have no opinion on whether the block or other actions were WP:INVOLVED. But having checked three of the four citations in the article, I had to remove those three as not verifying in the least. I believe that Gonca Türkeli-Dehnert should be returned to draft, and Moondragon21's autopatrolled should be revoked. And MurielMary should be far far more careful in accepting AFC submissions. Softlavender (talk) 09:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edited to add: Yngvadottir has now fixed the sourcing issues, so I now believe the article can stay in mainspace unless the subject lacks notability. That said, I believe Moondragon21's autopatrolled should be revoked, and Fram unbanned from the article now that it is sourced and unlikely to be moved-warred over (he may have something to contribute to the article). Softlavender (talk) 09:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) I edit conflicted with you after working on Gonca Türkeli-Dehnert, and had previously looked at Murder of Natalia Melmann. To be frank, neither looked like a translation to me, they were both so inadequate in their coverage, while the German articles are distinctly fuller coverage of the subject. I was disturbed by the point to which Fram drew attentions in their edit summaries at Gonca Türkeli-Dehnert—an obviously misused reference—and it's a BLP, so I rolled up my sleeves. I believe it's better now. I don't think Moondragon21 should be doing any editing here requiring understanding German, let alone on BLPs. Türkeli-Dehnert is not a politician, she is a civil servant/administrator, and the article contained several inaccuracies. It didn't bear the hallmarks of machine translation, but this editor's work based on German sources, at least, needs to be draftified until it can be checked. In short, Fram's right and since I have now made the article much closer to the content of the German article, I'm going to put the translation template on its talk page, but I don't think the editor has been translating, really. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • To clarify, I don't think I indicated that this page was a translated one (if I did, I messed up). The ones I indicated as unattributed translations were Julia Hamburg (a near-straight Google translate of the intro to the German article, and Murder of Natalia Melmann, which was a badly mangled straight Google translate of the Spanish version: e.g. the text in the enwiki article, "Later skills link five involved since in the analysis of the young woman's body five different genetic traces were found" is exactly the same as what you get with a Google translate of "Pericias posteriores vinculan a cinco involucrados puesto que en el análisis al cuerpo de la joven fueron hallados cinco rastros genéticos distintos" from here. Fram (talk) 10:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Support removal of the removal of Moondragon21 autopatrolled permissions given the issues mentioned here and on their talk page since they have been given the permissions. They had an AfC rejected due to using wikiwix.com as a source for Mariama Sarr in August.

  As an aside, whilst I am aware that it is a personal preference and not policy, I do not like signatures that do not display their username. As such I am disappointed that an administrator would have a signature that says "Joe" when their username is actually "Joe Roe". Gusfriend (talk) 10:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Perhaps it's a misnomer, but WP:DRAFT is marked as an "explanatory essay". In that context, was this extreme enough to 1) warrant a block 2) require an admin to revert the move back to a "preferred version" in lieu of editors organically resolving this (preferably through discussion).—Bagumba (talk) 09:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That particular part of WP:DRAFT is just an explanation of how WP:EW, a policy, is applied to moves-to-draft. This was a partial block from editing one page after I had attempted to get Fram to stop himself; I didn't see it as particularly "extreme". – Joe (talk) 10:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Trying to stop me from something not disallowed in policy but just in an essay, and without even attempting to get a) why I redrafted it, or b) to correct these issues on that BLP yourself? And then blocking me, again based on that essay, while we were in a dispute over your handling of the autopatrolled right of that very editor? Fram (talk) 10:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    We weren't "in a dispute", Fram. You asked me to do something, I said no. – Joe (talk) 10:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    And misrepresented my comments, and then started lying about what happened, and then as a completely unrelated action (right?) lectured me about draft moving one of the articles from that discussion, lectured me about going through the creations of other editors (because, of course, we want more disastrous machine translations and we don't want anyone to find out), and then pblocked me. Totally normal behaviour. Fram (talk) 11:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I really have no idea what you're talking about with half of that. Let's let others weigh in, shall we? – Joe (talk) 11:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I did so, then noticed that Fram had moved another of his creations (Gonca Türkeli-Dehnert) to draft multiple times, which is contrary to WP:DRAFTOBJECT and WP:MOVEWAR. I undid this, then reminded Fram of that policy...: Those actions that you described are you as an editor, not an admin, and you cited essays. A revert would rarely be an admin action, save for a policy violation (BLP vios, unsourced, etc) or reverting to "preferred version" only after applying full protection in an edit war. This is a content dispute of sorts on what should be in draftspace or mainspace. Discussion would have been the preferred action at that point, not adding to the warring yourself. —Bagumba (talk) 11:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    This is both: reverting a (conduct) policy violation and reverting to the (policy) preferred version. I've enforced WP:DRAFTOBJECT many times before, as an admin action, and will continue to do so unless there's a strong consensus here that it's inappropriate. I have no opinion on whether the article ultimately belongs in mainspace, only that the process is followed. – Joe (talk) 11:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • You are using an essay to support your edit warring and blocking over bringing a BLP into mainspace while the issues that have been pointed out with references not supporting the claims (with e.g. a 2018 source for a 2022 fact) have not been corrected, and claim that you are reverting to the policy prefered version somehow? And that's still ignoring the involved action of it of course, but then again, you "have no idea what I'm talking about" when I describe your own posts, so this shouldn't come as a surprise. Fram (talk) 11:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll defer to others on whether DRAFTOBJECT is a de-facto policy or just an essay, as I'm not too active in this area.—Bagumba (talk) 11:36, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was just looking at the new pages recently made by Moondragon21 and noticed that since 23 September Alexis Izard, Elenore Sturko (politician), Finnish gun politics, Paul Midy, Zorlu Tore and Midy have all been created without a talk page template plus pages created with only a single primary source and needing other tags. As I mentioned above I do not believe that they should have autopatrolled permission. Gusfriend (talk) 11:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They also don't add the redirect templates like {{R from alternative name}} when they create new pages which are redirects. Gusfriend (talk) 11:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Not seeing this as an involved problem. If someone moves a page back to article space, don't just keep move warring back to draft. If an admin notices someone move warring and moves it back, that doesn't make them involved. If there are other issues and you aren't making progress on various talk pages, bring them to ANI. Present a sample of articles, describe the problems they have, and suggest revoking autopatrolling or some other sanction (or postpone such a proposal if the person understands the issues). I will say, though, that as usual, coming in hot with a "look at all the ways I found that you're a screw-up. can't you do anything right?" [paraphrase] followed by a bunch more notifications as you go through a bunch of their edits with the effect of angrily dropping a stack of papers on someone's desk, isn't always the most effective approach at getting someone to change their behavior and is going to lead to the wrong kinds of arguments.
  It looks like some of the this thread has become about Moondragon21, though. Perhaps that should be separated from the involved question. Moondragon21, as several people have said now, you do have to attribute translations, and will need to go back and do so for past translations. You are also responsible for the quality of the translation, and for making sure the articles meeting English Wikipedia policy requirements. That doesn't mean everything has to be perfect, but it does mean e.g. ensuring that text is verifiable in cited sources and, ideally, that the sources collectively justify a notability claim. As is often the case, Fram is correct on the merits (just not on the approach). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  "If an admin notices someone move warring and moves it back, that doesn't make them involved." is a strange way to describe this. People are involved because they have a dispute, not because they move a page. But if you move a page and then block an editor while you are already in a dispute with that editor (about, among other things, this very page and the seriousness of the issues seen here and on other pages), then that makes it an involved action. Fram (talk) 13:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - so this was the status of the page when Joe moved it to mainspace the last time. "In October 2021, she became State Secretary for Integration in the First Wüst cabinet in North Rhine-Westphalia" is sourced to this source which is clearly dated 23.02.2018, but is sourcing a statement regarding 2021. When Fram moved the article back to draft with this edit, Fram's edit summary clearly said "A 2018 source to support a 2021 event? This is the exact same problem that led to drafitfying in the first place." I would have expected someone to read the reason why it was returned to draft. Also, I'm very unimpressed with citing two essays for the block ... and worse, calling them "policies" (see "Clear policy violation, and I'm not remotely involved"). And that doesn't even begin to get into the fact that you were the one reverting Fram in all this ... which *I* would consider involved even if there is some wikilawyering way of saying "no I wasn't" ... the appearance is very important with involved situations - always better to err on the side of not doing something. On the other hand, Fram, it might have been best to do as Softlavender and Yngvadottir did and just FIX the issues rather than move war ... you may have been on the side of protecting the encyclopedia but it does look a bit like you were being a bit of a pain in the behind rather than just fixing the issue. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough. I can get a bit vexed when people move things back to mainspace without bothering to fix the issues (see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pranav Pandya (AWGP) for a similar one, not involving any of the people here though). Fram (talk) 13:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  As I have already said, WP:DRAFTOBJECT is an explanatory gloss to WP:EW, a policy, as is WP:MOVEWAR. I could have cited WP:EW directly, but that would have just made things less clear, and I wasn't writing with eventually having to defend my action at ANI in mind (though given that Fram was involved, that was stupid of me). I can't get my head around the idea that reverting someone makes you involved. How else are admins supposed to deal with other types of move warring? Or regular edit warring? Or just vandalism? This is not wikilawyering, it's a core element of WP:INVOLVED: one important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role [...] is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. – Joe (talk) 13:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:MOVEWAR is an essay (and is about page names, not about namespaces, to boot)... anyway, you weren't involved because you reverted me, your reversion and block were problematic because you, the involved editor, made them. Fram (talk) 13:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    For me... the way an uninvolved administrator solves a move warring issue is move protecting the article or blocking someone for move warring. What makes you involved in MY mind is that you got down in the trenches and moved the article/draft around, thus becoming an editor rather than an admin. An admin works to stop the problem without having to make a decision on the content (or in this case, the namespace location of the article/draft). Like I said above, there may be a "wikilawyer" way out of being "letter of the wikilaw" "involved", but for my own actions as an admin, and as a way of staying above the fray and NOT getting into situations where you're "looking bad" - it's better to not make those "content decisions" like reverting a move before making a block. And I'll say - both of you should let other folks weigh in here, rather than doing a big pile of back and forth that doesn't make either one of you look like sensible people who are ready to collaborate and compromise. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Are you saying Joe should've blocked then reverted rather than revert then block? Or that if you block someone for repeatedly inappropriately moving a page, the page must stay at the location in was improperly moved to until someone else comes along? That doesn't seem ideal. It's not like a content dispute where there are two valid interpretations of policy and an admin isn't supposed to choose between them -- pages just aren't supposed to be moved back to draftspace like that. i.e. the next step is AfD, ANI, or some other mechanism to resolve problems with the content/creator. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth said that as an admin Joe should have either move-protected the page or blocked for move-warring, and should not have move-warred himself. Softlavender (talk) 09:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Softlavender: What would be the point of blocking or protecting the page if it remained in Fram's preferred location? – Joe (talk) 10:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm summarizing Ealdgyth, so you'll have to ask him. But you might want to check out WP:The Wrong Version (when there is an edit war or move war, an admin should not choose their prefered version [involvement] and then lock or block), and remember that Ealdgyth gave you two options to choose between, and page-protecting was just one of them; blocking Fram for move-warring (or even just move-protecting) would have allowed other editors to decide (for instance via talkpage consensus or whatever) whether the page in that form should be in draft-space or mainspace. Softlavender (talk) 00:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC); edited 01:18, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • I don't see re-draftifying a BLP that is known to have fake sources as edit warring. Moving a BLP draft to mainspace without fixing the issues that have been pointed out is bad. Then blocking the messenger is also bad. Joe, can you unblock Fram from the page and accept a trout so we can close this? —Kusma (talk) 14:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    No, because I don't remotely see a consensus for that. From WP:EW: an editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable. – Joe (talk) 04:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Considering that I reverted once on the 23th, and once on the 27th, and you reverted my moves twice on the 27th, it seems as if that line applies more to you (who broke 1RR) than to me then? Fram (talk) 07:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there a policy-based reason to continue blocking Fram from that page? As it is unlikely that they will edit the page, the block currently only seems to serve as a scarlet letter punishment. —Kusma (talk) 08:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I would be happy to unblock if Fram says they will not move the page to draft again. They haven't, as far as I know, so I have no reason to conclude that it is "unlikely" that they will edit the page. – Joe (talk) 10:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you aware of the reason why Fram moved the page to draft space and also that Yngvadottir has fixed that issue? Why should Fram move or edit the page now? —Kusma (talk) 10:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know why Fram would move it in the first place when we have an age old process for building consensus for deciding whether articles should remain in mainspace. Anyway, Ritchie333 has decided to unblock and pseudo-close this thread. – Joe (talk) 10:59, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Because draftification is a policy-suggested alternative for deletion, i.e. something which should be considered instead of starting an AFD; because AfD is not cleanup; because draftification gives them 6 months instead of 7 days, ... I don't understand, on the other hand, why you would move articles back to the mainspace without making any effort to address the issues with them first. Fram (talk) 12:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    If you are citing WP:EW, there is no situation when it's an administrative role to add your own revert to an ongoing dispute. There was no WP:3RRNO exemption applicable. You became an editor at that point.

    An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions.

    Then Fram reverted you, and you invoked an INVOLVED block. —Bagumba (talk) 09:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    This is incoherent... how are admins supposed to deal with edit warring or move warring if reverting to the status quo makes them involved in the dispute? – Joe (talk) 10:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• If I protect a page after it's seen BLP disruption (for instance), I will usually revert to the status quo after protection has been applied. This is standard procedural practice, and doesn't make a person involved in any way. The involvement is a red herring here. The issue is needing to acknowledge and deal with BLP problems in the content. And draftification isn't a solution to that: the page may be less prominent, but BLP very much applies in draftspace, if there's content violating BLP, it's still an issue. If someone had the time to fix the issue, that's obviously preferred, but blanking, not draftification, is the appropriate second choice. Edit-warring over a draftification is genuinely pointless. As such I don't think anyone is covering themselves in glory here. Joe's block is within policy, but it's not really addressing the meat of the issue. Fram's edit-warring was pointless, and can't even claim a BLP exemption, because he wasn't removing the content. I know I'm likely pissing off everyone here, but can we de-escalate a little, appreciate what Yngvadottir did, and recognize that something similar is what's best done next time? Vanamonde (Talk) 18:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC) Striking: had not seen the second revert. Inappropriate block, per Amakuru below. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the endorsement, Vanamonde, but going over a translation to find and fix problems is lengthy, demanding work; notice that my initial fix edit conflicted with Softlavender, who saw the problems with the sources. I dropped everything; Fram may not have had time (and may not have the German reading skills needed; I'm not sure I rendered the bureaucratic titles well myself). There are a limited set of editors capable of checking and fixing bad translations, and WP:PNT is perpetually snowed under. Joe Roe didn't examine these articles closely enough, nor did the AfC reviewer who passed the one I worked on, and Moondragon apparently can't read the original languages well enough to translate accurately; at least draftification removed the article from passing readers and from Google indexing while the problem with Moondragon's articles based on foreign languages could be addressed. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Yngvadottir: I do recognize that, hence my appreciation. Lacking the time to do that, though, the next best option is blanking the BLPvio, not move-warring. Moving it to draft may de-index it, but it's still a BLP violation. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:57, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, thank you Yngvadottir and others for doing the important thing and fixing the article. But I still think that, as an admin responding to move-warring and bad draftications, it isn't my job to wade in and decide who's "right" about the content dispute or try to deal with complex content problems. That would make me involved. – Joe (talk) 04:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that Julia Hamburg was an unattributed translation of the first paragraph of de:Julia Hamburg; I've just fixed that, so now it's an attributed translation. It might or might not be a machine translation. I can't see any of the usual smoking guns for a machine translation but there isn't enough text to be sure.—S Marshall T/C 18:36, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @S Marshall: Yes, that was what I wondered about at Gonca Türkeli-Dehnert; it didn't show the garbled syntax indicating a machine translation, but instead had plausible wording but serious omissions and inaccuracies of content. I've now looked at Julia Hamburg and the German; Fram sees a machine translation of the intro (which is itself a mark of a bad translation), but it's full of omissions of what is an almost quintessentially difficult German summary. I don't have time to work on it for several hours, and it in any case it begs for a rendition of the entire article. Meanwhile I've asked Moondragon21 what exactly they have been doing. Fram has pointed out a passage in another article that was clearly machine translation, but these two German ones make me wonder whether the editor is using some other intermediary text. The combination of plausible English and serious inaccuracies makes me think of those shady news sites that are populated with translations, maybe AI-mediated. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Personally I wouldn't attempt an idiomatic translation of the German article. I'd write a fresh article in English based on the German-language sources, which would take me about half the time. Might have a go at that.—S Marshall T/C 22:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe: You stated above: I've enforced WP:DRAFTOBJECT many times before, as an admin action, and will continue to do so unless there's a strong consensus here that it's inappropriate. After various comments, I'm interested in your current perspective on admin actions w.r.t. DRAFTOBJECT. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 03:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not really changed. Edit warring is disruptive, that has been settled policy for years, and per Rhododendrites and Vanamonde the standard admin response is block/protect and revert to the status quo ante. Move warring is doubly disruptive because of how annoying it is to revert, and move warring in draft space even worse because WP:CSD#G13 makes it a functional slow deletion. Nobody has made a strong argument against that, only objected to WP:MOVEWAR and WP:DRAFTOBJECT being technically essays, or said that I should have dealt with the content problems myself. I have more sympathy to the latter point of view, though my general philosophy with admin work is that if their are editors actively working on an article, leave the content issues to them (because WP:NODEADLINE), and just focus on making sure that everyone is getting their voice heard fairly (because WP:BITE is a big risk with draftification). – Joe (talk) 04:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To summarize: I reverted once the 23th, and once the 27th. Joe Roe reverted me twice(!) the 27th. Hardly a blockworthy edit war in itself. "Nobody has made a strong argument against that, only objected to WP:MOVEWAR and WP:DRAFTOBJECT being technically essays" Uh, I do believe that if the justifications for a block are two essays, one of them not even applicable to the case at hand (WP:MOVEWAR, as already said above), then this is not a technicality but an indication that your block is not supported by policy. Joe Roe not only went immediately to an indef block (which again is not what policy suggests at all), but refuses to undo the block even after all these things have been pointed out, they have been asked by others to undo the block, and the issue leading to the reverts has been resolved anyway, making the block pointless in any case. Fram (talk) 07:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I have a lot of respect for Joe Roe, but they've clearly made an error of judgement here. Using an essay as a rationale for blocking someone, and on an issue affecting a BLP too, in which they were already INVOLVED, was not correct. I can AGF on that, we all make mistakes sometimes, but it's worrying that Joe seems to be doubling down on that now, instead of apologising.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(After edit conflict) Joe Roe, that line about draftification being bitey and amounting to slow deletion is usually mine. Just the other day I was schooled here that it's perfectly ok to move a draftified article back after fixing its issues, it doesn't have to go through AfC unless there's a COI or some other specific reason. I'm not sure I 100% believe that, but there's that to explain why some NPPers are so casual about it ... However, in this instance Fram had drawn attention at least twice in their edit summaries to a major problem with the referencing (2018 ref for 2021 occurrence). Doesn't BLP policy add urgency? I'm surprised you ignored that point. Would it really have been kinder to Moondragon21 to blank the article, or reduce it to an unreferenced stub? (That was the only reference the first time Fram draftified it.) In any case, I note that Moondragon21 hasn't edited for more than twelve hours; I was hoping they'd have resumed editing and come here by now; but based on the examples in this thread, I too request you rescind the granting of autopatrol. There are too many problems in their articles for them not to be looked at by NPP. Not just the failure to attribute translations, but inaccuracies and faulty referencing; I understand that you were unaware of these problems before this thread. And yes, it's not my place, but IMO you should reverse the pblock on Fram. Yngvadottir (talk) 07:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Literally all I asked Fram to do was stop move warring and start an AfD to get consensus. It has never been our policy that if a BLP has problems, major or not, it should be immediately removed from mainspace. – Joe (talk) 10:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru: I think "doubling down" is a little uncharitable? I am listening to what people are saying, but admin accountability is not automatic genuflection when you're brought to ANI, it's justifying your actions and being open to being convinced you were wrong. I am open to being convinced, but: I was not "already involved", and I cited a policy as the reason for the block (WP:EW), not an essay. So what is it I should apologise for? The first time I was asked to reverse the block was today, and I have just said I am happy to do so if Fram does not intend to move the page again. – Joe (talk) 10:36, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe: I take your point, and I don't think there is bad faith on your part, but unfortunately I don't agree with your interpretation of policy here and I also think it's fairly clear that your (good faith) actions weren't in line with policy. Your initial explanation for the block of Fram was that they had violated WP:DRAFTOBJECT, which is probably true, but that is demonstrably an essay, not a policy. It explicitly says at the top, "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community". Now you're saying you blocked Fram for edit warring, but if that's the case then it's an edit war you also participated in, with both of you moving the page twice. That's WP:INVOLVED by most definitions, and you should have instead sought an outside opinion if you felt a block was necessary. Many others have said the same thing above so I think it would be good for you to accept the wet fish recommended by Kusma above, and then we can move on.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, what we have here, in my opinion, is a problematic BLP, that was moved to draftspace; Joe moved it back to mainspace, on the basis of his reading of the relevant policies, and then blocked the other party in this dispute. Well, as far as I'm concerned, that's the definition of an involved block. Whenever we have edit wars or move wars, both editors claim to be enforcing policies and, yet, they can be blocked (subject to very few exceptions) and, anyway, if they happen to be administrators, they are considered involved in regard to the controversy at hand. You don't get to revert your opponent, because you think they misunderstand policy and then block them, unless it's very clearly vandalism or another type of blatant disruption, which wasn't the case here. The best way of approaching this would have been to ask another administrator to determine whether Fram should have been blocked in this instance, since you had already reverted his move. Separately, after skimming over Moondragon21's talk page, I also think that it would be a good idea to review whether his autopatrolled permission really is warranted. Finally, I have to also say that Fram is not entirely blameless in this; for my money, his approach continues to be somewhat antagonistic, and that makes it more difficult to solve the issues that he correctly points out. Salvio 09:59, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have unblocked Fram, as I count four admins (Salvio, Bagumba, Kusma and Amakuru) who have opposed the block, along with several other editors, and none that have explicitly supported it as a good block. I am also doing this to de-escalate the situation, and agree that everyone needs to step back, take a deep breath, and just agree to disagree on this issue. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Fram (talk) 10:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't remotely de-escalatory, Ritchie333. You reversed my action minutes after I said I would be happy to do it myself with minimal conditions, and pre-empted the consensus here by calling it a "bad block" in the log, when in fact at least two participants (Vanamonde and Rhododentrites) have said that it is within policy. But whatever, let's let Fram continue to bully article writers and remain unblockable because "four admins" are willing to defend them. – Joe (talk) 10:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Five admins. Would I call it a "bad block", though? Perhaps a "suboptimal" one. However, it's a block I wouldn't have made. Meanwhile, I don't think the identity of the blocked editor is actually that relevant here, apart from the fact that it inevitably ended up at ANI and became more visible. And I think it is unhelpful to say they were "bullying" article writers when there's quite a lot of agreement here that the article, as it stood, should not have been in mainspace. Black Kite (talk) 11:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that I did not think the block was helpful, and would think my earlier points kinda made that clear. So make it six. (Sorry, I had some ... off-wiki issues come up yesterday and did not get a chance to revisit this until this morning). Ealdgyth (talk) 12:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hesitant to just leave this thread as "agree to disagree" when Joe's interpretation of WP:INVOLVED vastly differs from mine. From their comment above: This is incoherent... how are admins supposed to deal with edit warring or move warring if reverting to the status quo makes them involved in the dispute? AFAIK, an admin should never revert, have another editor revert back, and then proceeding to block that reverting editor. They seem to be confusing this with some (rare) situtations when it may be OK to revert to a longstanding version after a block.—Bagumba (talk) 10:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be very happy to see a wider discussion about that, because I am quite confident that my view is aligned with broader community consensus. And per Rhododentrites: what difference does it make if the block is before or after the revert? I did both within minutes of each other here. – Joe (talk) 10:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...what difference does it make if the block is before or after the revert?: Before a block, you are making an editorial decision on which version is "right", who had the onus to start a discussion, etc. Worse, you would only be adding to the warring—repeatedly overriding each other's contributions—not de-escalating the situation. After a block, it's merely an administrative action reflecting community consensus, where an admin presumably does not have an editorial preference. —Bagumba (talk) 11:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, if an admin reverts 12:00 and blocks at 12:01, they made an editorial decision and added to the edit warring. But if they block at 12:00 and revert at 12:01, they have merely made an administrative action reflecting community consensus and do not have an editorial preference? This is your understanding of the consensus view? It seems nonsensical to me; like it couldn't possibly matter which order those two actions were taken, they are, for all intents and purposes, taken simultaneously. Levivich (talk) 19:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can find no fault in Levivich's logic, those are for all intents and purposes functional equivalents. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Except your hypothetical scenario was not what happened. Joe reverted the move at 6:36 27 Sept. Fram reverted again at 7:36. Joe then made the block at 7:48 Joe's revert and block are spread out, and separate decisions, not one minute apart with an arguably interchangeable order.—Bagumba (talk) 19:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so what you're saying is if an admin reverts at 12:00 and also issues a warning at 12:00, and the editor then re-reverts at 1:00, and the admin blocks at 1:12, then it's not an admin action, it's an editorial decision, and the admin is involved? Levivich (talk) 19:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any editor, not just admins, can make certain reverts to enforce policy (e.g. WP:3RRNO), which would be exempt from being considered part of an edit war. An admin should not revert to enforce non-policies like WP:DRAFTOBJECT or even WP:BRD, though they can do so an editor. Issuing a warning about basic courtesies to avoid an EW is at least an attempt to educate and diffuse the situation.—Bagumba (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's use your example: I see an edit that I think violates WP:UNDUE and revert it; it's obvious that I think I'm enforcing policy, but that's not an administrative action, in this case I am acting in my capacity as an editor; it would be the same if it was you who reverted that edit – you are an editor, but you think you are enforcing policy –; subsequently, the author of the original edit reverts me and I block him, then that's a bad block, because I'm involved. It may be warranted, because I Was right all along, but that does not change the fact that I was involved. In this case it's the same principle: the same person, first acting as an editor and then as an administrator wants to ensure that his interpretation of policy prevails. In this case, we're not even talking about a policy, but that's beside the point. Furthermore, Joe may be right on the merits, but that does not change the fact that the block was in violation of WP:INVOLVED
Yes, there can be exceptions: WP:BLP is an example, in my opinion, WP:COPYVIO is another, but, as I said, these are exceptions, they should not be interpreted broadly. In general, the letter as I interpret it or, at the very least, the spirit of WP:INVOLVED is that an administrator should not use the tools to make sure that he has the upper hand in a good-faith dispute, such as this one. Salvio 20:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bad unblock. Could've at least said "it was involved, but don't do that in the future". Fram clearly sees it as validation that the guidance we have about moving drafts (which is part of Wikipedia:Drafts -- the page which describes how/when to use draftspace, regardless of the tag at the top) and standard processes to follow to address content issues are just things which get in the way of Defending The Wiki™. This was a page-level block; there was no urgency. Sigh. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I would like to see the context of this quotation "regardless of what you think of the quality of their edits, I think we both know that you systematically combing through another editor's creations does not lead to a good place". Can someone provide a diff please? I am not sure whether is somewhere on the policies or the guidelines, but it is common sense that if user X makes a methodological error continually, you have to check his edits. Or if you spot lets say 3-4 same manner errors, it is reasonable to think that this might be something a broader issue, and it should be checked. Checking ofcourse should be always polite and civil, aiming to help the other editor, not to frustrate him, but anyway, this is another discussion. Checking each other's work should be welcomed. Sorry for not commenting on the central theme (WP INVOLVED), but I would like to clarify this issue first. Cinadon36 10:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cinadon36: WP:FRAMBAN and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fram. – Joe (talk) 10:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am aware, the Fram arbitration case did not provide any useful clarification on the "hounding" issue whatsoever. But what should Fram (or anyone else, really) do if he notices a problematic editor whose edits do not improve after friendly communication? (A) Ignore it (B) Continue to point out mistakes or (C) Go straight to ANI? —Kusma (talk) 11:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When did the "friendly communication" happen in this case? Levivich (talk) 12:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no intention of letting the abusive T&S ban restrict me from doing the necessary legwork to find problematic editing patterns, as is necessary for e.g. the CCI's I started, the SPIs I started, or the Arbcom cases I started since the Framban. Without going through some of Moondragon's earlier creations, the highly problematic "murder of" article discussed on their talk page would still be in the same sorry state it was when it was created (and not seen by most NPPs as they have autopatrolled status...). Fram (talk) 12:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: as it is related to the ongoing discussion, I was looking at some of their edits and noticed the article Murder of Natalia Melmann without realising that it was the page being discussed (it has been a long day). Of the 6 references for the article, there were 2 pairs of references that were the same but on different sites. I fixed it by combining the references down to 4 from the original 6 and left a note on User:Moondragon21s talk page.Gusfriend (talk) 12:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going to disengage now, per the excellent advise on my talk page. I would just say that, while I'm not going to pull Moondragon21's autopatrolled right, that doesn't mean any other admin can't. At the same time, it seems extremely unfair to have discussion of his creations tangled up with this inside-baseball drama. He is a prolific contributor who deserves a fresh discussion and broad consensus, not one or two editors standing in judgement. – Joe (talk) 14:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Surely before MD21's autopatrolled right is pulled, the first resort would be to deploy the waggy finger and frowny face of mild administorial disapproval on his talk page? I mean, Fram's attempted something of the kind, but, well, not terribly successfully. Let's say that while Fram has many excellent and admirable qualities, gently coaching others about how to change their behaviour in a mild, engaging and de-escalating way is not one of them.—S Marshall T/C 18:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• What's weird about this is that autopatrolled isn't really a right. It doesn't let you do anything you can't do anyway. It's really a kind of tag that causes your creations to bypass NPP. It's a way of taking load off NPP when the benefits of that reduced load outweigh the risk of bad stuff escaping review -- not a way of making the editor's life easier or something. If there's any doubt at all about whether an editor's creations need review, even occasionally, then autopatrolled should be pulled. Holders of autopatrolled should have impeccable records. EEng 18:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• To be very clear about what I meant, since I've been mentioned above: I do not think this block violated INVOLVED, because Joe's revert was to the status quo. That doesn't make it a good block, only a block within the letter of policy. INVOLVED isn't very relevant here; we ought to be discussing how we should have dealt with the BLPVIO. I would not have blocked Fram in these circumstances, but then I wouldn't have moved the draft multiple times either. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC) Striking per comment below. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This is not the way the policy works. "Reverting to the status quo" is not a reason to edit war. WP:EW says in the top paragraph that "An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable. Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense." So by reverting Fram twice, whether it was the right or wrong action, Joe entered into an edit war, in dispute with Fram. They then went on to block Fram from the page on which the warring was taking place, which again is in black and white at WP:INVOLVED - "In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved". This was a dispute, Joe was involved, and they took administrative action on it. It was clearly done in good faith, but I don't see that there is a single possible doubt about this. Being "right" does not vindicate you from being involved. As I said above, I expected Joe once the facts were laid bare here to issue an apology for this this morning, or at least accept a WP:TROUT, given the facts of the case. Then we could have closed this thread and all moved on, but instead I see that he's "disengaged". I'm sorry but I do find that very disappointing.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Amakuru: I had not realized Joe moved the page page twice. That is indeed quite poor. I do believe the principle of my point stands, though; reverting once to the status quo is not involvement. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  For full page protection, the WP:PREFER policy allows admin discretion to reverting to a stable version, but only after full protection, not before. I assume the community supports a similiar action for blocks, reversing actions for which there is obviously no consensus, but again presumably only after blocking. —Bagumba (talk) 05:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree. It wouldn't have been difficult to say "yes, I made this block, but I can see how it could be seen as incorrect given the situation, and I won't repeat this". But, nope. Oh well. Black Kite (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  He disengaged per the advice of the admin who unblocked Fram so as to better allow uninvolved editors to come to a consensus on what was correct here. I dont think it is really fair to castigate him for following that advice. As to the merits, I think you either play the role of admin or editor, and the reverts are that of an editor. Once you pick editor then you cant then also do admin things. nableezy - 21:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Timeline To be clear, Joe chimed in here multiple times before they chose to disengage. The rough timeline was:

  • 08:04 27 September ANI thread started
  • 11:30 Joe's statement on enforcing DRAFTOBJECT as an admin: I've enforced WP:DRAFTOBJECT many times before, as an admin action, and will continue to do so unless there's a strong consensus here that it's inappropriate.
  • 04:22 28 September Joe stands by his actions: Not really changed. Edit warring is disruptive, that has been settled policy for years, and per Rhododendrites and Vanamonde the standard admin response is block/protect and revert to the status quo ante.
  • 10:36 Joe reiterates that he is not INVOLVED: I think "doubling down" is a little uncharitable? I am listening to what people are saying, but admin accountability is not automatic genuflection when you're brought to ANI, it's justifying your actions and being open to being convinced you were wrong. I am open to being convinced, but: I was not "already involved", and I cited a policy as the reason for the block (WP:EW), not an essay.
  • 14:28 Joe posts here: I'm going to disengage now, per the excellent advise on my talk page.

  Joe is not a newbie who is blindly following the advice of an admin to disengage. They are an admin, responsible for their actions and the advice they choose to follow. They are no more obliged to follow the advice of "the admin who unblocked Fram" than they are to other admins' and editors' advice here. They can—and have—picked and chosen who they wish to listen to. —Bagumba (talk) 04:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I can understand Joe becoming defensive about his actions because Fram has been sniping at him relentlessly for a few days. Let's face it, Fram, your bedside manner is poor and you have failed to de-personalize the situation in your comments on this thread. (That said, Joe's bedside manner was quite poor when he wrote "I think we both know that you systematically combing through another editor's creations does not lead to a good place" on Fram's talkpage a day and a half ago.) In any case, I hope after the dust settles after a few days Joe can reflect on what has been said by uninvolved admins and experienced editors on this thread. Choosing a side in a dispute and then repeatedly enforcing that side and then blocking someone about it is generally considered an involved admin action, and is only acceptable in cases of major vandalism and drastic BLP violations (even then it's often good to go to AN and state what happened and ask for a block review). Softlavender (talk) 01:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The way I see the complaint, there are two substantial claims of there being issues with Joe Roe's actions:
  1. Claim 1: Joe Roe was WP:INVOLVED and blocked Fram in order to restore their preferred location of a page.
  2. Claim 2: The sanction issued by Joe Roe was not warranted even if Joe Roe were not involved.

With respect to claim 1, it is crystal clear that Joe Roe was involved, which is to say that Joe Roe was actively engaged in a dispute with Fram regarding the proper location of a particular page. Joe Roe moved the article from the draftspace into the mainspace, was reverted by Fram, and then moved the page back into the mainspace and blocked Fram. There was very clearly a dispute between the two editors regarding where the page belonged and Joe Roe clearly blocked an editor who had explicitly opposed him in that dispute and chose not to utilize WP:AN3 or another noticeboard to seek someone who was clearly uninvolved to take a look at the situation. Joe Roe, meanwhile, has stated in this thread I can't get my head around the idea that reverting someone makes you involved.

With respect to Claim 2, the arbitration committee has previously stated that any sanctions imposed on an editor or administrator for misconduct should be proportionate to the nature and severity of the conduct—a move that Joe Roe supported. It is quite surprising, then, that Joe Roe decided to outright indef Fram from that article outright and it's a bit odd; typically first offense edit warring sanctions are 72 hours and, checking through Fram's block log, they don't appear to have been blocked for edit warring before. Why did Joe Roe think that an indef from the article was proportional to the risk disruption, rather than the standard 72 hour block? I don't quite know, and I can't put words into his mouth. What I can say is that Joe Roe stated above that he does not believe the indef sanction to be extreme and that he would be happy to unblock if Fram says they will not move the page to draft again. But to say that Joe Roe would be happy to unblock Fram if he could extract an unblock condition in which Fram would pledge to leave his preferred location of the article preserved is not justifiable in light of Joe Roe's being WP:INVOLVED with respect to the dispute.

Moreover, this whole saga raises the spectre of issues with WP:ADMINCOND and WP:ADMINACCT, especially if Joe Roe persists in claiming this sort of behavior is justified. Joe Roe arrived here by outright denying that any sort of dispute had been going on ([291]) and multiple times repeating the clearly erroneous claim that they were in no way WP:INVOLVED because their actions (which included their repeated page moves) were not anything other than administrative actions ([292] [293] [294] [295]). Moreover, Joe Roe's response to the unblock performed by Ritchie333 bordered on a personal attack in writing whatever, let's let Fram continue to bully article writers; if Joe Roe truly believes that Fram is a bully, Joe Roe should provide strong evidence of a widespread pattern bad behavior in this thread rather than resorting to diffless name-calling. And, if Joe Roe still disagrees with Richtie's unblock, which Joe Roe describes as pseudo-close of this ANI thread, then there is a place to review miscellaneous admin actions where Joe Roe could seek dispute resolution and broader community reflection on whether that action was appropriate. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:44, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the comment on Joe Roe's talk page that labels Fram as just single-minded raises some additional concerns for me in light of the conduct described in my comment above. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good analysis, @Red-tailed hawk: I'm also concerned that Joe Roe hasn't taken the feedback he's received with open ears. Instead he's "disengaged" and that's it. Every response was met with a rebuttal instead of a realization. Oh well —VersaceSpace 🌃 23:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that WP:ADMINACCT explicitly states that Administrators should justify their actions when requested. Joe Roe initially attempted to do that, but the problem is that the justification was erroneous. If problematic behavior in making WP:INVOLVED blocks/admin actions continues (or pre-dates his block of Fram), then this would be something worth discussing. Does Joe Roe have any history of making contentious WP:INVOLVED admin actions, or is this a one-off? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:01, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the Red-tailed hawk's analysis. I sympathise with Joe's choice to disengage, given the tone Fram set in the discussion at Moondragons talk page. However, It would be good for Joe to briefly re-engage and acknowledge that their view of WP:INVOLVED is likely not the majority's view and allow this discussion to close. Femke (talk) 17:22, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I would also say that if you give someone NPP with your comment starting with Hmm... tough one. ([296]) and later on several editors mention that they think that the NPP permissions should be removed then you should probably start a discussion about it somewhere. Gusfriend (talk) 23:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps be less concerned about their own scoreboard: I would just say that, while I'm not going to pull Moondragon21's autopatrolled right, that doesn't mean any other admin can't. —Bagumba (talk) 01:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...what on earth are you talking about? What scoreboard? I'm not going to pull Moondragon21's autopatrolled right because I do not think it should be pulled. – Joe (talk) 04:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please reconsider. It has become abundantly clear throughout this thread that Moondragon21 should not have autopatrolled. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Femke. Thanks for drawing my attention back to this discussion. I'm afraid I don't share the assessment that "the majority's" view of WP:INVOLVED differs from mine here, because the majority here have commented on Fram's narrative of what happened (helpfully summarised with less concision here by red-tailed hawk), not what happened. As I've said above, I'd welcome a broader discussion on the question of reverts as administrative actions, because I simply do not see how it is logically possible to enforce WP:EW (and by extension WP:MOVEWAR and WP:DRAFTOBJECT if admins cannot revert editors who breach those policies. As for the rest, ANI is for incidents requiring urgent action, and any need for urgent action ended with Ritchie's unblock. The context for why I would advise Fram not to hound or bully another editor will be abundantly obvious to anyone with a passing familiarity with either of our editing histories. From my point of view, there's no reason why this discussion couldn't have been closed days ago. – Joe (talk) 04:36, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If people want to hash out the INVOLVED question, there's a place for that. Levivich (talk) 04:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the discussion at his point seems WP:FORUMSHOPpish. WP:XRV says It is not the place to request comment on an editor's general conduct..., while it seems this ANI was opened exactly to seek comment on the user's conduct. ANI is perfectly suitable to handle this. While it didn't necessarily have to be opened here, it is already here.—Bagumba (talk) 05:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I said If people want to hash out the INVOLVED question, there's a place for that. If people want to hash out Joe Roe, they can do so here. 🙄 Levivich (talk) 06:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Admins are expected to maintain the trust and confidence of the community. With respect to I'm afraid I don't share the assessment that "the majority's" view of WP:INVOLVED differs from mine here, because the majority here have commented on Fram's narrative of what happened (helpfully summarised with less concision here by red-tailed hawk), not what happened, dismissing the good-faith concerns brought up by the community here and continuing to outright deny that there was any sort of problematic involvement—rather than to offer any sort of apology or expression of regret—is quite disappointing. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:30, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrolled

• Hello it's Moondragon21 here. I haven't been on Wikipedia for a couple days because I took a mental health break, and to return to see this makes me feel sad. I did indeed feel hounded, and within such a short space of time was overwhelming for me. I feel Joe Roe has been accurate throughout, and I resent to see him treated the same way. I didn't even get the time to respond to defend myself, and I never even used the rights "Autopatrolled status" gave me. Because of this, I am seriously considering leaving the website all together. It is what it is. Moondragon21 (talk) 14:36, 7 October 2022

Autopatrolled user right revoked

Since Yngvadottir has expressed her concerns to Moondragon21 a week ago, but they have not responded and continued editing up to until 2 days ago, I've revoked the perm. Obviously, there are concerns from multiple users, as well, but that last one really seals the deal for me. El_C 16:08, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good revocation. Autopatrolled is not a badge for writing lots of articles, it is meant to reduce the workload of NPP by removing from the queue creations by editors who have an excellent track record of creating articles without any major issues. It should not take a thorough ANI discussion to have AP removed from someone who has had multiple problematic articles. Moondragon21 can still create articles just the same as before, only they will be checked in NPP by a reviewer. Joe Roe's persistent refusal to even entertain the idea of removing AP from someone who is doing unattributed translations, misrepresenting sources, and refusing to communicate, is very concerning and unfortunately makes me question his judgement at PERM. Someone creating a large number of articles is not an excuse to sacrifice quality. It means they need to slow down and take more care in their articles. Removal of AP is not a major sanction and should not be treated as such. It should be removed at any indication of issues in a user's page creation beyond a one-off mistake. When editors who shouldn't have AP get it, we end up with things like Doug Coldwell's 200+ GAs which are likely all filled with copyvio. We need to get AP right, the costs of letting things slip by NPP are too high to just give it out easily. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The very last thing I'd want to see in an admin is IDHT when their actions are contested. Unfortunately, this is exactly what Joe Roe is doubling down on over here. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:57, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that Jonathan_f1 be banned from editing articles relating to Ireland. He (I'm assuming) shows a bizarre and obsessive hatred of Ireland and tries to push his biased POV into articles pertaining to every stage of Irish history. I first noticed him on the Battle of Clontarf talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Clontarf#The_fake_%22debate%22) in which he, without evidence, writes, "One thousand years of "historiography"? How about 1,000 years of Irish myth-making vs 40 years of Irish historiography. Even giving 40 years to Irish "historiography" is being generous: academic history in Ireland is still in its infancy." Why is someone who shows total disdain for Irish scholarship and (going by his edits) seems to spend an enormous amount of his free time obsessing over Ireland allowed to clog up the talk pages of Ireland-related articles? Let him write comments on Youtube videos or something instead, he'd fit in more with the crowd there. ComradeKublai (talk) 21:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To explicate the context, there was a dispute on the Battle of Clontarf page nearly a decade ago over whether the article should characterise the conflict as one (at least significantly) between Gaels and Vikings or as an entirely intra-Ireland affair. User:Scolaire cites two academic books in support of the former view, and eventually a section was added titled "Historical debate" on the article explaining the historiographical debate. In late August of this year User:Jonathan_f1 posted to the talk page, citing a 15-minute youtube video to not only support the notion of the battle intra-Ireland conflict but to argue that the "Historical debate" section should be removed entirely, replaced entirely with his opinion.

I believe that his aforementioned total dismissal of Irish historiography is grounds for permanently blocking him for editing Ireland-related articles. User:Jonathan_f1 shows open, sneering contempt for all Irish historians, which seems to be why he's willing to dismiss peer-reviewed books in favor of youtube videos when it sorts his anti-Irish POV. Someone who demands that his POV be made hegemony on the basis of youtube videos at the expense of academic sources, cannot be reasoned with. Someone who feels the need to use scarequotes when discussing even the concept of Irish historiography cannot be considered neutral on Ireland-related topics.

It also looks like he's been blocked for disruptive editing in the past. ComradeKublai (talk) 22:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They're blocked from article-space now (since November 2020!). This is not particularly encouraging, either. JBL (talk) 22:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not surprising, so now I understand why all of the edits were confined to talk pages. What shocked me was how focused this user was on pushing his POV specifically related to Ireland despite an extreme contempt for the country; I mean, the guy is only willing to refer to Irish historiography in scarequotes. His total dismissal of Irish perspectives seems to create, for him, the justification to cherry pick his sources, such as when he tried to use a youtube video as a source over a peer reviewed paper in Talk:Battle_of_Clontarf#The_fake_"debate". I don't see how this person can be a productive contributor on Ireland-related topics. ComradeKublai (talk) 22:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In their (mild) defense, on at least one occasion since they were blocked, they seem to have been able to engage constructively with another editor on a topic related broadly to Ireland. Pinging @Bastun: in case they have anything to add. JBL (talk) 23:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the edit that JBL referred to because the article is on my watchlist. It was wedged into a March 2021 thread, and it was tendentious throughout, including saying that "if some of these articles read like they were edited by Gerry Adams, it's because they probably were." Looking back on his recent contributions, I found this from Talk:Ireland in the Coalition Wars (in true Gerry Adams fashion, the lede states that Ireland was "ruled by the UK"), this from Talk:History of Ireland (1801–1923) (To describe this as a period of "British rule"...is egregiously non-neutral, probably the worst case of non-neutrality I've seen on here), this from the NPOV Noticeboard (this article is basically a little fiefdom where a handful of editors get to control what sources are used and how the discussion is framed and presented to readers. And they've done so in one of the most unobjective, non-neutral ways I've ever encountered on here), this from Talk:Black and Tans (there is close to a 'zero' chance that historical articles on Ireland, particularly from the Early Modern Period on, are being edited neutrally), this from Talk:Young Ireland (Right, everyone is "ideologically driven" except the extreme nationalist slant that these articles take – this one wedged into a 2007 thread!), and so on.
On his talk page, I see he was blocked from mainspace, but allowed to edit talk pages to give him a chance to show he can work collaboratively. He has used this chance to edit every talk page tendentiously. It is time he was blocked altogether. Scolaire (talk) 11:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Guy, who imposed the block. Scolaire (talk) 12:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've just discovered Guy hasn't been active for over fifteen months, so I'm pinging Floquenbeam, who was also involved in the block discussion. --Scolaire (talk) 14:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm probably not going to be much help. I was going thru CAT:UNBLOCK, and involved only in the sense that I was responding to their unblock request, and tried to figure out Guy's rationale for the article-only block. I think the discussion is best explained here. If you read that, and follow the link in that discussion to this ANI thread, that probably explains most of it? After declining the unblock request to give Jonathan a chance to work in talk space for a while, I never paid further attention, so don't have any more info than that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Responding to ping). I think my only interaction with the user concerned has been on the Irish slaves myth article, where they weren't the easiest to work with, but that's no crime and wouldn't merit a ban. That said, the diffs posted by Scolaire are fairly damning, given they happened when they were supposed to be working collaboratively. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a consensus is shaping up that User:Jonathan_f1 should be blocked or censured in some way for tendentious editing. The evidence shows that this behaviour is a longstanding pattern which has continued in spite of a partial block issued to reform it. His obsession with Ireland combined with his vitriol for the country makes it unlikely we'll see any changes. Look at this edit in which he writes "Even giving 40 years to Irish "historiography" (as the rest of the modern world understands historiography) is being generous," and "What is troublesome about this encyclopedia is that it is always the nationalist pov that prevails no matter what. That might be why not one Irish history article thus far has been nominated as a good article." He later edited this into the (still tendentious and demeaning) form I quoted from above in this post, apparently realising that he gave too about himself away in his original post. User:Jonathan_f1 has a pattern of tendentious editing and an irrational hatred towards Ireland, both of which merit a permanent block. ComradeKublai (talk) 00:04, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the video I linked wasn't just a random Youtuber; it featured a talk by UCD professor Elva Johnston (about 1 min. in [305]), who is a qualified expert in the area of Early Medieval Ireland[306], and has produced award-winning scholarship on the topic of Irish ethnic identities in the Early Middle Ages. She disputes the nationalistic spin on Clontarf and even refers to a genealogy chart. The notion that Clontarf was perceived as the "home team" repelling a foreign invasion is preposterous -they were all related to each other!

Insofar as Irish historiography is concerned, there was no such thing in Medieval Ireland nor anywhere else, and we are not permitted to use 1000 year old sources on here. That's why I put historiography in quotes (which were not scare quotes, but more along the kind that jeer at the idea that there is any such thing as a 1000 year old academic consensus).

And finally, that certain Irish scholars are politically and/or psychologically compromised has been observed by not a few Irish historians. Liam Kennedy, who was qualified as an RS on the article Bastun and I worked on, wrote about this in his 2016 book Unhappy the Land, where he coined the acronym MOPE (most oppressed people ever) to describe the Irish victim complex. He writes: "There is an almost palpable sense of victimhood and exceptionalism in the presentation of the Irish national past.." and, “This beguiling [MOPE] framework, which speaks as much to the emotions as to reason, has been enormously influential in shaping historical thought on Ireland, both at the level of folk history and academic writing.”

This should send a signal that editors need to make a better effort in this space to balance controversial content as neutrally as possible, and in accordance with the encyclopedia's standards. That's unfortunately far from the case in too many of these articles (on request, I could cite whole articles in this space that have been bungled to the point where they need to be entirely rewritten).

Look, do whatever you want with me. I rarely edit talk pages these days and I've no intention of editing articles without consensus if/when the block is removed. But other editors should be advised that consensus is often all but impossible in this particular space.

Remember, propaganda is defined as any communication that's designed to bypass reason and rationality. It is not reasonable to believe that the leaders on both sides of Clontarf, who were all related to each other, viewed the other side as a foreign or alien threat. The only reason we're even discussing this is because the Irish (by no means all, but certainly a loud number of them) have an emotional need to believe that there was such a thing as a national character or identity in Medieval Ireland (before the English invasion), when the evidence just isn't there.Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to believe someone would lie blatantly about evidence that is just linked above. You, User:Jonathan_f1, were not using quotes to reference 1,000 year old sources but to demean the whole field. You wrote, "Even giving 40 years to Irish "historiography" (as the rest of the modern world understands historiography) is being generous," and "What is troublesome about this encyclopedia is that it is always the nationalist pov that prevails no matter what. That might be why not one Irish history article thus far has been nominated as a good article." This is an attack on the whole field of Irish historiography in very recent and indeed present times, not a dismissal of medieval scholars as you erroneously claim above. My original thesis which you have failed to disprove is that your contempt for Ireland and its scholarship means that you feel justified in dismissing any sources that don't conform to your (anti-Irish, anti-Nationalist) bias and cherrypicking any that do. I will elaborate below.

You did very much respond to peer-reviewed scholarship with a youtube video. While Johnston's peer reviewed scholarship would count as a reliable source, a social media interview that was edited, uploaded, and narrated by an anonymous youtube user is not. We have no idea who the interviewer/editor is (you certainly didn't list his credentials) and so we have no idea if he is accurately representing Dr. Johnston's perspective honestly. You're also ignoring that you were not only trying to use the youtube video as a source but as evidence that other Reliable Sources and the whole "Historical Debate" section of the Battle of Clontarf be removed from the article. User:Scolaire supported his position with two academic books; you wanted the article purged of everything that doesn't align rigidly with your POV on the basis of a youtube interview published by an anonymous rando.

In relation to the above paragraph and the debate on Clontarf, you also lied about this source^[1], claiming it is "some obscure paper published by a physicist that supposedly lends credibility to the "popular" (read "nationalist") POV." This is a lie and a mischaracterization of the source and its reach. The source was an interdisciplinary network analysis of the most important original source text for the battle; far from just some physicist's opinion, dismissing this sophisticated application of scientific research to the humanities to a random physicist's opinion is lying. Given that a number of media outlets wrote articles about the piece it is actually one of the least obscure academic articles in the field of Early Medieval Irish history ever written.

As for the original debate about the Battle of Clontarf I actually haven't taken a side, except that the "Historical debate" section should stay up and the article shouldn't be scrubbed of everything that's not your POV.

Your obsession with and contempt for Ireland, its scholars, and the facts is obvious and merits a permanent block. Get off wikipedia and start writing youtube comments ComradeKublai (talk) 01:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC) ComradeKublai (talk) 01:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in case anyone misses my point about the youtube interview: professionally-made documentaries misrepresent scholars all the time, and we have no verification that the youtuber didn't. The interview still wasn't peer reviewed, of course. User:Jonathan_f1 was also not only trying to use it as a Relaible Source but to get other peer-reviewed sources removed from the article. ComradeKublai (talk) 01:47, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And finally, your reference to Liam Kennedy's book is the perfect example of the thesis I laid out in my first paragraph. You think that you have the right to dismiss and remove academic, reliable sources that contradict your POV because you read in another guy's book that they're inherently infected with a "nationalist bias." No one has an issue with using Kennedy's peer reviewed books and articles as sources, but you are NOT allowed use Kennedy as a justification to dismiss other peer reviewed sources whose conclusions contradict your POV. Sorry, but you don't get to remove Reliable Sources because Liam Kennedy says that Irish academics can be biased. ComradeKublai (talk) 02:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I genuinely don't remember exactly what was said on that talk page, but I do recall one editor (either you or someone else) telling another editor that there's "1000 years of historiography" supporting the traditional view of Clontarf. If a 1000 year old source is judged reliable then modern scholarship will say as much. But that doesn't represent a 1000 year continuity in historical thought and agreement.

Bear in mind I'm primarily responding to charges that I'm an audacious anti-Irish bigot for putting quotes around the word historiography and writing that Irish academic history is about 40 years old. On the second point I was referencing the great reboot that had occurred some time in the mid -late 20th Century, when Irish history books were essentially wiped clean and a 'new history' was written by so-called revisionists[307].

The network analysis, which you bandy about like it's an unmovable object, states in the abstract that "much modern scholarship disputes traditional perceptions." So if much modern scholarship disputes the traditional/populist pov, how does this one paper dispute much of modern scholarship? This can't be based on your opinion - you have to cite an RS that states there's been some type of sea change on this point.

And again returning to Youtube -the encyclopedia defines a source three ways, the work, the publisher of the work, and the author of the work. If a historian is a reliable source he/she may be quoted from either written work or speech.Jonathan f1 (talk) 04:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have taken the acid out of your pen after coming under greater scrutiny.

Most of what you wrote does not my actual arguments. You should be able to remember what you wrote, given the diffs I linked, but I'll quote you again here. Your thread on the Talk:Battle of Clontarf was titled "the fake debate," in which you argued that your POV about the battle should be the only one represented in the article, arguing that the "Historical Debate" section should be removed entirely. I explained pretty thoroughly why your use of the youtube interview was problematic, especially belief that it justified the exclusion of other Reliable Sources, so you can read that again if you want to respond to it. You also didn't read my point about the Battle of Clontarf debate- I have not taken a position on it. Nor was I involved in the original debate. I was just shocked by your vitriol and dismissiveness, some of which you tried to edit out to cover up in subsequent edits (see here)^[2][3]. It was the frequency and tendencity of your posts on Ireland-related talk pages after stumbling across that one that led me to make this thread.

I am again shocked how you can lie so blatantly about quotes of yours from a little over a month ago that I've already linked here. You wrote, "Even giving 40 years to Irish "historiography" (as the rest of the modern world understands historiography) is being generous." This is not denigrating medieval fairy tales, its denigrating the entire field of Irish history, those are quite obviously scare quotes, and you aren't saying that the modern study or Irish history is 40 years old, your saying and the attack is obviously not limited to the distant past.

Ironically the source you linked actually removes all justification for your "40 years" claim. If you had read it to page 6 you would have realised that the "revisionist revolution" was started by scholars who went to graduate school in the 1930s^[4]. One of the most prominent revisionist historians, F.S.L. Lyons (mentioned in the book you and now I have just linked) died in 1983. I don't know whether you're spouting the nonsense that all of Irish historiography was nationalist polemics until the 1980's (and that's being "generous", remember) out of malice or ignorance, but I do know that you didn't read even the first few pages of the source you linked.

You are unwilling to seriously engage with this criticism and likely never will be. Hopefully the admins take action. ComradeKublai (talk) 05:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's unlikely that admins will take any action now. Your obsession with a single talk page post that was over a month old when you started this thread (and which I adequately answered at the time) means that the evidence I provided of ongoing tendentious editing on talk pages is unlikely even to be seen by admins. At any rate, Jonathan now says that he is not going to be editing talk pages, so the question of a block is now moot. Scolaire (talk) 10:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What, pray tell, is so shocking here? I identified a deficiency in an article space, attempted to issue correctives in the talk sections, got nowhere, grew frustrated, exhausted and eventually gave up. There isn't anything shocking about this, so let's tone down the hyperbole please.

And yes I read my own source beyond p. 6, and I would recommend you do the same. On p. 20 for example:

"A third reason why the traditional interpretation of [18th Century] Irish history lasted so long is provided by the state of the Irish historical profession. In the years after 1922 academic life, in independent Ireland in particular, was severely underfunded, even by the standards of the day. Nor were universities immune from the culture of patronage that characterised other areas of Irish public life. Irish historians, in consequence, were relatively few in number, and not all of that number engaged in a great deal of research or writing. The result was a climate more favourable to the transmission of received ideas than to their critical examination."

And on the state of the discipline in the 1930s:

"It is of course true that the 1930s and 1940s were seen as the period when Irish historical writing was given new professional standards of accuracy, thoroughness and objectivity. But this was a revolution that took place along a very narrow front, in constitutional, administrative, and political history. New intellectual currents ..in the fields of economic history, social history, and the study of popular politics..were largely ignored."(p. 20)

He traces this historiographical transformation, from its primitive origins to something more academically rigorous, not to the 1930s, but no earlier than the mid 1960s with Louis Cullen's work in economic history (subsection III). It was Cullen who challenged the traditional view of the 18th Century Irish economy as being characterised by 'chronic poverty' (a perspective that's often regurgitated in Wiki articles with absolutely no balance or nuance).

Note that while this writing is zeroed in on Modern Irish history, the same tension between the "traditionalists" and "revisionists" very much applies to Early Medieval writing, as the abstract in your source indicates. Modern academic historical writing involves the critical examination of evidence, not merely rote transmission of stories by scribes. In the Irish Academy this process of modernisation began in earnest no earlier than the mid 1960s, and on closer inspection you'll learn that Irish revisionism didn't fully come of age until some time in the 1980s, about 15 years later (let's not get too caught up on the 40 year remark -even at 1965, we're talking about less than 60 years of rigorous academic analysis).

This should, you would think, lay to rest any accusation that my remarks were anti-Irish or any more demeaning than what Irish historians have themselves written about their own discipline. I was responding to another editor's claim that the traditional view of the Battle of Clontarf enjoys a "1000 year historical consensus", which was intended to intimidate another editor who was challenging the traditional narrative.

In fact there are other sources which describe in intricate detail the ways in which this millennium of so-called consensus has been severely marred by mythologies. In The battle of Clontarf, 1014: a millennium of historical perspectives, Colm Lennon makes the point that "..the events of Good Friday, 1014, have been incrusted with a millennium of mythology, making it very difficult for us to divine what exactly happened on that fateful day."[308]

And I do not, by the way, call for a "total dismissal of Irish historiography." I am saying that Irish sources should be scrutinised more carefully than they currently are.Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who has been independent of this debate to date, I have to point out that having read your various contributions and comments here, I can't agree that you're simply "saying that Irish sources should be scrutinised more carefully than they currently are."

Your ideas on Irish historical revisionism are patently beside the point of modern historians having  different POVs on the topic, as that itself defines historical discourse and should not be equated with some presumed concensus on your part. It is also true that the issues  of revisionism within the study of history are certainly not restricted to Ireland with many of the same issues being found in the study of history prevailing in other countries.

You posit that "there actually isn't that much of a debate here" Futher claiming that. "The prevailing view among historians ....is that Clontarf was an internal struggle between two different power bases within Ireland (with Norse and Gaels on both sides) rather than a "united Ireland" under "one king" against "foreign invaders".

I will take it that you  actually don't know that some fifty years have passed since  Donnchadh Ó Corráin wrote that Clontarf ‘was not a  struggle between the Irish and the Norse for the sovereignty of Ireland’ but rather a revolt of the Leinstermen against ‘the domination of Brian . . . in which their Norse allies played an important but secondary role’?

Not only has study of the Viking period in Ireland continued apace in the period since then, but the idea that the battle of Clontarf was solely "an internal struggle between two different power bases within Ireland" has continued to evolve through continued research and academic scholarship.

As an example of this. Seán Duffy who is Professor of Medieval History at Trinity College Dublin and is one of Ireland's foremost medieval historians, sets out in his 2014 book "Brian  Boru and the Battle of Clontarf" that Brian Boru not only had secured the high kingship of Ireland and that of his own legacy, but that his forces had also defeated the Danish threat and repelled the Viking invasion of Ireland.

Professor Duffy goes into significant  detail in the build up to the battle and  characterises it as a fight for a new kind of high-kingship of Ireland and a highly organised defence against those Vikings who were seeking new lands and dominance in Ireland. 

He concludes that Clontarf was deemed a triumph, despite Brian’s death, because of what he averted - a major new Viking offensive in Ireland

Despite your protestantions and the offering of a Youtube video featuring Dr. Elva Johnston of UCD (a video which seems to repeat Donnchadh Ó Corráin ideas from some 50 years previously), your personal  point of view doesn't  negate the fact that there are a range of current opinions on the High King of Ireland, Brian Boru and the Battle of Clontarf. If you have issue dealing with such a concept, may I suggest that history as a subject may not be best suited to your endeavours here. Btw I do also have to ask whether you recognise the part quote below taken from an article  on Medium which seems to have much the same approach to Irish-American  history as you appear to have  Irish history here? "I discredit Irish-American pseudo-history for a living (I run a monetized site" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mogh Roith (talk • contribs) 21:45, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One can only speculate as to where you've emerged from, although it is interesting that I had just got done discussing this dispute with an acquaintance of mine on Quora, and now here you are opining absolutely blindly about an issue you scarcely understand. Do you really think it isn't obvious that you just created a Wikipedia account today for the express purpose of jumping into this discussion? And you've also been trawling around the web looking for comments that I've posted on other websites? I don't interact on Medium and have no idea what a monetised website "debunking Irish-American history" is or supposed to be.

This noticeboard has very little to do with the historical debate over Clontarf; it's about an accusation that my edits on this site suggest a "consistent pattern of anti-Irish vitriol and hatred." And they have based this on specific language that I have used on talk pages, such as my description of the various retellings of Clontarf over the last millennium as "myth-making", and my remark that Irish academic history is still in its infancy (by "academic history" I mean the critical examination of primary and secondary sources, not scribes copying down stories). The problem for them is that all of these remarks, from how the Clontarf story has been shaped and re-shaped over the last 1000 years to the state of Ireland's history discipline in the 20th Century, are backed by reliable sources. It's the same language that Irish historians have themselves used to describe these issues.

If you want to learn about how (and why) the Battle of Clontarf was mythologised over the ages -first by Brian Boru's descendants, and then by Irish nationalists -here's another talk by Elva Johnston and three of her colleagues[309]. Note that Dr. Conor Mulvagh also uses the term "myth-making" in the same context (anti-Irish? please.).

Ireland did not exist, in the 11th Century, the way you think it existed. Ireland was not a polity, or an organised society of any kind, nor was Irish culture confined to the island -it was the culture of the Scottish Highlands, which were as "Irish" as Ireland proper in 1014. The Norse in Dublin, Waterford, Limerick etc had been there for hundreds of years by the turn of the 11th C. (they sacked Lambay Island in 795), had created thriving centres of commerce and trade, intermarried with the local populations and adopted Christianity and the Irish language. The battle had nothing to do with "Danish dominance of Ireland" (again, what "Ireland"?) and the leaders on both sides of the conflict had intimate relations with each other. This is not a "50 year old view" -it's arguably the dominant view of modern Irish historians while the version you've recited is a 200 year old nationalist spin linked to Young Irelanders in the 19th Century.

I'm not going to waste any more of this board's time lecturing you about Early Medieval history (this is, again, not what this board's for). And please stop stalking me on the internet. In addition to the creep factor, you are wasting your time -the only site I interact on is Quora, and even there it is sporadic and mainly a means to kill time. But you already knew that.Jonathan f1 (talk) 01:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is so much that is simply wrong in what you write that I could spend weeks responding to each point. But to reply to what is relevant.

1. Academic istorians are not some monolithic block  engaged in group think as you seem to believe

2. If you believe Seán Duffy's (Professor of Medieval History at Trinity College Dublin and is one of Ireland's foremost medieval historians) position on the topic and which I outlined as an example of  current  thinking, equates to "200 year old nationalist spin linked to Young Irelanders in the 19th Century". Then you simply need to remove yourself from the discussion  of Irish history before you embarrass yourself further.

You appear to be under serious misapprehension that I'm someone who has already been discussion with you on this topic. "Here you are again" &etc. You're wrong. And I didn't create an account "today". I created an account a number of days ago to add some content to an existing  article and in the process of doing so  noticed one of your contributions on the talk page. And from thence to here.

As to any "understanding" the topic at hand. In this thread there has been serious criticism levied against many of your  contributions and behaviour to date. And I agree in many ways with  what others have already  said there. See previous.

I'm quite aware the discussion is not about the history of the battle of Clontarf or indeed any history. In reply to your comment I provided an example of the position of revisionism (on that topic) to counter your claim that your POV is somehow the dominant one, as an excuse for your behaviour to date. You've ignored that and simply doubled down on your own personal POV.

Despite claiming this discussion  is not about history, I see you've taken the opportunity to lecture on that subject at length.  You also seem to be attacking the entire academic study of Irish history and with that tilting at windmills fighting arguments that are not proffered. For example I made no mention of the  "Danish dominance of Ireland" or indeed commented on whether you believe  or not Ireland existed in the 11th Century.

As to the quote from Medium. The reason I asked a question whether you were you familiar with that quote, was the individual who posted that, repeats many arguments very similar to your own over a number of other social  media sites.  Anyone who reads those sites will be more than familiar with that individual and their tirades on Irish history. I presumed incorrectly you would have came across that individual. If you haven't well thats ok.

To finish I'll again reiterate that  for the  reasons already outlined and your apparent lack of knowledge on ongoing historical research, then history as a subject really may not be the best suited to your endeavours Mogh Roith (talk) 10:47, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The debate section in the BoC article relies primarily on one source to back the traditional pov, a network analysis of the Cogadh Gáedhel re Gallaibh (which was also sourced in the main Brian Buro article). One of the problems here (and there are many) is that the Cogadh Gáedhel re Gallaibh (from now on CGG) is a piece of propaganda written a century after the battle, and belongs to a genre of writing known as medieval romanticism. There is actually a fairly robust consensus that the CGG is not a reliable source, that it was manipulated by Boru's descendants.[310]

So what is being waved around here as cutting-edge Clontarf science is nothing but a mathematical analysis of medieval romance literature. It's like performing network analysis on a Julia Quinn novel to find out what 'really' happened in Regency England (and even a JQ novel may be more accurate on that subject).

These bungling, buffoonish attempts to interpret scholarship don't end here. Sean Duffy, it's been argued, published more groundbreaking work in 2014, also challenging the revisionist narrative.

That an Irish historian emerged during the 1000 year commemoration of the battle with another attempt to justify the nationalist storyline is probably the most predictable and uninteresting thing that's happened in the last 60 years or so of Irish historical writing. Duffy didn't discover anything new or base his arguments on different source material; he used the same embellished and unreliable sources that nationalist historians have always deferred to, and committed the same logical errors (which I won't assess here). In a review of Duffy's work Catherine Swift writes, "It has to be said though, that [Sean Duffy's] work is very much a compilation and evaluation of what previous authors have written. Our inherited picture of Brian Boru is so very much one created by nationalist historiography of the later 19th Century.."[311].

What's more, the video I cited was dismissed as some "random Youtuber", when in fact it was part 1 of a two part series funded by the UCD School of History and Archives, also published during the BoC anniversary[312]. It featured Medievalist Elva Johnston and three of her colleagues who have expertise in areas like folklore and linguistics. That is in fact what a real "cross-disciplinary" team would look like in this type of scholarship -not mathematicians analysing propaganda, but experts in Early Medieval ethnic identities, language and folklore. A mathematician wouldn't know how to identify interpolations or embellishments in Medieval texts (they treated the CGG as if it's a reliable primary source which it's not).

Have a look at how a more sophisticated encyclopedia covered this subject[313]. Britannica's BoC article was edited by Denis Casey, a Cambridge trained Medievalist and the principal researcher for the TCD exhibition Duffy participated in.[314].

"Clontarf was mythologised within decades, gradually becoming viewed—simplistically and inaccurately—as an encounter between Christian Irish and pagan foreigners, and this titanic framing of the battle helped create the popular and scholarly view of Brian as Ireland’s greatest king."

And on the CGG:

"While the Irish annals provide the most reliable accounts of the battle, the most influential source for the long-term story of Clontarf is Cogadh Gáedhel re Gallaibh (The War of the Irish with the Foreigners), a propagandistic biography of Brian written approximately a century after the battle. Cogadh begins by portraying Ireland as the victim of a series of unrelenting pagan Viking incursions that were heroically resisted by Brian’s dynasty.."''

So the network analysis cited in the BoC article on here analysed a document that was specifically embellished to say exactly what the network analysis found.

This would all be rather comical if you weren't actively engaged in trying to edit an encyclopedia.Jonathan f1 (talk) 01:41, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This ANI thread has gone way off the rails, in large part due to my mistake (pointed out by User:Scolaire) of engaging User:Jonathan_f1 on the specifics of the Battle of Clontarf talk page instead of focusing on why this thread was actually made, the ongoing pattern of tendentious editing by User:Jonathan_f1 on talk pages when he was supposed to be working collaboratively (and having been blocked from editing articles for past tendentious editing). However, I would like to point out that even in this ANI thread User:Jonathan_f1 can't help but be tendentious, describing peer reviewed articles and books as "These bungling, buffoonish attempts to interpret scholarship don't end here", and acting as though he has the authority to completely dismiss Trinity College Dublin Professor of Medieval and Insular History Seán Duffy because of a book review he found and because Duffy and some of his colleagues disagree on some points. User:Jonathan_f1's tendentious and dismissive tendencies are perhaps best shown in this sentence: "That an Irish historian emerged during the 1000 year commemoration of the battle with another attempt to justify the nationalist storyline is probably the most predictable and uninteresting thing that's happened in the last 60 years or so of Irish historical writing." ComradeKublai (talk) 02:48, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did not describe peer-reviewed articles and books that way. Editing an encyclopedia involves more than cherry-picking peer-reviewed articles that say whatever you want to believe; thousands of academic articles get published a day, some of high quality some not so much. Competent editors know how to evaluate scholarship and weigh the importance of an article/book in proportion to the rest of the field (a network analysis of a piece of propaganda is not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia article). Jonathan f1 (talk) 03:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done explaining over and over again that my issue with you is your tendentiousness and dismissive attitude, and that I have not yet even taken a side in the Battle of Clontarf debate. The evidence of your tendentious editing is here for all to see, the admins will either act on it or they won't. ComradeKublai (talk) 03:23, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What you don't seem to grasp is that, regardless of whether or not you have an opinion on the article, you certainly have an opinion about me objecting to the way content was presented in the article. I've shown you numerous reliable sources in this ANI that have used the exact language I used to describe, for one, the past millennium of Clontarf storytelling -"myths", "myth-making", and "nationalist histories" etc - as well as the relatively recent origins of modern academic history in Ireland -it isn't nearly as old as some here have claimed. These are all quotes you have used to base your accusation that my edits show "hatred and vitriol for Ireland" -and yet there is nothing of any significance there. Jonathan f1 (talk) 03:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder which sources you got, "this article is basically a little fiefdom where a handful of editors get to control what sources are used and how the discussion is framed and presented to readers. And they've done so in one of the most unobjective, non-neutral ways I've ever encountered on here)", and "(there is close to a 'zero' chance that historical articles on Ireland, particularly from the Early Modern Period on, are being edited neutrally" from. Liam Kennedy again? ComradeKublai (talk) 03:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would also bet that Professor Seán Duffy's colleagues at Trinity College Dublin are just dying to hear your assessment of the "logical errors" in his academic book, which you (wisely) spared above. ComradeKublai (talk) 03:43, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Like many out of the way subjects on here, Wikipedia is far from a reliable source for Irish history. I don't think that's an unfair statement or a violation of any rules. It's just one of those article spaces where most editors are either incompetent or non-neutral and no one's paying attention to it.

Insofar as Duffy's errors go -I'd love to get into it, but I don't think this is the place. Jonathan f1 (talk) 03:59, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you two stop, please? This is undignified.—S Marshall T/C 07:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• That is an impressive wall of text. ComradeKublai, to address your original request, the editor is already blocked from editing all articles. I've looked at a few of their recent article talk contributions and it doesn't look like many are engaging with them, so it's not really been causing disruption? Pushing a POV in talk is really only hurting themselves, as each instance pushes the likelihood they'll be unblocked from article space a few more months into the future. If it actually becomes disruptive, maybe come back? Valereee (talk) 14:36, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lmharding have been engaging in long-term disruptive editing on multiple pages related to LGBT rights claiming the countries impose vigilante attacks and executions as a legal penalty without providing sources or using WP:SYNTH sources where the content outright contradicts or have nothing to do with the claims being made. The user has also engaged in long-term edit warring by continuously reverting the removal of content by multiple users.

The user has claimed to @LocalWonk: that the behaviour would cease and no complaint to WP:ANI is necessary but as the user continues to repeat the behavior, I believe a complaint to WP:ANI is necessary.

The user continues to revert and add the same content that had been removed by both me and @AukusRuckus: multiple times The user has provided no sources for the claims or have used WP:SYNTH sources for example in here a source suspect who was arrested and tortured during interrogation on his alleged ties to the militant separatist organization the LTTE has been used to justify the claim despite having no relevance to the claim of vigilante attacks or any action against LGBT people specifically as the source mentions the person involved only identified as LGBT well after the incident. The user has not yet provided an actual source that supports the claims the LGBT rights in Tunisia as well despite continuously reverting to re-add the content and instead the user simply removed some of the sources but the source present still used makes no reference to the claims of vigilante attacks being a legal penalty. Thank you. -UtoD 07:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have just awoken to this notification, and it caught me a bit by surprise. I was still in a process of compiling a wide index of edits by @Lmharding to show a pattern of behavior despite warnings. I am requesting a few hours to finish compiling said index and present it and thoughts in a more coherent manner than I am currently. Apologies for not replying chronologically, not sure what the correct procedure here is when another user doesn't tab out their response. LocalWonk (talk) 10:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I immediately reverted as I reverted in the heat of the moment only realizing what I dsid right after and it was undone. As for Tunisia, there are plenty of incidents of vigilante action but it was sourced as [315] does mention executions torture and other punishments. However, I will revert it. Small setback as a small slip-up. My apologies. Lmharding (talk) 10:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)~[reply]

Reply: Hoping that for now this apology is enough for us to move on and not continue bringing up the past as I putting a strong effort to acting better. As for those edits, I admitted my mistake and I undid them. Let's not make a bigger situation out it than we need to. Any past mistakes have been resolved with aukus the editor in question and other then this small slip-up I am doing edits in other categories of articles primarily and the articles have been brought back to any consensus edits. @LocalWonk: there is no need to bring up old edits as we resolved any edits your "compiling" with him being satisfied that I am cooperating so there is no reason to dwell in the past. Lmharding (talk) 10:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I motion to close this, as this editor LocalWonk is now bringing up old and already settling or in the process of settling discussions doing WP:FORUMSHOPPING in a WP:HOUNDING campaign without any context into the fact that they are already being discussed and are being done so civilly without any future edit warring or other guideline regulations other than the two edits I mentioned above which I realized were wrong and immediately self reverted. Please don't punish me for trying to do better WP:NOPUNISH. My WP:FRESHSTART does not mean I'll be flawless or perfect and I have apologized for it. I encourage WP:FAF and to WP:AGF as I am sincerely trying.Lmharding (talk) 10:41, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Lmharding, thanks for your response.

I find it a bit disparaging to refer to me as a 'random editor' — aren't we all? Also, we haven't heard from @AukusRuckus as to if this is their position on the matter, so please let them speak for themselves. Some of these issues persist on the latest revision of the pages, and the issue at hand isn't limited to interactions you've had with User:AukusRuckus. LocalWonk (talk) 12:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pattern of Behavior

The rest of this message is addressed to everyone:

I share @UtoD's concerns. I’ve noticed that User:Lmharding has taken interest in editing various articles related to LGBT rights in various countries and administrative subdivisions. Overall, they seem to edit the articles to portray the situation as harshly and pessimistically as possible, even when that means flattening real nuance about the current reality, and compromising an article's factuality. I’ve organized some questionable edits by article:

• LGBT rights in Zambia (Removing information, flattening nuance, not providing new sources to support the change)
• LGBT rights in Sudan (Removing information, no change in sources)
• LGBT rights in Saudi Arabia (The use of the phrase “with certain death for those who participate” seems to stand in opposition to WP:CRYSTALBALL. We can write about legal penalties and nuance surrounding that, but cannot make such definitive statements about the hypothetical fate of people engaging in certain actions.)
• LGBT rights in Mauritania (Flattening of nuance without providing sources to support the edit)
• LGBT rights in Senegal (Changing information without providing a source to support said change)
• LGBT rights in Syria (Use of language that lacks precision and not fit for an encyclopedia (see WP:WORDS), with contribution “Vigilante executions, beatings torture, and vigilante attacks happen all the time in Syria, including by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham a rebel group.” — this goes without mentioning that the claim has no solid citation to back it — that would be impossible, as the phrase ‘all the time’ makes inferences about the future.)
• LGBT rights in Sierra Leone (Nuance completely flattened in this edit, namely that the has no recent history of being enforced, and provided no sources to support the edits. Another source, not previously cited on the page confirms the prior state of affairs described in the article.)
• LGBT rights in Eswantini (More nuance was flattened (including the non-illegal status of lesbian acts), and a sentence was contributed that goes against WP:CRYSTALBALL; “The only way to repeal the country's sodomy law is to go through the courts”)
• LGBT rights in Uganda (Edit warring against two other editors who raised valid concerns)
• LGBT rights in Morocco (Changed information, without citing a new source, that contradicts the original source which was left unchanged.)
• LGBT rights in Malawi (After being informed by another editor that they were flattening nuance and removing information that was factually true, they engaged in edit-war behavior, undoing the other editors reversion of your work, without addressing their concerns in any meaningful way. See edits relating to a disputed moratorium on 23 August 2022.) LocalWonk (talk) 12:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Previous warnings

Lmharding has continued to put catch-all phrases referring to extrajudicial punishments in the penalty section of the infobox, which they have already received pushback on. This problem dates back as far as June of 2022. The mass of edits to comb through is so wide, so I apologize if I've missed anything.

In closing, though their desire to contribute to articles on this topic is appreciated, their edits are not improving these articles (if not violating Wikipedia rules), and they are not addressing concerns raised by other editors. There is also something to be said about their unwillingness to abide by basic Wikipedia etiquette, like tabbing their responses, even in the face of being told by another editor that they have a visual disability which renders tabbing extra important. To quote WP:CIR, "A mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess. For that reason, it can become necessary for the community to intervene when an editor has shown, through a pattern of behavior, the likelihood that they are not capable of contributing in a constructive manner." I would like for a topic ban relating to LGBT issues to be considered for User:Lmharding to protect the integrity of these articles and to give editors the space needed to begin to repair them. LocalWonk (talk) 12:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As for mOst of this edits, they were shortened to clarify, be less wordy or list up to top punishments to get to the point nd to copy the style of other articles which took the same approach. It was not to "flatten" or erase any important information. Other details like id a punishment was "unenforced" was removed if there was no source to verify it Finally, for Malawi it was an editing battle that both sides both me and other editors edit warred and reverted rapidly so all parties involved are equally guilty of violatios there but I apologize for my addition to that situation. Overall, mpst if these are either misunderstandings or old behavior I'm growing out of. 12:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC) Lmharding (talk) 12:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lmharding:, I can't accept your contention that you removed statements like "unenforced" because they were unsourced. For example, at LGBT rights in Eswatini, you removed sourced statements here which I restored, with a better source. I thought perhaps the first removal of "unenforced' was due to lower-quality sourcing, but that can't be right, as you used the Beast cite to add "the only way to repeal the country's sodomy law is to go through the courts."

I posted on the talk page about this and received the reply from you:

It was reverted. I did that to try to shorten information down to not overkill in details but in this particular situation, I take my edits back. Disregard your version is more correct.

That was in June. By 3 September, you made nearly the same edit again. Following that, "unenforced" in the table and "female same-sex behaviour not criminalised" were restored, only for you to, yet again, on 29 September remove these points, saying in ES: "(removed original research and unfounded conclusions)". There's also the entirely unsourced "Penalty: 2 years" now added by you. Numerous sources state no penalty is prescribed, and no prosecutions have taken place under the criminalising law.

Normally this could all be hashed out in the talk page as a simple content dispute. But the type of editing detailed here is very widely distributed across the whole topic area, and contributions to talk page discussions only occur up to a point. They may degenerate in to long, drawn-out, somehow impossible-to-reach-common-ground back and forth, or you, LMH, simply abandon them, as here and as here Talk:LGBT rights in Texas#Still waiting: "nullified" claim. There are many other examples, but this reply is already too long. I can supply more if wanted.

I don't know if posting on this board is the right approach or not, but I do not think things can just go on in the same vein: the whole topic area is really poorly served. Your approach to editing and lack of consensus-building efforts do not help. I, for one, feel like I spend all my WP time putting out spot fires, rather than contributing substantive improvements, as I had hoped to. AukusRuckus (talk) 03:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC) Added dates AukusRuckus (talk) 02:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot speak for that edit as I would have to research more into my reasoning as it was a while ago and I made 50+ edits since then. I doubt you compartmentalize all your edits. I do not have time right now, but as for the the longer disputes I did go back to the UAE discussion so don't pretend that I didn't. I discussed those edits a few days ago here^[1] As for the Texas discussion, I am still in the process of researching hence why I did not respond. There are a lot of nuances to Texan laws, and sadly there is a lot of information to sort to find correct information as you would know being WP:CAUTIOUS. Plus, I don't answer to you and I have a life outside of Wikipedia and you have been demanding of my time more ridiciously that any other user I have ever contribute and sometimes I don't want to WP:IGNORE you and you group of WP:TAGTEAM trying to WP:GRIEF me. I cant just have a day of peace because you continue to tag and pester me. But those are again, either old discussions I have responded to or or have been in the process of looking into t. You have reverted and 3RR'd me as well many times breaking your own rules^[2][3] with harassing and time consuming spamming on multiple pages^[4][5] often with your own personal attacks towards me as well, pestering and annoying me trying to prod me. Hypocrisy at its finest. Lmharding (talk) 05:22, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of response makes it hard to believe that you've changed your ways. What do you mean by "you and you group of WP:TAGTEAM trying to WP:GRIEF me"? Lmharding, trying to collaborate with you has been very frustrating. Is there anything short of administrative action that could convince you to change your approach to content and conduct disputes? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Patience and understanding, I am trying to change but again the process is not straightforward, I am not WP:PERFECT and I again want to shed my past but with disputes like this you don't let me. It feels very much like a group tagteam in my perception, hence why he had followed my edits and watched me. I am free to have that opinion. That view has no bearing on the situation so let's get back on focus.Lmharding (talk) 05:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, I have tried really hard to understand your point of view; I have been subjected to a fair quantity of what I would call less-than-polite responses from you. This is our very first interaction: [316] In addition to being a little unfriendly, it displays a mistaken understanding of WP:RS and WP:BURDEN. This approach is one that continues to be shown in your editing to this day. AukusRuckus (talk) 06:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lmharding: To help me understand, would you be able to address your thinking in regard to the Eswatini edits that I detailed above, please? This may seem like a small matter, but as a representative edit of your wider patterns that I have found puzzling, it would be helpful to get your thoughts on it. I realise you have made many edits since, but those two I mention in particular were only done on the 3rd and 29th of September. If you click on the diffs I provided, which show the edits, that may help you recall. I'm especially at a loss to understand why they were made when you said you agreed with my restorations in June, but then apparently thought better of it, but without engaging in more discussion. The 2-year penalty addition is just plain mystifying.

(And, if you won't take it amiss from me, I'd like to suggest the consistent use of edit summaries; they act as record of your thinking as well as being helpful to other editors).AukusRuckus (talk) 02:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AukusRuckus: None of the sources mention lesbianism being legal and but according to [ILGA 2020]^[6] there was a law pending that made homosexuality punishable by a minimum of 2 years, but does not mention a top penalty hence penalty of 2 years in jail.Lmharding (talk) 00:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lmharding: I have made some comments about your recent article edits on Talk:LGBT rights in Eswatini; thank you for letting me know the reasoning. What I would like to discuss here in this venue, are the reasons you did not think it warranted talk page discussion before you made your edits—especially since you had earlier said on the talk page that you concurred with my view of the sources. AukusRuckus (talk) 12:27, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editing content after posting

Addendum: Would like the record to reflect that Lmharding is editing the content of their replies after publishing them, here's an example where they referred to me as a "random editor" (not something I imagined, as I initially thought I did when I first refreshed the page). I am also not bothering to address the (newly) introduced accusations of me participating in WP:FORUMSHOPPING or WP:HOUNDING — a cursory reading of either policy reveals them to be irrelevant to the situation and my conduct, and a deflection from the issue at hand. LocalWonk (talk) 12:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I refer to you as a random user because we have barely talked before. That's not meant as an insult just a realistic observation. Now the hounding and forumshoping comes from the two of you seeming like you gang up on me by collecting up resources together against me^[7] might I add communicating outside of Wikipedia to do this which is also against the rules. You also bring the issue to other forums almost like it seems like your shopping to find admins that side with you^[8] You are breaking rules here. 13:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Well hey, I was wondering when I would see this here. So I would like to comment as the person who gave USPOL DS alerts to both AukusRuckus and Lmharding, and engaged a bit with both of them regarding this dispute, specifically on the Texas LGBT Rights article, a couple of months ago. I posted on the talk there after reading through the dispute with both of them, encouraging them to drop the stick and seek a 3O. I later noted that there did appear to be some disruption from Lmharding, and encouraged Aukus to see if there were other editors wiling to go to ANI with them, as the disruption and disputes were taking place across a wide variety of LBGT Rights articles. Given that, almost two and a half months later, despite assurances that an ANI would not be needed, we are now here, there may need to be some concrete action taken here. FrederalBacon (talk) 04:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To your point FrederalBacon you said oth of us were typing paragraphs, and hat there was edit warring and 3RR on both sides, either both are guilty or neither. You don't get to pick and choose who should get action against them when AukusRuckus was doing the same thing. It wasn't just "my disruptions" so don't try to edit history. Lmharding (talk) 05:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the some of the edits of Lmharding I agree that concrete action may be required if only due to their behaviour on article talk pages where they often change what they have previously written without indicating changes. In particular Lmharding should :

• Not remove article talk page discussions as was done at [317] even if it has been "reviewed and handled".
• Use strikethrough and insert (i.e. <s> and </s> and <ins> and </ins>) rather than editing their previous entries as they did at [318], [319] and elsewhere including multiple times in this conversation.
• Not remove something of your own after it has been there for 4 days as you did at [320] as whilst people may not have replied it may have affected how someone edits or is planning to edit the main page.
• If they have concerns about what someone else has written on a talk page then they should raise your concerns to allow for retraction rather than removing it for themselves as at [321]
• Take some time to read up on talk page formatting as correct use of indents is important.

Gusfriend (talk) 22:50, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commitments to change

Another running issue is that the user continuously claims that the user has changed behavior and will not repeat the actions when faced with the possibility of being reported but if you look at the edit history the user has made no attempts at making any changes and would simply continue with disruptive editing as usual. This comes off as taking advantage of other users' willingness to make a collaborative effort. Even now the user alternates between promises to change and throwing accusations of other users organizing off wiki against the user without providing any evidence for the accusations. -UtoD 18:27, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a lie I have been working on it, you don't know me personally? Can you read my mind? an you now my intentions in my head? No. The proof of talking offline has been sourced and mentions collection offline through email which is against Wikipedia rules as well as collaborating through the discussions I sourced to talk to only people they agree with and going to other forum to shop for moderators. Stop trying to deflect guilt of others who do wrong against me. I have been changing, other than the slip ups I reverted immediately I have been primarily not even editing LGBT articles temporarily and I have been successfully editing other topics. I take that as a personal attack, please purge your last acccusatory allegations. Lmharding (talk) 23:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editing comments of others

Do you you think redacting the comments of other users in in a noticeboard without any administrative authority to do so will not be noticed? Trying to remove complaints, throwing out random accusations without any evidence and claims like "Stop trying to deflect guilt of others who do wrong against me " don't really show you as putting any effort to changing or any intention of collaborating. -UtoD 23:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC).[reply]

I restored your comment, and I agree this is additional troubling behavior from Lmharding. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An administrator warned Lmharding "Don't remove other editor's comments just because you don't like them" earlier this month. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That was an attack on character based on assumptions of my mind and process of thinking. Under NPA that was justifiable to be removed. Don't you dare accuse me of being a liar I have changed, tbut that was a personal snipe obviously against Wiki guidelines. Lmharding (talk) 01:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only use of lie and liar that I can see, seems to be in your posts, Lmharding. It's understandable that you may resent someone saying they disbelieve your stated intentions; few of us would enjoy that. Still, UtoD is only stating how they view your behaviour going by your history. We are all entitled to make the case as we see it, using reasoned statements and evidence. How do you think editors here feel when they read unfounded accusations from you regarding quite serious WP policy violations? (I know you believe you have evidence of that and provided it, but an entirely appropriate discreet user talk post is in no way improper. Similarly unfounded are the HOUNDING and FORUMSHOPPING jabs.) Nobody redacted your posts. You make a plea for "patience and understanding": Would you please display some towards your fellow editors here?

The best and easiest way to overcome others' scepticism about your intentions is to engage in civil dialogue about their concerns, be open to what they're saying, and expressly state how you'll change your editing. It is not by being defensive, accusatory, and using their slipups against them, nor by insisting everyone believe you just because you say so. I genuinely hate to see anyone upset by comments made, but can't in all honesty read what you removed as a personal attack. You will find others more likely to be sympathetic to your attempts to change, if you show them you are doing so. AukusRuckus (talk) 02:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]